1984-12-21

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday Statistics Canada published "Fertility in Canada: From Baby-Boom to Baby-Bust", a report prepared by demographer Anatole Romaniuk. The report points out a number of disturbing facts, including a dramatic shift in Canada's age structure.
If the present fertility rate of 1.7, which is well below the replacement level, remains constant, it will be impossible to maintain adequate growth of Canada's population. This kind of situation demands serious consideration because it raises a number of concerns. The report also shows us the importance of the role of net immigration with respect to future population growth, especially if we consider the structural and social changes that affect the annual profile of Canada's population. Mr. Romaniuk's conclusions in this respect are clear. If we are to maintain our present population at a level in line with the pursuit of certain national objectives, we will have to develop short, medium and long-term immigration strategies.
As was emphasized in the report, there is no foolproof solution, and there are many factors to consider. However, since immigration is a major component in the present situation, I would urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to focus on this problem as quickly as possible, especially in view of her recent statement about the slowing-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


PUBLIC ARCHIVES OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Public Archives of Canada, which is physically affiliated with the National Library in the nation's capital, and closely related to it as a resource and service, is one of Canada's great institutions. Within its walls are stored the details of Canada's heritage, the history of its communities, its families and its development. These archives are second to none in the world.
The present proximal arrangement of the Public Archives and the National Library has the overwhelming support of researchers, and persons exploring their genealogical heritage. Canadians and relatives of Canadians want to find archival material in the nation's capital. Earlier in the year the Liberal Government, a Government now known for its ineptitude and disregard for the wishes of the Canadian people, announced that the Archives would be moved out of the nation's capital. The separation of the Public Archives and the National Library would be regrettable and disastrous, and not necessary, especially when there is room for expansion on the present site.
I speak on behalf of many Canadians in urging the present Government, a Government noted for its good judgment, to keep the Public Archives in the nation's capital.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC has an undisputed obligation to promote regional and cultural programming to underserved parts of Canada. That has been an underlying raison d'etre of the CBC since its inception some four decades ago. Nowhere is that commitment more appreciated and more necessary than in the remote native communities of northwestern Ontario where CBC programming is in many cases the only programming available.
The recently announced $75 million CBC budget cuts, the chopping of 1,150 staff positions, and the freezing of programming funds are, to say the least, alarming. The threat to present programming is also very real. We in the New Democratic Party call upon the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to maintain the native language programs aired over the CBC, and specifically to continue the program Indian Faces which is currently produced by the Wawatay Native Communications Society.
1438

December 21, 1984


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the House a most worthy and charitable cause, the Snowsuit Fund. This is a charity program sponsored by businessmen and concerned citizens in the Ottawa area. It was established to help provide children in eastern Ontario with warm winter clothing. The group has targeted 3,000 needy children this year, and it has a goal of raising $75,000 to buy the necessary snowsuits. The Air Force is kindly providing the transportation of snowsuits from Winnipeg, where they are made, to Ottawa.
The Snowsuit Fund has an office conveniently located at 90 Sparks Street, the Queen Street entrance. From the office at 90 Sparks Street this little known effort has in past years been successful in providing a warmer winter and happier holiday to children throughout the area, and it is a commendable example of Canadians helping Canadians to have a very Merry Christmas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: 

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, on the last day of the session before the Christmas holidays, I want to appeal to the intellectual honesty of both opposition parties and ask them to stop their efforts, here in the House, at feeding this climate of insecurity among the neediest in our society.
They know perfectly well that a government would never dare take away vested rights, and they also know perfectly well that the present Government does not intend to penalize Canadians in need.
If they had any self-respect and any respect for their fellow Canadians, they would stop their politics of petulance and prepare for the holidays in an atmosphere of peace and serenity, making it clear to the rest of the country that they intend to work in good faith with the present Government to maximize existing programs.
More solidarity among Canada's elected representatives would be a more effective response to the needs of Canadians and give them a Christmas free of worry, and the hope that 1985 will bring them a step closer to a better future.

[DOT] (i no)


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to leave this place and return to our homes to celebrate with family and friends the birth of the Prince of Peace, let us reject the satisfaction that the Minister of Defence (Mr. Coates) seemed to take in Winnipeg at the small numbers outside a Winnipeg hotel protesting the Pentagon tour. Instead, we should reflect on why it is that those who freely devote time to trying to call our attention to the insanity of the nuclear arms race are put down, despised, and sometimes arrested, while at the same time those who are paid well to prepare for the death of our planet and its inhabitants are doing nothing illegal, and are even held in high regard for the work they do in spending in one day what the United Nations needs between now and the year 2000 to provide clean water for everyone, and probably will not get.
Plans to fight and win a nuclear war, Mr. Speaker, are so completely contrary to the vision of the angels and the she-
December 21, 1984

pherds outside Bethlehem hearing the good news of peace on earth, and so completely contrary to Christ's commandment of love and his own disarmed death on the cross, that Canada must, in the name of life and the future, and in defiance of the powers of death which surround us, say an unambiguous no to participating in the nuclear arms race. That would be an act truly in the spirit of Christmas.


THE CENSUS DECLINE IN BIRTH RATE
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada warns that the fertility rate of Canadians has dropped to an all-time low. On average each Canadian woman bears 1.7 children in her lifetime, significantly below the break-even rate of 2.1 needed to maintain a steady population. If this trend continues, not only will our population decline unless made up by massive immigration, but also the average age will increase, thereby putting strain on social security systems as fewer people in the workforce are called upon to support more and more pensioners.
Canada is severely underpopulated, with tremendous resources left unutilized, and millions of acres of land that has yet to see the plough. Therefore, Sir, it ought to be a public policy to encourage families to have more children. In that the process involved is not unduly distasteful, might I suggest that we could all start with renewed vigour this Christmas.
On a serious note, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is this. If we do not populate our own country, most of which is largely uninhabited, someone else eventually will do it for us.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) informed Yukon Indian people that the Government lacks the political will to settle their aboriginal claims fairly and justly. While much progress has been made towards a settlement, several recent historical events have significantly affected the settlement process. The Minister himself has recognized the importance of these new factors, some created by him, such as his decision to undertake a full-scale review of native claims policy. Despite his earlier flexibility and apparent willingness to accommodate these factors, his decision of yesterday denies Yukon Indian people the time and resources they need to assess these events properly.
Why has the Minister abandoned his earlier flexibility? From where has the pressure come causing him to take a harder line? It is unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable for him to insist that the Yukon Indian people must make such a
Oral Questions
momentous decision in haste. This is not just one more small item on the Government's agenda. The future of an entire group of people is at stake.
I therefore call upon the Minister not to foreclose on these negotiations. Do not walk away from the table. Allow them the needed funding, since it is an advance on the Yukon settlement anyway, and let the legitimate concerns of the Yukon Indian communities and their leaders be much more carefully considered.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to trespass gently upon the rules, I would like to wish you and your bride, the Prime Minister and his family, and all Members of the House a merry Christmas and happy holiday. I would also like to wish the House a productive new year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: It is in this benign spirit that I say that I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Government are allowing a debate, beginning in an hour from now, which I will be leading, on our social security programs.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question which reflects the one point of unanimity which he and his two principal Ministers in this debate, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance have reached. They are talking about taking from the existing social programs for the needy. That position contradicts the Prime Minister's statement made before the Canadian and Empire Clubs on October 28 when he said that "we will achieve these objectives without touching our existing social programs". There seems to be a contradiction between the unanimity achieved among the Prime Minister and his two Ministers and what the Prime Minister said in Toronto. Would he explain that contradiction?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the same spirit of kindness, which I acknowledge with thanks, in a very special way I want to wish my right hon. friend a long and productive career as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I would like to tell him what I think a lot of Members realize, that he has, in a very real way, notwithstanding the events of the last few days, contributed substantially to creating a new atmosphere of reasonableness and civility. I think all Members of the House of Commons would want to applaud him on his leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 21, 1984
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: I feel that there has been no contradiction at all. I appreciate the Right Hon. Leader's concerns. They are legitimate. I feel they have been well answered and completely responded to by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance. I feel, as well, that the consultation papers on which we will all have an opportunity to speak shortly, will provide us with a free-wheeling but reasonable atmosphere to discuss programs and solutions for Canadians while maintaining the principles that we have all agreed upon.


OPTIONAL PROPOSALS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Ministers have been talking about a cut-off point, and revenue figures of $26,000 and $35,000 have been mentioned for the payment of family allowances and old age pensions. Would the Prime Minister not recognize that there are other options for meeting the needs of lower income Canadians than by taking from the existing social programs of middle-income Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree, and some of these will be set out in the discussion papers. I do not imagine that anyone has contended, or would contend, that these papers will be perfect. We expect them to be improved upon as a result of suggestions from the Opposition and comments from interested groups in the country. I think that is the way a fruitful and productive dialogue can be undertaken. I thank my right hon. friend for his openness in this regard, and I assure him that all suggestions will be carefully and thoughtfully considered with a view to enhancing the social programs that we now have and trying to get more money into the hands of those in our society who need it the most.


PREPARATION OF DISCUSSION PAPERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, despite the denial by the Minister of Finance, 1 suspect that there will be some rewriting of the directional papers, or white papers, on family allowances and old age pensions as a result of questions and remarks in the House.
When those papers are being rewritten, will the Prime Minister or his Ministers be consulting members of his own political Party who, at their last political convention, expressed themselves 92 per cent against increases in universal family allowances, 62 per cent against increasing universal old age pension benefits, and 82 per cent against increasing medicare benefits? Will the Prime Minister be heeding the wish expressed by the majority of his Party at its last political convention, when he rewrites those papers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my right hon. friend goes back to a paper on this issue that was presented by the Hon. John Munro when he was a member of the Government of which my right hon. friend was a member, he will find that he seriously questioned the concept
of universality, as did the Member for Westmount when he was seeking the leadership of that Party. He did so very directly, and in fact shot it down and said that he would scrap it and try to introduce a negative income tax.
My right hon. friend said the other day on CTV that he was in favour of universality for now. We are saying that, indeed, there is room for improvement. The papers are in the process of being concluded. When the documents are brought forward they will be consistent with the fundamentals to which we have always adhered.
I have stipulated that this Party stands, as it has always stood, for the maintenance of universal programs on the one hand, that we are opposed to a means test and that there will be no means test. We are trying to develop, with your help, a formula which will allow us in an acceptable way to perhaps take some funds from other sources in the system and elsewhere, and place them into the hands-


Mr. Nunziata:: From what sources?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The friend of yours who is making $500,000 a year. He does not need the money to the extent that a single mother who is living under the poverty line needs it. We are trying to help them. With your help, maybe we can succeed. That is what it is all about.


REVIEW OF PROGRAMS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this whole debate on universality, I can say that the Government has finally been able to square its own circle. Not only has it managed to confuse the Canadian public, it has confused the minds of its own Government backbenchers who no longer even know the direction the Government wants to take on this issue.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. When the Government completes its review of old age pensions and family allowances, will he guarantee to the House today that the disposable income for middle income families in Canada will not be decreased?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that question has been adequately and thoroughly considered in the House. I can tell my hon. friend not to be surprised if government Members speak up and ask questions, because they are independent, able people, who will speak their minds, as opposed to Liberal backbenchers who simply follow their Leader at all times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: All I can say is that Erik Nielsen must have had a change of heart.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Will the Prime Minister guarantee to the House today that when the rewritten direc-
December 21, 1984

tional papers on family allowances and pensions are released in January, those papers will be relegated to the appropriate standing committees of the House of Commons so that Members from all Parties can hear the viewpoints of average income Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend makes an excellent point. We very much want to listen to Canadians and consult with important groups in our society, from the provinces to the groups representing the poor. We very much want to listen to Members of Parliament.
I would be happy to sit down with my hon. friend and work out a formula whereby all Members of Parliament will be absolutely certain they have had complete and full input. We do not view this in any partisan sense.
The social programs of the country are there to be respected and enhanced where possible in the interest of the greatest number of citizens. We do not view this in a partisan spirit. We view it as an on-going obligation that we have to maintain, with the help and support of all Members of Parliament.


MEANS TEST-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, normally I would have saved this for the end of the day, but since there are enough Members to speak at this point in time I would join the Leader of the Government, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Official Opposition, in wishing to everyone, on behalf of my colleagues and my Leader, a very merry Christmas and a new year filled with promise, a new year filled with hard work, and for everyone in the country some degree of assurance that they have a future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: With regard to the Prime Minister's responses this morning, he has indicated that he does not favour a means test. Would he acknowledge that a tax-back provision which would be directed specifically at old age pension or family allowance is in fact a means test?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is an abstract, hypothetical question. I have already said that we are not going to have means tests, not yesterday, not today, and not tomorrow. I hope that satisfies my hon. friend.


Ian Deans: I must be honest; it does not quite satisfy me, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: What would?
Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF TAX MEASURES
Ian Deans: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask him to consider for a moment that the Minister of Finance has indicated that the option of a tax-back applied directly to social programs, old age pensions, and family allowances, is one of the options being considered. I ask the Prime Minister again: would he recognize that if there were a tax specifically designed to collect back from those that portion of their income which was directly attributable to old age pension, or to family allowance, that that in fact would be intended to reflect a cut-off point, or a way of getting back certain income based on the income of the individuals, and that that in effect would be a means test?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Member begins his question by saying "if there were a tax". It is a completely hypothetical question, and the Government is under no obligation to respond to this kind of question.
I am surprised the Hon. Member raises it, inasmuch as the Member for Vancouver East has specifically come out and stipulated the NDP policy in that-


Ms. Mitchell:: That is not true. I did not say that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -where there is a proposed tax-back all the way through the system that could, in circumstances, have the effect of seriously undermining the concept of universality. We are very much in favour of maintaining the principle of universality in our society in trying to find ways of getting more money into the hands of the poor and those who need it most. I would hope my hon. friend will agree with that.


Ian Deans: I can think of nothing I would rather see happen than to guarantee that the poor receive more money so they can live at a decent level.


CONSIDERATION OF OPTIONS
Ian Deans: My final supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. If it is true that he has rejected a specific tax on specific programs, such as old age pension or family allowance, why then does the Minister of Finance continue to offer that that is one of the options under consideration, that that is one of the options that will be placed before the public of Canada and the House of Commons, and that that is in fact still under active consideration by the Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend begins again by saying: "If it is true".


Ian Deans: It is true.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What we are saying I think is pretty clear-cut and, I hope my hon. friend would agree, is also reasonable. At an appropriate time very soon, consultation documents will be brought forward and will be given to all Members of

December 21, 1984
Oral Questions
Parliament. They will be provided to all interested groups in society. All appropriate considerations and information that we have will be made available, and we will have a debate on how we can improve the system.
I know my hon. friend feels strongly about these points. We want to hear from him on the basis of the best information that we shall be able to put forward. However, I think it is important to mention-and it is not redundant to point it out and to say it again-that our objectives as members of the Government are not different from those of other parliamentarians. What we are trying to do-and we shall do, I hope, with his help and support-is to maintain intact the principle of universality which has brought honour to the country, to ensure that there are no demeaning means tests applied to Canadian citizens, and to find a formula, given the tremendous financial burdens placed upon the people and the Government of Canada at this time, whereby we can, with fairness, get more money into the hands of the underprivileged, the widows and the elderly in the country who need it more than others. We hope we can do that, and that is the objective of the exercise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might prevail upon the Prime Minister for a few more moments of good will to try to clarify another set of contradictory statements made by him and one of his Ministers, or other Ministers, in relation to an issue of great and vital importance to Canadians, that is, the position on the star wars program of the United States.
In answer to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice yesterday the Prime Minister said that there was no change in the long traditional opposition of this country to any development of a star wars technology. Yet a week ago in Brussels the Secretary of State for External Affairs said: "We are discussing the question internally in Canada. We are a new Government with differing views". It is very important for the Prime Minister to clarify today for many thousands of Canadians involved in peace movements, even though his Minister of National Defence does not believe that there are that many, that the Government, on behalf of the country, is clearly opposed to any form of development by the United States of a star wars technology and in fact will make that opposition very clear when the Prime Minister meets with President Reagan in March. Is the Prime Minister prepared to enunciate very clearly our opposition as a country to that new development of star wars technology?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend constantly seems to single out the United
States. We are opposed to developments by either of the superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, which indulge in matters that detract from the principal obligation of all countries, including ours, that is, to work in an unrelenting manner in pursuit of a durable peace. This is a U.S. research project which has not been formally brought to our attention. The basis of our action is the 1967 treaty which we have signed, and by which the Government continues to live.


CANADIAN POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not answered the question. The Soviet Union has said that it is against any new star wars development-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: -and the British Prime Minister has said that. I suggest that Tory Members should read the newspapers from time to time to keep up on the news. I think this is incumbent upon the Prime Minister. It is not something one can be evasive about. Is the Government clearly prepared to say to our American allies that we do not believe the cause of peace is in any way improved, and in fact will be detracted from, if it goes ahead with any development or research which would lead toward the implementation of a star wars technology in outer space that would contradict the space treaty? Is he prepared to make that statement today, in the spirit of Christmas and in the spirit of peace?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, again there is a mind-set in the Liberal Party which directs its venom on a constant basis at the United States of America. We are ready to say what I have always said. We will defend the noble concept of peace and restraint with the United States and with the Soviet Union. There is another side here, too.


Lloyd Axworthy: Then say so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are saying that. We signed the 1967 treaty and we remain bound by it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Are you against it or not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think it is unbecoming for my hon. friend persistently to take one side of the argument. He is constantly against the United States of America. He is constantly against our allies. We are trying to be even-handed, productive, and helpful in this.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Several bands within the Council for Yukon Indians have had
December 21, 1984

difficulty with some of the issues related to the agreement in principle on land claims, yet the Minister of Indian Affairs has held them ot the December 31 date for ratification. This made it impossible for them to reach any agreement on the outstanding issues. Now the Minister has terminated negotiations and ended funding for the CYI. Is the Government prepared to act in a mood of good will and flexibility, reconsider its decision, reopen negotiations with the Yukon Indians, and work toward a just and mutually satisfactory agreement on their land claims?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I think it is important in this sensitive issue that it be very clearly understood on the record what the Minister has said and what he is prepared to do, rather than the flavour or the face of the Hon. Member's question.
I have no objection to quoting from a letter which has been made public. It was addressed to Mr. Harry Allen, Chairman of the Council for Yukon Indians. It was written by the Minister of Indian Affairs. If I might have the time of the House, the Minister made three salient points in that letter- first, that he would seek authority so that the elders program would continue; second, that he would continue the current informal arrangements; and, third, that with regard to funding for the Council for Yukon Indians, any existing federal commitments in this fiscal year to CYI would, of course, be honoured.


CONDUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations have been terminated and future funding has been cut off. If the Government is not prepared to deal with the Council for Yukon Indians in an open, flexible, and honest manner, how can aboriginal peoples in any part of Canada put any confidence in the so-called review of land claims policy which the Minister announced, or in any other action of the Minister?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, back in 1979 there were no negotiations. In an open, honest, and forthright manner, those negotiations were put together. That is the manner in which the present Minister of Indian Affairs and this Government are operating. Nothing has changed from those principles.


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of peace, I should first like to congratulate the Prime Minister on two appointments-Ambassador Roche and, more recently, Geoffrey Pearson. Unfortunately he has a loose cannon running the Department of National
Oral Questions
Defence, Canada's very own Archie Bunker, it would appear. This week, or late last week, he cast aspersions on the men and women in the Canadian peace movement by saying, in a speech in Winnipeg, that the movement was weak and that that was "right and proper". Then he apparently went on to applaud the locking up of certain protesters in Nova Scotia.
I want to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to denounce these stupid and irresponsible statements by the Minister, and to apologize to those dedicated men and women across this country who have been working tirelessly to give concrete leadership to establishing peace and good will for men and women in the world.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I regret the comment of my hon. friend who has characterized the Minister of National Defence in that way. The Minister has been an honourable Member of this House for almost 28 years. I think he has contributed greatly to his country-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and I regret the comment.
With regard to any activities undertaken by groups interested in promoting the cause of peace, I have had the opportunity of meeting with the Bishops, and on previous occasions with groups of peace activists. What I have indicated to them is this. I urged them strongly to maintain the pressure at all times. Most times it does not accord with government policy, but so be it, because the pressure of honourable people working for the pursuit of peace is the strongest assurance that a democracy is healthy. I welcome it. I encourage them at all times, because nothing is more noble than citizens working for the cause of peace. I encourage them, and I assure them that they will always receive a welcome and hospitable reception at the office of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Prime Minister to say that the efforts of the peace movement do not correspond to government policy, which I must say I find very disturbing. I will look at the "blues", but that is what I understood him to say. Instead of regretting-


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I must ask the Hon. Member to come to his question.


Donald James Johnston: Instead of regretting my statements, would he not regret the statement of his own Minister who has cast aspersions on the motives and the efforts of these people in the Canadian peace movement?

December 21, 1984
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the text of the remarks to which my hon. friend refers, but I speak for the Ministry in the statements I have just made. They represent the views of the Government of Canada, that we welcome and encourage peace activists in every walk of life across Canada. We think that their activity is honourable, and we encourage them at all times.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister of Canada.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm that, although it has Davie Shipbuilding Limited in Lauzon, Quebec, for instance, the Government intends to place orders outside the country for the construction of new ships for our navy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am not
sure I fully understood my hon. friend's question. However, I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister. In any case, I can assure you that as far as I understood the question, that is not what the Government intends to do.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is never in the House. May I repeat the question?
Notwithstanding the existence in Quebec of Davie Shipbuilding Limited which would be able to fill orders for military purposes, is the Prime Minister prepared to confirm today that the Government now intends to go outside the country to place orders for new ships for our navy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. We will always use our own shipyards whenever possible.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Contrary to what was said by the Opposition and certain media, social programs will be maintained by our Government.
Could the Minister repeat before the House the commitment he gave last Tuesday, namely, that old age security pensions, the guaranteed income supplemnent and the spouse's allowance will be increased according to the increase in the cost of living and that people drawing benefits under the
Canada Pension Plan will get a 4.4 per cent increase early in 1985?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the regular indexing of the Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and family allowance will be increased as of January 1, 1985, and the Canada Pension Plan will also be increased 4.4 per cent relative to inflation for the last year.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister is on record promising that our youth will have a summer work program. Today is the last day of the session. For the first time in decades, the Minister of Employment of this country has not announced a government summer job plan before the Christmas break. The youth of the country are wondering where the Minister's priorities are, because our youth need jobs. Is the Minister planning to announce today how many new summer jobs there will be, by which programs, and for how much money? Is the Minister prepared to answer those questions and to tell us what the mechanism is so that there will be summer youth jobs in time?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time the Minister of Employment and Immigration of this country has been consulting with provincial Governments, the private sector, business and labour, in order to come up with summer programs for young people that will be meaningful and that will give them an opportunity to lead to permanent jobs. I can assure the Hon. Member, as I have assured the House on other occasions, that those programs will be in effect for next summer.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF PLANS
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister would stop lecturing. The youth of this country want lectures from professors, not from you.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am sorry, you will have to repeat your supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Member have a question?


Sheila Finestone: Concretely, can the Minister announce today her summer job plans to create jobs for youth? Today. Never mind the consultations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: She gets her training in Mount Royal.
December 21, 1984


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there speaks the voice of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Never mind consultations, never mind treating the people of this country in a decent and straightforward manner. Never mind any of this. We saw 15 years of government when a Liberal Government ignored the people of this country. We do not intend to follow that route.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works and his parliamentary secretary, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Recently the Minister of Public Works announced the membership of the Conseil d'administration du Vieux-Port de Quebec. None of these new members came from labour circles or community groups. Could the Minister inform the House whether this lack of community representation was accidental or planned?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, many of these appointments are made according to certain criteria applied by our ports, chambers of commerce, and so forth. I am not acquainted with the exact conditions, but I will ask the Minister about this to set the Hon. Member's mind at rest.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Once the Prime Minister has consulted with his Minister of Public Works about the lack of community representation, could he give the House the assurance that he will appoint representatives of the labour movement and community groups, to the board of directors so that the board reflects a cross-section of the population of Quebec City?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in all appointments we want to strive as far as possible towards the kind of representativity referred to by the Hon. Member, something we are very much in favour of. In fact, we want to try to achieve this at all times.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have committed myself to meet next week in my constituency with two groups of union members who are interested in the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance regulations. Could the Minister now tell us specifically how she intends to proceed with respect to the treatment of severance pay and pensions?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when the changes to the unemployment insurance regulations were announced at the time of the economic statement, I undertook to listen to representations from Members of Parliament and to consult with labour and business about the implementation of these measures. I can tell the Hon. Member, and Members of Parliament, whose representations I have appreciated, that with regard to separation pay the changes in regulations will not affect any collective agreements which have been negotiated and signed prior to the end of December, 1984. In other words, the claims will be treated under those agreements according to the present regulations.
I would also say, with regard to pensions, that we have decided-and again this decision came after consultation- that a year of transition is the best approach. Those provisions will come into effect as of the first of January, 1986.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Reports in the media have documented several cases of public servants being fired on the basis of their past political affiliations. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised that there would be no hit list or purge in the Public Service of Canada. The Prime Minister said that lje believed in a competent and impartial Public Service.
In view of the disturbing reports, which are seriously documented by Southam Press today in the Ottawa Citizen, there appear to be in contravention-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member to come to his question, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: These firings appear to be in contravention of the Public Service Employment Act. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why the Act is not being applied?

December 21, 1984
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is probably referring to two questions. There is a full-time professional Public Service, and of that there can be no doubt. All of our activities are designed to respect the integrity and independence of the Public Service.
Perhaps he alludes to former ministerial assistants who have been politically active and who are seeking reintegration into the Public Service. I would tell my hon. friend-as I did when I had the opportunity of speaking with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-that I view this kind of service as very honourable. The Government and the Public Service have been instructed to facilitate the re-entry into Public Service positions of former advisers to Liberal Cabinet Ministers, and to be as helpful and as forthcoming as possible. I think that political service and activity are an honourable calling, and we have instructed the Public Service accordingly.
[ Translation]


HIRING OF COMPETENT AND IMPARTIAL PEOPLE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the Prime Minister's reply, is he prepared to instruct his Ministers and deputy ministers, especially his deputy ministers that the Public Service Employment Act should be applied unconditionally, and to explain that from now on, on the basis of this legislation, they must try to hire people who are both competent and impartial?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We intend to act in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, but I also wish to inform my hon. friend that it is important to recognize the legitimacy of positions held by former assistants of the previous government. They have a number of vested rights, which we intend to respect.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
The shipyard is now in receivership. Could the Minister inform the House whether his department will continue its contract in order to maintain the remaining 950 jobs?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not in a position at this point in time to be able to give definitive answers to the Hon. Member about the disposition of that work. But our intention is always to preserve whatever jobs can be preserved. As soon as I am able to get more information in this regard, I will get back to the Hon. Member.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Will the Minister inform the House whether the Government of Canada will help the Government of Nova Scotia to find an acceptable buyer for the shipyard in order to ensure these jobs will continue to exist?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the receiver who was appointed by the Government of Nova Scotia will be reporting to the Government of Nova Scotia on January 8. It is my understanding that there is a good possibility other owners will come along to take over and run the yard. We are hopeful in that regard. I have a senior official who is now in Halifax working with the receiver. Hopefully, early in the new year the situation will be clarified in a way which will preserve those jobs.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, according to the December 18 editions of La Presse and The Globe and Mail, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would have preferred to make cuts in programming instead of reducing administrative staff, to meet budgetary cutbacks. The Minister of Communications told journalists that the report in The Globe and Mail was substantially correct, according to Canadian Press on December 19.


Mr. Speaker:: The question, please.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am getting there, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Juneau has just announced that the CBC never planned to cut back on programming rather than personnel. Could the Minister inform the House who is telling the truth: the President of the CBC, or the Minister when he told The Globe and Mail that the report was substantially correct?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague the assurance that my relations with Mr. Juneau, both in public and in private, have always been marked by a civilized and statesmanlike exchange of views, and that I do not intend to let speculation, rumours or allusions to the media draw me into a debate that is not the kind I care to indulge in.


CORPORATION PRESIDENT'S EXECUTION OF DUTY
Marcel Prud'homme: Mr, Speaker, I think I will switch to the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 21, 1984


Marcel Prud'homme: Does the President of the CBC still enjoy the full confidence of the Government in carrying out his important duties and responsibilities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated some weeks ago-and I think it was in response to a question from my hon. friend-the high regard the Government has for the President of the CBC. That has not changed.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of Bishop Tutu's visit and representations on behalf of his people, and in view of historical Progressive Conservative advocacy of human righs in South Africa-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Oh, yes! It goes back to the Diefenbaker Government.
What consideration is being given to increasing Canadian pressure on South Africa to abolish apartheid?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was honoured, as we all were yesterday, by the presence of Bishop Tutu in the House. I had the privilege of a private meeting with him wherein he gave me the benefit of his views. I indicated to him how helpful they would be to the new Government as we get into a foreign policy review. Of course the question of our relationship with South Africa will be very carefully re-examined.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a question of privilege which I am required to deal with at this time. The Hon. Member for Burnaby has submitted to me a question of privilege. Is the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition rising on a question of privilege or-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at the time I stood up it was before twelve o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I have several clocks. That is one of the problems which Speakers have always had. This clock had actually struck exactly 12, which is why I rose to accept the question of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby on a question of privilege.
Business of the House


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, December 3, at a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I made public a confidential U.S. document raising very serious questions about activities of the CIA and the U.S. intelligence community, directed against Canada in the mid-1970s. The CIA document in question ordered the intelligence community to obtain detailed information about Petro-Canada, including the possible acquisition of a United States oil company.
During the Monday meeting of the Justice Committee, I named two senior individuals at Petro-Canada as having possibly been tasked to obtain confidential information for the CIA. In naming these individuals, I was relying upon a confidential source of information and I availed myself of parliamentary immunity in the process.
While the tradition of parliamentary immunity is a long and important one, in retrospect I regret that I used my immunity to name these individuals. I have written to both men to express unreservedly my regret for having publicly named them in the Justice Committee.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to issue a complete and unequivocal retraction of the allegations I made and unreservedly apologize to the two individuals involved, Mr. Frederick Rayer and Mr. Robert Foulkes, for the hardship that this has undoubtedly caused them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Char-lotte (Mr. McCain) on Thursday, December 20, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of order with respect to the business of the House.
We have had the usual amicable and fruitful consultation between House Leaders which has allowed us to determine the business, I believe, by consensus and consent, at least until the end of today.
Therefore, I wish now to present to Your Honour and to the House a draft order of the business of the House for today. I believe you will find that there will be a predisposition to give

December 21, 1984
Business of the House
unanimous consent to the presentation and acceptance of this draft order, as follows:
That the first Order of the Day to be called this day shall be the Order for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal certain other Acts and to make other consequential amendments, and once called, it shall be deemed to have been agreed to without division;
That the second Order of the Day to be called this day, shall be the Order for the second reading and reference to a Committee of a Whole of Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Currency Act, provided that no more than one Member from each of the recognized Parties shall be permitted to speak no longer than 10 minutes, notwithstanding Standing Order 35(2), at the second reading stage of the said Bill, and that all questions necessary to dispose of the Bill at all stages shall then be deemed to have been adopted without division;
That the third Order of the Day to be called this day, shall be the Order for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority;
Provided that:
(i)	notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 35(2), one Member from each Party shall be permitted to speak for twenty minutes and that no other Member be permitted to speak longer than ten minutes during the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill;
(ii)	when the debate on the motion for second reading has been completed, the motion shall be deemed to have been adopted without division;
(iii)	at not later than 3:55 o'clock p.m. today the motion for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of the Bill shall be deemed to have been adopted without division and the House shall immediately proceed to consideration of the Bill in a Committee of the Whole;
(iv)	during consideration of the Bill in a Committee of the Whole, a Minister of the Crown shall move an amendment thereto as follows:
"That Bill C-l 1 be amended by deleting line 5 at page 2 and substituting the following therefore: whole twelve billion dollars, as may be";
En fran?ais:
"que le projet de loi C-l 1 soit modify en retranchant la ligne 6 a la page 2 et la remplacant par ce qui suit 'douze milliards de dollars, necessaires a la' ";
and that the said amendment shall be deemed adopted without debate or amendment; and
(v)	at not later than 4:00 o'clock p.m. today every question necessary to dispose of all the remaining stages of the said Bill shall be deemed to have been adopted without division.
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, when Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority, is passed the House shall immediately proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business No. 65.
Once this is disposed of, the House shall then stand adjourned.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say on behalf of the Official Opposition that the draft Order which was read to us by the Government House Leader represents the results of the discussions which have taken place among House Leaders. I would like to say that what is in the draft Order with respect to the borrowing Bill reflects the discussions as well of the various finance critics of our Party and, I think, of the New Democratic Party, as well as the Minister of State for Finance, for reducing the amount sought to be borrowed by the Government. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the House Leader for the Government is also going to make an additional undertaking with respect to the borrowing Bill.
I would also like to say that the result of the Order, if adopted by this House, will be to enable debate to take place, within the framework of consideration of the borrowing Bill, on the matter of universality of social programs.
I believe what has been presented to the House by the Government House Leader shows how, when the right approach is applied, the work of this House can be facilitated. In this context, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish my hon. friend the compliments of the season. I can assure him that we will be working very hard to see that, if possible, this approach of co-operation continues so that when the next election comes, if things work out as we hope, we will both be House Leaders but on opposite sides of the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, frankly, join in the last sentiment. I would like first to acknowledge that the agreement which is before us is indeed the agreement which we reached. There is another aspect of it. Although it is not contained in the draft Order, it is an important component of the agreement we arrived at, that being that the Government has committed itself to bring forward, within two weeks of the introduction of its Budget in 1985, the borrowing requirements for the Government in order that we and the public of Canada can see within one time frame the Government's requirements with respect to its tax provisions, spending provisions and borrowing requirements.
I would like to say on behalf of my colleagues that this does afford an opportunity to accomplish all that we set out to accomplish. We do, however, believe that come the early part of 1985, a definitive debate on the question of universality will have to take place and we anticipate that that debate will take place after we receive from the Government the white paper which it promised would be provided to the House of Commons and to the public of Canada in order to facilitate the ongoing debate in the country about the future plans of the Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point in time in response to the observations of both House Leaders concerning the amendment to the Bill relating to borrowing. Also I would advise the House and the people of Canada that when the Bill is passed in the form indicated in the draft Order, I can undertake on behalf of the Government of Canada that, no later than two weeks following the next Budget brought down by this Government, we will be tabling a borrowing Bill which will set out the balance of the borrowing requirements by the Government for the fiscal year 1985-86. That is, of course, conditional upon this Order receiving consent of the House at this time.
As far as the debate is concerned, we are dealing with a borrowing Bill and some people may have some observations on an important topic concerning the Bill in the final stages. Others may have quite different ideas as to what the important issues of this country are and will want to deal with the real issues; but we have left that to the discretion of individual
December 21, 1984

Members. We hope to carry on and complete the debate in the course of the afternoon in accordance with this Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Does the Government House Leader have unanimous consent to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Before I put the motion there is one small matter the Chair must ask about. The Chair assumes it is the intent of this motion to, without saying it directly, deal with the amendment to Bill C-ll, the six-month hoist.


Ian Deans: All matters.


Mr. Speaker:: May the Chair and table assume that it was the intention of this motion to state that that amendment would, with consent, be withdrawn?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the-


Ian Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, Sir, there is one thing that strikes me in that request. I want to be sure that, in agreeing to the withdrawal, that will not inhibit any Member who may have spoken prior to the introduction of the six-month hoist from speaking again. In other words, those Members who spoke prior to the introduction of the six-month hoist will be entitled to enter the debate as if the six-month hoist provision remained in effect throughout the debate until the question is put at 3.55 p.m., or at whatever time the question is put.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that seems to be reasonable.


Mr. Speaker:: Since we are adopting an extraordinary procedure today I suppose it would not hurt to have another extraordinary procedure adopted. We will therefore assume- well, perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) will excuse me if I do not say we will assume that no one spoke. I think the way we will treat that for procedural purposes is that we will now deem there is an instruction that the six-month hoist amendment is to be withdrawn, with unanimous consent, at the very end of the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Which I think achieves the purposes of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, that does not get over the problem of someone who has spoken to the six-month hoist and who will then not be able to speak to the motion. You are not getting over the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: What I was aksed to get over was the problem of people who have spoken before the amendment was moved.
Standing Committees
Does the Hon. Member want to confer with his House Leader?


George Baker: No, I-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the disposition of the respective House Leaders on behalf of their groups that, if a person wants to take part in the debate today, the fact that he or she will have spoken either on the main motion or the six-month hoist will not prevent them from doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we adopt the motion as I indicated it would be adopted and assume that what the House wants to happen will happen?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Does that get around the problem? How the Table will deal with that is, well, the Table's problem! All I have to do at the moment is to ask the House whether it consents unanimously to the introduction. The House consents. Does the House adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have a further point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not again, Ray.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We may be able to conclude the business of the country into 1986 if we have this kind of co-operation.
I have another straightforward matter that I would now like to bring to the House by way of unanimous consent. I have discussed and given the Opposition House Leaders this Order to facilitate the reconvening of committes following the recess of Christmas. Under the Standing Orders the Striking Committee is required once again to be reconstituted and go through the whole process of naming Members to the committees. It was thought to be more expeditious for us, and everyone will understand this, to put forward the following draft Order. I think you will find there will be unanimous consent and approval for the following:
That the provisions of Standing Order 69(1) shall be suspended until 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Friday, December 20, 1985, or in any event at 6:00 o'clock p.m. on the last sitting day in 1985, provided that the recommendations contained in the first report of the Striking Committee concurred in on Friday, November 16, 1984 shall remain in effect until that time.
That would allow the presently constituted Standing Committees of the House of Commons to continue to function throughout the next year.

December 21, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House consent to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of the Province of Ontario who request that this Parliament should this year, in 1984, enact legislation so that large corporations will receive tax breaks only in proportion to the number of net new jobs they have created, and that the breaks and jobs be reported quarterly to Parliament.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will answered today: Nos. 90 and 115.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 90 Mr. Porter:
1.	What was the cost to the government of all aspects in establishing Canagrex?
2.	What was the dollar value of export sales it was successful in closing?
Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Total expenditures, to October 31, 1984, in establishing CANAGREX amounted to $2,659,000.
2. When the Corporation began operations in the spring of 1984, policy focused on facilitating sales by bringing a willing buyer and seller into a negotiating position, rather than on purchasing products or selling for the corporation's account. Operating in this manner, CANAGREX was involved in negotiations leading to facilitation of sales worth $16 million. In addition, there were transactions in process worth a potential $100 million expected to be finalized by March 31, 1985.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Has the mandate of the national committee responsible for advising Cabinet on political appointments been established and, if so (a) for what period of time (b) what is the salary range of each member?
2.	What is the normal salary range for a member of an advisory council?
3.	Was a study made by the government in order to determine the usefulness and necessity of such a committee?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: 1. No such committee exists.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 46 could made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 46 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION LOANS Question No. 46: Mr. Howie:
Since March 1, 1983, did Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or its subsidiaries make any loans to its employees and, if so, in each case (a) on what date was the loan (i) made (ii) due (b) what was the (i) amount of the loan (ii) interest rate charged (iii) purpose of the loan?
Return tabled.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, why are the other questions not being answered?


Paul Wyatt Dick: There have been a number of other questions answered and we will answer the others as soon as possible in the new year. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in the thirty-first Parliament some 18.5 per cent of the questions had been answered at this point in time; in the thirty-second Parliament it was 17.4 per cent; by the thirty-fourth sitting day of this Parliament, which is today, we have answered 21.6 per cent, which is better than the other two.
December 21, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would resolve in the new year to attempt to answer at least a few of the many, many questions that New Democrats have on the Order Paper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just the ones that are worthwhile.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The reason they have not been answered is that they were not put on at the earliest stages as some of the other ones were. But I should point out that of the 32 questions from Conservative Members which have been answered, 30 were repeat questions from the last Parliament. Of the 13 answered for Liberals, five were in fact withdrawn. We will get on to that as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, to amend an Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Narcotic Control Act, the Parole Act and the Weights and Measures Act, to repeal certain other Acts and to make other consequential amendments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: If I remember the terms of the special Order, reading the Order has the effect of second reading.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Call it.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the Bill stands referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Currency Act

Harvie Andre: that Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Currency Act, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Currency Act, is a simple one-clause Bill which permits the Royal Canadian Mint to mint a $20 silver coin. The purpose of allowing the Mint this ability is to launch the Olympic coin program which will provide some of the funds the federal Government has committed to the Calgary Winter Olympics.
It is the intention of the Mint, through this vehicle, to generate non-tax revenues in keeping with the commitment by the Government to the Calgary Olympics. This is proposed to be done by issuing 10 issues of a $20 silver coin containing one ounce of silver and one issue of a $100 22-carat gold coin containing one-half ounce of pure gold. That will be a maximum mintage, Mr. Speaker, of five million silver coins and 350,000 gold coins.
The Mint feels fairly confident that it will be able to sell a minimum of three million silver coins earning approximately $30 million for the Calgary Olympics. If they are totally successful and sell out the entire issue, $50 million will be raised for the Calgary Olympics.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Royal Canadian Mint is the largest seller of numismatic coins in the world. They have an impressive track record and I believe the House can have some confidence in their ability to meet their objective. It should also be pointed out for the benefit of the House that there is no financial risk to the Government in this program because all costs are related and deductible from the sale of coins.
The Royal Canadian Mint is confident that it can achieve this goal by 1988 with the launch of the first issue on September 1, 1985. I should thank the Opposition for its co-operation in this effort because it is important that the Mint have the ability to proceed with this program very quickly inasmuch as in 1988 there will be Summer Olympics in Seoul, Korea. They too will be launching a coin program so, in a sense, there is some competition there. It is useful for us to be first off the mark around the world. I should point out that the coins will be sold around the world.
The federal Government has committed $200 million of non-tax revenues to the Olympic Games. My colleague, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Jeli-nek), is working very diligently to seek ways of raising the additional funds beyond this coin program. The Royal Canadian Mint is working with him to discover whether there are other means we can use. We are hopeful that we will find the means to raise the necessary funds to meet that commitment to the Calgary Olympics.

December 21, 1984
Currency Act
I should mention, Mr. Speaker, that of the $200 million which the federal Government has committed to the Calgary Olympics, $27.8 million will go towards the budgeted cost of the Olympic Saddledrome, an outstanding facility. The amount of $35 million will go toward the Olympic Oval at the University of Calgary. That is the only speed-skating oval in the world that will be covered. That will mean that the legacy of skill in speed-skating which Gaetan Boucher brought to Canada will be maintained through this magnificent facility. The amount of $62.2 million will go toward the Canada Olympic Park, $30 million will go toward the Olympic endowment program, and $45 million will go to the operating fund of OCO '88, the Calgary Olympic Organizing Committee.
My colleague the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport is working closely and harmoniously with the Calgary Olympic Committee. In this new era of co-operation all things are possible. We in the House can be very confident that, if we deliver on our promises, the Calgary 1988 Olympics will be a truly outstanding event in which all Canadians can take great pride as the world looks at us with some envy.
I again reiterate my thanks to the two opposition Parties for their co-operation in this effort. There are other details about the coin program which I have been asked by the Mint not to discuss because of the competitive nature of this business. I would certainly be willing to share any information on a confidential basis with any Members of the Opposition who would wish it. Should they wish, the Mint would certainly be prepared to give a briefing on the details of the program. When these coins come out they will be a work of art and I am sure that everyone in the House will want to buy some of those coins to contribute to the effort of raising that money.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking in this debate on behalf of our Party. It will be my first opportunity, as Official Opposition critic for Supply and Services, to speak to a Bill introduced by the Minister. I therefore wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) for asking me to be the Supply and Services critic.
It is unfortunate that the Minister ... I am sorry. It seems the remark I was about to make would be unparliamentary. I would have liked to obtain answers to certain questions, and I hope the Minister will be able to reply later on.

There is quite a bit of history behind the Olympic coin program. We are informed that Olympic coins have been struck since 480 B.C. for Olympics at that time. Of course, they were not struck for the purpose of raising funds for the Olympics then. We are told that the first Olympic coins struck for the purpose of raising funds were in fact struck for the 1952 Helsinki Olympic Games. At that time the seigniorage, the net yield between the monetary value of the coin and the sale price of them, which was generated by the striking of those coins was of the order of $1 million.
The Minister has indicated to us today that the striking of these coins for the 1988 Olympics will generate a far greater amount of money. That is good. I do hope that the coins have the success which the Minister hopes they will to enable us to finance a good part of the Olympic Games. We all know of the coins that were struck and sold to benefit the 1976 Olympic Games. Those coins were sold for a number of years after the Games in order to generate the funds.
We phoned the Minister's office on a few occasions attempting to get more information on the coins, but I regret that the Minister's staff was not too forthcoming with information. I understand the Minister's explanation today about why we were unable to obtain all the information we were seeking. Hopefully we will be able, through briefings, to obtain further details on the Olympic program.
Our Party is very supportive of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we have an agreement to keep the debate rather short, which I am about to do. In conclusion, I would like to take advantage of this occasion to wish the Minister a very merry Christmas and a happy reinstatement of the 1986 census.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I too will keep my comments very brief to allow us to get on to the important debate which is about to follow. We recognize that the Bill before us simply amends Part II of the schedule in the Currency Act which allows an increase in value of the Olympic coins. However, we do have two or three concerns about it. Since we will not have an opportunity to deal with these concerns in committee, I want to flag them so that the Minister or his officials may be able to deal with them.
I understand that it is the opinion of the Royal Canadian Mint with respect to potential sales of these coins that the world market is somewhat tense about Olympic issues generally. In the past they have been overminted and their consequent value is obviously affected. This makes it very difficult to know the actual value of the coins in potential markets.
We want to ensure that the production of the coins are kept in line. This is true particularly when one considers that the American issue and distribution in Canada fell significantly below their expectations. Therefore, since this is basically viewed as a souvenir and a way to support the Olympics, we want to ensure that the Minister takes care that the production is in fact a realistic line.
The Minister has indicated that these coins will be sold globally. I would ask the Minister to inform the House as soon as possible as to which company will receive the rights for the distribution of these coins on the international market? A French company worked with the Americans and the Royal Bank represented American distribution in Canada. I think it would be appropriate for us to know who would be the representative in terms of global distribution.
I want to suggest another aspect of the revenues that will be generated from the sale of these coins. The Minister pointed
December 21, 1984

out that these are tailored specifically for a variety of capital projects for the 1988 Olympics. If the sales go particularly well I suggest that we could see some extension beyond that traditional figure associated with the support of amateur sports in Canada.
On behalf of my Party, I wish the Minister well in his endeavour to ensure that adequate funds flow to Canadian support for our Olympics in 1988.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made earlier this day, Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Currency Act, is now deemed to have been read a second time, considered in Committee of the Whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at the report stage and read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 6, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Alt-house (p. 948).
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we asked for this debate for a very simple reason. Canadians are confused, upset and frightened by the conflicting statements on the future of our social programs coming from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his senior Ministers.

The purpose of this debate is to determine, once and for all, what the Government intends to do about family allowance, old age security pensions and other social programs that for many decades have provided security for Canadian men and women.

And we are not the only ones who want straight answers. As we saw in the House yesterday, Conservative back-benchers are asking their Minister where the Government stands on this issue.
These are basic, fundamental and essential programs. Every parent who has raised a child knows the difference that the baby bonus makes in helping defray part of the ever-increasing cost of their children's clothing, education, shoes and food. Everyone 65 years and over knows how important the old age pension cheque is to help put a roof over one's head and to put food on the table, at this time of the year maybe even to pick up a few presents for the grandchildren.
Those approaching retirement age have a legitimate interest in knowing whether they will receive their legitimate pension
Borrowing Authority
for which they have paid tax and for which they have contributed throughout a lifetime of work in this country. Anybody who has ever been sick knows how important it is to have a universally accessible medical system. If you have been on your back in hospital for a day or a few weeks, Mr. Speaker, the last thing you need is the added burden of worry and anguish about doctor and hospital bills which can run into the thousands of dollars.
The philosophy behind these programs has been a Liberal philosophy. Every one of these programs has been brought in by Liberal Governments, defended and expanded by Liberals and protected by the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker, the struggle to protect the universality of social programs is continuing today and is being carried on by the Liberals. I can assure you that we in the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party will continue this struggle with all the determination and energy we can muster.

The Party that we had to fight against to bring in some of these programs is the same Party we are fighting today to maintain these programs. The Prime Minister, his Party and his Ministers have been all over the map. In 1976 when he was a candidate for the leadership of his Party, the Prime Minister said that abolishing the principle of universality in social legislation would eliminate a great deal of waste and bureaucracy. He advocated a five-year freeze on increases in social spending when he ran for the leadership again in 1983. He said again that he wanted to review Old Age Security benefits.
In the book which he published entitled Where 1 Stand he said on page 19 that "Doing away with indexed pensions and benefits would produce a desirable result".
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and former Minister of Finance of this country said when he was finance critic in opposition that he wanted to review social programs and that eliminating universal programs such as baby bonuses and old age pensions would help reduce the deficit. In March of this year the Prime Minister said that he had no hesitation in reviewing the concept of universality.
Then came the election. The old record came off and was replaced with a new disc. It went right to the top of the charts. For the purposes of the election, suddenly universal social programs became for the Conservative Party, in those famous words, "a sacred trust not to be tampered with". But that was just for the campaign. The Minister of Finance's mini-budget that was brought in just three days after this Parliament assembled raises questions and alternatives to universal social programs. It does not say that those programs will not be touched. It does not say that they will not be tampered with. There is no mention of a sacred trust in that document.
On December 13 the Minister of Finance was quoted as saying that "upper and middle income social programs cannot be afforded today". Those were his words. This is a clear admission that the sacred trust of the Prime Minister and his Party was just a temporary commitment. It is a clear admis-
1454

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority
sion that they now intend to do exactly what they promised they would never do. It is a clear indication that they in fact fully intend to tamper with and dislocate and dismantle the universality of our social programs.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) finally admitted that he and his party hid their real plans from Canadians during the election campaign. They have admitted they had a hidden agenda, whose first item consisted in breaching the universality of our social programs.

His rationale is that had he revealed his secret intentions, the hidden agenda of the Conservative Party, we in the Liberal Party would have told Canadians the truth. The Minister of Finance says that we played the politics of fear. I say that it is a pathetic excuse for not telling the truth. I say that it is, rather, from the Government of today, the politics of deception.
Of course we on this side of the House would have told Canadians the truth. I make no apologies, Mr. Speaker, for doing that during the campaign, and now again in the House for bringing the issue before you and the Canadian public.
It is no great surprise for me, Mr. Speaker, nor for the Members of my Party what the Tory Government is now doing. We said that the Government had a secret agenda. We were right. We said the Tories could not be trusted to fight for universal programs. We were right. But now it is coming as a big surprise to Canadians because this Government did not talk about the real agenda during the campaign.
We knew what the Tories thought of the social programs. They told us in their policy convention in 1982 and we know where the pressure is coming from to end universality now: it is coming from Members of the Conservative Party. At that last Tory policy convention, 92 per cent of the delegates were against increases in universal family allowances; 62 per cent of the Conservative delegates were against increasing universal old age pensions; 82 per cent were against increasing medicare benefits; 65 per cent were against increasing the guaranteed income supplement; 92 per cent were against increasing unemployment insurance benefits; 65 per cent were against increasing the child tax credit and 79 per cent were against increasing money for day care.
We knew that Canadians would be in for this shock when inevitably they saw the true face of this Government in action. Now, Sir, the Tories are showing their true colours. Now we know that a new era which they promised is not going to be the one they talked about in the election campaign; it is going to be the one they did not talk about in the election campaign.
I believe, and the Members of my Party share this conviction, that this is an essential issue before this House because it is a question of trust and credibility. Governments and political Parties must do what they say they will do and must not do what they say they will not do. Governments have an obligation to be honest with the public. This goes to the very heart of the democratic system. If the Prime Minister wonders why his and his Ministers' statements on this vital question for millions and millions of Canadians have elicited such an energetic response from this side of the House, he need look no further than the words I have just spoken. It is a matter of trust, a matter of credibility and a matter of confidence in government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why are we so committed to universality? It is because Canadians believe in equality. Canadians believe that all individuals, no matter what their social status, deserve equitable treatment. If you segregate services, if you ghettoize services, if you direct services only to the needy or the poor, then those services exclusively meant for the poor become poor services.
Universal access means that all individuals in Canada are treated the same. It means that the rich man and the poor man sit in the same doctor's office, receive their skills in the same fashion, wait in the same line and will be covered by the same fee and the same treatment.


Cyril Keeper: What about women?


John Napier Turner: Naturally enough; it covers a broad range of people. Universality has been a unifying force in our society. Everyone, no matter what his income, has a stake in these programs and we are all interested in protecting these programs.
We do not make improvements in our social security system by altering, tinkering and playing around with the principle of universal access. We accomplish that through improvements in the equity and fairness of the general tax system.
Preserving the social contract-because it is a matter of contract-is not an empty, rhetorical phrase. It means something. It means that those who may have contributed through a lifetime of work in this country, a lifetime of paying taxes, are entitled to the benefits of that contribution, to the benefits of the pension that they can statutorily expect, to the benefits also of those allowances that they can statutorily expect. In Canada that means universality of those allowances, namely old age pensions and medicare. By injecting uncertainty and confusion of where they stand and what they do with the payments under these programs, the Government is destabilizing and endangering that social contract which is based on trust and legitimate expectation.
[ Translation]
The Conservatives are trying to backtrack and change the rules of the game. Can Canadian men and women count on these benefits, yes or no? Are single parents going to get their family allowance cheques, yes or no?

Will our elderly pensioners get their cheques or not? Will there be an income cut-off of $26,000, or less, or more, beyond which no benefits will be given? The answers to these ques-

tions given by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I believe when properly tabulated and analysed, will put the Government in a straight-jacket and in a box. They have expressed reaffirmation apparently in universality of delivery. They have said there is no tax-back. When you look through the options available, I fear that if they are going to fulfil any kind of commitment, it really means a general tax increase.
1 would urge Members of the House during the recess to examine the statements that have been given to us during the past week and a half. We asked the Government to move up the date of the Budget so that Canadians could find out whether they are going to get benefits or not. The Government refused. We asked the Prime Minister to ask his Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to accelerate the publication of those directional papers on family allowances and pensions so Canadians could know the intentions of their Government. The Government refused. I suspect the partial reasons for that refusal, and perhaps the main reason, is that those papers, in the light of what has been said in this House in respect to questions that have been strongly directed in this House, will have to be rewritten by the Minister to reflect the views of the Opposition and the views of the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I asked the Prime Minister to give Canadians at the very least a clear, simple statement of the intention of his Government. He refused. Instead, Sir, he accuses us of nit-picking. I refer to Hansard for December 14, at page 1237, in this respect. All I can say to the Prime Minister is that if this Government continues to create confusion and mistrust on programs affecting millions of Canadians, he had better get accustomed to our nit-picking because we intend to keep talking, and talking, and talking on this issue until it is clarified once and for all.
Instead of answers, all we are getting in response to serious questions on this fundamental and vital subject is a series of one-liners and jokes. I want to tell the Prime Minister that this House is not a vaudeville stage. This House is not a burlesque theatre. We have an obligation to our constituents and to all Canadians to live up to the enormous trust they have given us by sending us here to represent them. We have an obligation to have well informed and reasoned discussion on the question before us. We cannot have informed discussion when the Government will only hint at what its intentions are. We cannot have informed discussion if the Government will not answer simple questions but instead play frivolous and unbecoming games with an issue that touches millions upon millions of Canadians.
This debate came about because we on this side of the House in the Official Opposition put pressure on the Government one way or the other, in the budget, in a statement or even in an answer to questions, to clear up the ambiguity and keep its commitment not to tamper with the universal social
Borrowing Authority
programs. This debate will not end, Mr. Speaker, not today, not next year, until there is a clear, unmistakable, credible, believable and unassailable commitment from this Government that it will not tamper with the universality of the social programs in this country, which are counted on by millions upon millions of Canadians. They are part of the social contract, part of the glue, the adhesion and the unity that have made this country a very decent place to live.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate. I just regret that the debate has become a necessity. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has just indicated, we on this side of the House, both opposition Parties in this context, have called for this debate. We called for a serious discussion during the course of this week precisely because what was regarded as a permanent part of the social and political life of this country, namely our existing social programs and the principle of universality on which they were grounded, has been called into question. Indeed, it has been threatened by what I can only describe in this context as a Government which is insensitive and uncaring about the universality principle.
In the time period which we have allocated by agreement among all Parties, I want to begin to put this debate in perhaps a broader context than the debate has normally been dealt with, certainly in Question Period. Question Period does not exactly lend itself to philosophical speculation. The kind of debate which is just beginning this day, the last day before the Christmas break, and which will be resumed in the New Year, could only be taking place in a modern society.
There are Members in all Parties who are not only members of the Christian faith but of others. I say to my colleagues that if we were back in medieval times, this debate would seem absolutely and utterly ridiculous. In the pre-modern or premarket society, it was assumed that all men and women had a set of reciprocal rights and responsibilities. The goods and the benefits which were to be distributed were not to be done on the basis of a market. Distribution was to be done on the basis of a cash connection, that is, if one has the cash one could buy it and if not one has to go to charity. That came later.
My key point is that not long ago in the history of humanity there was an assumption, or certainly a core notion of Christendom, that a social contract existed among members of society to share in its benefits. Along came the market mechanism which effectively broke down the set of reciprocal rights and obligations in society. We saw developed in the 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries a view of society which had radically been transformed over that period of time. Everything was taken out of a set of communal or shared responsibilities and put into the market.
Then we saw a reaction because we had seen what it led to. On one hand it led to the creation of the greatest amount of wealth in the history of humanity. Of course, I am talking

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority
about the economic system known as capitalism. In that development we saw fantastic growth. In terms of the productive capacity of the human society there had been nothing like it in the past. Also we saw human beings relegated to being merely instruments of the market itself. Then we saw great collections of poverty. We saw people left out entirely. As a result there was the response about which I am talking in the 19th Century. Gradually it was said that we should not leave our children to the market. In the history of every European country child labour laws were passed. They became universal. There was the quaint notion that people under a certain age had to be protected by laws in society and that the market should not interfere with their lives.
Also we saw a radical notion during that period. Elementary education was deemed to be an essential social right. It was to be universally available, not simply a right of the rich. It was to be made available to every child in society. It was argued then, why we should provide publics schools? Of course, in England public schools were really private ones. However, it was said that what we call public schools were unnecessary for the rich because they could afford to create their own. At one point it was finally said that the state should provide schools for the poor. At that point the classic debate, in my judgment, began to be joined. It began to be argued that we should create an elementary system of education. That took place in this country as well. It was a system financed by public taxes which was not only available to the poor, but was a universally available elementary education system for rich, poor and middle-income Canadians.
Returning to the history of our own country, lo and behold, rich, poor and middle-income children have by and large attended the same schools. We took that out of the market. We said that it was part of what it meant to grow up and be Canadian.
I will jump through a lot of history now and come to the past few decades. There was a gradual evolution by which we took more things out of the market and left many things, appropriately, to the market. We took some things out and said that we should redefine our nation of citizenship. The Leader of the Opposition was absolutely right when he said that Liberal Governments introduced these programs. They were in power. However, he would also acknowledge that in the main it was the predecessors of my Party in the CCF who led the debate. First they forced the debate for pensions. Then they led the debate for medicare and in a number of other benefits. I do not want to be presumptuous or ridiculous by suggesting that members of other Parties were not involved. Of course they were, but they were in the minority. They eventually became the majority in the Liberal Party which governed at that time.
The arguments we heard in the past were exactly what we are hearing now from those who want to dismantle these programs-that pensions were not needed for everyone, that they were only needed for the poor or those who really could not look after themselves. Small "c" and big "c" Conservatives of the day were persuaded that maybe it should be a universal
right, not just relegated to the poor. Then came medicare, and I remember the arguments when I was relatively young. I remember Conservative arguments-they were coming from Liberals as well-in Saskatchewan asking why we needed state medicare. Originally they suggested that medicare should be provided as a charity for those who could not obtain medical care. They indicated that the rich could afford it and asked why we should have it. Eventually, not only a majority of my Party but the majority of other Parties came to accept the idea that we should change the market mechanism and that what it meant to grow up in a decent society was to have something like a pension, a medical plan or elementary education as a matter of right for all Canadians.
That was the key argument of my Party in the past, it is today and will be in the future. Our view of the universality principle is that there are certain goods and benefits of society to which all Canadians are entitled. Whether one is a banker, a cab driver, a logger or whatever occupation, whether one works inside or outside the home, all Canadians contribute and all Canadians should have them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is part of our ongoing definition of what it means to have a civilized concept of citizenship. It is a concept in which my Party believes profoundly.
I should like to give three quick arguments in favour of the principle of universality. First, the universality principle is not simply a matter of dollars and cents. I want to underline that. In the most sketchy fashion something has been said about the history of humanity from the medieval period to the present. It was sketchy indeed, but the principles involved-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There may be an inclination to allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), to continue his speech, which will last only 10 more minutes if Your Honour will not see the clock.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. I understand that when the Leader of the New Democratic Party has concluded, we will adjourn for lunch and reconvene at two o'clock, at which time I intend to take up the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather there is unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my colleagues, the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), for their consideration. I want to say publicly what I have already said to the Minister, that I deeply regret that I will not be able to be here for his contribution to this important debate because of another commitment.
December 21, 1984

I was saying that there are three arguments that I want to make in favour of this important principle of universality, which has become imbedded as part of our Canadian tradition. First, the very nature of universality brings people together instead of driving them apart. Society is already excessively divided in terms of income and regions. This produces tension, not co-operation. Sharing in a common program, not provided by government but provided by themselves as a community through the instrument of government, is a very important way of creating a co-operative sense of community in society.
There are two negative aspects of the question that I would like to address as well. I plead with the Minister of National Health and Welfare to consider this very seriously before legislation is brought in to change the principle of universality. For social programs to continue to have the primary financial benefit that they are intended to have in terms of finances for the poor, they need to have as active participants and recipients middle-income Canadians.
In a society that is governed by the majority, in order to maintain support programs for the poor, the majority must be seen to be beneficiaries in some way of those programs. That is absolutely crucial. If the majority begin to sense that they are being left out, that they are being set aside, they will not continue the strong support that has been built up over past decades for these programs.
I cannot emphasize too much the importance of this. If we begin to take these benefits away from middle-income Canadians, we begin to undermine these programs so essential in dollar terms to the poor. I want to say in passing that this does not assume that the majority of people are selfish. It merely assumes that the majority of human beings in any society are not altruistic, that they are not by nature in their ongoing disposition charitable. It is very important to understand that. Men and women are prepared to do their share, to make their contribution to the common good on a continuing basis if they see themselves as at least getting some benefit from those programs.
The third point I want to make is certainly related to this. If we break up the universal nature of these programs, we begin to ghettoize society. We begin to create within our different programs a two class system, the recipients and others who finance the programs. I regret, as I am sure all Members of this House do, that when you go into a community some Canadians talk about recipients of welfare in quite a pejorative way. There is an unfortunately negative regard for many people who receive welfare even though we well know that 99 per cent of the welfare recipients totally deserve it and totally wish they did not have to get it.
My concern is very much that if we begin to cut out middle-income Canadians, we will ghettoize more and more Canadians in terms of their perception of membership in their communities. Side by side we will have two ordinary working people, one of whose income may be marginally greater than the other, and one will get the benefit of the social progams and the other will not. Inevitably that will tend to create among those who are paying for the program but not getting
Borrowing Authority
any benefit-not the rich but just the middle income people- a sense of resentment toward those who do receive it.
I say to the Minister that we do not want to create more tensions in society. We do not want to create more ghettoes. We want to build a greater sense of community and a greater sense of co-operation. That is why we need these universal programs.
I want to conclude with this and perhaps be a little more partisan than I have been up to this point. In the debates in the House this week, the Prime Minister and indeed his Ministers have created a spurious straw man form of argument. They said that if we are against what they are doing as a Government, we are not in favour of assisting the poor. They said that all they are doing is aimed exclusively at the objective of getting more revenue to help those in society who need it most.
The Prime Minister does not need to lecture those on this side of the House, in particular the Members of my Party who have been fighting for the poor and the better distribution of income all their political lives. The beginning assumption is that the Government needs more revenue. I agree we need more revenue if we are going to do more for the pensioners, those in poverty and the unemployed whose benefits are running out, as well as the handicapped who need the assistance of those of us who can afford to pay. But there is another option. We do not have to destroy social programs of earlier generations which all parties worked to build up. We do not need to put asunder all this useful construction in modern Canadian history. We can look at all those in society who can now afford to pay more in terms of income tax.
I say to the Minister that there are two options. More revenue can be generated by destroying the principle of universality and allocating that exclusively to the poor. I have already argued against that approach. There are many Canadian men and women who have a lot of money, in excess of any sense of equity of what they should have if we had a fair tax system.
If the Minister wants more revenue now, he should look at the change in the tax system introduced in 1981 by the then Liberal Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen. He reduced the marginal tax rate of the rich, as the Minister well knows. By bringing in that reduction in the marginal tax rate of the rich, he lost $1.7 billion of revenue to the treasury. If the Minister wants more money, I can tell him where to get $1.7 billion. Just re-establish the tax rate that the rich used to pay and should be paying now.
Second, the Prime Minister, in that all too charming way we have grown accustomed to in debate, said when talking about a minimum tax that the rich should pay and pay handsomely. This is not a glib debating point for me. Everyone else in this country pays a lot in taxes. They work hard. Men and women, farmers, auto workers, cab drivers, work hard and pay plenty of taxes. I find it offensive that there are still thousands earning over $50,000 a year who do not pay any taxes because our system of taxation, which is riddled with loopholes, makes that possible.

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority
I say to the Minister he should fill in one reform, and the Prime Minister agreed to it. Bring in a minimum tax rate of 20 per cent for all those earning over $50,000 and you will get an additional $400 million to $500 million in revenue. I repeat, that is not over-taxing the rich but simply taxing the rich who now are not paying a cent in taxes.
I conclude by saying that on the whole we have had a positive evolution and development of community-building social programs, whether they be pensions, family allowances or medicare, which all Canadians are proud of. We have all shared them in the past, and we had better continue sharing them on the basis of equalty in the future. In the meantime, if the Government needs more revenue, all it has to do is make those in our society who are not paying their share pay their share. The Government should take that income and do with it-particularly at Christmas-what ought to be done. The Government should ensure that the money goes to the poor in Canada who need it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 11 minutes after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.11 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the review of social programs announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in November, in his economic statement. These programs are interrelated and are delivered through both the tax system and as direct expenditures of the Government.
It is all too easy in discussing these programs to become confused and to sow confusion. In the course of debate in this House on the review of social programs, a number of assumptions have gained widespread currency which I fear have added to the confusion rather than clarified the purpose, nature and scope of the review. I would like to address some of those assumptions this afternoon.
First, there is the assumption made by many Hon. Members, especially Liberal Hon. Members, that under past Governments, and especially Liberal Governments, there was never any change to programs affecting the elderly or families with children except to increase benefits under those programs. That is simply not the case, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that on four separate occasions in the past eight years, the former Government, without consultation, brought in budgets which changed the laws governing old age pensions, family allowances, the child tax exemption, the child tax credit and the
former dependent child tax reduction, in order to lower or eliminate benefits in one or a combination of those programs. On only two of those occasions were savings redirected into other child benefit programs and elderly benefit programs.
In 1976, family allowances were deindexed for one year. There was no offsetting change in any child benefit program. That step adversely affected every family in Canada who had children. Poor families were not cushioned from that blow.
In 1978, to provide funds to establish the child tax credit, normal indexing for family allowances in 1979 was eliminated and the family allowance benefit itself was reduced 22 per cent from its 1978 level; from $25.68 per month per child to $20 per month per child. In addition, a $50 a year tax reduction for each dependent child was eliminated from the tax code.
In 1982, a partial deindexation was applied to old age pensions and family allowances through the six and five program. Persons eligible for the GIS were cushioned from this step so that their total OAS-GIS benefits remained fully indexed, and there was a $50 per child increase in the maximum child tax credit for the 1982 tax year.
In 1983, the level of net family income at which the full child tax credit benefit begins to be reduced was frozen permanently at $26,330, instead of being indexed to inflation as was formerly the case. At the same time, the level of the child tax exemption was also frozen permanently at $710 per child rather than being indexed to inflation. There were no offsetting increases in any other child benefit programs to cushion these steps, which will gradually reduce the number of families eligible for the child tax credit and reduce the real value of the child tax exemption for all families with taxable income.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we see that on four relatively recent occasions benefits have been reduced in programs now under review. In two cases, savings made were redirected on an income-tested basis to other programs in the respective systems. In the other two cases they were pure restraint measures designed to benefit the federal treasury.
Leaving aside the question of the wisdom of those steps, it is clear that the opposition Parties agree that none of these changes destroyed universality, even though benefits in the universal family allowances and old age pensions were affected. The very accusation that we want to undermine universality accepts implicitly that it is still there to be undermined. So when we raise a new, and open up to public consultation, the question of whether, without disturbing the principle of universality, benefits within the child tax benefits and elderly benefits system can be reformed so as to be more equitable in their impact, I fail to understand the alarm of Hon. Members opposite.
Do they seriously believe that the Canadian people will swallow a double standard, under which what a Liberal Government has done in four different budgets without consultation is accepted as being consistent with universality, while similar initiatives, when put on the table for public discussion
December 21, 1984

by a Progressive Conservative Government, become a clear and present danger to the integrity of our social programs?
I must conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the real fear of the opposition Parties is not, in the words of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), that we will "dismantle" these social programs, but that we will make them more rational and equitable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is for the Party's political purposes that it wants to foster the false assumption that any change to the status quo will erode these systems and threaten the principle of universality. Why? It is not because the existing systems are perfect. Hon. Members opposite know, and we know, that many elements of these systems are in fact regressive. The child tax exemption, the age exemption, and the pension income deduction, increase their benefits as family income rises. Many groups and individuals whose commitment to progressive social policy cannot be questioned, such as the Canadian Council on Social Development, the National Council of Welfare and the National Advisory Council on the Status of Women, have all pointed out for many years these and other anomalies and inequities in the system, and have called for their reform.
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition Parties are willing to keep these perverse features of the status quo undisturbed if that is the price of preventing a Progressive Conservative Government from demonstrating that it, too, can implement progressive social reforms. What the opposition Parties want to preserve is not universality but the false image of our Party as the enemy of the poor and the disadvantaged. That is their political goal and that is dishonest.
I am pleased that this debate is taking place in the House today, that once and for all, while the opposition Parties might not agree, at least the Canadian people, who I know have the sensibility to understand, will know that yes, Progressive Conservative Party members also have families who will grow old. They also get ill. We also have compassion. We also are led by those ideals. I hope for once Hon. Members opposite will be quiet and not say that it is only they who understand people, only they who understand compassion and have a heart. We do, too.
[DOT] (MIO)


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Copps:: I think we touched a nerve.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, you did, because it was a dishonest approach you were taking.


Mr. McKenzie:: As phony as a $3 bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In doing so, Mr. Speaker, they have themselves become prisoners of the status quo and the enemy of free debate on these programs. They have locked themselves into a posture where they are, in effect, saying that before the
Borrowing Authority
Government even begins to consult with the Canadian public on these programs it must either promise not to change them at all or it must tell them in advance precisely what action it will take to change those programs, what persons will benefit and who will bear the burden.
I saw that demonstrated today by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) when she said: "Forget about consultation, forget about speaking to the people or the provincial Governments; just do it". That is not the way we will approach it. If any evidence was needed that this review was necessary and that consultation was valid, that to ask the Canadian people was purposeful, I saw it demonstrated today in Question Period when she said that we do not need to consult, that we should just get on with it.
The absurdity of these demands, considered in the cold light of day, is obvious, Mr. Speaker. It is legitimate for the Opposition to ask on what principles these reviews will be carried out. We have stated these principles and I want to state them very clearly again. First, all savings generated from any changes will be redistributed to social programs and will not be applied to deficit reduction. Secondly, there will be no income test before family allowances or old age pensions are paid, and benefits from old age pensions will be taxed no differently from any other form of income.
To go beyond this is to designate preferences for particular mechanisms of living up to these principles which would be to foreclose legitimate debate on these programs and their relation to the tax system. We believe that the advice of the Canadian people can help us devise better methods of implementing these principles than those we would have been able to devise without that advice. I realize this might be a difficult approach to grasp for Members opposite, that a Government would not rush blindly into changing basic social programs without seeking public input. But it is an approach to which this Government is committed and which it will follow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: For example, we do not agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that any surtax on family allowances, no matter what rate is applied or at what level, is an idea that is not legitimately open for discussion. What we are saying to the Opposition is simply this. Let us have a reasonable debate. Put your points forward clearly. Express them forcefully. But do not put behind motives on which you have been elected for so long, trying to create fear and to say that somehow you have a corner on the concept of compassion. Do not attempt to use as legitimate political action the idea that by creating fear you can somehow get re-elected. I do not believe that that is a legitimate approach.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: For example, the Leader of the Opposition said today that a program directed to the poor is a poor program. Hon. Members nod their heads. I ask them: The guaranteed income supplement program is paid to whom?

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority
Senior citizens below a certain income. Is that a poor program? The spouses' allowance and the program we want to advance for widows and widowers, widows who get nothing between the age of 60 and 64, is that a poor program? I ask you: Is that a poor program?


Mr. Lapierre:: It is a poor program.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is a poor program?


Jean-C. Lapierre: How about divorced and single people?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why did you not do something, then?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what about the Canada Assistance Plan, is that a poor program?


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are going to cut it out anyway.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That also is not the case.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is what you said in your directional paper.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I really should not respond to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) because when one is hunting elephants one does not follow rabbit tracks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, with about the Canada Assistance Plan, is that a poor program?


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is, because people have to-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What I am hearing from the Liberals is that because of the nature of these programs they would eliminate them. Well, we will not because we want to help people who are not as wealthy as the rest of us.
Another point I want to make to the House and the Canadian people is something I said on November 15, but it obviously has to be repeated. Let me conclude by putting on the record some remarks I made on universality and on the process which I intended to deliver in the Throne Speech but did not complete because of time constraints.
At that time I offered two possible definitions of the meaning of universality. One might be that all social programs should be available to everyone regardless of need. Defenders of that definition, if there are any, must realize that they are not defending universality since no such thing presently exists except in the three programs I mentioned in my November 15 speech. The GIS and the spouses' allowance are two programs for which the basis of eligibility is need.
Another definition of universality might see social programs providing the same level of after-tax benefits to all recipients. Defenders of that definition must realize that there is no such thing as universality under that definition. The progressive tax system, which is not open to serious question as far as I know, ensures that benefits are taxed at a higher rate for high-income earners than for low or middle-income earners.
Therefore we want to create the opportunity, because we believe this is the best way to reach the right decision, for Canadians to consult with us. You might argue, Mr. Speaker, that consultation is dangerous. It is in the sense of believing that you have all the right answers and you are afraid that someone might give you an answer that is even better. Well, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having good answers from Canadians. I look forward to Members in this House giving us good answers through this consultation process. I will consider them. What I will not consider are supposed answers based on short-term political gain.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Distortions.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will not accept answers based on distortions. I will not accept answers which might be seen to be giving a short-term advantage to the Liberal Party, for example, over the NDP in their constant struggle as to who is number two. I will not do that. What I will do is listen to answers where Canadians will be better served, where they will have dignity and live independently, and where the Government of Canada, within the constraints it has, can meet those challenges. That is my role, that is my commitment to the House, and I hope it is understood from this moment on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind all Members that from now on speeches are limited at 10 minutes. The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, since 10 minutes is not a very long period of time I wish to divide my speech into two parts; one on the substance of the issue here before the House, and the other on the process by which the Government has chosen to debate this most important issue. The process up until now has led to nothing but a disservice to the debate, with all respect to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). In essence, because of the confusion on the front benches of his own Government, he did a disservice to the Canadian public and this Parliament.
This morning when the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) rose to speak in the House of Commons, he left the impression that it was the New Democratic Party which was responsible, in large part, for all of the social legislation that has been enacted in this country in its first 117 years of existence. I am not going to suggest that by any stretch of the imagination any one political Party in the country has a monopoly on virtue or truth. However, I will say that the Liberal legacy is one that we can all be proud of as Canadians. For the majority of the time in the last 70 years the Liberal Party has sat on the government side. It was the Liberal Party which brought in family allowance, Old Age Security and the pension system in this country.
I would like to remind the House of one thing so that when we open up this debate some time in the New Year we will have the parameters of the debate in perspective. Every time a
December 21, 1984

universal program has been created it has been on the basis of age requirement or the existence of a family. It goes to all people regardless of income level. As my Leader stated this morning, it is very true that if you design systems and programs only for the poor, they will ultimately become poor programs.
The concept of universality understood by Canadians is not the one which I have just indicated. There have been times in the past when the government of the day, usually a Liberal Government, has decided that certain groups in our society who we feel need help more than others have had certain programs targeted to them. If one studies the concept of universality one will see that there is a horizontal program of services available to all. In addition to that, there are specifically designed vertical programs in the system which feed money to the people in our society who need help the most. The child tax credit is one of those areas, as is the guaranteed income supplement. I would like to remind Members opposite that when we wanted to target certain groups in our society, that was done by way of an add-on to the spending in the social envelope. It was never done on the backs of middle-income people. That is an important difference in this debate.
I will now discuss how I feel about the mandate which was given to the Conservative Government on September 4 and the way in which I feel the Government has misled the Canadian public. If we are going to have a proper debate on this issue it is fundamental that all Members on the front bench speak the truth in this building with one voice. In that regard I have some serious doubts about the intent of the Conservative Government. I do not underestimate the mandate that was given to the Conservative Party on September 4. Two hundred and eleven seats is a pretty massive rejection. With the 211 seats which the Government won came a responsibility to provide good legislation and good government.
Let us not go back to the rhetoric, but on September 4 the Canadian public did not give the Government a mandate to dismantle the social programs built up by decades of Liberal administrations in the country. In the rhetoric of the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was quoted as saying that universality was a sacred trust never to be broken. He also said during the election campaign that, if anything, they were going to augment social programs to help those in our society who need help more than others. After September 4 the Government indicated in A New Direction for Canada that it wants to have a good, open, honest debate on the issue.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has stood up and said that he intends to use some of the money saved in this review of social programs for deficit reduction. His Prime Minister is quoted as having said that any money saved from this review of social programs will be redirected only to those people in our society who need help the most. In committee the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that one of the options still under consideration was to use the money saved in that review to help reduce the size of the deficit. That is the first confusion.
Borrowing Authority
Second, the Minister of Finance is saying that he is considering a specific tax-back on the benefits available to the elderly and through family allowance. Yet that is consequently denied by his own Minister of Health, who said that rather than looking at a direct tax-back the Government is looking at the possibility of an over-all general tax increase to cover the cost of those programs. That creates more confusion in the minds of the public. A member of the Cabinet who is the Leader of the Government in the Senate says that means tests are still on the table for discussion at Cabinet. That is reported in the Hansard debates of the Senate. That adds more confusion to the matter.
I will now come back to what the Government is actually intending to do. It is confusing to Members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties and it also, as I mentioned in Question Period this morning, causes confusion for Government back-benchers who do not understand if the Government is clear in the direction in which it wants the debate to continue.
The Government document A New Direction for Canada indicates that some $8.3 billion of government revenues is redirected into old age pensions. Of that $8.3 billion only $450 million is recovered in tax. I would like to point out that the reason there is only $450 million of tax-back is that 95 per cent of Canadians who receive old age pension cheques are in the lower income levels on a 5 per cent marginal tax rate. I question the value of a review of that system when the individuals who will be subject to that review have so little to live on.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare was quoted as having said that the review would be of families with incomes between $26,000 and $41,000. The Prime Minister was talking about the nine bank presidents in the country who earn around $500,000 a year. There is a great difference between a bank president and a family who earns between $26,000 and $41,000 a year. The average International Nickel Company worker in Sudbury, the average worker in Hamilton and the average worker in metro Toronto earn $26,000 a year. I do not think the Minister of Health is serious when he says that a family which earns $26,000 a year is perhaps getting too much in terms of family allowance.
I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that no one in the House has a monopoly on compassion or virtue. We have as much concern for those groups in our society that require help more than others as anyone else. I am only suggesting to the Minister of Health that if the intent of the Government's exercise is to redirect funds to that avenue, then let us broaden the debate so that you will not attempt to aid those who need help more than others on the backs of the middle-income people in the country. That is at the heart and essence of the debate.
If the Government is serious about finding a way to get a better delivery of services to the poor in our society, I suggest that the Government should not dare to dismantle the existing programs and should take a further look at the tax system. As the Leader of the New Democratic Party said this morning, it should be broadened to include the revenues we lose through

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority
business incentives to large business groups and oil companies. If you want to review the system, review the tax system which has created some degree of regressivity with respect to social programs. Do not do it on the backs of the middle-income people in the country, as has been proposed by the Conservative Party.
Finally, there are other important issues to be debated in the House of Commons over the next four years. I have some concern about the direction the Government is taking on social programs, defence policy, foreign affairs and free trade with the U.S. If the Government uses the same process to have a legitimate debate on other issues besides the social programs, it will be difficult to function with some civility in the House. We cannot afford to have a Government front bench with four different positions on an issue. I invite the Government to have legitimate debate, but prior to doing so it must set out the parameters for debate so that the Government is united. What it has done here has been a disservice to Parliament.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there would be agreement by all Members to give unanimous consent to the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) to continue and explain his definition of universality and which programs today are universal in nature.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that is a point of order. Unless there is unanimous consent, there is no provision for a question in the draft Order.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a great sense of pride and commitment. I am very proud to be the government Member who follows the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) in this debate. He has given this House an argument that is eloquent, that is committed and that gives integrity to the social programs that this Government stands for.
I am also proud to be here because our Party follows in the tradition of former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. He and his Party were one of the first in this country to be committed to a system of national health care.
I am also proud to be speaking today because I represent a riding that looks to the Government for leadership. I have a sense of commitment to the people of my riding. When I talk to an Italian Canadian who lives on Bond Road in my riding, who is a proud Canadian and has worked in this country for 20 years only to lose his job because of the policies of the former Government, I know that I have a responsibility in the House. In my constituency there is a recent Caribbean immigrant who owns a shop on Eglinton Avenue which is on the verge of bankruptcy because of the policies of the former Government. I am here on behalf of all those people who are looking to the Government and our Party for leadership and a sense of fiscal responsibility. They want a government that will look after the interests of those proud people who are prepared to work and have started a business for which they worked hard. That is why I ran to be a Member of the House of Commons. That is
why I am honoured to be a Member of the House. I can serve the people of the riding of St. Paul's.
Today I want to talk about the fiscal responsibility of our Government and the changes we want to make so that the Government and the country can plan for the future. I am here to talk about Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority. No one knows better than I that borrowing is not a pleasant task for any Government. We are seeking to borrow $12 billion for the first few months of the fiscal year 1985-86. The Government originally intended to borrow $16 billion but we have agreed to reduce that amount by $4 billion as a result of the concerns raised by some Hon. Members of the House.
Many Members have reservations about borrowing requests for the next fiscal year. Let me take a few moments to explain the situation in which the Government finds it necessary to request this authority.
This amount should be sufficient to cover the financial requirements to the end of June, 1985. It is directly linked to the Government's expected financial requirement in the first quarter of 1985-86. As many Hon. Members know, the financial requirements of the Government are not distributed equally throughout the fiscal year. They are usually very heavy in the first part of the year and this seasonal pressure is due largely to the requirements among Canadian citizens for income tax refunds.
Over the past five fiscal years the proportion of the total years' financial requirement for the first quarter has ranged from 21 per cent to 49 per cent of the year's total. For fiscal year 1985-86 the Government expects that $11 billion to $12 billion, or 38 per cent of the financial requirement for the year, will be required during that three-month period.
Members opposite have made a great deal of the Government's request for 1985-86 and have raised the fear in the minds of Canadians that the Government is somehow attempting to ignore Parliament. Let me assure all Members that the traditions, rights and privileges of Parliament are foremost in the minds and actions of this Government and of this Minister.
I can assure the House that in our economic statement, the paper that we discussed, in the amendment to the Bill and what we are telling the House today, we have laid on the Table an agenda which gives Hon. Members a very clear picture of where the Government stands, where it intends to go and what its financial requirements will be over the next year. It is a far clearer picture than the House has ever had before.
I would be remiss if I did not mention my own discomfort in coming before the House to request such tremendous sums of money to be borrowed. The Government is not the author of this unfortunate situation. The former administration placed this burden on the people of Canada and passed it along to us. This Government with its sense of financial responsibility is committed to implement the changes which our Party outlined during the summer campaign in order to rejuvenate this country's economy so that those who come to this House in the future will never be forced into a situation where they must seek such authority or be required to approve such measures.
December 21, 1984

The Government is taking bold steps to reduce spending because Canadians voiced their disapproval of this deficit on September 4. We are committed to the elimination of this kind of profligacy. When I go to Eglinton Avenue, to Winona Avenue or to Bond Road, I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that we are a responsible Government.
We are proceeding in a rational and economic manner and encouraging people across Canada, like those in my riding who have an entrepreneurial spirit and a willingness to work, by getting our own House in order first.
The borrowing authority we are seeking today will provide sufficient time to allow us to come back later to seek supplementary borrowing authority. That will get us through the period beyond the spring Budget. We will be back to the House before the summer recess with the next stage of our fiscal plan and budgetary measures. I look forward to that debate. I know that the Canadian people will still know that ours is a Government that is acting in their interest in order to bring rational government and responsibility back to Canada.
Once again, the people of my riding and the people of Canada will see this as a land of opportunity. That is why we are in office today and those are the objectives we have laid clearly before the Canadian people.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure that the Government has at least come part way toward meeting the request of the opposition Parties, and that it reduces the unreasonable amount of money it is borrowing.
The Government has reduced the borrowing for the 1985-86 fiscal year from $16 billion to $12 billion. We are willing, therefore, to see the Bill proceed. We recognize that for the 1984 fiscal year some money is needed, and since the Government is too pig-headed to follow the advice that the Conservatives insisted on giving one year ago, that is, to split the Bill into what is needed for the 1984-85 fiscal year and what is needed for the 1985-86 fiscal year, we are willing this time to let the Bill proceed.
However, we are still very dissatisfied with the Government's irresponsibility, especially in light of the sanctimonious words it uttered last year when it was on this side of the House condemning the very action it takes now and continues to take. To illustrate why we are dissatisfied, I want to read a petition. This is a petition I entered this morning and on which I have entered with other names on some previous mornings, but because of the rules I was not able to read it then. I shall read it in full now: the petition sheweth:
THAT an increasing share of taxpayers money is being used for federal grants, subsidies, and tax incentives to corporations; and THAT such tax breaks should increase the number of jobs in Canada; and THAT these grants, subsidies and tax incentives continue to be issued although many of these corporations are not creating more jobs but are in fact reducing them;
WHEREFORE the undersigned. Your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to change the appropriate laws in 1984-
Borrowing Authority
We have only an hour in which to do it, and I doubt that we will get it done, Mr. Speaker. The petition continues:
-so that in 1985 large corporations will receive these tax breaks only in proportion to the number of net new jobs they have created, and that the number of jobs created by each corporation and the tax breaks it receives will be reported quarterly to Parliament.
AND as in duty bound your Petitioners will ever pray.
I think that is a very reasonable petition. I wish Parliament had heeded it. Parliament has heard this petition from time to time over the last two months, but the majority in Parliament and the Government that gets its power from that majority has clearly ignored it.
The petition does not mention the amount of money that is given to these corporations. It is very difficult to know the amount of money. It is not just difficult for a backbench opposition Member untrained in economics, but it is difficult for the Auditor General of this Parliament. Mr. Dye, the Auditor General, has talked about the tax expenditures, the tax give-aways to the corporations. The best he could do at giving us a figure was to say it was somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion. That is the best he could do without carrying out a further investigation, which I believe he said would cost another one million dollars.
That gives some idea of the amount of money. It is probably more than the annual deficit, the deficit about which the Government opposite gets so hysterical and so lyrical that it no longer wants to talk about jobs now that it has won the election. The Government wants to talk only about the deficit. Yet the Auditor General has confirmed that the means of clearing off that deficit is at hand in these tax give-aways to the big corporations. Ninety per cent of those moneys goes to 10 per cent of the largest corporations.
There is no accounting of that money. There is no ready way that a member of the public, a Member of Parliament, or even the Auditor General can find out just how much money goes, who it goes to, let alone what this country gets in return for that tax money which is spent for the benefit of a private corporation. There is simply no way of knowing what we get for the $30 billion to $40 billion to $50 billion a year of the peoples' money. When we have no accounting of how that money is spent, then there is no good reason for the cuts which the Government has made in such a flamboyant way. There is no good reason to cut people off unemployment insurance with new cut regulations. There is no good reason to cut nearly $10 million from social housing. There is no good reason to make cuts in the arts and the CBC. There is no good reason to make cuts in the environmental protection work of Canada.
When we have money, several times as much money as is supposed to be saved by those cuts-ten times at least- available to this Government, it is absolutely irresponsible to make those cuts and then come before us and ask to borrow more money. The Government had the means at its disposal and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admitted during the election campaign that there should be tax reform. Tax reform would mean making the people who have plenty and pay no tax pay a fair share. It would mean also that those who now

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority
receive tax gifts from this Government and from the previous Government would always have to give an account of what they are doing for us in the way of creating jobs. Budget after budget after budget-it will be the same when this Government brings down its budget. We will hear sweet songs about how this tax gift and that tax gift to the corporations will make more jobs.


James Douglas Manly: They never have.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Next year unemployment will be as high or higher because they will not make more jobs. As often as not corporations use the money to buy labour-saving devices that reduce jobs or they invest the money overseas. This Government, like the previous Government, will not have the guts to introduce the kinds of controls that we used during wartime in Canada and that are used now by most countries in western Europe.
There is no good reason why this Government should have increased the taxes on ordinary working people by an amount that probably averages out to $500 more per family per year. This Government has taken, by its various pieces of legislation, $500 more per family per year from those of low and middle income and has refused to take one penny of the kind of tax reform which the Prime Minister promised when he was asking for the votes of Canadians.


James Douglas Manly: No wonder people have no confidence in the economy.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Prime Minister talks about confidence. He is obviously looking for the confidence of investors who want a wide open situation so they can destroy this country with pollution, and poison the people with pollution so long as it makes more money. The Prime Minister obviously wants to bring in the kind of investors who will expect to cut wages because people have been cut off unemployment insurance and there are no more jobs available for them to find.
Where are those investors? They are not in the New York money market, so the spokesmen of the New York money market have told us.


Mr. McDermid:: When did you start talking to them?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: He is not going to bring in the investment that he promised because the domestic market in Canada is shrinking, not increasing, and foreign owners of Canadian branch plants have never shown any interest in building the competition in Canada against their parent firms.
The only possibility which the Prime Minister seems to leave open is reflected in his policy of promotion war. He not only votes against a nuclear freeze, he not only undertakes to send another brigade over to Europe, but he also posts a team of shoppers from the Pentagon to go across Canada to talk about buying war goods from Canadian industry. It appears that that is the only active means the Prime Minister is interested in taking to create the jobs which he promised. He wants to turn us into producers of the American means of destruction rather
than producers of the Canadian means of life. This borrowing Bill will not do anything to ameliorate the situation. I call upon the Government to use the next few weeks to reconsider the wrong direction which it is taking.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I do not enjoy standing up and speaking about borrowing money. Out of necessity this borrowing Bill had to be brought before the House. It must be passed so that income tax rebates, among other things, can be given out early in the new year once they have been handled by the Department of National Revenue.
Anyone who sat in the House over the last number of years will remember that the Government used to use the old excuse that it did not have the authority to get the money out to the people or that it had not adjusted its computers to handle changes in the tax system. I see the Hon. House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition sitting across the way. Either he or the then Minister of National Revenue was responsible at that time for handing out the cheques.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It was the Minister.


John Horton McDermid: In any event, they were not getting their rebates when they should. Of course, this borrowing will allow for that.


Don Boudria: Oh!


John Horton McDermid: Perhaps I should give a lesson to my hon. friend who has come here from the provincial House on a white charger. Of course, the demands on the federal Government are not consistent throughout the year. There are periods of time when there is a greater demand on the Treasury than at other times. One is in the spring when income tax rebates take place. The Hon. Member would not understand that after being in the provincial House, but we handle income tax in the federal House. Once he understands the responsibilities of a federal Member of Parliament, he will get along much better with everyone here. One of our responsibilities is to send rebates to those who are entitled to them.


Don Boudria: Whose policy is it that cut off the cheques? It is yours.


John Horton McDermid: Now we are borrowing money to pay these rebates because of the sins of that motley crew over there in the last 15 years. There is no question about it. This is what we are talking about today. We have to borrow money to pay the monumental bills which they built up over the last number of years. It is a shame. I am sorry that we have to come before the House to do that. I really am sorry. I do not like doing this, but it has to be done. Our hands are tied. We are forced to do that.
We are asking for two amounts of money. We are asking for $7.3 billion to carry us through to the end of the 1984-85 fiscal year. I commend the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)
December 21, 1984

because they reduced their borrowing authority request by a number of billions of dollars, to $12 billion. This is provided for 1985-86 in order to carry us through until after the budget which will come down some time in April and to carry us through while the Budget is being debated so that we have the necessary funds with which to operate in government.
I was very interested in some of the debate today. We just heard the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) roll through on his little pink wagon. I was surprised to learn today that the NDP is now consulting with the money giants in New York. That is quite a turnaround. Normally members of that Party would not talk to them or listen to them. Suddenly they are consulting with them. I do not know what they would be consulting about. I am not sure they would take any of their advice. However, it was certainly refreshing to hear it. I hope they will continue doing so, because perhaps they will learn something.
I listened today to the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I was pleased to learn today that the Liberal Government is carrying its tradition of not consulting with the Canadian people-


Don Boudria: You are the Government; we are not.


John Horton McDermid: -and running roughshod over the people of the country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are the Government, John.


John Horton McDermid: That is exactly why they are not in office today. It was because they did that. They said that they knew better than anyone and said what they were going to do. They forget about consultations. She said it today in the House in Question Period. She said, "Forget consultations". They do not ask Canadian people what they want; they just do it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Students want jobs.


John Horton McDermid: That is exactly what the debate is about today.


Mr. Marchi:: Whom did you consult?


John Horton McDermid: This Government, led by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), is committed to consultation with Canadians. That is what is going on right now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the cuts?


John Horton McDermid: This will continue through the life of this Government. I might add that it will be around here for a very long period of time.


A. Daniel McKenzie: For 40 years.


John Horton McDermid: That is right. We will emulate my provincial cousins in Ontario. I will not be around here to celebrate our forty-first anniversary of being in power. Neither will the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Speak for yourself.
Borrowing Authority


John Horton McDermid: We will probably be retired by then and in our rocking chairs.


Don Boudria: We will retire you in the next election.


John Horton McDermid: I know she will be retired. Probably after the next election she will be retired. That is what will probably happen in Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What happened to your candidate in Hamilton
East?


John Horton McDermid: It will be either that or she will go back to the Ontario Legislature and run for the leadership again, because their Leader there is in very bad trouble right now. I am sure that is what will happen.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We know Frank Miller has a problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the Hon. Member to speak either on the borrowing Bill or on the universality issue, please.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was doing so, because part of the reason we have to borrow money is to pay the salary of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I think I can refer to her here. I think that is fair.


An Hon. Member:: You should borrow some credibility.


John Horton McDermid: Over the last few weeks we in the House have seen a phoney issue raised. They read polls as well as we do. They know that the Leader of their Party is lower in popularity than the undecided in the country. We know that they got together at caucus a week and a half ago and said, "Nobody knows the guy is alive". He is down to 11 per cent now. That is just his relevance. They knew they had to make an issue in the House, so they decided to scare the hell out of the old folks in Canada. They knew that would get their attention, so they raised this phoney issue. It is a phoney issue, but they wanted some publicity for their Leader. Then members of the NDP said, "Wait a minute, we had better get on the bandwagon too". Their Leader was holding his own at 20 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to be relevant.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to question your authority, but I sat in the House and listened to a debate on universality today. That is what I am talking about, this phoney issue which they raised to scare or frighten people in Canada.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about your back-benchers, your
bookends?


John Horton McDermid: The Opposition raised the issue.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yesterday in the House of Commons your own Members questioned you.

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority


John Horton McDermid: And they got an answer with which they were satisfied. Why is the Opposition not satisfied with it?


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not what they said on The Journal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ask your back-benchers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask Hon. Members to listen to the Hon. Member's speech.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He isn't saying anything.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I am rather enjoying this. It is like the provincial House. When I worked with the Ontario Government, that same motley crew did the same motley things down there.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Porkbarrel.


John Horton McDermid: They just moved up here, lock, stock and barrel. Here they are hollering again. I am enjoying it. I do not mind at all. I only have a couple of minutes remaining, but I want to say that I am fully prepared to go home and talk with the people of my riding about universality.
I am not at all concerned about those in our society who need help, because they are going to get it. Not only will they be taken care of by this Government, but they will be taken care of better than they are today. That is a commitment of this Government. It was a commitment during the campaign. It is a commitment that we will undertake and carry out over the term of our office. There is no question about that.
I worked very closely with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he was in Government. We spent a lot of time discussing issues we were both concerned with, immigration matters and so forth. It was not brought to the floor of the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his 10 minutes have expired.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. We have seen in the last two presentations by members of the Conservative Party why we are having a debate. We have seen the kind of insensitivity and lack of interest in this fundamental social issue that is causing a wide and abiding sense of concern among many Canadians.
They call it a phoney issue. It is a phoney issue when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) inadvertently in his own peculiar fashion admits that they are going to alter substantially and amend the method of payment for older people and families. That is not an issue raised by the Opposition. It was raised by the Minister of Finance. Now we are told it is a phoney issue. I guess the logic of that would be that it is the Minister of Finance who is the phoney. He is the one who raised the issue and put it on the table of this House. It is that kind of consternation which his comment raised which provided the abiding level of concern we now see among many Canadians.
We also see this in the comments made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) who rose to her feet to talk about her constituents in Eglinton who are obviously obsessed, as she is, with the question of reducing the deficit. She refused to deal with the issue of the many senior citizens, students and children in her riding who are also faced with the possibility of losing their benefits. I did not hear a word about that from the Minister. That is why this debate is taking place.
The problem is that this Government will not tell the people of Canada what is going on. This debate was set aside to give the Government an opportunity to clarify what is happening. What do we hear? They talk about fiscal responsibility. That is really the code word. If they start amending the structure of social benefits, we know where the money will go. It will go to feed that strange obsession of fiscal responsibility which the Minister of State has.
For all the protestations of the Prime Minister about how the needy will be helped, we did not hear that from the Minister of State. We heard not one word about the needy in her riding. I happen to know that there are many people in her riding who have needs.
The Minister was not prepared to say, "What a minute, before we cut into existing social programs to help the poor and the needy, we should look at the other forms of revenue the Government may be able to command from the economic envelope or other forms of tax expenditures and re-allocate that to social programs for the needy".
There has been no consideration by any Minister in this Government-the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) or the Minister of State for Finance-to say that if they really want to deal with the problems of those in need, they should find the money elsewhere rather than cutting deeply into the existing social framework of this country. That option has not been presented and put on this table. The problem with this Government is that it is blinded. It has little catchments on its eyes which say it is not interested in social programs.
Let me raise another reason why there is suspicion. It goes back to the incredible verbal gymnastics to which we are treated every Question Period. The Prime Minister stands and says that black is white one day, white is black the other day, up is down, and east is west. He says this with all the sincerity that he can muster, and that is not a great deal. We are supposed to believe him. He gave an interview to Readers Digest in August 1983. Let me quote the words of Brian Mulroney. He said:
The only way that universality can be touched will be by an all-party committee of the House. The objectives of social programs should be to get the most money into the hands of the people who need it most and do it efficiently. Are the programs delivering benefits to the peole who need them most? That's a legitimate question. But it is so delicate that 1 would examine it only with all-party agreement.
Where is the all-Party agreement? The Minister of Finance says that he has already made up his mind. He has already
December 21, 1984

decided what he is going to do. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is already preparing his proposals. The Minister of State does not talk about it. The Prime Minister, in his former incarnation, said, "I think it is so delicate a matter, I am going to have an all-Party agreement before I even begin to discuss it".
Where is it? Why are we having these musings in public indicating where they are going? I can state why. The suspicion we have is that they are not really concerned about the needy and the poor. If they were so concerned, why would they cut off summer employment for our young people? Why are they changing the unemployment insurance system into a welfare system where you only get it based upon need, not because you have an entitlement to the program? Why do they cancel the industrial training program that was used almost exclusively by women who want to get back into the workforce? the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is a fraud and a phoney. She says she believes in women's rights, and then she cancels an $80 million program which helps all kinds of women get back into the workforce.


John Horton McDermid: Our Government is one of consultation.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Member who is bellowing says his Government is one of consultation and that the Liberals did not consult. He was a member of a parliamentary comittee which we established that spent a full year consulting with Canadians about employment programs. That committee made a report and we implemented most of its findings. That was consultation. That was the kind of initiative we took. That was a parliamentary committee of all parliamentarians. It was not done in secret like the Minister of Finance is doing. We consulted and we got results.
Let's get down to the basis issues. They say they are not really going to change universality only tinker with the tax system. They say they are not going to wield the tax system around. Let me say something about the tax system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask all Members to listen to the Hon. Member's speech as they did this morning to the speeches of the Leaders.


Lloyd Axworthy: Part of the problem is that they say they are really not to going cut benefits because they are going to use the tax system. What they ignore is that the tax system cannot measure real need in the family situation. There are families in my riding whose income is not the true measurement of their need. It does not recognize that the woman has a child rearing responsibility. Many times they do not receive their fair share of the family income. The family allowance is essential to maintain the basic requirements for those children.
That cannot be measured by family income. You cannot apply an artificial touch. If Members opposite do not know that, they are not in touch with what is going on in their constituency. I suggest they spend the Christmas holiday talking to people rather than engaging in this artificial, insensitive, silly kind of economic accountability, which is simply
Borrowing Authority
designed to help the Minister of State fulfil her obsessive desire for fiscal responsibility.
Let's talk about the needs of women and children in this society. The problems of older people cannot be measured by their incomes because they may have to pay $400 to $500 a month for a rental apartment. Tax away their income and they will no longer have a place to live. The tax system cannot be used to measure true needs in society.
If this Government applies the artificial measurement, that accounting principle designed somewhere in the bowels of Toronto Bay Street, to attempt to determine who has needs, it will ignore the reality of our social structure. It will ignore the fact that the basic strength of the universal system is that it recognizes that both children and older people have basic needs that cannot be measured by some quirk or mathematical formula.
That is why it is so essential to maintain and defend the principle of universality. If Members are so interested in consulting, I suggest they listen to their own advisory council on welfare, a group of Canadians drawn from across Canada who also said they see no compelling reason at the present time to change the family allowance program. Those are Canadians talking. Why is the Government changing the program? Why is the Government playing games? We know the real reason. It is not interested in the needy or the poor. The Government simply wants to get back to what the Minister of Finance describes as a rate crisis to reduce the deficit. That is what this is all about. That is why Canadians are worried. The Government will never succeed because we will fight it to the end to stop those changes.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate today, but I am beginning to wonder why, after listening to the speech of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I stand in support of the statements which were made by the Minister of Nationoal Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). As my hon. colleagues have so well stated, the reason the Government must borrow these moneys is to pay the financial obligations that the Government inherited from or which were levied by the previous Government. If that Government had managed the country with responsibility, perhaps we would not be here today asking for this money.
On September 4, Canadians voted for a change and for a better future, because they knew that this Government could do much more to create that future. In doing so, they provided the opportunity to make a fresh start, to build new confidence and to provide a new national sense to achieve the economic promise and potential of Canada.
We are a Government of Canadians, which is for Canadians, and we will continue to be that way.

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: The major reason for Canada's poor performance was the failure of the previous Government to deal with the real problems. For too long that Government ignored the causes of the problems and dealt only with the symptons. For too long it allowed the fiscal situation to deteriorate and the debt to increase.
Through excessive regulation and intervention, the previous Government substituted the judgments of politicians and regulators for the judgment of those in the market-place-the people of Canada. This Government believes that Canadians have the desire to produce and to innovate, and that Canadians have the capability to generate much stronger growth than that which we have seen in the past decade.
Our objective is to put in place a policy framework which will release the creative energies of Canadians in order that they can build a better future for themselves. It will give young people a chance to make a productive contribution, and it will open new opportunities for older workers.
Canada is the only major country without unimpeded access to a market which is large enough to permit substantial economies of scale. If we are to foster growth through trade, we must obtain more secure and improved access to foreign markets on the broadest possible basis.
Canada is a major trading nation. We must look beyond the United States to the market-places in the Pacific Rim. Canadians have an imperfect understanding of the full meaning and implications of the emergence of Japan as an economic superpower, and as the centre of emerging developments in the Pacific Rim. We must direct our energies toward this area. We must realize that the world is changing in trade, technology and economic institutions. Investment Canada will provide a two-way street. We must view Japanese investment-in fact, all foreign investment-as a positive force in the economic development in Canada. We must have stable economic growth.
Both the deficit and unemployment will decline substantially if the Canadian economy grows at a reasonable pace. This Government will create a climate of stability and it will regain the confidence of Canadians. We can attract investment in Canada, and we can turn our great country around to achieve increased productivity and, therefore, create more jobs for Canadians.
There is much that we in Canada can do to improve our economic performance. We must put our fiscal house in order so that we can limit and ultimately reverse the massive buildup of public debt. The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), on November 8-with his deferrals, cuts and transfers-saved $4.5 billion and applied $2.2 billion against the deficit. We must adopt policies which foster higher investment, greater innovation and increased international competitiveness. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) brought forward Investment Canada. Because of that, we can look forward to more equity being invested in Canada.
The Members of the Conservative Cabinet have travelled and will continue to travel across Canada. They are speaking with their provincial counterparts, industries, labour and the people of Canada. This Government consults first and acts second.
In closing, I would reiterate that this is a Government of the people, for the people, and it will listen to the people.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate this afternoon. It is a somewhat unique debate, as far as I have been concerned since I have been in the House.
The House is speaking to Bill C-ll, which is a Bill to provide borrowing authority for the Government. It is a Bill which has been before the House for three or four weeks. It has gone through one amendment after another. Those amendments were moved by the Opposition. However, apparently we will achieve some progress today, because of the unique aspect of the debate and the fact that we are also debating the principle of universality and social policy. I would like to speak briefly on both issues. As well, I would like to speak on the authority of the Government to borrow money in order to pay for the deficit.
As far as the question of universality in social programming is concerned, I was delighted this afternoon to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) outline very clearly and firmly the policy and views of this Government. I believe his remarks clarified once and for all the present position of the Government and the position which our Government has always taken. In his speech, the Minister touched upon two points in which I believe very firmly. The Minister indicated that they are cornerstones of his beliefs and of government policy. The first is universality, the second is that there will not be a means test. I would like to endorse whole-heartedly the statements which were made by the Minister, and I congratulate him on those statements.
The Minister also dealt with the whole question of examining social programs, to see if more can be produced out of the same types of programs with the same revenue. I believe that is what we will be focusing our debate on in the coming year. We are going to have an opportunity, once the discussion papers have been issued by the Government, to take an in-depth look at those various programs, and to see what we can do to improve the lot of the Canadian people.
I know that Hon. Members of the Opposition who are here today, and those who are not, truly believe in trying to help the disadvantaged and low-income people of this country. I know that they are seriously going to join us in this debate in order to attempt to improve the system for all Canadians. Most of the opposition speakers have been telling us that the whole system was introduced by their Party, so I would hope that they would join with us in improving the system which is in place.
December 21, 1984

As far as the economy is concerned, the borrowing aspect of this Bill is mixed blessing. I would be very happy, quite frankly, to be able to stand up here in these economic times and feel that we were borrowing money which would help the disadvantaged and the unemployed in this country. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing. We are borrowing a lot of money here to try to pay the bills of the Government and to look after the current spending programs. That money is not going to add one cent to help put people back to work, unfortunately. The reason for that is that in the past we have had such staggering deficits that now our hands are tied as we try to cope with the problems facing the Canadian people, problems with which the Government is committed to deal, those of getting people back to work.
Traditionally, since the Second World War, the way of solving these problems has been to spend money. Unfortunately, even with all the money we are spending, with a $37 billion deficit, we still have a million and a half people unemployed in this country. That is a tremendous tragedy. 1 know that the Opposition shares my thoughts on that. There is no doubt that one of the saddest parts of this whole deficit tragedy, however, is the fact that our deficit, which is something like $37 billion, is just about equal to the amount of money which the Government spends in any one year on social programs. Now we are faced with a situation where the deficit is the tail that is wagging the dog, instead of the other way around. Somehow or other we are going to have to get a handle on the deficit if we are going to be able to deal with this matter, Mr. Speaker, because the deficit has become a psychological barrier to solving the economic and unemployment problems of the country.
I have said on a number of occasions in this House that there are really three ways of getting that deficit reduced. First, we must reduce all of the unnecessary and wasteful spending carried on by past Governments for years and years. We have had reports from the Auditor General year after year outlining those specific areas of wasteful spending. This year has been no different. We have received another report which has outlined a vast array of government waste. In fact, the Auditor General says there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars involved in wasteful spending which he has outlined this year.
One small way in which we can rapidly deal with a large part of the deficit and get it under control is with respect to the cash management of the Government. For years and years the Government has managed its cash in such a way, as indicated by the Auditor General, that we are losing about $350 million a year just in lost interest payments because of the fact that when we get the money in we do not put it in the bank fast enough. That is surely something which can be eliminated very quickly. The Auditor General has also told us that the Government of Canada holds a great array of properties which are not being utilized for any specific government function. This year alone we are going to pay almost $25 million in grants in lieu of taxes. So those are a couple of ways which have been
Borrowing Authority
identified by the Auditor General in which we can get the deficit under control.
Until we do get the deficit under control, we are going to have to borrow some money, and that is what this Bill is all about. That is why I am pleased to hear this afternoon that the Opposition is finally going to join with the Government to pass this Bill which will allow the Government to borrow enough money to pay for all of the social programs which Hon. Members of the Opposition have told us all week they are so concerned about.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter into this debate. I must say that it took some time to convince this Government to have this debate before the House closed down for Christmas. It is too bad that the Government was not open enough to provide us with the consultation papers which it is promising for the new year. If we had that information available now, rather than after Christmas, it would have shed more light on this debate. Certainly, the statement of the Minister on policy earlier in the day did not shed much light at all. In fact, it continued the state of confusion from which we are suffering in this policy area. At one time the Minister said that one of his three principles for this area of social policy is that there would be no special tax on social programs. Later on he said that he disagreed with the position of our Leader when it came to taxing social programs. Therefore, it is hard to tell just where the Government is coming from. It would be worthwhile for the Government to provide us with information which would allow us to understand what direction the Government is seriously considering to take. Hopefully, it would alleviate a lot of concern which exists across the country and would allow us to have a genuine debate with regard to social policy, rather than being lost in a fog which keeps flowing from the front-benches of the Tory Government across to the opposition benches.
One of the fundamental problems with which we are faced in this House is the fact that this Government said one thing during the election campaign and now that it is in office is saying something totally different. This is not just restricted to the social policy area. The most prominent area in which the Government has carried on this practice of saying one thing during the election campaign and another thing when in office has to do with employment. Obviously if there were increased employment at this time, then there would be increased government revenues. We would not have to borrow the amount of money we are borrowing today. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would not have to muse about not being able to afford social programs. During the election campaign, those Hon. Members promised, "jobs, jobs, jobs", and once they got into office, what they did was to shift their priorities pretty quickly. They focused their priority upon the deficit and upon cutting back on public spending, even in light of the fact that economic forecasters who examined the economic statement pointed out that its measures were going to result in greater unemployment. Obviously, that will result in a loss of revenues to the Government and the threat of a larger deficit.

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority
This Government has to learn a fundamental lesson. The Conservatives should do in office what they said they would do during the campaign. They should not be acting like a twoheaded monster, one head for the election and one head for government. On November 8, they outlined their economic policy concerning the reduction of public spending, not jobs as they promised. They have really started to put their social policy on the national agenda. They have managed to do this amidst a great deal of confusion, which is very sad because during the campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that universality was a sacred trust. He knew that universal social programs received broad public support across this country and he wanted to make sure he had sufficient support to be elected. Now that he is in office, he is sowing seeds of doubt about the principle of universality for pensions and family allowances. If the Conservatives succeed in this, when will they move on to medicare? They are simply testing the will of the Canadian people by flying a lot of trial balloons. If they get away with tampering with universal social programs such as family allowances and pensions, they will move right down the road to attack medical services.
Another thing the Conservatives said during the campaign was that they would run a co-operative approach to government. They would consult with people and act in a co-operative fashion to draw the community together. Well, Mr. Speaker, we begin to get the impression that their approach to consultation is really a smokescreen for their own real agenda. I am not so sure that we could say it is a hidden agenda because they are floating their ideas in various documents issued to the public. But certainly they have a very specific agenda and very specific direction, so that their promises of consultation and co-operation really wear thin. It looks more like a cover for the policies they wish to implement. The Hon. Member across the way laughs. These are serious questions, Mr. Speaker.
Pensions are a very good example, Mr. Speaker, of why universality is a cornerstone principle of our social policies in this country. Before we established public pensions people simply had to rely upon private pensions. Not everyone had access to a pension when it came to retirement, regardless of how hard they worked. So the notion of public pensions for everyone arose because people were concerned about the fact that everyone had a right to dignity in their old age through a secure income.
There is no way that a selective pension plan could work and provide security for all Canadians. First and foremost, the notion of universality applies to pensions, but it is also important with regard to family allowances. It is important not only because all children across this country deserve to have their basic needs met, deserve to have a good Christmas, deserve to have toys like the neighbours have, as well as proper clothes to go to school in. It is important because it is not simply for the children. One of the reasons family allowances were introduced and made payable to the mother rather than the father is that we were concerned that all women have some income
they can call their own. For a long period of time, perhaps even today, there were women who did not have an income that was strictly under their control.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the Government needs to clear up the confusion it has spread in the area of social policy because it is causing a great deal of concern among people. One of the fundamental principles of the social contract in this country is that all people have the right to social support because all Canadians pay for those programs. It is not enough to just say that the social programs are for the needy only. We need programs for all Canadians if they are going to be adequately funded and adequately supported politically throughout the country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, today tomorrow and Sunday, all Members will be going home to celebrate Christmas. Speaking for myself and on behalf of my Party, I would like to wish all Members of this House a very Merry Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that in the House, today, Progressive Conservative Members failed to clear up once and for all what is going to happen to universality.
I have already received many telephone calls, and I know that other Members including Conservative Members have also received calls from their constituents, from senior citizens and young mothers who want to know what is going to happen to their pension cheques and family allowance.
We were waiting ... we on this side resorted to some very strong tactics this week-


An Hon. Member:: A public confession!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -in order to ask the House for a debate on universality. Because we in this Party-


Marcel Masse: Let us call it the bogeyman party!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -it was our Party that initiated these programs and our Party is going to defend them to the very end.
Mr. Speaker, what happened this afternoon when we finally gave Conservative Members a chance to tell the truth-


Marcel Masse: The truth?


Sheila Maureen Copps: -what did they talk about? I would like to use the words said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), for instance.

The Minister's comments, when he was discussing universality, were with regard to the perverse features of the status quo. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid), when he was speaking about universality, what did he have to say on the issue? I quote: "I am not concerned about
December 21, 1984

those in society who need it most". That is what the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown stated in his speech.


John Horton McDermid: That is a little out of context, Sheila.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We heard from the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). Instead of discussing the issue of universality, she talked about the deficit. She talked about her responsibility with respect to the fiscal side of the ledger. She did not talk to the Canadian people-


John Horton McDermid: Start telling the truth!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -to Canadian senior citizens and young men and women who want to know whether universality will exist under this Government. When one of the other Government members talks about universality he says the deficit is the tail wagging the dog. Well, Mr. Speaker, in my mind and in the mind of my Party the deficit is the tail that is wagging the Government. In fact, the Government has no intention of living up to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) called a sacred trust. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that universality is a sacred trust and it will not be tampered with. The Prime Minister and his policies have been denuded before the Canadian people. We see now that the emperor has no clothes.
In the working document introduced by the Prime Minister's Government he says that we must ask ourselves whether the federal transfer payments of Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement and tax expenditures should continue in their present form or whether they need to be redesigned to increase fairness and reduce the burden on the federal Government. Mr. Speaker, these are not the words of the Opposition. This is not the working document of a previous Liberal administration. This is the document introduced by his Government and his Finance Minister in an attempt to begin the erosion of the universal social programs which we as Liberals have spent and will continue to spend our political lives fighting for.
When the Prime Minister is speaking in the House or out on the hustings in Baie Comeau he may not say the same things as he does when he is talking to The Financial Post. However, when he was talking to The Financial Post on March 24, 1984, he said, "I have no hesitation in reviewing the concept of universality".
Today in the House Members on all sides had an opportunity to put their positions clearly. The Government Members had an opportunity to clarify for the Canadian people what kind of cut-backs we can expect. Instead, we heard obfuscation and more deceit and dishonesty on the part of this administration.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Sheila Maureen Copps: In Question Period we heard the Prime Minister talk about the benefits received by bank presidents and people earning millions of dollars. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker,
Borrowing Authority
and the Canadian taxpayers that the figure which is being bounced about by the Government as a potential cut-off point for universal benefits is not that of the income of bank presidents. The figure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) gave in a newspaper interview last week as a potential cut-off point was $26,000. I want the Minister and the Government to know that a $26,000 family income in Canada right now is below the national mean. It is a less-than-average income for families. If he thinks that we on this side of the House are going to stand back and watch his Government trample and destroy the social programs that we have spent a lifetime building, he will have to take another look, stand back, and think again. We are prepared to fight the figure of $26,000. We are prepared to fight the figure of $34,000. We are prepared to fight a Government that has received a massive majority from the Canadian people only to implement a hidden, secret agenda which it was not prepared to reveal to the people of Canada before September 4.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of trust, which has never been properly dissipated in the minds of Canadian people, is an issue which many senior citizens will ask themselves about this Christmas. Many of those senior citizens voted for the current Government and the Prime Minister because he said that universality is a sacred trust which they would not tamper with. We have seen the trust of the Government. We have seen the words of the Prime Minister who contradicted his Finance Minister. We have seen the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who subsequently contradicted the Minister of Finance as well as the Prime Minister. The Minister of State for Finance does not even dare discuss the issue of universality because she knows that if the true feelings of the Conservative Party on this issue were to emerge, they would spell the death knoll for her Party in any future election.
My Leader made reference to that burden which is being carried around by the Conservative caucus in a Party which has never believed in universality or baby bonuses. It has not even believed in shelters for battered wives. The majority of Progressive Conservatives, at their last convention, voted against increases in funding for shelters for battered wives. I believe that is the legacy that the Government must live with. I believe it is a legacy which government Members would like to throw off. However, because the Government and the Prime Minister were elected at the beck of Bay Street, it is now clear that their hidden agenda will come out.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that their hidden agenda started today with 100 board and other appointments for Progressive Conservatives. This from a Prime Minister who promised all Canadians he would never do anything like that. [English]
Again, Mr. Speaker, we have another indication of a broken trust, a broken promise, an emperor who has no clothes, and a Government which has been denuded of all moral and social responsibility. Mr. Speaker, we will fight them to the limit.

December 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, today is the first occasion I have had to speak in the House since the recent election. I have spent the last 10 and a half weeks as the Government's representative to the United Nations where a debate on social security centers on the fact that millions of people throughout the world are starving because of drought in Africa. Hundreds of thousands of people are freezing because of lack of clothing and shelter. Having just returned from that 10-week experience, I found it interesting to listen to the Canadian debate today on issues which are in the same direction but not of the same quantity. I hope that Members of the House and Canadians who happen to be watching today will open their hearts and wallets to those starving people around the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is like coming back to a strange planet. I think the Liberal and New Democratic Parties are saying to the House that the present system is O.K. Those members of the Opposition who have sat with me on committee over the last five and a half years and listened to testimony surely realize that the present situation is not O.K. In Canada today a child living in a family which has an income of $10,000 or less per year receives $15 more per month than a child living in a family which makes $45,000 a year. If we can, through better management and better systems, double the difference to that poor segment of society, to those children born to families where the food, clothing, shelter and educational opportunity are inadequate, that is what a consultation process is all about and that is what the Government stands behind. It stands behind finding ways to produce more money for that segment of society where it is really needed. The consultation process concerns finding ways to produce more money for that segment of society where it is really needed. I stand four square for that principle and my Party stands four square for that principle as well.
Members opposite in the Liberal Party talk about social justice. I spent 60 days knocking on doors in my community of Calgary, Alberta. Two years ago, young people from your ridings were coming to my community to find a job, develop a career and achieve a decent standard of living. This summer, 25 per cent of the office space in Calgary was vacant, 15 per cent of the apartments were vacant, and I met family after family who have not worked for over a year.
That is a result of the policies put in place by the Liberal Party of Canada despite the objections of the Opposition despite the information it had and because of the lack of consultation. It made a mistake that was disastrous and which has forced millions of people to live below the poverty line who had not lived in poverty before. We will avoid those mistakes because we will be involved in the process of consultation.
We will not make those mistakes. If Members opposite read the Auditor General's report they would find that the Liberal Government approved a purchase for the F-18 jetfighter that
will cost $3.5 billion more than indicated. That amount alone could double assistance to seniors in this country had that one mistake not been made.
I look forward to the debate that will ensue. I now yield the floor to the representative of the NDP.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to end this debate today. I wanted to make two major points in the closing few minutes. If the Government is legitimately concerned about providing more opportunity, more financial support and more social program support for the poor of Canada, rather than seriously considering the tax-back provision which has been discussed in the House and referred to by government Members, I would suggest that we reform our tax system. That would enable us to implement a minimum tax on people in the upper income brackets and to implement a tax system where certain loopholes are closed so that everyone, regardless of economic status, pays his or her fair share of individual and corporate taxes. Therefore, adequate moneys would be available for all the social programs that the Government may wish to provide to the poor of Canada.
I am pleased that the Government has decided to eliminate $4 billion from this borrowing authority. I suggest it shows a willingness to listen to the arguments from those in the Opposition benches. It has also agreed to introduce the requirements for the borrowing Bill in the next fiscal year within two weeks of the budget being brought down. This opens up a new process that I hope will become a precedent in the years to come. In this way, the Government is able to lay out for the people of Canada its expenditures for the coming year and indicate its revenues and borrowing requirements in a two-week package. It will enable the people of Canada to evaluate more thoroughly the performance of the Government and decide if it is providing the appropriate fiscal management that is so desperately needed in our country.
In closing, since the Government has agreed to eliminate $4 billion and to provide a two-week introduction period for the next borrowing authority, I believe we really have made progress during the last number of weeks. I applaud government Members for recognizing the wisdom of the suggestions being made by members of the NDP.
In that spirit, I wish to use this opportunity to wish my colleagues, on behalf of our Party, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have one minute left. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, one minute is not very long. However, I want to point out the contradiction in what the Government is doing. It was elected not to cut social programs but to give the people of this country more. It said that it wanted to give Canadians a better life. That is not what it is doing now.
December 21, 1984

It has disappointed the people of Canada and they will long remember the very sad legacy of the Government. They will remember the promises that were made.
I would just like to remind all Hon. Members, if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, that our staff on Parliament Hill has worked very hard for us during the year. I would ask all Hon. Members to consider that next Monday and Monday, January 31, should be a holiday for our staff who have worked very hard. They deserve it and they are not getting a holiday on the 24th and the 31st.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 3.55 o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Order made earlier this day, to deem adopted the motion for second reading and reference to Committee of the Whole of the bill now before the House. Accordingly, the Bill stands referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Danis in the chair.
Marcel Danis: Order. The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority.
Clause 2 and 3 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 4-


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-l 1 be amended by deleting line 5 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
Whole $12 billion as may be"


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 4, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time. Before dealing with that, I think you will allow me the indulgence, as we come to the conclusion of the sitting for this semester before the Christmas recess, to extend a word of heartfelt and sincere thanks, which I am sure all Members of Parliament share, to our very excellent staff in the House of Commons. Of course, that includes everyone who has anything to do with the operation of the House of Commons, including the English and French Hansard reporters, the pages who have served us so well again this year, and the officials of the House
Adjournment Motion
at the Table. We are a privileged nation and a privileged Chamber. Part of the reason is that we are served by people with such dedication and we are grateful. I take this opportunity at this time of year once again to express to them our sincere thanks for the outstanding service they render not only to the Chamber but to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is one other item Mr. Speaker. I want to thank particularly the opposition House Leaders for what has been a very rewarding period up to the holiday season.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say this in a totally non-partisan sense, they are not bad people.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They are nice people. I say it has been a pleasure for me to have dealt with them.
In that spirit of consultation, there have been discussions and, accordingly, Mr. Speaker I think you would find a disposition for the House to receive and to adopt the following motion:
That notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 3, once consideration of Private Member's Business, No. 65, has been completed, or in any case at the usual hour of adjournment this day, the House shall stand adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m., Monday, January 21, 1985.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the draft order. Is there unanimous consent for its introduction?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the unanimous consent for the introduction of this order and its adoption. I want to associate myself, at least on this one occasion, with the words of the government House Leader in his thanks to all the personnel of the House of Commons. We are very privileged here to have people of such high calibre assist us in our work. We thank them for their assistance. We wish them a very happy holiday and a very happy New Year. I want to repeat also my good wishes for the New Year to my colleague, the government House Leader. He is not such a bad guy either.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I am the Grinch that stole Christmas, but not necessarily so.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: On behalf of my colleagues I want to say, first, that we will, of course, give unanimous consent to the motion.

December 21, 1984
Northwest Territories Condominium Ordinance
Second, I want to say that the relationship we have developed can do nothing but good for the House of Commons. The working arrangements that have been developed among the House Leaders are the best that I have had in many years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: We operate in as close to a non-partisan way as is humanly possible in the circumstances.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Did you get a card?


Ian Deans: I did not get a card.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I think that that co-operation, though it is not always reflected in the partisan debate which takes place in the House of Commons, has to be recognized as a vital and important part of the ongoing work of the House.
I want to express, as I did earlier today, to the Members and to all others who are here and present, those who work for and on behalf of the House of Commons, the desire of this Party that they should enjoy the holiday season, that they should enjoy next year, and that it be a fruitful and worth-while year for everyone.
On behalf of my colleagues and my Leader, and I think on behalf of everyone, I say to the country at large that we want 1985 to be a year in which people can fulfil the kinds of dreams and ambitions they hold for themselves and others, and that it be a year in which the sharing of responsibility and the concern for others in Canada and around the world will become the uppermost concern of everyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent, I take it, for the introduction of the order:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 3, once consideration of Private Members' Business No. 65 has been completed or, in any case, at the usual hour of adjournment this day, the House shall stand adjourned until 11:00 o'clock a.m. on Monday, January 21, 1985.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Hnatyshyn) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we go to Private Members Business, may I just say that there have been new experiences for many of us this year. The Speaker wants everybody here to know that you are a fine bunch of men and women.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker and his wife wish you all a very merry Christmas. I want to say to the Table Officers and to the Pages of the House that when the House Leaders indicated we are all blessed to have you, they were speaking only in short terms what we all deeply feel, that we are extraordinarily blessed by the services that are rendered by our people in this Chamber.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   NORTHWEST TERRITORIES CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE VALIDATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Dave Nickerson: that Bill C-214, an Act to validate the Northwest Territories Condominium Ordinance be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if the subject of debate is the validation of condominium legislation in the Northwest Territories, one can only conclude that it must be Friday afternoon in the House of Commons.
The object is to resolve a technicality in the present law which prevents the construction of condominiums in the Territories, and I might say the same is also true of the Yukon. The objective is to provide reasonably priced housing, of which there is a shortage in the north as there is in many other places throughout Canada. The request for this legislation comes from the Government of the Northwest Territories and individual MLAs from all three political Parties represented. It also comes from the City of Yellowknife, in particular, and His Worship the Mayor, Don Sian, and from the real estate fraternity as well as from individuals who would like the opportunity to own and invest in condominiums.
When condominiums started to be constructed throughout Canada, in 1969 a condominium ordinance was passed by the Territorial Legislature. It is, Sir, a model Act. It is based on provincial Acts. It does not diverge from them in any way. I suspect the advice of the law commissioners was taken in the drafting of this legislation. It governs the regulation of condominium corporations, the title to common areas by condominium corporations, title to individual units therein, and the relationships between a condominium corporation and the holders of individual units. However, it was found that there was a conflict with the federal Act, the Land Titles Act. As a consequence, the condominium ordinance was ultra vires.
What we are trying to do today is to put this matter to right. The Land Titles Act has a long and honourable history going back to Confederation. It deals with things like the concepts of dower and courtesy. Anybody who is familiar with medieval matrimonial law will know all about this, but it does not deal with the condominium concept. The condominium concept
December 21, 1984

was not around at the time of Confederation. It dealt with the registration of land titles at the time throughout the whole of western Canada, all the land that the new nation of Canada acquired from the Hudson's Bay Company via the Imperial Crown. Since that time, the Province of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have all enacted their own land titles legislation.
In January, 1981, Bill C-52 was introduced into the House of Commons. This would have put the situation right. It would have done two things. First, it would have addressed the narrow condominium issue. Second, it would have repealed the Land Titles Act so that the Territories and the Yukon could enact their own land titles legislation, the same as is in place in the provinces. We must remember here that we are talking about the function of registration of land titles and not of the disposition of Crown land, which is done pursuant to the Territorial Lands Act and maybe the Public Lands Grants Act.
At the present time in the Territories, the administration of the Land Titles Act is done by the Territorial Government acting as agent for the federal Government. It would be no great difficulty were it to take over under the terms of its own legislation registration of land titles. The Government of the day never proceeded with that Bill. It was always a low order of priority. This would probably be the preferable way of dealing with the situation rather than by way of the Bill before us. It would address several problems at the same time.
I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) intends to reintroduce Bill C-152 or something very similar. For that reason, I understand there is a disposition on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Fretz) and of the House that the subject matter of this Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would be very pleased if that course of action were followed and if that happened.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on a Bill which is of utmost importance to the people of the Northwest Territories. In fact, I am heartened to hear that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) is intending to move ahead with it. If we were able to get unanimous approval for this Bill in the form of a Private Member's Bill or in the form of government legislation, it seems to me that it would be a great step toward relieving the housing crisis which currently exists in the Northwest Territories.
The Hon. Member who proposed the Bill is certainly very aware of the difficulties currently being faced, particularly in the area of housing, in the Northwest Territories. This particular proposed amendment would allow the construction of condominiums in the Northwest Territories. In a small way it could begin to alleviate the situation which is reaching crisis proportions.
Northwest Territories Condominium Ordinance
We do not intend to supply a number of speakers on the issue because we would like to see it come to a vote in the House this afternoon. If in fact the issue is dealt with and the discussion terminates, it is my understanding of the rules of the House that we would have a vote on the issue. I think it would be roundly supported by most members of my Party and I am sure of the New Democratic Party.
However, I should like to take a moment to outline some of my concerns specifically as they relate to the housing situation in the Northwest Territories. No doubt the Hon. Member is aware of the fact that the housing budget for the Northwest Territories is the largest component of the budget of the Territories. As such, it exceeds the contributions made by most other provinces and parts of Canada with respect to housing budgets. Housing is the number one expenditure of the people of the Northwest Territories. If we look at the amount of money which must be spent to provide affordable housing for people in the Northwest Territories, it is clear that the Government has a very significant role to play in that area. That is why I as the critic for the Liberal Party and members of my Party have very grave concerns about the general direction of this Government which seems to be moving away from government involvement in the housing field.
I refer in a more general way to the decision to cut back 23 per cent on the amount of money which will be made available for home rehabilitation, to cut back on social housing programs and to cut back on the number of units which would have been provided under previous CMHC agreements. The general housing cut-backs indicate the thrust of the Government to get out of the whole area of government involvement in housing, to the point where some concern has been expressed that CMHC is now looking at the possibility of getting out of the whole issue of guaranteeing mortgages in general. If CMHC decided to extract itself from the mortgage lending business and in fact allow it to be done totally by the private sector, areas like the Northwest Territories would be particularly affected in a disastrous way.
I urge the Government to support this initiative which will try to alleviate a very difficult situation. There are as many as eight, ten or twelve family members living in two or three-room houses in the Northwest Territories. It has been recognized by the Government of the Northwest Territories as one of the major social problems it will be attacking in 1985. Also I encourage the Government and its Members to do everything in their power to maintain the social and governmental role for housing which was developed during the last two decades through social housing programs, through co-operative housing programs, through home rehabilitation programs and through other means where the Government decided to play a leadership role. That is particularly crucial in areas such as the Northwest Territories, which are sometimes more subject to the vagaries of the market-place in a much more extreme and severe way than in other more populated areas of the country.
I rise to support vociferously and briefly the Private Member's Bill which the Hon. Member introduced and to encour-

December 21, 1984
Northwest Territories Condominium Ordinance age the Government to take a hard look at the new directions-and I believe they are false directions-which it seems to be taking in the area of housing policy for Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill C-214 which will permit condominiums to be built in the Northwest Territories, as was intended by the Ordinance but was prevented by a very simple housekeeping oversight conflict with the Land Titles Act.
I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) say that he hoped this would enable the building of good and more affordable housing in the Territories and that the Government there has a large budget for promoting housing.
I would like to add that I hope the Government, the builders and the people of the Northwest Territories would be willing to learn from a major error which was made in Canadian cities to the south. Generally they undertake to try to avoid the errors of the South. This is one I hope they take to heart. I hope they will avoid the error of many cities. Mr. Speaker, you are as familiar as I am with the error of permitting adult only apartment buildings and dwellings, buildings where children are forbidden. Your Honour was as warmly concerned about this matter as I was a few years ago. The error of permitting adult only buildings is now beginning to show as statistics demonstrate that the fertility rate in Canada is dropping.
Actually the Hon. Member for Western Arctic expressed concerned about it this morning in a statement which he made. He has undertaken to do the best he can individually, but obviously it will not resolved the problem, as I can testify myself. It is really quite serious to insist that children be born, to try to throw people in jail for abortion, yet insist that they do not need a place to live after they are born. This is the custom in cities like Toronto.
I hope the Government of the Northwest Territories will learn by this experience and ban adult only buildings within its jurisdiction. This will allow Canadians to live in a more natural way with children than is now permitted in certain
parts of cities like Toronto. We will begin by referring this Bill or the subject matter of it to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I hope the matter will proceed smoothly.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-214, an Act to validate the Northwest Territories Condominium
Ordinance, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged,
the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing
Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development".


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Fretz) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 4.20 p.m.,-and it looks remarkably like five o'clock to me-pursuant to Order made earlier this day this House stands adjourned until Monday, January 21, 1985, at eleven o'clock a.m.
Merry Christmas to all. Please have a fine break and get a lot of work done. If Hon. Members have a little while in the next few minutes, the usual invitation from the Chair is extended to you all.
At 4.20 p.m. the House adjourned until January 21, 1985, pursuant to Special Order.


END OF VOLUME 1