1985-09-16

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on second reading of an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973. In the Budget of May 23, 1985, the Government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), announced its intention to restructure the federal child benefit system to provide greater assistance to families with lower incomes while at the same time moving to bring our national debt under control. This Bill represents a first step toward meeting those dual objectives.
The major proposal contained in this Bill will modify the current method of indexing family and special allowances. Effective January, 1986, these benefits will be indexed only for the annual increase in the cost of living greater than 3 per cent. Any increase in inflation above 3 per cent will be fully compensated. I should also stress that, as is currently the case, no payment will be reduced if the rate of inflation drops from one year to the next. Thus, the principle of indexation will be maintained. Family allowances will continue to be protected by partial indexation should higher inflation occur. As well, Mr. Speaker, universality under that proposal is not affected.
Many of those concerned about the problem of the debt and the deficit advised a more drastic course of action. Indeed, there are those who advocated that government spending be reduced through the elimination of some of our social programs, and that includes family allowances.
Recently, the Macdonald Commission Report has advocated that current family benefits be eliminated above a certain income level as part of a guaranteed annual income proposal. The Government has chosen instead to maintain the principles of universality and indexation and to introduce a modification to the method of adjusting those benefits. In addition-and I cannot emphasize this enough-this represents a change to only one of the several components which make up the federal child benefit system. Over the next three years, the Government will be increasing the support currently provided to low income families through a gradual restructuring of benefits delivered through the tax system.
On second reading of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I believe all of us in the House who have looked at the deficit, at Canada's economic status and at our public accounts, feel that it is important that the Government show a clear initiative in its approach to deficit restructuring. It is regrettable that this issue was not taken more seriously at an earlier date. The reason I say that is because one cannot separate, 1 would suggest, social programs and benefits from economic reality. I am sure Hon. Members opposite, as well as Hon. Members on this side of the House, do not endorse a system where today the servicing of the debt on an annualized basis is equal to the costs of services provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare. At the present time, the servicing of the debt on an annualized basis is approximately $26 billion. That is the budget for the Department of National Health and Welfare and of course, as Hon. Members know, it is the largest single budgetary item of any Department.
To put it in as succinct a term as I can, Mr. Speaker, the servicing of the debt today on an annual basis is equal to the federal Government's share of health care, of all old age pensions, of guaranteed income supplements for those Canadians who are below a certain income level, the spouses' allowance, the widows' allowance, the family allowance, welfare, social assistance for those who are most needy, medical research, and the list goes on. I believe Hon. Members realize that at any point in time Governments, regardless of their partisan stripe, like to see increases in social benefits. I do as well. But I also know that in order to maintain and improve those benefits, the deficit cannot be ignored by those of us who work in the social affairs field.
I want to serve notice to Hon. Members as well, that while this Bill amends the family allowances Act, although our legislative process does not allow for it, the follow-up legislation to improve child tax credit benefits are included in a Bill which the Minister of Finance will bring in. So while 1 am restricted to the Family Allowances Bill today, I remind Hon. Members of the total family benefits package when 1 am addressing this issue.
As Hon. Members know, the current child benefits system today is so irrationally structured that it actually provides greater after tax benefits to families with children and with an income of $30,000 than it does to a family with the same number of children and an income of $10,000. The revised system which we are proposing, and which will be in place by the end of 1989, will provide its maximum benefits to families with children and incomes of less than $25,000. Beyond that

September 16, 1985
Family Allowances Act
income level benefits will gradually diminish; but all families with children will continue to receive benefits not available to families without children with the same income.
[DOT] (mo)
While these groups have differed over mechanisms to reach such a structure, the initial level of benefits and the income level where benefits should begin to be reduced, all serious analysts of the current system have recommended reform based on the principles I have espoused. There must be more equity built into the system. At this point, I wish to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs who also put forward a model. While we can argue models, I think the principles embodied are generally accepted from those in the social affairs field.
Such a system would also be markedly more progressive than the current one in the sense that a much larger portion of total benefits will flow to low income families with children while a smaller portion of total benefits will flow to upper income families with children. At the same time, as I have already stated, the universal character of the family allowances benefit is maintained.
Members opposite may wish to argue that the scheduled maximum benefit levels in the new system should be higher so that the number of winners compared to the current system would be increased. I wish to assure them that those levels will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and if fiscal conditions permit they may be increased in future Budgets.
I also want to remind the House that this is not the first time that limits have been placed on full indexing of the family allowance in conjunction with other changes to the child benefits system. When the child tax credit was introduced in 1979, the monthly family allowance was scheduled to increase from $25.68 per child to $27.99 per child. Instead, it was reduced to $20 per child. In 1983 and 1984, indexing of family allowances was limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent by the so-called six and five program. Without that program, family allowances would have gone up from $26.91 per child per month in 1982 to $31.92 per child per month in 1984. Instead, the 1984 family allowance was $29.95 per child per month, almost $2 lower per month per child. To compensate, the child tax credit paid in 1983 and in 1984 was higher than it normally would have been before the restructure.
Further, it is also not the first time that less than full consumer price indexing has been applied as a restraint measure. In 1976, when the family allowance was scheduled to rise by 11.2 per cent, which was the inflation rate annualized at that time, from $22.08 per child per month to $24.55 per child per month, the Government of the day froze the level at the previous year's level. That is cost of living minus 11.2 per cent, not cost of living minus 3 per cent. There was no offsetting benefit increase in any other program in the child benefit system and the savings were fully applied to deficit reduction. I am sure my critic opposite in the Liberal Party remembers that period of time and the position taken.
I also suggest to the House that this restructuring is valid during a period of low inflation when inflation trends over the past number of years have been relatively stable. I think it is the right time, from that perspective as well, to make the adjustment. In fact, just looking back to 1976, if full indexing to the Consumer Price Index had been applied without interruption from 1974, the monthly family allowance cheque this year per child would be $51.83 instead of the current level of $31.27. That would be a difference of $20.56 per month, per child. I put these figures forward to convey to the House and the public that there have been changes along these lines before, much more dramatic, as I will point out later on, than anything we are suggesting in the Budget and in this Bill today. I say to the House and to every Canadian that there will not be a reduction in current levels, as was the case previously, but there will in fact be an increase. It will be less, however, than the CPI, namely 3 per cent less.
Given current levels of inflation this Bill will mean that the increase in family allowance benefits in 1986 will be 94 cents a month less per child than it would have been had the current system remained in place. I compare that 94 cents to the $20.56 which I am sure has not escaped the notice of the House. The comparable impact of the freeze in family allowances in 1976, to put it on a year-by-year basis because I think that is more accurate and more fair, in 1976 would have been $4.99 per month in 1985 dollars. To carry this argument even further, that would mean that in one year our model family with two dependants would have a total reduction of $22.72 for the entire year. What I am saying to Members is that we have to keep things in perspective. In addition we have the child tax credit for those in the lower income brackets which will be supplemented in further legislation. I point all this out not in a partisan manner but simply on the basis that it has been done before. I have no doubt that Members opposite will oppose this Bill, if their public announcements are to be believed, but I say to them that while it is their responsibility and obligation to oppose, they should do so in the light of history and oppose it in the light of what they did in the past.


Mr. Frith:: In the context of your Budget.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They should oppose it in light of the deficit and in light of the arguments they made previously.
As is obvious from the points that I believe have been made today, Mr. Speaker, there is considerable precedent for what is being proposed in this Bill. I would now like to describe briefly the minor amendments to the family allowances program which are also included in the Bill and which I hope find acceptance with Members opposite. While these amendments are considered minor because they will not result in significant changes to the program, I believe they are none the less important because they serve to improve the equity and administration of the program on a day-by-day basis.
For example, one of the proposals would provide the Minister of National Health and Welfare with the discretionary
September 16, 1985

authority to remedy the consequences of erroneous advice given or administrative error made by departmental officials. 1 know from years of experience in opposition that we were always suspicious about giving a Minister discretionary powers.


Mr. Rossi:: You admit it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: However, I think as Members look at this proposal they will see it is to the benefit not of the Minister but of those who have suffered either from bad advice or clerical error. Given the substantial number of applicants and beneficiaries under the family allowances program, it is understandable that errors which result in a person or agency being denied an allowance may be made from time to time. While the Act does allow for retroactive payment of benefits of up to one year, cases may occur in which a loss of benefits extends beyond this retroactive period. If this amendment is approved, as I hope it will be, remedial action to rectify the consequences of erroneous advice or administrative error will be possible where it is demonstrated that a loss of benefit entitlement has occurred as a direct result of such errors.
Another proposal in the Bill would provide the Minister of National Health and Welfare with discretionary authority to remit or forgive an overpayment of family allowances under certain circumstances. Currently, in cases where it is determined that an overpayment of allowances has been made, the administration has no alternative under the terms of the Act but to proceed with the recovery of the overpayment, even though it might be excessively costly relative to the amount owed or take an unreasonable length of time to do so.
This amendment would give the Minister discretionary authority to remit benefit overpayments under these circumstances, as well as where the recovery of an overpayment would cause the debtor undue hardship or where the overpayment arose as a direct result of administrative error or erroneous advice on the part of a departmental official. I should say tangentially, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment would bring the Family Allowances Act in line with some other Acts relating to benefits paid under certain social programs.
One final amendment that has been included would authorize the Minister, where necessary, for the purposes of the Family Allowances Act, to issue a certificate declaring that a child is presumed to be dead. Unfortunately, we all know of tragic circumstances where a child disappears and there is sufficient evidence to presume that the child is dead. When this happens, the necessary benefit adjustments cannot be made until after a death certificate has been issued, sometimes many years after the child's disappearance. The proposed amendment would authorize the Minister, where the circumstances of the disappearance warrant it, to issue a certificate declaring that the child is presumed to be dead for the purposes of the Act and stating the date on which the death is presumed to have occurred. This will help families in terms of estate planning and so forth.
Family Allowances Act
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe this Bill merits the support of the House. It is part of a restructuring of the child benefits system which will ensure that the benefits given to families with children are distributed on a fairer and more rational basis. It will help improve the grave fiscal situation which faces us as a nation, and it will make the day-to-day administration of the Family Allowances Act more humane and flexible. Therefore, I move that this Bill be given second reading and referred to the appropriate committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of my remarks this morning I would like to indicate that the title of this Bill should be changed to "An Act to reflect Broken Promises and Lost Opportunities on behalf of the Conservative Government". I am glad to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is going to remain in his seat and I trust that the members of his caucus will do the same in order that I can take them for a waltz down memory lane to remind them of some of the promises that the leading spokesman for their Party made during the months leading up to the election last September 4.
In November, 1983, the leading spokesman for that Party, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), said, "If the Tories do monkey with the family allowance they would be able to do so only in their first year of power, and only if the public wanted to make more sacrifices". Three months later the present Minister of Justice said, "You have to be tough, mean, and nasty and do all kinds of unpleasant things. That's why I am not going to outline what they would do now, that's for a Government to do". How prophetic and truthful! He is one of one of the few spokesmen from the government front benches who told the truth before the election.
Let me remind Members opposite of some campaign promises made during the summer of the election of 1984. In August, 1984, their leader said:
Yes, I can give you the assurance that no social programs at all, affecting anyone in need shall be touched by a Progressive Conservative government. I can give you that without hesitation.


Mr. McDermid:: Anyone in need, the operative words.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The Member opposite mentions the words "anyone in need". I am leading up to that in my premise. If he pays as much attention to the end of my speech as he did to my initial remarks, I will show him how people in need with family incomes of $9,000 a year will lose purchasing power as a result of his Conservative Budget. I will not even mention the Prime Minister's statement about sacred trust which he made a year ago. Let us consider the period immediately following the election of the Conservative Government. Last November 9, the Minister of Finance stated:
We feel there is a real opportunity here to put a greater degree of focus on those who need it most and still leave some money on the table that can be used for either deficit reduction or application in other ways to make a stronger economy.

September 16, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Ten days later, in another interview, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that social benefits taxed back from the rich would be given to the needy if the federal government decides to end universality. The money would absolutely not be used to reduce the deficit.
What the Prime Minister said only 10 months ago is totally at loggerheads with what happened six months later in the budget of May 23.
What did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) say at that time? In December, 1984, he rallied behind the Prime Minister's suggestion that the Government reduce social benefits for high income Canadians to help channel more to the poor. All of these promises contain the premise that if any of those benefits to our middle income or other sectors of our Canadian economy will be reduced, they will be channelled to those who need them the most.
In that same interview to UPC on December 14 last year, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said:
None of the saved benefits would reduce the deficit and there will be no means test.
I agree that there are no means tests, but when he suggests that as a result of the May 23 Budget the benefits would not be used to reduce the deficit, the facts belie the case.
Let me remind Members opposite of the other remarks they made about deindexation. For instance:
Deindexing is a scheme to guarantee that you will pay higher federal income taxes year after year after year.
They said:
Deindexing would take away the protection you now have against inflation.
I will reveal who made these quotes later. They went on to say that deindexing would impose the greatest economic hardship on people living on low income and would mean higher and higher taxes for all on any income at all. They said that taxes would increase as inflation continues to spiral upward.
They also went on to point out that deindexing would raise a lot of money. I will point out the truth of that fact as I analyse the budget numbers.
They also said:
Indexing was our idea in the first place. And we are determined that you should continue to receive this fundamental protection against inflation. But we need your help and it is time for all Canadians to speak up.
This was not taken from an advertisement run by the Liberal Party of Canada. It is contained in a message from the Progressive Conservative Party of Canda, published midway through the last mandate.
Let me put some of these promises in the context of what I want to say this morning. I noticed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare selectively quoted from the MacDonald Commission Report.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No. I didn't quote from it at all.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I will check, but I thought that he referred to the MacDonald Commission.
However, my remarks this morning will take into consideration some of the recommendations made by the MacDonald Commission and other national organizations that report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and with advice about what the Government's social policy should be.
The McDonald Report contends that Canada's total level of spending on social programs, which, in 1981, was in the lower one-third of countries belonging to the Organization for Cooperation and Development, should at least be maintained. The commission also declared that it does not fear for the future sustainability of our income transfer programs. Nor does it believe that short-time budgetary problems should be solved through cut-backs in this area, something totally opposite to the thrust of the social and economic policy of the Wilson Budget of May 23.
Let me talk a little bit about the Budget. I notice that the Minister of National Health and Welfare chose only to address those matters specifically within the realm of Bill C-70, but I think the general thrust of the budget measures should be taken into account. Once again, opposition Members of this Parliament will have to rise to defend average and low-income Canadians. We went through a similar debate in June with respect to deindexation of senior citizens pensions. I must say I am proud that we helped to lead the fight to reverse the Government's thrust in that area, and 1 give credit to the Government for its common sense in listening to senior citizens. I hope the Government listens equally well to those average income and low-income Canadians, and reverses the measures placed before us in Bill C-70.
Let us look at the proposals in the Budget and what effect they will have on total family income. This summer we have heard from women's groups and national organizations that represent poverty groups, the National Council on Social Development and the National Council on Welfare, all of which state that this Government's social policy is perverse and totally opposite to what is required to give poor people a reasonable good standard of living.
This Government has chosen to introduce capital gains exemptions for the rich in our society. I have no quarrel with some of the other recommendations, for example, limits on registered retirement savings plans. But the Government has chosen not only to deindex family benefits but to deindex personal exemptions. This means that every family by 1990 whether earning $9,000, $35,000 or $80,000 a year will lose purchasing power. That is the reality. This is the Budget in which the multinationals will get significant taxbreaks. If we were worried about the size of the federal deficit, why is it that we have cut-backs in social programs yet allow these kinds of rip-offs to occur that add to the size of the federal deficit?
That is the question at the heart of the debate today, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-70 is another example of broken Tory promises. Let me give a short outline. Both Mulroney and Epp promised that any savings in social spending would go back into the social policy envelope, not on deficit reduction.
September 16, 1985


An Hon. Member:: Who?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Instead, savings will go into deficit reduction. What effect will a $1 billion bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank do to Wilson's deficit reduction plan?


An Hon. Member:: Who?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: It is very simple to me. The Minister of Finance is quite capable of finding $1 billion to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank while sticking by his decision to cut back in areas of the social envelope.
What did we get specifically in this Budget? We ended up with an erosion in family benefits, meaning less benefits by 1990 to low and middle-income Canadians. The Budget will increase consumer and gasoline taxes. The Budget will impose taxes on health goods. We had a Budget that attempted to deindex senior citizens' security pensions, but was withdrawn under fierce opposition. We have a Budget that will deindex personal income tax exemption. These changes will hit lower income Canadians the hardest. All low-income Canadians will have to pay income tax and lose a proportion of their family allowance gain while the richest Canadians will benefit from the capital gains exemption.
I will give numbers from an analysis done by an independent board of advisers to the Minister of National health and Welfare. These numbers cannot be disputed because they were accepted by the Finance Minister in questions put to him in the House of Commons last June. The analysis shows that the Government's direction in social policy is completely at odds with policy directions recommended by all national organizations advising Government.
I find it perverse that a Government wanting to stimulate the Canadian economy and get growth at the same rate as that south of the border would choose to bring in a Budget eroding the spending power of lower and middle-income Canadians. This Budget will make the poor poorer and the rich richer, yet the Government expects Canadians to have the political will to follow its general thrust. This Budget has broad fiscal overtones completely opposed to those in the United States.
We have many Conservatives pointing to the economic recovery program south of the border. Great growth has occurred in the United States in the last four years. At the same time, great growth in the deficit has occurred. If one wants to analyse it, one could say, in a reverse, despite the fact that President Reagan would never admit it-I do not think he would even understand-that he has been more of a follower of Keynes economic theory than any United States President since Roosevelt.
In order to achieve growth the Americans granted average income Americans tax cuts and increased taxes for big corporations. That was the general over-all fiscal policy of the United States Government in the last four years, completely opposite to what was brought in here in the May 23 Budget.
Let me outline numbers and give specifics. We had a decrease in purchasing power to average and low-income Canadians. We have had income tax increases and corporate
Family Allowances Act
tax cuts. Specifically, families with two children and an income of $20,000 a year will lose over $900 in spending power by 1990, through eroded child benefits, increased consumptive taxes and increased income taxes.
Talking about perverse social logic, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Budget on May 23, three-quarters of a million Canadians who are presently above Stats-Canada's poverty line will fall below that poverty line by 1990. In addition, let us take another area of thrust with respect to young families. In the Budget of May 23, the Minister removed the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, a tool used by young people, 75 per cent of whom are between the ages of 20 and 28. No longer can young families put aside money toward buying a home through the RHOSP.
Let us examine some of the fundamental philosophy behind the introduction of family allowances by previous Governments. First, it was recognized that the family allowance is a tangible recognition that all parents make a contribution to society by raising children who are future citizens and members of the labour force. It is an especially significant program for women. That is why women's groups defend the family allowance so vigorously. Even for more affluent families it is often the only independent source of income for women in cases where husbands refuse to provide their wives and their children with income.
Let us take a look at the importance to single parent mother-lead families of family allowances. Family benefits have an important role in supplementing incomes for poor families. It also compensates for the fact that the wage system does not make adjustments for the extra responsibility of large families. That was at the heart of the philosophy behind the introduction of family benefits in previous years. Needless to say, family benefits stimulate the economy by putting purchasing power into the hands of low and middle-income Canadians. That ends my review of the over-all general thrust of the Conservative Budget of May 23, 1985.
MO)
I should now like to focus for a moment on some of the specifics as a result of the changes in Bill C-70. It is indicated that the family allowance will be deindexed from 1986 onward. The child tax credit will be raised to $454 per child in 1986, rising to $489 in 1987 and peaking at $524 in 1988. The Minister of National Health and Welfare refused to recognize in his opening remarks that beginning in 1989 the child tax credit would be deindexed along with the other proposals. As a result of the deindexation of the child tax credit, even those who will receive an initial benefit from the program change, those who are the poorest of the poor, will receive that increased benefit only from 1986 to 1989. In 1989 and beyond, even a family, God forbid, living on $9,000 per year will lose benefits under the program. What kind of perverse social policy are the back-benchers of the Conservative Party supporting? That is the effect of that one item.
In addition, the Minister of National Health and Welfare conveniently overlooked, in terms of the recommendations

September 16, 1985
Family Allowances Act
made by his own standing committee, the turning point or the point at which middle income Canadians begin to lose benefits. The effect of Bill C-70 is that the turnover point will be lowered from $26,333 today to $23,500 tomorrow, and then it will even be partially deindexed. Even the definition of Statistics Canada of medium family income is $34,500. In effect the Government is suggesting through this Bill that families at $26,000 per year should lose benefits. It is incredible that the Government would consider that the average Inco worker in Sudbury, the average steelworker in Hamilton or the average worker in Thunder Bay should begin to lose benefits under the family benefits package. That tells me everything about 14 years of Tory think-tanks on social policy. A combination of all these changes will cause lower and middle-income Canadian families to be hit the hardest.
Let us take a look at the effects on Canadian families. By 1990, including the changes to personal income taxes and to the family benefits package, a two-earner, two-child family earning $15,000 per year will lose $1,879 in purchasing power as a result of the Bill. A family earning $80,000, or almost six times the amount which I just mentioned, will only lose $1,125. Therefore, low-income families will lose $755 more per year than high-income families, and middle-income families will lose three times as much as high-income earners. What kind of perverse logic leads a Government to bring in such a Bill? At the same time, the capital gains exemption and pension deductions mainly benefit high-income earners. As a result of the capital gains exemption, those with incomes of over $100,000 per year will receive more than $600 million in tax benefits, while changes to the Child Tax Credit and the child tax exemption will save the Government only $155 million. If we take the Minister of National Health and Welfare at his word when he indicates that he is worried about the size of the federal deficit, how can he, in defending the rights of low and middle-income earners, sit around a Cabinet table which brings in a Budget to make the rich richer and the poor poorer? It is beyond belief.
As I stated earlier, the savings of the Government will go toward deficit reduction. It will not go back into the social policy envelope, as was recommended by every national advisory group. This Government prided itself in consultation. It said that the reason for the 10-month delay in the introduction of the Budget was to ensure proper consultation with all groups in society. Every one of those groups recommended the total opposite to what was brought in. What was the point of the charade of consultation if the advice given was not taken?
What do groups at arms length from Government have to say about the over-all thrust of the Conservative Budget and this Bill in particular? The Canadian Council on Social Development, funded by the federal Government, has been giving advice to the Government of the nation for years. It indicated that the Budget would decrease the buying power of a typical family with two children by more than $1,000 in 1990. It went on to point out that the poor, middle-income earners and the elderly would lose more as a percentage of income in real
terms. Let us note, in particular, the economic thrust and direction of the Budget.
Instead of confusing everyone by using figures such as $4.50 per month and by talking about individuals, I should like to talk about what happens to the percentage of disposable income of Canadians as a result of the budgetary measures of May 23. A family earning a gross income of $10,000 will lose 4 per cent of disposable income by 1990, whereas a family earning $20,000 will lose 4.5 per cent of disposable income. However, the family earning $50,000 will gain .7 per cent. As a result of this budget exercise, a family earning $10,000 per year will lose 4 per cent of disposable income and a family earning $50,000 per year will gain almost 1 per cent.
How can the Conservatives rise in the House of Commons and tell us that the Budget will help to redirect savings toward those who need them the most when it goes totally opposite to the direction intended? If that is the case, the least they can do is bring in a Bill which reverses the direction of May 23. As a result of deindexation, by 1990 the Government will gain $4.5 billion. It managed to give to the multinationals $2 billion worth of tax credits as a result of the changes to the National Energy Program. At a time when it proposes to take away $2 billion by 1990 from health and post-secondary education, it gives away $1.5 billion on capital gains exemption. That will be the cost to the federal Treasury. The effect of the Budget on the social and economic sectors of the economy will be totally opposite to that put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If one looks at the deficit reduction and at where the moneys for that deficit reduction will come from through tax increases and expenditure cuts, primarily it will be achieved- and this is no surprise-in the social sectors. As a matter of fact, collectively the deindexation of income tax, the removal of the federal tax deduction and the changes to the child benefits system will account for almost $5.5 billion of that cut. If we look at the over-all thrust of the Budget, the big gains will be made in the area of corporate income tax, by multinational oil companies, and in the area of transfers to other corporations. The lack of logic of the Government in bringing in this Budget is incredible. The National Council on Welfare indicated that the recommendations in Bill C-70 and in the Budget would hurt many low-income families and individials in all age groups. It went on to indicate that their losses would amount to hundreds of dollars per year and would grow larger as time went on. In addition, it went on to explain how proposed changes to the personal income tax system would increase the tax bill of lower and middle-income Canadians and would actually lighten the tax burden of many upper-income taxpayers. It pointed out that a two-earner couple supporting two children on $15,000 per year would pay $135 more in federal and provincial income taxes next year, that the same size of family with a combined income of $35,000 would pay a $192 increase in taxes, but that an $80,000 per year family would actually enjoy a tax saving of $650 per year.
September 16, 1985

So what hypocrisy it is to stand and tell me, as a Conservative Government, that the thrust of your Government is to try to get more money into the hands of those who need it most!
All other families, Mr. Speaker, including many below the poverty line, will lose child benefits from 1986 onward if the Budget's proposals are implemented. I cannot stress enough the hypocrisy of this Government in these recommendations.
What did the Canadian Council on Children and Youth have to say about this Budget, Mr. Speaker? In pre-Budget consultations with the Government, here is what it recommended: preserve the universality of the family allowances and as a tax benefit-the Government listened to it-eliminate the child tax exemption partially; raise the child tax credit for low-income families partially; raise the threshold at which child tax credit is recaptured. To the last one the Government did not listen at all. Here is what the Government ended up doing. It deindexed the family allowances. It reduced the child tax exemption by 34 per cent over three years and subject to deindexation. It increased the child tax credit by 140 over three years but chose to deindex it after 1988, which means even the poorest of the poor will lose under this proposal beginning in 1990. It indicated that middle-income families will be the hardest hit and bear the brunt of these changes.
I just want to talk a bit about what we believe, as the Liberal Party, should be the principles inherent as a guide to the creation of a new child benefit system.
First, we believe that universality of family allowances should be maintained; second, low-income earners should receive more than those in the upper-income brackets; and higher benefits should be paid to lower-income families. That is a policy direction that we believe in. We believe that indexation should be maintained and that family benefits should be adjusted to reflect changes in the cost of living.
Last but not least, and most important, the sharing of the cost of these universal programs should be borne and shared by all taxpayers, corporate and individuals, through a fair taxation system. That is inherent in this. In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative Government is not taking the recommendations of the OECD surveys, or the Macdonald Report which raised this issue previously, that the percentage of dollars of the federal Budget that is going towards, those areas that are reflected in social policy envelopes should be increased.
I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, as well, that the Liberal Party over the next weeks and months ahead will be launching an operation called Operation Justice. I do not know if the Minister of National Health and Welfare remembers that we launched a similar program in June to convince the Government about the unfairness of the plan to deindex senior citizens pensions.
We are asking, Mr. Speaker, all the senior citizens groups in this country to help to get the people's opposition to this plan to change family benefits read into the record and brought
Family Allowances Act
back forcefully to every one of the MPs as they go home to their own ridings.
I point out as well that the middle class is especially hard hit by the Budget in this Operation Justice and requests help from not only the groups that represent the poor in our society, but from Members of Parliament, the Conservative Members of Parliament, who have an obligation, to bring forward the viewpoints of middle-income and low-income Canadians to the floor of the House of Commons and not sit back and clap like seals as the Government brings in a program that is going to devastate low and middle-income Canadians.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to move the following motion as follows;
That the main motion be amended deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting therefor:
Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be not now
read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I understood that I would speak, first of all, to the Member's motion that was just put forward, and then speak to Bill C-70.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am recognizing the Hon. Member to speak. She will have 40 minutes to speak under Standing Order 36(2). While I look at the motion, the Hon. Member can have her 40 minutes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise really with a feeling of sadness to speak to Bill C-70 because, jsut as we feel that the Budget had such a sad impact on families and pensioners in our country, this Bill certainly symbolizes once again how this Government really is prepared to conduct an attack on children and families as well as to allow an erosion of our universal programs. Canadians have seen the erosion of social programs such as the family allowance which is a social contract with them establishing rights for children, regardless of income.
I think we all recall, Mr. Speaker, last spring when pensioners across this country rose up in indignation and anger to demand their right to have fully indexed pensions. They, of course, mobilized considerable support across the country. Many of us went out to work with them in this very important endeavour and, as a result, they were able to convince the Government that it had made a mistake. Pensioners convinced the Government politically; I'm not sure, when I see this Bill, that they convinced it morally that it had made a mistake when it proposed to deindex a universal social program.
As a result of the campaign we know now, it is history, that the Government was forced to back down and to admit that it was wrong. After a protracted attack from both opposition parties, but particularly from the NDP Party, senior groups and their supporters across this country, the decision was reversed. Fully indexed old age pensions were retained as a universal right. I disagree profoundly with the Minister and I think we need to stress very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that to deindex old age pensions or family allowances is to play around with the whole concept of universality and to erode
6626

September 16, 1985
Family Allowances Act
that concept. That is what we are doing to family allowances through Bill C-70.
Mr. Speaker, the polls show that this Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was left with a legacy of mistrust and skepticism as a result of his broken promises, and what he proposed to do to senior citizens.
Now we have Bill C-70, a Bill which in effect will do the same thing to families and children. It will reduce the indexation on family allowance by 3 per cent and is repeating the same cynical and senseless attack on a universal social program, a program which Canadians have long seen as a social right. The same principles and objections apply to the reduced indexation on family allowances as apply to old age pensions, so therefore the Government should be listening to people and applying the same kinds of changes in policy as were applied to pensions in the spring. They promised, as we know, Mr. Speaker, to keep universality sacrosanct, that it was a sacred trust, and then they have broken their promises once again. This time, of course, the attack is on families and children. I cannot help but think that it is much easier to attack children than it is to attack old age pensioners. Children do not vote; their parents are busy working and the children grow up very quickly. The amount of money expended for the Family Allowances Program is not as large as that expended for the Old Age Security Program. Therefore, that is another reason why I think it would have been sensible and morally responsible of the Minister to have changed this intention that was reflected in the Budget and to have refused to deindex family allowances.
The Government continues its practice of saying one thing and doing another. This Minister of National Health and Welfare is the epitome of this. He really symbolizes this to the greatest extent of anyone in the Government, except perhaps for the Prime Minister. On repeated occasions, and again last week in the House, he has said that he has a very strong commitment to the importance of the family. I just want to quote what he said on September 11 in a response to a question from one of the opposition Members. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has recognized the importance that both the Government and Canadian society place on the family unit. 1 think many of us in this House and in society generally feel that that concept had to be strengthened, that there were certain trends in society that were possibly reducing the importance of the family.
Listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
This Government wants to bring forward initiatives that will enhance both the Government's position relative to the family, but more important, show that the family is the cornerstone of society.
The Minister is saying that the family is so important while he is introducing Bill C-70, a Bill which attacks all families, not only one segment of society. He is attacking a universal program and he has the gall to put forward in his patronizing manner the point that he cares about families, that they are the basis of his social policy and that he is particularly concerned about those in greatest need. I cannot help but conclude, and I believe most Canadians would conclude, that
just as the Government's policy with pensioners was hypocritical, the same can be said about the family allowance policy.
As I said, the Minister has repeated that the Government is concerned with helping those in greatest need. That is just phoney rhetoric. The facts show that the Conservative Budget represents an attack on the poorest families in our society while rich families continue to benefit. I will elaborate on this further later in my remarks.
The reduction to the family allowance which this Bill implements is only one of the ways in which the Government is undermining families and children. Added to the erosion of family allowances in the lowering of the income limit to be eligible for the child tax credit. The token increase in the child tax credit over whith the Minister tends to gloat does not even cover the increased sales taxes that those same poor families will be forced to pay. The sales taxes on gas, energy products, health products and comforts contained in the last Budget will cost the average family over $1,000 in buying power by 1990 according to the Canadian Council on Social Development.
I would like to point out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) that he is the Minister who is responsible for health. He has supported taxes on essential drugs and medications for patients suffering from arthritis, cancer, glaucoma and heart disease. This again is the way that he is treating those in greatest need and those in our society who are suffering. In contrast to that, we know how the Government treats the banks and the oil companies.
The Minister, who seems to be amused by this particular approach, has taken the initiative to reduce other services to families. He has cut services to Planned Parenthood at the very time when we need these services to be enlarged across the country, particularly in order to help young adolescents, a group among whom there is a very high incidence of pregnancy. There are cuts in social housing. Rents are going up to 30 per cent of income and responsibility for social housing will apparently be turned over to the provinces. We in British Columbia know what that will do to families.
As well, the Government has decreased transfer payments to provinces for health care and education services by $2 billion. This will also have a tremendous impact on families and will hurt families in which the breadwinner is unemployed, poor families and marginal families in which the breadwinner is struggling to find a job, take training or maintain the health of the family.
Some months ago, the Minister asked for consultation. Then he assigned the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare to the task of looking at some of the consultation papers and briefs that had been presented by witnesses. As the Hon. Member who just spoke will confirm, we spent weeks and weeks doing this. Both the recommendations of witnesses and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare were in effect ignored by the Minister. It is obvious that his motivation and that of the Government was to cut family benefits in order to save money rather than to reform benefits in a very progressive way.
September 16, 1985

In his Blue Paper to the Standing Committee, the Minister stated that savings from the changes to family benefits would not be aimed at reducing the deficit. Yet today, if I understood him correctly, he admitted in his opening remarks that that was one of the objectives of this program.
Most witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs advocated full indexation of family allowances and the maintaining of universal family programs which recognize all of Canada's children. They also supported the position, which we advocated very strongly, that all citizens of Canada should contribute to the cost of programs for Canada's children as they are a resource that belongs to all of us, not only to the parents who are raising individual children. Most witnesses therefore asked for full indexation of family allowances and wanted a removal of the regressive child tax exemption, a tax provision that progressively helps those with higher incomes and does not help in the slightest poor families that pay no taxes. They also wanted to see a significant increase in the child tax credit. Our Party called for an increase of 80 per cent in the child tax credit if the child tax exemption could be removed and other tax reforms instituted to cover this. This measure would be targeted particularly to lower income people but should also affect families with average incomes, families that have higher expenses than families without children.
The witnesses urged that all monies should go to increased family benefits and not go toward other social programs or the deficit. They urged particularly that there not be a transfer of any savings to the provinces. The Minister has completely ignored almost all of these recommendations. He has taken a completely different tack. Instead of being a reform, this legislation is a token juggling around which adds up to a very negative change as it affects most families.
In addition to reducing indexation on both the family allowance and the child tax credit, the Government has agreed to cut the child tax exemption after several years, but the exemption will only be cut partially. It will not be removed as was advocated by most witnesses. It will go down to about the same level as the family allowance. The child tax credit will have only a token increase of $70 this year, but more than that amount of money will be required by families to pay the increased sales taxes. The income level at which families will be eligible for the child tax credit has also been reduced. Families that earn over $23,500 per year will quickly be phased out of eligibility for the child tax credit.
Over-all, we have a situation in which wealthier families retain tax exemptions for children, the poor have only token increases in the child tax credit along with heavier expenses as a result of the Budget, and middle-income families, as usual, will pay the most taxes and reap the least benefits in proportion to the taxes paid. However, let us take a look at who really benefits as a result of changes and modifications to the family benefits.
Despite the promise not to take monies out of the family benefits to pay for the deficit, the Government will save approximately $130 million in 1986 and up to $600 million by
Family Allowances Act
1990 while families will lose this amount of money in direct family benefits. If this is not a contradiction of the original philosophy that the Minister, in his patronizing manner, was espousing, I do not know what is. I wish he would own up to that. This is the way the Minister of National Health and Welfare is treating families, families which, as he says, are the foundation of our society. This is the way he helps families that are most in need.
The Canadian Council on Social Development did an analysis of the impact of a 3 per cent reduction in indexation of family allowances combined with the other changes to family benefits which the Budget will implement. It definitely refutes the Minister's claim that he is helping families in the greatest need. The CCSD concludes that all families will be the losers of family benefits by the years 1990-91. Even the very poorest family, that is, a single parent with two children who earns under $10,000 a year, will lose under these revisions. By 1990, this family will receive $25 less per year than it receives now, while the Minister extols the fact that he is giving more to the poor. The CCSD says that that is not true, that its facts show he will be giving less. Families in the $20,000 income range will lose $191 in family benefits. Those earning $30,000, which is still a modest income for a family with two children, will have family benefits reduced by $191. Clearly, the Budget did not redistribute benefits from the rich to poor families at all. In fact, what this Government has done is to take money out of family benefits altogether. As I have just said, this must have been the motive. I think the Minister admitted to that today, even though in his position papers he stated this was not to be the objective. The Government has definitely been taking money out of the program to help with the deficit. This also applies to the provinces which will save money off the backs of families. According to the CCSD, $135 million will be withdrawn from family benefits by 1986; by 1990-91, some $600 million will be lost to Canada's children. As 1 have said, the provincial and federal Treasuries will be the beneficiaries of this money.
The New Democratic Party is not the only group to criticize the 3 per cent reduction in family allowance which Bill C-70 proposes to implement. Most social policy groups and women's groups across Canada have been highly critical and they are becoming very disillusioned. Most of these groups made a sincere attempt to present positive, realistic alternatives which would not cost the Government a great deal of money but, instead, would realign existing moneys. The six groups which now form part of the Social Policy Reform Group, which is a coalition of social reform groups, tried to present alternatives in a sincere and constructive manner. These groups are now disillusioned by the tack the Minister has taken. The Executive Director of the Canadian Council on Social Development had this to say with respect to the matter:
Changes to child benefits affect the very programs that help the neediest Canadians.

September 16, 1985
Family Allowances Act
This is what the National Council on Welfare had to say:
Changes in the Budget to deindex those benefits, coupled with increases to personal income taxes, will result in more hardship to the poor, who will eventually lose more than the rich.
The Director of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Sylvia Gold, said:
The economic security of women with children at home is threatened by deindexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. We strenuously object to this chipping away of family benefits; these cuts may not seem major to high income people, but they will have a serious effect on families with moderate and low incomes.
I wish to tell Hon. Members that I have contact with many women's groups across the country. They strongly oppose any reduction to family allowance benefits. This is an attack on their children and an attack on them. It is an attack which is not to be tolerated. I hope they will be able to get their message across loud and clear to the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with respect to how damaging this policy is. It is a policy which is a continuation of a process which the Liberals started. I agree with what the Minister had to say in his outline of the Liberal history. However, I do not know how he can justify his comments when, on the one hand, he criticizes the Liberals and, on the other hand, he says that his Government is bad, too-just not quite as bad. I think the Minister is worse because he is continuing the erosion and not reversing it. It is hurting families and children across our land.
The purpose and effects of Bill C-70 are far more significant than just the 3 per cent reduction in family allowance. Perhaps this will not be noticed by a great many people, particularly fairly comfortable families. However, I can tell Hon. Members it will be noticed by families which are budgeting hard and simply do not have money in their budgets or their pockets to cover food and rent. What this move represents is an attack on the whole concept of the universal family program which was designed by our forefathers to help in the rearing of Canada's children and which was designed to recognize all of Canada's children.
As 1 have said, the Liberals began the process of reducing the amount of family allowance. They are to blame. I challenge the member of the Liberal Party who just spoke to be more honest in his self-appraisal. The Liberals refused to make a truly effective program with a more progressive tax system to go along with it which would have targeted benefits of a universal program to those in low income groups. Instead, they reduced the family allowance. They added a selective program, the child tax credit, for low income families and they changed the tax system so that, in fact, higher income earners received more benefits and more exemptions. The implementation of selective programs allowed them to ignore the need for tax reform. They further eroded the universal family allowance by imposing six and five restrictions on indexation in 1984. This was the beginning of the precedent which helps to justify the measures being taken by the Conservative Government with respect to Bill C-70. It is unethical and damaging. In my view, it is abominable.
I wish to reiterate what I have said many times in the House on different occasions. I think it is important to repeat it. Why
is it important to maintain a fully indexed universal family allowance? The universal family allowance recognizes the value which society places on child rearing. It is not just an amount of money; it is recognition of the fact that children belong to us all. They are the next generation; they are a human resource. Parents who take on the sometimes difficult and costly job of rearing children should be recognized.
The universal family allowance program contributes to parenting and to the costs of child rearing. I greatly admire the contribution made by the women of this country and 1 hope that, increasingly, fathers can be included in the realm of child rearing full-time.
Mir. McDermid: That is a sexist statement.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is not a sexist remark at all, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope more fathers will take time off to help in the rearing of their children full-time when it is suited to the families. Parenting should be a shared responsibility.
The fact is that family allowances are paid for by all taxpayers. This is the means by which those of us who do not have children contribute to the next generation.
The family allowance is paid to the main parenting person, which could be the father. However, because of circumstances, it is usually the mother. As has already been stated, for many women this is the only cheque they receive in their own names. This morning I was on the red eye special in order to be on time for this momentous meeting of the House. 1 had the opportunity of speaking to two men on the plane. I was interested in one gentleman who is an accountant who told me that he thought the family allowance was great. He asked me why it went to his wife when he is the one who has to pay the taxes on it. I asked him if his wife had any form of income, and he told me that she did not. He soon realized that the family allowance cheque was the only income his wife had in her name, even though he had a considerable income. He also realized that the funds went to his children in the form of clothing allowances. He thinks it is very much needed. He did not want to give up the family allowance even though he himself is in fairly comfortable circumstances. He recounted to me the struggles he had in his student years and how the money was needed even more at that time. It is really small recognition for the many long hours, love and stress which go into parenting. Some mothers who are working use the money to help pay for the cost of child care. We need more help for child care in the country. Parents on average incomes use it to help buy costly winter coats and clothing and to help cover schooling costs and other activities which help their children to grow up and mature with a broad range of interests.
Poor mothers and poor families, of course, are the most desperate. I want to tell those Hon. Members who are heckling across the way that I hope they have talked to some mothers who are on welfare these days, because in my riding, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is no laughing matter. Mothers have a welfare cheque which lasts about two weeks, if they are lucky,
September 16, 1985

and that is with absolutely no comforts of any kind. It is just basic food, rent and transportation. By the third week they are down at food banks trying to get money. They are desperate for their family allowance cheque which immediately goes for either rent or food. By the fourth week some of them are out soliciting on the streets because they cannot afford to feed their families. That is how bad it is. And we are taking the indexation off their family allowance cheque as well as providing insulting kinds of increases to the child tax credit which should have been much higher.
Another thing which I believe is important about the family allowances is that the cheque comes on a monthly basis. Low income families also very much appreciate the fact that the child tax credit is an additional bonus on an annual basis. They like it as a larger amount, according to the national anti-poverty group, because it is the only way they can pay for certain larger household items. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that poor families and families on welfare have no access to credit whatsoever and have to pay top prices for all their consumer goods.
I would like to say as well, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that the family allowance and old age pensions remain universal programs because they are paid out to everyone as a right. There is no stigma and no need for a huge bureaucracy to deal with individual cases through a means test. It is declared on income tax forms and partially recovered from those on higher incomes. The family allowance is especially important because it is one of the few benefits which go to middle income earners who carry the greatest tax burden to pay for our social programs.
These programs are also important politically. I would urge the Minister to think of that as well because he is going to get lots of backlash from the middle class in Canada-it has started already-who realize that they are the ones who are paying more the costs of all of the items in the Budget as well as the deficit and they, in turn, are going to have their one small benefit, the family allowance, made smaller by reduced indexation. So a very important political factor is involved in maintaining support for our universal social programs.
A fully indexed family allowance is a basic component of our Canadian social policy. Parents feel that this is their social right to which they are contributing by raising Canada's children. And they are right. It is a social contract we have with families just as we have with old age pensioners. This is the same principle as that of the universal old age pensions. We are very proud of our social security system in Canada which Hon. Members of our Party fought for and pressured the Liberals to bring in in the early 1930s. We are proud of our medicare, our hospitalization plan, our public educational system and our Unemployment Insurance Act, just as we are proud of universal family allowances and old age security. These are programs which this Government seems intent to erode, and this Minister, particularly, has no conscience about deindexing. This kind of partial deindexation now is just the first step, Mr. Speaker. There is no question in my mind that it
Family Allowances Act
is a first step which will eventually lead to the erosion of our social net if we do not protest and stop it now.
I must deplore the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is advocating a 3 per cent deindexation while he says over and over again-he said it again today-that he supports universality. I am sick and tired of those platitudes. He says he supports universality and this is not in any way eroding our universal family program. That is ridiculous. It is eroding it. It is reducing the amount of money which will go into the pockets of low income families and every year it will be reduced even more. If that is not reducing universality, I do not know what is.
The Minister's lack of support for universality, I might say, is also reflected in statements he made in reaction to the Macdonald Commission Report, which recently advocated a guaranteed annual income, which really should be called "a guaranteed poverty income", because that is exactly what it is.
I do not have time to go into this today, Mr. Speaker, but I hope we will debate this report at another time.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, according to The Citizen of September 7, hinted he may be prepared to reopen the debate on the universality of social programs after carefully considering the recommendation of the Macdonald Commission. That report, as 1 understand it, does away with universal programs and offers a guaranteed income, which would be guaranteed poverty because it is a fraction of what the minimum poverty rate is in Canada. I feel that that is a pretty shocking kind of statement and I wish the Minister would elaborate on what he meant by saying he would be inclined to support the Macdonald Commission proposals. The decision to deindex family allowances really must be seen in the context not only of broader family benefits-and that is what I have been trying to do today-but also in the context of the need for social policy reform generally. We need real reforms of social policy as it affects families. This kind of piecemeal approach which chips away at its benefits is really detrimental.
Changes in social policy must address the changing needs of today's families with children. I believe we have to look at the whole concept of families today. Families have changed so much and our social policy is not adapting to the different circumstances. Canadians have long recognized that incomes from the market-place failed to take into account the extra responsibilities shouldered by parents. Through tax provisions and family allowances we have taken steps to ensure that families with children do not have to endure a significantly lower standard of living than their childless counterparts. Changing demographics and work patterns make these concerns even more pressing today. I mentioned the number of teenage mothers in society today, and I think the Minister should be not only providing them with adequate incomes but should be trying to prevent, through support for family planning, that very real problem.
Social policy should also address the growing needs of the poor who now number 4.5 million Canadians. This includes 1.5 million children. While one in every six Canadians lives in

September 16, 1985
Family Allowances Act
poverty, the figure for children under 16 is one in five. There are a million and a half people unemployed, according to the figures we had last spring and, certainly in my province, I would be very surprised if that figure has fallen from that. Real family incomes are falling. Salaries still trail inflation rates. Most unions, I believe, would agree with that because of what they have lost over the last few years. Soup kitchens and winter clothing drives are becoming the norm across Canada. Recently, a report of the Anglican Church of Canada, accused both the federal and provincial Governments of shirking their responsibilities by relying on churches and volunteer organizations to feed, clothe and shelter the needy. What we need are sound social policies.
I feel that the kind of trivial remarks which are being made by Hon. Members opposite are really doing a disservice to both churches and poor people, Mr. Speaker.
As the author of the report of the Anglican Church of Canada said:
The State's failure to provide an adequate social support system has widened the gap between the poor and the privileged, plunging the country into another
depression.
The number of poor people rose by 1,100 a day in 1982 and 1983. So we must think of social policy reform, Mr. Speaker, in the context of over-all tax reform. The two are tightly entwined. This is why we regret that the Conservatives refused to talk about tax reforms. We wanted major reforms in the tax system so that we could be more generous, particularly in increasing the child tax credit and maintaining fully indexed family allowances. We proposed several ways of gaining extra income: A return to the pre-1982 marginal tax rates which would have brought in $1.7 billion more and which the Liberals foolhardedly left in the coffers under MacEachen's Budget; the imposition of a 20 per cent minimum tax on Canadians with incomes of $50,000 per year or more. The Prime Minister promised to do something about this we have seen no action. Once again we get words and platitudes but no action.
I want to conclude by saying that we call on Canadians across this land, from all walks of life, to tell this Government that they stand for fully indexed family allowances. It is not simply family allowances by themselves. It is really a basic family benefit program which should be reformed to be of much greater benefit to middle and low income Canadians. I call on those people to begin the fight for reindexation of family allowances just as they fought for reindexation of old age pensions. It is the same principle, the same fight, and I know in my heart from talking to seniors across the land that they care just as much about children as they care about their retired friends who were facing deindexation of their pensions. It is not good enough for the Conservative Government to say the Liberals did it so we can do it too. Surely that is immoral. Fully indexed family allowances are essential if we are to maintain universality as a basic social policy for families. Pensioners understand that. To reduce family allowances by 3 per cent through deindexation is to erode universality. The Minister is shaking his head. Social policy groups which
appeared before our committee have said this and they reiterated it when they opposed the steps he has taken. If this country can afford to subsidize banks and oil companies and increase defence expenditures by billions of dollars, surely we can afford to keep full indexation for family allowances. This Party intends to fight this move as strongly as it can and we will have many speakers before we let this Bill go to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before we carry on with the debate, I would like to say that the Chair has no problem with the motion of the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). The motion is in order.
Resuming debate?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: They do not want to speak on their own Bill. [Translation]


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising the Progressive Conservatives should have adopted as their strategy not to speak to a Bill that is so important to all Canadian families. Usually, when an important Bill is tabled in the House, once the Minister has made its introductory speech he is followed by the Official Opposition, the third party and then by a Government Member speaking in support of the Bill tabled by the Minister. Today, it seems no one could be found on the Government side who had the courage to support and defend the Government's policy. 1 think I know why.
I know why, because since September 4 last year and especially since this Government was sworn in, we have been faced with a series of contradictions and policy changes that have made things very confusing for us on the Opposition side, and now on the Government side, it stands to reason Members are afraid to rise and support this Bill because they do not know whether they should support what was said in the Progressive Conservative Party's pre-election advertising, the statements made by the Minister of Finance last November or the contents of the Throne Speech, or whether they should support the position taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare before the Bill was tabled. In fact, Progressive Conservative Members do not know their Government's position. Faced with these serious contradictions, they thought the best they could do was to say nothing. However, Mr. Speaker, that will not prevent us on this side of the House from reminding Canadians what the real impact will be of Bill C-70 on Canadian families.
We want consideration of this Bill to be postponed, to give all Canadians a chance to find out exactly what Bill C-70 will do and to make their views known to this Government, and 1 am sure that as soon as the Canadian people have had time to speak to their elected representatives, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will want to withdraw the Bill without further ado.
September 16, 1985

Mr. Speaker, thinking back to the months that preceded the 1984 election campaign, I remember advertisements that appeared in this country's English and French newspapers, taking a stand against de-indexation. These advertisements, which were paid for by the Progressive Conservative Party, by the present Government, said for instance that the Progressive Conservative Party was against de-indexation of old age security pensions and family allowances. Subsequently, during the election campaign, we heard those famous words spoken by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party that our social programs were "a sacred trust" that would not be tampered with. Later, Mr. Speaker, in this Government's first official document, the Throne Speech, where the Prime Minister, through the Governor General, announced his Government's intentions, we find that the Government was going to set a priority on strengthening the Canadian family and increasing assistance to families with children.
Mr. Speaker, after all the statements made by Government Members before and after the election, we had a right to expect this Government to introduce a family policy that would increase family benefits and help families in need or on very low incomes and who have children. However, in spite of all the statements and announcements by the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, they are doing the exact opposite, and the net result of this Bill is that the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer.
Why introduce a Bill that is so hard on families, at this stage in our country's history? When we look at statistics on demographic trends in this country, we see that the birth rate is falling and that the demographic "pyramid" reflects a definite aging of our population. If only to establish a consistent population policy, I think an entirely different approach was necessary. Aside from the very genuine needs of medium-and low-income families, and looking in purely demographic terms, what this country needs, as the Throne Speech seemed to indicate, is a family policy, a policy to increase the birth rate. What we have here is a policy that is going to have the exact opposite effect on Canadian families, and especially on those with medium or low incomes.
Mr. Speaker, given the thrust of the section and looking at this Bill in the wider context of budgetary policy, we come to the conclusion that Bill C-70 constitutes an insidious and direct attack against middle and low income families. Indeed, an appropriate review of this measure has to be done within the context of the Budget as a whole. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced his Budget last May he made public a number of tables in an attempt to demonstrate-and on many occasions I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) resort to that argument-that families would stand to benefit since the child tax credit would be increased. That is completely false! I am sure that when the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin) next meets with his constituents he will go to the trouble of telling them that it may be true that the child tax credit will go up. But I hope he will also tell them that the $50 federal tax
Family Allowances Act
exemption will disappear and that, through partial deindexation of income tax, the over-all tax load of middle and low income families will increase. The net result of all this for families in the Gaspe region as well as those in Lac-Saint-Jean, Montreal, Quebec City, and in fact anywhere in Canada, is that they will be directly affected not only by Bill C-70 but by other Budget measures as well which will boost their basic taxes, raise the sales tax and impose new levies on items which had never been taxed before such as medications that people could obtain without prescription. Mr. Speaker, even leaving aside the whole question of the sales tax, I am sure the Hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) will also want to tell his constituents that his Government is about to take hundreds of dollars from families earning as little as $15,000 a year. Right from the beginning the basic theory of this Government was that the bank president was the one to hit because he earns a lot of money. The idea was to take money from the bank president and give it to the needy. Well, Mr. Speaker, now we know how they operate: they can find $1 billion for the bank that collapsed, but they cannot spare a nickel for family allowances. I hope the Hon. Member for Bellechasse will tell everybody that people who earn $80,000 or more a year will not suffer from this measure, quite the contrary, but that the hardest hit will be individuals and families with incomes ranging from $15,000 to $20,000, and there are lots of those in his riding. I hope he will tell them that, beginning in 1990, the child tax credit will be applicable to families with an income of $23,000, not $26,000 as is the case now. Keeping in mind the fact that inflation, although it has gone down, is still hovering at about 3 or 4 per cent, it means that hundreds and hundreds of families will no longer be eligible for the child tax credit. That will be the impact of Bill C-70, that is what we are against and that, Mr. Speaker, is why we ask that consideration of and vote on this Bill be delayed for six months.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, low income families will be hard hit. For instance, in the case of a family with two children where the husband and wife both work for relatively low wages, say $15,000 a year, there is no way one can conclude that the man and woman in the same family who earn $15,000 all told are "knee deep in clover", as the saying goes in the Beauce area. That family, Mr. Speaker, the husband and wife who both work, have two children and earn $15,000 between the two of them, stands to lose $1,844 under this new policy. What does it mean for a family earning $35,000 where the husband and wife both work? Let us say she gets about $15,000 as a secretary and her husband, in technology or some other similar occupation, is paid $20,000. Here again, these are not particularly high wages. These people stand to lose $3,452 annually, if we consider the impact of the child tax credit, changes in exemptions for dependent children and the partial de-indexation of income tax, because after all, Mr. Speaker, what counts is how much money working men and women have left to spend, because if the Government takes with one hand and takes with the other as well-of course they will say they have added to the benefits for family allowances-the purchasing power of a family is going to be restricted, and what the

September 16, 1985
Family Allowances Act
figures show us is that a couple where both man and wife work, with two dependent children, stands to lose $3,452 under this Bill, plus the impact of the Budget on our income tax.
However, if we look at a working couple earning a total of $80,000 per year, we are getting into a higher bracket. Do you know that this couple is going to lose only $1,125, while a couple earning $35,000 will lose $3,400 and the couple earning $15,000 will lose $1,879? This means the real impact of the Bill before the House, together with other budget considerations, will be that the couple whose two salaries total $15,000, with two children, will lose $1,879 per year of their annual income, while a working couple earning a total of $80,000 will lose only $1,125.
I think it is outrageous we should be talking about people losing money, even if they are people who earn $80,000, because throughout the debate prior to the Budget, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) were saying that reforms in social programs would not be aimed at reducing the deficit but that the Government would try to take from the rich to give to the poor. And that is not the case! Everyone is losing money, the couple earning $15,000, the couple earning $35,000 and the couple earning $80,000. Furthermore, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare gave the House information that does not tally with the contents of the Budget, because in the Budget and the Budget documents, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) informed the House that as a result of its new family allowance policy, the government would be able to save $40 million.
Mr. Speaker, the terms I should use to describe this situation are unparliamentary, and you know why I cannot use them, but everyone knows what I mean.
For instance, when we see that single-parent families, and I am thinking of the woman, the secretary earning $15,000 a year who has two dependent children, who stands to lose $1,844. Mr. Speaker, has this Government no compassion? Are they telling us that our society . .. The Prime Minister said that the Government was bankrupt, that they had no more money, so they had to make spending cuts, and in line with Conservative philosophy, the first area to feel those cuts is social programs.
It seems to me someone-it seems to me you, Mr. Speaker, could explain why they do not have the money to pay family allowances but did manage to find $8 billion to spend between now and 1990 on the oil multinationals, whose cash flow per barrel of crude has increased considerably. They had the money to do that. Someone will have to explain why there is no money to help a woman who is the sole breadwinner, with two dependent children, and why by the time this program is implemented, she will be losing $1,800 per year, and why the Minister of Finance was able to find one billion dollars to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank. Someone will have to explain to me and to the Canadian taxpayer why, by the time the program is implemented, a woman with two children and earning $15,000 per year will be losing $1,800, while the
Government can afford to spend one half billion dollars on an icebreaker.
To me, the approach taken by the Progressive Conservative Government is socially unjust and economically unacceptable. It is not true that we are living in a society which cannot afford to look after needy families. And I would suggest that, in 1985, a couple with two dependent children and who earns $15,000 a year could hardly be considered a multimillionnaire family. They have a hard time paying for rent, hydro and food, yet the Government will take $1,879 more from them over the coming years. I fail to understand the logic of this Government. Above all, I do not understand why. Why, particularly after the commitments made by this Government to the Canadian people, after the unequivocal remarks of this Prime Minister who kept repeating throughout the election campaign: Social programs are a sacred trust!
We have seen what this Government did about old age security pensions. And I am saying today that if we look at this Bill in the wider context of other Budget measures we find that it is an unacceptable proposal, a socially unfair Bill, a Bill whose impact will be just as devastating as that of partial deindexation of old age security pensions. I would even say that this Bill will propably have harsher consequences because, in the mid and long terms, it will undermine the very fabric of the Canadian family and affect the demographic evolution of this nation. So much so that, in my judgment, we should not take measures which will make it harder still for people or parents with children to make ends meet. Quite the contrary, we should promote or implement a genuine family policy to help couples who have children and who, from now on, will practically be treated like other couples with similar incomes who, for personal reasons, have decided not to have children.
It goes without saying that, from a tax standpoint, doing away with the exemption for dependent children is a sound proposition. That view is shared by a good many social affairs experts. Some of my colleagues and I have had discussions on that subject in the past, but I have always been concerned by one very specific consideration-why? Deindexing family allowances will reduce their impact, just as reducing child tax exemptions will, but as a result our society will soon end up with a situation where a couple earning $35,000 a year is not eligible for Child Tax Credit, while a next door couple earning exactly the same income, but with three or four dependent children, will be treated exactly the same.
This is not what I call a family policy. If we want to solve the problem and eliminate the undesirable effect which the dependent child tax exemptions is creating for high income families, let us not reduce the basic family allowances by deindexing them! Because, in the end ... I should gladly support a Government decision to completly eliminate the dependent child tax exemption, providing it increases proportionally the basic allowances, so that a family earning $35,000, as most Canadian families do, may at least have access to an additional income to compensate the fact that it must support
September 16, 1985

dependent children. As it now stands, the Government is reducing on both counts by lowering the Child Tax Credit to $23,000. Which means that when the Act comes into force, a married couple with dependent children earning $24,000 or $25,000 will be treated practically the same as a childless couple with the same income.
In my opinion, the policy which this Conservative Government has chosen to follow is not at all consistent with the promises it made when it was in the Opposition, and it is even contrary to what it has promised since coming to power. On the economic level, Mr. Speaker, 95 per cent of these transfers made to low and middle income people are spent on consumer goods; I suggest, therefore, that this Bill is bad because it will reduce the total consumer spending of Canadians.
Because I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that just as the Budget did, Bill C-70 will make the rich richer and the poor poorer, which seems to be this Government's objective.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Keeper:: That is right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 should like to ask a question from the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.
I heard his speech and I want to know how ordinary people could have confidence in his position and that of his party. When his party was sitting on the other side, they had the same policy as the government is advocating today. The Liberal Government deindexed the allowances as did the Progressive Conservatives. Is it possible for the Hon. Member to explain how we can have faith in his position today?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, Canadians can have faith in what I said today for a couple of reasons. In the first place, when considering my record as Minister of Finance in another jurisdiction and the position of the government to which I belonged on family allowances, I had decided as a representative of the government not to tax them, because we thought it would be fairer not to give with one hand and take back with the other-
I should like to add also that on several occasions Members of the New Democratic Party have asked that rather insidious question expecting to draw from it some sort of political prestige, but the Member who has just spoken should indicate that this policy was developed under certain circumstances when inflation had reached 12 and 13 per cent and the Government had asked all Canadians, workers, businesses and those who belonged to various segments of the economy to do their share. It had then been decided that for a given period well delineated in the legislation indexation would be limited to 6 and 5 per cent. As evidence that such a policy was well advised, even if it entailed sacrifices for a short period of time, we had the inflation rate which had then reached 11 and 12 per cent brought down to the point that now it is reduced to
Family Allowances Act
about 4 per cent. Those policies as a whole were successful and beneficial to Canadian families.
This is why I say to the Hon. Member who asked the question that he should not confuse apples and oranges. Governments must react to difficult situations, and 1 could give as an example the French Socialist Government, with which the Hon. Member will probably agree as he shares many aspects of its political phisolophy. The French Government had to respond to certain situations in France, to take some action and to implement policies that more conservative Governments throughout the world would have found it difficult to follow. Particular situations must therefore be faced. In my opinion, when the Hon. Member and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party ask such a question, it should be placed in its true context so that the people who listen to us will not be misled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Another question. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the position taken by the Hon. Member's party. Let us assume that the Government capitulates, backs off from its 3 per cent and retains full indexing. Does the Hon. Member and his Party consider that the movement from family allowances to tax credit is an acceptable direction for social programs?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I believe the Hon. Member will have a couple of minutes to answer that after Question Period.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer very quickly that the child tax credit was implemented by a Liberal Government. I do not see why this would be opposed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
September 16, 1985

[Stage Direction]
[English]	FAMILY ALLOWANCE PROGRAMS

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the textile and footwear industries are responsible for over 2,000 jobs in the constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and many thousands more across Canada. With only a few weeks left in the present quota allocation and total indecision on the part of the Government of Canada, the footwear industry is in a deep climate of uncertainty. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) over the weekend indicated in an interview that Canadians needed to become more competitive on an international basis. This was the second such attack by the Prime Minister on the workers and the industry. One cannot help but wonder which side he is on.
If the Prime Minister wants us to believe that he is on the side of Canadian workers and industry, let him show us proof by adopting a policy, such as that advocated by the Canadian Shoe Manufacturers Association, of import quotas for five years, and of better policing of imports. This Association has not asked for the moon, Mr. Speaker. Its position is balanced and worthy of consideration. It is my hope that the Canadian Government will afford this industry the much-needed protection that it so richly deserves.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, throughout Canada thousands of miners volunteer their time and effort to train for the onerous tasks involved in rescuing their fellows in case of a mining disaster.
Mine rescue teams hone their skills to a high level of competition, the highlight of which is a national competition where top teams from each region compete to decide the national winners.
For several years the National Mine Rescue Competition was held in abeyance, but this year it was reintroduced. It was held last weekend in Glace Bay where the Lingan Phelan Colliery team, ably captained by Mr. Shelly Gouthro, proved its merit by becoming the over-all national champions.
Eight provinces and territories were represented but, unfortunately, Ontario and Quebec were absent. In order to make this a truly national event, our two largest provinces should participate.
Hopefully at the Mines Ministers' conference being held today in Charlottetown it will be decided that a national mine rescue competition will be held on an annual basis and that all mining provinces and territories will take part in this important event.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is following in the tradition of Liberal Governments by reducing the indexation on family allowances. In doing so, the Government is attacking children and families. The Conservatives also are continuing their obvious intention to erode universal social programs, which Canadians consider are a social right.
Canada's children belong to all of us. They are our next generation. They are a rich resource which we must nurture and cherish. We do not want them to grow up into a two-class society of rich and poor. We want to show we care for all children and recognize the responsibility and the costs of parenting. Let us continue to fight for fully indexed family allowances.
I call on all Canadians who care about families to show they care. Write to your Member of Parliament and to your Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Start petitions. Talk to your neighbours. Talk to the media. Organize and start a national campaign. Show you care for Canada's kids.


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF GULF SERVICE STATIONS
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan there is concern over Petro-Canada's purchase of Gulf service stations. Although the acquisition made it possible for a private sector Canadian company to buy Gulf Canada from an American corporation, there is, nonetheless, an understandable concern about the federal Government expanding its role in gas retailing.
It is the time to look at the future of Petro-Canada. Selling Petro-Canada in its entirety is not a realistic alternative. There is an acknowledged need for some degree of government involvement in the oil industry, but the Government should not be competing against small, privately-owned and operated gas stations. Is it the job of your Government to sell gas?
I compliment the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) on her difficult and obviously successful endeavour of making Petro-Canada more financially accountable and responsible. However, I have two concerns. In order that popular well-managed neighbourhood Gulf stations not be closed down with the Petro-Canada acquisition, I ask that the Minister consider all available alternatives, including leaving the Gulf signs in place.
Second, as Petro-Canada enhances its financial position 1 ask that the Minister privatize Petro-Canada's retail gas operations and offer shares to the Canadian public as soon as possible.
September 16, 1985


WORLD CUP SOCCER TOURNAMENT-CANADA'S QUALIFYING WIN
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada's national soccer team defeated the team from Honduras and qualified for the World Cup soccer tournament. I am sure Members on all sides of this House would want to join me in applauding our players and national team coach.
This triumph marks the very first time that Canada has qualified for the 24-nation World Cup, which will take place in Mexico in 1986. For the past 28 years the Canadian soccer team has been working toward this aim. With this impressive victory, a new chapter in the history of Canadian soccer has been opened.
The national team's victory was first and foremost a team effort. All Canadians can be justifiably proud of the skill, the dedication, and the poise displayed by all our players in the international sports arena. Their perseverance and hard work will be an inspiration to our younger athletes engaged in all facets of sports.
It is fitting that we take a brief time out from cheering on the Toronto Blue Jays in their march toward the World Series, to recognize the valiant efforts of our national soccer team in their quest for the World Cup.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me remind Members, for the record, that messages of congratulation are specifically out of order under Statements. I think, however, the Hon. Member's sentiments were probably shared by others.


RELATIONS WITH SOUTH KOREA
Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, during a recent visit to South Korea I came to understand that this nation, which is undergoing a remarkable industrial development, is bound to become still more important as one of Canada's economic partners over the coming years. The most striking example of this is the forthcoming establishment of a Hyundai plant in this country. The Hon. Sinclair Stevens did a tremendous job in helping to achieve such a significant agreement, and I can assure this House that all the people I have met in Korea have a very high regard for the Minister and our Prime Minister.
I am especially proud of having been able to personally put forward Quebec's case as a construction site. Although that province, which represents a major part of the Canadian market, has the human and technological resources needed, it never had its share of the manufacturing sector. The close co-operation afforded by the Quebec Government in this
instance must also be stressed. It reflects the new atmosphere of reconciliation which proves to be beneficial to all provinces. My only regret is that the plant could not be located in my beautiful constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul, since the required space was not available. However, I urge the people in my constituency, and especially young people, to apply for jobs whenever the Hyundai Corporation starts hiring, and certainly their applications will be considered.


CITIZENSHIP COURTS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I received the following letter on September 9 last. It reads:
Dear Mr. Deans:
On August 11th, at 11.00 I was requested to appear before Judge Gerrie for an "interview" with regard to receiving a Canadian Citizenship.
Although I found Ms. Gerrie's attitude to be aggressive right from the beginning of the "interview", things seemed to be going reasonably well until 1 couldn't think of the Premier of Ontario's name. Ms. Gerrie immediately started on a tirade of people who come to this country and don't read newspapers or watch television-who have no interest in who's running this country or what they stand for. I told Ms. Gerrie that, since I was not a Canadian citizen, I did not have the right to vote in elections, and was not into "Politics " per se. She asked who my Member of Parliament was and I said Ian Deans. She said how did I know that Ian Deans was my Member of Parliament since I wasn't "into politics". I told her that my husband has always voted N.D.P. and when I vote, I would be voting the same way. This started an unnecessary (as far as 1 was concerned) lecture on how she was a single mother, and she certainly would not vote N.D.P. just because someone told her to (I presume this "someone" was my husband).
From this point on the "interview" went downhill very quickly.
Ms. Gerrie suggested that maybe I should apply for citizenship in one of the communist countries because if that's all the interest I have in politics 1 might as well not have any say in what's happening in the country I live in. She also suggested that I should go back to Britain, which has a Socialist Government, and is the same thing as communism. I was under the impression that my political beliefs were none of anyone's business and did not realize that you had to vote Conservative to become a Canadian citizen.
In closing, I would like to say that this was the most degrading-


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow).


THE ARTS
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday was a very special day in Calgary. It marked the gala opening of a magnificent and most spectacular performing arts centre. This centre will provide world class facilities in the city for three resident cultural companies, The Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra, Theatre Calgary, and Alberta Theatre Projects.

September 16, 1985
Throughout history every surviving culture has recognized the arts as a necessary component of life. Calgary is a growing city and therefore realized the vital need to build for the future of its performing arts community.
The new Centre for Performing Arts represents the dedication and efforts of many, including hundreds of volunteeers, the staff and performers, the three levels of government, funding, the media and, above all, the exuberant spirit and faith of the citizens and businesses of Calgary.
On behalf of all of us, I wish to say: "Well done; all the best in the future".


Mr. Speaker:: Again I repeat, just for the future, that messages of congratulation are specifically out of order under the provisions of Standing Order 22.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, you can be assured that I am not here to congratulate the Government. In the interests of the entire issue of Canadian culture and the sovereignty of our country, about which we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speak so eloquently on CTC last night, the future of one of Canada's leading publishing companies, Prentice-Hall, can be decided by the Government within the next week. A prominent publisher of established Canadian writers and new literary talent, Prentice-Hall, was recently sold to the American conglomerate, Gulf and Western.
Under Section 15 of the Investment Canada Act, the Government can review foreign investments related to Canada's cultural heritage and national identity. Canadians from every corner of the country believe that the potential sale of this company to an American multinational corporation will have disastrous effects upon the Canadian cultural identity.
I call upon the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to ensure Canadian control of our publishing industry. I implore the Minister and the Prime Minister to veto the sale of Prentice-Hall Canada to American interests. I ask them to assist Canadian companies in purchasing an important contributor to Canada's literary tradition. Let them put their money where their mouth is and ensure the sovereignty of Canada's publishing industry.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Argenteuil-Papineau which I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons has unique economic development potential because of its geographic location, its infrastructures for industry, trade and tourism, and, most important, because of the development foreseen for the Mirabel airport within the next few years.
However, Mr. Speaker, we do not have an adequate road system. It is somewhat ironical to note that the largest airport in the world is isolated because Highway 13, linking Montreal, Dorval and Mirabel, is not yet finished and Highway 50, linking Ottawa and Mirabel via Papineauville and Lachute, is also incomplete. Mr. Speaker, three socioeconomic conferences, namely those of the Papineau, Argenteuil and Mirabel regional municipalities, are now under way and the first priority at these meetings is the completion of Highways 13 and 50.
Mr. Speaker, the economic participants in my own riding and in neighbouring constituencies have been asking the provincial and federal Governments to complete these highways for 20 years.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has assured me that the federal Government would cooperate if the Quebec Government were to develop a five-year plan.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my constituents and the various economic participants in the Outaouais and the Laurentians to put pressure on the provincial representatives of their respective regions so that these highways will be completed within the next five years.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the "say one thing but do another" style of government continues to roll along. No sooner had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) boasted that he uses polls less than any other Prime Minister then we learned that the Government has developed a new polling system. The Government will now conduct a massive in-depth poll on a monthly basis. The results will be so secret that even Cabinet Ministers will not be able to know them. Only the Prime Minister and his few henchmen will be able to see the results from which they will plot their strategies.
Of course the taxpayers will foot the bill.
Apparently the former Liberal Government considered a similar centralized polling scheme, but even those old professionals at the trough thought that it was a little too much for
September 16, 1985

the public to stomach. Not this Government, though. It sweetly smiles and says one thing, and the next day it does the exact opposite. George Orwell's doublespeak is alive and well with a Government that will do anything to keep itself in power.
I just hope the Prime Minister will learn from his private polls that Canadians are tired of Governments which manipulate and mislead. Canadians want an honest Government with a clear idea of what it is doing and where it wants the country to go.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
' [English]

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Did the Minister have a secret meeting last Wednesday evening with the senior officers or chief executive officers of our major chartered banks? We have been asking him daily in the House of Commons about his meetings with bankers. Why didn't he mention it to us? Would he give us the substance of the meeting? Why was it called? What was the topic of conversation?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting was not a secret one. I have regular meetings with the chairmen of the six largest banks to keep in touch with various ongoing occurrences in the banking system and in the economy of Canada. In fact, this meeting was called back in June. I said to them that I would like to have this meeting prior to the World Bank meetings which will take place later this month and early next month. I wanted to hear from them what, in particular, they felt I should be recommending, or what message they felt that I should be taking to these World Bank meetings in relation to the over-all problem of international debt and the role which the International Monetary Fund should play.

[ Translation]


BANKS AND BANKING
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the Minister is still meeting with our bankers, because we had the impression he had been trying to turn over the whole issue to his colleague, the Minister of State (Finance).
Oral Questions
If the Minister of Finance really wants a parliamentary committee to examine this fiasco, will he let this committee do its work under reasonable conditions?
Will he recommend to the Government House Leader that the proceedings be televised? Will he make sure that all necessary witnesses will be available, including himself, his colleague, the Minister of State (Finance), and the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Will he allow the committee to have some kind of assistance, either economic or legal, in doing its work? Can he give the House the assurance that the committee's terms of reference will be broad enough to encompass all lines of questioning required to find out exactly what happened?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, since the question relates to discussions which are now taking place among the House Leaders, perhaps I would be permitted to answer it. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the terms of reference which I tabled last Wednesday are as broad as one might expect with respect to the ability of parliamentarians to examine every facet, including all events leading up to the statement made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance over Labour Day weekend.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition will also know-and l think this will be confirmed by further discussions with the House Leaders-that there is very wide power in terms of the summoning of witnesses and the calling for papers. There is now provision under our new rules to provide the committees with the required support staff to carry out the responsibilities directed to them by the House. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, these matters are under discussion in a very positive way among the House Leaders. We are trying to develop an understanding of the ability of Members so that we can have this matter resolved and referred to a committee today, if not tomorrow.


REPORT SUBMITTED BY FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the terms of reference of Parliament authorizing the committee to investigate this Fiasco are as wide as the rhetoric of the Minister, perhaps we have a deal.
I have a third question which I will direct to the Minister of Finance. In February, apparently the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco submitted a report to our Inspector General of Banks outlining the precarious situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank. Why is it that the American banking, authorities were far closer to the situation than our own Minister of Finance?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the report which was made to the Inspector General of Banks last February, as I understand it, referred only to the U.S. operations of the bank. It was clearly stamped

September 16, 1985
Oral Questions
the property of that regulatory authority. There was nothing in that report, I understand, which in any way reflected upon our own ability in dealing with the domestic situation in those banks.


APPOINTMENT OF CURATOR
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Could the Minister confirm that when the major banks were called together on the weekend of March 22 to arrange a bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank, the Minister had in fact already signed an order appointing a curator to the CCB effective Monday, March 25?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that there was a fair amount of legal work that had to be done leading up to the possible closure of that bank on that Monday. Late Sunday evening we did not know what the conclusions of the discussions with the chartered banks would be. The legal counsel for the Department of Finance asked if I would complete all the legal work required for the possible closing of the bank, to be kept in escrow pending the resolution of the discussions.
The simple answer is, yes, I did, as part of a simple legal matter to get the technical legal work behind us in the event that the bank was not going to open on the Monday morning.


GOVERNMENT DECISION
Aideen Nicholson: My supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. Why not have proceeded with the step of leaving the bank under curatorship while a detailed examination of the assets were made? Why did the Government proceed to make its decision on the basis of little or no information?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Hon. Members to cast their minds back to what was happening in the financial world at the middle of March.
We had just gone through a very heavy exchange crisis and the Canadian dollar was under a good deal of pressure. Around that same time a number of savings and loans institutions in the State of Ohio closed their doors, and did not open up for, I believe, a week. That simple act of their not opening their doors resulted in a significant drop in the exchange value of the Canadian dollar.
We also had advice from the chartered banks themselves which were worried about the impact on a number of credit unions of the Canadian Commercial Bank not opening. If the Hon. Member will think back again she will remember that the Province of Alberta had given some financial assistance to the credit unions in Alberta, so there was concern about the ripple effect in the Alberta economy in particular.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the seriousness of the matter but it has become too long, I am sorry. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I wanted to give the answer to a very important question.


PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FOR PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: I have a question for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the terms of reference for the proposed committee to look into the banking fiasco that we have been talking about in the House.
Specifically, will the Minister or the House Leader give us assurances that the three following documents would be made available to the committee if it is established?
The first is the September, 1984, report on the Canadian Commercial Bank prepared by the Inspector General of Banks.
The second is the report done by the San Francisco Reserve Board, which was prepared in February of 1985.
The third is the Auditor's report on the Canadian Commercial Bank prepared last winter.
Will those documents be tabled in the House with specific reference to be considered by the committee? Is the Government prepared to guarantee that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which either the Leader of the New Democratic Party or his House Leader has raised the question of these particular documents, as far as I am concerned. Without getting involved in the details of the negotiations that are being carried on now, our work is to determine whether or not we can get the matter referred to committee. We are, of course, as I have indicated publicly and privately, quite prepared to have a full and complete hearing in the Finance Committee on this issue.
If the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party wants to give specific requests to his House Leader he can bring them to me at 3.15 where we are going to convene, right across the hall, and I will take them under advisement.


POSITION OF CHARTERED BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are not
playing games with this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: They are obviously sensitive. We asked for these reports because they have been denied before.
If we want a serious study instead of some kind of whitewash we want to see the documents, that is all.
September 16, 1985

I have another question for the Minister on another matter. The question concerns a contradiction between what the Minister said to the House on Friday and what Mr. Mulholland, Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, said on Thursday about the $60 million that Mr. Mulholland believes the banks are going to get back from the Government.
The question is as follows: Since the Minister said in the House on Friday that Mr. Mulholland was wrong, I today checked with some banking sources. I thought-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This preamble has become too long. Is there a question, please?


John Edward Broadbent: It is a very important matter of information for the House. Considering that the banking sources have confirmed as well as clarified their view that they are entitled to the $60 million-they stand by that-will the Minister please explain to the House why she believes that the people of Canada are not going to have to cough up the $60 million?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that there is this dispute about this with the bankers. Certainly our best legal advice is exactly what I said on Friday, that the banks in the support package ranked with uninsured depositors or with depositors in the event of any windup and the legislation that we will present to the House replaces uninsured depositors with the Government of Canada and therefore the banks will rank equally with us in the liquidation of assets. That is the legal interpretation that I have been given.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE BAIL-OUT AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, obviously last March the Minister was given some pretty bad advice too, so she should look into it. All I will tell the Minister is that the bankers' lawyers are saying something different. I would like to ask the Minister, considering it is the taxpayers of Canada who are going to have to cough up the money, will she today table all the documents pertaining to the agreement that the Government of Canada entered into with the banks last March so that finally in this House we can begin to get to the bottom of this fiasco?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have indicate to the House that I am prepared to make every piece of information available to the committee that I am legally entitled to put before the committee.
In terms of that contract, Mr. Speaker, that is a contract and it would require the concurrence of every signatory to the agreement in order to take it to committee. I am seeking that concurrence from the interested parties.
Oral Questions


ANNOUNCEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE CONCERNING LIQUIDATION OF CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK AND NORTHLAND BANK
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, on September 1 of this year, the Minister of Finance announced that it was legally necessary to ask the courts to proceed with liquidation of the two banks. I am of course referring to the CCB and the Northland Bank.
Could the Minister inform the House and the Canadian people whether such a request was made to the courts and if so, whether authorization has been given to proceed with liquidation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: My understanding is that the liquidation is proceeding in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank, and in the case of the Northland Bank the curator is still acting as a curator while the Northland Bank attempts a renegotiation or a restructuring.


REQUEST FOR NAME OF LIQUIDATOR
Raymond Garneau: 1 have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
First, could the Minister inform the House who was appointed curator? Second, will depositors with deposits of $60,000 or less at the Canadian Commercial Bank be reimbursed and when will such payments commence?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the curator at the Canadian Commercial Bank is the firm of Price Waterhouse. My understanding is that payments on insured deposits can be made almost immediately in that case.


COMMITTEE'S ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Finance. Is the Minister of State aware that the September, 1984, report on the CCB prepared for the Minister by the Inspector General and the San Francisco Reserve Board Report given to the Inspector General in February, 1985, were previously requested by members of this Party but we were refused access to the documents? Can she now tell us once and for all if she will guarantee the tabling of those documents in advance of the committee being set up in order that we can be sure that actual documentation necessary to conduct the inquiry will in fact be before the committee?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I am making my

September 16, 1985
Oral Questions
best efforts to ensure that every document that I can legally present to the committee will be presented to the committee, at which time they can be discussed without innuendo or hyperbole.


PRODUCTION OF LISTS OF DEPOSITORS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it the position of the Minister of Finance that the agreement signed with the provinces and the chartered banks in March, 1985, and the list of depositors who were depositors of the bank prior to the bail-out package or between the time of the bail-out package and the dissolution decision may legally be provided to the committee? Will he undertake to table them in the House of Commons now in order that the committee can have the appropriate information necessary to conduct its inquiry?
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question has been answered before. However, I will answer it again. There is some real question as to the ability of the Government to provide that information under the terms of the Bank Act. We are looking to see if there are ways that we can do this. However, at this point in time I would have to say that the legal advice that we have is that Section 251, I believe, of the Bank Act must stand, and we are not able to provide that information under the terms of the Bank Act.


John Edward Broadbent: Why have a committee? What's it going to do?


Mr. Cassidy:: Pay a billion dollars to unnamed depositors?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As I said a minute ago, we are trying to find ways to provide that information to the House. However, at this point in time I am not able to say that we can.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the future operation of federal airports. The Minister of Transport will know that under the objectives outlined in Structure 90, the reorganization plan for his Department, a decision has been taken to transfer ownership and responsibility where possible of federal airports to municipal and provincial Governments. Is the Minister prepared to table in the House of Commons a list of airports across Canada that have been designated by the Minister for transfer to municipal or provincial Governments or other agencies? That information is vital to many communities across the land.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, no such decision has been taken.


DISCUSSIONS WITH MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, if no such decision has been taken, the Minister ought to start today by explaining why officials of his Department and the Deputy Prime Minister's ministerial review office have already met, at least in the case of St. John's, Newfoundland, and also in the case of the Northwest Territories, with municipal officials proposing the transfer of federal airports and why those meetings have taken place in literally dozens of communities across the country. Will the Minister clarify his statement? A decision has been taken and we are asking for a list of airports to be affected. I am told that it is possible that 70 airports will be affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that it has taken so long for the Hon. Member to catch up to what is going on in the country.


Mr. Gauthier:: You're pretty sleazy, you know.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I am not sleazy at all. This matter was first raised in the Budget Speech of May 23 and the Hon. Member is just dealing with the subject now. The fact is that no decision has been made and discussions are taking place with respect to the prospect of trying to establish a new airport structure which will reduce costs and provide good, effective service in all parts of the country.


CANADIAN LUMBER PRODUCTS-ACCESS TO UNITED STATES MARKETS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who, I am sure, is no doubt fully aware that three-quarters of the U.S. Congress now support the Gibbons Bill, a Bill which will restrict the free and open access of Canadian forest products to the United States. Since the U.S. Congress has the constitutional jurisdiction to implement such law regardless of the views of President Reagan, I would ask the Minister if he has set his mind to an accelerated means of informing consumers in the United States, who have a qualitative and economic preference for our product because of the higher cost of forest products in the United States, of this should the Gibbons Bill become law later this fall.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member raises a point of importance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have been pursuing the question of the implications for the timber industry in Canada of the Gibbons Bill and of other pressures in the United States
September 16, 1985

Congress. We have been in touch with administration officials on several levels. I share the Hon. Member's view that it is now time for us to begin to address a larger American audience on this question, but I would say to the Hon. Member that I think it would be helpful if that effort, which is in the interests of all Canadians were shared by all the Members in all the Parties in this House.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that Liberal Members are a little noisy about this matter. They did not even turn up at the meetings on this matter in Vancouver.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Mr. Niles, the new Ambassador for the United States, suggested in his Senate confirmation hearings that American loggers should be permitted into British Columbia to cut down Canadian trees and haul them to U.S. sawmills-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order, please. With great respect, this is another preamble. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs share the view of Ambassador Niles and the White House that American loggers should be allowed into Canada to log?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of having American loggers coming to Canada to log. I have not had an opportunity to read everything that Ambassador Niles said in his confirmation hearings but obviously it would stand to reason that he might say some things with which the Government of Canada would disagree.
*1 * *


PRESENCE OF DELEGATION FROM NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. Speaker:: May I take this moment to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of a delegation from the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China led by their delegation Chairman, Mr. Wang Renzhong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


TOURISM
Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for tourism.
In view of the recent Cabinet shuffle, I should like to ask the new Minister whether he intends to continue the work undertaken by his predecessor, work of great import for the riding of Gatineau. In addition, would he tell the House what steps he intends to take to promote tourism in the Outaouais region?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member for Gatineau that I am in the process of completing the last of the tourism consultations this week and by that time will have talked to all the provincial and territorial Governments. I will be chairing a major conference in October and at that time 350 members of the tourism industry from across Canada will be here in Ottawa. As well, there will be a Federal-Provincial Ministers' Conference on Tourism in November. We are doing this because we believe that the future of tourism is a major economic growth factor for this country and will help in job creation.


FINANCE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last week the Minister announced certain exemptions to the sales taxes imposed in the May 23 Budget. I wonder if the Minister of Finance is willing to exempt farmers and primary producers from the nine cents per gallon excise tax on farm fuels that he imposed on them on September 1. The imposition of this tax comes at a time of very great heardship for farmers across the country. I wonder if the Minister would consider giving an exemption to these producers.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position of the farmers. I think that my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, has indicated a number of steps which we have taken to address the problems, particularly with respect to the beef farmers in western Canada. However, I should remind the Hon. Member that in the fall we exempted the farmers, fishermen, and other primary producers from an increase in the sales tax, as well as previous tax that was levied on fuels. Thus, they have been given some exemptions. Unfortunately, at this time that is as far as we can go.

September 16, 1985
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that one of the exemptions, the seven cents a gallon of the petroleum compensation charge which was provided last fall, was lifted on June 1. On top of that, the Minister will be imposing another Sll million tax on farm fuels effective January 1. Why is the Minister deepening the farm debt crisis by imposing this tax, especially a tax from which the Government promised to exempt farmers during the election campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 remind the Hon. Member that, pursuant to our election commitment, we did exempt the farmers from the fuel tax back in November. In addition to that, we provided for a reduction in the interest costs to farmers who are borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation from 16.25 per cent to 12.75 per cent. We are mindful of the predicament that the farming community is in and we are doing as much as we can to meet the problem.
* *
*


FREE TRADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH UNITED STATES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister for International Trade.
Is the Minister aware of the concern of Canadian manufacturers about the decision of the United States to deny entry to technicians required to repair Canadian equipment in the United States?
How can we establish free trade with the Americans if they continue to put up such non-tariff barriers on our manufactured goods, therefore on our exports?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that I am indeed aware of the problem. It stems from a decision of the California Supreme Court. As soon as we became aware of it, we had our embassy in Washington contact the Acting Solicitor General in the United States to urge him with all speed to launch an appeal of the decision. We agree on it completely. We are making representations at the highest level to see that this matter is speedily rectified.


IMPACT ON TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that that appeal process may take a matter of months. In the meantime Canadian exports are in fact threatened because of the decision of the American authorities. How can we enter into a free trade agreement with the Americans when they are indicating, in this instance and others, that they are not prepared to play fair by the existing rules?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I am not aware that it will take several months. I do not know how long it will take.
Second, it had nothing to do with the administration or Congress. It results from a court decision.
Third, it points out the need for us to enter into an agreement with the United States so that we do not have these type of problems in the future.


FINANCE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He will recall that in order to achieve a greater degree of fairness in the tax system the Budget promised a minimum tax. It outlined three different options regarding that tax. Can the Minister tell us what form that tax will take and whether a decision has been made on those options? Can he also tell us when legislation will be introduced regarding them, bearing in mind that the minimum tax is to come into effect on January 1, 1986?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate the Government's commitment to bring in a minimum tax effective January 1, 1986. We agree that it is important for the whole sense of equity and fairness in the tax system that there be a minimum tax put in place.
Since the release of the minimum tax discussion paper with the Budget, we have been consulting with members of the legal and accounting professions to decide upon the best of the three options which have been put forward. I hope that in the not too distant future I will be able to make a statement about the direction in which we are headed.
*
* *


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and relates to an article published in Saturday's Globe and Mail, namely that some of the Prime Minister's senior political advisers would have received preferential treatment in setting up private companies, something which most public employees cannot do. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the Treasury Board or the Prime Minister has indeed endorsed such practice?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I am not
September 16, 1985

familiar with the specifics of the vague question which has been put to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: As I understood the question, it related to employees in the Prime Minister's office having employment outside of the Prime Minister's office.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Erik Nielsen: If that is not the gist of the question, then perhaps the Hon. Member would not mind being a little more specific.


COMPANY SHAREHOLDINGS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, a numbers game is being played by the Prime Minister's office. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if it is normal practice for employees of the Government to be allowed to own private companies withdrawing funds from the federal Government and enjoying tax breaks thereby? Or, is it a way for members of the Prime Minister's staff, such as Mr. Van Dusen, Mr. MacAdam, and Mr. McMillan, who have established these numbered companies, to get around conflict of interest guidelines? Is it a scheme to avoid taxes or a scheme to get around the conflict of interest guidelines?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, now that the Hon. Member has been specific, the answer to his question is that neither is true at all. I think there was one numbered company mentioned-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Three.


Erik Nielsen: -in the article, which apparently has a number out of place, which is a technical problem and which does not in any way disturb the validity of the contract. If there are any, they certainly do not affect the conflict of interest guidelines. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that if he has any personal questions to put to the shareholders of those companies that he might do so on a personal basis.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. We were previously made aware that, last March, the Bank of Montreal had offered to do an assessment of the viability of the Canadian Commercial Bank which the Government turned down. Will the Minister confirm that not only the Bank of Montreal but all of the other chartered banks offered to do such an assessment before the Government committed taxpayers' money? Will the Minister
Oral Questions
explain to the House why the Government refused to accept that offer?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that at the time the package was being designed there were representatives of some of the chartered banks in the CCB, both in Edmonton and Los Angeles.


REPORTED OFFER BY CHARTERED BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister would try to answer my question now. Will she confirm that, last March, before the Government prepared its package, not only the Bank of Montreal but all the other chartered banks offered to do an assessment of the economic viability of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Government refused them that sensible decision and insisted they meet and make an agreement on that weekend? Will the Government confirm that and, in so doing, will the Minister explain to the people of Canada why she took a $1 billion risk with the taxpayers' money without even receiving a proper assessment of the viability of the bank?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that there were some bankers in looking at the bank. I have also indicated to the House that it is in the best interests not only of the taxpayers of the country but of the depositors of those banks, and the depositors of all our financial institutions, as well as the borrowers, to get the full story on everything that happened. Time after time I have indicated that I am fully prepared to give those answers.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the conflict of interest and nepotism guideline announcement of last week.
The Prime Minister has provided a review process for only a certain category of appointments, namely, those made by Order in Council. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that a reform respecting the awarding of contracts and other types of appointments is also necessary so that the incidents concerning Messrs. Wakim, Nantel, and Atkins, and the case referred to by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, are not allowed to continue, in order that we do not have the same Tory hacks, flacks and bagmen continuing to snout at the trough?

September 16, 1985
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion of the Hon. Member will be taken into consideration and given every attention that it deserves. We certainly would not want to go so far as to cause any embarrassment to the Party which used to be on this side of the House.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that the last intervention seems to have been useful because some guidelines did come about as a result of the questioning by the opposition.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Don Boudria: The Prime Minister has indicated in his guidelines that relatives of Cabinet Ministers will-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Don Boudria: -will no longer be appointed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No preamble, please. Just a question now.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who hired you, and why?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Don Boudria: A large number of voters did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Question, please.


Don Boudria: Why are there no provisions in the guidelines for the removal of relatives who have been awarded contracts since September 4, 1984? And why, in particular, is Mr. Peter Clark allowed to retain his appointment when the Prime Minister has stated in the guidelines that such appointments are wrong and should not occur in the future? Why again that loophole in the guidelines? Is it intentional?


Some Hon. Members:: Let Joe answer that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first one to give credit where credit is due but how can I do that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -when the work has been under way since last September 18, as the Hon. Member should know if he studies the history of the matter.
With respect to the appointment referred to by the Hon. Member, he will know that the Prime Minister has announced as part of that package that the entire range of all appointments which have been made are going to be subject to a review by the parliamentary process to see how it works.


Don Boudria: Oh!


Erik Nielsen: I know there is a myopic view on the other side with respect to these appointments, but that is what the Prime Minister said, if the Hon. Member had been listening.


Don Boudria: Oh, no.


Erik Nielsen: It is quite a departure from past procedures-


An Hon. Member:: From what they did.


Erik Nielsen: -certainly, from what those Hon. Members did when they were in office. All of those appointments will be open, subject to review by Hon. Members such as himself, and I wish him well in his work.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who I am sure is aware that much of the world expects Canada to exhibit leadership in the fight against apartheid but who, on Friday, showed that we talked loudly but carried only a toothpick.
The loud voices heard by our Prime Minister were evidently the voices of Buthelesi, Botha, Bata and Bay Street. But to his credit, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did indicate that-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, is there now a question, please?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell the House in very specific terms what criteria he intends to apply to establish that tangible movement away from apartheid has occurred?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it was precisely to establish some kind of criteria which could be judged objectively that, in my statement in the House last Friday, I set forth some of the principles which we would want to see observed by the Government of South Africa. I will not reiterate them here. They are on the record of Hansard. But very key among them, of course, is the restoration of equal political rights, including the right to vote.


DEADLINE INQUIRY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, will the Government indicate to South Africa, and to this House, what deadline is to be applied in evaluating whether progress has in fact occurred?


September 16, 1985

Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the question of deadlines was raised on Friday in response to the statement I made on this matter. It is a question we will look at. I frankly believed that it would be more helpful in achieving progress to have deadlines involving several countries. It may well be that that is one of the matters which will be considered when the Commonwealth Heads of Government meet in Nassau in mid-October.
Certainly our view is that it is important for Canada to use its influence with other countries, and particularly through the Commonwealth, to try to achieve change in South Africa and bring an end to apartheid.

[Stage Direction]
TRANSPORTATION OF PCBs THROUGH OTTAWA
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the House has noticed that the Hon. Member for Oshawa has crossed the floor today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Barry Turner: My question is specifically addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. It concerns the transportation of PCBs this evening from the Rockcliffe Military Base to the Uplands Military Base, both of which are in my riding. Can the Minister assure the mayor of the City of Gloucester and the residents of my riding that every possible procedure and precaution have been taken to ensure that these dangerous goods are transported safely this evening?


An Hon. Member:: You were told that before.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the goods in question which are being moved this evening are being moved under the provisions of the federal-provincial regulations with respect to the transportation and storage of dangerous goods. Throughout the entire planning of the move from one federal property to another federal property, within the City of Ottawa, the Departments of Public Works and Engineering, as well as the Gloucester police, have been fully consulted.


Sheila Maureen Copps: But no neighbours.


Erik Nielsen: With their co-operation I am sure that the move will be accomplished without any danger to the people and the surrounding environment.


PROJECTED INCO LAY-OFFS-EFFECT OF PENSION PAYMENTS ON ELIGIBILITY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the planned workforce reduction at the Sudbury Inco plant. Would the Minister not agree that, in addition to Inco's financial problems, his Government's policy of grabbing severance payments and pension payments from our jobless is not only discriminatory and unfair but is adding to the problems facing Sudbury and other communities?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the statement put forward by the Hon. Member is one we have looked at. He has heard the Minister of Finance and other Ministers. I would bring to the Hon. Member's attention that, with respect to the pension as it applies to unemployment insurance, action was taken by this Government some four months ago to make taxation effects less harsh.


EARLY RETIREMENT CONSEQUENCES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree to commit himself and his Government to reverse that discriminatory practice so that younger workers can maintain their jobs in our communities and the older workers can take the retirement packages because it is fundamentally working against the original purpose intended by the Government?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern of the Hon. Member in this matter and it is shared by this side of the House. As to the impact of an early retirement, the Hon. Member is aware that under my direction a very well regarded and respected former member of the Ontario Legislature, a former Minister of Labour, is presently consulting with other jurisdictions, with the provinces and with other businesses with respect to a more beneficial and wide ranging retirement package which can be put in place for those workers who are permanently unemployed.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I wonder if the Solicitor General would be prepared to confirm that officers of the RCMP in New Brunswick, along with provincial and federal fisheries officers, have been involved in extensive operations against native people in that province? Would the Minister confirm that those operations involved processes of entrapment and the use of alcohol and money in attempts to induce native people on their own reserves to sell fish illegally? And would the Minister be in a position to acknowledge that

September 16, 1985
Tabling of Documents
officers in the RCMP, along with federal fisheries officers, were involved?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know he wrote to me, I believe last week, making some very serious allegations. I immediately asked for a report. As soon as I receive that report I will gladly get back to the Hon. Member.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Friday, September 13, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House at this time that, pursuant to Standing Order 71, the Members appointed to compose the panel of chairmen of legislative committees, together with the Deputy Speaker and Chairmen of Committees of the Whole, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, shall be as follows: Derek Blackburn, Bill Blaikie, Bob Brisco, Robert Coates, Suzanne Duplessis, Jack Ellis, Scott Fennell, Richard Grise, Gaston Isabelle, Fred King, Allan Lawrence, Russell MacLellan, Arnold Malone, Fred McCain, Allan McKinnon, Keith Penner, Marcel Pru-d'homme, Anthony Roman, Gordon Taylor, Marcel Tremblay and Neil Young.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, copies of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women's annual report for 1984-85.


PETITION
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from workers, particularly in the construction industry, protesting changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. These changes will mean that monies received for pensions, vacation and severance pay will be taken into account when determining eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. The petitioners humbly pray that the House of Commons reconsider these changes and ask the Government not to carry them out.


CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE VALIDATION ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-73, an Act to validate certain ordinances of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act (1867) and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and to provide for certain matters in relation to the 1981 decennial census.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, presented to the House on Friday, June 28, be concurred in.
September 16, 1985


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, Mr. Speaker, not at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: I must recognize the mover of the motion unless the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) wishes to rise-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is fine.


Mr. Speaker:: -on a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry is a landmark report. The committee unanimously agreed to support a proposal put forward by all the mayors of Vancouver Island. The proposal is a proper and important matter for consideration by this House at the earliest possible time because Vancouver Island has been devastated by the recent recession. The forest industry on the island has undergone some very serious deterioration and it is my hope that the Government would support the proposal put forward by the standing committee.
The riding of the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg), who has been supportive of this proposal, is the best example of the effect the recession, as well as poor forestry practices and general neglect, has had on the island. A number of years ago the community of Port Alberni boasted the highest per capital income in Canada. Some of the best employment in this country was in the forest industry in Port Alberni. As time went by and the resource was neglected, as the forest industry failed to keep pace with technological improvements and failed to exploit international markets and essentially turned a blind eye along with everyone else to the resource base in the area, those jobs began to disappear. I understand that about 2,000 jobs have now been lost in that area out of a work force of approximately 6,000 people. As one of the Government's spokesman on this particular Bill, it would be my hope that the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni will stand in his place today and support this motion to endorse the mayors' proposal.
The constituency that I represent covers about one-half of Vancouver Island. If a line were drawn across the centre of the Island we would be looking at one-half the total area of the island. Within the riding of Comox-Powell River there is an enormous dependence on the forest industry. Over the years we have seen a tremendous downgrading of the operations of that industry. Communities such as Courtenay, Campbell River, and many other small communities now require, regrettably, the presence of soup kitchens. This kind of operation was developed in response to the erosion of the employment base on the island, particularly the collapse of the forest industry and the forest resource. The mayors of Vancouver Island are asking the federal Government to recognize that it has an obligation to the people of Vancouver Island to assist in restructuring the resource. The federal Government has a responsibility for job creation. It has a responsibility to protect the resource from which it derives a large amount of income
Committee Reports
and sales taxes. The federal Government has been a tremendous beneficiary of the wealth generated from that resource but it has unfortunately failed to fulfil its responsibilities to the communities there in restoring the forest base. In my opinion and that of my colleagues on the committee, the mayors' proposal would mean only a modest contribution in order to bring about the improvement in the forest base which would restore the resource to help bring employment on the island back up to its previous level. It would provide people with the opportunity to earn decent wages in a very meaningful activity which would produce wealth in the short term and improve the resource for the long term.
It is important that the federal Government and the Province of British Columbia have concluded an Economic Regional Development Agreement through which $300 million will be spent for reforestation. Unfortunately, no significant amount of that investment will be spent on Vancouver Island but, instead, will be spent in other areas. The other important aspect of the ERDA agreement is that professional organizations within the forest industry, such as forest research organizations and the School of Forestry at UBC, are of the opinion that this amount of money is infinitesimally small considering the task of regenerating the resource within British Columbia and particularly on Vancouver Island. The amount of $600 million is required. It would be a serious error to use the ERDA funds, which have already been earmarked for important priority projects. When this committee forwarded its unanimous recommendation its opinion was that the federal Government should be involved in separately funding the proposal of the mayors of Vancouver Island. I urge my colleagues in the House of Commons to support this motion, to concur in the report of the standing committee, and to urge the federal Government to make funds available which are supplementary to the $300 million allocated for reforestation in the ERDA agreement.
The impact of the collapse of the forest industry has been extremely serious on Vancouver Island. There is not a community on that island which has not experienced an enormous negative effect due to the loss of employment created by the downsizing of the forest industry. The Macdonald Commission said that forestry was a sunset industry in Canada. Nothing could be further from the truth. The forest industry has a long and viable future based on a sustained yield resource. In perpetuity this country can derive its wealth from the forest industry. It would be a serous mistake for the Government to ignore that. We have stood by and watched that resource being depleted without any concern for reforestation or preservation of the resource on a sustained yield basis.
It is important to note that forestry, in a depressed region such as Vancouver Island, is the quickest and most effective way of developing income and employment. It is extremely important that the Government realize that many of the long-term projects which have been conceived for that area may produce employment and economic development in five to ten years. However, an investment of the magnitude proposed

September 16, 1985
Committee Reports
by the mayors of Vancouver Island would almost instantaneously create substantial employment and substantial improvements to local economies on that island. To my knowledge, and that of many others, there is no more effective a mechanism for the quick generation of employment in a severely depressed area. There is no more worth-while an investment of federal tax dollars than in the regeneration of a resource which, with sustained yield management, on-going reforestation, and intelligent forest management practices, will yield perpetual wealth and employment and a strong economic base for the people of Vancouver Island in the future.
The reason for debating this issue in the House today is that this was proposed about a year ago. Mayors of Vancouver Island have been coming to Ottawa to visit Cabinet Ministers and talk to Conservative Members of Parliament. Everyone agrees that this is a great idea and they all support it. However, in spite of their election promises and individual commitments, no one on that side of the House is willing to make the move by writing the cheque for the amount of money required to fund this proposal.
It is critical that before the House adjourns this afternoon we vote on the issue of contributing a substantial amount of money on an on-going basis to the forest proposals of Vancouver Island. This concept is endorsed by the federal caucus of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa, the provincial New Democratic MLAs, and even by the Social Credit Party which usually has trouble seeing common sense in any issue. The Liberal Party has also endorsed this proposal as has the Conservative Party in Ottawa. Therefore, it is absolutely incumbent upon the federal Government to produce the funds very quickly to begin the process of revitalizing the economy of Vancouver Island.
The official unemployment rate on Vancouver Island is 15 per cent which is among the highest in the country. However, the real unemployment rate on Vancouver Island is much higher. Many people realize that there are no jobs available and that there is no purpose in going to the employment office to apply for work. In many communities the actual unemployment rate exceeds 25 per cent. This applies not only to Vancouver Island, but to the sunshine coast, the Gibsons area and the Sechelt area, a population of approximately 12,000 people who have experienced a severe economic recession. They have seen the forest industry, once the prime generator of wealth in that area, collapse.
The Mayor of Powell River has been attempting diligently to develop a program which would mesh with the Vancouver Island municipalities. Powell River is a member of the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities which has backed this proposal. It is important that that regional district be included in the proposal of Vancouver mayors for funding for forestry.
1 see that the Member for Nanaimo-Alberni is now in the House. I am certain that he will be rising to speak in support of this proposal as the communities of his riding are dependent on forestry. MacMillan Bloedel, the single large employer in Powell River, a region of approximately 20,000 people suddenly laid off 500 people. Once you have lost your job in the major operation in such an isolated area you can usually no longer afford to live in the community. Housing costs, transportation costs and the cost of food and other necessities in that community are very high. When a major employer lays off 500 people in such a community, no one will purchase homes there. Housing prices tumble, unemployment is persistent and chronic. Those who have lost their jobs are essentially trapped in that community, cursed with the prospect of long-term, chronic unemployment. Not only does this cause problems within the community, the local economy will implode in many respects. As a result of those 500 lay-offs, many local businesses will not survive, with the result of even further employment losses and a continued imploding of the economy. I would compare the effects on Powell River to those suffered by Port Alberni over the years with the down-sizing of the forest industry there.
Among the many other proposals to improve the economy of Vancouver Island, the federal Government should seriously consider the tourist promotion that accompanies Expo '86. The people of Vancouver Island fear that they will not be able to share in the benefits from the money which the federal and provincial governments are putting into Expo '86 that will attract people to Vancouver and the area. It is estimated that some 13 million people wil be attracted, but they will certainly not go to the communities of North Vancouver Island.
Approximately 80,000 people live in that area. Unfortunately, rather than attracting tourists to that area, Expo '86 will attract many people from Vancouver Island-those who are employed and can do so-and each family will remove hundreds of dollars from those island communities to spend in Vancouver. In fact, the local economy of those communities on Vancouver Island will suffer because of the investment in Expo '86.
While Vancouver and the major metropolitan areas will benefit, I suggest there will be a net loss on Vancouver Island as a result of the federal and provincial tax moneys spent and the enormous volume of money removed from the island. I belive that by the winter of 1986 there will be a shortage of cash on Vancouver Island and a reduction in spending in those communities as well as a general deterioration of the economy for some time.
If the federal Government will make such a large investment in Vancouver, I believe that investment will be seen as having a net negative effect on Vancouver Island and, coupled with the already depressed economy, it is incumbent upon the Government in the name of equity and fairness to make an investment on Vancouver Island to improve that economy.
Clearly, if the federal Government is interested in creating employment on Vancouver Island, stimulating the local economy to restore small businesses and rehiring those young people who are trapped and essentially without hope, an improved forest industry, reforestation and silviculture programs are the most effective and efficient way of doing so. In the face of
September 16, 1985

those difficulties, I expect that the Government would be prepared to support such an initiative. These communities are simply asking for an annual investment of $22.5 million. I see that you are signalling me to resume my place.
Finally, I urge my colleagues in the Conservative Party to support this effort. It is an enormously exciting proposal which they should support today.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of the House of Commons for approximately 12 months. Many times I have observed the distress of opposition Members when issues have been raised in the House or papers have been presented to the House only on several hours' or a day's notice. I was quite distressed this afternoon to find that this issue, which is near and dear to my heart, has arisen basically out of the blue when 1 am on my death bed with a temperature of 102 degrees. However, I have rushed here to speak on this issue because it is so important to my riding. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek because I am far from dead on this issue.
I want to thank the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell (Mr. Skelly) for suddenly raising this issue and showing sudden interest in the Vancouver Island mayors' proposal in their strategy for survival.
I believe it is important to review the history of this strategy for survival. My office was contacted last fall, when this was initially proposed by the Mayor of North Cowichan and his colleague, the Hon. Graham Bruce. We were able to arrange transportation for the Mayor and his committee to Ottawa. As you know, Mr. Speaker, being a former Member of Parliament yourself-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ted William Schellenberg: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, an existing Member of Parliament who finds his duties somewhat stretched in other areas.


Mr. Speaker:: I am perfectly willing to attribute that to the 102 degree temperature.


Ted William Schellenberg: I am sure that you are aware of the work involved in making sure that the doors in Ottawa are opened to delegations from ridings and ensuring that these people have access to the corridors of power in Ottawa.
On many occasions opposition Members were unable to do so and your humble servant was able to arrange these contacts between Members and Ministers, especially the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew). A meeting at my office was arranged so that this kind of proposal could receive the attention it deserves.
Next, several times I attempted to raise this issue at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, but it was delayed by opposition Members who believed that the fisheries Bill at the time was of paramount importance. Therefore, I am rather surprised to see these sudden born again foresters in the
Committee Reports
opposition Party who are determined to have this issue go through the House today.
Let us consider what the Government has done for forestry since the election in 1984, because I believe it provides an important background when studying this issue. During the election campaign we promised that there would be a Minister of Forests.
That is an important first step in giving Canada's number one employer the attention it deserves. Second, there is the agreement to which I was very proud to contribute. It is the Economic Regional Development Agreement for British Columbia, involving some $575 million, $300 million of which went directly into reforestation programs in British Columbia. That is five or six times more than what the previous Government deigned to give the Province of British Columbia on forestry, but I believe it shows the new kind of emphasis that our Government is giving this particular aspect of the Canadian economy.
Another specific incident which perhaps demonstrates our Government's emphasis on the forest industry happened at the time when the central Vancouver Island area was faced with the loss of some 250 Employment Bridging Assistance Program jobs.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss Macdonald) met with individuals whom we brought to Ottawa from my riding and rescued those jobs with some $1.2 million being put back into the program. This occurred some two months after the province had withdrawn its support for that program.
With respect to the countervailing duties argument, there is a growing protectionist and isolationist sentiment in the United States that is threatening our British Columbia forest industry. Our Government is not ignoring this issue.
This summer we sent an all-Party delegation to Washington, D.C. to discuss the issue with the American Senators and Congressmen. On August 2, in Vancouver, B.C., we met the Minister of Trade, the Forestry Minister, Members of Parliament including Opposition Members and Stan Gibbons, the Congressman who is pushing this Bill through the U.S. Congress. Those discussions continue, which shows the emphasis our Government is putting on the forestry issue.
I must take exception to the comments last week of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). He said that our Government is not paying this issue the attention it deserves. As I stated in the House on Friday, it is time that the New Democratic Party learned who its friends are. Valid criticism is warranted, of course. But the U.S. Government is our friend. The United States of America is our greatest market-place. We need the Americans for our B.C. forest products. You certainly cannot go around deriding the American Government on the one hand and asking it on the other to buy B.C. forest products. That is talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you keep on doing that, people stop listening.

September 16, 1985
Committee Reports
I think our new Progressive Conservative Government is giving the forest industry in Canada the attention it deserves, and will continue to do so as our mandates over the next 20 to 25 years progress.
I was interested in a comment made by the Members for Comox-Powell River during his speech. He said that it is the obligation of the federal Government to spend money on the resource. This is true. It is also the obligation of the forestry industry to spend money on the resource and to reforest whenever possible. It is not 100 per cent the obligation of the Government of Canada to spend money on the forest resource. One has to remember that.
Let us deal specifically with the Strategy for Survival from the Vancouver Island mayors. It is my hope this program will progress and that it will be funded in part by the Government of Canada. I know the Ministers involved, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of State for Forestry are very supportive of that program.
In travelling through the riding this summer I found there was one aspect of the program that was of concern to the unemployed foresters. It is not simply a UIC top-up program. I am sure my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River will agree that if this program is to progress, there has to be an opportunity for those foresters who have fallen off the UIC program on to the welfare rolls to take part in it also. I hope that is a vital part of the Vancouver Island mayors Strategy for Survival.
For the record, if I may, Mr. Speaker, let me read the immediate response of the Minister of Immigration to our committee's motion of late June. She said that it was an ambitious plan which would require significant financial commitment over a very long period, well into the next century. She said: "Clearly, we are not in a position to support the entire scope of the proposal. However, it is possible we may be able to help through training or retraining mechanisms in support of the development of the workforce. I have recommended that the mayors of Vancouver Island work with my regional officials, who have been involved with the forest investment steering team, to discuss possible ways in which the requirements associated with the proposed activities under the strategy for survival might be met through support under the Canadian jobs strategy."
The Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Forestry have been paying the attention this motion deserves. In fact, they have been paying it a great deal of attention. Finally, before I get to 103 degrees, Mr. Speaker, let me underline one statement in the motion that came from our Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. It reads:
Your committee recommends that the Government consider the advisability of funding this proposal.
Our Government must look into the viability of funding this proposal, and that is what we are doing. I talked to the office of the Minister of Employment and Immigration this morning. The project is very much alive and will be coming through in the fall. Let me say that that is through the initiatives of the
Members of Parliament on the Government and on the Opposition side, not one or the other.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, there are some slight inaccuracies in the Hon. Member's speech. I do not wish in any way to criticize what has been put forward. I know the Member has supported both components of the motion which asks the Government to fund this project and which will be the subject of the support motion today.
The Hon. Member was phoned last week and told that this matter was very much on our minds and that there was an opportunity to move concurrence in it. We notified other Members of Parliament from Vancouver Island hoping to get their support and comment on the record.
Because of the rules of the House today, I think it would be important that we recognize that we would have to allow this motion to be put to a decision of the House prior to five o'clock before talking the matter out. Let me ask the Member two things. First, has he verbally had a commitment from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to fund this proposal? I understood the Member to say that the Minister would be annoucing this fall that the program would be funded, in part. Second, do his colleagues intend to co-operate with us and allow the House to bring this matter to a decision before five o'clock rather thank talking it out?


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), that he is to a certain extent putting words in my mouth. I did not say right away this fall that the funding would be coming forward. I said that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) look on this proposal very favourably. In my telephone conversations with their ministries it is apparent that they are very much on top of the issue. An answer will be forthcoming within the weeks and months to come. If you can put your ear to the railway and listen for what is coming, I anticipate that it will be a favourable response and I will be quite happy when that happens, as the Hon. Member well knows.


Raymond John Skelly: And the second part of my question, Mr. Speaker?


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch it.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the other thing is the importance of bringing this motion, a motion which received unanimous support from members of the committee. Is it the intention of the Hon. Member's colleagues to allow this matter to come to a decision this afternoon by not talking the motion out and allowing the Government to have some guidance on this very important issue?


Ted William Schellenberg: I cannot speak for the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as to what the proposal or plan is for this afternoon. All I know is that I was in my office 20 minutes ago. Then I was madly writing a speech as I came over to the House. I am not sure what is happening this afternoon as far
September 16, 1985

as the remainder of the debate is concerned. I am quite certain that the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) will have a few more words to say on this issue before any action is taken.


James Ross Fulton: I would very much like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) who says that on the issue of the Gibbons Bill I have been talking out of both sides of my mouth. I would like some clarification from him.
It is his Government that has not responded to the initiative taken by Ambassador Niles who, before the Senate confirmation hearings, said that it was his view in terms of his idea and that of the White House for free trade that U.S. loggers be allowed into British Columbia to cut British Columbia trees and to take them back to a United States sawmill.
Does the Hon. Member think that it is responsible for Members of the Opposition not to raise the matter in the House? Does he not think we should try to make it clear to the United States that that is not something that at least I, as a British Columbian, support? The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni as a Government Member might think it is a good idea.
In terms of the Gibbons legislation, there is no question in my mind that that legislation is moving forward very quickly. I do not think the Government side has taken it in any way seriously enough. The industry and the workers in Canada take it seriously. I would like to hear from the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni whether he thinks it is appropriate to raise the profile of that issue to get the Government moving, in the same way that we in the NDP are trying to get the Government to move on the Strategy for Survival, something about which his Party has made lots of promises but has done nothing.
There are three questions. If the Hon. Member thinks that is out of both sides of my mouth, let me say I am looking forward to hearing from him.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, I think, rose legitimately to make a comment on a comment that he felt had been made about himself. I find it difficult now to allow a question about a matter that was not the subject of the report nor of the speech made by the Member. In theory, we are dealing with questions. Questions at this point should be relevant to the matters raised.


James Ross Fulton: He raised the Gibbons Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Member rose to rebut, as is his right under comments. I do not think the question, frankly, is in order. As the Members musts know, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) does have the right of rebuttal. I shall be pleased to give it to him.


Ted William Schellenberg: It will be a very short rebuttal, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of political footwork going on here. Let me say that I do not support the proposal from the new American ambassador. I would not expect my Government to
Committee Reports
place too much credence in the comment of an American citizen, just as I would not expect the American Government to place too much credence in some of the anti-American comments from some Canadians.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today as forestry critic for the Liberal Party to indicate our support for the efforts and proposals of the mayors of Vancouver Island. Indeed, as some of my colleagues indicated a few moments ago when I was out of the House, I did not realize that this matter was coming before the House today. A motion was moved, adopted and unanimously approved in committee supporting the efforts of those mayors. That proposal is important because it provides the area of Vancouver Island, or that part of British Columbia, with an opportunity to stimulate the economy and because it provides an opportunity to stimulate the economy and because it provides an opportunity for employment for people in that part of the country. More important, the proposal of the mayors of Vancouver Island can be a real pilot project. It can be the map or the new course which charts the way to renewal of our forestry industry. It deals in a tangible way with much of the unemployment affecting rural parts of the nation from coast to coast. As the forestry critic for the Liberal Party and as a Member of Parliament from the riding of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe which was a sizeable forestry industry, with two mills and a good chunk of the population working in that industry, I support the proposal of the mayors of Vancouver Island.
I have some concern with those who suggest that the Government of Canada has to be careful not to provide direct assistance to the proposal of the mayors if it will be seen as a subsidy by the American administration and therefore seen as evidence or more reason to move on the threat of countervailing tariffs in the softwood lumber industry. I have real concern that that kind of argument can be made in the House or that we as Canadians have to be careful not to assist our unemployed, or not to rejuvenate our single greatest resource, because we may offend the Americans and give them a case for bringing in a countervailing tariff against that industry. Such a suggestion is tantamount to saying that domestic policy in Canada will be set by an administration south of the border. Such a statement is tantamount to saying that the unemployment in Canada will have to wait until those south of the border are less nervous about the success of our industry in their market-place. Such a statement is tantamount to saying that Canada should neglect its forest resource by allowing continuing over-cutting and an insufficient restocking of forest lands until our friends south of the border are no longer nervous, until the congressional elections are over.
In a sovereign nation which is governed by a democratic institution and operates under a parliamentary democracy, we should not allow ourlelves to make policy on the basis of what is acceptable to an administration south of the border. Surely we are not telling those people who make a living from the forestry resource that we know they need help, we know they

September 16, 1985
Committee Reports
are in trouble, we know that their circumstances are desperate, but they should not bother us right now because Uncle Sam is looking over our shoulder. Our forestry industry is greater in terms of the balance of trade than agriculture, mining, oil, gas and the fishery combined.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is true, that is a fact. Surely we are not saying that that resource should be put on hold until a new Shamrock Summit can be held and we can sing the same song again as far as trade is concerned.
The mayors of Vancouver Island have done what perhaps Governments at every level have failed to do. They have had the courage, wisdom and initiative not to complain about their plight but to make a concrete proposal to put people back to work to ensure the basis of the economy of their region and to reinvest in our greatest resource, the forestry sector.
Currently we are cutting 700,000 hectares more of forest land per year than we are planting. Every year we are falling behind by 700,000 hectares. Of course this does not take into account great forest fire years like this year in the Provinces of British Columbia where hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest land were lost. Also there are hundreds of thousands of hectares which have been clear cut and where replanting has not been done.
One of the dilemmas of the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) is that he does not have any direct jurisdiction. Jurisdiction in the forestry sector is exclusively that of the provinces. The Minister of State for Forestry has a difficult time. He does not have a stick and he does not have a carrot. He can only express his concern. He can only say that there is a disaster in the making and that if we continue going the way in which we have been going, we will cut off our nose to spite our face. He can only make projections that Canada will lose its place in the international market-place in this industry if we do not act now. However, he cannot act now because the forestry sector is the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial Governments. There is only one thing he can do. He can provide the dollars. If the provincial Governments cannot find it within themselves to make forestry a priority, he can provide the dollars to third parties like the mayors of Vancouver Island. He can provide the dollars for a project which would, as we would say in Newfoundland, chart a new course and fasten a new sail for an industry which is in deep trouble.
The real tragedy of the Canadian forestry industry, even though it is the single most important industry, is that Canadians only know about the forestry what they see on television and hear from Smokey the Bear. The forestry industry takes place out of sight and away from major urban centres. Most Canadians have no idea what is going on in that industry. They drive down the highways and see an endless skyline of trees and they say: "There are lots of trees; Canada has an endless supply of trees; everywhere we look there are forests". They cannot see that beyond the highways and beyond the lands lying in front of them and over the bluff are thousands of hectares of clear-cut forest lands which have not been replanted. They cannot see the trees lying broken and uncollected. They cannot see the stumps rotting in the ground with nothing to replace them. They cannot see the thousands of miles of wilderness land, where animals once roamed and were king, where trees once grew and rivers flowed, dead and dormant. They cannot see the problems of the forestry industry in Canada, the so-called land of great forests and wilderness, the so-called recipient of God's great gift of the forest. Unless we intervene dramatically, the industry will remain in trouble.
If common sense prevails in Parliament and if non-partisanship can rear its rare head, we will support this motion of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, in the interest of seeing trees planted which will not even be ripe for harvest for 40 years or perhaps when many of us are no longer on the face of the earth. We should all support this motion. We should ensure that before five o'clock it passes by way of vote. In fact, we will do it right away. We will support the efforts of the Conservative Member from Vancouver Island who wants to see some assistance for his region. Members of Parliament like myself from areas suffering 30 per cent unemployment are prepared to see a substantial amount of money going to an area with a much better employment picture because it is a pilot project which will show our areas the way. I hope we can move concurrence in this motion today. I hope we can come to a quick vote and that our commitment to future generations will prevail over our short-term partisan political considerations.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest the comments of the Hon. Member with respect to countervailing tariffs and his concern about what position we might find ourselves in. His suggestion that we might be backing off from sovereignty is what brought me to ask this question.
I just ask the Hon. Member, in view of the statements made by this Government last week with respect to participation in SDI, which was quite firm on just exactly what we intend to do in terms of support for things which we do not control, and in view of this government's statement on the far north and our sovereignty there which far outstripped any of the weak, mollycoddling statements of the previous Liberal administration, which never had the guts to determine baselines and stake out a position for Canada in the far north, and in view of the fact that the previous administration talked about building an icebreaker for 16 years and never did a darn thing about it, which could have helped us establish sovereignty there, in view of the actions taken this week, would not the Hon. Member agree that we have far outstripped anything that the previous administration did if not in the four years of office, in the last 17 years?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a shameful thing when a young Member of Parliament, from an area of high unemployment puts aside his partisanship to stand in his place this day to support the efforts of the good Members from British Columbia and all sides of the House and makes a call that we put aside our petty differences to stand in solidarity with the
September 16, 1985

mayors of Vancouver Island to be confronted with such a childish and foolish question, Mr. Speaker. I shall attempt to answer it. I shall attempt.
When I was in high school we had a fellow named Johnny in the class. Johnny was one of these guys who would always talk into a great fight. Johnny would always tell Fred, "Fred, if you keep talking that way I am going to meet you after school and we will have it out". This is what the Government did with the American administration. Johnny would show up after school at 4.15, knowing that the bus that Fred rode left at 4.10. That is what the government's action reminded me of this summer.
After the ship had gone through the Arctic, after it had split the ice asunder and sailed the flag straight through, not even asking permission, the Government, like Johnny, showed up. After the barn door had been left open and the horses were gone, it rolled up its sleeves, exposed its knuckles and said, "by God, we are standing tough for Canada".
It always amazes that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) claims "We did not have a peashooter or a canoe up north. The previous Liberal Government did not leave us with even a peashooter or a canoe".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not really know what Johnny and Fred have to do with this. I wish you both would get back to the relevancy of this Bill, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying this. On the question of severeignty, if the previous administration did not have a peashooter or canoe, it strikes me as strange that for 16 years with the power of its argument and its pride in Canada, no nation dared go through that Arctic. This administration was in power one summer and the Americans said "We will blow through the Arctic waters of our poor cousin to the North." That is the reality.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for the very generous position he is taking as critic responsible for his Party on this matter. It started out with very strong non-partisan support of a motion to which we all agree.
Certainly the issues that have been exchanged by the two Hon. Members, one from the Conservative Party and one from the Liberal Party, are important critical issues but I am wondering if we can maintain the kind of non-partisan, general support for this motion and move quickly to a vote since we seem to be in support of it.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased with this opportunity to address the problems of the forestry industry, since two thirds of the economy of my riding and the general area depends on that industry and its products. The issue is a very important one to us. We do not happen to be in British Columbia, but just the same, the forestry industry in Eastern Canada is very important to us. In fact, the largest municipalities in my riding were created thanks to the forestry industry. The Municipality of Gatineau
Committee Reports
owes its existence to CIP, and the City of Buckingham to Maclaren, and the same applies to Thurso. This issue is therefore important to us.
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, I was among those who asked for a Department of Forestry, not just to have one more Minister but because this sector is vital to my region and to the entire country. In fact, I hope the Department will set up its offices in our region so that at last our eastern forests, the forests of Central Canada and especially our hardwood forests which are seriously threatened, will have a spokesperson with an interest in their future.
What major issues would the Department have to deal with right away? Any one would agree that reforestation should be at the top of the list. Fortunately, one of the new Department's first steps was to sign a federal-provincial agreement with Quebec and the other provinces to set up a forest conservation, renewal and reforestation program.
In my riding, these are very real concerns because of the present crisis in the forestry industry. Because plants must go farther and farther afield to get their raw materials, their wood supply has become increasingly expensive. Some of the smaller sawmills, for instance, have been forced to close because the cost of wood has become so prohibitive they can no longer continue to operate and compete with the US and especially with new markets in the southern hemisphere where forests mature more rapidly because of the warmer climate. 1 therefore hope that thanks to this agreement between the federal Government and the provinces, we will be able to ensure the reforestation of our forests and the wood supply our plants require.
In my riding, the Maclaren Company, for instance, a family operation that now belongs to a large corporation, has finally established its own nursery in our region. Mr. Speaker, that tree nursery is using new seeding and growing methods and they also have new training programs for youths because it is a sector where many of them can find employment.
I therefore hope that we will maintain our efforts in an attempt to reach a federal-provincial agreement under which we might consider the possibility of joint university training, the kind of program enabling young Canadians to spend a few months working for a paper company or in a tree nursery and then perhaps go on to complete their course in a university during the other months of the year. A great many of those young people come from very poor families in our region and simply cannot afford to quit working to take university courses, but they can see for themselves that the preliminary or technical elementary level does not offer employment prospects and good pay in a highly competitive world. It is therefore a matter of renewing supply, renewing training and forestry technique.

September 16, 1985
Committee Reports
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we do have a lot of ground to cover in terms of staff training. I am quite pleased to hear that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has been successful in reaching an agreement with her provincial colleague with respect to vocational training and that they are both looking at ways of providing the kind of industrial training which will not cut into the traditional provincial field of education.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very imperative that we get on with such on-the-job training. In my riding, for example, the large CIP company wants to replace one of its machine by a new one which can compete with developing countries, especially southern countries which, as I pointed out, can indeed find new and cheaper supplies. To do that the company will have to retrain a great many of its employees who work in the paper mill.
So, Mr. Speaker, we must put the emphasis on staff training on the job, and that is why I am pleased that the new programs of our Minister of Employment and Immigration will enable us to do just that in the near future.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, there is another question which is even more relevant than the first two, however important these may be, and it is the question of diversifying our forest products. In the course of discussions at our Outaouais socioeconomic summit we found out that a silvichemistry centre in the Outaouais would be a good example for the rest of the province and provide advantages and new markets which are unavailable right now. That is why I am very glad to see that all participants at the socio-economic summit and all spokesmen for the steering committee who come from every community in the region and from various quarters have agreed to give tcp priority to a silvichemistry centre.
What does silvichemistry mean to us? It means that we can use the discards of a paper mill, it even means that we can develop new methods, new clean energy sources for our cities, our homes and our institutions.
Mr. Speaker, this even means discovering new drugs, which might surprise some people, but residues from pulp and paper plants can be used to make drugs to fight respiratory ailments such as those which are resistant to antibiotics.
Mr. Speaker, we therefore have a whole new industry in forest resources.
To achieve these results, we need the cooperation of all levels of Government. We also have to set our priorities.
When we want to provide assistance to a plant or a sawmill in our region or constituency, we might find that somewhere else in Canada, in another province, there is a surplus of the same product or raw material.
Mr. Speaker, being a national Government, we face the dilemma of developing the regions, especially if they are dependent on forest resources, while governing the country
responsibly by guaranteeing that jobs will not be moved from one part of the country to another. The forest industry provides a perfect example of this dilemma.
I have myself occasionally requested subsidies to help sawmills or small paper plants and been told: If we help your region, we shall create unemployment in British Columbia or New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, we can obviously not implement a forestry policy without devising a new approach to regional development. This is why I am very happy that our party is seriously considering a new regional development policy and that our Quebec caucus, for instance, of which I am a member, has created a sub-committee which will focus on a new approach to regional development, especially in sectors such as the forest industry, which are threatened by supply imbalances throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, we have discussed a regional development fund under which regional priorities could be identified without harming the national policy which must be implemented.
When discussing the forest industry in the perspective adopted by the Hon. Member, who has moved a very specific motion, we have to remember that, while he emphasizes the importance of a solution, if the Government does not approach the planning of national policies seriously, it could create as many problems in the rest of the country as it would solve in his own region.
It is therefore not because of some reluctancy or lack of courage on our part that we want to examine seriously a national forestry policy with a regional development orientation, but because our country is made up of different regions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues from British Columbia, who must naturally deal urgently with their own problems, not to forget that our country is made up of regions, that its diversity is also its strength, but that this diversity creates rather special problems when we are trying to develop a national policy in any given area.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask them not to try to be too controversial in this area because thousands of jobs are involved, the future of our country depends on it and the forest industry remains one of the major sectors of our economy.
I would also ask them to cooperate with us in trying to find new markets for this traditional Canadian industry. I am thinking also of the remote sensing system which we have finally adopted in this country. Mr. Speaker, this system makes it possible for us to carry out an inventory of our forests through satellite slewing, so that instead of being satisfied with a rough survey made on site, we can now have a global picture of our forests, we can supervise their growth and health, as well as plan their development and protection.
September 16, 1985

Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to closely cooperate in the area of forestry, because a great many jobs depend upon it and also, somewhat, the pride of our country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Memer for York West (Mr. Marchi)-Multicultur-alism-Federal-provincial confernce-race relations; and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)-Drug tax exemptions. (b) Request for removal of all drug taxes.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Skelly that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, presented to the House on Friday, June 28, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just sat down gave an interesting presentation on the necessity of taking a look at forests from a national perspective. In terms of the Government's approach to regions which have severely depressed economies and resource bases, and since each region of the country is extremely different, when an appropriate plan for a region is developed that has the two benefits of ensuring a rapid increase in the health of the local economy and employment, as well as making a significant contribution to the forest resource base, which has been supported by the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and Members of the Conservative Party, I wonder if the previous speaker would support projects such as this?


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question. What I meant to say in my remarks is that we can
Committee Reports
only deal with one issue at a time. The reason why not everybody is anxious to support immediately the Hon. Member's plan of action is precisely because there are many other issues we want to deal with concerning the forest industry. When I said that we need a national forestry policy, I said also that we need a policy on regional development. I suggested that we must try and find a method which would enable us to develop a national policy on forestry while dealing with the various regions he referred to; he was right when he said that regional differences create a great many problems for our national legislators. But with a policy of regional development, we could have, for instance, a regional development fund to look into the potential and problems of the forest industry in each region; this way, we would address both problems.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate with respect to the motion for concurrence which is before us. The recommendation which we are dealing with here, which is the Vancouver Island mayors' proposal, Strategy for Survival, is an important one. Many people on Vancouver Island, and in British Columbia, will read this afternoon's proceedings. It is important that as they read it they understand what the procedure being followed here is. That is to say, the Govenment has an opportunity this afternoon, before five o'clock, to allow the motion for concurrence to come to a vote. If the matter does not come to a vote, then it is put on to Government Orders where it can remained buried for months and months, as happened with one of our previous motions concerning CN twin tracking. We need to come to the brass tacks of the issue, since it is clear that Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic Party members who sit on the committee voted in favour of the Vancouver Island mayors' proposal. It is a very well put together and researched proposal. It could well act as a planning model which could be applied to other areas of British Columbia, to those areas of the prairies provinces with a forest base and to Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes. It really is a national application. With a few changes it could, in fact, be applied in the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
Government Members, and everyone else, particularly Members from Vancouver Island, cannot continue to send the signal to everyone on Vancouver Island that the cash is about to flow, as the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) makes it seem, while months and months and more months and months are allowed to go by. We have to bite the bullet with respect to this issue. Members of the House should know exactly what the forest investment proposal is for Vancouver Island. It is an investment of $22,350,000 per year in an ongoing Vancouver Island Forest Improvement Program which will create 1,116 permanent productive jobs directly in the forest and a further 500 jobs in indirect employment. Part of the intent of this measure is to attrack back into the forest sector younger workers, with the remaining jobs going to small businesses in the Vancouver Island area. As we have seen in some areas of British Columbia, the average age in some of the

September 16, 1985
Committee Reports
plywood plants is now above age 40. Younger workers do not seem to be finding their way into these traditional type jobs.
The Vancouver Island mayors' proposal is important to this House. I think Hon. Members should tread with care so as not to force this issue to five o'clock just to have it placed on the Order Paper. We should be able to vote on it. Conservative Members of Parliament who sit on the committee agree with me in this respect. They know the problem is in Cabinet with respect to the release of money to British Columbia. It is not a matter of some of the B.C. Tories not being interested in the proposal and supportive of it. It is a matter of breaking the dollars loose from Treasury Board and getting them out to the project. I am sure many Conservative Members would like to see the matter come to a vote this afternoon. I see a great many nodding heads across the floor so I know that, in fact, is the case.
What the implementation of the proposal would do is affect the level of annual investment at the time of harvest, which would be about 45 years down the road. It would increase harvestable volumes by 33 per cent, or 9.5 million cubic metres. It would increase the total value of the harvest by 55 per cent, or $655 million. That is a pretty good investment for the number of dollars we are talking about putting in. Implementation of the measure will increase employment by 33 per cent, or 38,000 jobs. It will increase revenues to Government. I am sure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), if he is listening, would like to know there is a way in Canada by which revenues can be increased to Government by some 33 per cent, or $79.5 million per year. These revenues will generate, at net present value, a real 6 per cent discount rate of between $4,000 and $6,000 per hectare, depending on the project and site quality, with treatment costs bearing between $200 and $460 per hectare. That is a very nominal investment for a major return.
I have made it clear that members of the committee in a very non-partisan way brought this matter forward in the interests of a part of Canada which is suffering a real decline in one of our primary resource industries. I want to make it clear that we have to let this issue come to a vote today. I do not think that people on Vancouver Island who read the speeches given this afternoon and who suddenly see the matter come to an end at five o'clock when the Speaker announces Private Members' Hour should understand anything other than the fact that the Government talked the issue out in order to put it back on hold.
I would like to tell Hon. Members of some of the problems we are seeing in the forest industry in this country. It is our largest industry and our largest source of balance of trade payments. The B.C.-Ottawa federal forestry ERDA for $300 million for reforestation has just been put into place. It sounds like a great deal of money but, as Les Reid, who holds an independent chair at the University of British Columbia's forestry school pointed out, we should be spending $300 million per year just to deal with the NSR, whereas Jack Walters, a professor of forestry at UBC pointed out, we should be spending $600 million per year if we really intend to deal
with the backlog and the NSR in British Columbia. Let me point out that Sweden gets four times the wealth out of an acre of forest than British Columbia-and that is for comparable acreage-while British Columbia has half the trees in Canada and produces less than half the value in dollars.
Vancouver Island, Mr. Speaker, has a base of over three million hectares. Productivity capacity on even the average growing sites on Vancouver Island are at least four times better than the Canadian average. On Vancouver Island the general levels of unemployment are approaching 15 per cent and in many of the communities, as our witnesses from Vancouver Island pointed out to us, the largest source of dollars in some of those Vancouver Island communities are unemployment insurance, Canada Works and welfare. What kind of a legacy is being left in these declining moments of the forest industry in this country?
In British Columbia one person in five is employed as a result of forest industry activities. One job in the forest industry supports two indirect jobs and one job in logging supports 3.6 jobs in conversion plants, 9.2 jobs in indirect services and 12.8 jobs in total. These statistics might sound bland but they are the underlying foundation of some very sound and careful planning and evaluation which has been done by the Vancouver Island mayors in bringing this proposal before Parliament with the hope, of course, of getting not only federal support but provincial support as well.
The legacy for this country is a bad one at the federal level. For a decade and a half under former Prime Minister Trudeau, less than five cents out of every dollar brought in directly and indirectly through taxation by the forest sector actually went back into any kind of research and development or helped Canada's largest industry. That is less than five cents out of the dollar. There are some industries in this country, Mr. Speaker, which receive very close to a dollar back for every dollar they produce for our economy. The forest sector has been bled heavily by the federal Government and 1 hope that the new Government will look carefully at the fact that it still has yet to increase what goes back into the forest sector beyond that five cents out of every dollar.
One article which I took considerable interest in was written by the dean of forestry at the University of British Columbia, Robert Kennedy, who pointed out a number of things in an article called "Timber-r-r", and I quote:
Forestry is Canada's largest industry, directly employing almost 300,000 people and indirectly responsible for the jobs of another 500,000. One in ten Canadian workers depends on the $23 billion forest industry for a living.
British Columbia in particular is dependent on its trees. Twenty per cent of British Columbians are directly or indirectly employed by the forest industry.
He goes on to say:
In the past 20 years Canada's share of the world forest products market has dropped from over 30 per cent to under 20 per cent.
That is a decline of some 50 per cent.
Brazil and other tropical countries can produce pulp logs in Five to 10 years, compared to 25 to 50 years in Canada. The Scandinavian countries have been
September 16, 1985

practising intensive forest management for 80 years, and now produce three to four times as much wood as Canada per productive unit of forest.
That is three to four times as much, Mr. Speaker. What the Vancouver Island mayors are talking about is mobilizing some of the technologies we have now which are really quite simple. We are talking about conifer release, doing proper thinning, having proper nurseries in place, a proper return on what is called "not satisfactorily restrocked land", and back to full productivity by getting rid of the weeds. There are a lot of things which can be done, many of which are labour intensive, which is good. It gets a lot of people back to work. It is also very good in terms of investment, as I pointed out. For a very small investment we get a massive multibillion dollar return.
The article continues, and I quote:
Kennedy feels we must practise intensive forestry-controlling vegetation, spacing new seedlings properly, pruning, thinning and fertilizing them. If this is done just on B.C.'s good and medium forest sites-25 per cent of the forest land-a substantial gain in forest production will result.
"Practising intensive forestry, you can double the yield of the forest in 45 to 50 years", says Dean Kennedy.
That goes along exactly with what Vancouver Island mayors are saying. There are very few sectors in this country where if you put that small an investment in, you can get that kind of return. I think this House should be looking more carefully at how we can make responsible investments.
I was glad to see the new Government getting rid of the non-productive heavy water plants. I do not believe any Canadians, including people who work there, really felt that the taxpayers of Canada should be putting out over $100 million a year for a product which had no use in Canada. We had no export market for it, yet we made it year after year because a senior Liberal happened to hold the seat. There was no reason for us to continue down that road. We have to start putting money into the productive sectors of the economy where we can put people back to work, get communities back on their feet and generate some revenue, not just for our generation but for a few generations down the road.
I would like to quote Don Whiteley, Sun Business reporter, in his recent article headed "Forest Disaster Looms in 15 Years". He is reporting on Sten Nilsson's report which came out earlier this year. In fact, we dealt with it in our committee. Mr. Whitely said the following, and I quote:
The annual volume of timber available in B.C., now about 75 million cubic metres, will decline to 67 million cubic metres under favorable conditions. Even with productivity improvements, that will mean a five- to 10-per-cent decline in pulp and a five-per-cent drop in lumber. The timber volume could dip as low as 44 million cubic metres, with catastrophic results.
Most plywood plants in B.C. will close by the year 2000 as a result of substitution of other products such as waferboard, which will be produced elsewhere.
A switch from bulk commodity products to greater value-added products is necessary and will help, but distance from markets sharply limits that opportunity, and the industry will be in difficulty regardless.
The industry needs to invest $35 billion by the year 2000 in reforestation and modernization, but "cannot generate sufficient capital... This is perhaps the most serious component in the picture of the B.C. forest industry-it can do little to solve its problems."
When we read a report which is written by an internationally respected economist who tells us these things, we have to
Committee Reports
realize that the money must come from somewhere during this crucial period. I do not believe we should let the industry off the hook. It has been negligent in many of the sites it has operated on for many years. I will be demonstrating that with some statistics in a moment. However, during this crucial period, while we have so many people on Vancouver Island, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Queen Charlotte, Smithers, over to Prince George, down through the Chilcotin, who are concerned, we must try to get this pilot project off the ground so we can apply similar kinds of projects in our own communities. Those same mayors of Vancouver Island have visited my communities and we have similar kinds of pilot projects going. There are a lot of people prepared to go in and work at almost any kind of job which would be proposed.
Mr. Whiteley goes on to say the following in his article:
The amount of timber available to the industry, the report concludes, will be seriously affected even if there is a strong improvement in the economy.
"About five to 15 per cent of the volume is still too expensive to cut, "Nilsson claims. "By 2000, 30 to 40 per cent of the available wood will be too expensive to use due to longer transportation distances, lower wood quality, increased development costs and smaller logs."
There it is in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker. We do not have a lot of options here. The House has to move. We have an industry where less than five cents out of a dollar is being returned to it. We do not find that anywhere else. We do not find it in high tech, agriculture, energy, shipbuilding, textiles, shoes or anything else. There is no other industry in this country which is bled to fiercely by the federal and provincial Governments as the forest sector.
The legacy we are now left with we must deal with. The Vancouver Island mayors have recognized this and all Hon. Members of this House have to recognize it. The summary of the forest and range resource analysis of 1984, produced by the Government of British Columbia, said the following:
-the high-value end of the supply is being depleted ... relaxed utilization standards have aggravated this problem by allowing larger areas to be cut to attain the same timber volume... the long established trend to take the best first has been accelerated. This leaves the lower quality wood to be harvested when the price of forest products increase or when new technology allows cheaper logging and manufacturing.
It goes on to say regarding replanting and silviculture in B.C.:
-the area planted and the number of seedlings planted has almost doubled in the 5 years in B.C.
-between 1979 and 1984 the number of seedlings planted increased from 58 million to 108 million. However, the report states that about 160 million seedlings need to be planted annually.
"Site preparation, brushing, weeding, and present planting levels are insufficient to sustain current levels of annual allowable cut"
Once again we have it in a nutshell. The forest management practices in British Columbia are, to use environmental terms, culpably criminal. Report after report points out that they are harvesting at a rate far faster than it is being regrown naturally or through the little bit of intensive silviculture there is in that province. The Government of British Columbia, in con-
80173	10

September 16, 1985
Committee Reports
cert with the federal Government, is talcing us down a road to disaster. Look at any serious writer who has written in the last couple of years about what is happening in British Columbia and they all say the same thing: You are over-harvesting. The NSR in the province is larger than the province of Prince Edward Island. That is how big the backlog of sites going the other way is. They are being taken over by weeds, non-commercial species, or they are not growing anything. It is a very serious national problem which we have to deal with in this House.
The summary goes on to say:
-the Ministry's focus presumably was on planting, brushing, and weeding. The report states that "other intensive sivilcultural activites decreased as priorities were shifted to meet increased planting targets"
We see it time after time in the report. The Government is taking the wrong approach. The industry is taking the wrong approach. They are exploiting capital, technology and engineering when we should be revamping our own industry in this country. The report goes on:
-In total NSR land has increased from 1.9 million hectares to 3.6 million hectares (an 85 per cent increase) between 1979 and 1984.
We find that to be very true on Vancouver Island. It continues:
After factoring (i.e. estimating how much of that might actually be stocked upon field inspection), the report states that NSR land has increased from 1.0 million hectares to 1.6 million (a 50 per cent increase in five years).
That is a phenomenal increase, Mr. Speaker. At the same time Ottawa is dribbling out five cents on the dollar and British Columbia is putting almost nothing back into the industry. We should have a national forest act, something I know the Minister responsible supports, and he should be a full member of Cabinet as well as being on the P and P Committee. The Prime Minister should be living up to what he promised in the campaign. British Columbians and people across Canada have recognized that the industry and many provinces have been remiss in this field and we need some federal leadership. I do not think it is wrong, under the Constitution or anything else, for us to be demonstrating that kind of leadership at the federal level. Look at the scientific expertise we can draw on by having Members from all regions of the country and universities and so on in order to get some sound industrial and resource based development going. The report goes on:
-Focusing only on good and medium site land within that total, it has increased from 0.8 million hectares to 1.2 million (a 42 per cent increase in five years). After factoring, the amount of good and medium site NSR land increased from 0.6 million to 0.7 million hectares (a 14 per cent increase).
-Looking at NSR by Forest Region, the most dramatic increase is in the Prince George Forest Region: An increase from 292,400 hectares of good and medium site NSR land in 1979 to 632,700 hectares in 1984 (i.e. an increase of 116 per cent!).
A book was recently written called Cut and Run by Mr. Swift. There is certainly no doubt about that in some areas of British Columbia; the companies, with the full endorsation of Victoria, are going in, cutting the trees down, using them here and exporting them, but they are not doing any kind of serious replanting. When you see an increase in NSR land by 116 per cent, you really know something is wrong.
In the minute that I have left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what is going on here this afternoon. We have a motion for concurrence. This House has the opportunity in the next 25 minutes to take a vote on this matter. I am quite confident that my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will rally support on that side to see that this is passed because it is a Cabinet problem. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet do not want to spend that money in British Columbia. I think we in this House have a responsibility, as British Columbians, Quebecers, Newfoundlanders, even as Yukoners, to get together every once in a while and vote some money for a region which has been so crippled by bad management policies of Government and industry so that this region can have a chance to make a good investment for once. There is a 33 per cent rate of return. You do not get that from the Northland Bank or the Canadian Commercial Bank or the Bank of Mulholland. I think it is about time we started making the kind of resource based investments in silviculture for our young people and start getting this country growing again. So let's get a vote before five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: What we will be getting is questions and comments.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which has arisen out of the Hon. Member's allegations. It is fair to say that many Members in this House have an interest in forestry matters. As a matter of fact, Simcoe County was the forestry capital of the world in 1982. That is a revolving honour which, as the Hon. Member well knows, moves around the country to indicate the importance of forestry. That particular award came about because of the reforestation projects undertaken in the 1920s by a Conservative Government in Ontario.
The Hon. Member's allegation is that Government Members are talking out this motion. That is a very serious allegation and I suggest it may not be deliberately misleading but it is as close to being so as a person can come without doing so. The Hon. Member should know that the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) is not in Ottawa at this moment. He is elsewhere on Government business. If he had been given an opportunity to consider this matter, I am sure it would have been given serious consideration.
I think we should turn ourselves to the right of every Member to participate in debate and be aware of debate. I have had an opportunity to read the proceedings of the committee. The NDP Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) will know that his colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), took part in those deliberations. The only question I have for the Hon. Member is: Did he give his
September 16, 1985

colleague, who has an interest in this matter, notice of this debate so that he would have a fair opportunity to participate?


James Ross Fulton: I am glad to have an opportunity to respond to that. As my colleague from Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) pointed out, he gave the Coservative Members, at least some of them, a week's notice that he intended to proceed with this.


Some Hon. Members:: Who?


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands is on his way here.


Some Hon. Members:: Name them.


Mr. Dick:: None of us.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River can name those Members, I am sure.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


James Ross Fulton: He is on his way here, I understand, from Vancouver Island-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: -where he is dealing with this issue.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You did not give him notice either.


James Ross Fulton: It takes him a while to get here.
As to the Minister, I know for a fact that he supports this and I am sure he would very much like to see it come to a vote so he could see how some of his colleagues would vote on it. It is an important issue.
As to the Hon. Member's reference to being deliberately misleading, we will find out at five o'clock whether or not there is a Government Member, perhaps he himself, on his feet filibustering to make sure this cannot come to a vote so that British Columbia can get the money it needs to get the forest industry on its feet.


Mr. Crofton:: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have heard several times about this notice given to Members concerning this debate. I am from Vancouver Island and I happen to be here to replace a colleague who had to go to a meeting. Therefore, it was purely by accident that I found out about this debate this afternoon.


John Horton McDermid: You are a bunch of phoneys over there.


James Ross Fulton: It is interesting to hear the baying from the other side of the House because on the matter of Arctic sovereignty, I happened to get notice of that, as did our entire Party, less than 24 hours before it occurred in the House, and less than two hours before the statement was made we were given the notes. My colleague has indicated that some Conservative Members have been aware for more than a week that this was coming forward. We will find out at five o'clock
Committee Reports
whether the Conservatives want to bring this matter to a vote and ensure that British Columbia gets the money.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, let us clearly understand that the Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) was phoned and notified that this debate was forthcoming, as was the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton) and the Member for Nanaimo Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg).
The second important point is that the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) was, to my recollection, the seconder of this motion. He is a tremendous supporter of the project. However, we are losing sight of the key point here which is that this is an incredibly good proposal. It is supported by Conservative Members so Government Members should not be criticizing it at this point. Their colleagues support it, realizing its value. The Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) support this proposal. Everyone who has examined and understands this proposal accepts it in principle. After listening to the Mayors' proposal and examining the documentation the Committee unanimously supported this. There is no element of controversy before the House, but rather, a sound, solid proposal which would boost the economy of British Columbia and enhance the resource base that is supportive of the whole country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, we have checked with the three Members mentioned by the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and they did not receive phone calls. I think that is dirty pool. I am the chairman of that committee and I would have thought that the Hon. Member would have the courtesy to at least give the chairman a call in order that we could ensure that the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) was in the House thereby enabling us to have a much better debate. We have, therefore, lost a certain amount of confidence in that particular Member.
I would like to direct a question to the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Would the Member care to comment on the issue that is now quite dominant in British Columbia, that of logging South Moresby Island or perhaps making that area into a park. South Moresby is in the riding of the Member for Skeena and this is an issue that everyone from British Columbia is faced with. Will he gave us his views on the issue?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would love to spend a good part of the afternoon dealing with the very complex issue of the South Moresby proposal. Since the Vancouver Island mayor's proposal is before us this afternoon and the steering committee of the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will be meeting tomorrow morning, I would be glad to go into some detail with the Member, who I know has a sincere interest in what is happening with regard to South Moresby. However, we have respects to pay to the mayors of Vancouver Island who have spent a lot of time preparing their proposal, which is very sound. I would like to know whether there is anyone on the

September 16, 1985
Committee Reports
Government side who objects to it. If not, I would hope that within the next 16 minutes we will have a vote so that we can tell the Vancouver Island mayors whether their proposal is still being considered by the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion this afternoon with regard to who phoned whom. I would like to reiterate what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) said. My office did not receive a telephone call on this. All of that aside, the issue is why this is being debated today in the House of Commons. If we had known in advance that we would be having this debate we would have been able to have the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) here in order that he could discuss an issue which I know is near and dear to his heart. We would then be much closer to approval than we are at this time.
I am reminded of the committee meeting when the mayors appeared before us. The NDP Opposition made this motion before even hearing the testimony of the mayors of Vancouver Island. Political fancy footwork is great, but I think it is jeopardizing the possibility of a vote on this motion and I do not think it is fair to the mayors of Vancouver Island. I think we should consider this motion seriously. I am in favour of it and would like to move concurrence right now but there are a few more people who want to speak on this subject. However, I suggest that the phone system of the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) be examined because it certainly was not working over the past few days.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just said that there are a few other Members who wish to speak in this debate. In other words, this will obviously not come to a vote because there will be government Members speaking on the motion. I would just like to take 30 seconds to point out that this motion was passed unanimously by a standing committee of the House of Commons, which committee is made up of Conservative, Liberal, and NDP members. It was unanimously endorsed and called the sixth report. It was voted on and agreed to by Members from all sides of the House. What does it matter who made phone calls? Why would you need to phone Members to talk about something that has been agreed to by a standing committee of the House of Commons? Why do we need more discussion when this has been adequately dealt with in the standing committee?
Why would a Member of the House of Commons disagree with the way in which this motion is put? It says, "Your committee recommends that the Government consider the advisability of funding this proposal". Who would be against a motion like that, Mr. Speaker? No one should be against such a motion.
With those few remarks, and with only 12 minutes left on the clock until five o'clock, I am going to sit down. The position of the Liberal Party was stated in committee and we
stand by the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. This is a marvelous opportunity to have, on Vancouver Island, an experiment in silvicultural methods that does not involve the use of chemicals as a forest managment tool. It is a marvelous opportunity to put hundred and hundreds of people to work without using chemicals to regenerate the forest industry. Surely no one disagrees with this motion which was passed unanimously in the standing committee made up of representatives of all members of this House from each political party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Let's have a vote.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), speaking on behalf of his Party, inform the House whether he received a phone call in advance informing him that this debate was coming up today?


George Baker: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not receive a phone call. Furthermore, I should not expect to receive a phone call informing me of something that had already been reported to the House in the sixth report. I should not have to receive a phone call to concur in a recommendation to the Government by a standing committee of the House of Commons representing all political parties. Of course I did not receive a phone call. If I had received a phone call I would have thought the Hon. Member was crazy to phone me to ask me to concur in something in which I had already concurred in the standing committee.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Has the Hon. Member talked to the forestry critic in his Party to learn whether that Member received a phone call?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Where are you, in a courtroom?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that question warrants an answer. The hon. gentleman is trying to keep me on my feet for the next 10 minutes to use up time so that we cannot have a vote. Therefore, 1 will not answer any more questions from the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, today we have seen a lack of confidence in the House. The manner in which this important matter was brought up today shows the unwillingness of the NDP to play by the rules and procedures that have been set up in the House. Earlier today in a House Leaders meeting, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party asked for a pledge from our House Leader that there be no surprises. However, his Party has turned around today with their own surprise, playing dirty pool, without phoning those who they say they phoned.
September 16, 1985

In other words, it appears that they cannot be believed. They have brought in a subject that was set down to be dealt with on the twenty-eight. Rather than saying when they would raise the issue, they have introduced it at a time when the Minister responsible for this subject is away.
I can tell you right now that if they want to play those kinds of games and that sort of politics, they will not get an answer. There will not be a vote today. We will talk until our Minister is back because the Minister also wants to speak on this matter. It is dirty tricks like this which confuse this place, cause wasted time and interruption. The New Democratic Party is simply playing politics and using this federal chamber to push New Democratic views in an attempt to win the next provincial election. It is the same trick as they are using in Saskatchewan.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is his brother who is the Leader.


Paul Wyatt Dick: They do the same thing in Saskatchewan. If that Party had taken this matter seriously, it would have consulted with us. However, they refused to do so.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for clarification. This matter has been on the Order Paper for over three months. Every Member of the House has received it in their office. They knew full well that this debate could come up on any day, at any time. The Hon. Member is not helping the Vancouver mayors at all with his remarks.


Paul Wyatt Dick: If that Member and the New Democratic Party were serious, they would have consulted with us. We always consult in the House and we would have ensured that this matter came forward. Instead, they brought on a debate on a day when we were dealing with Family Allowances within the Budget. Now, they are postponing this debate in an attempt to do something else which they knew would not proceed because the Minister is away.
Why did you wait for three months? Two of those months were holidays. Then you waited for a day when the Minister is not here. Rather than being decent in this place, the New Democratic Party refuses to consult. They come to the House Leaders meetings to beg us to consult with them all of the time because they do not want to be surprised. In the meantime, they want to play politics and waste the time of the House. It is unforgiveable that they only want to play politics. The time for that is during the election campaign. Why waste the time of the House? The Hon. Member, smiling behind his hand, thinks they are going to help their colleagues in British Columbia. Quite frankly, he is not even serious or he would have thought of other people first.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That expulsion of wind over there is not conductive to the kind of non-partisan debate we have had this afternoon about the merits of the project. It has been on the Order Paper for three months-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Obviously that is not a point of order.
Committee Reports


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is typical of the NDP, trying to use a phoney point of order to get back into the debate when the member has already had an opportunity to speak. He does not care about the rules and what is going on.
Certainly, this is an innocuous resolution. It has been accepted unanimously by all parties and does not commit anyone to anything. I am simply trying to say that if his Party had the decency, the manners and a modicum of courtesy here they would probably accomplish much more for Canadians as a result of our working together.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: No one disagrees with the sixth report. We have supported it in committee where we have the great majority of Members. However, we are waiting for the return of the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew), who is responsible for this matter. It is only a recommendation. It states that the committee recommends that the Government consider the advisability-there are two weasel words if I ever saw them.


An Hon. Member:: You supported it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I was not on the committee and I do not pretend to speak for people when I was not there, it recommends that the Government consider the advisability of funding this proposal. I did not sit on the committee, but I am surprised that it was not more strongly worded. I am surprised that the NDP believe all they can do is support a recommendation that is not very strongly worded. Let us assume that the Government accepts the proposal that it might consider whether or not it was advisable to take certain action. The next stage recommends that if the Government accepts to consider the proposal, only then would the Government consider the recommendation that it use funds outside of the ERDA agreement which the Government signed with the province. It is the largest ERDA agreement that has ever been signed between British Columbia and the federal Government. The Liberals were not able to sign such an agreement and their kissing cousins, the NDP, were never able to encourage the Liberals to sign one. The Progressive Conservative Government signed it because we are concerned about forestry and people. We want to restore the economy in that province. We are not accomplishing this through tricks or by surprise.
We are doing it through consultation with the province and various people in an attempt to arrive at an all encompassing proposal and agreement that will benefit that area. According to this recommendation, the money could come from the ERDA Agreement or from outside. It is simply recommending that it might be from outside. While no one can disagree with the report, we will not adopt this tactic and accept the manner in which the NDP is trying to-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: One minute and twelve seconds to
go-


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) wants to speak up. He represents an automotive city in south-

September 16, 1985
Rights of Patients
ern Ontario. I suppose the Hon. Member for Brant knows much about the forest industry.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You better believe it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You probably do not even have a sawmill in your riding, unless you saw up used cars. However, since he is a member of the NDP, he just wants to add to the confusion.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You are confusing Brantford for Brampton. Go back to your geography. We do not make cars.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I know where you are from. Do you think you are from Brampton? I know that you come from Brantford. You do not know your geography. I never mentioned Brampton. Perhaps he wants to move there.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We do not make cars in Brantford.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Maybe he has given up on Brantford. If the New Democratic Party and the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River really wanted to benefit fellow British Columbians they would know that there is agreement between parties when dealing with any matters in the House. We agree on times and if a spokesman is not available, the debate is postponed in order to accommodate that party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope that as soon as the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) is back in the House, we will resume this debate on concurrence.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HEALTH ADVISABILITY OF INTRODUCING LEGISLATION RESPECTING RIGHTS OF PATIENTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should introduce legislation to ensure, that in communication between physician and patient, a basic human right should include the right of the patient to know one's own state of health and the content of medicines and remedies acquired in drugstores by way of prescriptions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in developing this motion this afternoon, I would like to illustrate the relationship between the individual who buys a prescription over the counter in a drugstore, the patient and the physician. This is a very complex subject and the time available will not do it justice. The subject is of profound importance to each of us.
When we need a prescription, we want to know and we should know what the prescription contains. That knowledge is such that should be available in detail. In addition, we should know what the side effects are of a particular medicine and what are the counter indications. For instance, when one is taking one drug, and another is prescribed, we should know the effect of it on your well-being, when and how often to take the medication and last, but no least, the purpose of the medication. This right to know does not exist at the present. A patient in his or her relations with the druggist would be much better served if he or she were to have access to complete information and be fully aware of the contents, the effects and the purpose of the medication. Let me repeat that I am talking here of prescription drugs sold over the counter. Drugs that are bought off the shelf have that information. Information, however, is often poorly written, sometimes unclear and often in small print causing difficulties, particularly for our senior citizens.
When it comes to the purchase over the counter of prescription drugs, a lot of work needs to be done. In Canada we have a SIM program, supplementary information medication but it is not mandatory. This program was initiated, I believe in 1981 by the then Minister of National Health and Welfare. The specifics of a medication are explained in detail on a card. It seems the public is little aware of the existence of this supplementary information medication system. The province of British Columbia, however, has a similar system, but for the rest of Canada, it can be safely said that the onus to obtain information about the content of a drug rests with the consumer. The consumer must ask the druggist. The druggist may be very busy, but he will provide the information. What about cases when the druggist provides information that is at conflict with the information given by the physician? Because the onus is presently on the consumer to obtain this information, it is perhaps fair to say that the information is volatile when given in a verbal manner and in competition with other demands imposed on the druggist. Therefore, it is important that this type of information not be left to the consumer but become a mandatory exercise. That is why 1 put this motion on the Order Paper.
We should also ensure that the supplementary information medication system, to which I referred a moment ago, cover all types of prescriptions and provide the fullest information that can be made available at any given time to the consuming public. When we buy corn flakes, the contents are listed on the package. However, when we buy a prescription drug, we do not know what we are getting unless we make a specific request. The information exists somewhere. Why not make this information automatically available to the consumer? After all a person's health is most important.
It seems to me that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) have an important joint responsibility to protect the Canadian consumer who purchases a drug over the counter.
September 16, 1985

1 will conclude this part of my remarks by saying that there are many jurisdictions that require this information be given in a manner readily understood, printed and not left to memory, resulting in a more satisfactory relationship between the consumer of the over the counter prescription and those who provide it.
In the time available to me, I will move on with the other half of the motion before this House, namely the right of the patient to know one's own state of health. I have here a copy of the Code of Ethics published in 1984 by the Canadian Medical Association. I have read the code. It contains a guide to the ethical behaviour of physicians, the responsibilities to the patient, the responsibilities to the profession and the responsibilities to society. It is an excellent booklet, but I was unable to find in it any reference to the right of the patient to know. Why is that? All I have been able to discover in a brief search in an attempt to answer that question was the doctrine of informed consent. I have been told that the Canadian courts are still labouring to qualify the doctrine of informed consent and that the English courts have rejected that doctrine. In Canada it would appear that the expression "informed consent" ought to be replaced with the expression "informed decision-making" or "informed choice" on the part of the patient. Why is that? I submit that it is because it is important that physicians and other health professionals not be induced to believe that they may or should use information simply for the purpose of persuading patients to agree to treatments or to medical goals which professionals have determined to be in the best interest of patients.
As Bernard Dickens wrote in an excellent study on this matter, "the true role of medical information is to serve the autonomy of the patient, permitting the patient to exercise choices which accord to the patient's wishes". Therefore, the patient is enabled to govern himself or herself. At times, as you have probably experienced, Mr. Speaker, the wish of the patient may be in conflict with his or her apparent interest. The two do not always overlap. It is quite true that most people wish that their best interest be served, but when conflict arises between the wish of the patient and the interest of the patient, then I submit that in a free society the patient should be enabled to govern himself or herself by what he or she wishes. Therefore the function of the physician possessing professional or highly specialized knowledge is to provide information which the patient would then consider in order to exercise his or her choice. That is what you would want to do, Mr. Speaker. In doing that, you may decide to proceed in a manner in which your interest and your wish coincide. However, there are many times in certain instances where you may decide to proceed according to your wishes and it may be considered by those surrounding you, including your physician, not to be in your interest. That decision ultimately has to be left in the hands of the patient and, in order to make that decision, the patient has to be informed.
I view of all these considerations and the observations which I have made, it would follow that the right to know of the
Rights of Patients
patient and the imperative necessity of rewriting the code should be discussed in an informed debate of this kind. Of course this will not happen overnight and it will not happen without resistance. However, we know that some physicians will be supportive of the right to know on the part of the patient. In a society which is increasingly so capable and so advanced in its ability to store and distribute information, some physicians will understand that this type of ultimate service of providing information to the patient is not only incumbent upon modern day physicians but is also possible.
Therefore it is important to engage the House in this debate.
I will be very interested in hearing the views of my colleagues on all side of the House. I stressed a few moments ago the rights of the consumer when it comes to the purchase of drugs over the counter. Again I stress that there is an important political role to be played in this instance on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Evidently he would have to give leadership and ensure that we in Canada develop the necessary understanding-politicians, professional people and the public at large-of the profound importance in everyone's life of having the right to full information on the state of one's health, which is the most precious, important and lasting gift given to us as individuals. I leave these points with the House and look forward to what might be a very enlightening debate.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, 1 congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for placing this motion on the Order Paper and for giving the House an opportunity to examine, even in a very limited way during Private Members' Hour, a subject which is of some concern to many Canadians.
The motion before the House contains two parts. One is that an individual should have the right to know the state of one's health and the other is that an individual should and ought to know the content of any medicines and remedies acquired in drugstores by way of prescription. Both those items are so self-evident that I will not take up too much time of the House debating them. If one visits a medical practitioner, it seems to me that one is entitled to know the exact state of one's health. That is self-evident as well. That is the case with medicines and remedies, particularly prescription drugs. Over the years we have known of numerous cases, thalidomide being one of the worst, I would think, where drugs were prescribed and had a serious adverse effect not only on mothers but also on children. Of course there have been other cases over the years. Everyone who is asked to consume a drug or chemical that alters the state of their being should have the right to know its effect on their health and even on the health of their offspring.
It is for all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I think that this motion should properly be referred to the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee of the House so that further discussion can take place. I know full well, as does the Hon. Member for Davenport, and other Hon. Members that much of the

September 16, 1985
Rights of Patients
legislation dealing with prescription drugs falls under provincial authority.
However, since many provincial Governments do not seem to be concerning themselves with this, it seems only right and proper that a body such as a standing committee of the House of Commons should make itself available to hear witnesses and to hear concerns not only from individual Canadians but from the health services as well.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, on receipt of a request for access to a medical record under the provisions of the Privacy Act managers must seek an opinion as to the presence on the record of any information likely not to be in the patient's best interest. It is the patient's interests and not that of the Department or practitioner that is considered. This opinion may be sought from a duly qualified medical practitioner on staff or from a currently licensed medical practitioner in private practice who also knows the patient.
It is important to emphasize that when withholding of personal information in medical records is being considered, applicants may have the information examined by a practitioner of his or her own choice, providing that the institution is satisfied that the practitioner chosen is qualified to determine whether or not disclosure could be contrary to the applicant's best interests.
The practitioner may advise that the record be released in its entirety, that it be released to the pyisician of the patient's choice for explanation to him or her, that it be made available for the patient to inspect at his or her convenience with a physician at hand to explain it to him or her, or that part or all of the record be withheld in the patient's best interests.
If the advice is to release the record, the manager will either release the record, authorize the privately practising physician to release the record to the patient or return it to the manager for release, ask the patient for the name of his family doctor and if his qualifications are acceptable release the record to him with the suggestion that he explain the record to the patient if he considers it inadvisable to show it, or ask the patient to inspect the record at a time and place convenient for him or her. There seems to be in this particular instance ample opportunity to explore one's own records.
If the advice is to withhold all or part of the record the manager prepares the documents for release with any suggested exempt words or sentences blanked out and in their place
September 16, 1985

the words "withheld by ministerial decision under Section 28 of the Privacy Act". The manager can then send the request, the documents and the reasons for denial of access provided by the medical practitioner to the departmental privacy coordinator for preparation of a letter for the Minister's signature explaining the denied items and notifying the applicant of his or her rights of complaint and appeal.
The process described in the foregoing indicates the seriousness and indeed thoughtfulness with which the Government views its responsibilities to individuals requesting access to personal medical information under the Act. There are, of course, safeguards to protect an individual against harm which might result from the release of information. Although separate data is not available for medical records, experience indicates that there are few situations over-all in which it is necessary to withhold information requested by patients.
It can be concluded that within the jurisdiction assigned to the federal Government under the Constitution, the Privacy Act meets the need for personal access to one's own medical records and no extension of the Act or new legislation is required for this purpose. The Act complements well the ethical and other legislative considerations which influence the practice of medicine which is primarily within provincial jurisdiction. In any case, as I indicated earlier-
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, one might also observe that communication between the patient and his physician is based on continued relations, mutual respect and interpersonal discussions which can be submitted to a statutory control as in the case of records.
Mr. Speaker, it should be usually expected that access to relevant medical data is the basis of patient-physician relations. Many other opportunities are available to the patient, among others that of selecting another physician.

I will terminate my comments at this point. I would underline again that the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) is obviously a man of significant compassion who wants to see done that which is best for patients and the people not only of his riding but of other parts of Canada. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the chance to speak briefly to this particular motion.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on moving a motion with such a broad social impact.
However, as my colleague said a few minutes ago, communications between physician and patient belong to an area of the practice of medicine that comes under provincial jurisdiction. The provinces have delegated responsibility for regulating the practice of medicine to the provincial colleges of
Rights of Patients
physicians and surgeons or their equivalent, directed by a secretary general. The colleges decide whether a physician is entitled to practise medicine and issue a certificate to that end. They provide guidelines on issues such as patient-physician communications and provide advice to patients. Thus, physicians are advised of their obligations and patients of their rights.
All provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons and all Governments recognize the patient's right to know his state of health. The increased concern of the public in general and special interest groups in particular has brought about a gradual change in public views on patient-physician communications and the scope of such communications. These views have been incorporated in the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association has been adopted by nine provincial colleges of physicians and surgeons, and the tenth Code, that of Quebec, contains similar clauses in its rules on medical practice. The Code of Ethnics of the Canadian Medical Association was recently revised to reflect a change to a more active view of patient-physician relations and the responsibilities of both parties.
The most recent Code of the Canadian Medical Association which goes back to December 1984, prescribes under the heading of Rights of the Patient, that a physician shall:
first, recognize that his knowledge is limited and if necessary, recommend that the patient have recourse to other sources of advice and medical services;
second, respect the right of the patient to choose his own physician and decide whether or not to take the advice given (even after choosing a physician, the patient has the right to ask him to consult other physicians of his choice);
third, respect any confidences received from the patient or a colleague and refrain from disclosing such information without the patient's permission, unless he is obliged under law to do otherwise; when acting on behalf of a third party, he shall ensure that the patient understands his legal responsibility with regard to that third party before proceeding with the examination; and he shall recommend only those diagnostic measures deemed necessary to help him treat the patient and administer to the patient the treatment he believes will be conductive to his well-being (he also has a duty to communicate his observation to the patient and to inform him of his recommendations).
He should supply the patient, with all the information requested by him in order that he may receive any benefit he may be entitled to.
Finally, he should, try and soothe the anxiety of the relatives and work with them in the interest of the patient.
Although the imparting of information to patients by physicians mainly comes under provincial jurisdiction, the Privacy Act provides access to medical information in Federal Govern-

September 16, 1985
Rights of Patients
ment files. This concerns people like natives, Canadian Forces' personnel, war veterans and penitentiary inmates who are looked after partly or totally by the Federal Government. Also, people who have applied for disability pensions under the Canada Pension Plan.
The right to be made aware of one's health status has many facets. There is namely the basic right to know, whatever the reason or qualification. The need to know in order to take steps, make decisions concerning medical care, legal procedures or one's own lifestyle for instance. The right to know what personal data are kept in the various data banks. One of the main requirements imposed upon physicians by provincial colleges of physicians is that they promptly make information available to a third party, where requested by the patient, in order to ensure continuous care, security or the financial arrangements needed. Under the Ontario Health Disciplines Act, Regulation 448 of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario provides that failure to make available within a reasonable period of time and without reason a report or certificate requested by a patient or his authorized agent concerning a medical examination or care provided is a professional offence. Patients may lodge complaints with the College against physicians who do not comply with that requirement. The College will conduct an investigation and take the required disciplinary action. In Ontario, reports of disciplinary action taken by the College are published each year and distributed to all medical doctors. The limits of acceptable medical conduct is thereby clearly defined, and doctors can amend their behaviour therefrom.
The standard in doctor-patient relations has evolved, from an attitude that could be considered paternalistic to the modern concept of a tacit mutual contract. The latter concept implies that both parties have obligations, and the patient needs sufficient information to make an enlightened decision.
Even though in some cases, by court order for instance, copies of medical Files can be obtained, a physician is generally under no obligation to make the complete file available to a patient or his agent. Pertinent information is generally sufficient, such as results of examinations performed and care provided. A doctor may however give a patient a copy of his file, if he so wishes. Medical files are more or less considered as notes, and therefore the property of the physician rather than of the patient.
Nobody really expects a physician to warn a patient about all the risks inherent in a treatment, only the most obvious and the most serious. However the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a physician must warn the patient about the least significant risks involved if the patient wants to know. The physician is guilty of negligence if he fails to do so and if the treatment produces after-effects about which the patient had sought information.
The decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1980 in the cases Lepp versus Hopp and Reible versus Hughes
was unequivocal: the patient is entitled to be given information on the state of his health and on the after-effects of a treatment or intervention and the physician is dutybound to provide them. He must give enough information so that the patient can make a sound decision with respect to his treatment. A physician can of course use his own judgment to decide just how much information he should give, but he cannot refuse to give additional information should the patient so request.
In certain cases, for instance in the regulations under the Privacy Act and the regulations of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, safeguards are provided to protect individuals from such information in their file as might be cruel or harmful if it were communicated to them. Here is how Privacy Act Section 28 reads:
The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any personal information requested under subsection 12(1) that relates to the physical or mental health of the individual who requested it where the examination of the information by the individual would be contrary to the best interests of the individual.
The Manitoba regulations provide that the information given to a patient must contain all the relevant information that he ought to know.
I should like to emphasize the progress made over the past few years which makes it possible for patients to acquaint themselves with personal information contained in their hospital files. The guidelines vary from province to province depending on their respective policies.
The right of access of an individual to information concerning him or her has made remarkable progress. This is true of both medical and general information. These changes stem from a better education of the public, an evolution of attitudes and perceptions, new codes of ethics, as well as new regulations and legislations. Improvements will certainly continue as society is making new progress. In the secrecy of a patient-physician relationship, the patient should expect that his right to know, to ask for and obtain information is respected. It seems that this issue is being dealt with through new legislative guidelines and code of ethics standards. Open discussions and mutual respect are more likely to favour a realization of this objective then a Federal amendment to the Criminal Code.
The practice of medicine, with which the Hon. Member's motion seems to be concerned about, is a provincial responsibility. It is now subject to provincial legislation. This legislation is complemented by the Privacy Act, former Bill C-43, which provides that
-every individual who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act, 1976, has a right to and shall, on request, be given access to
(a)	any personal information about the individual contained in a personal
information bank; and
(b)	any other personal information about the individual under the control of a
government institution with respect to which the individual is able to provide
September 16, 1985

sufficiently specific information on the location of the information as to render
it reasonably retrievable by the government institution.
Mr. Speaker, the present system would appear to be fair and equitable. It promotes co-operation, not repression, and provides for a complaints process to settle any problems that might arise.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks by addressing the Hon. Member's first point, that is, the right of the patient to know his or her own state of health. It is the position of this Government that, with certain constraints, each Canadian is entitled to information on his or her state of health.
The situation now in this country is, of course, very complex when we start looking into this area. In Canada, the laws governing records such as these cannot be found in any one single place. There are no health records Acts in Canada either at the provincial or federal level. Instead, there are provisions within literally dozens of Acts with respect to patient health records, regulations and, of course, numerous court decisions which are directly involved. Reference has been made to provincial hospital Acts, hospital by-laws, nursing home Acts, public health Acts, occupational health and safety Acts, and even the Narcotic Control Act and regulations made under these various Acts. There have been relatively few court decisions regarding patient records in Canada, at least when compared to the United States, where governmental agencies, both at the federal and state level, have a great number of background cases upon which they can draw. The result of this, of course, is that in Canada the practice of compiling, storing, protecting and ultimately destroying patient health records is largely left in the hands of those who are responsible for gathering it, including government agencies operating various Canadian health insurance programs and other situations.
The primary purpose for collecting and maintaining patient health records is to enable health personnel to treat and care for the patient, in order to reach valid judgments concerning the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of the illness. It also provides a method of ensuring communications between the many different persons involved in the case of a single individual, even within a single institution.
It has been the view of this Government that patients should normally have access to information on their own state of health. However, in most health care institutions, patients do not have physical access to their records and almost certainly would be refused access if they were to ask for it. The argument in support of this position is the generally recognized fact that the patient record comprises a series of entries which serve as a form of communication among various personnel in an institution and as a reminder to those who made those entries. The record is not intended to be a medium of communication from health personnel to the patient. In other words, it is a fairly technical communication. They are usually written in a manner which transmits technical information
Rights of Patients
between specially trained personnel. The entries may, in fact, not be understandable by patients or may be entirely misleading to the untrained individual. For example, routine tests which are undertaken to eliminate the possibility of certain disagnoses within a different diagnostic spectrum may be mistakenly understood by the patient as a form of suspicion or a particular condition, for example, a form of cancer, a venereal disease, or some other disease of that nature.
The points notwithstanding, it is our view that the patient is still entitled to review his or her medical records on the most up-to-date documents that are available in the hospital. We also believe that the patient should receive professional medical assistance, if requested, to enable him or her to interpret the kind of technical information that is contained in the records. I make reference to the use of professional assistance to obviate any misinterpretation which could alarm a patient or interfere with an optimistic approach to treatment and thereby in many cases do more harm than good. This is certainly the case when we are dealing with emotional illness and psychiatric disorders.
We support the right of a patient to this information because his or her treatment, by law, is really solely at the discretion of the patient. Once in possession of this information, the patient will be in a much stronger position to determine whether he or she wants to consent to treatment or to its continuation. I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that health care is a provincial jurisdiction and that comment thas been made several times today during the debate, and that any changes in federal jurisdiction must be cognizant of provincial responsibilities. At the present time there appears to be no provincial consensus on this issue or on the issue of the right of the patient to view his or her medical records.
A number of provinces, though, have passed legislation giving patients a limited right of access to their treatment records. For example, according to the Alberta Hospital Act a patient does not have a right to his records. The Act is permissive rather than mandatory in its consideration. The law in Alberta allows, but does not require, a hospital board or employee, the provincial Minister of Health, someone authorized by him, or a physician to divulgue patient information. The patient who is denied such information may appeal this decision in a court. The Alberta legislation actually favours the release of information but it places the onus of showing why it should be released on the person who is seeking that sort of information.
The Province of Saskatchewan has a different view. It permits the release of hospital records but has not established an appeal of the procedure to the courts. It does, however, state that the records shall be disclosed upon a court order.
Ontario has a similar regulation for its hospitals, as does the Province of Prince Edward Island. The Hospitals Act of Nova Scotia is similar to the Alberta legislation but allows a refusal on the grounds that "it would not be in the best interests of the

September 16, 1985
Rights of Patients
patient to make available that information". An appeal can then be made to a county court judge.
Quebec, under its act respecting health services and social services, provides patients access to the records in what are known as "establishments" under the Act. These are defined as local community service centres, a hospital centre, a functional rehabilitation centre, a social service centre or a reception centre. A person refused may, under Quebec law, apply to the courts.
In all provinces, special attention is paid to mental health legislation which governs the psychiatric institutions as distinct from the general or public hospitals. There are, of course, obvious reasons for this distinction.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, some Canadian jurisdictions do not have specific legislative provisions or regulations governing patient access to records. Some do, but even those have provisions for only some types of institutions or health care providers and not others. It seems logical and just that Canadians throughout the country should have equal rights with respect to this particular matter. It is equally obvious that uniformity in this respect will require extensive consultation with the provinces, with health associations and with various people involved in the medical industry. Serious consideration must be given to needs, benefits and, of course, risks, because there are a great number of risks involved in the kind of subject we are discussing today.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my attention to the question of the rights of Canadians to know the contents of medicines and remedies which are acquired in any store by way of prescription. This is the second element of the Hon. Member's motion which is before us today. The Government supports the right of mentally competent individuals to know the nature of their drugs. The need to know is greater today, of course, than it has ever been. The fact that modern prescription drugs are far more effective and potent than anything available in the past leads us to expect great benefits when they are prescribed for us, and, of course we expect an instant cure and healing.
No one can argue about the magnificent efficacy of drugs such as poliomyelitis vaccines. We are all aware of the tremendous improvement in cure aids which have accrued to mankind as a result of many of the modern antibiotics. Canadians can never forget the outstanding success of insulin in the treatment of diabetes. We are constantly reminded of significant improvements in the drug control of cardiovascular diseases such as high blood pressure, angina pectoris and the prevention of strokes and heart attacks. These are the good stories, Mr. Speaker. They tell of the beneficial effects of drugs but, unfortunately, as we all know, drugs have a bad side to many of their actions.
Our tendency to emphasize the expected benefits of drug therapy tends to conceal the high incidence of adverse reactions which occur with many drugs. There are in fact no drugs which provide benefits without incurring some risks. We believe that before a patient agrees to take a drug, he or she should be fully advised of the expected benefits of the therapy
as well as the possible toxicities of the medicine. We are too well aware of the stories often heard of patients complaining that they would never have taken one drug or another if they had been told beforehand of its toxic effects. Every one of us has stories and illustrations to demonstrate that. It is the position of this Government, Mr. Speaker, that each patient should be informed of both the beneficial and detrimental effects of a drug before he or she agrees to take it. A well informed Canadian is the best person to decide his or her own drug regimen. I wonder how many Canadians would be dependent on Valium today if they had been told 10 years ago that the continual consumption of this mind-dulling chemical could result in the addiction which has become a bit of a problem for our society.
To this point, Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing only the active ingredients in a drug. I would like now to direct my attention to the so-called "inactive" or "non-medicinal" components in the tablet or liquid. These chemicals are added, as we all know, to assist in the formulation of the product. Without them, tablets would rapidly fall apart, drugs would disintegrate and liquids would taste badly-and my experience with them has been they taste badly anyway. However, these ingredients are necessary to the successful formulation of a product suitable for human consumption. In some circumstances it is these non-medicinal ingredients which are the culprits responsible for toxic effects. Some of these ingredients can induce an allergic type reaction while others can trigger highly undesirable disfunctions of various bodily organs. This very fact creates a problem for the treating physician who is generally not aware of the non-medicinal ingredient of drugs and who may, unwittingly, prescribe an upsetting medication for persons who are sensitive or allergic to a specific chemical substance contained within it.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Charest):: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. I recognize the Government whip on a point of order.




Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the second report of the Striking Committee in both official languages, dealing, of course, with the membership on legislative committees as well as the mul-ticulturalism committee set up in June.
[Editor's Note: For list above referred to, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
September 16, 1985


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HEALTH ADVISABILITY OF INTRODUCING LEGISLATION RESPECTING RIGHTS OF PATIENTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Caccia:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should introduce legislation to ensure, that in communication between physician and patient, a basic human right should include the right of the patient to know one's own state of health and the content of medicines and remedies acquired in drugstores by way of prescriptions.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, 1 am always pleased to sit down when my whip stands up.
1 was talking just before 1 sat down about the ingredients in medicines which are not part of the drugs themselves and, therefore, do not show up very often. At this time there is no listing of these non-medicinal ingredients in Canadian drugs. We find, therefore, essentially what happens is that the doctor, as I mentioned, prescribes a drug and may not know some of the implications of what he is doing. This situation is not acceptable to the Government and we are happy to know that professionals from the Health Protection Branch are discussing the situation with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. It is my information that the industry is responsive to suggestions for a change and the day may not be too long away when both the active and inactive ingredients will be listed on the drug bottles and the information will be provided to our health professions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been moved.

Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to review a question 1 asked the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism on May 16, 1985. The question was twofold. It concerned the conference between the federal Minister of Multiculturalism and his provincial counterparts. I
Adjournment Debate
asked the question because Canadians, in particular, minority communities across this land, were anxious to know what this conference would develop.
We on this side were certainly pleased to see this first-ever meeting take place. However, this Government and that Minister created great expectations over this meeting. Every time 1 and other Members of this House rose to ask a question concerning his Ministry, his response was to wait until the conference; wait until May 14 when, for the first time, we will be sitting down around one table and making the decisions which have to be made. Well, we waited until May 14. We waited until May 15. Then, on May 16, the question was asked; Waht were the conclusions?
At the end of that two day conference in Winnipeg, a two-page communique was issued. It was absolutely devoid of any results. There was no mention of the crucial issue flowing from the Abella Report, no mention of the recommendations in the Equality Now! report, or heritage languages, education, human rights, federal-provincial multiculturalism Acts, the Japanese-Canadian redress issue or, last but certainly not least, racism. There was absolutely nothing in that communique to tell Canadians clearly and forcefully what those Ministers discussed and what occurred at that meeting. Therefore, I take this opportunity today and 1 hope the Hon. Member responding for the Government will be able to tell this House and Canadians what has resulted from that meeting on May 14.
The second part of my question was very specific and related to racism. At a press conference following this meeting the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism stated: "Racism really falls outside of our jurisdiction". Mr. Speaker, much to my great surprise these words were uttered following this conference by the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism. It is completely unacceptable for that Minsiter to suggest that fighting racism does not fall within his jurisdiction. First, racism knows no boundaries. It knows no jurisdiction. Secondly, it is the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, beyond any other Minister, who has to fight racism because most of his mandate deals with race relations.
A third criticism aimed at this conference was that it was a closed-door two-day seminar. The communities the conference was supposed to be addressing were not permitted to submit recommendations an agenda, or appear before the Ministers to make their representations. Are we, the Canadian people, the House of Commons, going to be allowed to know what happened behind those closed doors?
If it is the philosophy of the Government that there would be better results if the meeting were held behind closed doors, there is an onus upon it to tell minority groups and all Canadian people what in fact transpired at that conference. Can the Parliamentary Secretary or any other Member clarify what the Minister meant when he said that racism does not fall within his jurisdiction? I see that my time has expired, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
September 16, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Speaker, and I look forward to hearing the response of the Government.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the question of my colleague from York West (Mr. Marchi). I think that the steps taken by the Minister of State (Multicul-turalism) (Mr. Jelinek) since we came into office prove beyond a doubt that our Government assumes its responsibilities and is glad to promote this country's cultural heritage.
Among the main objectives of the Minister of State (Mul-ticulturalism), one is to maintain and especially promote equal opportunity for all Canadians, certainly with respect to racism and racial discrimination. The Government fully endorses the basic principle whereby cultural and racial diversity is not only acceptable but advantageous as well. That is why we have been actively promoting the notion of multiculturalism.
This notion entails two major parts, one cultural, the other social. On the one hand, we assume our cultural diversity and heritage. On the other hand, on the social level, we strive for equality among Canadians. While doing so, we must keep in mind those who, because they belong to racial minorities, are faced with various obstacles.
Mr. Speaker, our Government has done a lot to promote progress. It has taken steps to achieve its objective of equality of opportunities for all Canadians. The House of Commons has established a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. The Federal Government's multiculturalism branch has been raised to the rank of sector.
This Government has undertaken to implement all proposals concerning equity in employment for all visible minorities which ranks, therefore, among the targets, together with women, natives and the handicaped.
The Minister of State soon will make available for wide distribution the United Nations' Action Program for the second Decade in the fight against racism and racial discrimination, in order to better inform Canadians of the various issues at hand.
In view of the tremendous influence of the written and electronic press, he intends to intensify his efforts to encourage the media into establishing voluntary guidelines on the fair representation of visible minorities.
Further, a long-term priority will be the monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations to be found in Equality Now!, which studies many issues raised by the United Nations' Action Program. As we know, a number of these issues span many jurisdictions.
As the Federal Minister responsible for implementing the recommendations in the report, the Minister of State is working with his federal colleagues and having them help him implement those recommendations that come under his jurisdiction. He is also hoping to have the co-operation of his counterparts from the provincial and territory Governments whose mandate covers some of the issues raised in the report.
This Government is committed, as is also the responsibility of the Minister of State (Multiculturalism), to ensure there is no barrier to the full participation of every citizen in the political, social and economic life of this country.


FINANCE-DRUG TAX EXEMPTIONS. (B) REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ALL DRUG TAXES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have had an opportunity to challenge the Government for a particular political stance which it has adopted over the past year and which is becoming increasingly embarrassing to the Government. 1 speak of its penchant to blame current Government problems on past Liberal excesses. The billion dollar boo-boo of the bankruptcy of the Canadian Commercial Bank is, according to this Government, the fault of the past Liberal Government.
The illness tax which was imposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his first Budget this May gave us our first chance to see the true Tory colours, the ice-blue blood of the Government. It imposed a 10 per cent tax on hundreds, if not thousands, of drugs that are used on a daily basis by Canadians for illnessess as varied as arthritis, cancer, Parkinson's disease, and heart disease.
Last August when the political heat was on, the Government agreed, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), that perhaps it was wrong to impose an illness tax on sufferers of diabetes. When this Party exposed the fact that not only was it taxing diabetics but also taxing those patients with emphysema who needed oxygen, a statement was quickly issued to the effect that certain drugs would be exempted before the House resumed its sitting so that the opposition could not point to the blood and illness tax imposed by the Government.
Therefore, for the public that does not have an opportunity to examine the record of the Government on a daily basis, it seemed as though the problem had been solved. Unfortunately, particularly for those poor people and those families who have to fight illness through over-the-counter medical supplies, the fact is that the Government has left a tax on literally hundreds, if not thousands of drugs.
Let me cite just a few of them for the record so that Canadians will understand that for the first time in our history, the Government has imposed a tax on Pilocarpine which is used by the sufferers of glocoma. It relieves pressure on the eye and if not used blindness results. It is also imposing a tax on Oxsoralen which is used in the fight against skin cancer. Not only is it used for this purpose, it is also considered as an orphan drug, a drug that is not profitable for companies to produce but is produced because of the net benefit to the
September 16, 1985

small number of users who are able to take advantage of it. This is a drug upon which even the drug companies are not benefitting but the Government has seen fit to impose a 10 per cent illness tax. Other examples include Bentylol used in ulcer medication to stop contractions of the stomach and Trihexyphenidyl which is used for the treatment of Parkinson disease.
Most Canadians do not understand the nomenclature ol these drugs, but when they are suffering from arthritis and have to consume copious amounts of aspirin on a daily basis merely to relieve themselves from pain and carry on a normal living they do not expect that kind of expenditure to be taxed by the Government.
Furthermore, when the Government says it will reduce the deficit on the backs of the sick people, that illustrates the kind of mentality which is beginning to become clear to Canadians. That is also a simple economic fallacy.
What about the 10 per cent increase on things like dog food for people who have guide dogs which they use to survive? There are 600 people across the country who need their guide dogs to survive.
If 1 per cent of those people who are now taking over-the-counter drugs decide to go to prescription drugs, since they would be potentially covered under a provincial or private plan, the total amount of savings allegedly derived from tthis particular Budget cutback would be wiped out in one fell swoop.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare will stand up and say that taxes have been imposed by the former Liberal Government. In an examination of literally over 2,000 drugs which are now being taxed as a direct result of this initiative in the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in May of this year, the Government was able to find four diagnostic tools-not drugs-which had been taxed under a previous tax measure dating back to 1968. It was with this information that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had the gall to stand in his place and suggest that the Government had not only exempted certain taxes imposed by their Government but also had freed up the system from the high taxation measures of the previous Liberal Government.
The kind of double-speak that is apparent in the Canadian Commercial Bank collapse, the kind of double-speak that is apparent in the Minister of National Health and Welfare's response to my direct questions, will not be accepted by the Canadian people.
Do the Canadian people believe that this Government should tax medication being used in cancer treatment, arthritis, Parkinson's disease, and glaucoma? With the literally thousands of dollars in tax imposed as a direct result of the Wilson Budget, this Government is saying it will fight the
Adjournment Debate
deficit on the backs of the sick, the poor, the blind and the elderly. I think it is the kind of political motivation that has shown to Canadians for the first time where this Government's heart really is.
I ask the Government, through the Prime Minister, who refused to answer this question in the House, as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to revoke once and for all this tax which, for the first time in Canadian history, is going to make a profit out of people's illness and potential life-threatening devices.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a certain amount of interest to the Hon. Member's attempt to diffuse the attack which she knows is hurting her Party. It hurt the Liberal Party in a devastating way on September 4, 1984. 1 am speaking of the problem which the Liberal Party left Canada, namely, the horrendous deficit.
I do not care how any Member of this House slices it, we are now running a deficit of $34 billion a year. The total deficit on an accumulated basis is in the neighbourhood of $200 billion. That deficit was built up from 1974 when the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was Finance Minister and it accumulated under succeeding Liberal administrations. There is no question about it. The deficit for which we are paying, and if anyone can find some other way to pay for it other than taxing I would be glad to know, was built up by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Suddenly in September of 1984, the Liberals wanted to walk away from the 10, 15 and 17 years of deficit. 1 know the Flon. Member comes to this House from another forum. It may not have perhaps become clear to her how devastating $25 billion of interest payment is when you try to balance the books. The Hon. Member will know that most of the drugs which are available only on prescription continue to enjoy relief, provided they are properly identified in the schedules attached to the Food and Drugs Act. The Hon. Member will know that all drugs provided to hospital patients are completely exempt. She will also know that we did review the matter and announced on September 6, I believe, after consultation with the industry that certain drugs and equipment would be entitled to relief. Many of these, and some, as the Hon. Member points out, were-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Four out of 2,500.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: All right, four. The principle is the same. You can expand, slice and divide drugs. As the saying goes, figures sometimes lie and liars sometimes figure. 1 can always make a case like that. I know the Hon. Member is playing partisan politics with the health of Canadians.
Let me make this very clear. If we did not have the deficit left by the Liberal Party we would not be paying $25 billion in

September 16, 1985
Adjournment Debate
interest on it and we could do a lot more for Canadians, not only through social measures but in job retraining. We wish we did not have the debt, but no matter how much the Hon. Member dislikes it, the Liberal Party of Canada left it for us to deal with. We do not like having to deal with it this way, but we are doing the best we can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 17, 1985