1985-09-17

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be now read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee, and the amendment of Mr. Frith (page 6625).
Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the various Members speaking for the Opposition, as they commented on the amendment to the Bill now before the House.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I express my support for this legislation which was introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and is aimed above all, and I think it is important to emphasize that this morning, at restructuring social benefit programs for Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, by introducing this legislation, the Government has shown it takes its responsibilities seriously by providing a long-term perspective for our social programs, for the greater benefit of Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I always find it rather surprising that the same Opposition Members who have been very vociferous in this debate on social programs were on the Government benches for 20 years, during which they increased this country's debt in a way that was absolutely outrageous, without any consideration for the future and future generations. That we must not forget. Opposition Members keep telling us that enough has been said about the past and that all that is history. I disagree. We are going to talk about the past and they may be sure we will go on talking about it for some time.
During the debate last June on partial de-indexation of pensions, a number of Opposition Members were most inconsistent in their reactions, when they grossly exaggerated the impact of a sound and legitimate program that was presented to Canadian citizens, and in doing so, they completely distorted the debate and destroyed any hope of considering the issue in an objective and realistic manner.
Mr. Speaker, strangely enough, those very same Members who were previously on the Government side took the liberty of capping indexation of family allowances during the last ten years they were in power. If indexation had been maintained over the years, the family allowance would be $20 more than it is now. They never mention that. There are some things they would rather forget. We will get back to that later. The same people who prevented this $20 increase are complaining today about a reduction worth all of 94 cents. They are dramatizing and making a terrific fuss. The same people ... Mr. Speaker, I think I should repeat that it is easier for them to see the mote in their neighbour's eye than the beam in their own. That is quite obvious today.


An Hon. Member:: We cannot see you behind your beam!


Pierre Blais: There are a lot of beams over there. There are quite a few, and we are going to try and remove them one by one. That will teach them to open their eyes, to see not just what suits them but also what does not. We are going to throw some light on the social and economic state of affairs here in Canada. Canadian citizens ought to know what really happened in the past and what is happening now in Canada.
If we could have had full indexation during the last ten years, perhaps that would have been a lesser evil. However, those same Liberal politicians governed this country so badly that we are now practically mired in debt, and today, they are talking about... I am thinking of one term, for instance, that has been quoted repeatedly in recent months. I am referring to the term universality. We had to maintain universality. Universality of what, may I ask, Mr. Speaker? The kind of universality we inherited from the previous government meant that all the provinces were opposed to the federal Government. Universality meant the deficit that affected every Canadian citizen. There was the universal concern among all Canadians and all this lasted until we were able to replace that government and Canadians told them loud and clear, in no uncertain terms, what they thought of their Government and the 20 years it was in power before we took over last September.
The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) said yesterday, and I listened carefully to each and every speaker, that we were a Government of promises. Yes, that is true. We promised to establish a new climate of confidence in this country. And we have. Let them stop their false alarms and the panic button techniques they have been using during the past few

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
months. The people we all meet every weekend are not as upset and concerned as the Opposition would have us believe. We promised to re-establish an open and sincere dialogue with the provinces and to settle a host of problems that were pending and that had started to fester because of the arrogant attitude of the Government at the time.
[DOT] (mo)
We also promised to assume our responsibilities and come to grips with the suffocating deficit left us by the previous deserted-not to say routed-Government. In less than a year we managed to bring interest rates back to the lowest level in eight years, an inflation rate of barely 4 per cent whereas they kept it at 12 per cent for years.
An Elon. Member: Keep a straight face when you say that!


Pierre Blais: They conveniently forget those years, Mr. Speaker, and now that inflation stands at less than 4 per cent Canadians are looking to the future with confidence, especially with respect to the social affairs sector with which we are concerned today. Like most of my Government colleagues I have been visiting my riding every weekend for the last year. It gives us an opportunity to meet with youths, middle-aged people and heads of families who all have one thing in common, namely their concern about the future, the future of our country, the future of our youths. Simply to score political points, Mr. Speaker, no one has the right to upset everything and confuse people here in Canada while forgetting our future and that of our children. In fact the central issue of this debate today is our future. The Government of the day must face up to its responsibilities to ensure that elderly Canadians, our families and our youths do have a secure future. There is one thing those young people do not understand and they never fail to mention it to me: How could we possibly have been so blind, how is it that the previous Government was so inconsistent and irresponsible in the many decision it took over the years without even realizing or knowing where it was leading us? The one thing they do understand is that we are spending $25 billion a year simply to pay interests on the orgy of expenditures of the Members opposite over *the last twenty years. That is as much money as we spend on social affairs in Canada. They often get a chuckle out of the fact that additional taxes will have to be levied on corporate income, for this has already been announced in the Budget; a minimum tax will be imposed on high incomes. They know that, and so they should in my opinion. But we are responsible people, we have taken over and we will try to solve the problem. Our Government is steering a new course, Mr. Speaker, for we want to set some order in Government interventions in all endeavours, be they in the economic or social sector. Business circles and high income individuals-and this is one of our commitments which is sometimes not taken seriously-will have to do their share through additional corporate taxes already announced in the Budget. They know a minimum tax will be payable on high incomes, and I should think that Opposition Members of the
New Democratic Party ought to be particularly pleased about that, considering they have been asking for that since God knows when. Here we are responding favourably to one of their requests, yet they are not delighted. Come on now! What will they talk about? What will they beef about next? That, Mr. Speaker, is reality, those are facts and they ought to be honest enough to admit it.
Notwithstanding what the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) may have said yesterday, our American friends and neighbours are quite worried about their soaring expenditures and the ever worsening deficit problem. Mr. Speaker, the coming months and years will prove that the Canadian Government showed the way to the western world by coming to grips with its deficit and attempting to find a long term solution to this problem. As much in Sudbury as anywhere else, Canadians are fully aware of the fact that our Government has taken very little time to put 300,000 people back to work by creating new jobs in co-operation with the private sector which has regained full confidence in the economy and the Government. Indeed what we have restored among Canadians is much more a matter of attitude, of mentality, of confidence. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to set our social policy on the right track, because the previous Government did not know where it was heading and could only come up with band-aid and haphazard policies. They could not see very far into the future. That is what we did by revamping the whole sector.
Yesterday the Hon. Member for Sudbury said something about hypocrisy, yet the people in his own Government were the ones who stood in the way of full indexation of family allowances, with the result that the recipients are now deprived of $20. They are getting $20 less than they would have had it been maintained. Certainly he has forgotten all about that. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has no recollection of it, he was not here. It is my understanding he was living in other climates. I do not know whether those were more favourable climates, but I have some doubts. Had he been happy, maybe he would not have looked for a change.


Mr. Boudria:: You will find yourself in the unemployment insurance climate come the next election.


Pierre Blais: My dear Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, please keep a close watch on your curriculum vitae, as I told you last week. You will have enough of a hard time adding a page to it if you care to look for a job comes the next election, because you will see what Canadians will do with the forty-odd Liberal members who are still around in Canada.
I was mentioning, Mr. Speaker, the $20 reduction in family allowances which they were responsible for. They never mention that, only the 94 cents involved in this legislation. And
September 17, 1985

with respect to de-indexation, they have completely forgotten the years when, because of their policy, we had 11 to 12 per cent inflation rates, but then they limited indexation to 5 and 6 per cent. They do not want to be reminded of that, Mr. Speaker. Those are the facts. What does all that mean? They deprived Canadians of 6 per cent indexing. Does that ring a bell? But we are seeking here an overall balancing of all our social measures. This also they forget. This is a sheer hypocrisy. Rather than refer to our hypocrisy, let them look at theirs.
Turning to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), the last member we heard last night, he enthusiastically attacked banks and multinational corporations, of which he was a president for some years. He too has a short memory. And a shorter memory still, when he forgets that hardly ten years ago, he himself, then a Minister of Finance in another jurisdiction, had serious doubts about the universality of social programs. I remembered that when I saw his candid face in the papers, recently. His picture was in the press in 1975, when he was Minister of Finance and universality was not that important. Now he stands up in this House, banging on his desk, and insisting he will fight for the universality of social programs, and any change will have to be made over his dead body. What a short memory he too has, Mr. Speaker. And anyway, people had the opportunity to assess his administration when he was there. A year later we saw how his Government and his policies, both social and economic, were emphatically thrown out by the people in Quebec. He has no business coming here today and singing another tune.
When our friends opposite refer to maintaining the same social benefits for families, they no doubt forget that the major social benefit that does or should exist in our society is having a job. We believe that people would rather have a job. My colleague for Laval-des-Rapides estimated that in 1990, people with income in the $10,000 to $20,000 range will have lost approximately 4 per cent. But we as a Government want people in 1990 to have jobs, we want people to be back at work rather than to sit down waiting for social benefits to come. What Canadians want is employment. People will then be assessing our approach to social measures using standards other than social benefits for the unemployed.
As I often say, Mr. Speaker, there are people who sometimes fight over assumptions. There is a guy who used to live not far from my home. He used to say: I would rather have 5 per cent of something than 50 per cent of nothing. We sometimes suspect, when Opposition members discuss or advocate positions, that what they are proposing are measures they "forsee" and not too clearly at that. They are saying that in 1990 matters will be just as they were in their times, we will still be in inextricable economic difficulties. But such will not be the case, Mr. Speaker. Within 12 months, we have put 300,000 people back to work. They are people with jobs, who
Family Allowances Act
are happy, who have families, who provide for them, who do not think first in terms of social measures to protect them, about the social security net, but who rather think about their work, about their jobs, about supporting their children and about our finding jobs for their children also.
[DOT] (U20)
Mr. Speaker, that is what our Government is working at. There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. And for weeks we have seen the Liberal members opposite shed crocodile tears. They keep referring to senior citizens, families and young people. What have you done for them during the past 20 years if not getting them forever deeper into debt?
Mr. Speaker, the most inexperienced among economists and among social workers would agree that a viable balance must be restored between those two values: healthy economic conditions and an adequate social welfare system commensurate with our needs and with the financial capacities of Canadians which are not to be forgotten either.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) mentioned the quality of life of women at home. She also mentioned that she had asked the views of Canadian women who felt they were affected by those pieces of legislation. 1 think that her consultations did not extend farther than the opposition's lobby. Canadians generally are a lot more concerned about the direction taken by our country and the community at large. What is the purpose of the community as far as the quality of life of Canadians is concerned? What are we going to do for Canadians? This is what people are concerned about and not the 94 cents which have been mentioned repeatedly for weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I caution the Hon. Members opposite. If they intend to get on a horse and act like Don Quixote and travel around the country trying to smash down windmills, they can be sure that we will not let them do so. We will take the necessary steps to explain clearly the information circulated on that legislation and make sure that the opposition will not launch a witch hunt. You can be sure of that.
When the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) rose yesterday, he was uneasy at the beginning and wasted 10 minutes before he started to say something. He was worrying about the absence of speakers on the Government side. Well, 1 can tell you that this morning he has nothing to worry about. We let them speak yesterday because we wanted to see what they had to say.
And all they did was spend about half an hour telling us that they did not know what to say, and then, for the rest of the day, they spoke about a forestry Bill, or rather the report from the Standing Committee on forestry. This is a filibuster type tactic to delay the proceedings of the House.

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Mr. Speaker, they tell us that they seriously want to have a debate and defend the interests of Canadians. They will never accept this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, you can be sure that, as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides was saying yesterday, we are knee-deep in clover to use an expression from the Beauce area. I have not been in clover up to my knees in a long time. I feel rather like 1 am on a golf course. Last September 4, I had the impression that 1 was on a golf course. The hay was mown a long time ago! We are just beginning to have a good crop, and you can be certain, Mr. Speaker, that we shall defend the interests of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member explain the basic difference between the de-indexing of family allowances brought about by the Liberal Government, which he has just criticized, and the proposed de-indexing of family allowances under Bill C-70 now before the House of Commons? What is in fact the difference, or is there no difference between a Liberal Government and a Conservative Government? They are both willing to let families and children suffer by de-indexing family benefits; they take away the bread and the milk from the mouths of little children.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has only to take a pencil and a piece of paper. The difference is easy to figure out: $20 minus 94 cents is $19.06.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member missed the intent of the last question. If I am not mistaken, I think he was asking why the Conservative Government is deindexing family allowance if it believes the Liberals should not have done so.
His Government agreed that it was wrong to deindex old age pensions. Senior citizens and their supporters across the country said it was wrong because it was eroding universal old age pensions. They have worked for those pensions, deserve them and must have them. The consensus in the country was great and so his Government backed down.
If it was wrong about old age pensions, why is it not also wrong in doing exactly the same thing to children, families and women who receive that family allowance cheque? Why does he feel the Government is justified in doing it to children through family allowances when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admitted that the Government was wrong and backed down from partially deindexing old age pensions? Now it is going to do it to children's allowances. The approach does not make any sense.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, that is quite simple. The previous Liberal Government had no strategy and did not know where it was going. They did not provide full indexation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It is the same with the Conservatives.


Pierre Blais: We now have a strategy, and if you took the trouble of reading the papers you were sent, you would know that this measure fits in a policy framework. De-indexing is not an appropriate term because the allowances will still be indexed. We have not removed indexation, but simply restricted it. As for you, you have always had a Santa Claus philosophy. You never think about how all those programs will be paid for. This never enters your mind; you do not worry about it. I can understand it because you have never been and never will be in power. You will therefore never have to concern yourselves with this.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Do you support this policy?


Pierre Blais: A responsible Government, Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to answer ... I understand that the truth might scare some people, but they have never been in power and never will be. Canadians clearly know this and they tell them so at each election. Their party does not understand, but it does not matter.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to-


Michael Morris Cassidy: He is certainly not Santa Claus!


Pierre Blais: Indeed, you speak about Santa Claus because you do not care who will pay. For you, as long as the expenditure is there, it is not important to know who will pay. For our part, we are trying to develop a program that will include tax credits based on family income.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Incredible!


Pierre Blais: We shall take action to increase family income. Listen-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member has another supplementary question, I will allow it. But please let us not have the exchange. Let the Hon. Member answer and then I will recognize other Hon. Members.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, they do not want an answer. It is quite obvious. What I want to say, and it is quite clear, is that we have tried to develop a program to meet the needs of Canadian families, and we shall put these Canadian families back to work gradually as we have been doing since last fall. You do not like it and I can understand. If I had had to watch
September 17, 1985

the Liberals at work for 20 years, I would find it difficult to be optimistic myself. That is a fact. For our part on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and for the large group of us on the other side also, we are optimistic and we know that we shall put people back to work and help the economy recover. This is how we shall be able to get out of this economic crisis.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to excite the Hon. Member. I must say I agree with him. I think there has to be a sense of responsibility.
What I am curious to know is, if it is true that as a nation we cannot afford to index family allowances fully, where then will we get the $1 billion to pay off the people who have lost money in the Canadian Commercial Bank fiasco?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this is not the question period.


Mr. Robichaud:: Ah, but it is!


Mr. Riis:: It is a difficult question, is it not?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Be serious.


Pierre Blais: Alright, you are going to get it! It takes a long time but you are going to get it.
Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this is not the oral question period. At 2:15 p.m., the Hon. Member may redirect his question concerning the Canadian Commercial Bank problem to the right person. In my opinion, I think-


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is your opinion!


Pierre Blais: -that this is not a long-term situation but rather a punctual problem that had to be dealt with for the benefit of all Canadians. It is on this basis that the Government took action, and 1 would not want to pirate as they do, because again they do not want to hear the answers. We told them that we would set up a committee to study the whole situation. But no, they don't want that, they want to get answers right now this very afternoon. They want to have the list of all depositors, all shareholders and all deposits and withdrawals for the past seven or eight years. They will not follow the normal procedure. We told them that we were going to set up a special committee to deal with this matter, somewhere else where they can ask all their questions.


Ian Deans: Why don't you answer the question?


Pierre Blais: That is not what they want. They only want to make political gains at the expense of the Government, but they will not succeed, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, they spoke
Family Allowances Act
about forestry; today, they speak about the Canadian Commercial Bank. It has nothing to do with the Bill which is before us today, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russeli (Mr. Boudria). Question or comment.


Don Boudria: It is a question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Hon. Member, if I can only get his attention ... I wonder if the Hon. Member could tell us, if I understood correctly what he replied a while ago to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) ... I think I heard him say that the need to cut family allowances stemmed from the financial streamlining program he referred to. Would he not agree that if such is the case, the Prime Minister of Canada did not tell the truth when he stated that the money saved through the pension cuts would never be used to pay for expenditures or reduce the debt of our country?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, again a narrow-minded question, as usual; we do not know where it begins or where it ends.


Don Boudria: Say that you do not know!


Pierre Blais: Let me speak!
Mr. Speaker, I never said nor intended to say that our Right Hon. Prime Minister could have lied. I suggest they have been going too far for the past few months with all their innuendoes. It is absolutely out of the question! What our Government has always tried to do, Mr. Speaker, which should be self-evident-but they refuse to see or hear it-is to restructure for Canadians a social program which is fair and balanced. It has never been intended, and I think this has been clearly indicated, that poor people and low income families should pay for this restructuration.
The funds now available in the social sector should stay in the social sector, as it has been intended all along, Mr. Speaker, and we do not plan to change that; but we must spend $25 billion a year because of their spending spree, as much as we spend for the social programs. That is what is jeopardizing our budget and destroying the Canadian economy. If I were they, I should be extremely embarrassed, I would never raise this issue and I would hope the Canadian public would forget about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allocated for questions and comments has expired. Debate. The Hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, to continue the debate on this subject, the main issue is that this Government has decided to de-index the value of family allowances down to 3 per cent each year, starting in 1986. This means that in 1986, they are going to take 94 cents or a dollar

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
away from the children of poor families, per month, and then $2 and $3 and $4 and so on.
In fact, the Progressive Conservative Government has decided to continue the policies of the Liberal Government. This means that it does not respect the principle of universality on which the family allowance program was based and has been for 40 years.
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with these problems because in the forties, my father, as an adviser to the Government, was involved in setting up the welfare programs after World War II. The House will recall it was a Liberal Government at the time that was apprehensive about the people's support for the CCF, the predecessor of the New Democratic Party, because we on our side were pushing for the establishment of a social security program that would cover everyone. We wanted a program that would be universal and cover all Canadians, and not just those who were in greatest need, because we knew from the Depression, that means tests were not satisfactory, tended to set people against each other, and practically guaranteed that social security programs would not be adequate for those who were living in poverty.
Mr. Speaker, since that time and for many years we have maintained the principle of universality, but as the Minister said yesterday in his introduction to the debate, during the last ten years, the cuts imposed by the Liberal Government have had the effect of reducing family allowances by $20 a month. At the beginning of the 70s, family allowances were worth about $20 per child, and now, with full indexation, the program could have been worth about $51 per month today. It was not the Conservatives but the Liberals who imposed reductions, cuts and de-indexation. More recently, it was the 6 and 5 program that reduced the monthly value of family allowances by about 10 per cent. In 1979, they reduced the increase in value of family allowances from 11 per cent to zero. The Liberals created a precedent, and now the Conservative Government is following suit. Now it is not just for one or two years. They intend to make it permanent. Some vague promises have been made about what could be done in the future, but basically, it is clear that the Conservative Government is very sympathetic to a further reduction in the value of family allowances and of all kinds of benefits aimed at the families of this country.
Mr. Speaker, after what was said by the Member who spoke previously, I wonder how he could possibly ... he referred to Santa Claus. He said that we, the New Democratic Party, believed in Santa Claus. I do believe in Santa Claus, and I hope he does too, because this is very important to children. I wonder how in the present situation, we could possibly mistake the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for the Government's Santa Claus. So Santa Claus has now become very strict; he feels he has to take nickels and dimes from small kids, particularly those from poor families, he takes money away from them!
Now then, I do not know whether he is aware of what the rest of the Government is doing, but if we consider the budgetary policy of the Government, what with deindexation of family allowances as announced in the Budget, we can see that rich people, those who have clout, the very small percentage of people who make capital gains, we can see that those are the very people who receive from the same Government that takes food away from small children.
And then we have the Government's own Mrs. Santa Claus-the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) from Toronto-who is just as severe as Santa Claus, who also takes small change from kids and then turns around and hands out billions of dollars to companies, institutions and banks which had deposits in the Canadian Commercial Bank.
So here we are wondering how could that Minister, Mrs. Santa Claus, hand out $1 billion to bankers over a weekend while at the same time the Minister of National Health and Welfare takes money away from children, $103 million a year for starters and all the way up to $600 million a year by 1990.
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the Government is trying to convince us that it has to take money away from children to balance the books. Yet at the same time it gives money to bankers, quite oblivious to its own argument that bank presidents should not really get family allowances because they can do without them. 1 should think they do not need any money, they just got $1 billion from the Minister of State (Finance). The Government gives with one hand and takes with the other, but it takes from the poor, from low income families and gives it all to the rich.

I should like to draw to the attention of the House some of the figures in terms of poverty among families, the purpose of a universal program of family allowances, the very real dangers in the dismantling of unversality under the Government and the disparity which occurs when a Government is prepared to give $1 billion to bankers in one weekend at the same time as it is prepared to take away $130 million this coming year and up to $600 million in 1990 from the mouths of children and of families, most often families with very modest incomes.
The National Council on Welfare has made a very serious study on the impact of the 1985 Budget on families at different levels of income. It has cumulated the impact over the course of the next five years, until 1990. No matter how we compare it, families with low incomes and children consistently lose more than families with high incomes and children. The middle class gets hit, too. I think what is most unconscionable is the fact that if you consider a family earning $80,000, because of the increase in the Budget in the exemption for Registered Retirement Savings Plans, because of the fact that capital gains up to $500,000 are now going to be totally exempt from tax, the $80,000 a year family comes out much better off, relatively speaking, than the $15,000 a year family.
September 17, 1985

Let us look at the figures. In 1990 the total loss, because of the Budget, to a family earning $15,000 a year will be $1,879. The total loss to the $80,000 a year family will be $1,125.
That is really progressive fiscal policy. You take more from the people who have low incomes, perhaps because there are so many of them, and you take less from people earning $80,000 a year who surely in our society are able to make a larger rather than a smaller contribution.
Mr. Speaker, consider a one-earner couple with two children and compare family earnings. Believe me, where people can afford to have one income it is usually a very big income, but the loss to a one-earner family with an income is $15,000 a year is going to be $2,422 by 1990. The extremely modest and brief increase in the total child package in 1986 and 1987 will be nowhere near enough to compensate for the other tax losses that that family will suffer. So they lose $2,422.
In the name of tax equity, what has the Government done for the family with one earner earning $80,000 a year? They are obviously so badly off that they need to be looked after. And they will come out, after five years, Mr. Speaker, $5,622 ahead. They in fact get lower taxes over the next five years, while the family who is trying to scrape by on $15,000 a year loses the equivalent of $500 a year over the next five years.
Last night I was knocking on some doors in my riding of Ottawa Centre. I talked to a number of people and said; "What is on your mind?" They said to me: "The family allowance, it just ain't fair." They said to me: "Look, it was not fair to deindex the old age pension for senior citizens and no more is it fair to deindex the family allowance for families."
I think they understood something which the Hon. Members on the government side do not understand and that is the reason we brought in family allowances originally and the reasons as well why we in our Party have always advocated that this be a universal program rather than a program which is only directed to people on very modest incomes.
One of the reasons why it is a universal program is, very simply, this. If you take two families, one with a couple of kids and the other childless, and their income is the same, I do not think that it takes a lot of reflection to realize that it costs more to pay the living expenses of the family with kids. Kids eat. They require bedrooms, a place to sleep, clothing, more housing is required. It costs money to go to the dentist; we don't have dental care in most parts of Canada. They need toys and entertainment. It costs money to take them to McDonald's or places like that.


Mr. Mayer:: How about Wendy's?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Or Wendy's-those expenses are not expenses which accrue to the childless family. They may choose to use some of their disposable income on a nephew or a niece or the children of friends but they are not required to do so. One of the reasons that we have a universal child allowance program in Canada is precisely the fact that there are inequities within income groups in a sense that people with kids, who are
Family Allowances Act
carrying out a responsibility on behalf of us all, have greater expenses than people who do not have kids. That seems to me to be entirely fair. The Government does not recognize that, however.
I also have real questions about the very specious argument that was put forward by the Hon. Minister yesterday in introducing this particular piece of legislation. The Minister maintained, as have other members of the Government on a number of occasions, that we have to do something about social spending because social spending on the programs for which he is responsible is now equivalent to the interest on the national debt. Therefore, he said, we have to start do cut it. 1 think that that is a blinkered point of view which is extraordinarily unfair to people who are needy in our society or to people carrying out such socially valuable functions as, in fact, raising the kids who are going to be the next generation and who, among other things, will be paying the pensions for the MPs on that side of the House when they finally come to retire from the House of Commons one or two years from now-or six years from now.


Don Boudria: They won't be here that long.


Michael Morris Cassidy: If we wanted to look at why we have interest on the national debt, why not look at the fact that we have between $30 billion and $50 billion in tax expenditures every year in the Budget of the Government of Canada? These are hidden expenditures, they do not appear in the Estimates when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stands up before the House of Commons to deliver his Budget. Yet nonetheless whether it is depreciation allowances, whether it is accelerated cost incentives, whether it is R and D, whether it is incentives of some kind for investments in movies or oil drilling or something like that, these are real losses to the Treasury. The most recent, Mr. Speaker, and I think the most unconscionable, is the decision which the Government has put forward in the Budget that it is going to exempt from tax entirely the first $500,000 of capital gains. So someone who works a lifetime, as some of the people in my riding do, to earn half a million dollars and is taxed year after year is going to be paying for Parliament, paying for defence, paying for social programs, paying for economic programs, not just for himself or herself, but on behalf of the coupon-clipper who is making half a million dollars of capital gains and is not having to pay any tax at all.
I would suggest that it is about time we started to look at things in that perspective rather than try to whip up into a frenzy that kind of welfare bum psychology where people say it is wrong to be giving social spending payments or to be redistributing income to people because they are poor, because they are raising children, because they are old and have contributed to our society over the course of their productive lifetime.
I think it is wrong. The Government learned a lesson, it seemed to me, last June when the senior citizens of this country stood up unanimously and said they will not put up with it. I recall the embarrassment of this Minister, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Speaker, when he got up in the House of Commons and said that all kinds of groups were telling him that they have to do this in order to make their contribution to the deficit. 1 was one, Mr. Speaker, who said, "Name one group of senior citizens who support the deindexation proposals". The Minister had to retire in disarray because he could not name a single group. Shortly after that, Mr. Speaker, the senior citizens' groups came here to the House of Commons to talk to us directly and to make that point.
We have a responsibility here. Many of the Members of the House of Commons have kids; I have three. The kids of this country are not in a position to organize as senior citizens can. For one thing, they are only age three, age five or age seven and some of them are in diapers. I met some of them last night and I am afraid that however cogent their comments on the deindexation of family allowances were, 1 had difficulty in translating what they said, as they gurgled and cooed, into words that would be understood here. So we have to speak as parliamentarians on behalf of this future generation. I am speaking on behalf of the kids in my riding and on behalf of children across this country when I say that Canada was not wrong 40 years ago when we established the family allowance program. That was something that was universally admired around the world when we made it a cornerstone of our family policy in this country. It was right then and it continues to be right today. We are doing things to the child tax credit and things like that that focus some assistance particularly on the neediest families. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said yesterday it is important that we preserve the universality because if we ever get to a situation where the majority of families in this country feel that they are simply paying for benefits that are going to a minority who are on modest incomes or who are poor, that is a recipe for social schism, for social divisiveness and it is a recipe eventually for a situation where the benefits will be cut back and eventually will be lost. That 1 would regret very very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize, for the benefit of Hon. Members and of all those who are watching this debate, that in our society one family out of five is now living in poverty. Poverty is on the increase in our society. Real-term family income has been decreasing these past four or five years. This is especially so with respect to young families, that is people under 25 with a family.
Mr. Speaker, looking at the situation of children, we find there is a larger proportion of children living in poverty than there are people generally. Actually, some 20 per cent of our children live in poverty!
In my Province of Ontario, where people receiving social welfare benefits are concerned, we find that 43 per cent of all the people who are on social welfare, those getting benefits from the Canada Assistance Plan in the Province of Ontario, are children. There you have real poverty in our population.
Mr. Speaker, the Government then will say that with the $23,000 income bracket, we will start reducing benefits to families from the whole package that has been proposed, and they justify taking away $130 million from family allowances in 1986, and up to $600 million in 1990.
Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize for the benefit of Conservative members that, quite possibly, one might survive with a $23,000-a-year salary in the constituency of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), but in Eastern Canada's major cities this is just below the poverty line.
Mr. Speaker, in my constituency, the cost of renting a family home or paying a mortgage on it is $600 to $900 a month. For a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum for a family with two children, the cost is $500 to $700 a month; failing that one has to go and live in a slum, or else slums are being rehabilitated thanks to the changes in the mortgage market.
Then Mr. Speaker, you have the cost of clothes and food for the children. There is also dental care and all the other expenses. Even with a $1,000 montly income, one is supposed to contribute to a pension fund, the Canada Pension Fund, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and so on and so forth. Income tax deductions may reduce income by $1,500 a month. After that the rent has to be paid, some $100 a week must be spent on food and other expenses. I believe that parents should go out and have someone look after the children because they are entitled to some leisure time, but they still must pay for a babysitter. They may also take holidays once in a while. Social agencies cannot give all that to children!
Mr. Speaker, as never in the past families are experiencing serious problems. If we had a really constructive policy concerning the family, as our community would grow richer, we would have more funds earmarked for families to provide a compensation for its highly significant role among us. Rather than acting in such a manner, we are reducing them!
Mr. Speaker, since the time allotted to me has come to an end, I will say once again that the New Democratic Party is opposing such measures.
The six-month hoist proposed by the Liberals is certainly something but it is not adequate because they themselves cut family allowances in the past.
We oppose the measure and we say: "Let us maintain the indexation of family allowances since the Government has now agreed to maintain the old age security pensions for our senior citizens."
September 17, 1985


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend if he feels that in imposing this reduction in indexation on family allowances the Government is particularly attacking women in the home. This is something about which we have a particular concern. We are concerned about children and about families as well. However, I would like to have my hon. friend speak to that particular issue.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend for her question. What she says is absolutely true. In the first place, for families, where the mother is at home with the kids, the family allowance cheque is the only independent source of revenue that that head of family, the mother, will receive.
In the second place, we are talking about one child in five living in poor families. Let us be blunt about it. Many of those children live in mother-led families. It is a tragedy in our society; but, today, 49 per cent of mother-led families are poor. When family allowance is cut back, even if it starts at only 95 cents a month per child, it is women who are being hit and it is women who are forced to live on their own raising kids on their own. It seems to me that a Government which made such promises as those which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made during the course of the election campaign with respect to the concerns the Conservatives had about the status of women in our society, would, in fact, be doing everything possible to maintain and improve the income status of women as opposed to cutting income, as is proposed by the deindexation.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Given the penetrating observations on the tax system and the failure of the Government to take prompt action, and the decision to act without warning on an important part of our child benefit system, I wonder what comment the Hon. Member would have with respect to the social philosophy of the Government which this move reflects. The Government has a readiness to allow those who have the good fortune to achieve high incomes and comfortable lives to do so through capital gains measures and profits in that area, which is just one prime example of the way in which the system operates. Noting particularly what the Hon. Member had to say in response to the question by my hon. friend from Vancouver East with respect to the impact of these changes on families headed by women, what sort of a social philosophy does this move actually express on the part of our Conservative Government in building wealth and increasing poverty in the country?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I do not quote scriptures, Mr. Speaker. However, if I may reply in terms which may sound somewhat scriptural: To him or her that hath shall be given, and to him or her that hath not shall be taken away. That is the social philosophy that is reflected in this Government's Budget as a whole. The measure which is before us is one which particularly takes away from many of the poorest families in our society who are performing such a vital role in terms of raising children. Put in specific terms, that 94 cents means one litre of
Family Allowances Act
milk being taken away from each kid in 1986 per month, two litres in 1987, three litres in 1988 and a litre per week in 1990. That is what is being taken away.
What is being done on the other side? I mentioned some figures with respect to the amounts coming into the hands of families who are rich. It amounts to the equivalent of $300 or $400 per year, which is going into the pockets of families who are rich. In some cases, it is much more than that. That seems to me to be totally and entirely perverse.
I wish to remind Hon. Members of the fact that under the Liberal administration over the course of the last 30 or 40 years, despite the occasionally constructive efforts the Liberals made to redistribute income, the distribution of income in our society remains as unjust today as it was in 1945 or 1950. The bottom 20 per cent of families, in terms of incomes, receive 6 per cent of incomes, while the top 20 per cent of families in our society receive 40 per cent of incomes. Thus, the families at the top are receiving six or seven times the amount of real resources per annum as compared to the families at the bottom. The Conservative Government's response to that situation has been to implement the capital gains exemption and other measures which place more resources into the pockets of those families at the top while taking them away from families at the bottom.
Finally, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. colleagues opposite, that the defence put forward by the Government which is to say, "We have put money in the pockets of people with low incomes", is totally specious. For two years there was an increase of perhaps $100 per annum for families who are the very poorest, that is, $1 or $2 a week. By the time one takes into account anticipated inflation, and so on, these poor families will be worse off. In the meantime, money is being taken out of the payments for support of our family policy, which should be a cornerstone of social policy in general, in order to be applied to the deficit or to set up a little kitty so that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall) can bail out more banks over the course of the next two years or three years.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleagues if he agrees with the Minister who says that this deindexing of family allowance is not an attack on universality. I have challenged him many, many times in relation to old age pensions and also in relation to family allowances for reducing the amount of the benefit, in this case to children, every month. In effect he is eroding the total universal program. At the same time, his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that universality is sacrosanct, a sacred trust. But in effect, with that Party's practice, policies and legislation it is deindexing and this means it is eroding a universal program.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would say that my colleagues opposite in the House of Commons are in fact supporting a flimflam artist. The Prime Minister states that universality is a sacred trust. While he states that, by sleight of hand, the

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Government through its Ministers, is taking away universality.
I had an opportunity to see quite an amazing demonstration by a Canadian magician in this city on Sunday night. He is in fact a master of sleight of hand and is matched only by the Government. If after a few years the value of the family allowance is half of what it was before, Mr. Speaker, because of deindexation, then in fact universality is only half of what it was before. That, I am afraid, is the policy of the Government.
I entirely agree with my colleague. The Minister is dead wrong when he says he is respecting universality. He is not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now terminated. We shall resume debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say, as we traditionnally do when we address this House, that I am happy to take part in this debate today.
Unfortunately, the purpose of this legislation is such that the only thing to say is that we are sad to have to take part in such a debate because this Government is attacking Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives have betrayed the Canadian people. You know as well as I do that they are not keeping the promises made last year.

I have here, Mr. Speaker, the compilation of Tory campaign promises. There are 338 of them. There are no less than 26 promises involving the enhancement of social programs.
Over the last year or so, we have seen this Government, time and time again, attack the social policies and programs established by previous Liberal Governments. Last fall there was an annoucement or a leak, that the Government was going to cut universality and we all know that with the debates which ensued in the House of Commons, led by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), we finally convinced the Tories to drop that scheme. Only a few months later we see the Budget document of the Government, and what do we see? Universality has been attacked again on two fronts. Not only has the Government attacked the senior citizen's pensions but it has attacked families as well.
Disraeli once said, "a Conservative Government is an organized hypocrisy". We know why he said that, Mr. Speaker. Of course, it is the truth. The Prime Minister of this country promised the people that universality was a sacred trust. Let me outline to you, Mr. Speaker, some of the effects of the decision of the Government to deindex family allowances, to change the income tax provisions and to allow capital gains exemption for those who are better off in our society. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) spoke a while ago about the effect this would have on some families.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that, in view of the tax exemptions granted to the wealthiest members of our society and the savings made possible for some of them, the impact of this Bill is even more serious than other have said.
For instance, by 1990, a family with four people and a yearly income of $10,000 will have lost $396. A family of four with an income of $30,000 a year will have lost $ 1,089 in 1990, and a family of four with an income of $30,000 a year is far from wealthy.
Let us now look at the opposite situation. A family with an income of $50,000 a year will get $279 more. In other words, while the poorest will have less, those with higher incomes will have more. Mr. Speaker, a family with an income of $100,000 a year will be better off by $2,054, and a family of four with an income of $200,000 a year will gain $4,519.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this House: where is the social justice of a program which will give $4,519 more to people earning $200,000 a year while taking away $396 from the poorest members of our society? I would like to challenge the Conservative Members, especially those who spoke about the programs of their party in glowing terms and who criticized the Opposition because it succeeded in reinstating old age pensions and forced the Government to withdraw a senseless policy.
Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the popularity of the Progressive Conservative party is going down, and seriously so. The Secretary of State, who sits opposite me in this House, is aware of this and he is probably quite alarmed by this situation because his seat is in danger. One day, when he receives unemployment insurance after his next electoral defeat, he may be happy that the Members of the Liberal party tried to preserve the family allowances of needy families.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate on what I said earlier to the effect that Conservatives have betrayed the Canadian people. I invite the Secretary of State to listen closely because, if I read slowly enough, even he will be able to understand, Mr. Speaker.
Could he reply to the following question which the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on December 20, 1984: is it the Government's policy or intention to reduce progressively over a number of years, the tax exemption for Canadian families with dependent children? To this question, the Right Hon. Prime Minister had replied that no, it was not the Government's intention. May we conclude that the Prime Minister either misled the House or that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was not present in the House at the time and, therefore, was not aware of the Prime Minister's instruction? Which of the two assumptions is the right one? The Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) who is also a member of
September 17, 1985

the Cabinet should know and could perhaps advise us accordingly in a little while. Did the Prime Minister tell the truth, or is it that the Minister of Finance was not aware of his boss' instruction? Which one? And 1 invite the Secretary of State to develop this point in a little while and advise us accordingly.
The Prime Minister's own Aunt Jeanne knows, Mr. Speaker. She publicly indicated what she thought of the Prime Minister. She felt that he did not always tell the truth.
And the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne), who sits on the other side, responsible as she is for all young Canadians, will undoubtedly rise in the House and make a speech on this issue, because it is her responsibility to protect our young people, a responsibility she did not assume too streneously since her election last year; but encouraged by Members of the Opposition, she will certainly rise and stand up from now on. At least, 1 hope so, but I am not holding my breath, I can assure you.
Mr. Speaker, let us recall what happened in the Old Age Security Pension matter. The Government goofed when it chose a policy which did not make sense. Canadians quickly realized that, the Opposition defended the interest of the Canadian people in this House and the Government had to back down. Then, having backed down, the Government denied that the Opposition was right. It even denied that the Canadian people were right. Today, we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) tell us the Government changed their minds simply because they were tired of hearing the Canadian people complain, or something to that effect. They were right and they should never have backed down. They should not have done so, and this came about because of heated opposition debates, or whatever, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. In my view, the Parliamentary Secretary should rather address matters about which he may know a bit more, because it was clear from his remarks that, first, he did not know what he was talking about, or, second, maybe he should seriously consider firing the person who wrote that speech for him. But anyway, he had not done his homework, or at least the senior citizens in his constituency certainly do not share his view.
And I am also certain that the constituents in Roberval too are quite happy to have their pensions. And if the Secretary of State thinks otherwise, maybe he can rise later and say the Government was wrong about giving senior citizens their money back, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture has just implied in this House.
Mr. Speaker, those same Tory members now suggest that the money should not be given back to the families, that they do not need it, that this is not necessary and that since the cut in their view is not that significant-although it is as I said- there is no need to give them back that money. How is it that the Government has enough funds to compensate those people who had savings in the Canadian Commercial Bank, savings of over $60,000 a year? How is it that they have money for that?
Family Allowances Act
How is it that they do not find any when the time comes to help those who are most in need?
Over $1 billion of taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, will go into the Canadian Commercial Bank in an attempt to bail this Government out of the financial fiasco it got itself into. What would it cost to restore family allowances? Some $55 million. That is what this Government is saving. Do you know how much it will cost to dress our military in different coloured uniforms so the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) can tell them apart? Some $56 million. 1 am sure if I were to ask anyone in the military if he would give up his new uniform so that needy children can have family allowances, he would, of course, agree to give it up. Perhaps we could buy some other form of identification such as little name tags so that the Minister can tell them apart. That would cost far less. It seems that everyone else can tell the military apart, but the Minister requires that they have different coloured uniforms at a cost of $56 million.
It is a strange set of priorities, Mr. Speaker. Only a Conservative Government could think that this is the best way to spend taxpayers' dollars. That kind of logic escapes everyone else, but it seems to make sense to a Tory. Take from the poor and give to the rich, that is the Tory policy. It has been expressed very clearly in this House today by some Tory Members, and no doubt before this debate is over it will have been expressed again. If there is a Tory Member in this House who does not subscribe to that policy, why does he or she not stand up and speak in favour of restoring family allowances? But no, instead they spend their time telling us about the merits of the capital gains exemption. That exemption will not help families who have nothing on which to make a capital gain. In order to use the exemption you have to have made a capital gain; how does that help the poor, I ask Hon. Members across the way? Obviously it does not do one bit of good for the poor people in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about universality. On December 20, 1984, the Prime Minister stated in this House, and I quote:
We will defend and enhance the integrity and the positive benefits which come from a universal social program.
Where is this commitment of the Prime Minister today, Mr. Speaker? Is the Prime Minister in this House to defend the position he explained last December 20? 1 have not yet heard him, Mr. Speaker. If he speaks the truth, and we all know that we cannot say in this House that the Prime Minister is telling anything but the truth, if he speaks the truth, and I hope he does, he will certainly be here later on to repeat what he said on December 20 and tell his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to withdraw this budgetary measure. If not, Mr. Speaker, 1 shall let you and the Prime Minister's Aunt Jeanne and all the

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
others make up your own minds. For my part, I shall draw my own conclusion even if I cannot express it in the exact terms that I would like to use in this House.
Mr. Speaker, the universality of social programs will be eroded by the lack of adequate protection against cost of living increases. These increases will come about. Whether the inflation rate is low or high, it will certainly exceed 3 per cent. We all know it, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, I would like to call to your attention an open letter sent to the Prime Minister of Canada. This letter was published in several newspapers this morning, in La Presse of Montreal among others. It bears the signatures of hundreds of people from various organizations, the Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress and many others. Here is a quotation from that letter, Mr. Speaker:
On this, the first anniversary of the swearing-in of the federal Progressive Conservative Government, the undersigned participants in the National Economic Conference of March 25, 1985 wish to express serious reservations about your Government's economic and social priorities.
Well, if some Conservative Members think that their priorities are good, how come they are the only ones who think so? Mr. Speaker, why is it that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance here in the House automatically assume that the applause from Progressive Conservative Members reflect approval by Canadians for the measures they want to implement?


An Hon. Member:: Because there are 211 of them!


Don Boudria: The Member on the other side just said because there are 211 of them, Mr. Speaker. That is Conservative logic for you. Because there are 211 of them in the House they think it is all right to break their promises. Such is the opinion of a Progressive Conservative. There are 211 of them in the House and according to them, Mr. Speaker, they have every right to forget everything they said to the Canadian people last year. That is the mentality of a Progressive Conservative.
Still according to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, there are 211 of them in the House so there is no need to worry about and look after the poor, let us look after the rich and after ourselves. Such is the Conservative mentality, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason why my colleagues and I are not interested in supporting this Bill which would jeopardize the universal character of our social programs and would, in our opinion, have dire consequences for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in the comments of the Member with regard to this particular piece of legislation. 1 know he is aware that this legislation is only one part of a total package affecting family benefits. That package includes not only changes and modifications to family
allowances, but also reduction of the child tax exemption under the Income Tax Act and increases in the child tax credits. The net effect, as I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, is that the benefits for low and more moderate income families increase under this legislation, and the benefits for children in higher income families decrease. In fact, as the Minister has pointed out, the existing benefits for a family earning $30,000 a year are much greater than for a family earning $10,000 a year. The total effect of the Government's proposal will be to improve the benefits for lower income families.
I know that the Member is compassionate and that he wants to improve benefits for lower and more moderate income families. I know also that he is a very realistic Member and that he realizes that we are faced with an enormous deficit which has not been created within the last year but rather over the last 20 years of administration. I heard the Hon. Member and many of his colleagues criticize the package which has been put forth by the Government. However, I have not yet heard from the Hon. Member's Party, nor from the other opposition Party, an official program which they would present to the House which would increase the benefits for lower income people while, at the same time, taking into account our enormous deficit. It would be easy to improve benefits for everyone and add to the deficit, but I am sure that the Hon. Member's Party has something specific in mind. In fact, during the last few days of summer we heard that they would be putting forth their specific policy, and 1 would love to hear from the Hon. Member what that policy is.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether 1 would be given a chance to respond to the question. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the deficit. I am concerned about the $56 million which was wasted to change the colour of the uniforms of the Armed Forces. I am concerned about the squandering of money to buy limousines for Cabinet Ministers and about the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to redecorate Cabinet Ministers' offices. I am concerned about the hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of dollars wasted on jet travel to carry these people all over the world. 1 am concerned about that Mickey Mouse of the House of Commons, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), who was flying all over the place. I am very concerned about the 1,200 political patronage appointments of the Prime Minister. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about that kind of government waste and I thank the Hon. Member for bringing it to my attention.
If the Hon. Member's concern about the deficit is so great, why did his Party and his Leader not campaign in the last election on the theme, "Vote for me and I'll cut your cheque"? That is what they stand for now. Would it not have been more honest for that Party to state that during the last election? It may have been more honest, but perhaps it would not have obtained the same results. Maybe that is the reason why the Conservatives promised one thing and delivered another.
September 17, 1985

The Member has asked me what the net effect of the whole package was, and I thank him for bringing that to my attention as well. The National Council on Welfare has brought to our attention that a family of four with only one person working earning $15,000 would lose $2,422 by 1990, whereas a family of four earning a salary of $80,000 would gain $6,287. A study done by the Liberal Party has determined that, taking into consideration the capital gains exemption, which only rich families take advantage of, a family of four earning $200,000 would be almost $5,000 richer under the budgetary provisions announced by the Government and supported by the Hon. Member who asked me the question.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting to hear the positive policies that the Hon. Member's Party, specifically and officially, is putting forward as an alternative to this policy, which will add to and improve the lot of low income people of this country, at the same time taking the deficit into account.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the Conservative Party is so bankrupt of ideas that it wants the Opposition to draw up its Budget. It is very constructive on the part of the Member to ask the Opposition to write the Budget, but I do not intend to do that. The Conservatives are in power and we will let them write the Budget. When they do an improper job 1 will stand up in my place, as will my colleagues, to point out that it is not in the best interest of Canadians. During the budget debates we outlined very clearly why it is wrong and where it needs to be corrected. It is now up to them to do their job.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the previous questioner that the NDP did in fact put forward 11 proposals for reducing the deficit to the Government during the debate on the deindexation of the old age security benefits. One of those proposals would have reverted the income tax structure back to 1980 and the marginal tax levels for high-income earners that the Liberals changed in 1980 to allow high-income earners to get away with murder in terms of the level of income tax they paid. Would the Hon. Member who just spoke not agree that if the present Government would revert to that marginal rate structure which was in effect at that time it would go a long way to reducing the deficit and indeed continue the protection of disposable income that many women rely upon when they receive that family allowance cheque?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to reduce the deficit. I am glad to see that the NDP seems to be concerned with that as well. Usually it is not a favourite topic for them but 1 am glad to see that new-found concern on the part of the NDP.
There are many ways in which this could be done. Of course, taxing the rich is certainly one way. Cutting down on wasteful expenditures by the Government, such as the ones I illustrated in the House on several occasions, is certainly another way. There is the present structure of the office staff
Family Allowances Act
of Cabinet Ministers as well as other examples of Government waste. Creating employment and returning people to work will create more revenue for the Government, rather than cutting jobs as the Conservatives have since they were sworn into office.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time for questions and comments has now expired. Debate.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. I am pleased that this Act will provide much more funds to the poorest families because we said during the election campaign that we would be assisting those who need assistance more. Today, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is proposing an additional $52 million to be allotted for day care in Canada and is waiting for a committee report before that is implemented.
It is also interesting to note that we spend $60 billion a year on social programs in this country. When we are spending $60 billion in social benefits, I do not believe that people are not being looked after in this country. The amount to be spent under Canada Assistance Program for 1984-85 is $4 billion and, with a projected increase to 1989-90, it is $8.5 billion. In the 13 years that I have been in the House of Commons, I have never been approached by my constituents or anyone from Winnipeg asking the Government to feed their children or saying that they wanted to be totally dependent on the Government bringing up their families. I have been approached by many of them who said that they do not need this family allowance but never by people who need more. My office assists any family in my riding who is having financial difficulties, whether it needs that assistance from the province, the city or federally. 1 do not agree with the NDP or the Liberals that every Canadian must be totally dependent on the Government to feed and look after him. I believe Canadians are far more responsible than that.
Many programs to assist people exist already. For instance, this is a document entitled Federal Provincial Territorial Inventory of Programs of Assistance to Youth. The size of this document shows what we are doing to help people in this country. People are not destitute, broke or starving. The statements I hear from the Liberal party and especially the NDP in the House are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians.
It is interesting to hear the Grit hypocrites talk about their concern for social programs and people. They try to portray themselves as the guardians of social policy in this country when, between 1974 and 1975 and 1984 and 1985, the Liberals reduced federal spending on social programs from 50 per

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
cent to 43 per cent. Under the guile of their 6 and 5 restraint program, the Liberals reduced indexation to 6 per cent and 5 per cent while inflation was running at 11.5 per cent and 7.1 per cent, a de facto deindexation of 7.6 per cent over two years. 1 do not hear any Liberals raising that fact in the debate.
Let us review some of the statements the Leader of the Liberal Party made about the deficit during the election campaign. In Quebec City he said, "We must find more efficient ways of delivering our social services". That is what we are doing. He said, "We must find ways of limiting a duplication of provincial and federal services". That is what we are doing. "We must find ways of establishing a more efficient public administration". That is what we are doing. I suggest that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), stands alone in his statements because the rest of the Liberal party totally opposes those views.
Let us review his record. As the former Minister of Finance, he is the one responsible for creating so many poor in this country. On May 6, 1972, he told Canadians:
The bare fact of the matter is that we cannot do everything at once. We simply don't have the resources.
We realize that it is impossible to give increasing amounts of hand-outs. He went on to say:
There are limits to the scope of fiscal policy. There are limits to stimulus and readjustment.
He certainly differs from the other 39 members of his caucus.
In his final Budget address on June 23, 1975, he told Canadians:
The portion of the national income spent by governments on goods, services and transfer payments, and financed by taxation, has now risen to levels previously reached only during the Second World War.
He was going to reduce the size of the deficit by $15 billion when the other 39 members of his caucus would do the opposite and provide even more money. Approximately 90 per cent of the questions we hear during Question Period from the NDP and the Liberals call on the Government to give everyone more money. I do not understand how this two-pronged thrust can work. The reason the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition created so many poor people during his term as Finance Minister is that the total number of people on the Government payroll during his tenure rose by 68,000, even after taking into account a 9,000 person decrease in the size of the Armed Forces. During his term as Finance Minister, spending on a national accounts basis grew by 102 per cent, from $18.1 billion to $36.8 billion. Furthermore, we cannot account for that increase. I would not want him to look after my piggy bank, let alone the finances of this country. This is what the Auditor General said about the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister of Finance:
I am deeply concerned that Parliament-and indeed the Government-has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse.
Our Government will not have a record like that. For example, during his term as Minister of Finance, public debt
charges doubled from $2 billion to $4 billion. We cannot spend more money on people because they have increased even more since then. During his term as Minister of Finance, utilities, materials and supply costs rose by 55 per cent from $347 million to $537 million.
That Government displayed no fiscal responsibility at all and there has never been a more irresponsible Minister of Finance in Canadian history.
It is the Liberals who increased the number of poor in our country. When the Right Hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was appointed Minister of Finance in January, 1972, the unemployment rate was 6 per cent. When he left in September, 1975, the unemployment rate was 6.9 per cent. During his tenure as Minister of Finance, total unemployment rose by
164.000.	The unemployment rate in that period for youth between the ages of 15 and 24 climbed from 10.5 per cent to 13 per cent. The number of youth unemployed climbed by
109.000.
On and on the horror stories go of the magicians, the Liberals, who know everything. They have an answer for everything. How did we end up in a mess like this with such brilliance, with people who know everything? They have an answer for everything so how did it ever happen?
Since we have taken over, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is on the upswing and with that upswing there will be more money for more social benefits. The Canadian economy did exceptionally well in the second quarter of 1985. The GNP was up 4.1 per cent in real terms at annual rates. The increase included gains in consumer spending and business development.
Consumer spending is up, indicating that the average citizen has more money to spend. People are not all poor and starving. Since the election, 284,000 new jobs have been created. It is not just the number of new jobs that have been created, but the number of jobs that were saved by the Conservatives taking over the Government. I am sure that number must be up around 300,000 or 400,000. If that outfit, the Liberals, had been re-elected and had continued the same policies, we would have had more debt and more unemployment.
Interest rates are coming down and business confidence is rising. That is important. The business community and the investment community had absolutely no confidence in the Liberal Government. They have confidence in us. Corporate executives have stated that 53 per cent plan to increase capital expenditures over the next six months. Recent statistics found that business investment intentions for 1985 are up 12 per cent over last year's level. New capital spending will help to modernize Canadian industry, create international competitors and jobs. There is now confidence in this country.
Consumer spending is rising. Retail sales climbed by 8 per cent in nine months. That is not bad news, Mr. Speaker, that is good news. Price stability has returned. The low inflation rate is being maintained and bankruptcies are declining. Oil and gas drilling activity is rising. Alberta is now becoming a
September 17, 1985

thriving province once again and hundreds and thousands are finding work in the industry field. Manufacturing orders have risen by 10 per cent since September 1984. How about the fact that the Canadian economy is outperforming the American economy?
I do not very often praise a Liberal, but I have to give some credit to the Ontario Minister responsible for senior citizens. He made a very good observation this week. Ron Van Horne said that nearly 80 per cent of seniors, aged 65 or older, live on their own, leading productive and useful lives. That shatters the myth and the statements made by the NDP that every single senior citizen in Canada is suffering, is destitute, broke, hard-up and starving. Those are most insulting comments.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Who ever said that?


A. Daniel McKenzie: The majority of senior citizens have provided for their retirement. Just look at the bus loads of senior citizens who come here, who are enjoying life. They are not here because they are broke. Many are able to maintain two homes, one in the southern United States and one here. The other 20 per cent who are less fortunate, have financial difficulties or health problems are looked after in a most generous manner.
Let me give you another example that all our senior citizens are not broke, hard-up and impoverished, Mr. Speaker. Of the senior citizens between the ages of 65 and 69 in Canada, 576,415 are paying $866 million in income tax. That clearly indicates we have senior citizens who are not broke. Here is another interesting figure, Mr. Speaker of senior citizens over the age of 70, 876,000 are paying $1,151 million in taxes. When people pay taxes like that, they must have a lot of income and are very comfortable. Many have prepared on their own for retirement, and as I said, the others less fortunate will certainly be looked after.
There are a total of 238 programs to assist senior citizens and these progrsms will be maintained.
I have just listened to the comments about the Canadian Commercial Bank. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pointed out the main reason for the bank's collapse, namely, the National Energy Program. In the Alberta Report for September 16, 1985, it was reported that a University of Calgary economist, Warren Blackman agrees and adds that Canada is in effect punishing the banks for the mistakes of the previous Liberal Government. He said:
If those damn idiots in Ottawa had left us alone in 1980-
He is referring to the Grits and the NDP.
-the economy of Alberta would be okay.
The banks, says Dr. Blackman, have suffered not because of mismanagement or fraud. He went on to say:
During the energy and construction boom, capital was short in Alberta and those banks formed to supply the demand. It was a rational move. There was an opportunity there and they grabbed it. They couldn't foresee the disaster coming. Nobody could. It wasn't the banks' fault they ran into trouble, it was the fault of Ottawa's National Energy Program.
Family Allowances Act
That program was supported by the Grits and the NDP. We told them that this would happen, and if anybody wants to challenge me on that, let them read the debates of the day. We gave detailed information about how disastrous that stupid National Energy Program would be. The Grits and the NDP created all kinds of poverty in Alberta. They are responsible for that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: It is true that the pricing stalemate had far-reaching effects in Alberta. Close to 150 drilling rigs left the province at the time, 30 per cent of the energy service sector had to close up shop and thousands of workers lost their jobs, just to list a few things caused by the Grits and the NDP. It was forecast that Canada as a whole would suffer many long-term downturns due to the National Energy Program, and it was estimated that the National Energy Program would result in a loss of over $3.5 billion in industry investment by 1981. We not only lost all that, we lost taxes. We would have had a lot more money to hand out to everyone if that stupid program had never been implemented. Each dollar spent in Canada by the oil industry generated $1.70 in further economic activity. That is something New Democrats would never understand. It was estimated that the National Energy Program would reduce Canadian economic output by $9.5 billion, equal to 3 per cent of the gross national product at a time when it was doubtful that the GNP would grow by more than 1.5 per cent. Studies at that time showed that each job created in the industry resulted in more than three more jobs in the economy. About 60,000 jobs were lost as a result of the National Energy Program. The Grits and the NDP are responsible for creating a lot of poor people in this country.
I have a page here listing businesses in eastern Canada, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta that all suffered and had to lay off people because of the National Energy Program. The NDP was not worried about that when it was helping to create poor and unemployed people.
It is interesting to see what we have to pay as a result of the sins of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he was the Finance Minister, a pattern he started then. If you sent $3,000 to Ottawa today as payment of income tax, at least $2,400 is needed to pay interest charges on money the federal Government borrowed in previous years. I think we are pretty lucky we can still spend $60 billion a year on social programs with the mess that was created by the Grit-NDP coalition.
Over the past three years, the national debt has grown 75 per cent. In that same period of time our economy has only grown 25 per cent. We have reached the point where the federal Government is forced to borrow over $20 billion per year just to meet the interest on past debts. To put it another way: whereas it took one in eight tax dollars to cover the interest on our debt 10 years ago, it takes more than one in three tax dollars to pay the interest on today's debt. Interest costs on the debt now equal almost 80 per cent of the personal income tax collected by the Government. The debt has grown so large that the level of the deficit is highly dependent upon

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
interest rates. A one percentage point change in interest rates has a $1 billion impact on the deficit. I think we are doing remarkably well with what we have inherited. I can assure the House that no children will be starving and that no senior citizens will be suffering. The Conservative Government will look after them. They do not have anything to worry about.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, the speeches we are hearing this week remind me of the ones we heard before the House adjourned for the summer. At the time we were considering de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions, and the same Member who just spoke and in fact all Conservative Members were agreed in saying that the elderly had no objection to these cuts. Today, they are doing exactly the same thing. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has to admit to Canadians that he was mistaken, and with him all his Conservative colleagues.
When the Conservative Member-this is my question, Mr. Speaker-who just spoke blamed the Opposition and said that it was necessary to reduce the deficit and cut social programs, he should blame his Prime Minister and his Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). In the blue paper, it was his Prime Minister and his Minister of National Health and Welfare who said that the purpose of restructuring family income assistance programs was not to reduce the deficit but to help families on medium and low incomes. They were not cutting $15 million and $14 million in order to reduce the deficit.
Will the Hon. Member who just spoke have the courage to blame his Prime Minister for misleading Canadians when he held his consultations?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I would never follow anyone I cou'd not trust. He is a man who has taken on the greatest challenge in the world-to take over from a Liberal administration. He has pointed out that no one will suffer; they will be looked after. We will make increased improvements in social benefits whenever we can.
Today, as one example, senior citizens are receiving more benefits from the Conservative Government than they have ever received in the history of Canada. Just to give another example of people we have helped, all low-income, qualifying widowed persons aged 60 years to 64 years will be able to collect the spousal allowance regardless of the age at which their spouse dies. Approximately 85,000 widowed persons will benefit at an estimated cost of $190 million in fiscal year 1985-86. Another example of our social conscience and how we are helping people would be the additional $22 million contributed toward the pensions of veterans, providing veterans and their families with increased benefits. Included is the payment of an attendant's allowance, an exceptional incapacity allowance and a disability pension at the married rate for a full year following the death of the pensioners.
We have made many improvements since assuming office; many people have been added to the rolls. We have some excellent Veterans Affairs programs which were started under the Liberal administration, for example, going into the homes of veterans to assist them in removing snow, cutting grass and so on. We have expanded on those programs. We are assisting thousands and thousands of more veterans in the own homes. No one will starve, suffer or whatever. The figures in terms of the GNP increase indicate that more people are employed, that more revenue will be coming in and that there will be more more benefits. The Hon. Member can wave his blue book all he wants. I am glad to see that it is blue, Tory blue.


Mr. Gormley:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I listened with interest to his speech this morning. My question involves representation and who speaks for the different citizens of Canada. I look on the government benches and see the highest percentage of women ever elected to a Canadian Government and the highest percentage of women in Cabinet, the highest percentage of farmers and rural people and, with all due respect, none larger of corporate individuals. I have a great deal of concern for getting to the crux of the debate-exactly who will be affected and who is speaking for those to be affected. In the opinion of the Hon. Member, for whom are the NDP and the Liberal Party speaking? Are they speaking with such vociferous intent and participating in strongly worded debate because there is a legitimate concern on their part, or does the Hon. Member have other opinions on why they are speaking and for whom they are speaking?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I really do not for whom they are speaking. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that they are speaking with a forked tongue. I have statistics in my possession on how the New Democratic Party in Manitoba has affected the hospitals there with one of the crudest provisions I have ever seen. It introduced a payroll tax, an idiotic tax. Firms cannot hire people because of the tax; small businesses are faced with this payroll tax. It is affecting hospitals. I do not understand why members of the New Democratic Party are not rising and condemning the NDP Government of Manitoba. It should remove this cruel, ridiculous payroll tax. They are always making comments about the capital gains proposal. The Hon. Member who directed his question to me is from the Province of Saskatchewan which has many farmers. Capital gains was included because of requests from farmers in western Canada, not millionaires or billionaires. It was included in recognition of the major contribution of farmers to Canada's economic life. A full exemption will be available immediately for capital gains realized on the sale of farm property. By encouraging Canadians to invest in small and large businesses, this measure helps public and private corporations to attract new equity and thereby accelerate their return to a healthy financial position. There is nothing wrong with that. Smaller businesses will be assisted in raising capital to pursue new ideas and directions and to reduce costly debt.
September 17, 1985

As well, it will help to raise capital for research and development and it will help farmers. I do not see anything wrong with that. It is interesting to note that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business conducted a survey on the feelings about the capital gains tax which indicated that 89.6 per cent of small businesses were in favour of it, not bankers or people on Bay Street. Members of the NDP and the Liberal Party are totally wrong in their criticism of the capital gains tax proposal. We are helping thousands of farmers and fishermen. They are grateful that we brought in this provision.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to which the Hon. Member may wish to respond. He said something a few moments ago about always following someone he fully trusted, namely, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). However, earlier in his speech he referred to the expenditures on social programs totalling $60 billion, which very nicely gave the lie to something the Prime Minister of Canada asserted a few days ago when he declared that the interest payments on the national debt amounted to the same total spent on social programs. 1 am glad the Hon. Member set the record straight in such a forceful way and indicated that the Prime Minister was participating in flimflam. I should give the Hon. Member 30 seconds in which to respond to my thanks for his telling us where the truth actually lies.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Prime Minister was stating federal figures. The $60 billion which I indicated includes provincial and municipal; it was the global figure for Canada. The Prime Minister was just talking about the federal one.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of factory freezer trawler licences must be resolved by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Government of Canada. The granting of a licence would represent a major policy change for the federal Government and actually would be a violation of a written agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada when the restructuring of the fishery took place some time ago.
The Governments of the four Atlantic Provinces have been consulted by the Minister, and the unions have been consulted. No decision has been made. This has prompted the Premier of Newfoundland to organize petitions in his own province in opposition to such a move by the Government of Canada.
The question should be asked, to cause a Tory premier to organize petitions in his own province, is that the new co-operative federalism that the Government announced some time ago?



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians concerned about world peace must condemn the French Government's plan to test nuclear weapons in the South Pacific.
These tests can serve no purpose except to pander to an out-of-date illusion of Gaullist grandeur, the pretence that France is a super power to be compared with the United States and Russia. On the negative side the tests provide further pretext for future American and Russian testing and thus contribute to the growing destabilization of world affairs.
In spite of French assurances about their safety, the tests could result in radioactive seepage into the ocean, and they threaten the health of people who live in the area. We have already seen the evidence of deformed births and degenerative disease as a result of earlier tests in the South Pacific.
When the French Government tests nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, and defends it with a false doctrine of sovereignty, it betrays a colonialist attitude which has no place in the 1980s.
France should respect the treaty now signed by nine of the 13 South Pacific nations declaring their region to be a nuclear-free zone, and banning the manufacture, stationing or testing of nuclear weapons in that area.
With other Canadians I call on the Government of France to abandon its plan for the current series of nuclear tests and 1 urge the Government of Canada to join other Pacific nations in protesting these tests which are not worthy of civilized nations.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, there is a move on foot to abolish tax discounting or to make it impossible for the legitimate businesses to continue to operate. The Tax Rebate Discounting Act was passed in 1978 by the House of Commons and the legislation provided for a maximum discount rate of 15 per cent, which included tax preparation
80173-1 I

September 17, 1985
fees and all other expenses of the discounter. Tax discounting has been with us for more than 40 years but until the late 1970s it grew in an unregulated and generally in a disreputable fashion.
Today some 380,000 Canadian taxpayers use the services of tax discounters, compared to 6,000 in 1979. Criticism of the discounters is generally, if not wholly, against the illegal discounters. By and large, the large majority of tax rebate discounters are honest, upright citizens who offer their services to those who want to use them voluntarily. Those who are found guilty of cheating and stealing their clients' money should be given the maximum penalty contained in the law and prohibited from practising the trade.
The genuine discounters are providing seasonal employment and helping low-income taxpayers, including treaty Indians and many parents with large families who need cash at the time and who cannot wait weeks to get the money from the Department.
We don't throw out a crate of eggs because two or three of them are bad. Let's keep the good discounters and throw out the rotten ones.
*
* *



ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTOMOBILE PLANTS IN QUEBEC

Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Like most Quebec Members in this House and the Quebec population as a whole, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the Hyundai corporation, from Korea, is planning to build a car assembly plant in the province of Quebec. If we consider also that the Toyota and Suzuki corporations have clearly indicated their intention to invest in Canada, this is clear evidence that foreign investors have renewed confidence in the Canadian economy since our party came to power.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the only car assembly plant in Quebec is the one operated by General Motors in Sainte-Therese. With the arrival of the Hyundai corporation, there will be two car manufacturing companies in Quebec. That is a good start, but it is definitely not enough. That is why I urge the Toyota and Suzuki corporations which are planning to set up plants in Canada to come to Quebec; this province could not otherwise hope to become a major car manufacturing centre.
I therefore urge all my Quebec colleagues, as well as the provincial Government, to multiply their representations in order to convince these corporations to establish their operations in Quebec.
We have in Quebec both the human and technical resources to meet the needs of these companies. If this wish came true, Mr. Speaker, all Quebec regions and especially the great
riding of Temiscamingue which I have the honour to represent in the House would benefit.
* *
*



FISHERIES


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, inshore fishermen on the East Coast are battling the Conservative bureaucracy once again. The herring fishery closed in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island last week because the quota was caught. Knowing the waters are teeming with herring, the fishermen asked for an increase in quota. The Minister said no to the New Brunswick fishermen. Prince Edward Island fishermen are still waiting for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand that answer. It comes at a time when the herring are schooling in the Northumberland Strait and the markets are strong. Herring is the toughest fishery at which to make a decent living. Why not let the fishermen catch the herring while they are in the waters? The herring will be gone within a week.
Increasing the quota would help the plant workers as well. They desperately need the jobs the extra quota would provide. Unemployment is a way of life in that area. The herring fishery on the East Coast is in a desperate situation, so desperate that New Brunswick fishermen are ignoring the closure. They have been fishing illegally since last weekend. I don't support them, but the Government is seizing the catches and selling them to the processors who are writing cheques to the Receiver General. What does the Government intend to do with the profit? Give it to the needy fishermen or use it to pay off the federal deficit? Why did the Minister not have the foresight to predict that this would happen? Where was he this summer when he should have been consulting with fishermen? What was he doing-fishing salmon in B.C.?
It is time for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) to listen to fishermen and to pay attention to their concerns. The Government promised to maintain the inshore fishery, but fishermen on the East Coast can see throught that promise.



APARTHEID


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday amid great fanfare the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced a series of largely voluntary sanctions purportedly designed to send a message to the South African Government that Canada wants a change in apartheid and in the status of Namibia. The leaders of blacks within South Africa, Namibia, and the front line states had asked for mandatory sanctions since they realized that volun-
September 17, 1985

tary sanctions were not enough. Once again they were proven right because today we have South Africa's answer to our gentle prodding. It has once again invaded Angola with the military might supplied by the West.
Yesterday's actions by South Africa should not be a surprise to the Canadian Government in light of the type of measures which were announced. These include a ban on air travel that does not exist, a voluntary ban on bank loans that are no longer being made, and a voluntary embargo on oil exports that are largely insignificant anyway.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs promised tougher sanctions if things did not improve. Clearly matters have worsened. It is time for tough economic sanctions and leadership in the Commonwealth.



THE LATE LIEUTENANT GENERAL E. L. M. BURNS TRIBUTE TO DISTINGUISHED CANADIAN

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to a great Canadian who died on Friday, September 6.
Lieutenant General E. L. M. Burns, a distinguished soldier, engineer and diplomat, will long be remembered for his unselfish contribution to the Government of Canada.
General Burns graduated from the Royal Military College of Canada, was commissioned in the Royal Canadian Engineers in 1915 and won the Military Cross in World War I.
During peace time he experimented in the field of air photo surveys and served as president of the Canadian Institue of Surveying in 1936-1937.
General Burns commanded the first Canadian Corps during operations in the Liri Valley in 1944.
Following the Second World War he became involved in the movement toward peacekeeping and disarmament with the Department of External Affairs.
General Burns was loaned from the Department to the UN in 1954 and was appointed Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. In the ensuing years he played a role in the Suez crisis, the Sinai, and was named Special Adviser to the Government of Canada on Disarmament.
General Burns was awarded the Pearson Peace Medal in 1981 in recognition of this brave Canadian's dedication. On behalf of all men and women who believe personal sacrifice is the route to world peace. General Burns will be missed by all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments and accusations of the Opposition regarding the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
As an Albertan, and as the Member for the constituency in which the bank operated, I cannot believe the Liberals could stand up in this House with a clear conscience and criticize us for attempting to help a fledgling financial institution which, in reality, failed due to the National Energy Program.
The Canadian Commercial Bank existed for western Canadians-of that I am proud. The bank, as well as many other institutions in the West, could never have foreseen the devastating effects of the NEP. The bank rose out of a growing economic infrastructure-until the Liberals chopped it down. Such a small institution could never protect itself against the National Energy Program, which was a steamroller of economic ruin in Alberta.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) have said if we allowed the bank to fail without making a valiant effort to save it? He probably would have said that the Government was forgetting about the West. Well, we did not forget about the West. It is simply hard to compete against the crushing policies of the previous Liberal Government.
We will not apologize for helping an Alberta institution. I am proud to say we did what we could. I am also proud to sit in the same Chamber as the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to point out to the House today a case of sexual harassment at the Stelco plant.
Bonita Clark is a 32-year old engineer who works there. On several occasions, she has been subjected to sexual harassment at work and she has lodged a formal complaint to the Ontario Labor Relations Board, but her case does not seem to be unique.
Indeed, this complaint about sexual harassment is not the first one. And the Stelco company is building up a very bad record as far as women are concerned.
In 1979, five women working at Stelco also lodged complaints. Apparently, the Stelco Company is reluctantly hiring

September 17, 1985
Presence in Gallery
women hoping that they will voluntarily leave their job. Stelco is so reluctant to hire women that it has refused to provide them with washrooms.
After the 1979 complaints, Stelco has hired from 15 to 200 women, but there are less than 20 left today.
In Quebec, there is the Demeritas competition for the most sexist publicity. If companies such as Stelco go on discriminating against women, I can assure them that I will personally launch a publicity campaign which the manager of the company will surely not appreciate.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, wilderness beauty is one of Canada's greatest assets. Our National Parks system is a proud testament of our commitment to the preservation of our wilderness treasures.
Forestry is Canada's most important industry in terms of trade, revenue, and employment. In British Columbia forestry is our lifeblood. When we talk of adding significant new areas of forested land to our parkland reserve-areas such as B.C.'s South Moresby, Meares Island, and the Stein River Basin- we cannot upset the delicate balance that must exist between the preservation of our environment and the preservation of our livelihoods.
There is a price to pay for everything, Mr. Speaker. Yet there is also a benefit to enjoy. Let us not look at any issue without looking at both sides of it first. Our pristine environment is our greatest asset, and our resource industries drive our economy and provide our jobs. This delicate and vital balance must be maintained.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GEOFFREY PALMER, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, GOVERNMENT HOUSE LEADER AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF NEW ZEALAND

Mr. Speaker:: Before we proceed to Oral Question I wish to advise the House of the presence in our gallery of Mr. Geoffrey Palmer, Deputy Prime Minister, Government House Leader and Minister of Justice of New Zealand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE MEMBERS' SERVICES COMMITTEE OF THE NEWFOUNDLAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Speaker:: I would also indicate to the House the presence in our gallery of seven members of the Members' Services
Committee of the Newfoundland Legislative Assembly, led by their Chairman, Mr. Tom Hicky, MLA.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the Canadian Commercial Bank. Can the Minister confirm that the February 20 report from the United States regulators included warning of cease and desist order against Westlands Bank, California, which is wholly-owned by the Canadian Commercial Bank?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that this document is from the Government's regulatory authorities in the United States. I have no authority to release its contents. I can assure the Hon. Member, however, that in the strongest possible terms we have requested its release to our committee.


TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO CALIFORNIA BANK
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister confirm that between February 21 and March 14 the Canadian Commercial Bank transferred millions of dollars to its California bank in exchange for dubious loan assets?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I can confirm no such thing. We are asking to have the matter put before a committee where all these matters can be explored. We have been discussing this all week.
[ Translation]


ROLE OF UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IN BANK COLLAPSE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, according to information sources in Canada and in the U.S., the report by the Federal Reserve Bank on the Westslands Bank, dated February 20, contained a veritable ultimatum for the Canadian Commercial Bank. Could the Minister confirm to the House that this ultimatum contained three options: first, increasing the equity of the Canadian Commercial Bank in the Westlands Bank; second, selling the American branch, and third, transferring performing Canadian loans to the American branch so that the Canadian bank would be left with only
September 17, 1985

non-performing loans? Could the Minister confirm those points?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm no such thing until we get the matter before a committee where we can look at the entire sequence of events.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister confirm to the House that this information was available to her at the time she proposed a $255 million bail-out to the House? Was the Minister aware of the ultimatum at the time she proposed the bail-out to the Parliament of this country?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, again, I have indicated time after time that I am prepared to release this document with the permission of the U.S. authorities. It will then become a matter of record for a committee to discuss in that context. We have put that in the strongest possible terms.


SECURITY OF DEPOSITS-OFFICIALS' DISCUSSIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as more and more information comes before us, it is obvious that we are facing a billion dollar con job. My question is for the Minister of Finance.
This morning we learned that senior officials in his Ministry, along with senior officials in the Bank of Canada, had been discussing throughout the summer with officials of one of the major depositors of the Canadian Commercial Bank the security of its deposit. The same senior officials were giving the depositor assurances that its deposit would be safe. Was the Minister aware that his officials were giving these assurances on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot confirm the facts which the Hon. Member has just indicated. Discussions were carried on as a result of a report which came to us in August. Those are the discussions which led to the final closure of the bank.


CANADIAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Finance Committee the officers of the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society indicated that during the months of May and July their senior officials were in touch with senior officials of the Minister and of the Central Bank. At that time, they indicated that they were encouraged to maintain their deposits in the bank and were given assurances that their deposits would be safe. My question for the Minister of Finance, and not the Minister of State for Finance, is this. Were his officials giving these assurances with his full knowledge and support?
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any discussions between the Canadian Co-operative Credit Society and the Bank of Canada. There were discussions around the Green Paper with the Canadian Co-operative Society and those were the only conversations I ever had with it, and I am sure it would confirm that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, you can hardly see the Minister's lips move as he is speaking. A question I have to put is who is in charge here? We have his Ministers making assurances to major depositors that their deposit would be safe throughout the summer.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. We have the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance making the commitment for a $1 billion bail-out using taxpayers' money. How big a mistake does a Minister have to make, $1 billion, $5 billion, $10 billion, before the Prime Minister asks for that Minister's resignation?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at my hon. friend because he is usually noted for his fairness in this House. There has been no evidence of any mistake, wilful or otherwise, by either Minister. What we have offered-and 1 think what any reasonable Hon. Member of the House would accept-is that the matter be referred to committee so that objective assessments can be made, so that evidence can be adduced and proper value judgments be made, so we can cease the insinuations and the cheap shots. That does no credit to my hon. friend-


Mr. Blaikie:: You ought to know about cheap shots.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and I think he knows that.


MINISTERIAL DISCUSSIONS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. When the Inspector General advised the Minister of State for Finance of the crisis at the Canadian Commerical Bank, would she confirm to the House that she herself was reluctant and had reservations about the bail-out and took the matter to the Minister of Finance for a decision?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it would be very unusual if I did not discuss such a matter with the Minister of Finance. As to what happened at the time, we had a number of discussions around the importance of what would happen to the system, what the systemic effect would be internationally and domestically, if this bank were to be allowed to fail.


Ms. Copps:: You let it fail now.

Oral Questions


RESPONSIBILITY FOR BAIL-OUT DECISION
[Stage Direction]
September 17, 1985
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is then directed to the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister confirm to the House that when the matter was brought to his attention, he, too, was reluctant to make a decision and that in fact the decision to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank was made by the Prime Minister himself on March 22 while at the National Economic Summit?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Hon. Member to cast his mind back to the matters which were going on at that time. We had just had the Ohio Savings and Loan Banks close their doors. That resulted in a substantial drop in the value of the United States dollar. We had the Alberta Government giving financial support to a number of its credit unions. We had a number of weeks during which the Canadian dollar was under severe pressure.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Those were the matters which were taken into account at the time of that decision. The decision was a decision by the Government to proceed-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -with an attempt to save a bank which was very important to the western economy, very important to the people, whether they be farmers, oil people or individual Canadians who had their money on deposit and who were also borrowing money from that bank. That is why we took that decision as a Government.


SECRECY PROVISIONS OF BANK ACT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Having had an opportunity to review the secrecy provisions of the Bank Act, Section 251, I believe the Prime Minister would agree that at the time that was drafted no one would have considered or thought that there might be the necessity to bail out a bank to the extent of almost $1 billion.
Does the Prime Minister not think it reasonable and fair that the House of Commons should pass legislation which will exempt this particular transaction from the secrecy provisions of the Bank Act and guarantee that the taxpayers of Canada, who will have to foot the bill for the cost of the bail out, know who receives the money which they are asked to pay?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is an incredible question.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the person who is responsible for administering the Bank Act, may I say that the intent of that section is very clear and, if we make an exception in this case for the depositors of this Bank, then how can we stand up here and say that the depositors' information in any bank in
Canada from here on in is going to be secure from public knowledge?


IDENTIFICATION OF DEPOSITORS RECEIVING REFUNDS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me then ask the Prime Minister if I may, is it not reasonable to think that those who wish to receive the benefit of the bail-out should in advance have to waive the provision of secrecy and allow that it be known to the Canadian taxpayers who it is that they, the taxpayers, are being asked to bail out? Is it not reasonable to say to those who might take advantage of the bail-out that in order to receive the money you must apply for it and must be willing to let it be known who you are?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the depositors of this country deserve better treatment than this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: The next thing I know, he will be asking-


Ian Deans: What about the taxpayers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: As the Hon. House Leader for the New Democratic Party well knows, we have indicated that we will give categories within the committee-


Ian Deans: That's a different question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, it isn't.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The depositors of this country need to know that their concerns with their financial institutions-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Write a blank cheque.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -are private no matter what happens to that institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: It's in the public domain. It's our money that's going there.


GOVERNMENT DECISION
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he confirm to the House that on March 22 when he presided over the National Economic Summit, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance took up with him the serious condition and potential bankruptcy of the Canadian Commercial Bank and that he told them that on no account did he want a bankruptcy and that he wanted the bank bailed out?
The Prime Minister did not know the facts, he did not care, politics came first and he did not want to be responsible for the
September 17, 1985

first bankruptcy of a Canadian bank in 60 years. Why did he not say-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Napier Turner: -to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance: "Why talk to me now, Mike, Barbara-"


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Napier Turner: "-can't you see I'm
busy-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Napier Turner: "-give me the facts and I'll make a decision later"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Foster:: Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Thank you, John.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It is nice to know that Hon. Members are on a first name basis, but perhaps somewhere else.


Martin Brian Mulroney: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the fantasy described by my right hon. friend never transpired. What did take place in the normal course of business was a recommendation which came forward from the officials of the Government of Canada, and from their advisers, in regard to a problem which had arisen in respect to a young and very fledgling financial institution in western Canada. The pros and cons were discussed. The Canadians banks had been involed. The officials throughout the Government had been consulted and it was their considered view that this support package would sustain that bank in western Canada.
I indicated-which was not inconsistent with the views others held-that given the terrible damage which had been done to western Canada by the National Energy Program and the problems it had gone through-


Mr. Chretien:: What about the bank in the United States, in California?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -this institution deserved no less support than others. And we supported it that day and I am delighted to see that the Liberal Opposition supported it as well. That is what transpired. I think that any further questions could properly be addressed by a committee of the House.


REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows full well that the Liberal Opposition supported this bail-out package on the basis of
Oral Questions
assurances from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance that the deal would make the bank viable. It is now clear that the Minister of Finance did not know the facts, the Minister of State for Finance did not know the facts, and now the Prime Minister has admitted that he did not know the facts.
Will the Prime Minister instruct his House Leader in the negotiations among the House Leaders to open up the entire documentation we have been asking for in this House for over a week, the list of deposits, all the relevant documents, including the bail-out arrangements? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking, a personal undertaking, that the Minister of Finance will appear before the committee, as well as the Minister of State for Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Inspector General of Banks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Napier Turner: Will he give that undertaking?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am startled when I see the Member from Shawinigan applauding the Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am taken aback, I am sorry.
The Leader of the Opposition makes statements like: "The Prime Minister didn't know the facts".


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Prime Minister knew all of the facts available at the time.


Mr. Gauthier:: You should come to committee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With the possible exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, no one can know the future with certainty.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is sacrilegious.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All we knew was that there was a problem.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not what you said during the election.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There was a serious problem and it was dealt with seriously. We felt that institution in western Canada deserved a chance to become viable. We thought, based on the best advice available to us, that it would become viable. There was no attempt to do anything other than place our trust and faith-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Your judgment.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -not only in the information we received but in the capacity of that institution to survive, given the

September 17, 1985
Oral Questions
package of support provided. If the Liberals are opposed to helping in western Canada or elsewhere let them stand up and say so. We believe in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is your judgment we fault.


Mr.   de Jong@: California, that is where the problem started.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with regard to any data, information, or people who my right hon. friend or others feel should come before the committee, we will be there, we will provide all the answers required and we will be forthcoming, because it is in everyone's interest to get at all of the truth so we can make the appropriate value judgments.


TRANSFER OF BANK'S ASSETS TO CALIFORNIA SUBSIDIARY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister have authorized the bailout if he had known, as we now know, that between the time the CCB received a cease and desist order from the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco and the time it came before the Inspector General of Banks on March 14, it had transferred all of its good assets and good loans down to the California subsidiary? The California subsidiary is still prospering; it is the Canadian parent in western Canada which is now bankrupt.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How do you explain that?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: What is the question?


John Napier Turner: Did you know about it?


Mr. Dick:: Nice statement.


Mr. McDermid:: What is the question, John?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have already indicated that we have requested from the federal regulatory authorities in the United States that we have this document with their permission to present to the committee where we want a full and frank discussion of everything which has happened leading up to March 22, and everything which has happened leading up to September 1. We have made that commitment both publicly and privately.


UNITED STATES' RESTRICTIONS ON CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have just returned from British Columbia and discussions with lumber worker leaders there. I want to report to the Prime Minister their opposition to his naive idea that a comprehensive trade
deal would solve the back-door protectionist moves against us by the U.S.
The question they asked me to put to the Prime Minister is whether he will insist as a condition, before we enter any free trade negotiations with the U.S., that they drop their new non-tariff restrictions aimed at these Canadian producers. Otherwise we negotiate under blackmail conditions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think we have made known very clearly the position of the Government of Canada regarding the prospective problems facing the British Columbia forest products industry. We have made that abundantly clear and we think it has registered appropriately in Washington.
With regard to the commercial discussions we may or may not be having with the United States, they would be largely and essentially designed to create jobs and provide British Columbians with greater opportunities. God knows, British Columbia needs that kind of help.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO FREE TRADE DISCUSSIONS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister.
We must be very clear about this question. Once again: Before discussions on free trade are held with the United States, will the Prime Minister insist that the Americans eliminate the new non-tariff barriers facing Canadian producers in the lumber, fisheries and pork sectors?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I assume that if we negotiate, we will start from scratch. We will start with an open mind, without any preconditions, with the exception of the national items I already mentioned, that is, sovereignty and independence and so on.
But generally speaking, if we negotiate, we will wait and see what the other party has to offer, and vice versa.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. First I would like to say that I applauded my Leader because I know that if he had been Prime Minister he would not have been dragging along a $1 billion Fiasco like the present Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 17, 1985


Charles James Mayer: It would be $5 billion.
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You got that right from the book.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 have an important question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. This morning, we read something in the newspapers about the Department of External Affairs that contradicts the statement made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister two weeks ago and which we applauded, to the effect that there would be no intergovernmental relations with the United States as far as the star wars project is concerned. Is it true that the Government intends to let Government agencies financed by the state, such as the National Research Council, become directly involved in the star wars project, as the spokesman for External Affairs said yesterday in Kitchener, Ontario?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made the position of the Government abundantly clear, no matter how many doors the Hon. Member wants to open-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Just the back door.


Erik Nielsen: -on the different sides of his many-faceted mind. The position of the Government is that it is not the intention of the Government to participate in the SDI research on a Government-to-Government basis with the U.S. Private enterprises, as they always have been in this country, are free to make their own decisions as the opportunities might arise, if indeed they do arise.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIAL
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Recently, several of his Ministers have indicated that all economic sectors will be considered in the discussions on free trade with the United States. Yesterday, his Press Secretary said that the Government had no real idea about the results of these negotiations. Is it the position of this Government that no sector of our economy is safe and that all of them are negociable within the discussions on free trade with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that I have already indicated on several occasions sectors of our economy which are not negotiable as far as we are concerned. I believe that I was quite clear in this regard. Our objective is very simple. It is to create jobs. There are about two million jobs in Canada and Quebec which depend directly on an increased access to the American market. It is essential for us to develop this access to create jobs in this country.
This is our objective and I hope that it is also that of all the Members of this House of Commons.


SECTORAL TRADE INQUIRY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, is the Deputy Prime Minister replying clearly? Yesterday a statement was made by an official of the Ministry of International Trade that federal agencies will be participating in SDI and helping the private sector to participate. Will the Deputy Prime Minister make it clear to the nation that there will be no financial involvement by the Canadian Government in this project with the American authorities?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the question is hypothetical. When and if circumstances-well, the hon. gentleman is showing me a newspaper clipping or whatever, which I have not read. If circumstances arise in the future which come anywhere near resembling what his worst fears, as I interpret them, might be, then I am sure that decisions will be made at whatever level, private sector, Government agency or Government, which are required. The decision-making process is in place and will be used.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's press attache says that there are no fixed ideas, but the Prime Minister says that there are certain sectors which are reserved. Which industries are in fact off the table? Is the Government prepared to protect agriculture, to keep the Auto Pact out of the discussions, and to ensure that the cultural industries are not given up in terms of protection because of a free trade agreement with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if we decide to initiate these kinds of negotiations, we would obviously be poor negotiators indeed if, before we sat down, we disposed of all the cards which we may or may not hold as a nation. There are cards that will never be disposed for or touched. These deal with our national sovereignty, our independence, and our cultural integrity, along the lines of the decisions that the Government made on SDI and on Arctic sovereignty last week.

September 17, 1985
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Over the past week-end, and until yesterday, the Montreal Urban Community has experienced the longest hostage taking in its history. It involved Rejean Mathurin, a man sentenced to life for two murders, less than two years ago, and considered very dangerous. He was detained at the Leclerc Institution before he escaped.
Will the Minister tell the House whether he intends to order an investigation in order to find out why that man was, at a very early stage of his imprisonment, transferred from a maximum security penitentiary with concrete external walls, to a medium security penitentiary with external wire fences?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is long enough. [English]


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. Immediately upon the occurrence of an incident like this the Correctional Service would initiate an internal investigation. That is under way at the present time and we expect to have the results within a couple of weeks.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the last several months the Government introduced several budgetary changes, including changes in family allowances, which will result in middle class families in Canada paying $3,500 more in taxes while rich families will have their taxes increased by only $1,125. Why has the Government chosen to fight the battle of deficit reduction on the backs of low and middle-income Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how short memories are in this place. I remind the Hon. Member that family allowances were not indexed at all prior to 1973. In 1976 the indexation was suspended for a full year.


Sheila Maureen Copps: John Turner intoduced indexation.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hold on just a minute now. On January 1, when the Hon. Member from Bay Street was the Finance Minister-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You're the Hon. Member from Bay Street.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He wasn't referring to you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Minister knows full well that such a reference is not appropriate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: On January 1, 1979, the family allowance was reduced by 20 per cent and then was cut back to six and five during 1983.
The point that I am making is that there is no one more holier than thou than the Member opposite, and people are starting to see through it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: On many occasions the previous Government took action against family benefits. We have chosen to reduce the rate of increase of the family allowance, but at the same time we have significantly increased the child tax credit so that those who need it most will get the most.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET QUEBEC FAMILIES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary on the same subject. We saw the Minister of Finance do the same crazy thing to senior citizens, for which he was forced later to apologize.
My question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister is this: The groups representing Quebec families want to know if you are ready and willing to meet them to change your-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order! I would like to hear you ask a question.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
I know he pretends he is not listening because he does not want to answer. His advisors told him not to.
Mr. Prime Minister, the groups representing Quebec families have called on me to ask you today if you would be ready to meet them in order to change your family allowance system? They do not want to lose the $55 million you want to take away from them.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I met Quebec families in the constituency of Manicouagan yesterday. They were very proud of the 284,000 new jobs created in 11 months by this Government, of the fact that interest rates have gone down by 2.75 per cent, that the inflation rate is at its lowest since 1971, that investor confidence has increased by 12 per cent and that the number of construction projects has gone up by 26 per cent.
September 17, 1985

I think Quebec families want to meet with us in order to congratulate us for quite a remarkable first year in office.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
This morning, the leader of our party met the representatives of the unionized workers of the pulp and paper plant in Desbiens, in the area of Lac-Saint-Jean, province of Quebec, and he was told that the Secretary of State had indicated that the $4.6 million federal contribution which the Minister had announced last May for the modernization of the Desbiens plant would only be available until October 10.
My question is this: Considering that the Lavalin Corporation has withdrawn from this project, could the Minister extend this deadline beyond October 10 and, if so, until when?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct in indicating that on May 10 we made an offer of a 20 per cent assistance package with respect to almost $23 million of total financing for the plant to which he referred. We have extended our offer until October 10. We have not received a request for a further extension, but if we receive such a request we will naturally give it very early and, presumably, favourable consideration.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF FEASIBILITY STUDY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The union wanted to know which feasibility study has now been accepted by the Government, the $24 million one, from St-Raymond, or the $50 million one from the Lavalin company which has withdrawn from the project?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, our figure was that of $23 million. That is the figure which we assume to be the correct estimate of the total cost. Being Conservatives, we always like to take the lower figure.
Oral Questions YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT REQUEST FOR AMENDING LEGISLATION


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and it is with regard to the Young Offenders Act. There are many flaws in that Act, especially in the provisions which came into effect on April 1 of this year. Assuming that he has had a chance to make a preliminary review of that legislation, what would he highlight as the main weaknesses and when will we see some action on this legislation?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to a question last week from one of the Hon. Member's colleagues, I fully share the philosophy that underlines the Young Offenders legislation, namely, that young offenders should be treated not on a case, welfare model but rather by holding them accountable for their actions.
There have been a number of concerns expressed about the application of the Young Offenders Act, including the issue of what is done in the case where a young offender is found not guilty by reason of insanity and what is done with the records. There is the issue of whether or not police are allowed to disclose the identity of young offenders who may be loose and dangerous, as well as the adequancy of some provincial legislation for dealing with young people under the age of 12. Certainly I will want to review all of these issues and solicit input from the Hon. Member and others.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Minister of Transport why the very special security measures announced on June 25th by the Prime Minister following the Air India tragedy have not yet been implemented at the Toronto airport? And how is it that a CBC reporter could so easily make light of the entire security system put in place by his department in Toronto?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, 1 am not at all happy about this incident. Indeed, I am very disturbed. The fact of the matter is that earlier this year we initiated a complete audit and review of Canada's security systems with respect to the procedures, the adequacy and the vulnerability. We have beefed up our security system, particularly with respect to international traffic, and particularly with respect to sabotage which is a part of a new era in which we now live.

September 17, 1985
Oral Questions
Elowever, the fact that there was an unattended door which literally broke the security shield disturbs me very much and I can assure the Hon. Member that it will be dealt with.
I should also point out to him the need, perhaps, for the last point detection system that we are working on, and the need for improved facilities and more manpower, which means dollars, of course.


MINISTER'S POSITION
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, are air travellers more secure now than before? Are we now going to believe what the Minister is saying? Is he more credible than when he made his statement on June 25? How much additional money has he received from the Minister of Finance to ensure security at airports?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would agree that the security system is only as effective as its weakest link. Obviously, there is a weak link here. Furthermore, we have detected some points of vulnerability which we are addressing. Some of the audits have been completed, some recommendations are being implemented, and others are ongoing. A comprehensive review was initiated by the Prime Minister. That report is to be in our hands some time in the middle of October.
All of these matters are being considered and I repeat that it points out the need for a complete re-evaluation of our system, our facilities, our manpower, and the need for more resources to do the job properly.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. He will know that the publishing community and Canadians generally involved in cultural awareness are extremely concerned about the prospect of a takeover of a major Canadian publishing firm, Prentice-Hall, by American interests, Gulf and Western. Will the Minister assure the House that cultural industries will indeed be exempt from American takeovers and that this takeover of Prentice-Hall publishing in particular will not be permitted?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member is well aware that the Gulf and Western deal to which she refers is an indirect acquisition. It is not a direct acquisition of Prentice-Hall which is already owned outside Canada.
This matter is before us. The Prentice-Hall people have indicated that they would like some time to weigh the communications policy that my colleague, the Minister of Communications, made public some time ago. They will try to comply with that policy as far as Canadian ownership is
concerned. Of course, we have facilitated their deliberations by giving them extended time.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In July the Minister announced a firm policy stating that the publishing industry would be developed in Canada. Obviously, if this policy is to have any meaning, this takeover would not be permitted.
Would the Minister explain how this policy could be anything more than a pious hope if it is not respected in particular cases? This particular case has been a matter of concern to the community. There has been a great deal of lobbying on it for months, without any answers. The publishing community wants an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For a supplementary question, it is quite long.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, a certain number of cases are now under review in the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and there have been frequent, continous and warm consultations with my colleague. It rests with him to advise the companies involved of the government's decisions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last night I was deeply distressed by the Radio-Canada news report on the fate of 35 million Brazilian children, and I would imagine that all Hon. Members were distressed as well. Mr. Speaker, Canada does not condone apartheid in South Africa, and in the past it did not condone oppression and injustice in the world. Can the Minister tel! me what measures he intends to implement to force the Brazilian Government to look after the 35 million innocent children who have been abandoned by their Government and their families?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State on External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the question raised by the Hon. Member. This program continues to shed light on a situation which has shocked all Canadians. I have asked CIDA and my Department whether Canada can do anything more. We already have a very active program under the aegis of CIDA to help the Brazilian Government.
September 17, 1985

In the final analysis I must emphasize that the situation depicted on television last night is an internal situation. Still, if there is anything Canada can do to help, we are prepared to do so.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday he misled the House-perhaps inadvertently-when he denied that an exercise is under way to divest the federal Government of responsibility and ownership of federal airports across Canada.
Would he now confirm that in fact a Mr. John Fisher, an employee of the Deputy Prime Minister's ministerial task force, has already held discussions regarding divestiture of federal airports in Regina, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Fredericton, Saint John, Charlottetown, and St. John's, Newfoundland? If the Minister is still not able to answer the question, I suggest he refer the matter to the Deputy Prime Minister who obviously is running the Transport shop?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I did not think that I misled the House or denied that such an exercise was going on. As I indicated to the Hon. Member, the Budget papers of May 23 indicated that the Government would pursue the developments of a new management structure for the federal airport system in Canada. Options would be presented for consideration this year to provide for a self-sustaining system, incorporating the principle of cross-subsidization for the smaller airports. It is within that context that options are being developed by my Department and these options will be presented to Cabinet later this year for consideration. That is precisely what I said yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yesterday I asked for a list of airports that may possibly be affected. The Minister denied there was any such plan.


SAFETY FACTOR
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about safety. Does the Minister agree with a statement with respect to safety, authored by the Deputy Prime Minister in a confidential "Structure 90" document? It reads: "Users, carriers and the general public must gradually assume a greater role in ensuring their own safety". Is that the attitude that resulted in Radio-Canada making a mockery of your new safety instructions in Toronto?
Petitions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member, this House and the people of Canada that safety is the number one priority in any initiatives to be undertaken.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) on Monday, September 16, 1985, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the third report of the Striking Committee in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CANADIAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 47(1), I would like to table, in both official languages, the first annual report of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, which should be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(4).
[DOT] * *


PETITIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of 6,130 citizens of Winnipeg, most of them senior citizens, who urge the Government to remove the immoral and unjust sales tax on thousands of over the counter drugs, surgical supplies and health care products. These citizens of Winnipeg implore the

September 17, 1985
Order Paper Questions
Government to remove the sales tax from all cancer treatments, heart medication and drugs for a host of other illnesses.


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present to the House a petition from workers of the Gulf Canada refinery, in my riding of Montreal-Mercier.
Mr. Speaker, the 8,000 petitioners are workers of the Gulf refinery, as well as residents of the Montreal region.
We urge the Government of Canada to do its utmost to postpone the closing of the Gulf refinery to save 450 jobs and protect the petro-chemical industry.
Mr. Speaker, may I add that the workers of that refinery are supported by the whole Quebec caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can tell that some of the bootlegging habits are spreading throughout the Chamber. However, are there further petitions?


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House a petition on behalf of the residents of Vilnius Manor, a Toronto Lithuanian senior citizens residence located in my constituency.
The residents are being asked by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to absorb rent increases from 5 per cent to 8 per cent even while the ceiling on rent increases in the Province of Ontario is 4 per cent. The petitioners request the House to urge the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide relief from the increasingly high rental costs.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 385, 397, 419 and 423.


Mr. Gauthier: Did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently hire 300 security agents and, if so, what language criteria were used in their hiring?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The
RCMP has not hired any security agents in the recent past.
There is presently a recruiting program under way, however, to hire 201 Special Constables who will be employed as Static Guards in the National Capital Region. This employment opportunity has been publicized in major newspapers across Canada, and proficiency in both official languages was identified as a definite asset, as was related military or security experience. To date, in excess of 17,000 individuals have indicated an interest in these positions. As a large number of candidates possess both the additional qualifications of language proficiency and related experience, processing of applications has begun with this group.


Mr. Garneau: Since its inception, how many person-years were allocated to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and what was and what is, at the present time, the proportion of French-speaking employees?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The
Canadian Security Intelligence Service is not subjected to person-year control. Treasury Board controls the funding available to the Service, placing a limitation on the amount provided for salaries and wages. The salaries and wages limitation is included in the over-all budgetary figure for the Service which is approved annually by Parliament.
Immediately prior to the establishment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, 29 per cent of the employee population was comprised of employees whose first official language was French. By June 1, 1985 this figure has been reduced to 25 per cent as a consequence of the decision of a number of French-speaking members of the RCMP who elected to remain with the Force on transition. Efforts continue by the Service to attract French-speaking candidates, with success evident in appointments made at all levels of the Service.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	What is the total number of positions to be filled at the Renous prison and was the idea of building a special wing for dangerous criminals abandoned and, if so (o) how many jobs will be lost (b) what would have been the average salary at the prison in 1985 (c) in view of the multiplier effect, how many indirect jobs will be lost in (i) New Brunswick (ii) the Miramichi area due to the cancellation of the project?
2.	How many unilingual (a) francophone (6) anglophone postions will there be in (i) management (ii) security services (iii) inmate services (psychologists, recreationists, etc.) and, in each case, what is its description?


Henry Perrin Beatty: 1. The
number of positions to be filled at the Atlantic Institution is 271. The plan to build a Special Handling Unit was abandoned. (a) There will be 80 fewer jobs as a consequence; (b) the average salary at the Atlantic Institution will remain approximately $33,000; (c) it is estimated that approximately 66 indirect jobs will be lost: (i) 15, (ii) 51.
2. (a) There are no unilingual "French essential" positions identified as of August 1, 1985. (b) The linguistic profile of
September 17, 1985

the following positions is termed "English essential": (i) Management:-Assistant Warden, Industries (GL-C01)
This person is responsible for the activities which aim to maximize work, training and education opportunities for inmates. The object is to concentrate on cost-effectiveness and productivity with the goal of developing private sector standards for institutional operations.
(ii)	Security services: five CX-06, 33 CX-04, 63 CX-02, one Institutional Preventive Security Officer.
Note: A "CX" is a correctional officer.
This section provides both operation and preventive security measures. Correctional officers in operational security are responsible for minimizing the risk of harm inflicted by inmates on the public, the staff, other inmates and themselves. Preventive security officers are responsible for gathering and analysing security-related information, ensuring reliability of staff and screening institutional visitors.
The security group comprises the largest category of employees in the institution.
(iii)	Inmate services: one officer (ED-EST) and one support staff member (CR) in Education and Training.
Employees in this area provide academic and vocational training leading to recognized certificates of achievement or skills. On-the-job training is also available to help train inmates prepare for re-entry into the community.
Four registered nurses (NU-HOS). Medical personnel provide preventive and therapeutic health care delivery, which encompasses medical, psychiatric and dental treatment, as well as nutritional counselling.
Two officers in Visits and Correspondence (CX-COF); one officer in Social Development (WP); three officers in Recreation (WP); four Case Management Officers (WP); four support staff members (CR). Employees in Socialization provide counselling services, spiritual development, psychological services and stress management. Social and community activities, such as physical fitness, arts and crafts, citizen participation programs, et cetera, are also offered.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	How much will the operating costs of Air Canada increase in 1985 following the 1 per cent increase in the federal sales tax on gasoline in October, 1984, following another 1 per cent increase of the federal sales tax in January, 1986, and following another increase of two cents a litre next September?
2.	Will Air Canada increase (a) the cost of its tickets and, if so, by what amount (6) service fees and, if so, which ones and by what amount?
3.	Will the Corporation cut passenger services and, if so, which ones?
4.	Will the Corporation change its number of flights in 1985 and, if so (a) how many (b) will they be new or cancelled destinations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1. (a) 1985-$3.1 million; (6) 1986-$3.5 million; (c) 1985-$6.5 million; 1986-$20.2 million.
Family Allowances Act
2. A 1.7 per cent fare increase was introduced on February 1, 1985 to recover fuel price increases including October 1, 1984 federal sales tax on gasoline and the November 10, 1984 petroleum compensation charge increase.
3 and 4. The corporation is constantly reviewing its schedule patterns and continually makes adjustments based on multiple factors such as consumer demand, competition, as well as operating costs.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Frith (p. 6625).
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-no, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). The Hon. Member will know my problem.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the backhanded acknowledgement that this "Parry" is indeed sound, but the riding is Kenora-Rainy River.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edmund Parry: I was following the course of this debate to this point with considerable interest and trying to examine for myself what was happening in the House and how the debate was proceeding. I was glad this morning that the Government side was not going to content itself with just the bald statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in relation to the planned reduction of family allowances, both as a component of government spending and as a component of family budgets in Canada.
I was glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) and the Member from Winnipeg South rising in what I took to be somewhat stage-managed efforts to defend the Government's position. It struck me in listening to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, along with speakers from this Party and from the Official Opposition, that what we were looking at was an excellent portrayal of the disparate motives within the Progressive Con-

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
servative Party, undoubtedly around the Cabinet table and within the government caucus.
On the one hand we heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare defending the reduction of family allowance payments as being a marginal adjustment, something that did not compromise the principle of universality, something that was, in fact, a little tinkering with the works that was not going to have any effect at all on the budgets of ordinary Canadians. On the other hand, and by contrast, we had the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) expounding what 1 believe is a tradition within the Progressive Conservative Party that is not going to lie down, a tradition which says that social payments are some form of wastage in the economy, a tradition which decries and denigrates social payments as some form of charity. For example, there was a reference to $60 billion of social expenditures by the Government. This reference did not enable Members of this House, listeners or readers outside of this House to understand the relative significance in budgetary and national account terms. It was merely a reference to global figures, and, by implication, a reference to the generosity which this represented, presumably to the more productive classes of Canadians as opposed to those he sees as unproductive classes.
I would like to tell the Government and point out to the Progressive Conservative Party that until that sort of thinking is eliminated, there may be those Canadians who will elect them but they will be short of Canadians who will trust them.
It seems to me the Government was rightly nervous in allowing its Members to speak to this debate. Some credit is deserved. The Government has decided to grasp the nettle of what sentiments might come out from some of the wilder fringes of that caucus. On the one hand we have the preoccupation with the deficit, and there is legitimate concern with the deficit, and on the other hand we have an ideological viewpoint which views social expenditures as some form of subsidy, some form of scrap thrown to the poor people in order to buy their silence and their compliance.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we ask Government Members, if they are going to hold meetings-it sounds like a tea party-to leave the House. This is a very important issue that my colleague is debating.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Member's point, as I am sure Hon. Members do. May I simply say that the advice should be taken by all Members of the House at all times.


John Edmund Parry: As one who is occasionally guilty of the conduct complained of, I was not going to complain myself, Mr. Speaker. I do not doubt the Government side has very important matters it would like to resolve before Ministers escape to the relative safety of their ministerial offices. Of course I know, as a practising politician, that the practice of talking over one another is useful. However, when it reaches the ear of the Speaker it seems to be meaningless chatter, although I do not doubt the relevance and indeed the importance of what was being said.
I should like to return to the theme which has been taken up by speakers in this Party and in the Official Opposition. I would ask Government Members why they are not questioning the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), their Cabinet and their Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as to the status of the election promises which were made by the Progressive Conservative Party. Of course those election promises said nothing about reducing family allowances in the context of the over-all social spending envelope. Those promises, however, had much to say about maintaining indexation. To use an outworn phrase which will never leave the consciousness of Canadians, those promises had much to say about the sacred trust which our social programs imposed and should impose on every Member of the House.
The nature of the Bill is simply the adjustment of the family allowances. All Hon. Members, in speaking to it, have chosen to discuss it in a wider context. I have no hesitation in following that precedent. While we have heard from the Government side that apparently every evil which has afflicted the country over the past decade can be traced to the National Energy Program, we have also heard some contexts that are eminently sensible as an analysis of what the Government is trying to do with the family allowance reductions. It is worth pointing out in the House the removal of indexation in the sense that indexation is now to be dropped by three percentage points and that only the incremental inflation above 3 per cent will be counted in the recalculation of family allowances. Even though that form of indexation provides for an increase every year in the family allowance payments, it does not, in and of itself, give a share of the increase in Canada's wealth and Canada's means to the people who are the main beneficiaries of family allowances, namely, the poorest of the poor. Because indexation merely links an increase in payments to the value of money, it does not take into account increases in our Gross National Product. It does not take into account policy directions or the possibility that we, as Canadians, would like to see some of the increase in our national wealth also shared with people who are undertaking-and let us never forget that-a very serious responsibility not only on their own behalf but on behalf of all. There are those people who will benefit from the fact that the Government has not reintroduced the marginal tax rates which the previous Liberal Government discarded in a pay-off to its wealthier supporters. There are the people who will benefit from the lifetime capital gains bonanza or exemption. There are the people who will benefit from the removal of the limit on RRSP contributions, and the people who will undoubtedly benefit from the tax breaks which the Government will introduce in the future. They will be raising their children in the same society as those people who will be losing because of the Government's regressive behaviour in terms of family allowances.
One thing has always struck me about Canada since I came here 15 years ago. It did have and still has today strong elements of feeling about being one society. Canada is mercifully free of the classism and elitism of the society which I left
September 17, 1985

to come here. I believe that that organic picture of society to which we as Canadians largely, although not totally, subscribe by our actions is a philosophy, an impression and a credo that the Government should be doing everything to reinforce and nothing, in my opinion, to denigrate. With the family allowance being reduced and with the compensating increase for a period of only two years in the child tax credit, we should look at the message which those changes are sending to Canadians. We should look at the fact that over a 5-year span there will be no families which gain from the proposals of the Government. We should consider the message which is being sent to families, particularly poorer families, by those type of adjustments. We should consider the impression of Canadians when they are confronted with those calculations and understand that by the year 1990 all those who are parenting will be losers from this package of measures. They will very likely see, as I see, the measures introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare as being a niggardly tinkering with our social support network. We should consider what the reduced exemptions for children will do to the income tax system. We should consider the impression in the minds of the parents of Canada when they juxtapose the Government's reduction in the effective increase in the family allowance with a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that Canada has an acute shortage of rich people. We should consider what will be the impression of the average family when it realizes that the family allowance reduction will reduce its over-all budget and income.
Some Members of the House have spoken of the reduction in the increase in family allowances as an attack on families. To others that may sound like rhetoric. However, I believe that it contains a very important element of truth and significance. After all, it is never reality which governs the reactions, behaviour and beliefs of people in this country or in any other country; it is always the perception of what is happening. The Government is sending a clear message by these reductions to the people of Canada, particularly to the poorest families, that so far as it is concerned child rearing, parenting and the development and growth of families are less a concern this year than they were last year. They will be even less a concern in 1990 than they are this year, and they will be an ever-diminishing concern of the Government from now on.
We should also consider what will happen if the average Canadian family relates family allowance receipts to its budget and the cost of raising children. The family allowance, the child tax credit and the child tax exemption, even combined, are only an insignificant portion of the cost of child rearing. One of the experiences, I am told, which European Governments are coming upon is that the birth rate is continuing to decline. The belief is that this is largely because of the financial burden which potential parents or married couples perceive when they look at the cost of raising children and how it will affect their family budget, and when they consider the very nominal recognition of the tax system and social payments provided by their countries.
Family Allowances Act
Also 1 think we should look, in particular, at the position of the working poor. They are the people for whom family allowance is perhaps the most significant part of their budget, not in the sense of its being the largest part of their budget nor even in the sense of its being a larger part of the budget for them. These people will find that their incomes are not geared by another form of social support for the effects of inflation. These are the people who will in fact suffer most from the deindexing of family allowance payments.
The Government has chosen in its attack on the deficit to look really at just one side of the ledger. If there was ever a fault of which I thought the Tories would not be guilty it was failing to appreciate that there are indeed two sides to the national accounts; that there is an income side and an expenditure side. I think the fact that the Government has not brought in or reintroduced progressive tax rates, the fact that the Government has telegraphed reductions in taxes, exemptions, loopholes to the wealthy taxpayers of the country is as clear an indication as could be given of the fact that the Government is concentrating on expenditure reduction as the means of deficit reduction and is not looking at instituting in Canada the sort of fair tax system which would be both more productive in absolute terms and would provide a fairer sharing than exists today of the costs of providing benefits to our people.
Others have spoken and at some length on the principle of universality once espoused by the Prime Minister as a sacred trust. I believe that these reductions in family allowances that are predicated are indeed an erosion, a reduction of the principle of universality. That principle is important not only for philosophical but for pragmatic reasons. It is only when all can see some benefit from the system of social payments in this country that we will have the support of everybody in continuing to provide and co-operate in the mechanisms that provide those social assistance payments.
I am glad to hear my friends in the Liberal Party on side in this matter because when I heard their announcement of a so-called Operation Injustice a couple of days ago my first reaction was: Spare us! We have had the six and five program, that was Operation Injustice. Don't inflict that upon us again! But if the Liberal Party is prepared to go through the country and, ignoring its own history in this matter, help to bring the Opposition toward reduction in family allowances into this House, then I say, more power to them. I know that they will be pushing the same line and the same philosophy that the New Democratic Party is pushing and has always pushed.
I am glad to say that the psychology of charity has been almost eliminated from the social payments system in this country. I am glad to say that we can see ourselves as providers and as beneficiaries. I am concerned about the effect particularly on single-parent families, particularly on the poorest of the poor, that these reductions will have. I am glad to join my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and in the Opposition in voicing our opposition to those reductions.

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act


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


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the comments of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). As I listened to him, a question arose in my mind. I was thinking about his own riding where he has a very high percentage of Indian communities, in fact I think one of the highest number of Indian communities of any riding in Canada. As the Hon. Member has pointed out many times, there is also a very high level of unemployment in those communities. I wonder if he could share with the House his feelings about what the deindexing of family allowances will do to Indian families and Indian communities. How is that going to affect them?


John Edmund Parry: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for his question because, as he correctly observes, my constituency does contain the largest number of reserve communities of any constituency in Canada and I believe also the highest number of treaty Indian people of any constituency in Canada. The impact, quite frankly, in some communities where unemployment can run as high as 85 per cent in the winter time and can persist above the 50 per cent level all year, will be quite significant.
I have heard Members from the government side decry and deride this Party's opposition to these reductions on the ground that they are not really going to affect anybody. I can say with great certainty that there are people who are going to be affected, particularly when we look at the continuing cumulative effect of those reductions.
We know, considering the effect of inflation, that it will be 1988 before the real value of assistance payments to the poorest of the poor drops below what it is today. Simply because we are talking about a consequence that is three years down the line rather than an immediate consequence, 1 believe, does not give us the right to treat it any less seriously. The fact is that if it is in the Government's plans and prescriptions and programs that those people will function on a reduced income three years from today then we should discuss it with exactly the same weight as if it were to happen tomorrow.
Particularly for those women who are the heads of singleparent families with large numbers of children, they are certainly going to notice the difference in their family allowance cheque, particularly if the payments through the Canada Assistance Plan are not increased to make up for the reductions that they will experience. It will have a significant effect and I would call upon the Government to look at the effect upon the actual real life budgets of the poorest of the poor before this measure goes forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) has a question or a comment?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to ask my colleague a question. 1 know that he has a background in accounting and is particularly well informed on taxation. He
also is involved somewhat in our own proposals before the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare regarding what the New Democratic Party would do to bring more money into the Government coffers that could be used to increase family benefits, particularly the child tax credit and also to retain full indexation and to have a surplus for job-creation.
I wonder if he would comment a bit on the tax reform that The thinks is needed in order to increase benefits for families.


John Edmund Parry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I recall the proposal that was put forward by the New Democratic Party to the Standing Committee consisted of an increase of 80 per cent in the child tax credit. There was also the suggestion made by our Party that the child tax credit should be paid in segments rather than in one big lump as it is at the moment.
The point that the New Democratic Party is trying to make about the tax system is that it cannot be viewed as something that is divorced from the benefit system because, of course, the taxes pay for the benefits. Therefore if the Government was looking to reduce the deficit it should be looking at that income side of the ledger and it should be looking at the effective rates of taxation that are paid by Canadian taxpayers which, of course, go to fund, among so many other things, the benefits which we are debating today.
It was the belief of the New Democratic Party that the Government could pay for an 80 per cent increase in the child tax credit very comfortably by eliminating the capital gains exemption and by reinstating the marginal tax rates which had been abolished in the 1981 Budget.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. In addressing the family allowance question, the Government is attempting to leave the impression that by reducing family allowances and by increasing the child tax credit that it is, in fact, helping the poorest of the poor most and, therefore, this move is just. Can the Hon. Member comment on the Government's actions in this regard? What is the impact on poor people as a result of the policy changes which have been brought about through this package?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, there is, in fact, an increase in assistance to the poorest of the poor, an increase in real terms as well as current dollar terms, for the first three years in which the Government's changes will be implemented, if they are passed. However, from 1989 onward, assuming a 4.5 per cent inflation rate, the poorest of the poor will see the real value of their benefits under the family allowance child tax and child tax exemption programs reduce in real terms. That is my point when I say that simply because something is happening three years from today instead of today there is no reason to treat it less seriously.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Hon. Member. It relates to the performance by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the House today. We heard him chortle
September 17, 1985

about how the unemployment rate is improving in his own home town and how the people of Canada are pleased with his report card. Today it is one year since the Conservative Government has come to power. In that one year it has managed to begin the dismantling of family and social programs which have been established across the country for decades. Does the Elon. Member believe what the Prime Minister said in the House today with respect to his so-called A performance? Or, in fact, does he agree with an open letter which was written to the Prime Minister of Canada by, I think, 54 groups and organizations which participated in the Government's so-called economic forum and who have now suggested that the Government is bankrupt of ideas when it comes to jobs, social programs, taxation and the role of Government? Who is telling the truth? Is it the Prime Minister and his A rating, or is it the organizations across Canada who, today, in major newspapers across the country have accorded his performance an F?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the answers are, indeed, easy. The answer to the first question is no, I do not believe the Prime Minister. The answer to the second question is yes, I would certainly agree and endorse the opinion of the participants in the economic conference. Further, I would say that a gratuitous invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary does not enhance anyone's credibility.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Can the Hon. Member prefer any explanation as to why we do not hear from the Progressive Conservative Members with respect to this very important issue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. On debate, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud).


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that your presence of mind is extraordinary.
Mr. Speaker, some mornings when everything goes wrong, we say to ourselves that we should have stayed in bed.
I think that Canadians, when they look back to what happened on September 4 last year, are saying that is exactly what they should have done on that particular morning.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are not to blame for the results we see today. Canadians have been misled by some very alluring election promises. It is like La Fontaine's fable about the Crow and the Fox, where the fox, after buttering up the crow, grabbed the cheese, exclaiming: "My dear fellow, you might as well learn that flatterers live off those who listen to them." The cheese, was a small price to pay for experience. The crow, embarrassed and ashamed, swore "never again".
Mr. Speaker, like La Fontaine's sly fox, the Conservative Party played on people's emotions and gained their confidence.
Family Allowances Act
Subsequently, it changed its position and is now refusing to give voters what it promised them.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like taking part in this kind of debate and I think it is very unfortunate that we are having one. We had a debate last spring on de-indexation of Old Age Security pensions and we thought at the time that the Government had finally gotten the message.


An Hon. Member:: The Conservatives are slow learners!


Fernand Robichaud: Unfortunately, they did not get the
message.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should remind the Progressive Conservative Party, which has now formed the Government, what it promised us last year. I am not referring to election promises, because we know they have all been forgotten and that the Government has no intention of meeting those commitments.
I am speaking about a statement made on December 14, 1984, when the Right Hon. Prime Minister said to the press: "The federal Government has no intention of reducing family allowances for middle-income Canadians."
At the same time, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) dutifully stated that his role as Minsiter was to give signals and take initiatives to reinforce the role of the family and make it more meaningful in today's society.
Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to rejoice and to congratulate the Minister if he were to propose measures which favour the family. But we have to ask ourselves some questions.
By de-indexing family allowances, is the Minister strengthening the role of the family and the purchasing power of low and middle-income Canadians?
By de-indexing the child tax credit from 1990, is the Government guaranteeing the economic future of low and middle-income families and giving them opportunities to provide a decent education for their children?
By reducing the tax exemption for children from 1987, by forcing families to pay more taxes, and finally, by increasing the federal sales tax and oil taxes, is the Government reinforcing the economic power of families and making them more meaningful in our society? Mr. Speaker, there is only one answer to these questions: No, of course not!
The decision of the Government to take all these initiatives will only make low- and middle-income families poorer. This is obvious. By making cutbacks in all the programs aimed at families, the Government is reducing the income of these families and making life more difficult and much more expensive for them.
Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about abstract matters, but about harsh realities our families will have to face throughout the country and especially in New Brunswick.

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Even though the Budget suggests that, with those changes, assistance to lower-income families will be increased, it is a fact that a good number of lower-income families and all middle-income families with children will get less than they are now receiving under the current system. For instance, in the area of family allowances, a family now gets $375 a year per child; in 1986, it will get less because of the family allowances being de-indexed, and so forth in 1987, 1988 and 1989.
What must be understood in the Government proposals is that there is a long-term loss for families, despite the increase in the income tax child credit proposed for 1986, 1987 and 1988. However, concerning the income tax child credit, as early as 1990, that also will be de-indexed. Moreover, the other Budget proposals will in effect wipe out any benefit derived from the tax credit increase. Actually, in the next four years family benefits will rise slightly because of the increase in the income tax child credit. But starting in 1990, benefits will decrease and they will go on decreasing over the following years. This is because in 1990 the income tax child credit also will be de-indexed, just as family allowances are now. That is to say that the increase in those benefits will correspond to the increase in the inflation rate over and above 3 per cent.
If all things were to remain as they are now, the benefit increase would be 4 per cent rather than 1 per cent. Therefore, even if there is an increase, it will be slight and will not match the current inflation rate or cost of living increase.
This is not all. The Government has other proposals that are extremely unfavourable to families. Indeed, from 1986 on fewer families will be receiving the maximum income tax child credit.
The income ceiling which makes it possible for a family to receive the maximum Child Tax Credit is presently $26,330. But the Government proposes to lower this ceiling to $23,500. Therefore, all families whose income is between $23,000 and $26,000 will no longer be eligible to the Child Tax Credit.
Moreover, because the average salary will increase from year to year, more and more families will earn over $23,500 and get only reduced benefits. What is more, the personal income tax will increase in 1986.
Because of the generous proposals of the Tory Government ... I have still 10 minutes left, Mr. Speaker? Thank you. I thought a while ago that you were going to cut me short.
Because of the generous proposals of the Tory Government, the low- and middle-income family will loose its federal exemption beginning in 1986. Also, basic personal exemptions will be reduced, because they will be indexed from now only by the inflation rate exceeding 3 per cent instead of being fully indexed to the cost of living. The taxable income of the low-income family is therefore higher. So the Child Tax Credit will decrease, while the Income Tax and the Sales Tax will both increase.
In short, the future is far from being encouraging for low-and middle-income families.
Because of the budgetary measures, the poor families will get poorer and the rich families will definitely get richer.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister introduced this Bill, he asked us to understand it and to consider it in the light of the deficit, the national debt, and the Government's need to limit its expenditures. But if we take into account the great many families it is likely to affect, we should consider it in the light of the $2 billion granted to the oil multinationals, in the light of the exemption of capital gain taxes which benefit high income families, and in the light of the increased tax deduction resulting from greater RRSP investments. Low-income families do not benefit from these programs. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the poor will have to pay for what the rich no longer pay. It does not make sense and, above all, it is unfair! Is that the way the Government means to help those who need it most?
Mr. Speaker, the Government is taking steps which are both stringent and unfair. The Progressive Conservative Government wants to increase the burden of disadvantaged families. Yet, according to the 1981 census, 13 per cent of Canadian families live below the poverty line. In my own province of New Brunswick, the 16.2 per cent of the families living below the poverty line will be severely affected by the family allowance cuts. For all these families, Government money represents a major part of their income and helps them survive and make ends meet. As you know, Mr. Speaker, poverty unfortunately still exists in Canada. Perhaps you do not, but your neighbours know what it is to be poor and to live on a very small income. It is a situation nobody would wish to live or to impose on anybody else.
Nobody is proud to be poor or to admit being poor. Nobody lives on a small income out of choice or willingly. Life is not easy for everybody. All Canadians are not born in an affluent region or to a family who is well-off financially. Many Canadians live in isolated regions where the education system is limited to the primary and secondary levels and where employment is only seasonal. Mr. Speaker, seasonal employment means that a person will work up to 10 or 12 weeks during the summer months to become eligible to Unemployment Insurance benefits during the winter months. Which means that these families live on an extremely low income. If you work for 10 or 12 weeks on a salary of $400 and you live on Unemployment Insurance benefits the rest of the year, you do not earn all together more than $14,000.
But if you are not so lucky and earn only $250 a week over the first twelve weeks you will simply end up with a little over $12,000 a year. That is what it is like to be poor, to have limited means. One can pinpoint a poor family when attending parent-teacher meetings, or again at the first meeting before
September 17, 1985

school opens when parents are told: You will have to buy running shoes for your children, gym suits, dictionaries, various items the young need to attend school. And you can read their expression, those people are all sad because they have to make a choice as to what they can or cannot afford to buy for their children. It is unfortunate because not only will those children not have what others enjoy at school but they will not be able to participate in various activities such as minor hockey or figure skating. They are indeed pushed aside and that is what really hurts, to realize that one is not as well off as the others.
Mr. Speaker, all Hon. Members have to listen to their constituents to appreciate the fact that many of them have needs and that something has to be done about it.
Far from improving the living conditions of our constituents, the constituents of all the Members here, this Bill will make matters worse. It simply does not make sense, Mr. Speaker.
That is why I cannot let the Government have free reins. As we did last spring, we have to stop it or else the future of this country will be hopelessly jeopardized.
Mr. Speaker, I am giving this Government a very serious warning on behalf of the people of New Brunswick. I urge you to reconsider your position and not to reduce family allowances.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I most sincerely hope the Government will change its mind and do so before the people are forced to protest and demonstrate vigourously as they have shown they can during the debate on old age security pensions deindexation. The people of New Brunswick, both men and women, then joined forces with all other Canadians to tell the Government that it was being unfair. If need be, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to help them launch the same kind of demonstration to prove to this Conservative Government that this Bill is unfair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud) on his excellent speech this afternoon.
I would also like to ask him two questions. Does he believe that the Government has its priorities right when it spends $56 million to buy new, different colour uniforms for the Armed Forces instead of spending $55 million to preserve family allowances for Canadians? Second, could he tell us why, in his opinion, the Conservative Members are participating so little, if at all, in the debate on such an important matter?


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, naturally, the questions of my Hon. colleague are not that difficult to answer. In fact, the
Family Allowances Act
priorities of this Government are completely upside down, because it thinks it is absolutely impossible to find any money to help the less privileged, such as low-income families.
This is ridiculous, especially when billions of dollars, or $1,000 million, can be found to help businesses which are already well-off, such as the multinationals. To come back to the question asked by my colleague, Mr. Speaker, 1 would point out that $500 million were found to build an icebreaker to preserve Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. I am quite in favour of protecting our territory, but it is strange that so much money could be found to build an icebreaker, and it is even stranger that all this was brought about by the actions of our great friends south of our border.
As for the non-participation of Government Members in this debate, the Minister himself did not have that many good things to say when he introduced his Bill yesterday. When it should have been the turn of Government Members to speak, they had absolutely nothing to say. They simply skipped their turn. I understood this morning why Government Members did not speak to this Bill yesterday. It is simply because they had nothing to say. The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) was content this morning with commenting on what had been said the day before without adding anything new. He only commented on the speeches made the day before.
Mr. Speaker, in reply to the second question, I would say that Conservatives simply have nothing to add and cannot defend the position of the Minister as reflected in this Bill.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, so as not to disappoint the Hon. Member and his colleagues, I thought we should have some participation by government Members. I already participated in the debate and comments previously, but I want to put a question to the Hon. Member.
He is well aware, of course, that this particular measure before the House is only part of a package regarding family benefits. The other parts of the package include not only the family allowance but also the child tax credit and the child tax exemption under the Income Tax Act. All of those make up the total family benefit package. As the Hon. Member knows, the net effect of all of those and the changes being proposed will increase the benefits for those low income families which the Hon. Member spoke about so eloquently and actually decrease benefits for the high income families.
I would be interested in knowing from the Hon. Member what the official Liberal Party policies are with respect to all three parts of the family benefit package, taking into account the question of the deficit and our difficulty with the $35 billion deficit funding. What are the specific and offiical policies of the Liberal Party to deal with all of those matters and still benefit the low income people that he and I are both concerned about?

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, a package is proposed to us, but only one piece at a time.
And that, to my mind, is not quite honest because they say: "See, this one is not that bad but we have another one coming which will repair what we are doing wrong at present." Indeed, they are trying to sell it to us; they are slyly trying to sell it to the people with fine words suggesting that what we are now doing will not hurt them too much, because there will be something else.
When my colleague asks me what the position of our party is concerning the deficit, I say that we have only one position and it is that the deficit or the debt cannot be reduced at the expense of the most needy. There are other ways of doing it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is over.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)

 Environmental Affairs (a) Acid rain-Prime Minister's meeting with United States President (b) Appointment of Canada envoy; the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Shipbuilding (a) Halifax Industries Limited (b) Government plans; and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture (a) Western drought-Government assistance (b) Request for direct payments to farmers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Frith (p. 6625).
Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on the first anniversary of the swearing in of the new Government to join in the debate on second reading of Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family
Allowances Act, 1973, and the subsequent amendment. The Bill would provide for inflation protection for family allowance payments when the Consumer Price Index exceeds 3 per cent. It is unfortunate that the Opposition has chosen the strategy that it has. Rather than join a reasonable and necessary debate on this important subject, they have chosen to introduce an amendment to delay second reading for six months. This tells the people of Canada that the Liberals have put the issue on the backburner, that they refuse to participate in the debate, and that they are interested in nothing but political gain in a campaign of fear and misinformation. Of course, as always, they are eagerly joined in such a strategy by the NDP.
I now know that the Opposition Parties do not understand the simple fact that has been stated quite clearly by my fellow Manitoban, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) which cannot be ignored in any debate on any social program. That simple fact is that social programs and benefits cannot be separated from economic realities. There is at last a Government in Ottawa that understands this. The healthier the national economy, the stronger the social benefit system.
As we continue to undo the economic damage inflicted on Canada by the former Liberal Government, we must ensure that a greater proportion of benefits go to those in our society who are in the greatest need. In just one year we have started Canada's economy on the road to recovery. There are now 284,000 more Canadians working than there were a year ago. Unemployment is still at a level that is unacceptable, but it is a step in the right direction. Inflation is steady and low for the first time in many years. Over the past three years the federal debt grew at a rate of almost 25 per cent, which is almost three times the rate of growth of the GNP. With the current fiscal plan, debt growth should slow to 17.7 per cent this year and 14.6 per cent in 1986-87. Housing starts have increased to an annual rate of 155,000 units, up 24 per cent from the previous two quarters. And we have only just begun.
I suggest that there is not a Member in this House who does not know that we must provide more for the less fortunate Canadians. We are now attempting to do that in concert with a healthy economic recovery, and not with our heads in the sand alongside the Opposition Parties. Bill C-70 is a good start toward improving the social safety net in Canada. At the same time we must consider the further measures planned by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to address the plight of low-income Canadians. Bill C-70 cannot be considered in isolation.
I refer the House briefly to page 43 of the Budget papers. I wish to refer to a few of the planned changes because they are so important to the debate on Bill C-70 and the amendment thereto. Beginning in the taxation year 1986 the child tax credit, payable in the spring of 1987, will be increased by $70 per child, from $384 to $454. In the taxation year 1987 the
September 17, 1985

child tax credit, which will be payable in the spring of 1988, will be increased by a further $35 to a total of $489. At the same time the child tax exemption will be reduced to $560 per child under age 18 at the end of the year. This makes the system much more progressive. For the taxation year 1988 the child tax credit will be increased a further $35 to a total of $524 per child under 18. At the same time the child tax exemption will be reduced to $470 per child under age 18 at the end of the year.
As you can clearly see, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-70 is just the first step in a series of changes that the Government is planning in response to the need for more benefits going to those most in need in Canadian society. The Government is looking to the future. We want to ensure the long-term health of our family benefit system, unlike the Liberals and NDP whose sole interest is short-term political gain at the expense of the very system they profess to be protecting. A delay of six months for second reading as proposed by the Opposition delays the beginning of changes to the system that are intended to improve the fairness of our family benefits system, and to ensure that maximum benefits go to families with children and with incomes of less than $25,000 per year. I keep hearing criticism from the Opposition on our proposal to introduce a capital gains exemption for individuals. They say that this is a proposal for the rich, but that is absolutely untrue. Among the number of Canadians who will benefit from this proposal are the farmers, the small businessmen, and the small town professionals who have worked hard and paid taxes to support our social benefits system.
"Private initiative" and "hard work" are not dirty words. People who have worked hard on family farms and in family businesses have been asking why they should work hard and take risks if the Government only penalizes them, as the former Liberal Government did. As a new Government we are going to reward hard work because we know that without these people we would soon have no social benefit system whatsoever. We have seen what the NDP Government in Manitoba thinks of small business and individual initiative. They slap on a special employment tax every time a business hires a new employee. That is some incentive; a tax on job creation.
I am also disturbed, Mr. Speaker, by a statement from the NDP spokesperson, the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). In response to Bill C-70 she said that "it is easier to attack children than it is to attack old age pensioners". Can you imagine a statement such as this from an NDP Member of Parliament? It is truly incredible. New Democratic Party Members, who feel no remorse at all in supporting the death of thousands of unborn Canadian children, are telling us that we are attacking children with Bill C-70. Obviously the concern for children expressed by the NDP does not include the ultimate protection, that is, the right to be born. That subject deserves separate debate, but it does point out the serious contradiction in Opposition arguments.
My wife and three children are the most important part of my life and I have been fortunate enough to be able to provide
Family Allowances Act
for them. However, in my 13 years of work in the health care field, I have seen many families much less fortunate than mine. My family would not hesitate to give up part of the increase in the family allowance so that others in greater need would receive more.
In this debate we have also heard criticism from the Opposition Liberals on our recent changes to the devastating National Energy Program. Such statements prove their total lack of understanding with regard to western Canada. We were treated as a colony by the Liberals for so long that they have forgotten what they did to us. I would like to give a small piece of advice to the Liberals. If they ever hope to be credible in western Canada, they had better talk to westerners in order that they can understand that the Western Accord restores to the west what the Liberals took away with the National Energy Program. The Liberal spokesman, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), say that he is, "convinced that grandparents are concerned about what is happening to their grandchildren". I agree totally, but not because I want to enlist seniors in a fight against Bill C-70, but because seniors have a lot of experience and common sense and they worry about the future of their grandchildren. They can see through the cheap politics of the opposition and will join us in a long-term solution and a return to fairness in Canadian society and its social system.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize that Bill C-70 is only a first step in improving Canada's existing benefits system. When considered with plans to increase child tax credit payments, to make the child tax exemption more progressive within the tax system and to improve the system even more as the economy improves, I know that Canadians will support Bill C-70.
The effects of Bill C-70 will be twofold: first, the benefits to families will be distributed more fairly; second, there will be recognition of economic realities by all Canadian families. The Government supports the family and we are working to assure the future of family benefits. Everything cannot be done at once. As conditions improve and as the May 23 Budget continues to improve the Canadian economy, the family benefits package will be further improved. Therefore, 1 urge the House to defeat the amendment and pass second reading of Bill C-70 so it may be referred to a legislative committee.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the Hon. Member say that the Government was committed to social policy with regard to families that would make more resources available for those who need it most. Is he aware that while the changes do benefit the poorest of the poor in the first three years, after those first three years even the poorest of the poor will lose money according to the proposal which his Government has introduced? How does he justify that with his contention that the changes in social policy the Government is introducing will in fact help the poor?

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I stated several times that this is the first step in a long-term plan and we are not looking for a short-term political gain. Without proper economic management in our country there will be no social benefit package at all. These measures will proceed step by step and we believe that with our priority being economic recovery in Canada, economic justice and an improved social benefit package will follow.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member with great interest. I believe he said that Bill C-70 would improve benefits to families. How could a measure that cuts benefits be deemed to improve them in any way, shape or form? I must say that this is logic that most of us have some difficulty understanding. Could he elaborate on that for the benefit of Hon. Members?


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member listened attentively to my speech. I did not see him in his seat so I assume he was watching the television in the lobby. My answer would be the same as that given to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). We must also take deficit reduction into consideration. While it would be desirable to consider a social benefits package in isolation, it is not possible to do so as a Government. We inherited a tremendous deficit and we are trying to redistribute that package as it exists in order to put more money into the hands of the less fortunate. I believe we have begun that process.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the House of Commons that he would not use social service cut-backs to reduce the deficit. The Hon. Member stands in his place to say that his Government is taking this action to reduce the deficit. Canadians should be made aware of the fact that a family of four earning $15,000-disregarding the millionaires whom the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) like to refer to-will lose almost $2,000 as a result of tax changes and cut-backs in family allowances between now and 1990. How can the Hon. Member suggest that a family of four earning $15,000 should face a cut-back of almost $2,000 to pay for the deficit which is a direct result of his Budget measures?


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Government is looking at long-term policy rather than shortterm political gain. Perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware of the tremendous debt that was left by her former Government. As finances improve and the situation permits, the social benefit package will be increased according to our policy, which is to look after those in greatest need.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my corner colleague from the southeast Conservative caucus, the Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White), for his excellent presentation.
He illustrated some key economic indicators, some of which were also given by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine (Mr. McKenzie) this morning. However, let me add other
economic indicators which he neglected to include in his remarks but which are quite relevant in the over-all context of this subject. First, interest rates have dropped 2.75 per cent since last September. Car and truck sales, depending upon the area, have risen 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Investment spending intentions are up in this country by 17 per cent to 20 per cent. These indicators mean an increasing number of jobs. Members opposite should recognize that the Government is creating more jobs in this country. I know that it makes them very nervous to read those statistics because they do not like to see success.
The stability of our dollar is very strong. These positive signs are seen today, on the first anniversary of the swearing in of our Cabinet and the new Government of Canada. These indicators will provide confidence and a positive strength upon which we can build in this country.
My colleague put the debate into perspective when he said that we are not touching the concept of universality as a result of this Bill. No payments will be cancelled. No payments will be reduced. We are lowering the level of increase for next year.
Does the Hon. Member agree that the vast majority of Canadians believe that we must lower our losses in this country because we cannot continue to live beyond our means? Does he think that we in this country can continue to live beyond our means?


Brian White: 1 thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), for his question. He is correct that there were several positive economic indicators that I failed to mention in my presentation. However, if 1 had mentioned them all, I would have been here for hours.
As a western Canadian, I can say that there is a very positive attitude in the West. After being ignored for so long, we finally see a Government that is representative nationally and is dealing with national problems in a responsible manner.
The Hon. Member is quite right when he says that universality will be untouched by this proposal. It is not the first time that indexation has been modified. Similar steps were taken in 1976, 1979 and 1982. My constituents and other Canadians are beginning to realize the seriousness of our debt and, as he mentioned, they realize that we cannot continue to live beyond our means.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary and a comment for my colleague who, as I know, is a man of his word and a man of honour.
What I do not understand about the Conservative members and about my colleague is that they talk of reducing the deficit at the expense of children, at the expense of families with children.
I would therefore ask him: Does my colleague who just spoke now know-and I would like to remind him of a promise to be found in a Government document, the blue paper dated
September 17, 1985

January 1985-that none of the savings achieved through program changes will be used for reducing the deficit?
This is a commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Government!
Then 1 would like the Hon. Member to tell me on his word, and he is an honest man, if he accepts to reduce by $55 million the funds earmarked for helping families with children, whether he agrees that $56 million be spent just for changing the colour of uniforms in the Canadian Forces rather than letting the families have the money to help them raise their children, improve their living conditions? Does he personally accept that the Prime Minister mislead the people by saying: "We are honest, it is not for reducing the deficit, it is for making improvements!" when all Conservative members say the $55 million are indeed for reducing the deficit?


Brian White: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. He mentions that we want to decrease the deficit at the expense of children. That is a perfect example of what I said about using the politics of fear and misinformation.
1 am quite familiar with the Blue Paper because I was on the subcommittee that wrote it. We have a Government that is looking at the long term. We, along with all straight-thinking, responsible, commonsense Canadians, realize that without proper control of our deficit, we will not have any social benefit package. We are looking at the long term, not what may be on television tonight or next week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I would like to recognize the next speaker for debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this crucial debate in the House of Commons. It is at least as crucial as the debate we had in the last session concerning pensions. We must examine very closely what the Government is proposing in the legislation before us. What is the purpose of the legislation and its effect? What exactly does it mean for Canadians?
First, it means there will be fewer dollars in mothers' pockets for the care of children. For a Government that speaks of having a strong economy in the future and for a Government that wants wise investment to take place in Canada, this is a short-sighted policy. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. White) said that the Government had a long view of events in Canada, that it was looking to the future and not just at today. If we are looking to the future and if we have a long-term view of social policy and of wealth creation in Canada, we should remind ourselves that one of the keys to that is human resources. Economists around the world are coming to that realization today. They have recognized
Family Allowances Act
that the creation of wealth is based on human resources and not simply on capital resources.
If this Government were looking at the long term, it would consider the impact of reducing family allowances as they affect investment in the development of our human resources. Our children, the children of every family in Canada, are the human resources of the future. They are the ones who will create the wealth. Adequate family allowances are an investment in those children and in the future of the Canadian economy but this Government is taking away dollars that would be invested through the measure before us.
This measure will put fewer dollars in the wallets of Canadian families for their children, and it is done by deindexing family allowances. Granted the deindexation is partial, but it is real, Mr. Speaker. If family allowances were to remain as they are today, families would receive an increase in their family allowance as the cost of living goes up. This is automatic, and the purchasing power of family allowances would be maintained. This does not mean families would be getting grand increases but by continuing indexation, the purchasing power is maintained rather than eroded. This measure will take money out of the pockets of ordinary Canadian families, contrary to the assertions of my colleague on my right-I might say on the far right, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: On the left.


Cyril Keeper: Ideologically on the right. It is entertaining to hear some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party claiming to be on the left-


John Napier Turner: You are on the right.


Cyril Keeper: -considering their attitude toward social policy and dollars for families and for children.


John Napier Turner: Centre of the road.


Cyril Keeper: The purpose of the family allowance is to help mothers meet their children's needs.
We might ask ourselves whether there are any real needs of this sort to be met in the community. By way of illustration, let us consider nutrition. If a young child is to perform well in school, that child must have a balanced diet. Many children simply will not have that without adequate family allowances. A couple of weeks ago I was in Winnipeg and toured soup kitchens in my constituency. I talked to people preparing meals for those who have no other source of nutrition. Children have been seen on the streets of Winnipeg visiting the welfare agencies and the agencies which give out food because they do not have adequate food at home.
There are some very real needs of children that must be met. Family allowances are an attempt by the Canadian Government to meet those needs. It is not only in terms of having adequate food to eat that family allowances play a significant role, but they also have an impact with regard to human dignity and pride. Schools have just opened. Children like to have new clothes and new crayons to go to school. I was

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
speaking to some workers in social service agencies in Winnipeg and they described how parents like to go out and buy new clothes for their children so a child can feel good on the first day of school because everyone is expected to have new clothes. These workers knew that because parents were buying new clothes they would be running out of welfare money used for food before the end of the month. There is a very real human need in terms of families who are on the lower end of the income scale. To these people family allowances are crucial. The family allowance is the foundation to our very existence. It is a symbol of hope. It is important for the Government to realize that when it cuts dollars from family allowances, the Government is taking money away from people who have some very real needs.
The family allowances perform another role having to do with the equality of women in our society. The family allowance is a cheque that goes in the name of the mother to assist her meet her children's needs. It recognizes the contribution a mother makes to the care of the children. It recognizes the value of her work.
More and more men these days are considering and taking up the option of full-time child care. It is to be applauded, but it is still a rare exception and the family allowance continues to be a way for the Canadian Government to recognize the value of the unpaid work of women in our society. It is a way that we as a society can acknowledge the importance of the time and energy which primarily women put into the care of children.
Not only does the action proposed by the Government take away dollars from families but it is a direct attack on the principle of universality in social programs. This is not the first time the Government has attacked universality. When it issued its economic statement early in its mandate, it raised questions about universality. Also it issued a policy paper and raised the same questions. However, more important, it attempted in its last Budget to deindex old age pensions partially. One would have thought that the Government would have learned from experience that an attack on the universality of social programs is a very risky undertaking because people realize the fundamental importance of universality.
It is important that social programs respect the dignity of all citizens and remove the negative stigma from receiving social assistance. When social programs are based upon income or need alone, people are required to prove that they are poor before they are eligible for social assistance. We know that society looks down upon those who are poor. Quite naturally people feel a sense of shame when they have to get down on their knees, so to speak, before the representative of a social agency to obtain an application for financial assistance. We are saying that the dignity of each person must be respected. Therefore, we are prepared to give social assistance to all citizens so that they know that they are receiving assistance as a matter of right, not because they are on the bottom rung of the social ladder. In order to respect human dignity in the
application of social programs, those programs have to be matched up with a fair tax system. If we have to raise revenues in order to continue such programs, we require a fair tax system so that people feel that it is only right and just to pay taxes because everyone else is carrying an equal share of the burden. In this regard, the Government is off the track. Rather than promote a fairer tax system in its recent Budget, it in fact made the system even more unfair. The best example of this would be the fact that as a result of the recent Budget, the average Canadian family will have to pay an increase of some $500 in taxes. At the same time the Government gave a write-off to upper-income Canadians of $500,000 under the capital gains proposal. Anyone with a great deal of capital will not have to pay taxes on the increase in the value of that capital. Those people with a great deal of wealth received a tax break while average Canadians were hit over the head with a significant tax increase.
The Government goes in the direction of attacking the universality of social programs and seeks to use selective social measures. It undermines the fairness of the tax system and its capacity to produce revenue. As a result, it finds itself in a corner with no alternative but to attack the universality of social programs.
Canadians value the universality of social programs. They demonstrated this when they beat back the attempts of the Government to attack the universality of pensions. We must match universality with a fair tax system and with an equitable economic policy. Rather than having as its objective the trickle down approach to economics, the Government should have employment for all as its major objective. The policy of the Government is to provide tax breaks for business and for upper-income Canadians in order to make it more "attractive" to invest. The assumption is that if there are fewer taxes on investment, there will be more investment, which automatically leads to more employment. Recently experience has demonstrated that that is false, that in fact the economy does not work that way. Over the last 20 years the burden of taxation on corporations relative to the burden of taxation on individuals has dropped significantly while its progressive nature has caused regression. As a result of this tax regime and the Government's economic policies, we have seen an increase in unemployment. The policy of the Government to make it more and more attractive economically for investors by lightening the taxation burden on them does not lead to the kind of economic growth which provides employment and therefore results in an equitable economic circumstance.
Along with universal social programs we need equity in economic policy. The primary objective of that economic policy must be to put all Canadians to work. We must co-ordinate all instruments at the disposal of the Government in order to reach that objective.
I want to examine briefly the performance of the Government since its election, particularly as it affects universality. Prior to and during the last election campaign, the Government described universality as a sacred trust. This so-called sacred trust has been torn to shreds. The one thing which
September 17, 1985

stands out in the minds of most Canadians today is that they can no longer trust the Government. Leading up to the election the Government made every effort to gain the confidence of Canadians, and the results of that election indicate that it obviously achieved this. However, since that time the Government has been rapidly losing the confidence of Canadians on the basis of its performance. On the one hand it promised to respect universality in social programs. On the other hand, as soon as it assumed office, it began a concerted attack on the universality of social programs. If there is one characteristic of this Government which stands out in the minds of ordinary Canadians, it is the fact that its performance is at variance with its promises. Therefore Canadians trust the Government less and less. While that has not yet been translated into large numbers in Gallup polls, that will come about. When Canadians lose confidence in their Government, there is no way that it can continue to hope for high levels of support in Gallup polls or in whatever other instrument exists for measuring the confidence of people in their Government.
In my remaining minute I should like to point out that the measure before us today should be withdrawn. It should be withdrawn because it takes out of the pockets of ordinary families across this country dollars which are necessary in order for children to have their basic human needs met. It should be withdrawn because it is a direct attack on the principle of universality. It should be withdrawn in order to sustain public confidence in the Government. The Government has lost and continues to lose the trust of Canadians by continuing this kind of action. We on this side of the House call upon this Government to withdraw the measure before this House, to respect its promises and to actually look for ways of improving social policy as it affects children rather than undermining them.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) to be a person who is very reasonable and very wise in his comments and I am very surprised to hear some of the comments that he is making today. One statement he made was that there was an increase in unemployment during this past year. I know the Hon. Member is well aware that employment is up almost 300,000 from a year ago. Another comment he made was that this measure attacked universality and I know that the Hon. Member knows that there is no such attack on universality in this measure or any other measure that is currently before the House. The Government proposes in this measure to maintain family allowances exactly as they are now and to increase them on a modified index basis.
The one thing however that really astounded me was the implication, Mr. Speaker, that the less advantaged in the system should not get some increased benefits. There was an implication in those comments on universality that those with low incomes should not have their benefits increased. At the present time under the current arrangements the Hon. Member will know that a family earning $30,000 a year under the total family benefit package which includes family allow-
Family Allowances Act
ances, the child tax credit and the child tax deduction in the income tax gets more benefits under that than a family earning only $10,000 a year.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not want that situation to remain. Surely he wants to correct that situation and surely he wants to support the government package, and this is only one part of the government package, which will improve the benefits for low-income families and reduce them for those at the high end of the income scale.


Cyril Keeper: I want to thank the Hon. Member first of all for his description of me as being both reasonable and wise. I was hoping that that part of his comments would continue a little longer.


John Napier Turner: A slip of the tongue.


Cyril Keeper: I am sure he was speaking sincerely, Mr. Speaker.
One of the questions that the Hon. Member raises is with regard to the impact of these measures on low-income Canadians. He suggested that somehow I was against an increase in those benefits for low-income Canadians. He should examine the impact of the proposal before the House.
In the short term, over the next three years there will be some marginal increase for the lowest income Canadians with regard to the whole package that is before us. After that three-year period even the lowest income Canadian will lose dollars. The over-all impact of this program is to take dollars away from families who have children. The Hon. Member suggests that there is no attack in this package on universality. Has he thought about the fact that when you undermine the purchasing power of a universal social program, that that is an attack on universality?


John Napier Turner: No.


Cyril Keeper: When you reduce the purchasing power of the family allowance, the family allowance being a universal social program, is that not an attack on universality?
The Government has described its measures as just because while it reduces the purchasing power of the family allowance, at the same time it made some marginal increase in the child tax credit for people at the lower end of the income scale. That in itself is a choice in social policy instruments. It is indicating that it prefers to go the selective route rather than the universal route. I pointed out already that even though it helped the lowest income person in the short-term, in the long run all Canadians lose money, even the ones at the bottom of the economic ladder.
He talks about unemployment and says over the last year there has been an increase in employment. We must give some credit where credit is due. There has been a marginal increase in the number of jobs available. However, I must point this out that a large part of that increase has been in part-time employment rather than in full-time employment and the over-all trend continues, which is unemployment at about the

September 17, 1985
Family Allowances Act
10	per cent level. There are 1.3 million people unemployed in this country. Until the Government can make a real dent in that unemployment rate it does not deserve any real credit. The Hon. Member must recognize that unemployment in this country is a serious problem that demands the top priority of government economic policy, which is the contention that I put forward, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney)-Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), excuse me.


John Napier Turner: Ottawa West, Ottawa-Carleton, Mr. Speaker. It is a magnificent city no matter where we come from.
A short question. It is very easy to maintain the status quo, is it not?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is Conservative.


John Napier Turner: But it takes courage to effect change and it takes courage to make tough decisions when you are running a country. We are prepared and we are obviously making some tough decisions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Radical.


John Napier Turner: We are making them in the best interests of all the people of this country.
Let me ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), whether he agrees that if former successive Liberal administrations had not lived beyond their means and spent us into financial oblivion that we would not have to be taking these tough financial decisions today? Yes or no?


Cyril Keeper: I must say that it puzzles me why the Hon. Member, as part of the Government, wants to take tough decisions when it affects families and family allowances but fails to take the same tough attitude when he is dealing with the banks or when he is dealing with people who earn a capital gain in this country. Why, Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Member not be fair and tough across the board rather than just be tough when he is dealing with children?
The Hon. Member says that they are having to pick on children now because the Liberals wasted our wealth over the last 14 years or so. Just because the Liberals wasted the national wealth does not mean that the Conservatives have to follow that policy by bailing out the banks, by bailing out the
011	industry and by giving a capital gains to the wealthiest people in this country rather than trying to maintain social policy as it affects children in this country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for my friend the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).
During the election, the Right Hon. Prime Minister made a good many election promises. He often referred to our social
programs and so forth as a sacred trust. He never mentioned any proposal to de-index family allowances.
Why in your view did the Prime Minister break his election promises? Why did he fail to keep that sacred trust, thus deluding the Canadian people, and perhaps still more important, Canada's children?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, truly, I do not know why the Government made a promise before coming to power, and broke it after being elected. I do not know why, but I am sure that before being elected they made a commitment to protect the principle of universality of our social programs. Now, as a Government, they attack the principle of university. I am certain that ordinary Canadians are aware of those attitudes and actions of the Government, that they are losing faith in that Government.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the Government will change its attitudes toward Canadians, because it is important that the Canadian Government have a good social policy that will help families in this country.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that today is one year to the day that the Conservative Government was swept into power, its Ministers appointed, its pledges made, its Throne Speech tabled and the promises were out there for the Canadian people to judge. They have spent the last year judging those promises, one of which, in the mellifluous tones of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), was as follows:
As the women of Canada know, there is some distance between the principle of equality, widely accepted, and its reality, still far short of achievement. It is the duty of Parliament and government to help ensure that Canadian society travels that distance as quickly as possible. This will sometimes require the exercise of your power, and it will always need the power of your example.
Economic equality is the vehicle through which women will come to full partnership and participation with men-
The Prime Minister went on in his mellifluous tones, that deep voice, to say:
My government has as a high priority measures to support and strengthen the Canadian family, which is the cornerstone of our society.
If we hearken back to that time, Mr. Speaker, we can remember the words of the Prime Minister, the words of his first speech to this House, when he promised that his highest priorities would be to the women of this country and to the strengthening of the families of this country.
The last time I looked, the women of the country and the children of the country were looking to the Prime Minister and to the Government for leadership on economic issues. In fact, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding his promises, notwithstanding
September 17, 1985

the very bold statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who said:

It is my role as Minister of National Health and Welfare to give the signals and take the initiatives which will strengthen the role of the family and make it more meaningful in our society.
Mr. Speaker, there are still not many of us women in the House of Commons, and there are not many of us either in the Government or in the Opposition, but I can assure you that there are thousands of women from poor and middle-income families in Canada who were waiting for this Government to keep its promise as concerns universality, especially for family allowances.

There are few women in this House, Mr. Speaker, too few on all sides of the House; but there are literally millions of women out there represented through myriad organizations which have looked to this Government to keep its promises on the issue of universality. They believed the Prime Minsiter when he stated in those oh-so-believable tones, "Universality is a sacred trust", just as the senior citizens believed the Prime Minisiter when he stated in Sherbrooke that senior citizens' pensions would not be touched. Yet, we see not only the Prime Minister but the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall)-all government representatives-standing in their places trying to justify to the Canadian people that these cut-backs on family allowances and on families who can least afford to pay can be justified in our fight against the deficit.
The Prime Minister did not talk about the deficit in the last federal campaign. In fact, the Prime Minister promised this House that he would not repay the deficit on the backs of our senior citizens, our children and our families. However, the Canadian people are asking themselves why this Government cannot find the money when it comes to a 3 per cent indexing of family allowances and when it comes to a 10 per cent tax on drugs-drugs which people in this country need to survive. I am talking about the over 2,000 drugs which are still taxed under the heinous illness provisions which were introduced in the Budget. People are still looking to the Government and to the Prime Minister to keep his word. Unfortunately, on this, the anniversary of the coming to power of the Prime Minister, as well as his cabinet Ministers, all we can say from this side of the House on behalf of the women of Canada is that the people have been betrayed. This Government has misled and duped the Canadian people. Member after Member on the government side of the House will stand up and say: "We cannot afford it. It was all the fault of those nasty Liberals." Unfortunately, that argument does not hold much water when we see that the Government has SI billion to bail out the banks because of the ineptitude of not only the Minister of State for Finance and, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), but the Prime Minister himself, who made the decision to bail out those banks to the tune of $1 billion of taxpayers' money. This Government has the nerve to tell the people of Canada:
Family Allowances Act
"We cannot afford to pay our families earning $15,000 a year."
There is another particularly sloppy or ridiculous provision in the Bill before us. Since I know my time is short today and that I will be continuing tomorrow, I would like to point out for those Government Members who doubtless have not had a chance to read the legislation that not only has the Minister of National Health and Welfare decided to implement cut-backs with respect to family allowances, which will hit out at families earning $15,000, $20,00 and $25,000 a year, but in a particularly curious clause which he has bootlegged into the Bill, he has suggested that he now be given the right to determine when a child is presumed dead. I refer to Clause 5 which amends Section 15.1 of the Act, in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is now suggesting that contrary to the formal legal procedure, which would have meant courts declaring presumption of death after a seven-year period, the Minister is suggesting that he be given that right and responsibility. Only the Conservative Government could have the arrogance to not only include a Bill which will give it the right to issue a certificate for presumption of death, but this same Minister has determined that he will be able to re-determine the life of the child after the certificate has been issued. If the Minister feels the child is dead, he can issue a presumption of death certificate specifying the date. If the date is wrong, he is empowering himself further to choose a second date of death. If, by some happenstance, it is determined that, in fact, the child is alive, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is empowering himself with the powers of Lazarus. He will be able to issue a certificate to the effect that the issuance of the presumption of death certificate was incorrect. This is carrying governmental caveat a little too far. I suggest to the Minister that before he attempts to bootleg in a whole new section in the Bill which was intended to deal specifically with budgetary matters, he should determine that organizations such as Justice for Children and Child Find Ontario Incorporated be given an opportunity to comment on what is a clear departure from present legal precedence and that it will not be accepted by this Party.
I hope that the Minister has a chance to respond to that point. I know that I will be continuing my remarks tomorrow. I look forward to a clarification from the Minister with respect to Lazarus.


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

September 17, 1985
Capital Punishment


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPECTING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario) moved: that Bill C-240, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to present this Bill in the House. I have conducted three surveys of my constituency and have found that between 85 per cent and 87 per cent of my constituents are in favour of the restoration of capital punishment. 1 remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in my riding there are approximately 5,000 police officers from Metropolitan Toronto and Durham, and their wives. 1 have been to the funerals of police officers from my riding. I have had hit home to me emotionally the trauma those families are under.
I would like to refer to one case of a young man in his twenties who pleaded with me before the 1979 election to take a stand on this issue. He told me all the reasons he was nervous about being a police officer. I went to his funeral. He died for the same reasons he told me he feared.
I call upon the House to reinstate capital punishment as an alternative to be available in cases of high treason and first degree murder. There is a certain provision in this Bill which states:
No person shall be convicted of first-degree murder upon the evidence of only one witness, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a particular material by evidence that implicates the accused.
To be perfectly clear, I wish to stress the fact that this Bill would allow the sentence of the death penalty as an alternative only in cases where proof is 100 per cent verifiable. What we are trying to avoid here is evidence which may not be factual, which may be construed as being a fact but as not being accurate.
I would like to explain why the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended to reinstate capital punishment. A free but orderly society is dependent upon the entrenchment of well-known and established standards for acceptable behaviour. Capital punishment is an affirmation by the community that it views murder with abhorrence. It is this statement of revulsion, echoed in subtle ways from many directions during an entire lifetime, which helps dissuade the potential murderer from his act.
Restoration of the death penality will be a clear indicator that society is prepared to defend itself against mass murderers, serial murderers and murderers who carry out particularly vicious and deliberately cold-blooded or sadistic killings. Capital punishment underlines, as nothing else can, that murder is a serious business. Abolitionists ask if the return of the death penalty will make Canada a better place. I suggest that if we
continue along as we are going, taking good care of our murderers, we will subsequently extend an invitation to murderers from certain states below the border to make Canada their place of hiding.
I have also been very involved, Mr. Speaker, with victims of violence. In this connection, I feel we look after our murderers far better than we look after the victims and the families of victims. This invitation we are putting forward will surely be accepted, as in the case of Mr. Ng, as a recent editorial in The Globe and Mail pointed out. If we do not do something, we will attract those kinds of people to Canada and will have no jurisdiction to remove them. Does Canada wish to become a haven for the worst of U.S. society? Will that make Canada a better place? Most certainly not, Mr. Speaker.
Public opinion polls, and I have mentioned my own, have shown that since the 1970s an overwhelming majority of Canadians, at least 70 per cent, are in favour of reinstating capital punishment. Following the will of the people is what democracy is all about. Rehabilitation has become the ideal toward which we strive to the point at which retribution is in fact ignored. While I appreciate that rehabilitation is appropriate in many cases, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are some crimes for which retribution must not be ignored. There are some acts, some crimes so terrible, so outrageous to public sensitivity that only the ultimate penalty will satisfy the need for rectification of the assault upon society.
I would like to address two of the major arguments used by abolitionists against capital punishment. They say that mistakes can be made. That is the one thing in framing this Bill that we were particularly careful about. Mistakes should not be made. The abolitionists state that people have wrongfully received the death penalty in Canada. This is not fact. They referred to Donald Marshall. He was charged on second degree murder so he was never subject to capital punishment.
The abolitionists also state that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Social scientists are actually divided on this issue. We could have a debate in this House for days, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think we could ever prove it one way or the other. The fact is that we will never know for certain how much of a deterrent capital punishment is or is not simply because we have no way in which to gather statistics on murders that never happened. The fact that the threat of capital punishment has not prevented some murders does not mean that it has not stopped others from happening.
I believe that it is our responsibility to take every precaution available to protect the lives of those who would become the innocent victims. Again, I speak on behalf of the victims who have been abused and who have not been taken care of. Hopefully, I will be presenting a Bill in this House on behalf of innocent victims.
In the case of premeditated murder, surely it can be assumed that the possible consequences of the Act are considered. It is also probable that the threat of the death penalty would discourage professional criminals for whom a stint in jail is an occupational hazard. Further, and in that connection, we have reviewed the situation of mandatory supervision. In
September 17, 1985

my own riding there have been murders committed by people out on mandatory supervision where the police force was not advised that those people had been realeased from jail. It is reasonable to assume that in seeking to avoid arrest, a criminal would be less likely to shoot a police officer if the result would be capital punishment. Common sense indicates that capital punishment must have some deterrent effect for the majority of human beings.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the morality in our society is in a sad state. Young people are committing crimes which they did not commit 30 years ago. I believe we have to deal with the most severe criminals first and that there should be a ripple effect down to the minor criminal who starts off on the streets. I have talked to policemen whose lives are frustrated by minor criminal offences. They do not want to put these people in jail but there are no laws to help those people to be rehabilitated. We have a serious problem in Canada and it is getting worse. All one has to do is look at the insurance statistics to find out how bad it is. The morality in our society is in a sad state and I feel that by so dealing with the most severe criminals, perhaps it might have an effect on the behaviour of some Canadians.
As 1 mentioned earlier, if a potential murderer has been conditioned mentally by the existence of the most extreme form of punishment to be aware of the very serious consequences of his crime, he may avoid the criminal act. He may just realize that it is not worth it. By reserving this drastic punishment for the most serious crime, the law would foster a special abhorrence of murder in the minds of the public and this in itself would be expected to have some deterrent effect.
Allow me to reiterate, Mr. Speaker. Capital punishment does deter by fear of execution but that is not the only way. It also signals the revulsion of the community toward the crime and trains society to naturally abhore the crime.
We also hear other arguments, Mr. Speaker, that society has failed murderers in some way. Perhaps so. However, what are the chances of rehabilitating someone who fires a shotgun at point blank range into the face of an innocent victim? The officer I mentioned, the one who's funeral I went to, that is precisely what happened to him. I believe society has failed to entrench the utmost abhorrence for the most drastic offences as a fundamental principle of its foundation. Put another way, I ask if we have not failed the innocent victims? The young people, police officers and prison wardens, have we looked after them properly?
We also hear, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of Canadians are uninformed on the issue and incapable of making a reasoned judgment. That is why the statistics are so out of line, it is claimed. Some have used this argument to avoid the wishes of those it concerns. As I said before, I represent a large population of police officers in my riding. The reason is that many Metropolitan Toronto policemen live in my riding because they do not want to work where they live.
Capital Punishment
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, statistics show that between 1961 and 1981, the Canadian homicide rate rose by 116 per cent. This figure is usually given from the date of abolition in 1976. I am giving it to the House from the date when capital punishment was last imposed in Canada.
I would like to point out that some pretty crude methods of capital punishment have been used in the past. Better methods have been developed and that is why I suggested the use of a drug which has been proven by use in the United States and is administered by needle. It is humane and certainly not a crude method as we have faced in the past.
To go back to the statistics, I fully admit that the correlation does not imply causation and, therefore, we cannot say with certainty that the abolition of the death penalty has led to the increase in the homicide rate. The principle remains that we as a society must reaffirm our belief that life is sacred and the taking of a life with not be done cheaply, without retribution. I stand before you in this House today on behalf of my constituents and many other Canadians who have written to me from across Canada, including many police officers and prison wardens, and ask that this Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to be given due consideration as it reflects the will of the people. 1 believe our Party is committed to bringing forward a Bill of this kind. I only ask that some of the thought which has gone into this Bill be brought to the attention of the committee. 1 realize we will have our opportunity but I have a responsibility to a large constituency of approximately 150,000 people, as well as a responsibility to the police officers who protect these people. I am certain that the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) is working to develop the Bill and bring it forward. I started my Bill as soon as the House reconvened in September, 1984, and I have now had my opportunity to bring it forward. I repeat that I would really appreciate the opportunity of having this Bill referred to the standing committee where it can be thoroughly studied and reviewed.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable regret and chagrin that I participate in this particular debate. At the outset I would like to state my position and state it clearly for the record. My constituents are well aware of the fact that I do not support capital punishment and that, as a parliamentarian, I intend to use every means conceivable to stop any effort by any Member of this House or the Government to restore capital punishment. I am opposed to capital punishment for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I am opposed because of my moral conviction and my attitude toward human life. In my view human life is sacred and regardless of how miserable a human life may be, regardless of what criminal act an individual commits, it is my firm belief that no person other than the Creator, no person and no state, should take the life of an individual.
Hon. Members are aware of my position with respect to abortion. I have stated in this House my unequivocal opposition to abortion because of the fact that human life is sacred and because I do not believe that any state should take the life of an individual. There are those Members opposite and others

September 17, 1985
Capital Punishment
who might suggest that I should be representing my constituents. I freely admit that a large majority of my constituents are in favour of capital punishment. There is no question about that and I am sure it is the same for all Members of this House. However, I do not feel bound by the views of my constituents on this particular issue and if I offend some because of the position I take, I apologize to them. However, I would like to quote Edmund Burke, speaking to the electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774. He said: "Your representative owes you not his industry only but his judgment and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." I am exercising my judgment, Mr. Speaker, and my commitment and belief in the position 1 take on this issue.
In 1976, when Parliament abolished capital punishment, we as a nation became civilized; we as a nation became moral; we as a nation said to our people and to the people of the world that it is wrong, barbaric and grotesque to take the life of another human being. That debate took place nine years ago and, yes, there have been those who have clamoured for the return of the death penalty over the past nine years. To its credit, Parliament has resisted and I am sure Hon. Members in this House who were present in 1976 will recall that debate and how close the vote was. It carried by a six or seven or eight vote margin. It was a difficult time for Members of Parliament. It was a difficult debate which went on for 95 or 96 hours. To its credit, this Parliament abolished capital punishment and it was thought at the time that it was abolished once and for all. However, much to the chagrin of not only Canadians, but the world, Canada is now reconsidering the issue. The Government has committed itself to a free vote. During the last election campaign it promised that it would have a debate in the House of Commons. To his credit, and that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and others, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is opposed to it. 1 ask why in God's name we should be debating this issue again here today. What is the justification?
In an explanatory note in this Bill it is indicated that:
The purpose of this Bill is to restore the death penalty for first degree murder and high treason, while substituting a more humane mode of execution for hanging.
What is humane about taking another life? There is no humane mode of killing another human being. It is easy, I suppose, for some Members to argue for the death penalty. I suggest that some are reading the polls and playing politics.


Mr. Crosby:: Not you.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member opposite says, not I. Indeed, not I. I am standing here speaking before this House and to my constituents, notwithstanding that my constituents, and the overwhelming majority of Canadians, are in favour of capital punishment. If political defeat is the result of the position I take on capital punishment, so be it, because I, as an individual, am not prepared to compromise some very basic principles. I cannot compromise my soul because of any public
opinion poll. There are those who are looking at the polls and those polls are dictating how they should vote on this particular matter. I ask those Members who look at the polls to sit back and search their souls and ask themselves whether they truly believe that the state should take another life. Hon. Members opposite nod and say yes. That is their right and prerogative. They can do it. They can call for capital punishment, but I simply ask those who are not as committed as the Hon. Member who has proposed this Bill and have not come to a definite conclusion with respect to this particular issue, to look at the facts and search their souls because this is an important issue. It is not important simply because Canadians say it is important, but because it deals with human life. It will undoubtedly be the most important decision that we parliamentarians make during this Parliament.
Why capital punishment? The Hon. Member has given some reasons. He has indicated that a great number of Canadians support capital punishment, but it is my respectful submission that a great many Canadians, including those in my constituency of York South-Weston, perhaps do not understand the ramifications and fully comprehend the fact that capital punishment is not a deterrent. Study after study has concluded that capital punishment is not a deterrent.
Before I get into the statistics to substantiate my submission that it is not a deterrent, I would like to quote a passage from an essay called "A Hanging" written by George Orwell in 1931 and set in Burma. I think it comes closer than anything else I have ever read in conveying what it means to execute, to kill, to murder a human being. Orwell writes:
It was about forty yards to the gallows. I watched the bare brown back of the prisoner marching in front of me. He walked clumsily with his bound arms, but quite steadily, with that bobbing gait of the Indian who never straightens his knees. At each step his muscles slid neatly into place, the lock of hair on his scalp danced up and down, his feet printed themselves on the wet gravel. And once, in spite of the men who gripped him by each shoulder, he stepped slightly aside to avoid a puddle on the path. It is curious, but till that moment I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide. This man was not dying, he was alive just as we were alive. All the organs of his body were working- bowels digesting food, skin renewing itself, nails growing, tissues forming-all toiling away in solemn foolery. His nails would still be growing when he stood on the drop, when he was falling through the air with a tenth of a second to live. His eyes saw the yellow gravel and the grey walls, and his brain still remembered, foresaw, reasoned-reasoned even about puddles. He and we were a party of men walking together, seeing, hearing, feeling, understanding the same world; and in two minutes, with a sudden snap, one of us would be gone-one mind less, one world less.
We have to ask ourselves what conceivable purpose capital punishment will serve. It is not a deterrent as I will try to show in my submission. It is an attempt by some to extract their pound of flesh, to extract their vengeance. It is simply state-sanctioned vengeance, retribution. Our criminal justice system simply cannot be based on vengeance and retribution; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. We are beyond that. That is barbaric, that is history, that is the mark of an uncivilized nation and of uncivilized people. We have gone beyond that. There must be some real justification for our criminal justice system. If Members opposite and others could prove to me and others that capital punishment is a deterrent, then I would.
September 17, 1985

suggest they might be standing on firmer ground. However, they cannot do that. Even Chief Ed Lunney of the Edmonton police force concedes the studies that say capital punishment is not a deterrent.
Canadian and American statistics show that capital punishment is not a deterrent. In 1975, the year before Parliament repealed the death sentence, there were 701 homicides, including murder, manslaughter and infanticide. In 1983, seven years after abolition, there were 682 homicides. The more important statistic is the rate of homicides per 100,000 population. In 1975, again, the year before capital punishment was abolished, Canada's homicide rate was 3.09 per 100,000. By 1983, it had fallen to 2.74. Is that evidence of capital punishment being a deterrent?
Those who argue that capital punishment is necessary to protect policemen are also without supporting evidence. In the five years before abolition, 19 policemen in Canada were murdered, compared to 18 in the five years after abolition. These are the facts.
If we look south of the border, again there are statistics that clearly indicate that capital punishment is not a deterrent. At present there are 38 states in the United States that have capital punishment on the books. Among western countries, only Ireland, Liechtenstein and 38 states of the United States retain capital punishment for the crime of murder. Britain abolished capital punishment in 1965. Since then, the British Parliament has reconsidered the question and, to the credit of British parliamentarians, they again said no to capital punishment. In 1981 the French Government abolished capital punishment. Now we in Canada, in this haven of safety-if I may say so-are considering bringing back capital punishment. It is a black mark on our country and it will be a dark day if this country ever decides to reinstate capital punishment.
Let me return to the statistics. As I said, in the United States, 38 states have the death penalty. The homicide rate in the United States is 8.3 compared to our figure of 2.7 homicides per 100,000 citizens. Where would Hon. Members rather live-in the United States or Canada? We have a safer country, even though we do not have the death penalty. Our rate is 2.74 compared to 8.3.
The Americans have not been reluctant to carry out executions since the Supreme Court of the United States decided that capital punishment was not cruel and unusual punishment. Three thousand nine hundred people have been executed in the United States since 1930. Some of those were Canadians.
One of the most interesting facts about capital punishment in the United States is that those states that have sentenced the most people to death and have actually carried out the most executions tend to be the states that have the worst murder records. Most of the worst rates are concentrated in the southern states where nearly two-thirds of all death row prisoners are held. Figures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation for 1983 show Louisiana and Texas tied for the worst
Capital Punishment
homicide rate in the country-14.2 for every 100,000 people. Both states have a death penalty and both use it. It is not a deterrent in those two states. Texas ranks third in the nation in the number of people executed since the FBI began collecting national statistics in 1930, with 298 executions. There were 367 executions in Georgia and 329 in New York.
The statistics go on and on. I would be pleased to share these statistics with Hon. Members and indeed anyone-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry but the period of 20 minutes is now over. Resuming debate.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are considering a Bill that proposes to reintroduce capital punishment for the offence of treason and first degree murder. I am certainly very sympathetic to the views of the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill and who expressed his very deep concern about the loss of life of one police officer in particular. I think we are all very sympathetic to the situation of police officers and prison officers who are the ones who risk their lives on our behalf and are amongst those arguing for a reintroduction of the death penalty.
However sympathetic I am with the intention of the Hon. Member and indeed of the police associations and correctional associations which advocate the return of capital punishment, I cannot be at all sympathetic with their concrete proposal that the reintroduction of the death penalty will give any additional safety to police officers, prison officers or any citizens as they go about their business.
It simply is not a fact that the death penalty deters. There has been abundant evidence about this in many studies. The United Nations has produced evidence of many countries over many years that have abolished capital punishment, reintroduced it and then changed the circumstances. It does not seem to be the case that capital punishment is any general deterrent against the offence of murder or any particular deterrent for those who must work with convicted persons or deal with them as police officers.
The death penalty was abolished in Canada and the murder rate actually declined after its abolition. One might even argue that citizens would be at greater risk with the reintroduction of the death penalty since its abolition has had some success. In any event, we are not a highly violent society. I believe that comparisons to the United States and the influence from the United States where the death penalty has been reintroduced give a very false picture.
Our murder rate is less than half that in the United States; fortunately, we are not nearly as violent a society here. Therefore, we should not be influenced by the much greater sense of panic and desperation felt by people in the United States in coping with the crime problems there.
If deterrent is not a logical argument in favour of capital punishment-which it really is not-what other reasons have been offered for the reintroduction of capital punishment? A number have been given, including the principle, "Eye for an
6722

September 17, 1985
Capital Punishment
eye, tooth for a tooth and life for a life". It is the idea that retribution is an honourable, proper and indeed just requirement. It is the argument that capital punishment is a religious principle and that there are reasons from our own religion to justify the reintroduction of capital punishment. Indeed, surveys tell us that people who hold a religious faith are more likely to be in favour of capital punishment than those who do not hold a religious faith. To one who does hold a religious faith, I find this a very shocking and disturbing fact. However, it is interesting to note that the churches themselves are becoming very active in the debate on capital punishment and coming out very strongly against the restoration of capital punishment as a matter of principle.
Let me cite some material prepared by the Interchurch Taskforce on Responsible Alternatives to the Death Penalty, produced by the Canadian Council of Churches which represents a very important cross-section of the churches in Canada. Let me quote from what they call "The Religious Viewpoint':
The continued abolition of capital punishment is officially supported by Catholic, Protestant and Jewish bodies, as well as by many organizations concerned with the justice system in Canada. Some Christians claim that the death penalty is needed to uphold the sanctity of human life: they rely on the Old Testament warrant, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed,-But Christ's teaching stresses mercy and reconciliation. When they brought him the woman taken in adultery (then a capital crime), Christ did not deny the penalty under the law but only said, "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone.4
That is a pretty clear teaching. The Viewpoint goes on:
Those who have experienced God's forgiving love must act on God's promise of power to redeem broken situations and people.-How can adding another broken body balance the scales of justice?
How, indeed? There is no way that capital punishment restores a life that has been taken and there is no abstract way in which this loss of life can be set aright by the taking of another life.
Let me quote again:
Violence as public policy only adds to the cycle of violence, vengeance, and destruction. We should never give up on a fellow human being. To love someone who has murdered is a demanding test of our faith. Since God "desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live", we should follow the divine example.
That is a very radical teaching, and perhaps it is one too radical for the Parliament of Canada. It is one on which I think all Christian people should reflect very seriously when they want to use the notion of divine retribution as a justification for the human penalty of capital punishment.
Let me quote also from the statement by the Archbishops and Bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada, which is my own denomination. This is a very strong statement against capital punishment. It reads:
We urge our people and Members of Parliament that they consider seriously the implications of re-introducing the death penalty and not give in to a hasty response-These implications include such things as: the impossibility of reversing the hanging where there has been a miscarriage of justice-
We do know that there are miscarriages of justice. It continues:
-the ignoring of evidence concerning the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent-
I think that has been aptly demonstrated. It continues:
-a belief that the murderer is beyond being changed by God's grace to be a creative member of society.
We are convinced that it is in the best interests of Canadian society as a whole that capital punishment not be re-introduced, but that as Christians we need to seek alternatives that recognize the infinite worth of the individual before God.
Mere incarceration without rehabilitation will not change the murderer. Reform of our correctional systems needs to become a priority of our Government.
I think that is putting it in a very whole context as to what the principles are and what our responsibilities ought to be. Let me make it very clear when I have been citing some Christian authorities on this I do not wish to suggest that the Old Testament examples should be taken, as they are very often used, as an unequivocal demand for human retribution as a consequence of breaking the law.
In the Old Testament times capital punishment was certainly permitted and required for a very large number of offences, but there was still a very important array of conditions that limited the use of capital punishment. The standard of proof required for conviction amounted to certainty. It was required that there be more than two adult male witnesses, a much more severe requirement for evidence than in any of our laws or what is in the Bill before us today.
Further, the Mosaic law had, as the penalty for perjury, execution itself, a very severe punishment for anyone who would give false evidence to convict a person, a much stronger provision against perjury to ensure that any evidence given in a murder case would be correct evidence. In difficult cases, the verdict was deferred to judicial experts who had to go to a different venue to reconsider the matter. In short, a very important number of conditions that would considerably have qualified the imposition of capital punishment in any case. Therefore, when people simply quote all the available opportunities for the use of capital punishment in the Old Testament, they must consider that the possibility of their being used would have been very, very severely constrained. How many instances would there really be of multiple witnesses, eye witnesses, adult males who gave evidence in the proper fashion and all of the proceedings were correctly gone through?
There are other examples one can site. Quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy:
To me belong vengeance and recompense.
And from Leviticus:
You shall not take vengeance.
There are all kinds of instances that we are told it is not necessary or proper for human persons to exact human vengeance. The first murderer appearing in the Old Testament, Cain, was not executed. His life was protected. So much for a very bloodthirsty rendition of the Old Testament as a good justification for the reinstatement of capital punishment.
September 17, 1985

Let us examine some of the provisos that have been proposed in the Bill before us today. It is the Hon. Member's intention that there be very selective use and careful measures taken. He referred to 100 per cent reliability. I would respectfully suggest that it is not possible to have 100 per cent reliability. His Bill said there would have to be more than one witness or if one witness, that there be corroborating material evidence. I do not quite know what he means by this witness. Is it going to be an actual eye witness to the murder? I wonder how many cases would be covered. We also know about eye witnesses. There have been instances of mistakes being made even with eye witnesses. It seems unlikely, but it has happened. We have instances of people being hanged or otherwise executed who have been subsequently found not to have committed the murder in question.
There is even the matter of having material corroborating evidence, and I think of a recent British case where there was a handful of hair in the victim's hand. Many years later it was found it could not have been hair from the convicted person because new scientific tests had been developed which made that identification possible. At the time of the trial, the material evidence was extremely convincing that the person convicted was the murderer. It sounds all very good in theory to talk about material corroborating evidence and eye witnesses, but we do know that mistakes will be made and there is no way of having an absolutely safe system.
I want to get a little more broadly into the issue of violence. I suggest that capital punishment is not going to help deter the offence of murder or treason. We do have too much violence in our society, even if our society is not as violent as that in the United States and in many other countries. Naturally we could all like to see a reduction in violence.
I wonder why we are focusing so much on murder and not spending our time more constructively in looking at other causes of violence and other measures which this Parliament could be taking. I refer to the issue of violent pornography on which we have had an enormous amount of stalling. Proposals have been made. I have been active in the struggle over a number of years. This Parliament is very slow to act. Here is an opportunity where we could change the context, change the reality in which people do commit murder. We have all kinds of practical things we could do about such things as husbands who beat their wives and children. There are far more things to be done by way of prevention, such as counselling services, group discussions, all kinds of practical measures to develop a spirit of co-operation and non-violent solutions to problems. It would be far more useful for us to be discussing these measures which possibly could have some practical impact and could actually reduce the level of violence in society.
Far more people are killed unnecessarily by other means. For example, roughly 5,000 people per year are killed in traffic accidents, and roughly half of these deaths is the responsibility of drunk drivers. That is far more than the murder rate. However, practical measures to reduce the number of drunk
Capital Punishment
drivers and practical measures to enforce the laws in a stricter fashion are shunted aside; they do not seem to be so important. Also a large number of people die in industrial accidents as a result of negligence. People debate whether it is criminal negligence or non-criminal negligence, but it certainly is very wrong. They are violent, preventable deaths. They occur in much larger numbers than murder by one person in a deliberate fashion of another. Also there are large numbers of deaths of people as a result of exposure to low levels of radiation. This is not dramatic; it happens over time. It is not someone shooting or knifing someone else, yet the number of deaths caused in this fashion is very much greater. Also I could refer to the number of fires and deaths which are caused inadvertently by people who are careless smokers. Again the number is very large and many of these instances are preventable.
I do not think we as a society are helpless or that we have to accept a large number of unfortunate but "nothing can be done about it" deaths. We could be acting constructively to reduce many other forms of violence in society.
In conclusion, I suggest that capital punishment is a false solution to a problem. We are spending our time debating capital punishment, a relatively modest problem within the context of the world and within the context of other preventable causes of death in society. We are taking time away from much more practical activity which could be socially much more beneficial.


Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: I would like to comment today on Bill C-240 sponsored by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).
Many of us have had an opportunity to speak to this topic during discussions in the House on the reinstatement of provisions relating to capital punishment. The problem is a very complex one. It raises questions about our personal convictions and philosophy, our concepts of justice and of what constitutes fair and equitable punishment for certain crimes.
However, although it may be difficult to avoid getting involved in philosophical considerations, nevertheless, it may be useful to aim for a more objective assessment of the issue.
Mr. Speaker, there are several subjects that can provide the neutral terrain favourable to the kind of discussion we wish to undertake. Some of these have already been suggested by a number of my colleagues in this House. Today, I would like to talk about international conventions.
At the international level, there has been for several years a growing concern for humanizing penal justice. The United Nations, for instance, has been making a sustained effort to obtain fair treatment for prisoners and inmates and to prevent abuse in the penitentiary system. As an example of these efforts I would like to quote certain provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: everyone has the right to be presumed innocent "until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary

September 17, 1985
Capital Punishment
for his defence", or for instance, "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Mr. Speaker, there is also the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whose aim is to ensure recognition, respect and protection of our fundamental rights and dignity, and especially of persons who are deprived of their freedom. Finally, I would like to mention other international agreements such as the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Draft Resolution prepared by the Committee on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, which concerns guarantees for the protection of the rights of a person subject to the death penalty, both aimed at protecting the rights and dignity of prisoners and persons who have been convicted.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that in Canada as in other countries, our national law takes precedence. Thus, draft legislation that would not be in line with internationally recognized aims would not as a result become illegal. However, by signing international conventions or agreements, Canada has expressed its willingness to apply these principles and to consider them when preparing and implementing its own legislation. For instance, when interpreting our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we could draw on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, the purpose of the ratification by Canada of an international convention or covenant is to make their provisions binding on the federal and provincial governments vis-a-vis other signatory countries. Canada, for instance, ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and any contravention by Canada of the provisions of this covenant would be perceived as a violation of its international obligations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Canada is bound by these international conventions and agreements, at least to a certain extent. We must take them into account in our legislation. And so, when we are discussing the reinstatement of capital punishment, we must take into consideration the various agreements to which we have given our support in the past. Unfortunately, the Bill before the House today does not entirely conform to these agreements and conventions.
The first point I want to make in analyzing Bill C-240 concerns procedural guarantees. In other words, the procedural rules that are to protect the rights of the accused.
Mr. Speaker, international agreements put a great deal of emphasis on the right of everyone to adequate representation before the courts. By adequate representation we mean the right to have the necessary time to prepare a good defence as well as the right to be represented by an attorney of one's own choice. A lot has also been said about the right to appeal to a higher court in cases where a sentence has been handed down. In the case of a death sentence, the latest international position which Canada is committed to consider as a result of the Sixth
United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders provides that the appeal is automatic and mandatory. In cases where the accused is punishable by death, international agreements contain provisions concerning the burden of proof. A draft resolution of the Committee on the Prevention of Crime and the Prevention of Criminality, which Canada has endorsed, recommends that the death sentence be carried out, and I quote:
"only when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the person accused of a crime is guilty, on the basis of clear and convincing evidence which does not leave room for any other interpretation of the facts."
Finally, still with respect to procedural guarantees, the international agreements also emphasize clemency and commutation of sentence. Certain people acknowledge that any person sentenced to death has the right to ask for commutation or to petition for mercy on his or her own behalf.
Does Bill C-240 contain all the guarantees I have just mentioned? For starters, Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not have any provision concerning adequate representation for the accused before the courts. Although this principle is spelt out in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not only does it need to be stressed but as well the participation of an attorney in the defence of any person accused of a crime punishable by death ought to be made mandatory. In such a case the seriousness of the punishment fully warrants the provision of clearly expressed guarantees just so there will be no doubt that the accused has the best defence available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to follow up on a question I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) shortly after his Shamrock Summit meeting with President Reagan in March.
You will recall that at that time when the Prime Minister became so famous for his rendition of When Irish Eyes are Smiling that I suggested in the House that if we did not see more action on acid rain than we had coming out of the Shamrock Summit, at the same time next year we could all join the Prime Minister in a chorus of Raindrops Keep Falling
September 17, 1985

on my Head, referring of course to the continuing problem of acid rain. I might also suggest that another appropriate tune for what has been going on over so many years with respect to acid rain would be the song that was a hit a number of years ago called Killing Me Softly With His Song.
What is happening here and what is happening to our lakes in Canada has everything to do with the quiet way in which the life in many of our lakes and streams is being extinguished over the course of time by the continuing inaction on the part of Governments with respect to acid rain. I think the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said it very well a couple of days ago, that politicians have essentially been asleep at the switch.
I think it is fair to say also that not all politicians have been asleep at the switch and there have been voices at the political as well as at the scientific level over the years which have called upon Governments to recognize that this was a problem, and to act, and that those voices have gone largely unheeded. Now it appears that indeed attention may be paid to them, and that is a good sign.
What has happened since I asked that question on March 19? A number of things have happened. Here in the House we have formed a special committee on acid rain on which I have the honour to serve as the New Democratic Party Member. That committee recently had the opportunity to meet in the Muskoka area with the two special envoys on acid rain, the former Premier of Ontario, Mr. William Davis, who is the special envoy of the Prime Minister and Mr. Drew Lewis, the special envoy of President Reagan with respect to acid rain. We had the opportunity to meet with those two gentleman in Muskoka for a couple of hours to discuss their work and the ways in which we might co-operate on the problem of acid rain and I must say, as one who was initially cynical and remains to a degree cynical about the envoy process I was nevertheless encouraged by what Mr. Lewis had to say about the direction he thought his report would be going and about the kind of advice he might be giving to the President with respect to acid rain. I was particularly encouraged that there did not seem to be any debate any longer, at least in Mr. Lewis's own mind, about there being a problem and about the need for action. If that could become an incontestable political fact in in the United States, that would be a victory for us and I hope that sort of thing will be forthcoming.
With respect to the Canadian envoy, Mr. Davis, my over-all impression was that he was far too relaxed about the subject and not as intense or as passionate about the need for action as I would like to have seen. That may be a question of style, it is too early to judge, and I hope that the former Premier will prove me wrong when he makes his report.
I am, however, concerned about reports which came out the day after the special committee met with Mr. Lewis and Mr. Davis, reports having to do with the budget which Mr. Davis received for his acid rain work. There was a report to the effect that the over-all cost of Mr. Davis' appointment would be in
Adjournment Debate
the neighbourhood of $500,000 and that, quite understandably, a great deal of that money would have to do with travel and accommodation. However, a great deal was also going toward his own personal staff, which is handling not just work pursuant to his responsibilities as Special Envoy for Acid Rain, but also his own personal business having to do with the variety of corporations on whose boards he serves. I am concerned about this.
I know that the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain is also concerned about it because they do not want to see the whole issue of acid rain dragged down to the level of those arguments which go on about the nature of political patronage in this country. They certainly do not want Mr. Davis to be seen as a patronage appointment. I want to register their concern and my concern to the Government, and through the Government to Mr. Davis, that when he brings down his report, in every way possible it should be of a quality which will justify the money spent, so that we will know when it comes down that some of the concerns I have expressed before, and which others have expessed, about Mr. Davis' appointment will be proven wrong. We would be glad to be wrong on this matter, Mr. Speker. I just hope that the Government is taking every step now to ensure, with respect to the report on Mr. Davis' budget, that the money being spent in the name of acid rain is, in fact, being spent on that very issue.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), I think the Hon. Member ended with a somewhat regrettable tone. I will deal with that in a moment. For now, I would like to come to the substance of his representations.
It has been a long time, indeed, since he first asked the question and a great many events have taken place in the interim. I appreciate his mentioning the fact that our current Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) has indicated the high priorities acid rain has with this Government. 1 think this has been done with honesty in terms of how actions have not been taken over a long period of time by governments and politicians in the past in spite of the fact that there are some who have had a keen sense of awareness of the problem.
The issue boils down to identifying for the record several points which I believe are important. First, in February of 1985 a commitment between the federal Government and the provincial Governments for the apportionment of deposition in each area of Canada was gained so that our desired level of 20 kilograms per hectare per year could be reached. We then followed that up with a number of specific actions, including the sub-committee reinstatement and actual funds which were put toward the cost of control in Canada and so on. We have been doing this work in Canada. In fact, we have been seen to be doing our homework.
We were left with the serious problem which has been in existence ever since 1979 when the first memorandum of intent was signed with the United States. We have had, in fact, an impasse which could not be overcome. That impasse had to be dealt with in some way. I think that we were fortunate to

September 17, 1985
Adjournment Debate
have been able to provide a break, if you like, in what seemed to be a firm boundary which had been drawn around the issue from Canada's point of view and from the point of view of the United States. Through the appointments of Mr. Lewis and Mr. Davis, I think we have a serious opportunity to see that impasse broken down. I know the Hon. Member was pleased, as were we, to see that Mr. Lewis was thinking seriously of making specific recommendations, not only in terms of abatement control now, but in terms of dealing with the whole issue on a long-term basis so that we can accomplish the entire chore which we set out to accomplish.
I have to take some exception to the allusions which have been made, not only in the newspaper article, but also here in the House of Commons, insofar as Mr. Davis is concerned. We in Canada had at the time that Mr. Davis was appointed a need for someone of his stature, his experience and, in fact, someone in whom the United States would have confidence, to carry the ball for us at that level. Mr. Davis happened to be available. I cannot account directly, Mr. Speaker, for the proportion of finances Mr. Davis has used and where they fall in terms of travel, office expenses and so on. I would have to challenge the Hon. Member to tell me if he has never had his secretary make a personal call for him. I believe the Canadian public should know-and in most ways do know-that not only is the job itself so serious and important that the actual amount spent by the envoys is very small indeed in comparison, but that both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Davis are working for $1 dollar a year. I do not know how many Members of Parliament would do that.
There are things which have to go on in the meantime. Life goes on for people who are dedicating themselves; to the extent of energy and effort which both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Davis have put into this effort. If there were calls made on behalf of Mr. Davis for the scheduling of other things, I really wonder whether the Hon. Member thinks that that is a serious affront to the sense of propriety we would all like to have. Unless the Hon. Member and other members of the press want to continue to try to raise the issue from this point of view, I do not believe it in any way jeopardizes the respect which the Americans will have for the efforts of Mr. Davis and the respect which we all should have for the contribution he is making on behalf of Canada in trying to come to firm grips with the acid rain problem.


SHIPBUILDING-HALIFAX INDUSTRIES LIMITED. (B) GOVERNMENT PLANS
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, on June 27 I pressed the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to take action to ensure that the Canadian shipbuilding industry might again experience prosperity. The immediate focus of my question was the threat of bankruptcy facing Halifax Industries Limited, a matter about which some action was eventually taken. However, I noted the plight of the shipbuilding industry generally.
This is an industry which is in distress and which is baffled by the failure of the Government to act on promises made during the last election campaign to create a more viable and prosperous Canadian shipbuilding industry. The Minister said that he did not plan to let months and months pass before doing something. Today it is 10 days short of three months since he gave that response and we are still awaiting his announcement of measures to create a prosperous shipbuilding industry.
The last days have produced mixed signals for the industry. Ontario shipyard operators and workers, who appreciate the recent decision of the Department of National Defence to allow them to share in refitting work on Canada's aging naval vessels, are distressed to think that the Department may change its mind on this issue. In my own riding, Port Arthur shipbuilding, which is primarily involved in repair work, is one of the yards very concerned about the possibility of the Department going back on that recent decision.
The Government's decision last week to order the construction of the Polar Class 8 icebreaker for year-round service in the Arctic, on the other hand, will create a significant amount of work, possibly in more than one yard. However, the decision was in response to Canadian sovereignty considerations rather than reflective of any developing industrial strategy, or at least there has been no evidence to suggest that it was not primarily those sovereignty considerations which guided the Government.
I would suggest that as the Government continues to consider this matter and, hopefully, comes to an early decision, the possibility that an industrial strategy might be initiated by Government construction is a subject which should be immediately before the Ministers involved. The Canadian patrol frigate program for our navy, the construction of icebreakers of various sorts, the construction of ferries for CN Marine in particular, provide examples of construction which the Government directly or through corporations can carry on. By doing that on a reasonable schedule the Government could ensure that yards are kept at work and that technical capacity in the form of computer assisted design and manufacturing is built into our yards. By keeping the yards at work we could ensure that we have the necessary shipbuilding capacity for the future.
I would suggest that an important part of that approach needs to be the ship construction for Maritime Command. As we realize more and more the state of our navy, it becomes obvious there are many vessels to replace. That can certainly be a part of such a program.
However, the shipbuilders are anxious that their business not be based solely on Government orders. I quite appreciate their desire for a large volume of commercial construction. 1 point particularly to that as an area where the Government needs to be far more active. There are a variety of areas in which such construction will be needed. There are the inland fleets, particularly on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes.
September 17, 1985

Offshore we have the fishing fleets and offshore drilling and supply, all of which is work that should be carried on by vessels constructed in Canada. Beyond that there is the larger question of whether or not Canadians should begin again the development of a deepsea shipping fleet. Having those vessels built in Canada would mean more work for our shipyards.
Now, I do not think I need to make arguments this afternoon about the economic value of such a program as one contemplates the decline in Government revenues which has been experienced and the cost of such programs as unemployment insurance. We have to consider carefully the way in which employment has fallen off in shipbuilding over the past 10 years, so one can appreciate the economic necessity for these things. However, I do not think I need to make those arguments at any length in the very few moments that I have because the Progressive Conservative Party in years past has recognized that.
The 1979 program of the Party called for the gradual development of a Canadian deepsea fleet. It called for the development of tax policies to permit pre-tax dollars to be spent on vessel replacement and to make available low interest loans to Canadian shipbuilders. It called for the restriction of Canadian waters, after 1985, north of 60, to Canadian designed and constructed vessels for all extraction and shipment of Canada's Arctic resources. On several other points they clearly recognize the needs of the industry. In 1984, the Party program again called for a number of actions designed to create a prosperous industry.
The shocking and quite incredible fact is that on this day, one year after the Government was sworn in, with a fiscal and economic statement delivered and a Budget passed, there has not been any action. It is not surprising that a Government Member was compelled to say to his constituents that the impact of the federal Budget on the shipbuilding industry in Canada was disastrous, to say the least. It is not surprising that the President of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association should say that the P.C. record in recent years as far as shipbuilding goes is perfidious. These are incredibly strong words, but the sad fact is that the Liberals during the 1980s ran the industry towards disaster. However, a year has passed and there has yet been no clear cut plan laid out and no evidence that this Conservative Government intends to change direction and move the industry towards the viability and prosperity that it promised the people of Canada last summer.


Mrs. Monique  Bernatchez-Tardif@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion: Mr. Speaker, I would like in the first place to comment on the Hon. Member's contributions on the subject of a policy on changes in Canadian shipyards. To take up his question, yes, there is a study underway, as the Minister stated in the House last Spring, a study of the overall question, and as soon as there are discussions to be had with members in this House and announcements to be made, I am sure the Minister of Regional Indus-
Adjournment Debate
trial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) will be pleased to so advise the House.
However, I would like to comment on the example put forth by the Hon. Member to introduce his question, namely the Halifax shipyards.
I would like to remind him of what happened under this special project. On September 12, the Minister of Development for Nova Scotia announced that a group of prominent Halifax businessmen had purchased HIL. The consortium, led by a former President of St. John's Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Ltd. will take over management of HIL as of October 1985 and will become its owners as of January 1, 1986. The consortium will assume the provincial government's liability and invest an additional $1 million in capital.
Through various industry assistance programs the federal Government has injected some $49.6 million into the company since 1980. In addition, the contracts related to the three Coast Guard vessels currently being worked on at HIL have been renegotiated to permit the yard to complete this work. The three existing federal Government contracts will be completed at HIL, thereby providing continuing employment at approximately current levels for some months.


AGRICULTURE-WESTERN DROUGHT-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. (B) REQUEST FOR DIRECT PAYMENTS TO FARMERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on September 10, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) when he was going to make financial assistance available to the farmers in western Canada who have lost so much through the drought this year. For the last couple of weeks we have been debating a billion dollar disaster caused by this Government in the Canadian Commercial Bank. However, Mr. Speaker, there is an even bigger disaster in western Canada, the drought which has affected millions of acres of land at an estimated cost of $3 billion. In Saskatchewan alone over 30,000 farms were affected by this drought. Over 14 million acres of farmland have been devastated.
After prodding by the provincial government, the federal Government moved to provide assistance to the livestock industry, but it is still procrastinating on a decision with regard to the grain sector. The situation is desperate. There have been many meetings at which hundreds and hundreds of people have pleaded with the federal Government to take action. Fourteen hundred people attended a meeting in Ben-gough; 200 farm women attended another meeting there. At a meeting in Swift Current 500 people petitioned the Premier of Saskatchewan who was unwilling to meet the people who are facing this disaster. Other meetings were held in Ponteix, Kayville, and Climax where people called upon the Government for action. However, there is no action forthcoming.
This is a disaster of biblical proportions, Mr. Speaker, and the Government should be moving on it. Instead, we see

September 17, 1985
Adjournment Debate
procrastination by the Minister of Agriculture who says that he has a committee which is working on this problem, but he cannot get around to making a recommendation for action. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is calling for action. They have identified this as one of the most serious climatic disasters in the history of the province and are calling on the Government to provide a massive $500 million dollar drought aid package.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), with what appeared to be only a weekend's notice, were able to commit $1 billion to the Canadian Commercial Bank depositors. Surely after five to seven weeks, the Government can make a commitment to the farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and other area of the West that have been devastated by this disaster. If that decision is not made, the situation will continue and farmers will be driven to welfare and uncertainty. I want to emphasize the urgency of this matter. The Government should stop procrastinating. It is also important that the Government make the payment directly to the farmers.
With respect to assistance for livestock producers, the province announced a program, saying that it would go to Ottawa to obtain more assistance. The federal Government, with a flourish, announced its program and indicated that the one program was supplementary to the other. In fact, the province grabbed the federal assistance so that the individual livestock producers ended up with nothing more than the provincial help. The Government should act soon and I hope that whatever form that assistance takes it will make the payment directly to the farmer so that the viability of this industry can be preserved. It is a matter of national urgency.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question put by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I am sure he knows that we have spent the summer attending many meetings in the areas he has mentioned which have been devastated by drought. I want to assure him and the House that the Government has taken this issue very seriously.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) went to the Prairies and met the farmers in several areas, along with the Agriculture Ministers of Saskatchewan and Alberta. Subsequent to
that meeting, the Government responded quickly with respect to livestock in Phase 1 of the task force report. This amounted to some $48 million to the farmers to maintain their livestock herds.
The Hon. Member specifically mentioned the cost-sharing arrangement. He certainly should know that the arrangements between the province and the federal Government was cost sharing and the federal Government's commitment was $30 per head to the livestock producers. He must also understand that these agreements must be with all of the provinces on a fair basis and on a cost sharing arrangement.
With regard to Phase 2, any special assistance will be in addition to the crop insurance payments to Prairie producers, which are expected to total $500 million this year. The committee is now hard at work reviewing assistance requirements for crop damage. The full damage has not yet been assessed and, of course, it cannot be fully assessed until the crops are in. It would be irresponsible of the Government to prematurely put in place an assistance program for crop damage that may or may not be adequate to respond to the need. However, I can assure this House, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, that the committee will be in a position to make suggestions to the Minister just as soon as all the facts are on the table. I can also give the assurance that this Government will act quickly and responsibly once those recommendations have been received.
I also want to assure this House and the farmers of western Canada that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been very concerned and asked me to report on a daily basis to him as to the seriousness of the drought. I am sure the farmers are very thankful for the type of consideration that has been given by this Government. I know in speaking to many of the livestock producers that they have been very pleased with the response which this Government has given.


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 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 18, 1985