1985-09-24

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of State for Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer):
That, in relation to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the time has come to have a vote on Bill C-70, and that is why this motion is before the House. For many years Members of Parliament have argued that when a Budget is introduced in the House of Commons and is passed after six days of full debate, the Bills which flow from it should also be passed after a reasonable period of time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That position has been taken by the very people who are now exercising their lungs and not their heads. The point is that this budget provision has been approved by the House, and it is time to get on with its examination in committee.
One might even say that with a majority of 211 seats, even more consideration should be given to the Opposition. That would be a valid observation, if the Opposition were responsible. However, opposition Members have shown very clearly on the record that they have no intention of being either responsible or co-operative or that they do not want to make the House work. For example, the Liberal spokesman for social policy is quoted in an article which appeared in la presse on September 11 as saying that he intended to hold up the House to the end of this calendar year on this Bill. That is not responsible opposition. In his very first statement in the debate on this Bill, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said: "Mr. Speaker, it will not be easy to say something novel
in this debate". I am not quite sure whether that statement referred to the quality of his speech or to whether he had anything to say. However, I will accept either argument from him.
I think the most significant statement was made yesterday by the NDP House Leader. If we look at yesterday's Hansard, we find that that comment is missing. I was here when he said it, as was the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Dick). However, it is quite clear in the "blues" and it is quite clear in my recollection and in the recollection of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council and other Members who were here at the time. Although it does not appear in Hansard, I will quote it from the "blues":
You can applaud, Jake, but you will get nothing through from now until Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupt the Minister, with respect, to remind him of the citations which indicate that quotations from Hansard are appropriate but that quotations from the "blues" are not.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that observation. I thought I might be corrected, but I notice that while NDP Members might not like the method, they have not denied the words.


Mr. Blaikie:: We have more respect for Parliament than to debate the "blues".


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: When we look at editorial comment on the issue, it is also very clear that the time has come to vote on this Bill. For example, I quote in part an editorial which appeared in The Globe and Mail on September 18:
And the Liberals, who fathered so many of the imperfections and irrationalities of the present system, remain creatures of their past. The Tories have cause ... to lead-
In addition, I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in The Toronto Star, a newspaper which is known to support our policies from time to time. In part the September 20, 1985 editorial reads:
The intent of the reforms is to get more bang for the taxpayer's buck by giving more to those who need it most and less to the rest. That's a good idea at any time; it's a particularly good idea now when the economy is sluggish and government revenues aren't growing very fast and when there's a S34 billion federal deficit.
Their argument is that we have not gone far enough and that we should go further; that is their criticism of the Government, rather than what we are doing. Also I refer to an article which appeared in The Chronicle Herald of Halifax, which reads:

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation
Family allowance has been deindexed before, fully in 1976 and partly, in accordance with six and five, in 1982. This tinkering was mostly done by the Liberals, who would now deny anyone else the chance to make the system work better.
The evidence is in. The evidence is in, on the floor of the House of Commons. The evidence is in, in that the Budget has been passed. The evidence is in, in that the Budget had a six-day debate. The evidence is in from editorial comment. More than anything else, the evidence is in from their own mouths.
The people of Canada voted for change on September 4, 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They voted for a Government that would act, and we are acting. Mr. Speaker, I say to them, they can shout, they can dance, they can be concerned, they can do what they will but the Liberals know that they were the ones who fully deindexed at one point, in 1982, on the basis of the six and five. They also know that from their record they stand condemned and should say very little about this.
I have a little more patience with the NDP, although only a little more. That is because they have the ability and the right of impunity to say whatever they will, knowing that, in the first place the Canadian people will never give them the responsibility to carry out that which they say they will do. So I give them a little bit of time and I give them also a little bit of respect because they have not had an opportunity to do what the Liberals did.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the example I would give regarding the motion is the mother of Parliament itself. Many people in this House have sat on parliamentary reform. All of us, including the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), have argued in part that we should follow the British system. That is, that Government should have the right, after it has brought in a Throne Speech, after it has brought in a Budget, after it has brought in its legislative priorities and plans, within a period of time to say these are the Bills we will debate, this is the period of time we will give. There is a general agreement in the mother of Parliaments that that is the approach. Mr. Speaker, that is what he and others have been recommending in the last parliamentary reform package. That is what has been recommended time after time in the years we have been here, and I say to the Opposition, oppose if you have a better idea. Don't oppose without any reason, or without any rationale or without any idea whatsoever as to how long you want to keep going.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is time that the Canadian people had the right to take a very clear look at this House, and vote through their representatives. I suggest that that vote take place immediately.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is really deplorable and disappointing-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member. The only point I want to make, 1 said that it was not in Hansard. We have double checked and find at page 6866 that it is not only in Hansard but obviously-


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, it is really deplorable and disappointing that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), after four days of debate, is doing the "dirty work" the Prime Minister has asked him to do, in other words, gagging the Opposition and presenting a motion of closure.
Mr. Speaker, after four days, this debate has only just started. The Government has not told us why it is in such a hurry to adopt a Bill that will not become effective until January 1.
The Government has not answered our questions. Why did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare not transfer the $15 million they are going to squeeze out of families with children in 1985-86 and the $40 million in 1986-87 to the child tax credit, by increasing the child tax credit and raising the cut-off point for families with modest and low incomes? Mr. Speaker, the Government has failed to answer that question. Why is it trying to gloss over the cuts in family allowance increases starting in 1986, when everybody knows that family allowance payments benefit poor families and families on modest and low incomes, since these payments are taxable? Nor has the Minister of National Health and Welfare told us why he is going to wait until 1987 to reduce the Child Tax Exemption, a measure that benefits those with higher incomes.
If we refer to the Blue Book signed by the previous speaker, Mr. Epp-I think it was Mr. Epp-and if we look at the table on page 17 under Child Tax Exemption, we see that families whose incomes are less than $10,000 receive no money at all under the Child Tax Exemption; families whose incomes are less than $20,000 receive a tax exemption of $203; but families with an income of $80,000 receive $363.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has failed to answer the question. It does not want this matter to be discussed. I can see why the Prime Minister is ashamed of his Bill. I can see why the Prime Minister wants to rush through the House a piece of legislation that is going to hurt families with modest and low incomes.
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I met a number of mothers, and I think many Hon. Members will remember what these
September 24, 1985

mothers told me and what my mother used to say. Children used to ask their parents, and many Members will remember such moments, for $5 or $10 to buy school supplies, or a boy might want to buy a hockey stick or a pair of skates and a girl a pair of boots, and their mothers would say: Wait until the middle of the month when I get my family allowance cheque. Even today, Mr. Speaker, I meet families in the riding of Rosemont, a Conservative riding, in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, also a Conservative riding, in the riding of Gamelin which is also a Conservative riding ... Even today, mothers tell us it is often very humiliating when they have to ask the teacher whether they can put off paying for some school activity for a week or two, until the family allowance cheque arrives.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Prime Minister, who was not brought up in a rich family ... I can understand people who were raised in a rich family, where the family allowance cheque was not important. However, for the vast majority of families in Quebec, the family allowance cheque was often the only budget that the mothers administered, because the father kept all the money. Mr. Speaker, very often . . . Some Hon. Members will remember, for instance those from Quebec, that when they were little, they got a pair of winter boots because their mother could count on her family allowance cheque. Very often, girls were able to take part in activities like the majorettes as soon as their mothers got their family allowance cheques, Mr. Speaker. And they used to have large families in Quebec, and some of those families had food on the table thanks to their family allowance cheque!
I suppose the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) is going to say: $4 a month is peanuts. Mr. Speaker, when families do not have enough money to start with, it is not peanuts. How can anyone understand why the Government wants to squeeze $55 million out of families with low incomes? The Government could have done what all the agencies recommended, and that was to reduce the tax exemption which benefits the rich and increase the tax credit as much as possible, and thus give families on modest and low incomes a bit more. How are people going to believe that the Government had no trouble finding $1.2 billion to help companies and individuals with bank deposits of over $60,000? These people knew the risks they were taking, Mr. Speaker. Why are all those other taxpayers, all those families going to have to pay for the mistakes made by this Government?
Mr. Speaker, I think it is unconscionable that after only four days of debate, the Government should decide to use closure. I can assure the Government that although it may be able to manipulate the proceedings and try to gag the Opposition here in the House, and I can also assure the Minister of social injustice of Canada that he will not be able to gag the Opposition in the streets. There will be a meeting tomorrow in Montreal. Tomorrow, Quebec families are going to start organizing in all ridings, and the Prime Minister will not be
Time Allocation
able to manipulate and gag these people. The debate will shift to the streets, to all kitchens and to the offices of Members, and the social injustice minister will always have in mind the shamelessness he displayed this morning, he who under normal circumstances, like all previous Ministers of National Health and Welfare, Liberals and Tories alike, ought to stand up in the House to defend the interests of poor families and elderly Canadians. For the first time in Canada's history a Minister of National Health and Welfare acts as a hatchet man against families.
Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had the courage to resign. Considering his pitiful performance in the debate on deindexation of old age security pensions and his failure to speak up against taxes on prescription drugs and additional levies on families with children, the Minister of National Health and Welfare should have the courage to tender his resignation and ask for another portfolio. Mrs. Begin would have never put up with that, she would have resigned rather than do the dirty work of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The social injustice minister can be satisfied with himself, his $40,000 and his driver. He has it made and could not care less about others, but one of these days he will have to face up to the music when all those families come up here to challenge him.
Mr. Speaker, when we recall the Government promises we understand why the word of the Prime Minister does not mean much any more. The Government did make a commitment not to reduce the deficit at the expense of families, but after listening to the Minister of National Health and Welfare we have to ask what his word is worth today. Nothing. Before consulting with the various interest groups, the Minister of National Health and Welfare rose before the parliamentary committee to ask: Would the interest groups prefer that all funds be redistributed in the form of tax credits? Yes, they said. So he did exactly the opposite.
I see that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, so I want to tell Hon. Members that for now this may be the end of the debate in the House, but I can assure them that I will take to the streets and strongly denounce both the social injustice minister and the Prime Minister.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. It is my first chance to speak but, unfortunately, in so doing, I am not speaking on the issue itself because the Government has now introduced a time allocation motion. This is a motion which is known to most of the world as a closure motion.
It is interesting to note that in the opening of his speech the Minister mentioned that the former Liberal Government used this measure often in its term of office. That is quite true. It is also true that we New Democrats have often not spoken against the principle of time allocation because we agree that

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation
there must be some mechanism to ensure that there is orderly debate and some conclusion to debate in the House of Commons.
However, with regard to the particular issue before us, we are talking about a fundamental change in the universality of social programs in the country. The Government has slid over that point in debate. The Minister, in his long quotations from various newspapers, mentioned editorials from various parts of the country which spoke out in support of him. He did not mention those editorials which point out that the Government is, indeed, moving away from universality in this important area.
The attack on family allowances is just the beginning of the crack in the dam which we have in place to defend social programs in Canada. In his speech, the Minister spoke about the fact that we approved the Budget. With 211 Tory Members in the House of Commons we have to approve everything which is put forward. Let me remind the Minister that even though the House approved the Budget, the Government backed down with respect to the deindexing of old age pensions.
We have a right-an obligation-to stand up in the House of Commons to debate Bills and the philosophy behind them. We have a right to ensure that the public has an opportunity to know what is really in the legislation which the Government is presenting.
In defending his legislation, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said that the money will be going from those who have a lot of it-the hypothetical banker in this nation-to peole who need it the most. That is the myth out there which is the foundation of the editorials from which the Minister has quoted. I would like to quote from another editorial. It is one which takes the opposite side. It is an editorial which appeared in yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press. I am sure the Minister is aware of it. This is an article written by Leonard Shifrin. First, it points out that the Government is again breaking another promise. The headline reads: "The Tories broke their word". The article points out that the Minister himself said that the Government would not be taking money from the old age pension, family allowances, et cetera, to reduce the deficit. The article further points out that in the long run, after a three-year period, it will not just be the middle-income earners, those with a fairly reasonable salary or those who are rich in Canada who will be losing the benefit of a fully indexed family allowance. It will be all Canadians who receive the family allowance, including those at the lowest level of the Canadian income scale. And the Government also plans to deindex the child tax credit which it is so fond of saying is the recipient of this money is going to be saved through the reduction to the full indexation of family allowances.
What the Government is doing is what we have always said is the dangerous thing about the move away from universality. It is a two-step operation. First, it reduces the dependency of
middle-income earners on the family allowance by taking away the protection of full indexation. In other words, over a period of time the real money which the average woman will receive from the family allowance-and let's make no mistake about it, that money in most cases goes to the woman and is spent by her for the necessities of the family-will be worth less and less to that family. The reduction by 3 per cent a year of the real value of the family allowances means that it will provide for less and less of the basic necessities for food, clothing and other items for the children of that family. That is the first step.
The second step is to deindex the child tax credit, the money which goes to the poorest families in this land. We see that as dangerous, Mr. Speaker, because the Government will take away broad public support for family allowances by making it worth less to a large percentage of the population. After it has done that, three years down the road, it will take the protection from those who need it the most. That is something of which the public is not aware and that is why we need a full debate.
My colleague from the Liberal Party mentioned that we have had only four days' debate on this issue. That is not very much. This is an issue which is fundamentally changing the way we deal with universal programs in this country.
The Government failed in its first attack. It failed to deindex the old age pensions. The new frontal assault now is to attack family allowances. That is a dangerous precedent and it is very important that the public be aware of exactly what the Government is doing.
It is also just as important, Mr. Speaker, that we have a chance to hear from that same public. As the public becomes more and more aware of what the Government is doing, as it realizes this is not just a short-term cut-back to reduce the deficit, as it becomes aware that this is not an attempt to take money away from those who are rich to give to those who are poor, as the public becomes more and more aware of what is really happening, there will be more and more groups who will tell this Government not to deindex family allowances.
That is what happened in the pension debate. It became a national issue. It took some time to get it going but after one month of debate, after one month of petitions, and after various groups came to the House of Commons saying that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had broken his word, the message got through to the Government.
It is now one week since the debate started in this House on the deindexation of family allowances and the Government wants to take this legislation away from the House of Commons. We have televised debates and the people who are out there can find out what is really in the legislation and will have a chance to respond to their Members of Parliament and the Minister responsible for this legislation. They will have a chance to tell the Prime Minister that he has broken faith once more with the population of this country. But the Government wants to shuffle the legislation into some committee room. That goes against the whole intent of televising the debates of the House of Commons.
September 24, 1985

We want the public to know what is going on. We want the public to know not only what is going on but to come back to us and tell us that they want to protect family allowances, that they want to protect the universality of Government programs.
We built a social net in this country, and I give full credit to all three political Parties for building that social net over many, many years. Now we have a Government dedicated, in a sneaky, two-step fashion, to breaking down that social net.
I think it is very important that we not be limited, as we are today, to a two-hour debate. Members from all Parties should stand up for the right of the public to know what is really going on in this legislation. They should stand up and tell the people of Canada that this is not just something which will deindex family allowances with the money going to the poor. They should explain what is really happening three years down the road when that money is going to be taken away not only from the rich, from the bank president the Prime Minister is so fond of referring to, but from the very people who need it most.
There is a public clamour for this Government to stop deindexation of family allowances. Some of the groups who have come out in support of full indexation of family allowances include the National Anti-Poverty Organization and the National Advisory Committee on the Status of Women. I met with 15 different groups in Nova Scotia two weeks ago and not one of them wanted to see this Government move ahead on this proposal. I am asking this Government and Members of Parliament to let the public participate in this debate, not in a closed hearing room but in this House of Commons itself, so we have a chance to make sure people know and approve of what this Government is doing, because they do not.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate. I want to tell the House that this speech has been six years in the making. I am not suggesting that is going to make it a better speech, but it is a speech I have waited six years to make.
I feel very strongly about the subject of how the time of the House is used. The House of Commons is a forum where we debate and decide, not denounce and delay. We were sent here to debate the issues of the day and decide how to deal with them. It is the job of the Government to consult, draft policy and legislation, and bring it in for debate. It is our job as Members of Parliament, and your job as Speaker, to make sure that the rules of debate which we have all agreed upon are observed. I appreciate that it is the job of the Opposition to review government legislation, attempt to improve it, and object and debate. They also, I suggest, may obstruct. But I also suggest to the Opposition that the sword of obstruction is a two-edged sword.
In 1982, my friend from the Liberal Party will remember, we rang the bells for 18 days-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Sixteen.
Time Allocation


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -because of the odious omnibus Bill brought in by the Liberal Government. We suggested the Bill should be split and we shut down the House for 18 days.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Sixteen.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The result was that public opinion was on our side and the Bill was eventually split almost exactly the way we suggested originally. That was a case for obstruction because the Bill was wrong and we knew the public would understand that. At that time the NDP, which supported the Liberal Party throughout the NEP debate, also supported the Government and fought against what we were trying to do for the people.
Now, let us look at Bill C-70. This Bill flows from the May 23 Budget.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to interrupt a speech which has been six years in the making, but six years has not enabled the Member to get a grasp of the facts. I think if he checks the record he will see that we were not supportive of the Government throughout the national energy policy debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret that is not a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I think if the Hon. Member had spent six seconds before he spoke he would not have thought-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Try again.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Had he spent six seconds thinking he would not have spoken. I had all the right words it was just a matter of order.
The point I want to make is this. We had a Budget on May 23 and we had a formation of public opinion about deindexing the first 3 per cent of old age pensions. That is true and we reversed our position. Everyone agrees that during the budget debate there was a focus on only that one issue. Four months later my friend the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) says we should give them a minute to let public opinion formulate. What is your hurry, says the NDP, four months later! Where is this great groundswell? My friend from Sudbury is in the audience. He always comes to hear my speeches and I appreciate his being here today. He is the one who said there was going to be this groundswell of grandparent power. Grey power. Where is it on this Bill? Where are the petitions? There is no public opinion groundswell.


Mr. Lapierre:: They are coming, don't worry.


Mr. Frith:: You are going to have them, Doug. Don't worry.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie said they want time to mobilize public opinion. Well, he has to do some mobilization, I guess. I hope he will be back with that mobilized public opinion.

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Wait for family week. Jake is going to be in China.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Let us look at what the legislation does. Let us look at what the Liberals and NDP are delaying. I want the House to understand that this Bill respects universality. This Bill is of benefit to low-income families because we are increasing the child tax credit 36 per cent. So the NDP and Liberals are against increasing the child tax credit. They are against the $70 increase in 1986, and a further $35 increase in both 1987 and 1988. Be very sure, my friends, as to what you are against. We want that legislation passed so that we enhance the income of low-income families and reduce the income of the higher income families. That is exactly what you are against.
I believe that the Government should have its bad legislation. That is what Churchill said. The question of whether it is bad legislation or not remains for the court of public opinion.
I suggest that the Opposition has failed miserably to mount any public opinion against this Bill. They know that, and they know it well. I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that we should pick our spots when we bring in closure. We should have a full debate. If you check the record you will find that I have not spoken very often against closure. Check that. But when it comes to whether or not we are delaying unnecessarily the time of the House, as the Liberals and NDP did on Friday-they did not have enough speakers to carry the debate so what was their great, brilliant political tactic on Friday? The great brilliant political tactic was to shut down the House. Now, isn't that intelligent political opposition? We do not have the speakers so we shut down-yes, 30 speakers out of 70 in the Opposition had spoken by Friday. All right, track them down, where are they going to be on Thursday when we debate this Bill, or Friday?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: That is 45 per cent of our Members. What percentage of yours have spoken?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We gave you the opportunity. We do not want to take up time debating something we already debated in caucus. When the Liberals were in power we knew there was no debate in caucus. This Bill has had debate in caucus and it is going forward.
In closing I want to say that the Government has given the Opposition every minute they need to debate this Bill fairly. We have given the Opposition all the time they need to mobilize public opinion. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you do not have it mobilized, you have been four months at it, and how much longer do you need to do your mobilization? My colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie has had the time, he did not do it, it is not there and he knows it. We intend to proceed. We have given them the time and I hope maybe they will see the light and shut down this debate now so we can go on to more important matters.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct, it is a rare occasion when he makes an intervention in this House and I was very happy to be in my
seat to be able to hear that kind of an intervention. 1 hope that the people in his hometown will take the opportunity to listen to what he said. If they do, they will realize that the intent of this Government measure is a massive tax grab from middle income Canadians.
I would like to refer to a point made by my colleague from Montreal. It comes as no surprise to us on this side of the House that the Government has chosen to introduce time allocation in order to end the debate with respect to Bill C-70 on the floor of the House of Commons. The Government does not want to have the debate widened, as we do, in order to ensure that Canadians fully understand more than just the import of deindexation of familly allowances.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) quite properly read into the record from an editorial in last Friday's edition of The Toronto Star. However, he read selectively from it. The last paragraph of that editorial is the telling one. It indicates that Opposition MPs are misdirecting their fire by concentrating simply on he deindexation of the baby bonus, however popular a cause that may be with middle class voters. They should, instead, the mounting be barricades for the kind of meaningful reform of the tax and transfer payment system that would lead Canada to a better system of social security for its neediest citizens. That is what we have been attempting to do in this debate rather than simply focussing, as the Government wants us to, on its plan to deindex familly allowances.
I am looking forward to the debate that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will introduce on the floor of the House of Commons when the Government brings forward the omnibus tax Bill to deal with those other measures in the Budget which will impact on low and middle income Canadians in a manner in which the Government does not want average Canadian citizens to find out about.
When considering the Government's proposals we must include the plan to deindex personal exemptions. As a result of those two measures, at the end of 1990 a family of four living on $15,000 a year will pay an additional $1,700 in income taxes and a family of four living on $35,000 a year will pay an additional $3,600 in taxes, but a family of four living on $80,000 a year will only pay $1,125 more in taxes. In other words, the import of the over-all tax change is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That is what is at the heart of this debate.
The Government wanted Canadians to focus on its plan to deindex family allowances because it knows it can get away with this measure. The Government wants us to focus on what it is doing in the left pocket while it is taking thousands of dollars of income out of the right pocket. The net effect on Canadians will be that in four years the disposable income of the poorest of the poor in our society will be four per cent less, while the rich in our society will have an additional .6 per cent of disposable income.
September 24, 1985

I am not surprised by the fact that the Government has introduced time allocation, but 1 am surprised that it chose the Minister of National Health and Welfare to introduce it. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should have ensured that if time allocation had to be introduced, it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who introduced it. I know the quality of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and 1 am sure that he must have fought extremely hard around the Cabinet table, but lost the battle. I find it difficult to believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare could defend budgetary measures that will put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of low and middle income Canadians rather than advocating, as he should, the overhaul of the tax system to introduce a minimum tax for the rich and to ensure that the transfer does not make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That is what middle and low income Canadians expect from the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The previous Minister of National Health and Welfare, Monique Begin, made a name as a defender of the interests of poor and middle income families in our society. She fought well at the Cabinet table to ensure that the interests of her constituents were well represented. They certainly have not been in this debate.
The Minister indicated that, rather than simply obstructing every piece of legislation, the Opposition should bring forward proposals to improve the system. In the intervention that I made on September 16 1 indicated the proposals and principles on which the Liberal Party will stand with respect to an overhaul of the social security system in the country. I indicated that we have certain premises with which we began. One of the premises is that amongst the OECD countries Canada ranks in the bottom third in terms of the percentage of GNP that goes to our social security system. That is a fact.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not true.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: From that assumption we can go to the Macdonald Commission which took two years to make some of the most important analyses of the economic system as we know it. Among its recommendations the Macdonald Commission said, with regard to our social security system, that it does not fear for the future sustainability of our income transfer programs, nor does it believe that short-time budgetary problems, which this Bill and this Budget are all about, should be solved through cut-backs in the programs for social development.
One year ago, during the election campaign, the Government indicated that never, ever would the burden of deficit reduction be taken out on the backs of poor and middle income Canadians, and never, ever would deficit reduction be taken out on the social envelope. Yet, one week ago, in introducing Bill C-70 on the floor of the House, the Minister of National Health and Welfare defended his Government's intentions to reduce the size of the social envelope and to take out deficit reduction on the backs of poor and middle income Canadians on the basis that the economy is not going as well as it should.
Under a Cabinet system the function of the Minister of Finance is to indicate over-all fiscal policy for the country. I
Time Allocation
would hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would exercise his responsibility and indicate his displeasure at the direction which the Minister of Finance took on May 23.
The over-all thrust of the Liberal Party's position is that something has to be done to ensure that the issues of poverty and of the burden of social programs does not fall inordinately on middle and low income Canadians. We want to expand this debate to include measures other than deindexation. I look forward to the debate which we will have in the House of Commons when that omnibus Bill does come forward in order that Canadians can understand.
I have done some open line shows on this subject in the last several days and it comes as no surprise to me that Canadians do not understand the debate that is occurring here in the House; it is very complex. Because of its complexity, and the Government's knowledge that it would not be fully understood by the average Canadian, the Government undertook deficit reduction on the backs of middle income Canadians through sneaky measures, such as the deindexation of personal exemptions. Canadians will not even understand what happened to them until they file income tax returns in the spring of 1986. They will not understand what is happening because the monthly family allowance cheques will not get any smaller. It is very insidious and sneaky. Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that under Bill C-70 the poorest of the poor, the family which lives on $9,000 a year and has four children is going to lose purchasing power by the year 1990.
I will conclude by saying that the notion that this Bill helps the poorest of the poor is only another indication that the Government prefers to put a little grain of truth in its measures. In fact, even they will lose as a result the introduction of Bill C-70.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who happens to be in the House rather than on the street to participate in the debate, as he usually says-


Jean-Claude Malépart: We are here to defend real people-


Pierre Blais: Real people ... Just what did you do to defend real people over the past twenty years? We did not see you anywhere, you were glued to your seat here in the House for twenty years, never getting up while your Government prevented-


Jean-Claude Malépart: We had you reverse your decision on old age pensions-


Pierre Blais: -prevented the full indexation of family allowances, which meant a $20 loss for every Canadian family. That is one incident you would rather forget.

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation


Jean-Claude Malépart: Elderly Canadians have fully indexed pensions thanks to the Opposition!


Pierre Blais: That is one incident you would rather forget. When it was time to speak up you did not do anything. That is all you have ever done-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would urge the Hon. Member to direct his remarks to the Chair so as to avoid debates between two Members.


Pierre Blais: 1 apologize, Mr. Speaker! Compared to me, my hon. colleague enjoys considerable experience, but he does not seem too eager to share it with us, unfortunately. We seldom have the opportunity to hear debates-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Tell us about the tax on drugs!


Pierre Blais: It is unfortunate for the Hon. Member. Apparently, he needed more than the ten minutes which had been allocated to him. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member quoted all sorts of data concerning tax exemptions. He mentioned for instance that a family earning $80,000 a year would have a tax exemption of $363 while a family earning between $10,000 and $20,000 would have a tax exemption of $203. He may be right technically. But he overlooked the fact that the family earning $80,000 a year-


Jean-Claude Malépart: Is going to pay more than the rich.


Pierre Blais: No ... I think they also pay income tax. I think that families earning $80,000 pay income taxes too. First of all, that is an exemption, and I suggest that like all the other Members of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should keep his mouth shut, open his ears and eyes, and realize that 285,000 people have returned to work since last fall, that these people will be paying income tax and that they are very satisfied with the present Government.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true!


Pierre Blais: As my colleague stated a while ago, I think that the Government has clearly indicated its proposals to the Canadian people through its May 23 Budget, and that is what we are working on today.
There have been a number of debates, so that the Opposition has had the opportunity over the past few months to state its case and tell all sorts of stories to the Canadian people. We end up today . . . The Canadian people support the Government, Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by the most recent surveys. That is important!
I realize that the Opposition's duty is to stand in the House, to deal with the various issues, and to try at least to get to the bottom of issues that are of concern to them. But when it is shown that the Canadian people fully support the policies
which are on the Government's agenda, I suggest that they should recognize it. They have had every opportunity to deal with this Bill on second reading, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, the Hon. Minister has put forward quite a legitimate proposal. The House has already spent enough time on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) referred a while ago ... I almost started to cry when he mentioned that his mother was waiting for her family allowance cheques. But I suggest that what Canadian families have been waiting for in the past 20 years ... I prefer to see the people waiting for their pay checks, which hundreds of thousands of Canadian families had to do without because of the previous Government's disastrous policies. That is important! I think that Canadian families need pay cheques much more than they need family allowance cheques. On this basis, the Government has been working very hard on this since September last, something the Opposition should realize and understand. That is clear enough. And the Canadian people realize it.
If Canadian families felt enormously penalized, they would let us know. They have the necessary means to do so. Such is not the case. Because what the . . . The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie should listen instead of continually shouting. I understand that because you have kept quiet for the past 20 years, you want to open your mouth for the next 20 years. You would have been better advised to speak out a little more every year instead of trying to say everything now in six months. Perhaps this would have been preferable.


Jean-Claude Malépart: We never worked for the rich!


Pierre Blais: Is that so? Your Government was looking after them. It is not a matter of working either for the rich or for the poor, but of working for Canadian families. The legislation now before us, Mr. Speaker, is aimed at restructuring in the best possible way the Canadian family's economy. And the starting point is that we should ... I realize this is something they cannot understand. They never known that. They never had the urge to give jobs to working families and try to restore confidence. All they are trying to do-


An Hon. Member:: Stop that nonsense!


Pierre Blais: Try and listen! At least, be polite! You could at least be polite! We listened when you had the floor, even if you had nothing to say. We listened just the same. Therefore, you could at least have the decency to be polite . . . There are people here and they can see who is defending the widow and the orphan. There are people here who can judge your behaviour in this House; you should listen to other Members who have something to say.


An Hon. Member:: We are not here to defend our jobs!
September 24, 1985


Pierre Blais: No, I have no job to defend, and my record is a guarantee for the future. I have not been depending on this. You perhaps, because you have been here a long time, but not me. I was doing something else before. Ask no questions if you will hear no answers.
Mr. Speaker, I still have a few moments left, and I think that if they could ... I see smiles on the faces of members who last week were almost in tears. Apparently, as soon as the debate becomes serious, they forget that. All they do is play to the gallery.
Mr. Speaker, the serious thing is to put our Canadian families back to work, which this Government is committed to, that is restructuring the family sector. This is important!
Mr. Speaker, we need the Opposition just as we need the Canadian people, to feel that we are recovering our Canadian dignity, to tell ourselves that Canada is not a country that should simply be in constant struggle but that is based on a social fabric. The social fabric is a protective fabric. It is supposed to be a safety net for people who need it. But since there was no economic structure, and this country was going adrift, clearly they never thought of structuring economic and social policies intended to create jobs. Actually people want a pay cheque before a family allowance cheque. This is what I am working at, like each and every one of my colleagues in the Government, Mr. Speaker.
And this is important, just as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has provided Canadians with jobs. It is important to give a pay cheque even before a family allowance cheque. Listen, they stopped at nothing. They reduced the family allowance cheque by $20 during the last 10 years. This includes the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Gar-neau), who at that time was not concerned with the universality of social programs.


An Hon. Member:: He is not here.


Pierre Blais: No, but he was somewhere else, and was saying that universality did not matter.
Concerning the two Members who have been railing at me for the last 10 minutes, including the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, they have not said anything for 20 years, while they were sending our-


Jean-C. Lapierre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that 20 years ago I was barely nine and not in this House.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.
Time Allocation


Jean-Claude Malépart: Nine years ago, I was a member in the Quebec National Assembly, while the Hon. Member did not yet know where he was going and is still all mixed up.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by commenting on some of the things said by previous speakers. I was interested in the benefit of the doubt which the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) gave to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). he hypothesized that the Minister had fought hard at the Cabinet table but had lost in the battle for family allowances. I hold no such theory. As far as 1 am concerned, I think the Minister is captive to the total economic philosophy of the Government. I do not think he fought very hard at the Cabinet table to prevent the partial deindexation of family allowances. I do not give him that benefit of the doubt. I have seen how the Minister of National Health and Welfare fights at the Cabinet table for other things, particularly for his own province, and he has been a miserable failure at that. If he fought at all to prevent the deindexation of family allowances, his record is equally miserable in that regard. I doubt whether he actually fought.
I was disappointed by the speech of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) who said that he had been waiting to make such a speech for six years. Instead of making a reasoned defence of the need for the Government to pass its legislation-and indeed such a reasoned defence can be made-it turned out to be a political tirade totally captive to the present context. I was disappointed because I thought we might actually receive some erudite parliamentary advice from the Hon. Member.
In respect of the reason for closure, we have not debated the Bill at great length. The real reason is a political one, that the Government is afraid public opinion may be mobilized. Some people have argued that four months have gone by since the original suggestion was made. We have to remember that the political agenda is often crowded, as it has been since the time the proposal was first made. If the Government was confident that its measure had the support of the Canadian public, I think it would have been much more relaxed about allowing the debate to continue in the House for a decent period of time.
Before the summer recess the House was preoccupied and seized with the question of the deindexation of pensions, and there have been many items on the agenda since our return. One of the functions of delay in the parliamentary system is that it gives people time to catch on to what the Government is up to. I am unhappy, although I understand it as a political tactic, that the Government has decided to try to prevent that from happening. However, let us be clear about why this is being done.
Unfortunately the Minister of National Health and Welfare tried to make light of the position of the Opposition on family allowances. What he did not do or what he could have done-

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation
and, in doing so, I think he could have enhanced his own image-was recognize that what we have here is a debate about fundamentals in so far as social policy is concerned. He could have dwelled on matters of principle, but he did not do that because the Conservative approach to the whole question of family allowances and other social policy changes has been completely devoid of principle. It is no accident that the Minister did not try to get into that higher level of debate which was available to him.
We see a total lack of principle on the part of the Government. The real principle in the backs of the minds of many Progressive Conservative Members, whether they be in Cabinet or on the back-benches, is that they do not like universal social programs. I would much rather that they had the guts to say it and to initiate a debate on universality. This is what they should be trying to do instead of trying to get rid of universality by the back door and not having the commitment to their own fundamental view of social policy. We are not afraid to travel around the country saying that we stand by universal social programs even when some people in the social policy area have questions about universality. We are willing to take that heat, but the Conservative Party is not willing to take the heat about its own real position. Its Members are not able to do that or are unwilling to do that.
There was a second position which they could have adopted on principle, which they did not do. They could have stuck by their contention that whatever reforms they made, the money saved through such reforms would have been passed on to those people who needed it the most. That was the position of principle which they took in the paper released by the Minister of National Health and Welfare back in January, I believe it was, but they abandoned that principle. They did not have the guts to stick by it. Now we find that the money which is to be saved from the deindexation of family allowances will eventually find its way into the cause of deficit reduction rather than into the pockets and budgets of families who need it most. By doing this, the Government made a serious political error, if I may give it some unsolicited advice. Had its Members stuck by the second principle, they could have divided their critics. Had they stuck by that principle, groups which are now forming a coalition against the deindexation of family allowances would have been divided over the issue because some of them would have said that if the money was actually going to those who needed it most, they would support the Government. Certain groups have taken that position over the years, but the Conservatives did not have the guts to stick by that principle. Now we see a coalition of people from various groups that have held various views about the benefits of universality over the years coming together to say that this is bad social policy in every respect because it erodes universality without adopting the most beneficial aspects of selectivity. Also they say that it is a retreat on promises made by the Government in January in respect of where money saved would go and, before that, the promises made by its Members during the election campaign about whether family allowances would be hit at all.
I recall that the Progressive Conservative candidate who was my opponent in the last election had conniptions when I distributed a pamphlet indicating that the Conservatives would tamper with family allowances. He said that that was a lie, that I was a most irresponsible person and that the Progressive Conservative Party had no intention of doing anything with family allowances. He asked how I could be so dishonest and make those kinds of allegations. I said the same about pensions. Of course many members of the New Democratic Party did, because we know the real social policy agenda of the Progressive Conservative Party. Unfortunately the Conservatives are unwilling to come forward to say so, so that we can have a real debate about the fundamentals of social policy. 1 think that would be instructive for all of us; we could find out where people really are in respect of these issues.
It is not only questions of social policy, it is also the question of who is pro-family, if anyone is completely. There has been much rhetoric about who is pro-family and who is anti-family. However, the deindexation of family allowances and the erosion of universality over time will not be an attack only upon families. It is an attack on communities and on the sense of what it means to be a community.
One of the reasons we are in favour of universal social programs is that we believe a community has the right to say that it regards certain matters as important. In this case it is the family. It might be education or retirement for the elderly. We say that these things are provided to people because we believe that that is what it means to be part of a community. We believe that they ought to be allocated to people on the basis of the fact that they are part of the community, not because they are at one end or the other of the income scale, nor because we hold to a view of society which sees us as isolated individuals.
We have a notion of what it means to be a community. That is also at stake here, in terms of the philosophical debate wich we ought to be having. We will not have the time to do that. In fact, we will not have as much time as we need because the Government has chosen to move a closure motion. It goes against everything its Members said in Opposition. When it comes down to it, they did not mean it in any event. It is too bad that we will not have time for the debate we ought to be having.


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate on the motion moved by my Hon. colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I believe that Bill C-70 should immediately be referred to the legislative committee which is empowered to make an in-depth study of its provisions. I want to express my support for this Bill. Being myself a mother who received family allowances for her four children, I understand the crucial importance of this debate for all recipients of family allowances, especially women.
September 24, 1985

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my intervention is twofold. First, I shall emphasize the universal nature of family allowances and the progressiveness of the federal child benefit system. Second, I shall outline the main reasons which motivated our Government to index family allowances yearly to the consumer price index over 3 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is my duty to reassure the Canadian people that the principle of universality of the family allowances system will be maintained. This system, after being established in 1945, soon became popular with Canadian society as a whole. Through this system, the Governments recognize the invaluable contributions made to society by parents who are raising tomorrow's citizens. In 1985, some 3.6 million Canadian families will receive $2.45 billion under the family allowances system. These 3.6 million Canadian families can be assured that the Conservative Government has no intention of jeopardizing the universality of this system. In spite of the recommendation by the Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada to the effect that family allowances and other Federal transfers should be replaced by a universal income security system, my colleague, the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare, clearly stated that the Government had preferred to maintain the principle of universality and indexation. I find it very regrettable that our friends opposite would remain silent about the fact that the universality of this program is being maintained. Throughout this debate, they have tried to scare the Canadian people, but it should be emphasized that the Government of which I am a member is in no way contesting the universality of family allowances.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Bill must be viewed as only one component in the federal child benefit package. Consequently, it must not be considered in isolation, but should instead be analyzed in conjunction with the other two components, namely the child tax credit and the tax exemption for dependent children.
In a spirit of social justice, our Government has shown its desire to reinforce the progressive nature of the programs designed to provide financial assistance to people with children. Is it not more equitable, Mr. Speaker, to pay higher benefits to the poorer recipients and the lower benefits to the wealthiest? A report of the National Welfare Council entitled The Reform of Child Benefits tabled in March 1985 concluded that "the benefits received by a family from the child benefit system have no logical or equitable relation with its financial needs". According to this same report, "the Canadian child benefit system is inconsistent not because it provides benefits to high income families, but rather because their benefits are too high. It is a problem of equity".
Improving the progressiveness of family allowances is therefore a basic objective to which our Government has committed itself. A number or organizations dedicated to the defence of the disadvantaged have for many years requested from the
Time Allocation
Federal Government income redistribution measures which would be more equitable to low income Canadian families.
The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last May takes these representations into account. Thus by increasing the child tax credit and by reducing the tax exemption for dependent children, low-income families now will benefit from an increased assistance from the federal Government. According to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), families with children and earning an annual income of $25,000 or less will be the big winners of our assistance policy to families. This is a policy which we should all applaud. I readily agree with it as did the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the previous Government when she said: "We have to ask ourselves in the first place whether it is proper in our society for families with income in excess of $26,000 to receive the full child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I will now state the various reasons which led our Government to introduce a measure providing for partial indexation on the cost of living. The reason is quite simple and unfortunately does not require a lengthy demonstration. In September 1984, the Conservative Government had to tackle the problem of our public debt. It is a sad reality with which we have to deal. It seriously threatens our capacity to promote constant growth. It alone represents in simple terms the sum of all deficits since Confederation. A hundred years or so were needed to pile up a $18 billion debt. Now less than 20 years later, our debt is close to $200 billion and increasing twofold every five years.
Moreover, if it is not controlled right now, the deficit could jeopardize at medium and long range the future of some of our social program. In a thorough analysis of the federal deficit and debt, the President of the Economic Council of Canada, Mr. David Slater has said: "Left alone, the federal deficit could in the future create serious problems restricting among other things the capacity of the Government to provide public services." By talking immediate measures to reduce the deficit, our Government is guaranteeing the future of our social programs.
With respect to the same issue, Mr. Speaker, I should like to object to a statement made by my colleague the Hon. Member for Vancouver East Ms. Mitchell). She pointed to the House that it was easier to encroach upon the rights of children, because they cannot vote. The stringent measures taken to control the deficit are meant to be effective right now so that our children will not inherit economic conditions over which the public debt prevails. We do not have the right to evade our economic responsibilities. The next generation should not expect to be required to pay for the excesses of the previous generation.
Those are the policies, Mr. Speaker, which the Canadian taxpayers will surely appreciate. The President of the Economic Council of Canada has applauded the budgetary measures of our Government. According to Mr. Slater, the implementa-

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation
tion of constructive measures was necessary to maintain the deficit at a proper level and to ward off long term problems for Canada. By tackling the deficit right now, we are thinking in terms of the future of our children.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to deal with several alarmist statements made by our colleagues opposite. Some opposition members suggest that they are the unwavering champions of social programs-


Mr. Boudria:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Glen-garry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on a point of order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I had been listening attentively to the Hon. Member's speech until I noticed, as you did yourself, that the speech was read in its entirety, and I am sure you will agree that under the Standing Orders, Members may not read what they say in the House without good reason.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) may be technically right, but I think the Chair has been tolerant in this respect with junior Members of the House.
The Hon. Member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mrs. Landry).


Monique Landry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I prefer to read what I say and say something sensible, instead of speaking without a text and speaking at random.
Mr. Speaker, some Members of the Opposition are inferring that they are steadfast defenders of our social programs. I think they have a bad case of selective amnesia. Although they may not want to hear it, I may remind them it was the previous Government that fully de-indexed family allowances for 1976, when Canada was faced with an annual inflation rate of 11.2 per cent.
In 1983-84, the previous Government again acted by capping increases in family allowance payments at 6 and 5 per cent respectively. I suggest that our friends opposite stop their posturing.
One of the Ministers at the time stated that it was impossible to deal effectively with our own deficit and that of the provinces unless taxpayers helped to reduce these deficits by limiting their income. Those words should be an inspiration to the Opposition today.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that the two Opposition parties do not have a monopoly on compassion. Our Government's family assistance policies are dictated by the principles of social justice. The principle of universality is not being challenged. In addition, the whole family assistance program is more progressive than it was under the previous administration. Finally, our fight against the deficit sparked
the economic recovery which makes it possible for all Canadians to look forward to better days.
Mr. Speaker, 1 fervently hope that Bill C-70 will be referred to a legislative committee as soon as possible.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, if, one year ago, someone had told me that I would be rising to make the speech that I plan to make in the next 10 minutes, I really would not have believed it. Who would have thought that the Conservative Government, elected with such a huge majority, would have succeeded in disappointing so many Canadians so quickly? The Conservative Government was given a mandate to better the lives of Canadians, to find a better way of doing things. One year later, I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to read the year-end reviews. Even the staunchest Conservatives supporters are having doubts.

It did not take long to realize that the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were not sincere. The moment the new Government took office, we witnessed a whole slew of political appointments which even the most staunch Conservative finds revolting.

It did not take long for Canadians to discover-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has a minute, he might advise his colleague, the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), not to read his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) has the floor.


Mr. Marchi:: That's sleazy. You're desperate to get on t.v.


David Berger: It did not take long for Canadians to discover-


Ms. Copps:: The only thing you're going to finish is Canadian families.


David Berger: 1 will try again. It did not take long for Canadians to discover that P.C. meant not Progressive Conservative but "Patronage Canada".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Well said, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Well read.


David Berger: I think that most Members of the House and many members of the public probably read Gary Lautens' column which revealed why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) travels with two planes. He has one filled with empty seats and the other with empty promises.
September 24, 1985

To understand the sense of betrayal of Canadians, there is no better example than the sleight of hand performed by the Prime Minister and the Government over child and elderly benefits. Could anyone have predicted that the Conservative Government would act in such an underhanded manner, playing games with the trust of Canadians, flip-flopping on the most basic promises?

First, the Mulroney Government fails to live up to its commitment not to reduce social spending.
In the famous consultation paper tabled last January concerning child and elderly benefits, we were promised, and I quote:
Any net savings which may then remain, whether resulting from reductions in expenditure or additional revenues, should be applied to other priority concerns in the social affairs envelope.
No such savings-
-and I emphasize this-
-should be transferred to deficit reduction.
All we need do is read the first sentence of the speech delivered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to appreciate the complete about-turn of the Mulroney Government in the space of four months. A week ago, in his remarks to introduce this Bill, the Minister said that the Government announced its intention to restructure the federal child benefit system to provide greater assistance to families with lower incomes while at the same time moving to bring our national debt under control.
The Mulroney Government says one thing in January and does the opposite four months later. No wonder the Government has lost public support.
All told, Mr. Speaker, the Budget will reduce by half a billion dollars the benefits that had been earmarked for families from now until 1990.

That the Government reneges on its promise not to cut social spending is one thing but what is worse is that the combined effect of the Budgetary measures hurts poor people more than the rich. It is hard to believe that in 1985, a Government would table such a regressive and anti-social Budget.
[ Translation]
The Bill provides that, starting in 1986, family allowances will be indexed only on that portion of the inflation which exceeds 3 per cent. Hon. Members will know that family allowances now amount to $375 a year and are fully indexed to the cost of living. The Government is therefore making the families pay for the first 3 per cent of inflation.
The child tax credit will increase, but fewer families will be eligible as the level of family income at which the tax credit begins to diminish will drop from $26,330 to $23,500 beginning in 1986. The Women's Health Center located in my constituency has stated the following:
Time Allocation
The consequence of the proposed reform will be to minimize and marginalize family allowances which are the only true form of completely universal benefits and to give more importance to selective types of benefits such as the tax credit.
I should add that fewer families will be eligible to the tax credit.
The budget also announced a number of other tax changes, changes to the tax exemption for dependent children, to the federal rebate, to basic personal exemptions, to tax deductions, to registered pension plans and to Registered Retirement Savings Plans or RRSPs.
The National Council on Welfare, in a study report published last July, showed that the combination of all those measures is punishing lower- and middle-income families while benefiting rich families.


An Hon. Member:: A Government for the haves.


David Berger: Tax deductions allowed to the rich for registered pension plans and RRSPs-and it is important to understand that-make up for losses due to changes in child benefits and tax credits, with the result that the budget is reducing taxable income in the case of rich families.
In its calculations the National Council on Social Welfare uses as an example a working couple with two children and makes a comparison between poor families ($15,000 income), middle-income families ($35,000 income) and rich families ($80,000 income).
Over the next five years, poor families will lose $1,879, while rich families will only lose $1,125. Where is the justice, Mr. Speaker? We dare not even mention middle-income families. They are the big losers, to the tune of $3,452.

The National Council on Welfare also analysed the effect of the Budget on single parents. I am particularly distressed by these results because of the impossible situation of most singleparent families and because in the riding of Laurier there is twice the national average of such families. Almost half of single mothers were below the low-income line in 1983 and their average income of $17,585 was only 44 per cent of the $39,554 average for two-parent families. These stark figures would seem to be evident to everyone except Members of the Conservative Government.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the rich one-parent family with $60,000 per year in revenue actually ends up some $404 ahead after the Budget. The poor one-parent family with $15,000 in average income will lose $1,844 between 1986 and 1990. The middle income family with an average income of $35,000 will lose $3,504 over the same period of time.
I would like to point out that the analysis of the National Council on Welfare only takes into account the Budget's changes to child benefits and the personal income tax system. It does not analyze the effect of increases in consumer taxes,

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation
which could add about $200 to $300 a year to the tax bill of most Canadian families. It does not consider the effect of the capital gains exemption which will benefit only the most wealthy in our society.
The bottom line on the Budget of the Prime Minister is this. First, it breaks the promise not to reduce social spending. It then attacks the poor and the middle class. The Conservative Government attacks those in our society who are least capable of defending themselves. It seems the Government can find $1 billion to bail out depositors with deposits of more than $60,000 but cuts precious dollars from family benefits. In the case of the elderly, the injustice was obvious and caused the Government to retreat at the end of June. In the case of family benefits, the injustice is more difficult to perceive at this point in time.
I started off my remarks by saying that if someone had told me a year ago that I would be standing in the House today delivering this sort of speech I would not have believed him. However, given the pitiful record of the Conservative Government one year later it is not surprising how many people have concluded that this Government will last but one term.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, when I listen to opposition Members I am reminded of what happened when I was training as a young man at Sarcee Reserve in Calgary. We were shooting at a target and the sargeant was behind us. The chap next to me was shooting and not hitting the target. The sargeant came up to him and said: "Where in the world are those bullets going?" The young man looked up and replied: "Well, sir, I don't know where they are going but they're sure leaving here with an awful bang." That is the feeling I get from speeches made by opposition Members. They do not know where they are going. The only way we could make the Opposition happy would be to continue to borrow and borrow and borrow and live on borrowed money. That is the only way we could make the Liberals and the New Democrats happy. That is what they were doing for the last 16 years. They thought they could borrow themselves out of debt.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Louder!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we allow the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to make his speech?


Gordon Edward Taylor: What they have done is left a heritage, a heritage of-


Some Hon. Members:: Louder, louder!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we please allow the Hon. Member for Bow River to make his speech?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs and a dog starts to yelp you know you have hit one of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, they never stopped once to realize what they were doing to the country when they were borrowing and borrowing. The greatest threats to the social programs in Canada are the Liberals and members of the New Democratic Party. They were going to borrow and borrow and borrow until there was nothing left to borrow.


Mr. Tobin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might you advise the Hon. Member opposite that we have now moved into the 20th century? We have electronic means of being heard in the House and it is not necessary to yell. His speech is both offensive to intelligent people and offensive to our ears.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) on a point of order.


Mr. Nystrom:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Gordon Edward Taylor: In the 20th century they know what a point of order is. They have been in the House for a number of years and they still do not know what a point of order is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is that not a case of the kettle calling the pot black, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bow River has the floor on debate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I hope you will not be taking the time they have spoken off my time, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We hope you are.


Don Boudria: Repeat what you said.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I have said before that the only way you can get anything into opposition Members' heads is to cross a woodpecker with a carrier pigeon. In that way they could carry their message and pound it into their heads.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Members opposite still think that borrowing is all right. It is no wonder that they jump up and down like jumping jacks when we talk about the effect of their policies because what they will do is ruin the social programs of Canada. Social programs depend on the productivity of a country. When a country borrows, borrows and borrows, that productivity is eventually eliminated.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are you the woodpecker or the pigeon?


Gordon Edward Taylor: They would do that until the point where they could not borrow any more. Then they would leave the widows and the children and the crippled without any help whatsoever. That is the end of their program.
September 24, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is where they would lead us. They do not know where they are going but that is where they would take
us.
This Government is looking ahead. We know where we are going and what we are trying to do. We are trying to make Canada a place which has no debt and a balanced budget so that our people can keep more of the money in their own pockets and not have so much taken off their pay cheques. I look forward to the day when Canada as a united country will be happy right from the Arctic to the 49th and from the Pacific to the Atlantic with people earning their living and the Government only looking after those who need help-not the rich.


An Hon. Member:: What about the banks?


Gordon Edward Taylor: It makes me laugh when I hear members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic party talk about helping the rich. Who is it who wants to help the rich?


Some Hon. Members:: The Tories.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You do.


Ms. Mitchell:: What about the oil companies and the banks?


Gordon Edward Taylor: This program will help the poor and not the rich. The rich are part of this country, too.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Help the banks.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I do not criticize the rich. Most of them got rich through hard work. Now, members of the NDP want to take their money away from them.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Give it to the banks.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I want to get the country to a place where we can earn our keep and where we will have more rich people. I will not hurt the poor. This Bill does not hurt the poor. It takes from the rich and adds to the poor.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Not at all.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I wish Hon. Members opposite would get that into their heads.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Read the Bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It takes from the rich and adds to the poor.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I will let the Hon. Member put his translation phone on but I am afraid he is not referring to the right legislation. The Bill that robs the poor to give to the rich-
Time Allocation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bow River has the floor on debate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member opposite would read the Bill, in his own language, if he likes-in French or English. If he did so he would definitely see that we are paying a greater amount to poor families with children than we are to rich families with children. That is what hurts Hon. Members opposite. They keep talking about hurting the rich. They are trying to deceive the poor. That is what Hon. Members opposite are trying to do. The last Hon. Member who spoke, whom I respect highly, was saying that we are helping the wealthy. That is completely silly. This Bill will raise today's maximum of $384 to $524 by 1989 for the poor-not for the rich. Why do Members opposite try to deceive the people out there when they talk about the time allocation motion?
When I was in England with a delegation I asked Labour Members and Government Members if they agreed with the policy of the mother Government. What do they do in England? Almost every Bill which comes in has written on it: "This Bill will have 'x' number of days for debate." I said to a Labour Member of Parliament, since he sits in opposition: "Do you support that measure?" He replied: "Certainly. Parliament has to make progress. We have to deal with things." We do not want repetition after repetition after repetition as we have heard in the debate thus far.


An Hon. Member:: Could you repeat that?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Last Friday, because they were so repetitive, they ran out of Members to speak on the Bill and they had to adjourn the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have not had an original thought in ten years.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we want a reasonable time for debate. I would like to see the Government bring in a policy by which every Bill has a set number of days for debate so that we can debate measures fully and thoroughly, but not repeatedly and repeatedly.
Those Hon. Members talk about helping the rich with capital gains. I wish they would go out to the west, to some of the farm homes which I visit. The only nest-egg those farmers have is the land they have worked on for 50 years. That is their only nest-egg. The Government is saying to them, "When you sell your nest-egg at the age of 65 or 70 years, you can keep it all. We are not going to grab part of it because you have been paying taxes all through the years".


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You'll take away from their grandchildren, though, won't you?

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation


Gordon Edward Taylor: Now when those farmers sell their nest-egg they can keep the returns and enjoy their last years on the earth.


Mr. Cassidy:: Let's hear it for the speculators.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is what those Hon. Members say is helping the wealthy. The farmers of Canada are not wealthy. They deserve the nest-eggs they have built over the years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 understand why the Minister is repeating the same arguments he made during the senior citizens' Bill which was repudiated by the people-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That's not a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and by the Prime Minsiter (Mr. Mulroney). My point of order deals with the fact that the Hon. Member is supposed to be speaking to this Bill; his ruminations on capital gains exemptions have nothing to do with this particular motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has the floor on debate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has left her manners at home, I wish she would stay home with them.
Those Hon. Members started the debate on capital gains. This is a closure debate, in case the Hon. Member does not know it, and I am arguing why it has to be a closure debate. It is because of the nonsensical attitude of the Opposition in this House. They want to continue to borrow and borrow. They keep talking one way and acting another. What did they do for the poor people of Canada when they were in office? They talk about the results of deindexing in the 1990s. If we had deindexed the way the Liberals did on family allowances, we could have said every family would lose "x" dollars too. That is a silly argument. We live by the laws of the House of Commons and-


Michael Morris Cassidy: The law of tooth and claw.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and we endeavour to help those who need the help, not those who do not. This Bill will reduce payments for rich families and it will increase them for the poor families. That is the way it should be. It might be an entirely different attitude and policy-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Let's go back to the dark ages.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It's a foreign policy to the Liberals and the New Democratic Party but it is a policy of this Government to help the poor. We must get productivity going so that everyone in the country will have a chance to live and to survive. We built this country not on debt but on productivity, with people producing. That is the way to build a country, Mr. Speaker. We are building unity among our provinces and among our management and labour unions. We are doing so because the
greater our productivity the greater the social programs we can provide. The more we produce, the better we can treat the poor people of this country-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Bring back the cartels. Long live the 19th century.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and eliminate the poor people of this country.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Yes, eliminate them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: -so that they will not be poor, so they will have enough to live on and will not have to depend on Government subsidies. That is what we want. We want our poor people to become richer and richer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time for debate has elapsed.


Mr. Nunziata:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago the Hon. Member referred to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), and suggested that my colleague should stay home now that she is married.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order on debate.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion which will have the effect of choking off consideration of a measure which will affect 3.6 million Canadian families.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Something you never did, eh?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This Bill, if it passes, will hurt 3.6 million Canadian families by reducing the purchasing power of the family allowance. No wonder the Conservatives want to choke off debate on this Bill after only five days. The Conservatives hope this Bill will slip through this House before Canadians, especially middle and lower income Canadians, fully realize what harm the Conservatives want to do to them.
The Conservatives now say that there has been enough debate on this whole issue of deindexing the family allowance. The last speaker, in particular, cast doubt upon the commitment of the Conservatives even to the most elementary of social programs. Yet back in 1980, the Conservatives had a massive ad campaign opposing any suggestion of deindexing. That ad said in part that deindexing "is a form of taxation that will have staggering consequences for every Canadian taxpayer, especially the low income earner". It said that "deindexing is a scheme to guarantee that you will pay higher federal income taxes year after year". If that was true in 1980 with respect to income tax, it is true today, not just for income tax but for family allowance.
Yet the Conservatives today are trying to cut off debate on a measure aimed at slipping through a cruel blow to a key part
September 24, 1985

of our whole fabric of programs to support families and all Canadians. No wonder the Conservatives want to rush through an amendment to the Family Allowance Act which is something as I have said, that severely weakens and undermines the objectives of one of the fundamental elements of our national social security framework.
The Bill which this motion wants to bring to a vote reduces the indexing of family allowances and therefore its purchasing power. This not only contradicts promises made by the Conservative Party in the last election campaign, it absolutely contradicts the assurances of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who stated in this House last December 21, and I quote from Hansard at page 1444:
Mr. Speaker, 1 can confirm that the regular indexing of the Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Suplement, and family allowance will be increased as of January 1, 1985, and the Canada Pension Plan will also be increased 4.4 per cent-
The question asked of the Minister at that time did not include any reference to the family allowance system which is under attack today. However, the Minister went out of his way to include the family allowance in his commitment to increase regular indexing for 1985. The indexed family allowance benefits will increase by 4.4 per cent in 1985 but will be 1.4 per cent, more or less, in 1986, because of this cruel and heartless Bill.
The Family Allowance Bill of 1973 was introduced by the Liberal Government of the day and was approved by this House with the support of all Parties. That Bill had as its objective the strengthening of an income supplement program for Canadian families which was created by a Liberal Government almost 30 years before. This law was passed with the full recognition that income from employment does not request family size, that family bread winners working at or near the minimum, part-time or full-time, often do not have sufficient earnings to support more than one or two dependent children.
The Family Allowance Act also embodies a recognition that the family bread winner may only be able to obtain work on a seasonal or intermittent basis. Parliamentarians realized that these families constantly struggle to keep off the welfare roles because of their pride in their ability to make their own way. Indexing was and is very much part of the program to preserve the purchasing power of the family allowance, a vital instrument, therefore, of social justice.
It is not only this particular Tory Bill under debate today which violates the objectives of the Family Allowance Act and our entire social security framework. This legislation is just one part of a total package of Conservative Government Budget measures which runs against the grain of every positive step taken by successive federal Governments-yes, Liberal Governments-to help lower and middle income Canadian families to improve their economic and social standing in the society of our country.
Further, the May Budget of the Conservatives is not just fundamentally flawed in its brutalizing collision with the values which have shaped our national social policy tradition and consensus, it strikes particularly at lower and middle
Time Allocation
income Canadians at a time when we are still in a period of recovery from a severe world-wide recession. Lower and middle income Canadians have borne the brunt of general economic difficulty.
The May Budget of this Conservative Government will drive an expanding wedge through an already widening gap between rich and middle-income and poor families. At a time when federal Government anti-poverty efforts should be renewed and reinforced, at a time when federal government efforts to assist families should be strenghened, this Tory Government has chosen to redistribute income from lower and middle-income Canadians to rich Canadians.
This Government's first priority is an impersonal passion for the bottom line. It intends to apply what it calls savings, actually money taken from the pockets of middle and lower-income Canadians in the billions of dollars through cuts in social programs, to reducing the deficit.
First it tried to do that with the old age pension and the outrage of Canadians generally forced it back. But it still wants to do this to the family allowance program, the subject of the Bill which this motion will bring to a vote. It intends to do the same thing to the indexing of the personal income tax. The so-called savings are to be applied to a reduction of the deficit and the Government intends to do this as a priority in total disregard of its own promise, stated for example by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on December 14 of last year, that none of the money saved by reducing social benefit payments would be used to reduce the deficit. So much for credibility. So much for accuracy. So much for a commitment to social values by this cruel and heartless Conservative Government.
Even this cynical passion for deficit reduction fails to completely explain Tory Government motives which result in the unfairness of the Budget of which this Bill is just one part. While the Government has been forced to withdraw its measure to deindex the OAS, it continues to try to put into effect tax policy which would provide a small group of individuals who receive handsome profits from capital gains with unconditional exemptions which will cause lost tax revenues estimated at $1.2 billion in 1990 alone.
The Budget proposes a swath of changes to child benefits which, according to the superficial arguments of the Government, appear to provide an advantage for low-income families. But on closer examination we find this Budget will bring about a partial deindexing at the 3 per cent threshold after 1989; that the cut-off point for the planned child tax credit reduction will be lowered from $26,330 to $23,000 in 1986; and that the child tax exemption will be reduced from $710 per child to $560 in 1987, $470 in 1988, and to the level of the family allowance in 1989. Every Canadian family will lose necessary benefits as a result of the impact of the Conservative Budget. But even the poorest of the poor will lose benefits after 1990 because of the deindexation of the child tax credit along with the deindexation of the family allowance which the Conserva-

September 24, 1985
Time Allocation
tives are trying to force through this House today against the interests of Canadian families and children. All families will get less, even the poorest will get less, because of this Conservative measure.
If we consider the cumulative impact of the budget measures to change the child tax credit and the current tax exemptions for dependant children, and the indexation of income tax, then we find working parents who together earn $15,000 annually and have to feed, clothe and provide a home for only two children, will lose $1,844. The husband and wife who earn a combined annual income of $35,000 will lose $3,452.
There is no reasonable and objective standard of evaluation of the Conservative Budget, of which this Bill is just one harmful part, which can avoid yielding the conclusion of unfairness and injustice. The consistent and undeniable theme throughout is a redistribution of disposable income away from lower and middle-income taxpayers to upper-income taxpayers. Over the next five years those earning $15,000 a year will have to absorb a 36 per cent tax increase, those earning $30,000 an 11 per cent tax increase, those earning $100,000 only a 4 per cent tax increase, and those few taxpayers, great friends of the Tories obviously, earning $200,000 a year will only have to pay 2 per cent more in taxes. That is Tory fairness. That is Tory social justice.
To conclude, in December of last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appeared to base the entire argument for his Government's unsuccessful attack on the universality of certain social programs on the justice he saw contained in his tirelessly repeated and meaningless anecdote of how bank presidents should not be receiving social programs benefit payments which they do not need or want. He tried to give Canadians the impression that his Government would redirect and enrich social program benefits to Canadians most in need. Well, the Canadian people were not taken in when it came to the OAS and in spite of Conservative efforts to choke off debate on this Bill they will not be taken in by its measures.
Certainly the imbalance, unfairness and injustice of the Budget in general and this measure in particular have only been made more patently obvious by the Government's total mismanagement of its reponsibility in the $1 billion fiasco involving the Canadian Commercial and Northland Banks. While the Conservative Government places an onerous burden of taxation on lower and middle-income Canadians, it is ready to spend more than $1 billion of the taxpayers' money to make up for its mishandling of the CCB affair. The Government should withdraw its Budget and keep its promises to lower and middle-income Canadians. This Bill, as one step to withdrawing this Budget, should be defeated; the first step is to defeat this motion aimed at unfairly choking off debate on this important measure.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion to limit debate on Bill C-70. As we all know, this means we are debating the Government's intention to close debate; a closure motion. This is a really damaging-


Mr. Dick:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Hon. Member does not know and understand, but we are not debating a closure motion. If she knew what the procedure was, she would know we happen to be debating a time allocation motion. Closure is under an entirely different section and is rarely used.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would listen to what I am saying. I said it has the effect of a closure motion.
We have had less than 10 hours of debate on this Bill and until today there have hardly been any Conservative Members willing to stand up and say why the Government is putting forward this Bill which is so damaging to families and children. I think it is disgusting, Mr. Speaker! Conservative Members would debate the Crow Bill for hours. I don't care about woodpeckers and carrier pigeons but the Member who spoke a little while ago will remember how long he debated the Crow legislation tailing along after the NDP. Members opposite do not care about children. They do not care about families or women, the ones who are going to be affected most by this Bill. This Government wants to suppress debate because it is afraid. It is afraid that the people of Canada are going to find out what this Bill will do in reality and what it symbolizes as the first of many terrible measures in the Budget affecting families. We are going to continue to keep the public aware and get the message out to people as to just what this damaging Bill is doing. The Government is giving an erroneous impression that this Bill is insignificant. It is a very, very damaging Bill and I hope to continue and conclude after lunch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the Hon. Member will be able to complete her speech later.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, for more than five months a number of employees of the Kresge department store chain in Thunder Bay have been on strike in an attempt to win a first contract and ensure for themselves a reasonable degree of recognition and remuneration for their work. Ninety-four per cent of these employees are women and,
September 24, 1985

as is the case far too often when the majority of employees are women, the management of this company is trying to ignore them. These employees receive an average wage of only $4.51 per hour, which is far below the poverty line for a single mother. An employee with 30 years of service with the company will receive a whopping pension of less than $90 per month.
These workers have every right to demand fair compensation for their work, and the company has a social responsibility to deal with them fairly and to accept their right to form a union to speak with a collective voice. If the company refuses to live up to its responsibilities, then it is up to society to impose sanctions. The workers are asking the consumers of Canada to boycott this department store chain, and the other chains, K-Mart, Jupiter, and Big Top which have the same owners.
This boycott has been offered support from the CLC, the OFL, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Thunder Bay, and the United Food and Commercial Workers. I hope it will also be endorsed by all consumers of Canada who understand that fairness and a decent standard of living are the right of all workers in this country. I ask that they join with me and my colleagues and say: "I can't shop at Kresge's any more!"



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I would again like to bring to the attention of the House the matter of the elimination of pass privileges by CP Rail for CP Rail pensioners. When the issue first came to light last summer CP Rail indicated that it was a decison arrived at during union-management negotiations. CP Rail has now indicated that passes for pensioners and employees were a privilege and not a right, and that they have been replaced by a comprehensive health package at no cost to the pensioners. Pensioners, as well as all residents of my constituency, are already fully covered by our provincial health plan.
The letter of September 16, 1985, from the President of CP Rail addressed to all CP Rail retirees falls far short of providing an adequate explanation regarding the elimination of these pass privileges.
There was a clearly documented agreement between union and management, dating back to 1936, that employees of the CPR, and pensioners who retired in good standing, were entitled to pass privileges for life.
The CPR received land grants and mineral rights as well as many financial advantages during the planning and construction stage. In view of this, Mr. Speaker, I call on CP Rail to accept its corporate responsibilities and restore pass privileges to all pensioners.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Jean-Claude Malépart: Last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to meet with several mothers and a good many people responsible for family organizations, and they all wanted to know what the word of the Government is worth. They reminded me that the consultation paper tabled by the Government last January concerning child benefits contains a sentence which goes like this: "The commitment of the Government is that no savings resulting from program changes should be transferred to deficit reduction". A few months later, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled a Budget document stating that net federal expenditures will be reduced by $15 million in 1985-86 and by $40 million in 1986-87. All this money, $55 million, will come from cut backs in income support programs for families with children.
Those people are also wondering why the Government did not implement the unanimous recommendations made by various groups whereby the child tax credit exemption should be reduced because it benefits wealthier people. According to the document, a well-to-do- person with an income of $80,000 will get $363 more whereas a man with a $10,000 income does not get anything. Those people would just like to know why the Prime Minister and his Conservative Government do not honour their words and commitments and withdraw Bill C-70.



WAR CRIMINALS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Deschenes Commission of Inquiry heard arguments regarding the possibility of the Commission travelling to the Soviet Union to gather evidence. Taking into consideration the abominable record of human rights violations by the U.S.S.R., does the Commission really expect to find evidence that has not been tampered with and tainted?
Members of Parliament asked to appear before the Commission to address this very question of Soviet evidence and the merits of such a proposed trip. They were denied the opportunity to voice their views and those of their constituents. How can the Commission naively believe that Soviet authorities have justice in mind when they themselves committed atrocities during the war and continue to be the most repressive Government in modern times?
It is even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, to hear groups which so effectively discredited the Soviet judicial system, especially with regard to trials against Soviet citizens, now argue that the Commission would be shirking its responsibility if it did not go to the U.S.S.R. The Commission would be in a

September 24, 1985
jurisdiction where the presumption of innocence and judicial independence are not the rule of law. If such evidence is accepted by the commission established by the Government of Canada, it will, in effect, be approving and accepting the present legal system of the U.S.S.R., a system that is corrupt. Canadians will never give approval to such abrogation of fundamental freedoms.



APARTHEID


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in response to questions asked about South African controlled mining companies operating in Canada are a result of the Government's lack of a definite policy toward South Africa. Canadians in one-industry towns such as Flin Flon and Snow Lake in Manitoba feel extremely nervous as a result of the Minister's spontaneous remarks. Fear has been created in these communities, yet the Government has no clear policy.
Personally, I continue to support strong sanctions that will affect the South African Government's oppressive policy of apartheid. However, there must be a clear statement of this Government's policy. Without that we suffer from vague remarks that create unnecessary fears. Let us hope that this is the last example of another Minister, another foot, and another mouth.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, it has already been brought to the attention of this House that Versatile-Davie is going to build the equivalent of one and a half frigates in Lauzon, thus creating jobs for 650 workers in this area for four years. This decision was made by the company's management after considering the following factors:
The alternative site had not been used for shipbuilding since 1968;
Shipbuilding in modular phases had already been tried in Lauzon but never at the other site;
Human resources and equipment at Versatile-Davie were in a better position to accelerate the development of Canadian expertise and thus strengthen Canada's competitive position throughout the world.
The management of Versatile-Davie does not expect any interference from the Government in selecting the site because
it has already been said that this Government trusts the private sector to develop and enhance this country's economy.
The Government will neither obstruct nor interfere with the private sector's initiative, creativity, profitability and expansion. The development of Canadian expertise and our competitive position internationally make it imperative that the frigates be built in Lauzon.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent television interview the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) demeaned and insulted new Canadians by referring to an alleged syndrome that neither I nor any other new Canadian I have spoken to has ever observed. Specifically, the Prime Minister implied that immigrants tend to salute uniformed persons, something that I have never seen in this country.
One of the things that attracts immigrants from all countries to Canada is that it is a free country. That freedom is, of course, in no way threatened by the Prime Minister's rather feeble sense of humour. However, given the influence of his position, he should know better than to make any remark which would initiate or perpetuate negative stereotyping, however minor it may appear to him.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, the present situation with respect to the conflict between Air Canada and the Canada Air Line Flight Attendants' Association deeply concerns me as all other Canadians.
Our national carrier has from now on to behave as a true competitor of the private sector with the same tools but also with the same limitations. This commercial aggressiveness has been Air Canada's slogan for several years, but we wonder whether the officials of the corporation have adequately conveyed to their employees the message about their change of outlook. Apparently, they have been unable to apprise their staff of that dractic change of behaviour in view of a major restructuring of that Crown corporation. No doubt it explains the present conditions in which a climate of frustration is obvious.
Unfortunately, emotional factors seem increasingly to override basic issues, that is people are drawing a parallel between conditions in which CALFAA members are working and those enjoyed by employees of other air lines, and wondering wheth-
September 24, 1985

er a preferential treatment for Air Canada by way of Government subsidies is justified.
Several foreign air carriers would like to do business in Canada as a result of the deregulation process announced by the Government. To allow a Crown corporation to compete with those air lines as well as with Canadian private corporations, the rules of the market must prevail during the negotiations with the union and as far as its sources of income are concerned.



TEXTILES


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, the former Leader of the Opposition, who is now Prime Minister, stated in Sherbrooke on May 4, 1984: "The quota policy would remain unchanged . . ." And the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition, spoke against free trade in those sectors. He went on to say he would not "bow" to the pressures that might come from Common Market countries, the United States, for less stringent quotas on shoes and textile products. He added this, and I quote: "I will make no bones about telling this to President Reagan when I meet him in Washington next month. I will see to it that our interest are protected at all times. Friendships have their price. Neighbours like us are worth a lot..
Today, Mr. Speaker, over 15,000 jobs directly depend on those three industries in the Eastern Townships, and it is therefore vital that the Government should take initiatives, and adequate steps needed to protect and save 15,000 jobs as well as the economy of the whole Eastern Townships area.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Andre Plourde (Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup):: Mr. Speaker, the major event in the industrial sector over these last 20 years is beyond controversy the achievement of "Carrefour de la sous-traitance" for Eastern Quebec, on October 16, 17 and 18 in Riviere-du-Loup.
The fact that "Carrefour de la sous-traitance" involves both the industries in Eastern Quebec and the public sector is in my view exceptional for the present and most significant for the economic future of our area.
In this respect, I cannot but commend the officers of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Grand-Portage for that worthwhile initiative. The industrial potential of the
Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup constituency and Eastern Quebec will never have been so well represented within a single event.
This will give entrepreneurs, potential investors, Crown corporations and the various Government departments an awareness of the vitality of our industrialists. By pursuing as its main objective the economic development of the area, "Carrefour de la sous-traitance" will give both the public sector and private participants an opportunity to meet, explore new markets, and indeed make good deals.
It is within that spirit that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Department of Employment and Immigration were actively involved in the achievement of "Carrefour de la sous-traitance" by funding a major part of the operating costs connected with-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).



THE ADMINISTRATION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in a Canadian Press article of September 18, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the "Peeping Tom" of the House of Commons as he became affectionately know in his previous role as Minister of Tourism, stated:
There may have been some excesses or abuses.
He was referring to the handing out of patronage appointments. According to the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has recognized this and has introduced tough new guidelines, the toughest of any western democracy.
Let us examine the tough new guidelines. First, the review process which the Prime Minister announced applies only to Order in Council appointments. People appointed by contract would still be exempt from scrutiny, like Sam Wakim.
Second, the Prime Minister said that there will no longer be nepotism such as there was in the past-no more appointments of brothers, sisters, sons and so forth. However, the law still permits relatives who have been previously hired to keep their jobs, like Peter Clark, Mr. Speaker.
Next, there are no sanctions in the new guidelines. It should also be remembered that there is a brand new loophole in these so-called tough guidelines. All one has to do to avoid the guidelines altogether is to incorporate as a numbered company. You then consult your favourite Cabinet Minister and he hires on contract. This loophole then provides a tax advantage and bypasses all the new conflict of interest provisions. Some tough guidelines, Mr. Speaker.
6914

September 24, 1985
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Knowing that the Deputy Prime Minister should have been concerned about the health of all Canadians, did he inform the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office that two shipments of rancid tuna were rejected by the Department of National Defence? When did he communicate that information to the Prime Minister or his office? Or, did he keep the fishy details to himself?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: That information, Mr. Speaker, came to my attention on Wednesday, September 18, and it was part of the over-all circumstances that were taken into account by me-


Mr. Broadbent:: What?


Erik Nielsen: -on the instructions of the Prime Minister, in the immediate action that was taken by the Government to meet the situation.


PREMIER HATFIELD-COMMUNICATIONS INQUIRY
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister have any telephone conversations or written correspondence with Premier Richard Hatfield? What discussions took place between himself and his Minister of Forestry regarding this situation?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I can only respond for myself, Mr. Speaker. The question to me was whether I had conversations in this regard with Premier Hatfield. The answer is no.


PRIME MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. According to the press reports we have, and compiling a list of all the people who knew about the tuna situation, we know that as of today-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Prime Minister, in addition to the man in charge of his liaison with the caucus, Mr. MacAdam, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Health and Welfare, the Minister of Consumer Affairs, and the Department of Justice were aware of it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When will the Prime Minister start to accept some responsibility for that mess and stop looking for scapegoats, forcing the wrong people to resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have accepted responsibility. The former Minister of Fisheries in a value judgment that he made submitted his resignation as an honourable gentleman, a concept that would be entirely alien to a Liberal Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deans:: That is true.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberals had a simple premise: no indictment, no resignation.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Hold it. You will get yourself into trouble telling the truth.


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the response to the question is that as soon as it was brought to my attention, as I indicated yesterday, in the circumstances 1 acted properly and with celerity to resolve the matter, and I think that was done.


ROLE OF PRIME MINISTER S OFFICE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
According to our information, the Prime Minister's Office had been aware as early as July that Canada's two largest English language television networks were working on a story on the tainted tuna issue, as it is now referred to. Did the Prime Minister give his office instructions to be concerned, above all else, about the Prime Minister's image rather than the health and well-being of Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What a surprising question from such a well-known and respected Member of this House!
Yesterday, I answered all questions fully and frankly. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member was not in the House. We have acted at all times with dispatch and in the interests of Canadian consumers.
My hon. friend mentioned the fact that one or two members of my staff were aware of the matter. It is true that Mr. MacAdam, a member of my staff, became aware of the existence of rumours around the first week of July. He got in touch with the Executive Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and received the assurance that there was no problem.
The second time was around the middle of July when Mr. Anderson, who works in my office, was visited by two staff members of the Minister concerned. He was given the assur-
September 24, 1985

ance there was no health threat of any kind, and secondly, that the Minister was acting entirely within his authority as a Minister and that there was nothing improper about the situation.
Since the Minister was absent, Mr. Anderson was asked for advice on what to do if the issue was mentioned on the evening news. Mr. Anderson said: Take your most senior official at Fisheries and Oceans and make him fully available to the media, to answer any questions they might have. And that was it. I think my staff acted quickly, in the national interest, and I believe my hon. friend will agree that was the case.
[DOT] <H20)


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. According to what we know about the problem, a lot is unknown to the public. Not only one Minister was responsible. The Minister of National Health and Welfare should have been involved, if he was not, and I would say the same about the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Would it be possible for the House to look into the matter to know exactly when the problem became a serious one, who was really at fault, and whether the Prime Minister's Office had any responsibility, rather than avoid the problem as the Prime Minister is doing right now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my hon. friend, who asked me a question and gets a direct answer, thinks that it is inadequate and insufficient. I told my hon. friend with regard to my knowledge that it happened on the Tuesday night and that I acted immediately on Wednesday morning at caucus.


Jean-C. Lapierre: At caucus!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That was the first knowledge of it-at caucus on Wednesday morning.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You defended it in the House.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, I think I indicated that in response to a question yesterday.
With regard to my personnel, on or about the first week of July, Mr. MacAdam picked up some scuttle-butt to the effect that there was a story floating around. He, one of my personnel, conveyed it to the Chief of Staff of the Minister of Fisheries, who told him that there was no problem.
About mid-July Mr. Anderson was visited by two members of the personnel of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who conveyed or gave him the assurance that there was no health hazard, that the Minister was acting within his authority and that there was nothing wrong. They queried, in the absence of the Minister, that if this was aired that night, what advice would he provide? And he said: "My advice to you would be to get the most senior member of the Department of Fisheries
Oral Questions
and Oceans and make him available to the media so that he can respond fully to all questions". I think that is sound advice.


PRODUCT DECLARED UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 remind the Prime Minister that, when he was answering questions on the first day that the issue broke, he kept using the phrase that there was no health hazard then. He soon realized that tuna fish, unfit for human consumption, ought to be taken off the shelves. It is "unfit for human consumption" which is key here. Since the Prime Minister has used that phrase time after time, is he telling us that in the summer, when we knew that the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of National Defence, as well as Pat MacAdam and Ian Anderson, intimately associated with the Prime Minister, were discussing the matter, no one conveyed the message to any of the Ministers involved or to the Prime Minister himself that the product under discussion-and they well understood it by then-was unfit for human consumption? Did no one know that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it was my personnel that brought the scuttle-butt to the attention of the Fisheries officials.


Some Hon. Members:: What happened?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. MacAdam received the assurance in early July from the Chief of Staff or the official at the Department of Fisheries that indeed he was aware of a possible CTV story but that it caused no concern or problem; that there was no problem. With regard to the substance of the question of my hon. friend as to whether the product was unfit for human consumption, my friend is quite right when he refers to the fact that there was no health and safety warning. When it was brought to my attention that indeed there was an allegation that it was unfit for human consumption, notwithstanding that, I immediately instructed the Deputy Prime Minister to meet with the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Health and Welfare and arrange, with their co-operation, to have that product removed from the shelves. That is exactly what transpired.


OFFICIALS' KNOWLEDGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the Prime Minister-and, more important, the people of Canada want to know-that if we had in this city senior officials who were aware that the tuna was unfit for human consumption, why was it not brought to the attention of the Prime Minister? How could we have a million cans of tuna, unfit for human consumption, out there on the shelves and not have it brought to the attention of the Prime Minister? Is he saying that it would still be on the shelves had the program not appeared on television?

September 24, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am saying no such thing. I am saying that the matter was raised-


Mr. Gauthier:: That is exactly what you are saying.


John Edward Broadbent: That is exactly what you are saying.


Some Hon. Members:: What are you saying?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked a question; I think I am tempted to try to answer it. I am saying no such thing. I am saying that in both instances involving staff members this summer, this question was not raised. In the first instance it was raised by Mr. MacAdam who communicated himself with the Fisheries Department. In the second case the matter was placed in an entirely different perspective for Mr. Anderson. In fact the query related to an interview which the Minister had given on June 26. The Minister being out of town, they sought advice as to how they ought to respond in the event that it aired that evening.
With regard to the product being unfit for human consumption, when that was brought to my attention-all I can do is tell my hon. friend what transpired-I immediately communicated with the Deputy Prime Minister and caused him to convene a meeting of the Minister of Health and the former Minister of Fisheries, plus other senior officials of the Government, so that they could find a way to remove this product from the shelves immediately. That is exactly what I did.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the facts, by mid-summer the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Justice, to name three, were all aware because of tests that had been conducted or because of impending legal action, as was the case with the Ministry of Justice, that tuna, unfit for human consumption, was on the shelves of stores throughout Canada.
Is the Government so incompetent that the knowledge of that in a number of Ministries was not brought to the attention of the Minister or the Prime Minister? Is that the kind of incompetence we have in the country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have the kind of competence which indicates that when this matter is brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of Canada, he immediately acts on behalf of the consumers and the citizens of the country. That is what happened.


ISSUANCE OF FORMER MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answers would indicate that he believes he is the only competent person in Cabinet. It is interesting to note and tragic to realize that the Prime Minister defended the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when the Minister's actions threatened the public good. However, he
swiftly canned that same Minister when the Minister's actions threatened the Prime Minister personally; suddenly this tuna was not good enough.
I have a direct question for the Prime Minister. Is it not true that the Prime Minister instructed his Minister of Fisheries to issue a clarifying statement last Friday night after the Minister had publicly disagreed with the Prime Minister's version of events on Friday afternoon? Is it not also true that the Prime Minister only decided to can his Minister of Fisheries after that Minister had publicly corrected the Prime Minister's flawed version of events in respect of the tuna?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no in those cases. The only flaw is in the question, and it is gravely and irretrievably flawed.


OFFICIAL'S DUTY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not his assistant, Mr. MacAdam, was aware of this matter because Mr. MacAdam had been lobbied by New Brunswick MPs, in particular the MP in whose riding this plant is located? Is it not normally the duty of the Atlantic assistant of the Prime Minister to report to the Prime Minister when members of his caucus bring matters to his attention?
Is the Prime Minister telling us that Mr. MacAdam did not communicate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. You have already asked two questions.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -did not communicate directly with the Prime Minister?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I gave a complete answer to that question just a few minutes ago.


PRIME MINISTER'S INFORMATION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: We have been told emphatically that the Ministry of Health had this problem, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of National Defence, the Prime Minister's Office had been contacted twice, the Privy Council Office had this matter in detail, and the Prime Minister is attempting to tell this House he knew nothing about it. Is the only time the Prime Minister ever finds out anything when he watches television? Is that the only time he gets information?


Ian Deans: Sitting in your jacuzzi.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that the NDP, having done what they have had to
September 24, 1985

do, are now sitting there chuckling. They think they have scored a few points. You will pay heavily for that kind of jocular attitude with the Canadian people, I can tell you that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have responded fully and honestly to the inquiries of my hon. friend.


An Hon. Member:: Getting under your skin, eh?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries in an emphatic statement said this matter was, in detail, in the hands of the Prime Minister. We have had seven examples of how it should have gotten there. Would the Prime Minister admit in this House that he cut the Minister of Fisheries' throat in order to cover his own backside?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: No way.


PRIME MINISTER S KNOWLEDGE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly difficult, in listening to these answers and questions, to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister knew about this matter along before he has indicated in this House previously that he did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Was he blind, deaf, and dumb?


An Hon. Member:: Just dumb.


George Baker: My question to the Prime Minister is this. In view of the questions that have been asked here today, in view of the information that has become public in recent days, in view of that, can he now stand in his place, in retrospect, and say quite honestly that he knew absolutely nothing, nothing at all about this incident prior to that Tuesday night?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can say that and anybody who says anything to the contrary can bloody well put his seat on the line, because it is
false.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Getting under your scales, Brian?


INQUIRY OF THE PRIME MINISTER
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the bigger scandar here is that the Prime Minister did not know-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: If the Government benches will permit a question. Supplementary question immediately, please?
Oral Questions


George Baker: With a 54 per cent increase in his staff and 120 people working there-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to come immediately to the question.


George Baker: My question quite simply, Mr. Speaker, is this. Don't you think you should have known?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where does the buck stop?


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE PLANNED REDUCTIONS IN INSPECTION PERSONNEL
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue concerning the planned cut of customs and excise jobs over the next Five years and the planned centralization of examination of international parcel mail. Some Canadians fear that this move may increase the risk of pornography and illegal drugs coming into the country. Would the Minister allay the fears of the Members of this House, and Canadians, about this risk?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for a very topical and pertinent question and to assure him the reductions in numbers that have been referred to are not nearly as great as those which have been reported. This in no way affects the capacity of the Department to carry out with vigilance what is required to keep prohibited imports from coming into this country. The reductions are designed to improve the payment and delivery and streamline the service, and do not affect the enforcement ability of the Department.


FISHERIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Everybody is aware now that Ian Anderson, the Head of Communications, and Pat MacAdam, a long-standing friend and adviser of the Prime Minister, were aware of the "Tuna affair" in late July. But curiously enough, neither Anderson nor MacAdam were fired.
My question is this, Mr. Speaker. Must we infer now that they properly did their duty and informed the Prime Minister of the "tuna affair"? If not, the Prime Minister being respon-

September 24, 1985
Oral Questions
sible for his staff, as any other Minister is, why did he not sack them? Why did he not sack them both just as he did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, here you have a perfect example of the NDP problem.
The Hon. Member prepared his question before coming to the House. In reply to about a dozen questions, I gave some clear and precise explanations; just the same, the Hon. Member did not change his question. He read it just as it was. He had absolutely no reason to do that. I provided all the necessary information concerning the behavior of the two persons concerned, and 1 want to repeat it for the benefit of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


An Hon. Member:: Definitely no.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Prime Minister did not answer the question. He is a phoney. He is a phoney and the people of Canada know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Both sides. Order. Supplementary question immediately.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is a new question, Mr. Speaker, and I want the Prime Minister to answer it. The Minister of Fisheries was fired in this country because he was derelict in his duties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; no. I invited the Hon. Member to come to a question immediately; he did not. No. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Could I ask all Hon. Members, particularly the majority, to please allow the questions and the answers to be heard.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the question I am directing to the Right Hon. Prime Minister deals with such an important issue as the income supporting policy to help families with children.
Last January, Mr. Prime Minister, your Government promised that no savings resulting from changes to the programs would be used to reduce the deficit. Could the Prime Minister
explain to us now why his Government has not kept his word and has reduced by $15 million in 1985-86, and $40 million in 1986-87?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite will know that this matter is in debate in the House at the present time. 1 would also like to indicate to him that if he looks not only at the consultation paper but also at the expenditure increases for both this Department and, for that matter, the total social policy envelope, he will find that the expenditure increase is well beyond any of the figures that are now incorporated in Bill C-70.
[ Translation]


REDUCTION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Families in Quebec and the rest of Canada would like to know why his Government has decided to reduce in 1986 the family allowances which help middle and low income families, preferring to wait until 1987 to change-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again this matter was included in the Budget. 1 would point out to the Hon. Member again that this is not the first time. In fact it was his Government which in 1976 fully deindexed family allowances and which did it again in 1982 with the six and five program. In fact if this had not happened, family allowances would now be substantially higher. I simply say to the Hon. Member that he should look at his own record to see why what he is saying today is quite opposite to what members of his Party said then.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has now made it clear in the House that he learned of the tuna scandal by hearing that it had been on television and on the national news. My question to the Prime Minister is very simple. Who on his staff or in his Cabinet should have been responsible for telling him about this before that date?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility is a ministerial one. The former Minister, whom Hon. Members quite properly saluted yesterday, exercised his judgment in the circumstances. He felt that he was
September 24, 1985

doing the proper thing. He no doubt reconsidered in the light of developments and did the honourable thing by submitting his resignation. This was within the purview of ministerial authority and the former Minister exercised his authority as he so indicated to me and to the House through earlier questioning last week. I have already explained the other circumstances under which members of my staff brought the matter to the attention of the Ministry.


FORMER MINISTER'S STATEMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Prime Minister. 1 would like to know why the Prime Minister has challenged the Hon. Member for Vancouver South to put his seat on the line. Last Friday the Hon. Member said very definitively that full details had been provided to the Prime Minister's desk several weeks ago. Is the Prime Minister saying that that statement made by the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is false and that those full details were never provided to him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think my hon. friend, if he checks the record, will find that what he has said is seriously inaccurate. That is not the situation that prevailed then nor does it prevail today.


PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I have heard him state before, and now again in this House, that the reason he was not personally involved in the dossier was that when members of his staff heard about it, they went to the Ministry involved but, because it was not on television, it did not become an issue. Is the Prime Minister telling the people of Canada that it was not his and his staff members' responsibility to act on one million cans of tuna that were potentially unfit for human consumption, and that his staffs responsibility is only to manipulate the media and television shows?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated quite clearly the circumstances in which two members of my staff were involved, however peripherally, in this matter. In the first instance Mr. MacAdam conveyed what he had learned to the Department of Fisheries. In the second instance, Mr. Anderson, in the absence of the Minister, was asked for advice as to who ought to be available in the event that the matter was aired. The dimension of television was incidental to the questions that were being put. I thought that in both cases Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacAdam acted very properly.


ACTION TAKEN BY PRIME MINISTER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister now says that Mr. MacAdam was peripherally involved. Earlier on today, he stated that he and his office had taken a lead in the issue. Which was it ? Was he peripherally
Oral Questions
involved or had he taken a lead in the issue? If the Prime Minister was so concerned about the tuna that was unfit for human consumption, why did it take him more than 24 hours to get it off the shelves of Canadian consumers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I have explained completely the circumstances and the celerity with which I acted upon being apprised of the matter. In regard to Mr. MacAdam's involvement, all I meant by the use of the word "peripherally" was that it was peripheral to the main issue. Mr. MacAdam picked up information which he passed on, as I think he should have, to the Ministry of Fisheries and they dealt with it at that level.


AIRING OF TELEVISION PROGRAM
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Prime Minister and it is simple enough. If the Fifth Estate program had not been aired-


Mr. Crosbie:: What would you be asking about?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order, order.


Ian Deans: -would the rancid tuna still be on the shelves?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I invite the Hon. Member to phrase a question that is not so hypothetical?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me put it another way. It is not a hypothetical question because in July there was a rumour that a program was going to appear, the Prime Minister's staff looked into the rumour, the program did not appear and nothing was done about the content of the rumour. If conditions had remained the same and the program had never appeared on the air, what assurance can the Prime Minister give us that his staff would have acted responsibly, having full knowledge of the possible health effects of that rancid tuna, and made sure that the House of Commons was informed of what had happened and that the tuna would have been taken off the shelves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is just as hypothetical as the first question. The Hon. Member has his views but that question is just as hypothetical. I will invite the Hon. Member to ask the question one more time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Next.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Member to ask a question of fact.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that there is very much doubt about the import of the question. Let me put it another way. Was it the fact that the program appeared on television that caused the Government to move to have the

September 24, 1985
Oral Questions
tuna taken off the shelves in spite of the fact that it knew about it in advance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, whether the question is hypothetical or not, I would be happy to respond to the thrust of the question of my hon. friend. As I understand it, the program aired on a Tuesday night. I did not see the program but it was brought to my attention that in fact it aired on that Tuesday night. Wednesday morning, I immediately charged the Deputy Minister with the responsibility of assembling all the details and immediately thereafter, the next day, the tuna was off the shelves. I think that that is very swift action on behalf of the people of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Government by television.


SHOE IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. There is presently a great deal of concern and uncertainty in the minds of the 20,000 Canadians who are employed in the shoe industry concerning the possible lifting of quotas on the importation of footwear into Canada. The industry wants to be assured of fair trade before free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: So that this uncertainty is removed, can the Minister tell the House when there will be a decision made regarding the industry's request for limited protection?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, the tribunal handed down its decision in the latter part of June. We were aware of that decision. We immediately consulted not only with the manufacturers and the unions but with the consumers, the importers and the exporters of shoes. We have heard from them. We are presently working on a response to that and will be reporting in due course to Cabinet.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment whom I wish well in his new portfolio. In view of the fact that last week at the conference in Muskoka on acid rain he indicated his wish to accelerate the process of modification of smelters in Canada, how does he intend to proceed with this?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my answer by thanking the Hon. Member for his congratulations and his good wishes. I look forward to working with him and his colleagues on our common environmental concerns.
To answer his specific question, my priority is to see, in concert with the provinces, that the provinces give effect to their individual commitments made on February 5 of this year to reduce acid rain-causing emissions by 1994 to 50 per cent of the levels prevalent in 1980. Only Quebec has come forward with a specific program to put into effect its own commitment. I am confident, however, that the other provinces will be following suit before long.
A federal-provincial conference is scheduled for next week, at which time I think each of the provinces will be eager to report to one another, and to me, on their respective progress.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take a public stand, while the process which he has just announced proceeds, with respect to rejecting in no uncertain terms the request by the American Environmental Protection Agency for an additional three years of study in order to examine a request by the U.S. Judiciary which ordered the agency, in July, to proceed in the interest of Canadian and American forests and resources with respect to acid rain reductions? Will the Minister take a public stand in this regard?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled by the question because I have done nothing else but take a public stand on the issue since becoming Minister.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Minister of State for Finance said that to the best of her knowledge the weekend meeting in Washington to which Canada was not invited was just another routine meeting of Ministers of Finance of the Big Five. United States Treasury officials today said it could be called "a very special meeting conducted in utmost secrecy". Was the Minister of Finance aware of this special meeting? Was he aware of the important agenda items to be discussed at that meeting? Which of the Big Five was representing Canada's interests?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 24, 1985


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me try to bring the Hon. Member up to date with respect to various events which have been taking place over the years.


John Edward Broadbent: Starting in which century?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: it will only take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.
The meeting of the five industrialized countries which took place was part of a long process of meetings which have been going on for a number of years. However, most recently, it has been the culmination of meetings at which I have been in attendance with the IMF, the OECD, and the summit meeting in Bonn which were all directed at the same problem of inflation and divergence of economies and, also, the important problems with respect to exchange rates between various currencies. The particular meeting to which the Hon. Member has referred was supposed to resolve some of those problems as they relate to the five countries.


ABSENCE OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has said is interesting since it has been indicated by the office of the Minister of State for Finance that "the thing just hit us", in terms of the topic being discussed at that meeting. My original question to the Minister of Finance was: Because of the important implications which this meeting had for Canada, in terms of a depressed United States currency relative to ours, and the implications of that, who was representing Canada's interests-which of the Big Five?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the Hon. Member that nine days before the meetings in New York I was in Washington. I met with Secretary Baker, Chairman Volcker of the Federal Reserve, and Chief of Staff Regan in the White House. At each of those meetings I brought to their respective attention the problems which we are facing in Canada, and the importance of the relationship with the United States and those policy matters which we felt important to be dealt with at IMF meetings-at any meetings prior to this.
I should also say to the Hon. Member that the G-Five meetings are normally held at this time of year. They are a prelude to the G-Ten meetings, which are meetings of other industrialized countries. We are part of that process and will continue to be a very important part of that process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Communications is addressed to his Parliamentary Secretary. The City of Scarborough is giving CBC the chance of a lifetime to locate its headquarters in Canada's fastest growing city, at a savings of $95 million. What action will the Government take to assure the taxpayers of Canada that the question of the location of the CBC headquarters is still open and that this proposal will receive objective and thorough consideration?


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for his timely question which I know he asks on behalf of other Hon. Members from Scarborough. The Minister of Communications is aware of the proposal by the City of Scarborough. I am informed that the CBC has also been made aware of the Scarborough proposal. The Minister of Communications is certain that the CBC will be giving the proposal all due consideration.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the Canada-U.S. negotiations on free trade. Government documents indicate that the agricultural sector may not be exempt from negotiations on free trade because, in the documents, it is indicated free trade would increase productivity and accelerate the transfer of farmers out of agriculture. As the Minister well knows, without certain programs agriculture would be in a more desperate situation than that which it is in already. Will the Minister assure Canadian farmers that support programs and marketing systems, such as we have in place with respect to dairy and poultry products and Wheat Board commodities, will not be bargaining chips in the Canada-U.S. negotiations on free trade?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, those of us who have been involved in the agri-food industry over a number of years would certainly recognize the sensitivity of the industry if we make a decision to go forward. However, I think the Government is determined to bring about a fair and better deal for Canadian agriculture.


STABILIZATION AND INSURANCE PROGRAMS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, agriculture is facing the worst crisis since the 1930s. Why will the Minister not give a categorical commitment today that programs such

September 24, 1985
Petitions
as the Western Grain Stabilization Program and the Crop Insurance Program, which are so desperately needed in western Canada, will not be bargained away in the free trade negotiations with the United States?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, part of the reason we are suffering such a tight situation in the agricultural industry today is because of the fact that for many years the previous Government completely and totally ignored the agri-food industry year after year, after year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Two wrongs do not make a right.


John Wise: I hope the Hon. Member would want to take advantage of an opportunity, if the opportunity presents itself, to attempt to eliminate some of the border irritants which have gone on and on and which impact detrimentally on Canadian agriculture. I think that he would want to take advantage of that opportunity.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns the closing of the two Dominion Textile Plants in Saint-John and in Valleyfield, resulting in the loss of 550 jobs.
In view of the investment by the Canadian taxpayers in these plants, will these decisions of Dominion Textile cause the Government to stop immediately all additional payments to Dominion Textile by the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board and will the Minister immediately undertake an in-depth examination of the management of the grants received by Dominion Textile?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: As the Hon. Member knows, that question was raised earlier. It is under review by the Government.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: No.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, September 23, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Deputy Speaker, Marcel Danis, the Hon. Ramon John Hnatyshyn, the Hon. Robert de Cotret, the Hon. Herb Gray, the Hon. Robert Howie, Gerry St. Germain, the Hon. Andre Ouellet and Ian Deans have been appointed to act with the Speaker of the House as members of the Board of Internal Economy for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled An Act to Amend the House of Commons Act.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a Notice of a Question of Privilege from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have written to you on a question of privilege and I have raised it at the earliest possible opportunity.
It came to my attention recently that there is in existence a Government document, supposedly a draft document, produced in September of 1985 by the Communications Task Force on Free Trade appointed by the Prime Minister's Office, which violates my privileges as a Member of Parliament.
On page 8 of the document, it states, and I quote:
Members whose ridings can be expected to benefit from the initiative will likely be under a complicated and conflicting set of pressures. These can be productively exploited.
The document continues and specifically targets myself for attention, and I quote:
As examples... Sheila Copps, whose Hamilton, Ontario riding has the steel industry to represent-
I believe this to be a violation of my privileges as a Member of Parliament and draw to your attention to Beauchene's Fifth Edition, Citation 67 and Citation 71. Citation 67 states, and I quote:
It is generally accepted that any threat to a Member, attempting to influence his vote or his actions as a Member, is a breach of privilege.
Citation 71 states, and I quote:
Direct threats which attempt to influence Members' actions in the House are undoubtedly breaches of privilege.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating that if you find a prima facie breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the necessary motion.
September 24, 1985


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a long presentation to make to you, Sir, because it is clear that the Hon. Member has no case of privilege at all on the basis of the information she has brought forward.
The Hon. Member refers to an alleged document which she has in her possession which I have not seen and upon which I am not able to comment except to say that I believe the Hon. Member will recall that when reference was made in this House to a document of similar ilk, there was an indication that there was no knowledge on the part of the Government as to where this document came from, what it was, and in fact there was absolutely no acceptance of it as a document or despatch of the Government. We are going to look into these matters, whether they be by way of press reports or synopses or documents of which I have no knowledge. I think that is not the basis upon which any prima facie case can be established and, accordingly, I would ask you to rule in this instance that there is not a prima facie case.
There has been no demonstration, even from what I have heard, Mr. Speaker, of any suggested threat against any Hon. Member. If that were the case, certainly with respect to polls being taken as to whether or not a Member of Parliament is accepted or not accepted, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would be first in line, because apparently he is having polling done as to which Ministers are the most formidable in this House, and I do not feel threatened at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) did in fact send me notice of her intention to raise her question. It is a serious accusation and I fully intend to reserve and give the matter the proper attention it deserves.
If I may say to the Hon. Member, just as a matter of form, the Hon. Member has quoted from a document and I would ask her, please, in order to bring her complaint within the form, to provide me in my chambers with a copy of the document.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce the business for this afternoon and, indeed, into tomorrow.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You announced that yesterday. Have you changed your mind again?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know the Hon. Member for Vanier-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ottawa-Vanier.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) missed me yesterday. I had some discussions with the Opposition House Leaders, Mr. Speaker, concerning the matter of the order of business and, in order that we can proceed with items of business and that there be no misunderstanding on the part of anyone, we have changed the order of
Petitions
business now to continue to deal with Bill C-71, an Act to amend the customs tariff. Bill C-72 will be the next Bill, which is an Act amending the statute law and the Income Tax Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act. Bill C-73 will be the next item of business, which is an act to validate certain ordinances in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. That will be followed by Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Then Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act.
Discussions will continue, Mr. Speaker, and if there be a change in that sequence of business, or any other item is brought forward, I will rise in my place and make an appropriate announcement so that all Hon. Members will be apprised at the earliest date.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that that is in fact what resulted from conversations and discussions we had this morning. I am pleased to return to the orderly way of doing business.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: 1 have the honour to present a petition from residents of my constituency of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic and of Beauharnois, Papineau and Rosemont. They ask the Government to review its position and to re-establish full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit for all Canadian families.
I therefore ask the Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to consider the concerns of these people and to take action to correct this injustice.
Mr. Speaker, I have more petitions from residents of the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve constituency and of Saint-Denis. The petitioners humbly sheweth that, while the Prime Minister promised Canadian citizens during the 1984 electoral campaign to maintain full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit, cut backs of S55 million will be effected in family assistance benefits if the Government does not review its budgetary measure, that it is unacceptable that the Canadian Government-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may interrupt, I believe that the Hon. Member is well aware that it is forbidden to read the petition, but that she may give a brief summary.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the summary is as follows: That the Government of Canada make the necessary

September 24, 1985
Petitions
changes so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) can amend the budgetary measures to maintain full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I have a third petition from constituents of Longueuil, of Laval and of Gamelin. These residents and petitioners also ask this Government to review its position and to reestablish full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit for all Canadian families.
This is the last petition, Mr. Speaker! It comes from the federal constituencies of Gamelin and Rosemont in Quebec. The petitioners are also disappointed by the Government's decision to de-index family allowances and the child tax credit. They pray the Government to review its position and to reestablish full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions given to me by the people of Lotbiniere and Megantic-Compton who cannot rely on their Members of Parliament to represent them in the House. They asked me to act on their behalf and present a petition to urge the Government of Canada to restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, if there were only the people of Lotbiniere and Megantic-Compton, it would not be too bad, but a lot of ridings have asked us to represent them here. The people of Rosemont, among others, were unable to get in touch with their Member, so they asked me to act on their behalf and present a petition to urge the Government of Canada to restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.
As you can see for yourself, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of dissatisfied people in Rosemont, for I have here another petition from residents of Rosemont who have asked me to present this petition to you where they urge the Government of Canada to restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.
I have another petition from Rosemont, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of dissatisfied people in that riding. They too have told me they insist that the Government of Canada should restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a petition from the people of Montreal-Sainte-Marie who first told me how proud they are of their Member of Parliament, adding that they agree with him when he urges the Government of Canada to restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have other petitions to present on the same subject?


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is different, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member well knows that he has the right to name the constituency or to present petitions to the House. That is all that is needed. I cannot allow the Hon. Member to continue with such a list, except if he wants to name other constituencies. Is that the case? He only wants to name other constituencies?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The residents of Saint-Leonard-Anjou would never have forgiven me had 1 not told you that they too are dissatisfied, as is another group-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is fully aware of the Standing Orders of the House concerning petitions. If he has a series of petitions on the same subject, all he has to do is rise and indicate the number of petitions and where they come from in Canada. A brief summary is allowed, but not for each petition. I know the Hon. Member is aware of that. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to present to the House a number of petitions from confederations and family agencies representing millions of Quebec families in which the Prime Minister is asked to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit, and who are asking the Prime Minister not to cut $55 million from family assistance programs.
Mr. Speaker, of course, the people of that great riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie have asked me to table a petition in which they humbly pray the Right Hon. Prime Minister to refrain from cutting family allowance payments and the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the people of the riding of Rosemont. They want to know and are asking the Right Hon. Prime Minister to reinstate full-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Did the Hon. Member say three times: "a petition to the Prime Minister"?


Jean-Claude Malépart: No.


Mr. Speaker:: No? Now I would like to know whether these petitions are addressed to the House.


Jean-Claude Malépart: To the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat this for the record. The petitions are addressed to the House and they are asking the House to humbly pray the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from a beautiful riding, whose people are a long way from Ottawa and Montreal, from the people of Chicoutimi and Sherbrooke, who also humbly pray the House that all Members urge the Prime
September 24, 1985

Minister to reinstate full indexation of family allowance payments and the child tax credit and to refrain from cutting $55 million from the income assistance program for families with children.
Mr. Speaker, from a beautiful region of Quebec, from the people of Trois-Rivieres. They too have asked and urged us and all Members of the House to invite the Government to restore the full indexation of family allowances and to refrain from cutting $55 million from income support programs for families with children.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude with the people of my neighbouring constituency, the fair constituency of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Feeling like they have been abandoned by their Member, unfortunately, the residents of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and Rosemont want all Members of the House to ask the Prime Minister to restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present to the House a petition signed by many residents of my constituency of Ottawa-Vanier who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged right and ask the House to urge the Prime Minister to restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition, this time signed by many residents of the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton, who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged right and ask the House of Commons to bring pressure to bear on the Government and the Prime Minister so they will restore the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I will not take advantage of the House, I have another petition, the last one today, a petition which comes from the Ottawa region generally in which the petitioners urge the House to fully restore such Government programs as family allowances and the child tax credit, and they also ask for the full indexation of family allowances and of the child tax credit.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, many constituents, many people also came to my office to bring petitions, especially two from Montreal-Mercier and Rosemont wherein the petitioners strongly deplore the Government's insistence on wanting to deindex family allowances and tax credits. They urge the Government to reconsider the situation and to grant full indexation.
Another petition from Montreal-Sainte-Marie and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve in which the people again blame the Government for its savage attack against family allowances.
I have two more petitions, Mr. Speaker, the last ones, whereby the petitioners voice their objections to deindexation of family allowances and see in this shameful measure a sign that the universality of social programs might eventually come under review. Those people ask the House and all Hon.
Introduction of Bills
Members to reconsider the situation so as to maintain full indexation.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker,
I also am honored to present petitions to this House and I can tell you there is quite a wave of protest somewhat similar to the one experienced last spring when there was an attempt by the Government to deindex old age security pensions. So the people in my constituency, the people in Shediac, are joining the people in Rosemont, in Sainte-Marie, in Vercheres, in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, and all these people, Mr. Speaker, are asking the Government not to proceed with partial deindexation of family allowances.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-76, an Act respecting the operation of the Toronto Island Airport by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
September 24, 1985
Order Paper Questions

['Agreed.']
Maurice Brydon Foster: for leave to introduce Bill C-249, an Act to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is designed to maintain the representation from northern Ontario, which occupies 88 per cent of the land mass of the great Province of Ontario, of 11 Members of Parliament as it now exists. We believe that the present Government legislation before the House threatens this representation and, thus, the entire representation by Members of Parliament from northern Ontario.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Frank Oberle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, today question No. 310 will be answered.
(Text]


Mr. Gagliano: Are any moneys paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Minister of State (Small Businesses) for the use of his car and driver other than for government business and, if so (a) is the Minister's Chief of Staff driven in the car when not accompanying the Minister on official business (b) does the Minister take the car on private trips and does this include trips either to or in his Constituency (c) what other uses are made of the car and driver and on what occasions?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: No. (a) No. (6) Yes. Cabinet Ministers may make personal use of the departmental vehicle assigned to their offices for official use. They must declare their intended personal use of the vehicle and such use must be paid for on the basis of a kilometric/mileage rate. Cabinet Ministers must report all personal use, from which a taxable benefit is calculated and added to their taxable income at the end of each taxation year, (c) None.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this particular Bill. I would like to approach this topic of customs tariff from the direction in which we seem to be moving with regard to trade with other countries, particularly with the United States.
Just a week or two ago I spoke to a number of Congressmen and asked specifically about their position on trade. From those to whom I spoke I got the very distinct impression that there is a real mood for protectionism among Congressmen. A number of those Congressmen are not only in a protectionist mood, but have moved in that direction. Consequently, before we pass Bills such as C-71, we should consider the entire subject of trade. I think it is wrong for the Government to proceed with changes in the trade structure without knowing the direction in which we are moving.
Right now there are nearly 300 pieces of legislation before Congress which contain protectionist measures for a variety of industries in the United States. In considering Bill C-71, which changes the customs tariff on a number of products coming into Canada, we must recognize that the rules are changing. It somehow seems incongruous on our part to eliminate the small tariffs we have in some areas before we know the basis upon which trade will be carried out in the future.
When I was speaking to those Congressmen I got the very distinct impression that they are very concerned that they are not in the best possible position regarding the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs which is presently in place. They are concerned that the commitment that Congress has made over the years toward free trade is no longer the direction in which Congress or the Senate wants to go, and that in this particular case the administration is not going to win. The constitution of the United States allows two-thirds of Congress
September 24, 1985

to force legislation through not allowing the President of the United States the power of veto. Congressmen to whom I spoke feel that they have more than a two-thirds majority supporting them in Congress. Consequently, they feel quite secure that their protectionist direction is going to be upheld.
With protectionism rampant in the United States, Mr. Speaker, why are we eliminating the small protection that we have? Free trade seems to be a favourite topic among Cabinet Ministers at this time. It is a whole new area of concern and we do not know what the effects of free trade would be. It is all very well to say that we will get certain products cheaper if we have free trade, but it may also mean that those products will no longer be made in Canada. We do not know what the trade missions to Canada mean when they say that all they want is a level playing field. We have no idea what is meant by a level playing field in terms used by the United States. Does it mean that our relations with other countries with which we trade now, other than the United States, will be the same as those that other countries have with the United States? Are we going to find ourselves operating under the same kind of restrictions which the States presently operate on in its relations with many countries? Is that what is called a level playing field? Will we have the same access to markets that are presently our markets now, or will that access disappear?
In passing Bills like Bill C-71, we are going along a route that is not necessarily the route we will have to look at tomorrow. Why give away what we have before we know what the future is going to do for us? Let us slow down the process of changing tariffs until we know what the new rules are going to be. If we give away what little leverage we have, we will find ourselves without any weapons or any basis to say to any country that we want to keep Canadian industry going. Let us not give away the leverage we have by casually passing every customs tariff change that is brought forward by this Government.
I recognize that customs tariff changes were part of negotiations that we got into long before the present Government came into power. They were part of a direction decided many years ago, but decided when the rules were know, not decided under the circumstances we now find ourselves.
We keep being told that what we need is a level playing field. I am from a heavily agricultural area. I want to know before we start negotiating away our present tariffs that that level playing field will not negate our agricultural boards; for instance, the dairy commission, the poultry commission, and the Canadian Wheat Board. Those boards are very important to the continued stability of the agricultural industry across Canada. Will those boards disappear because the U.S. will demand a level playing field?
What do we know about the negotiations? What about things like stabilization for farmers and crop insurance, elements that are very important to the stable and continued development or even continued production in many farm areas? If you do not have stabilization and insurance, more
Customs Tariff
farmers will go bankrupt than are going bankrupt now. If those things are not in place, many parts of our industry will disappear. Before we go ahead with casually passing Bills that will change the rules or the protection we have, let us be sure we know the rules we will be playing under next month or next year.
Although this Bill does not affect us a great deal, I think we should be careful about it. I expect this Bill will be passed, but nevertheless we should be very careful in our understanding of the rules by which we play. We should be very careful that the direction we are going is one that we control. Instead of tearing down the protection we have, we should be looking at areas where fair and free trade are taken into consideration, where we can protect ourselves from the large colossus to the south.
I wonder what a level playing field will be. A U.S. team is made up of 10 players. Canada's team is made up of one player. The U.S. is 10 times as large as Canada. Granted, if you kick the ball you have 10 places to kick it; but you only have one if you are in Canada. The whole process of free trade must be looked at very carefully within the bounds of what we have to keep us operating as we are now.
I just wanted to put those points on the record. When we start talking about trade, let us be sure we know the rules under which we will operate in the future.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments. 1 hardly know what the Hon. Member means when he says "Let's keep what we have and let's not give anything away". At the present time a number of my constituents are having difficulty. There is some rule that states a person must go to the customs office himself or have a broker go to pick up a parcel. One professional living in Strathmore has to hire a broker at $40 an hour, because he could not leave his practice, to pick up what was a $25 parcel. If that is keeping what we have, I do not go for that at all. The Minister is looking at such things and he should be able to change them.
Second, the Hon. Member has mentioned "giving away" several times. I do not know what he means by "giving away". If this is now going to eliminate the custom's charge that has been placed on the chassis of a fertilizer machine, we are not giving anything away. We are simply making it more reasonable for our farmers to operate. The Hon. Member coming from an agricultural area surely knows that farmers cannot pass on those costs. They have to absorb them, adding to the cost of producing food.
I think the Minister is very wise to bring in these measures. Many of the articles that I see in this Bill are protecting items made in Canada. We are not discussing free trade here at the present time. We are discussing the situation as it is. Certainly I do not agree with everything the way it is right now, but a lot of these changes are very good. Some of the changes will help people to get work. Doing away with customs charges on cutting machines for coal mines, for instance. These are very expensive machines not made in Canada. They come in from other countries. By eliminating that duty, that may enable

September 24, 1985
Customs Tariff
many of our coal mines to get started again. We have a tremendous amount of coal and very little of it is being mined today.
I do not understand what the Hon. Member means when he says, "Let's keep what we have". Let us change and make things fair and sensible is what I say.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I too can quote a litany of cases where the process under which customs charges have been put into place and administrated has been unfair. I recognize that. I think the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) really underlines the point that I was trying to make, that in many cases I wish we did not have customs duties. We could get things cheaper for the whole agricultural industry. If we look at this on the basis of national interest, making things available cheaper right now might sound like a good thing.
The direction we are going is based on rules put in place 15 years ago when we started the GATT negotiations. We established the direction in which we were going, and we continued in that direction because free trade was a basis of the GATT negotiations. However, if we change the ground rules, we become the same to the rest of the world as the United States. We eliminate the possibility of trading with other countries and perhaps we will have to go in another direction in order to start protecting what we have. Although our direction before seemed acceptable, it is not necessarily acceptable under new rules if we start a free trade direction in the future. Let us not eliminate the structure which is in place that allows Customs duties to be charged on certain items. We must not eliminate that, because tomorrow we may be going in the other direction. The United States has demanded a level playing field in its free trade negotiations because it has protections in place which it may not want to give away.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. During his remarks he made reference to the possible impact of the level playing field concept on the Canadian Wheat Board. As someone from Thunder Bay, a major port on the St. Lawrence Seaway, I was wondering whether he could expand his arguments and indicate what dangers he would foresee for Thunder Bay and therefore the movement of grain in a level playing field concept?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my concern is that Canadian farmers do not have the same kinds of subsidies as American farmers. Therefore they do not have the same ability to sell their grain as their counterparts in that country. We feel that both farmers should be on the same level in the playing field concept.
Farmers in the United States would love to have the Canadian Wheat Board or some similar organization through which to sell their grain. If farmers in the United States sell their grain after harvest, they might receive $2.50, whereas if there is a shortage six months later, it might be as high as $8. In Canada that is levelled out and every farmer receives $4.50 or something in the middle. Farmers go broke in the U.S.
because they sold at the wrong time. This does not happen in Canada. If that protection does not remain, we will return to the system of handling grain where the longer one holds on to it, the better price one receives. If farmers were doing well in that case, Thunder Bay would receive much more grain than it could handle at the end of the season, but at the beginning of the season there would be none. That was one of the problems which led to the establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board and it led to the granaries of farmers being full when Thunder Bay was empty. Those are the types of things which might be affected by the level playing field concept.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. A number of issues were raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) when he launched the amendments to the Customs Tariff Act. In his comments he pointed to the need for certain Government measures to protect, for example, Canadian domestic automobile markets from the rising tide of protectionism. Obviously this begs a question as to what our country will do on the issue of free trade.
As the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, 1 happen to represent the most industrialized riding in Canada. I should like to shed some light on Canadian experiences with respect to the so-called free trade by referring to the steel industry. In a Government document which was exposed in the House last Friday, the Prime Minister's Office suggested that somehow I, as Hon. Member for Hamilton East, could not fight any kind of free trade initiative simply because it would be embarrassing to me from the point of view of my constituency.
In fact, the Government suggested that other Hon. Members and myself should be exploited because of our particular industrialized constituencies. I tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government that as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, the most industrialized riding of Canada, I have no hesitation in telling them to proceed cautiously. I have seen to what the so-called free trade agreement with the United States in the steel industry led. By all accounts, Canadian steel makers are fair and free trading partners with the United States. They had to spend $1 million in 1984 specifically to protect their interest in respect of the rising tide of U.S. protectionism when it came to the importation of Canadian steel. What was the result of that expenditure of $1 million? When the Prime Minister came back from the Shamrock Summit-and I think for the first time he put "sham" back into the word "shamrock"-he was gloating. He told Canadians that we had a new relationship with the United States, that the President and he were buddy-buddy. The President does not know it, nor do the major monetary partners. In any case, the Prime Minister of Canada was to get the message across that we are fair and free trading partners in steel.
However, the record in the first seven months of 1985 has shown that the bended-knee approach of the Prime Minister in negotiations with the President of the United States is simply not working. If we examine one specific sector, that is the steel sector, we see quite clearly that in the first seven months of
September 24, 1985

this year shipments of Canadian steel to the United States in a fair and free trading market were down 9.3 per cent. Half that reduction in shipment was a direct result of Canadian industry, in response to rising American protectionism, voluntarily cutting back on its imports. Also in the first months of the mandate of a Prime Minister who was to have a wonderful and productive relationship with the President of the United States, we see that the Canadian share of the U.S. steel market has dropped from 3.2 per cent to 3 per cent. Sources within the U.S. steel industry would like to see that percentage further reduced to 2.4 per cent. Instead of the Prime Minister and the Government spending money on developing sophisticated communications documents in an attempt to infringe upon the responsibilities of opposition Members, they should tell the House why, in light of this new relationship between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, the Canadian share of the steel market was reduced this year as a direct result of those measures. Why is it that the Canadian Government is not responding to American measures which would see a loss, if in fact the Canadian share of the U.S. steel market was reduced to 2.4 per cent, as suggested by certain sources in the U.S. steel industry, of almost 6,000 Canadian jobs? Where are the Prime Minister and the Government when it comes to fighting the rising tide of U.S. protectionism?
The Prime Minister did not comment in the House today on press reports dealing with the response of the President of the United States to protectionism. He is setting up a $300 million American war chest to help U.S. exporters compete against subsidized foreign exports in markets abroad. We saw, in fact, the U.S. response when it came to consulting Canada on the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Was the Prime Minister of Canada even in the picture? Was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) at the meeting? Was the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) involved in a decision which could obviously impact very directly on steel jobs and other jobs in the so-called international market between Canada and the United States, and I think of the auto market? Where was Canada when it came to this new, important role as espoused by the Prime Minister when he went to New York and said, "We are open for business".
In fact, the blind, bended knee, hands on approach of the Prime Minister with respect to embracing the notion of free trade is just another example of the Schefferville solution to Canada's economic problems. I would suggest to the Prime Minister and to his colleagues, whether they be the tuna tacticians in his office or other experts in communications, that they should spend less time trying to verbally assassinate the Opposition in documents such as the one which was given to the Speaker today.
1 am not surprised. We heard about the interview that the Prime Minister gave to Fortune Magazine in which he said quite clearly that in his opinion Canadians cannot compete. I am not surprised when there is this kind of second rate, second class mentality that he suggests in this document that the
Customs Tariff
strategy for selling free trade should rely less on educating the general public than on getting the message across that trade initiative is a good idea-in other words, a selling job.
The so-called public support generated for the Prime Minister's grand scheme of global free trade negotiations should be recognized as extremely soft and likely to evaporate rapidly if the debate is allowed to get out of control, and thereby erode the central focus of the message. Talk about doublespeak, talk about Orwellian overtones of political and media manipulation. In fact the Prime Minister, through this document, through his office, has suggested that we should attempt to contain debate on the most important issue that is facing this country in this decade and that is the question of free trade.
The Hon. Member asks what this has to do with the Customs and Excise tax. Presumably, Mr. Speaker, I am following along the debate which was opened-I understand the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) is commenting on the validity of what this has to do with the question at hand. I would like to refer him to Hansard, page 6868, Commons Debates, September 23, in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is suggesting that one of the reasons for the speedy passage of Bill C-21 is because the protectionist trend typical of international exchanges today demands our serious attention. Presumably we are attempting to respond to that attention by comments here in the House.
When you look at specific comments from the Government's communications strategy it is unfortunate that the Government does not want to have a full, fair and free debate on the issue of free trade. He states:
Members whose own ridings can be expected to benefit from the initiative will likely be under a complicated and conflicting set of pressures. These can be productively exploited. Research should be undertaken to identify economic and trade interests of the 70 ridings now held by the two Opposition Parties as well as those held by the Government.
He goes on to further state:
With respect to individual members of the Liberal Party, a survey of key members and constituencies will identify circumstances where non-support of the government's initiative would be either difficult or hypocritical. As examples, the riding of the Leader of the Opposition, the Right Honourable John Turner, is in the Province of British Columbia-a province whose forest resource sector must ensure and enhance trade opportunities in the United States and which is currently coming under fire from congressional and individual state protectionist policies; Sheila Copps, whose Hamilton, Ontario riding has the steel industry to represent, and Don Johnston whom in the previous Liberal administration leadership campaign was a key spokesperson for economic enhancement and increased trade relations with the United States.
I suppose I should be flattered to be considered in the Government's document as a so-called member of a key constituency. Obviously the constituency of Hamilton East is the constituency in Canada which is key when it comes to international trade, but I further point to the example of the trail of broken promises and the trail of protectionist policies which has led in the first seven months of this year to a reduction of almost 10 per cent in the amount of Canadian steel that has been exported to the United States.
I know the Government Members would love to hearken back to the sins of past Liberal administrations, to point the finger at us as they have done with the demise of the Canadian

September 24, 1985
Customs Tariff
Commercial Bank, a sin which hangs solely on their backs, I might add. However, I want to tell the Hon. Member that in fact the reduction in steel exported to the United States has occurred as a direct result of this Government's refusal to act and its refusal to say to the United States Congress as well as to the President of the United States that we are, we have been and we will continue to be fair trading partners. For the Prime Minister to suggest that this somehow-


Mr. Brisco:: Hogwash.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Hogwash? You don't feel we are fair trading partners? If the Hon. Member does not believe that the Canadian steel industry has been a fair trading party I would urge him to stand in his place and correct the record because he will find from every major steel industry, from Hamilton, from Sault Ste. Marie, from Cape Breton Island and across the country that Canada has constantly been pointed out as one trading partner which has been fair with the United States. We are not dumping our steel. We are selling our steel productively in the United States on a competitive basis, more competitive than any other nation in the world.
If the Hon. Member has information to show otherwise I would suggest that he have the guts to table it in the House. He does not have the guts because he knows that the Canadian steel industry has been competitive.
What has been our thanks for that from the U.S. Congress? What has been our thanks from the U.S. Government? A further reduction in Canadian exports to the United States and a cut into the market share which is further exacerbated and if continued, if accelerated, could lead to the loss of almost
6,000	Canadian jobs in the steel industry. Contrast that with a Prime Minister who goes to the President on bended knee and says, "Please, Mr. President, will you join us with fair trading and free trading practices in other arenas? Will you, in fact, be prepared to consider discussing with us free trade in a number of other sectors untouched, for example, by auto industry and steel industry fair trading practices? Will you, Mr. President, consent to speak with us on these issues?"
The Prime Minister of Canada has sold out his deck before he has even played his first card on the free trade issue. I would suggest if anyone wants to do an analysis-


Robert Hylton Brisco: Garbage.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Garbage. The Hon. Member again says garbage and I wish I could identify the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Hylton Brisco: Your memory isn't long enough.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My memory isn't long enough? It is unfortunate that we do not hear much from a lot of the Government Members, 211 though they may be. I have not heard from them on the family allowances debate. I have not heard from them on the Customs and Excise debate. I have not heard from them on the free trade debate although we did see one Hon. Member stand up and speak his piece very eloquently during Question Period today. The reason we do not hear from
most of them, Mr. Speaker, is because just like the surfers they came in with the tide, they are here to collect a pay cheque and they are not fighting for the interests of their constituents over and above political considerations. I would suggest that is true of some of those Members with the exception, of course, of the Fisheries Minister who had the guts to tell the truth in the House of Commons, and we saw where that got him. He got sacked. He got axed. He got dumped. He got canned by the Prime Minister because he had the guts to tell the truch on who was responsible for the tuna scandal. But what do we hear from the other Members? Silence, abject defeat, dejection. They are not prepared to stand up to the Prime Minister when they know these series of events were not stated quite correctly in the House.
Mr. Speaker, back to the issue at hand. If the Hon. Members on the Government side of the House has facts which can dispute my analysis of the steel situation he should so inform this House. The Prime Minister signed a handwritten letter which went to every constituent in my riding saying, "Don't vote for me, vote for your Conservative candidate because your Conservative candidate is going to be there fighting for steel jobs with me". The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Since he has become the Prime Minister, the percentage of the Canadian market share of sales to the United States for the steel industry has dropped by almost 10 per cent. Why should we take the word of the Prime Minister on free trade negotiations when he cannot even clean up the mess that is being made in his own backyard with respect to the protectionist tendencies in the United States?
The record is clear. The reduction in the market share that Canadians now hold in the U.S. steel industry should be a flag cautioning those Members, and in particular the Prime Minister, who are willing to barrel holus-bolus into a global negotiated free trade agreement without considering who is going to be on the giving end and who is going to be on the receiving end. The question must be one of a far wider, global nature.
What happened to our initiatives in the Far East? What happened to Pacific Rim discussions? What happened to a global trade enhancement that would not pit Canada and the United States against the rest of the world when it comes to certain protectionist measures but would develop a long-term global economy that would allow every economy to compete on an equal footing? Instead, the Prime Minister of Canada, through his office, is attempting to downplay the genuine concerns of Canadians like Premier David Peterson of Ontario. I might add that the number of such Canadians is growing. The more people examine the specific implications of an expanded negotiated free trade agreement with the United States, the more concerns they have.
A valid request of the Prime Minister and Members on the Government side is to table the information. We do not want the Canadian public hoodwinked by communications strategies which talk about undermining legitimate Opposition Members. We do not want the Canadian public steamrollered into
September 24, 1985

an agreement which could impinge on our economic and cultural sovereignty for the next century. We want to have a full and open public discussion and that discussion should be led and not muzzled by the Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, we see that Government Members do not have the political will to embark upon that kind of a discussion. We heard a question today reflecting the concerns of the textile industry and we heard another question today reflecting the concerns of the footwear industry. I know that there are a number of government Members who have been contacted not only by manufacturers in their own ridings but also by employees of those manufacturers.
In the community of Hamilton, Susan's Shoes is the seventh largest employer in the whole area. I know that Susan's Shoes has contacted the Hon. Member for Burlington, the Hon. Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Peterson) and the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) to ask them to give the Canadian footwear industry a chance, to save their jobs and to get a fair market share so that the seventh largest employer in the City of Hamilton can be protected. Unfortunately, we do not hear from these Members because they neglect to use their opportunities to speak up in the House on these issues which are of urgent and pressing public importance for all Canadians.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Tell us how many grants they have had.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How many grants they have had? As a matter of fact, if the Hon. Member were apprised of the dossier, he would know that it is not seeking grants. Unfortunately, in typical knee-jerk Conservative response, all he can think of is grants. The typical Conservative response is that the private sector will do it all. We know what the private sector did with Inco. We heard what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) had to say about the largest employer in Sudbury. Obviously there comes a time when there must be a mix of a public and private economy. It is unfortunate that the kind of knee-jerk private-sector capitalism as expressed on numerous occasions in this House by a number of Government Members fails to recognize the basic fact that in this country, we have a history of working together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired. Questions or comments?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's speech. In the Schedule under this Act, there is to be no tariff under general tariffs or general preferential tariffs for machinery and apparatus for use in mining, quarrying, the development of mineral deposits or the processing of ores, metals or minerals and machinery and apparatus for use in the processing, smelting or refining of ores, metals or minerals. What impact does the Hon. Member think it will have on Canada and particularly Ontario that we are still allowing mining machinery to be brought into this country free of
Adjournment Motion
charge? Will that in any way help to develop a mining manufacturing facility anywhere in this country?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that if we proceed with the fiscal decisions not to collect tax on all manufactured goods that can be used to process minerals, we will never have in this country a secondary industry manufacturing machinery for the processing of minerals.
Indeed, in Ontario, I know that the City of Sudbury has had in mind for a long time having in this country an industry to manufacture machinery for processing our minerals.
Unfortunately, with free trade in that class of machinery, we would always have machinery from abroad, foreign machinery, that would come here and perpetuate our vision of a Canada that is not a processing country, as was said by our former Prime Minister, but-

-that we are the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. It seems to me that this particular tax measure which again will facilitate the importation of machinery from the United States and elewhere will prevent the kind of made-in-Canada processing of minerals that we should be seeing. That simply reinforces what I believe to be the Conservative view of Canadians which is that we are the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Conservative Members look to the South when it comes to excellence in manufacturing expertise and salesmanship.
The Hon. Member has outlined a point which is very crucial to the ongoing discussion of free trade and that is that we consider ourselves number one. We in the Liberal Party do not believe that we are second-class citizens. We believe that Canada can compete and it has competed in the steel industry. We have constantly had the boots put to us on this particular issue by a number of U.S. trade and tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers. We will continue to fight that even though we believe that the Conservative or Schefferville mentality if one that sees Canadians as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for American and foreign manufacturing.



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 Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-Agriculture-Southern Saskatchewan farmers (a) Request for assistance. (6) Aid to cattlemen; the Hon. Member for Athabasca

September 24, 1985
Customs Tariff
(Mr. Shields)-Regional economic development-Designatio of areas in Alberta under federal development programs; the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell (Mr. Skelly)-Fisheries- Sale of canned tuna (a) Request for Minister's resignation. (6) Basis for Minister's ruling.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that this is not the most exciting and dramatic Bill that has come before the House of Commons in the last year, but it does afford us an opportunity to look somewhat critically at the trade policy approaches that this Government has been taking. That is what I would like to do now if I could, Mr. Speaker. I have some specific comments with respect to the Bill as well. I will turn to them in the latter part of my speech. However, I think it striking that the items of concern to the House of Commons with respect to trade which have been brought before us are, for the most part, housekeeping and technical matters which are dealt with in the Bill as opposed to the more dramatic and, hopefully, more effective and more important new directions in trade for which I think a great many people voted a year ago in this country.
Above all, it seems to me that the Government is characterized by a lack of strategy in the area of trade. I can think of three particular illustrations in this regard which face us as a country at the moment. First, if we look at the trade patterns of Canada we will see that our second largest trade partner by far is Japan. That is a demonstration of the tremendous importance of the Pacific Rim countries to the present economic health and to the future economic prosperity of the country. Korea has also emerged as a major trade partner. Indeed, even China has begun to develop as an important potential partner for Canada. Yet, we have not had any type of trade strategy set before us with respect to the Pacific. In fact, during the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) talked about the importance, the great priority, which should be attached to Pacific Rim trade. Indeed, many Ministers have taken the Cook's tour of Southeast Asia and the Pacific. I am certain they have had interesting trips. We have seen grand pictures of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) taking part in social occasions in Japan. What we have not had has been any direct and forceful
articulation of a strategy to develop those markets more effectively in order that Canada can have the type of benefits from that trade which we need for our economic revival.
Second, beyond the particular parts of the world to which we could point as areas in which we would like trade strategy to lead us, it is clear when we talk of trade concerns that to effectively make our country more competitive, and to open up the potential for trade with other countries, that we need to have in place in our industrial structure the capacity to adjust, to be flexible and to take account of the problems which emerge to face our workers when imports from other countries begin to flow into Canada. It is in this area that we have seen the serious failure of strategy on the part of this Government.
The previous Government put in place a Labour Adjustment Benefits Program which was extended to certain communities which had been hard hit by downturns in the economy or by increased imports. That particular program was extended to cover automotive communities in Ontario between 1978 and 1984. However, the previous Government saw fit to cut off the extension of that program in February of 1984. The result of that move has been that workers who now lose their jobs in automobile parts producing plants in Ontario can no longer turn to the Government for labour adjustment assistance. The people who lose their jobs are often older workers who have long-term commitments to the industry in which they work. We all know from the experiences of workers over 50 years of age who come into our constituency offices just how difficult it is for them to suddenly find new jobs when faced with lay-offs. This is a crucial area in which labour adjustment benefits should be made available. Workers in my constituency who have faced this type of problem, even if they come from plants such as the Champion Spark Plug Co. factory in my constituency, which was eligible for this type of assistance in the past, have not been eligible for assistance from the Government.
I have spoken with the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) with respect to this problem. I have put forward the case on behalf of workers in my constituency as forcefully as possible. However, all the Minister has been able to reply is that he hopes there will be a federal-provincial program to assist such older workers put in place some time within the next eight to nine months. I think that is excellent, if it happens; but there has been no commitment as yet to make certain that it will happen. If we are to have more open trade in the country and if we are to talk about freer trade with the United States, then the unanimous recommendation of the special joint committee which met last summer with respect to the need for better assistance programs has to be put into effect. In this area as well there has not been any leadership shown by this Government.
The same is true with respect to a point raised today by Conservative Members of Parliament. I am speaking of the question of renewal of the quota arrangements for our footwear industry. Our footwear industry has faced serious difficult import pressure for many years. Commitments were made by the Conservative Party, when not in power, that it would respond positively to the problems which the footwear
September 24, 1985

industry has been experiencing. Yet, now, when that industry looks for a commitment from the Government with respect to a renewal of the quota arrangements, and when it looks for better forms of assistance to be put in place, there is no positive message from this Government. There is no sense of strategy and no sense of direction.
We think that sense of direction has to come. It has to be put into effect aggressively. Putting that direction into effect does not consist of pronouncements in favour of freer trade with the United States. The United States has always been, and I am sure it will continue to be, the most important trade partner which this country enjoys. However, it cannot be the solution to our problems. It cannot be the Good Humour man who brings to us some type of easy answer to our economic difficulties. It cannot be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow which gives us an answer to the great difficulties which our economy is now experiencing. That seems to be the strategy which this Government is adopting. It is a strategy to find the answers and the whole thrust of our trade policy in terms of a new organization of trade liberalization with the United States. As this Bill shows us, tariff levels are already falling on category after category for Canada because of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs of which we are a part. Instead of the easy answer that a free trade arrangement with the United States will somehow solve our problems, we have argued that we should be looking at case after case in which the United States, despite the fact that we havetariff free situations, is putting its back to our mechanisms to block us out of access to that market. This has happened with respect to steel and with respect to pork. It has happened with respect to fish products and it has happened as well with respect to a great many parts of our economy which feel the threat of these kinds of protectionist measures in the United States.
We have argued very strongly that the Prime Minister if he has a close relationship, as he suggests he does, with the President of the United States, should be sitting down with that administration and coming up with answers to these particular problems, these threats to our present access to the U.S. market. The priority should be to deal with those problems, to counter those threats, to get support for our producers who are facing that kind of crisis blockage of their access to the United States in so many different parts of our economy.
I think we can do that by establishing a new agency which will assist Canadian and American producers to work out some of their problems. It should be an agency which will provide, for instance, neutral statistics with respect to the sectors which are facing trade problems. In many cases what we have discovered is authorities on both sides of the border having quite different statistics to explain what is happening in the trade context in steel or in lumber. We could get help from that agency to assist us in working out agreements between Canadian and American producers in order to solve our problems. This is what has happened with respect to the steel industry, for instance. It is what we should be doing as a
Customs Tariff
priority with respect to lumber, pork and with respect to fish. If we do not take that approach, Mr. Speaker, we run the danger of entering into negotiations with the United States for freer trade under blackmail conditions and under conditions in which the United States has already initiated backdoor protectionist moves against us. We will have to get the United States to give this up and in return we will have to give up important concessions. Its a mugs game, Mr. Speaker, to enter into negotiations under those conditions.
If we take that approach, if the Prime Minister of this country leads us into negotiations when we face this guillotine, this axe over the heads of many of our important trading sectors, I predict that we will find ourselves a year or two years down the line forced to give up very, very important concessions in order to get some kind of agreement out of the United States. I would predict, for instance, if we enter into a free trade agreement under these blackmail circumstances, we will have to accept informal limitations on our lumber exports to the United States. We will have to cut back the support we provide our fishermen in eastern and western Canada. We will have to give up the protection safeguards in the auto pact which have been so crucial to my community and to thousands of other people across Ontario and Quebec.
If we enter into negotiations for free trade with an axe hanging over our heads, it will not mean job gains. It will mean job losses. In my own constituency, I can see thousands of workers who will lose their jobs if we have to give up the production safeguards in the auto pact. If we have to accept limitations on our lumber exports, it will cost thousands of jobs in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada. If we have to accept a cut-back in support for our fishing industry, that will cost us thousands more jobs as well in Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. We will find our pork farmers across Canada facing more concessions. Free trade, then, Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, will mean job losses for this country and it will mean the loss of a capacity on our part to take the economic initiatives which can rebuild our economy. We feel that this country can be a magnificent competitive and effective economy, able to export throughout this world, able to win thousands more jobs, but only with a tough, aggressive trade strategy which recognizes just how serious the challenges are in a world in which multinational companies are increasingly making the decisions which shape trade flows.
To tackle that challenge, we are going to need every possible instrument of trade policy we have. We will have to use our tariffs effectively. We will have to use our quotas effectively and we will have to bargain with those international companies just as this Bill itself bargains with those international companies. This Bill has an interesting provision within it. It is the provision that I like to call the Hyundai clause which states that after January 1, 1987, exports from South Korea and other countries which benefit from the GPT will be subject to duty in this country of 6 per cent. That clause has already forced the Hyundai Corporation to accept a commitment to put production into this country of the Pony and Stellar models which have gained such a market in this country. That

September 24, 1985
Customs Tariff
is the kind of effective, tough trade approach which should be applied not just to Korea. It is very easy for us to be tough on Korea because Korea cannot fight back. What we have to do is take that kind of shrewdness, that kind of use of every policy mechanism we have, to force the giant companies which are making their investment decisions throughout the world to start making those investment decisions in the interests of this country. You cannot do it by simply legislating free trade with the U.S. You have to work at it; you have to be effective, strategic and, above all, tough. I challenge this Government to take that kind of tough, effective, hard-hitting attitude in defining its trade strategy. Above all, I challenge the Government to define that strategy because, so far, it has not.


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


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, having listened to my colleague and his very excellent presentation, I want to pursue the question I asked the previous speaker. In this Bill we have in effect free trade in mining machinery. Not having a mining machinery manufacturing component in this country, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what other avenues are left to Canadians in order to develop that sector? Is it going to take subsidies from the Canadian Government in order to get them on their feet so they can compete, or is it going to be some other mechanism?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising an interesting question. One of the exciting things we learned this past year in looking at the export potential of this country is that there is a very fascinating relationship developing between some of our electronic firms and the Mining Association of Canada. They are attempting to develop an approach to the production in Canada of mining machinery by making use of some of the new high-tech breakthroughs which have occurred in electronic control systems, and adapting those to the specialized equipment we use in our mines. I do not think the way to realize this opportunity is by cutting back all our tariff protection. The answer is to try to work out agreements with the large mining multinationals in this country whereby they commit themselves to purchasing mining machinery in Canada in return for some of the tax assistance they receive from the Canadian Government. We have argued consistently in this House that this kind of conditional tax assistance makes more sense than the unconditional tax give-aways which have characterized both the Liberal and Conservative Governments.
We challenge the Government to help companies like Spar and Inco in carrying forward this development partnership. If that is done there is a potential for a tremendous number of jobs being created in Canada. I do not think it will take direct subsidies of the kind my colleague feared might be necessary, but it does have to be part of a broad and effective industrial strategy which this country has always lacked and which it so desperately needs.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made reference to the need to assist Spar. Does he have any idea of the type of contracts which Spar has handled over the past four or five years? For example, the total value of their contracts for 1985 amounted to $159,345,000. Does he really believe that Spar needs help?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the question that was asked had to do with mining machinery which I am certain my friend realizes is a new field for Spar. Despite that, Spar is quite intrigued with its potential. They have formed a partnership with Inco Corporation to explore this potential. Inco is contributing expertise regarding mining machinery and Spar is contributing expertise in electronic data control systems.
This country imports something in the order of 92 per cent of its mining machinery. To me it is shameful that a country with a mining sector which is so important to its economy has not developed over the years the capacity to supply that sector with machinery. I am very pleased to see the private sector taking the lead in this area. That is the kind of good corporate citizenship we on this side hope will come from more private sector companies. I also think, and perhaps this is an area of disagreement between the Party opposite and myself, that it is an important responsibility of Government to offer some leadership and support to the private sector as it takes on new challenges. This kind of partnership between Government and the private sector in areas such as this where we import such a high percentage of equipment is one way of ensuring the creation of thousands of much needed jobs.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member look at the business practice of the Canadian industry in this field and compare it to those of the European sector. When equipment utilizing the latest technology is developed in Europe and finds its way to Canada, it goes to the door of a major mine and they are asked to try it out. On the Canadian side, we go to the door of a major mine and say here it is, it costs $150 million, will you buy it? That is the difference. That is why the Europeans have the market.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has demonstrated my point that Government leadership and support is required to open up the imagination of Canadian producers to this massive market. As I said already, this partnership between Spar and Inco is an exciting development and it should make us a more aggressive and more effective player in the mining machinery sector. If that happens, then perhaps some of the inadequacies of past marketing practice with respect to our producers can be overcome. I hope the Hon. Member will join with me in trying to press his Government to take that leadership and remedy some of the problems he has identified.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Is the House ready for the question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the House Leaders of the Parties represented here. I
September 24, 1985

think you will find a disposition to have the following motion accepted at this time without debate. The motion is as follows:
That notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the motion for second reading of Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, has been disposed of in this day's sitting, the said Bill shall stand referred to a Committee of the Whole and that not later than the end of the time provided for the Government Orders at this sitting, all questions necessary to dispose of the said Bill at the then remaining stages shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to co-operate with the Government House leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and certainly would not object to this particular Bill going to a Committee of the Whole. However, with regard to completing the debate by five o'clock, which is part of the motion, I am afraid that in view of the great interest which the subject has elicited on the floor of the House of Commons, it may not be easy to agree to that particular part. I think it will be a fact of life that it will simply not happen. Maybe the Government House Leader would like to rephrase-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That was my understanding of the arrangement, otherwise we will go to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There does not seem to be unanimous consent. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Epp (Provencher) (for the Minister of Finance) seconded by Mr. MacKay, moves that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That Bill C-72, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-72 is to propose certain amendments to the Income Tax Act and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Tax Court of Canada Act
Bill C-72 derives from the notice of ways and means motion tabled in the House of Commons September 9 last. This notice includes under the same cover the measures proposed in two notices of ways and means motions tabled in the House earlier this year. The first, presented last January 30, dealt with contentious assessments, the second, tabled last May 9, contained a great many technical amendments to the Income Tax Act.
The amendments related to contentious assessments are a result of the Government's commitment to allow taxpayers who object to an assessment to delay the payment of contested taxes, interests and penalties until their case has been heard by a trial court. In that respect the Bill provides for repayment of amounts already paid, to the extent that they are the subject of appeal. The proposed amendments relate mainly to three points: first, collection restrictions; second, the repayment of contested taxes; third, preventive measures against abuses of the new system.
Although an assessment established by Revenue Canada under the Act is payable by the taxpayer without delay, the amendments pertaining to collection restrictions provide that no formal collection measure may be taken by Revenue Canada within 90 days of the assessment. During those 90 days the taxpayer may, as is the case now, appeal the decision of the Minister by producing a notice of objection to the assessment.
If a taxpayer does not produce a notice of objection and does not pay the assessed amount, according to the amendments, formal steps to collect this amount may be taken 90 days after the date of assessment. However, if the taxpayer does produce a notice of objection, formal steps to collect the amount in controversy shall be delayed until Revenue Canada has concluded its review of the objection and until the period the taxpayer has to appeal from Revenue Canada's decision on the objection has expired. If a taxpayer decides to appeal before a court, within the 90-day period provided under the Act, to challenge the assessment as confirmed or modified by Revenue Canada, the Bill provides that formal steps to collect the amount in controversy shall again be delayed until the court hands down its final decision.
Should the court's decision be favourable to the taxpayer, the latter must either pay the amount in controversy or provide security for that amount to Revenue Canada, even if he appeals from the decision to a superior court.
As in the present Act, interest on the amounts finally determined payable by the taxpayer is calculated from the date on which those amounts were initially determined to be payable.
In addition to provisions limiting the right of Revenue Canada to commence collection procedures before the taxpayer has had an opportunity to apply to a court, there are certain amendments allowing the taxpayer to ask that the amount in controversy that he has already paid be refunded to him or

September 24, 1985
6936_________________________________________
Tax Court of Canada Act that the collateral provided for that amount be returned to him until he appeals before a court from the assessment or the new assessment established by the Minister of National Revenue.
Moreover, if Revenue Canada has not replied to an objection filed by a taxpayer within 120 days from the date he served his notice of objection, the taxpayer may ask that the amount in controversy be reimbursed to him or that the security offered by him be refunded, without having to appeal to another court.
In addition, the proposed Bill includes safety features against possible abuses of the new system. Where there are reasons to believe that the granting of a delay could jeopardize the collection of the amounts in controversy, the Bill allows Revenue Canada to take forthwith recovery action. On the other hand, the taxpayer has a right to ask a judge to review the opinion of Revenue Canada that the collection of the amount in controversy would be jeopardized by such a delay.
There is in the Bill another safety clause which authorizes the courts to collect an amount not exceeding 10 per cent of the amount in controversy in the case of an appeal which they deem unfounded and made essentially for the purpose of unduly postponing payment of the amount of an already owed contribution.
Mr. Speaker, the inclusion in the Income Tax Act of provisions dealing with the payment of amounts in controversy is a concrete effort to ensure the equitable application of our tax collection system, based more on a spirit of natural justice than judiciary procedure. Thanks to these provisions, taxpayers will not have to pay taxes which they feel they do not owe as long as their cases have not been heard by an independent court. In other words, the taxpayer will not be deemed guilty until fairly dealt with by the courts. This is a major step in the implementation of a fair and equitable tax collection system for all Canadians.
The other proposals in Bill C-72 have been introduced in the Ways and Means Motion tabled on May 9, 1985. Being for the most part technical, those legislative proposals are aimed at improving and updating the Income Tax Act.
The new overall budgetary objectives had a limiting effect on the number of amendments proposed to the taxation legislation. The result of this is that the most important amendments are part of the budgetary process, while the other required changes however of a technical nature and perhaps secondary and of a lesser economic impact, are often indefinitely deferred. The introduction of a procedure to implement that kind of change outside the budgetary process therefore appears to us to be essential and necessary. The procedure thus chosen is to periodically table an Income Tax Bill providing for subsidiary technical changes. The substantial changes deriving from public and major policy initiatives will remain within the budgetary process.
The amendments proposed in this technical bill have been chosen on the following grounds: first, they dispel uncertainty; second, they include legislative measures of relatively little complexity; third, they have a minor impact on revenues, and fourth, they tackle real problems. Moreover, many amendments improve the currently unsatisfactory French version of the Income Tax Act.
The motion tabled on May 9, 1985, was later referred to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Matters. Generally speaking, the committee report is most positive. On the one hand, it unreservedly supports the principle that matters of a technical and administrative nature be treated separately from major policy issues. On the other hand, it comments very favourably on the large number of changes proposed in order to make the French version of the Income Tax Act more accurate.
During the sittings held in early June, the Committee considered each of the changes proposed in the 118 technical clauses of the Bill. Of that number some clauses, in the opinion of the Committee, should be examined more thoroughly by the Government. However, the comments pertaining to six of those seven clauses, far from criticizing the technical amendments involved, dealt with points of policy and administration that clearly go beyond the scope of amendments. Therefore, such matters will not be solved by rewarding the amendments, but will be considered whenever future amendments are proposed within the framework of the budgetary process proper. It should be added that following the Committee's comments, there was one amendment made to the Bill. This is the amendment adding subsection 162(2.1) on the late filing of income tax returns due to corrections made to foreign income tax, and this amendment has therefore been withdrawn.
Furthermore, technical amendments cover a number of other proposals, all of which are also strictly technical and arise from documents and representations received since the Ways and Means Motion was tabled in the House on May 9 of this year.
The Bill before the House today contains many technical amendments relating to a wide range of questions. 1 shall summarize the most important ones. Deductible charitable donations not deducted in a given year may be carried forward to a subsequent year. Persons afflicted with a total and permanent disability are entitled to roll over a life insurance policy into an annuity, without paying income tax. A taxpayer who buys a house, rents it and subsequently uses it as his principal residence may defer the capital gains accrued during the rental period until the house is sold. Furthermore, he may designate the house as his principal residence during the four last years, or less, of the rental period, in order to be eligible for the exemption from capital gains tax on a principal residence during that period. Moreover, the period allowed to acquire
September 24, 1985

goods tax free as the beneficiary of an estate will be extended from 15 to 36 months. When a corporation reports a loss or tax credit for a previous taxation year, the interest on the tax refund resulting from that report will be calculated from the filing date on the taxpayer's return for the subsequent year. At the present time, the interest is not calculated over the period prior to the final filing date. When a refund is made following overpayment of income tax by a corporation for a given taxation year, any interest will be calculated from the 120th day after year-end and not from the day six months after year-end, as is the case at the present time.
Losses deductible as business investments which cannot be fully deducted will be converted into net capital losses, and will thus be calculated over a longer period.
A corporation will also be able to benefit to a greater extent from the foreign tax credit for a given year by increasing its taxable income for the year and by creating a loss other than a compensatory capital loss, which is then deductible over other years.
A taxpayer will no longer be required to tell his creditor that he has elected to declare every year the interests on his debt; he will simply have to indicate that election in his tax return.
A corporation which, under a tax convention between Canada and another country, is deemed to be a resident of that other country but which would otherwise reside in Canada, will be considered as not being a resident of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill ought to be considered and passed as soon as possible in the best interest of all Canadians. We would then be in a position to introduce the legislation related to the Budget tabled last May 23. It should be noted that many of the Budget provisions will call for changes in the tax forms of Revenue Canada which must be printed and distributed before the end of the year.
On behalf of all Canadians anxious to benefit from the fairness inherent in our national renewal, we urge all Hon. Members of the House of Commons to act quickly and adopt this Bill, technical though it may be but essential for the well-being of our taxpaying fellow Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any questions or comments? There being no questions or comments, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, only one minute remains but I simply want to say that we have no objections to the technical amendments in this Bill. Some of them are good. I do not think it is an outrageously differing opinion than the hon. gentleman outlined but I have to point out to the hon. gentleman that this Bill also makes an amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act. We wish to put on the record, perhaps after today's sitting, in more comprehensive terms why we object to not having more substantial changes
Income Tax Act
made to the Tax Court of Canada Act since the Government of Canada has decided to crack down on people collecting unemployment insurance.
The Tax Court of Canada actually deals with the determination on every claim which is made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay). At a time like this when the Government of Canada is cracking down, and perhaps we will have thousands of appeals against a determination made by the Minister of National Revenue go to the Tax Court of Canada, we feel that the Government of Canada should have taken other measures. The determination process should be put right back into the lap of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and not be kept with the Minister of National Revenue with the extensive changes that are coming in.
Perhaps on the next sitting day I will outline in greater detail the problem with the amendments as they relate to the Tax Court of Canada Act. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   INCOME TAX ACT SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPECTING WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thrusday, February 14, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dingwall:
That in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, in order to eliminate the hardships brought about by previous amendments, which now make Workman's Compensation reportable as "income" for Guaranteed Income Supplement purposes.
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this issue again today. I am somewhat surprised that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) does not want to bring forward his points again and discuss them in some detail. However, I know his commitment to this subject and I certainly share his feelings.
The history of this problem goes back a number of years. In fact, it is fair to say that all of us in the House have been anxious to see what could be done for old age pensioners and, in particular, to give higher priority to those who are in some kind of special need. As a result, over the years a number of

September 24, 1985
Income Tax Act
steps have been taken to provide assistance to our pensioners. I think all of us have supported that move, in the main.
For pensioners who have had more difficulty facing the financial demands placed upon them, over the years we have provided two plans which are income-tested and are of special help to them. The first plan is known as the Guaranteed Income Supplement, a supplement to the Old Age Security system. It is income-tested, as I said, and is a means of helping to support those pensioners who are in greater need. More recently we introduced as a second measure of help the spousal allowance program. It is designed to help widows and widowers between the ages of 60 and 64 years who are having difficulty because of low incomes. There has been a commitment on the part of Parliament over the years to support such people.
Now I should like to turn to the history of the motion before the House, its source and the reason for it. Early in 1983, an amendment was passed to the Income Tax Act under the previous Government which required that workers' compensation benefits had to be counted in or regarded as income but were not subject to tax. The fact that they were not subject to tax was of no concern to most pensioners receiving GIS payments. However, approximately 25,000 people who were receiving workers' compensation benefits and were over the age of 65 years were also receiving GIS payments, and the amendment had the effect of reducing significantly the GIS payments; sometimes they were reduced to zero if the benefits they were receiving under the workers' compensation plan were sufficient. A problem arose which came to light in the House, if I remember correctly, sometime in late December, 1983. I recall Mr. Burghardt from London, who was a Member of Parliament at that time, and myself raising this problem in questions in the House before and after Christmas. It was a new problem. Even the officials in the Department of National Health and Welfare in Toronto and London were unaware of it. Not only did we find that we could not receive an answer from the Government of the day, but it had not given the problem any consideration because it was not aware that it was a significant one. A number of Members in the House, including the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), raised questions from time to time with the appropriate Ministers of the Government, only to obtain no significant answers of a positive nature in respect of making appropriate changes. Currently the following motion is before the House:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, in order to eliminate the hardships brought about by previous amendments, which may now make Workman's Compensation reportable as "income" for Guaranteed Income Supplement purposes.
As an aside, I notice that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is not present in the Chamber. According to the Order Paper, she has seconded the motion. I am a little surprised that she seconded a motion using the words "Workman's Compensation" instead of the currently acceptable term "workers' compensation". However, that does not affect the essence of the argument. For her to have missed that pointand I see the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond smilling-makes us laugh somewhat. The wording of this motion is such that we really do not need to have a debate at all, because it is already being done. Perhaps that is why the Hon. Member did not rise in his place a few moments ago. The Government is giving serious consideration to the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, from my point of view, the officials, along with the Minister, have not yet been able to come to an agreement and understanding as to what would be an appropriate change to make. In a sense the intent of the motion has been fulfilled.
Be that as it may, it might be worth while to review some of the history behind the Guaranteed Income Supplement and how workers' compensation benefits are intertwined with it. In 1966, the Government of the day introduced the Canada Pension Plan to compensate senior citizens and assist them with income during their retirement years. At that time it was felt that the plan would probably be at its maximum benefit in about 10 years and that it would provide about 25 per cent of the income of retired persons. When combined with OAS payments, employee-employer sponsored plans and private savings, it was hoped that that amount would be sufficient to allow pensioners to retire on adequate incomes. It soon became evident that that was not the case. As a result, in 1967, the Government found that it was necessary to bring in amendments to the Old Age Security Act which provided for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. It was a mechanism by which to help many pensioners who were badly in need of income support. In actual fact, to indicate the number of people who required help, it has since become evident that roughly 50 per cent of our pensioners because of low incomes, rely on some benefits from the Guaranteed Income Supplement. A significant number of Canadians depend upon it. As I mentioned earlier, we have now added the spousal allowance for people between the ages of 60 and 64 years who are widowed and are similarly in need of further income.
In order to protect the rights of persons to work on their own and to have some income of their own and not lose it all, a criteria of the Guaranteed Income Supplement allowed for them to earn income apart from their Old Age Security benefits which would be deducted from the GIS at the rate of $1 for every $2 earned. In other words, if a person earned $200 over and above his Old Age Security, $100 would be deducted from his payment that year under the GIS. This mechanism was put in place to encourage people to save in their earlier years and feel that they were somewhat better off than persons who depended entirely upon the Government for support in retirement. The mechanism which was used to determine whether a person was entitled to GIS benefits was the definition of "net income" under the Income Tax Act. We should look briefly at the provisions of that Act as they relate to net income and recognize that various factors are taken into consideration when one arrives at one's net income on the income tax form which is returned each year. For instance, certain deductions are allowed from one's net income which, when taken into consideration for someone receiving GIS, are
September 24, 1985

of assistance to that pensioner and mean that his net income is reduced. I am referring to such items as 50 per cent of a capital gain or loss which can be deducted from net income on the tax form, allowable contributions to a Registered Retirement Savings Plan or a Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan, and certain tuition fees. In addition to those kinds of reductions which alter the amount of net income for tax purposes, certain definitions of "income" are excluded for the purpose of the supplement. These include income from sources such as war service and compensation benefits, income of Indians earned on the reserve and certain other pension and compensation payments. It was under this latter category that the workers' compensation benefits were excluded up until the change in the Income Tax Act which was effective, I believe, for the 1982 taxation year.
On the other hand, we have to recognize that the Government felt that there were certain sources of income that were received by pensioners, even though they represented income for tax purposes that should not be included for Guaranteed Income Supplement purposes. Thus we have under the Old Age Security Act certain specific exclusions as far as applications for GIS payments. These include family allowances, Canada and Quebec Pension Plan death benefits, home insulation grants and means tested assistance provided by the provincial Governments. All of these, of course, are programs that either had special designations for certain specific reasons such as the home insulation program, or those moneys that were already income tested such as certain death benefits and so on. Therefore, there were definitely certain factors taken into account in determining how one should arrive at the definition of what would be income that had to be reported and be considered in arriving at the benefits that a person was going to get for his Guaranteed Income Supplement.
The point that I think has upset a lot of us in the House is the fact that the amendment that was created in 1983 affected
25,000	pensioners who at the same time were receiving workers' compensation benefits. The officials of our Government and I think perhaps Ministers both in the present and previous Government felt there was some need to consider this as ordinary income. I think it is very important that we stress the difference between income that we get from earnings, called earned income; income that we get from a pension plan or income that we get from a disability plan. These are all plans where the employee or the taxpayer has paid a premium into it. He has put in money with the expectation of having some benefits at a certain time under certain conditions. The difference in a benefit under the workers' compensation plan is that it is not a payment, it is really compensation. It is compensation for having sustained an injury. When a worker loses a leg, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the best we could do for that person, if our technology would allow us to do it, would be to provide that person with a new leg and then there would not have to be any benefits whatsoever. We cannot do that. We must give that person an artificial limb which has certain disadvantages, which are more serious in the case of
Income Tax Act
loss of eyesight. Being unable to replace those lost bodily parts we provide a payment that may be a payment on a monthly basis or it may be a lump sum payment. It is my understanding that the name of this payment that we are talking about here through the Workers' Compensation Board is a payment called active for life pension. It is a different kind of pension than any of these other kinds of pensions that we are talking about. It is my contention that if we are going to be fair to these people who are receiving that benefit from the Workers' Compensation Board that that money they receive should be considered not as income, because it does not resemble ordinary types of either earnerd income, investment income or pension income where premiums have been paid. It is entirely different. I think it is incumbent upon us as a Government to recognize that fact and to proceed accordingly.
I am pleased to be a member of a Party which is dedicated to helping our senior citizens, particularly those who have a special need and have requirements for financial assistance. That is indeed the feeling of this Government, but I will feel much better if I see the day come when this particular amendment to the Income Tax Act, going back to the previous Government of 1983, is removed from the books and that those pensioners who now receive that kind of a workers' compensation benefit will again be able to receive that benefit and not suffer a drop or a loss in their GIS payments because of that. I hope that the House will agree to that.
1 have no objection to this going to committee but I also feel that there is active work going on now by our officials in several Departments and I would certainly be happy to see that progress. I would hope that all Members of the House would encourage those officials and those Ministers to expedite this matter as quickly as possible.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not my intent to speak very long on the motion that was brought forward by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) but I do want to express, as the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) and the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) have done in the past, that our caucus is in complete agreement with the proposal that he has made. As the Hon. Member is aware, when the Liberal Government introduced the changes to the Income Tax Act we opposed those changes for the very reasons that the last speaker spoke about so well; first, that workers' compensation has to be treated differently from other sources of income.
As was mentioned by the previous speaker, when someone has lost a leg, an arm, the use of one eye, other bodily functions, or has a disabling back injury he or she should be compensated, we should recognize that he or she should be compensated and we should recognize the special circumstances under which that person has to live for the rest of his or her life.
I find it ironic that even though this matter has been in debate for the last four years that neither the previous Liberal Government nor the present Conservative Government could move very quickly. That is one of the major complaints that I

September 24, 1985
Income Tax Act
have with what has been said by Government Members in this House both now and a couple of years ago under the Liberal administration. They said that we cannot move quickly, that it is a complicated area; there is the whole problem of inequity in the tax system and inequity in the pension system. That is the reason why they cannot move quickly.
Today we had a closure motion or a time allocation motion which would have the effect of reducing the family allowance or deindexing the first 3 per cent of the family allowance. There was a quick move by the Government to try to change old age pensions last year. There is an attempt which will be coming up later on which I am sure the Government will try to move quickly which will exempt the first $500,000 capital gains from any income tax. Those are examples of how Government moves quickly when it wants to move quickly. This Government has decided that it wants to deindex family allowances. It brings in closure after four days of debate. The Government has decided that it wants to give people who make their money through capital gains a $500,000 tax free exemption. There is no tax on the first $500,000 made through capital gains. It can move quickly in that matter.
What happens to someone who has had a disabling back injury? What happens to someone who has lost his or her leg? The Government finds that it takes much study, that it requires a look at the whole system of Guaranteed Income Supplements, that it must look at the whole tax system in order to move on this very specific need.
I think anyone who has lost bodily functions, who has lost a leg, an arm, an eye, deserves quick action by this Government. It deserved quick action by the last Government but it did not receive that. If this Government wants to prove that it is any different from the previous administration, its Members should not give the same speeches as those given by former government back-benchers. It should actually move on this matter.
I have yet to hear anyone in the House from any of the three political Parties say that we should treat workers' compensation beneficiaries or victims of the system in the way that we are treating them. No one has risen to defend the system; yet we refuse to act.
I am not going to take up any more of the time of the House. I think this is a matter on which we should express an opinion and for which Members of all three Parties who speak in favour of action should vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) rises, he will close off debate. Therefore, I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure he has a few words to say.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today I made all the
speeches of my Ministers in French, so I will take this opportunity to practice my English in answering the question.

I am very pleased to join in the resumption of this debate today on the motion made by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). This is a matter which raises some issues which are very important to many Canadians and I think the Hon. Member should be comended for raising it in Parliament. I know that there was no hint of partisanship in his bringing the motion before the House and that his concerns are sincere and deeply held. I also know that Members of all three Parties share his concern for those affected by the provisions in question.
If I could take some of the time of the House, I believe that a brief examination of the process through which the present situation developed will help us come to understand why these provisions are in the Act and why it seems to me that it would be inappropriate at this time to support the Hon. Member's motion. From the outset, though, I must emphasize that the Hon. Member's concern for the welfare of our senior citizens is one which I certainly share deeply. My words today are dictated by another concern, equally strong, with the concept of equity and fairness to all Canadians. This concern surely is and must continue to be at the base of all our actions.
As Hon. Members are aware, the Income Tax Act amendments in question were first raised in the Budget presented in November 1981. They were part of an effort to simplify the provisions of the Income tax Act and to improve its fairness. The amendments to Clauses 56, 81 and 110 of the Income Tax Act were clearly proposed and were not questioned during the debate on Bill C-139 which took place during the First Session of the last Parliament. Perhaps I may refer to documents issued at that time to explain the proposal. It is clear that the amendments were intended to put all similar programs on the same basis with respect to the calculation of eligibility for payments under the Guaranteed Income Supplement and child tax credit provisions.
Specifically, the then Government wanted to deal with cases of some recipients of the GIS already receiving substantial income from Workers' Compensation while being placed on par with those who had no other income. The Government also wanted to clear up a problem in a more general area of taxation. Previously a person claiming the dependent deduction did not have to take into account any income from Workers' Compensation which his dependent might have. This provision was deemed to be incompatible with the concept of tax fairness. Where is the fairness to other taxpayers in allowing as a full dependent someone who is in receipt of substantial workers' compensation payments?
It is important to recognize that the changes did not alter the special status of the workers' compensation payments which are not subject to tax themselves. The changes extended only so far as to include as income payments which are already granted special treatment. As well, this was done within very limited parameters.
September 24, 1985

In 1984, a number of Hon. Members including the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond raised the matter in the House when it became clear that one effect of the change was to reduce GIS payments for certain persons. The matter was also raised by some columnists in the press. In the debate on Bill C-40 during the second session of the last Parliament, this issue was thoroughly considered both in the House and in the standing committee.
The standing committee consideration of the question now being raised was most interesting and the basic principals underlying the debate emerged from it with some clarity. One very important point raised was with respect to the GIS program itself and another related to the Income Tax Act and its approach to the sources from which taxable income is derived. There was also raised the question of whether workers' compensation payments are viewed as replacement for income or as payment for the injury itself. Finally, the testimony of the then Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out the question of the amount of work needed to deal with the problem, something which she admitted had not been anticipated by her or her officials. I think it is worth while to look at each of these points.
My concern in taking the time to deal with these points is that I do not want the House to rush headlong into actions which may be regretted by some Members, particularly when hasty action may actually exacerbate any problems which now exist. I also believe that many of the issues raised should quite properly be left for more careful study in a more general context. Perhaps the greatest mistake we could make at this point would be to consider just one small matter without competent examination of the principles underlying it and without consideration of its place within the policies and goals of the Government.
Because the motion deals with the Guaranteed Income Supplement, I would first like to consider that program. It is important to remember that the Guaranteed Income Supplement is a program directed to the poorest of our senior citizens, those whose income would otherwise consist solely of payments from the Old Age Security Program and possibly other small incomes. It is designed to aid those people who are not able to provide for themselves in their later years and who would otherwise be left in a very depressed state economically.
Because the Government does not want to penalize those who have small additional incomes, there is a threshold below which benefits are not reduced by added income. Above that threshold, Guaranteed Income Supplement entitlement decreases by 50 cents for every dollar of income until benefits are completely eliminated. Surely this demonstrates that the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not and never was intended to be anything other than a program directed at low-income members of our society. Even the requirement that persons in receipt of the GIS must apply each year is evidence that the program recognized that changing circumstances might raise an individual's income and so reduce the need for GIS.
Let me take a moment to point out that in the current year, the threshold below which people no longer qualify for Guar-
Income Tax Act
anteed Income Supplement is over $11,000 for a single person and over $16,500 for a couple when Old Age Security payments are included. Obviously at this level, people are not well off and deserve the help that can reasonably be provided. However, there are many who are worse off like those whose incomes would otherwise be below this level. I believe that it would be more the act of a caring, responsible Government to direct our resources to those in this lower income group. It would be irresponsible to commit ourselves today to a change which would put those receiving worker's compensation benefits in a position superior to those who have no income other than Old Age Security payments and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. In all fairness, I believe that the Hon. Member has raised an issue which merits careful consideration. I believe it should be studied and, if it is found to impose undue hardship on those receiving both worker's compensation and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, then it should be amended so as to address that hardship.
Such a study is being undertaken at this moment. I think it would be in the best interests of all to await the results before acting. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has commissioned an internal review of what is and is not considered income for the purposes of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. This review goes beyond the relatively narrow question being debated here today. However, it certainly will address fully the question of worker's compensation payments and their relationship with the Guaranteed Income Supplement system. This type of thorough, detailed study will allow an informed, proper decision to be made with respect to this matter-one which will take into consideration the many humanitarian, practical and policy concerns which must be addressed in any final decision. I fail to see how any action taken now, or any decision reached before the completion of this review, can possibly be fair. Is not the bottom line in any debate of this type fairness?
This debate also affects the principles which form the basic foundations of the Income Tax Act. This Act attempts to consider all income and to treat it fairly with respect to its source. The Act is certainly not perfect and improvements are always possible. All I suggest is that we be careful before we act hastily. Unless the decision is based on information which is complete, we may support a move which will reduce the equity of certain provisions in the Act, not increase it. The question, as I see it, is one of equal treatment of income, a concept which is important to the Income Tax Act. We ought not move away from that principle except for very good, deep reasons.
I know that it is urged that worker's compensation payments are different in kind from most other sources of income. Some view them exclusively as compensation for injury, in the sense that crutches attempt to compensate for an injured leg. Surely, worker's compensation is not that alone-that may not even be its main thrust.

September 24, 1985
Income Tax Act
Last June, many members of the standing committee made clear that they accept that worker's compensation payments are intended to replace, in whole or in part, the income which an individual would otherwise have earned, and which that person would, of course, be liable to pay tax, or to have assessed for the purpose of GIS eligibility. How can we state categorically that compensation payments are different in kind from other types of payment when they are not viewed as being different in kind by the very bodies which decide on their duration and amount?
I agree with the Hon. Member who moved the motion that individuals who may have received reductions to GIS payments unexpectedly were, not unreasonably, unhappy. However, we must look at the broader picture. Before the changes which sparked this debate became effective, some people who received relatively large incomes from worker's compensation awards would still have been receiving the entire GIS payment.
An additional complication which might result from an ill-judged amendment along the lines of the motion before us today concerns the implications for the provinces. Hon. Members may be aware that prior to the changes we have been discussing today it was necessary to pass remission orders every year to ensure that certain maintenance payments made by provincial Governments were not to be viewed as income for the purposes of GIS eligibility. The changes made in the 1981 Budget in this area ensured a greater uniformity of treatment for all similar payments, whether federal or provincial in origin, and did away with the necessity for repeated remission orders. I am inclined to think that any step which decreases the number of remission orders and other administrative steps is one which should be accepted as a step in the right direction.
I do not want to seem to be unfeeling toward those who were affected adversely by this measure. Elowever, I have to take into account that legislation, especially the Income Tax Act, has to be of general application. When it becomes necessary to amend the Act in response to social and economic developments, it must be done in a manner which has the appropriate effect on the majority of those affected. Inevitably, there will be some people whose circumstances differ in some significant way from those of the majority. Every situation cannot be anticipated and dealt with individually. Surely, we are coming to realize that what is needed is not more complication but less so that basic equity can be preserved as easily as possible and as few persons as possible see fairness denied by an Act which is too complicated to understand or administer equitably.
We also have to take certain facts into account when we are considering what action is appropriate for us to take in response to this motion. A large amount of money is not at stake here when compared with the current level of spending on the GIS program-some $3.5 billion. However, I am informed that although 39,000 Canadians over 65 are currently in receipt of worker's compensation payments, all but about
2,000	of these people are considered to have 60 per cent or less disability and only about 800 are permanently and totally
disabled and receiving the maximum amount. Therefore, money is not the main problem in this narrow context. It is more a question of equity, of fairness and of general principles.
We should remember that the people affected by the sections of the Income Tax Act before us do, in fact, have as much income-or more-than many others. Like other disabled persons, they continue to have access to other provisions of the Income Tax Act which assist the disabled and other programs which recognize the special needs of the disabled in general.
Finally, I would point out that even within the group of
39,000	persons who receive worker's compensation payments and who are over 65 years of age, many, in any case, are disqualified from receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement as other pensions and personal revenue raise their income levels above the threshold.
In closing, I would like to return to the comments I made at the outset of my remarks this afternoon. I hope that I have made clear that my own feelings about the motion before us have no basis in partisan politics. I know that the Hon. Member who moved the motion raised this question in the last Parliament and in political circumstances different from today's. I appreciate that Members from both sides of the Chamber agree that the problem he raises is one that is real for those affected and one which should not be viewed in a purely partisan way.
I hope that I have also made it clear that it is not a matter of seeing a need and formulating a simple response to it. There are questions of equity under the law which are raised by it. The motion begs me to ask whether those supporting it really intend that this one source of income should be set apart and should not be considered in the administration of one of our major social programs.
Can it really be in the best interests of any of us to act in haste, out of emotion, possibly at the expense of the most equitable, most practical and fairest solution? When all the necessary information is known, then the problem can be addressed.
The mechanism which has been suggested as a means of dealing with a specific situation involves general issues of taxation and income under one Act. However, the thrust of the question, the substantive issue, is one which underlies the GIS Program and our approach to those citizens who have little else to support them.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the fresh wind of equity which is blowing on our Government should reflect the remarks I have just made, and that both the spirit of justice and the spirit of compassion do prevail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), I
September 24, 1985

would like to recognize the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Government House Leader.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Earlier this day under Routine Proceedings, a Bill was introduced in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) intituled an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the Maritime Code Act in consequence thereof. The Bill as introduced contained an error. It has been redrafted and a new royal recommendation has been obtained.
I have had discussions with my colleagues, the other House Leaders, and 1 believe if you sought the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, you would find that such consent would be forthcoming to have the records show that the Bill introduced earlier this day is actually the new redrafted Bill now in the possession of the Clerk, intituled an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate to the Government House Leader that we do, as always, try to assist the Government in correcting its errors and we will be most pleased to give unanimous consent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We also agree, Mr. Speaker, but are we still talking about Bill C-75 ?

Is it Bill C-75 we are talking about?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I think that the Bill introduced today by my colleague the Minister of Transport-

It is a small area in the title with respect to the Acts which will be amended, but we corrected that and a new royal recommendation is obtained. But it is, indeed, the Bill only for first reading and it will be published in proper form so that all Hon. Members have the correct Bill before them tomorrow morning at the latest.
Income Tax Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just to follow up-I want to make sure-the reason I asked, and the Minister will understand this-is that the striking committee is meeting tomorrow as it does when we have Bills for first reading. I just wanted to make sure that we have the right number, that we are talking about Bill C-75, and if we are, that is fine.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dingwall:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, in order to eliminate the hardships brought about by previous amendments, which now make Workmen's Compensation reportable as "income" for Guaranteed Income Supplement purposes.
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and address the motion which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has moved, and did so last February. I want to make some remarks, if I may, to the general matter of detailed study which was addressed by the previous speaker. I believe it is indicated in Hansard that this matter first came up on February 14. At that time, it seemed to me to be a reasonable motion. We have now had an opportunity to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) indicate that there will be a further detailed study. I would like to say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the bureaucrats who are doing the study that we all think it is about time the detailed study became a little more immiment so that when we discuss matters such as the Private Member's Motion put forward by my colleague, we can have the benefit of the detailed study on which the bureaucrats somewhere in the Department of Finance or in the Department of Health and Welfare, or whatever, are progressing, we hope.
We, as elected representatives, when we debate this type of motion, put our comments on the record. We are, therefore, prepared to say where we stand as individuals in the course of this Private Members' hour. Sometimes it is easy to support a

September 24, 1985
Income Tax Act
motion such as the motion put forward by my colleague, and sometimes I must say, whether we are on the opposition or Government benches, it may be a little difficult. However, the fact is that we put our names to what is said in this Chamber and it is recorded. It is recorded not only for the bureaucrats in the bowels of the Department of Finance, but it is also recorded for people back home who we represent.
When we are asked to debate and give our comments, we have to bear in mind that our primary responsibility in this Chamber is to represent the people who sent us here. We represent them whether we do it in committee, in debate or in Private Members' hour. We are prepared as elected representatives from all Parties, to go back home and support what is said. I would hope, therefore, that somewhere some bureaucrat who is doing this long detailed study of this particular matter, will take to heart what I have just said because I intend to put it in writing.
Having said that, I want to address myself to the substance of my colleague's motion. The Guaranteed Income Supplement was introduced some years ago in 1967, I believe, and it was an effort on behalf of the Government of the day-and I am sure would be supported by all colleagues in the House now-to redress the situation where old age pensioners live below the poverty line and/or that is all the income they have for subsistence purposes. In other words, they do not have enough income to meet their basic needs, they cannot get by on their old age pensions. We, therefore, introduced the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and when that was combined with the Canada Pension Plan, the idea was that the senior citizens of our country would have adequate provision for themselves.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that in many cases-I believe I heard the figure of 39,000 used in reference to workmen's compensation payments-senior citizens cannot get by on the old age pension and the Canada Pension so we have the Guaranteed Income Supplement which, let us just say, works.
My office, as I am sure are the offices of my colleagues in the Chamber, is besieged in the months from January through to April and May with requests from people for advice on their Guaranteed Income Supplement. I am not fully conversant with the form but my staff in both my Orillia and Midland offices help these people to complete the forms. However there is a gap, Mr. Speaker, which could be addressed on the basis of workmen's compensation.
However, the most interesting gap is the one which exists in the year they turn 65, in, let us say, April or May. They would qualify if they could submit a Guaranteed Income Supplement form but they cannot do so until the following January. I suggest that is something which can be looked at. If a person qualifies in April because they do not have enough income, I do not see why they should have to wait until the following January when the forms come out to make their application for the GIS. The fact remains that the GIS is based on income. That has advantages and disadvantages. It minimizes the Government's involvement in an individual's financial
affairs, but at the same time allows for a verification of income. However, there are some deductions which reduce the net income, such as contributions to an RRSP.
I think we all agree that if a person is making contributions to an RRSP, they can hardly be in a position to qualify for the GIS. There are also some forms of income which are excluded, such as war service compensation, income earned by Indians on reserves, and certain other pensions. I think we have to address ourselves, and I would ask those bureaucrats in the bowels of the Ministry of Finance to do so as well, to how compensation for injuries suffered on the job is different from those types of pensions. I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that workmens' compensation legislation does the job. Maybe it does not do the job as nicely or to the extent we all want to see, but there is no question that it benefits the people who work for a living should they have an injury. As my colleague from Oxford said, we cannot put the leg or the arm back on but we as a society can say we are going to do our best to compensate the people concerned. For that reason I have considerable sympathy for the motion my colleague has put forward.
This is a question we all have to examine very carefully. Should this type of income be included in calculating income for purposes of the GIS? I do not think it should. I really do not. These compensation payments are an effort by society to compensate someone who has made a contribution to society during their working life, someone who is paying income tax, unemployment insurance and otherwise supporting the system. When that person suffers an injury then society has to make an effort to put them back in the same position they were in before the injury. We sort of give it with one hand through the compensation payment and take it away with the limit on the GIS. I am not really sure that would be seen as fair by any political Party or any elected representative, so when we examine the GIS limit and the definition, we should consider ways to eliminate hardships brought about by previous amendments.
My colleague across the way knows it is not always easy to be a member of the Government and do things that one cannot support. However, it is part of the game because of the solidarity required in Government. It does not happen every day but it does happen and I know that it happened to my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond. I know he fought his battle in caucus. I am not sure he fought it on the floor of the House, that may not have been appropriate, but I am sure, knowing how effective he is as a member of his Party-I do not want to go any further than that for fear it goes to his head and that would be the part of my speech that he did send home-when he did fight it as a member of the Government, he did so with conviction. I can understand some of his reasons. He said that the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour both support this change. He mentioned the United Mine Workers and senior citizen groups. I can understand their support.
He made the comment that we all have to speak our mind in this Chamber and represent our people. I know I have had
September 24, 1985

constituents come into my office having suffered an injury at the plant and they are now partially disabled. I do not think I have had many people who have been fully disabled but I have had people partially disabled. They feel that these payments are compensation for their injury. Well, monetary compensation can never, as everyone knows well, put a body back together. But compensation on that basis is a recognition by society that they have suffered a wrong and society has compensated them. They then find themselves in a position where they are at the poverty line or very close to it and when they fill out the GIS form they have to include this income and there is a contradiction here.
I notice that not only do we have the bureaucrats in Finance looking into this, but we are fortunate enough in having the bureaucrats in Health and Welfare doing so as well. Therefore, I want my remarks with respect to the bureaucrats in the bowels of the Department of Finance also directed to the bureaucrats in the bowels of, and I guess that is most appropriate, National Health and Welfare. If they are studying this thing they should get along with it and do it seriously and bring it back because the next time this is debated they may not find every Member wants to get up and support any more bureaucratic delay.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You may. I regret that I cannot recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).

The hour allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I raised the question of federal Government assistance for hard-pressed farmers in western Canada. Harvesting in Saskatchewan is only about 35 per cent complete as of this week. By this time in most years harvesting would be totally complete. To make matters worse, yesterday in Saskatchewan there was additional rainfall and even some snow.
The problem of the late, wet harvest is only the latest of the misfortunes which prairie farmers have faced. Drought has ravaged much of the grain and pasture land in southern
Adjournment Debate
Saskatchewan and across the Prairies. Grasshoppers have plagued the same area. These two curses have resulted in a total crop failure for thousands of farm families. The livestock sector has also been affected because when there is no grain and no pasture there is nothing for cattle to eat.
Our farmers are tough, resilient, and optimistic, but for many of these farmers this is the second, third, or even fourth year of severe crop and livestock losses due to drought and grasshoppers. These farmers are doing everything possible to help themselves out of the desperate economic hardship which they have been experiencing. The problems they are facing now are not of their own making, so it is only fair that they should received adequate help to overcome them. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to make an immediate commitment to provide prairie farmers with adequate and timely relief. I asked for that commitment, Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) refused to make that commitment to the farmers during the summer and the Minister has only hinted at the commitment, refusing to make it. I ask for the commitment now because relief is needed by farm families now.
The situation is desperate. Many farm families must rely on donations to make ends meet. The Farm Women's Action Committee and the Southwest Drought Committee are collecting and distributing donations of food, clothing, livestock feed, and other supplies to those in greatest need. I have been informed that commercial market gardeners near Regina are donating garden produce to the cause. Donations of clothing are coming from as far away as British Columbia and Ontario. Surely this illustrates the urgency of the situation. Surely the Government can see that the time for action is now. Farmers, their families, and the farm organizations have been asking why the Government is so reticent to act now in this time of need. The Government did not hesitate to act with haste in committing $1 billion to its scheme of bailing out the banks. Foreign depositors are receiving federal Government compensation, but Saskatchewan grain farmers are still waiting to learn if their Government will help them.
Drought, unlike floods or earthquakes, does not happen over night. We have known about the drought and grasshopper conditions in western Canada since June and July. Why delay making the commitment to the grain producers? Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said he needed time for consultations. Mr. Speaker, Government consultations are sometimes dangerous things. The Minister had consultations with his Conservative counterpart in Saskatchewan regarding drought assistance to livestock producers. That kind of consultation was not worth the time it took. That consultation resulted in every dollar of federal Government aid going, not to the farmers, but directly into the coffers of the Saskatchewan Government. The Saskatchewan Government took all of the credit for the program and then took the money from the federal Government for itself.
Farming is a difficult business, Mr. Speaker. Among their other concerns, farmers are constantly at the mercy of the weather. Drought, flood, and grasshoppers are disasters which
80173 19

September 24, 1985
Adjournment Debate
confront farmers all too often. If we had in place a regularized, structured disaster relief program, the farmers would not have to worry about whether or not relief would be forthcoming when they face a disaster.
I urge the Government to act without delay and put in place a contingency plan to deal with farm crises, such as the one we faced this year. I asked for a commitment because during the summer when the Hon. Member for Assiniboia the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, was asked he refused to give that commitment to the farmers of his area.
As I pointed out yesterday, the immediate concern is for Government assistance to Prairie farmers now. This is the time of year when farmers traditionally have large bills and need help. This fall the farmers have the added burden of costs incurred to poison grasshoppers during the summer. Many farmers face certain bankruptcy, bankruptcy which the Government could help them avoid if the aid were forthcoming.
I urge the Government to accept its responsibility and provide Canadian farmers with desperately needed economic assistance now.


Pierre Blais: First, let me say to the Hon. Member that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said yesterday that maybe within the next week or 10 days we will be in a position to come forward with phase 2 of the program. I understand the Hon. Member is in a hurry, but the Minister does what he can.
I am pleased to elaborate on the answer provided by the Minister of Agriculture yesterday, in response to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) on financial assistance to farmers to the drought affected areas of the Prairie provinces.
As the Minister told the House, the federal Government has already made an announcement with respect to a $48 million program of assistance to prairie livestock producers. That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. In making that announcement on August 14, the Minister of Agriculture said federal assistance would be integrated with suitable provincial aid programs pending consultation with the four western provinces.
I am pleased to report that through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration we have nearly completed our negotiations with the four western provinces. We should be in a position to sign agreements with them soon. The mechanisms for making payments to producers are being prepared. In Saskatchewan, payments to producers are already being made through the program announced by the Premier of that province in mid-July. In total, federal payments could amount to $48 million.
The Minister also said in his August announcement that the Government would continue to monitor the situation in the Prairies and further action would be taken as needed. A task group, chaired by the Member for Assiniboia and including provincial Government representatives was to advise the Minister in this regard. I am sure that my honourable friends will
admit that the Member for Assiniboia did a very good job during the summer.
The task group, assisted by a technical committee of federal and provincial officials, has been engaged in this pursuit and will be meeting again during the first week of October. We expect further recommendations to be made as a result of that meeting. Without prejudicing those recommendations, I should mention that the rain that has fallen in the southern prairies in recent weeks has certainly had an impact on the situation. I am sure my hon. friend will not think that we are responsible for rain and snow.
In part, because of the downgrading of many grain crops due to moisture damage, there is no shortage of feed grain in the southern prairies at this time and prices are extremely reasonable, at least from the livestock producers point of view.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-DESIGNATION OF AREAS IN ALBERTA UNDER FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record a comment with regard to a question I asked of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) last Thursday. I asked the Minister whether he had taken action to designate areas of Alberta to tier 2 so that areas within Alberta that are presently experiencing high unemployment would then be able to take advantage of the Industrial and Regional Development Program offered by the federal Government. IRDP is the principal program of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion or DRIE for providing direct financial assistance to industries in Canada. It has been in operation since July, 1983, and is administered primarily through DRIE's 12 regional and 25 local offices.
The objective of the program is to promote regional industrial expansion and development through the support of private sector initiatives with particular emphasis upon projects, industries and technologies with the greatest potential for economic return, sustained growth and international competitiveness. In other words, it is a massive program offered by the federal Government to encourage private enterprise to invest. It will assist private enterprise with grants and low-interest loans to create employment in areas where unemployment is very high.
When the former Government introduced its National Energy Program, it literally wiped out the employment and economic development which was taking place in Alberta. I draw the attention of the House to the tier system. If a district is classed as tier 1, it is eligible for very little in the way of incentive grants or assistance from the federal Government. In tier 2, there is automatic assistance to various companies which wish to invest and create employment. In tier 3, the Government hands out a lot more in the way of incentives. In tier 4, the Government just about hands out blank cheques to companies so that they will come into areas and develop new industries.
September 24, 1985

Before referring to the results of July, 1984, I should like to backtrack for a moment to say that the tier system is dependent upon census districts and each census district is looked at to determine how much unemployment exists. In July, 1984, in Newfoundland, there were seven census districts under tier 4 and three under tier 3; in Prince Edward Island, two under tier 4 and one under tier 3; in Nova Scotia, six under tier 4, three under tier 2 and one under tier 1; in New Brunswick, seven under tier 4, six under tier 3 and two under tier 2; in Quebec, there were 14 census districts under tier 4, 46 under tier 3, 13 under tier 2 and three under tier 1; in Ontario, there were six under tier 3, 27 under tier 2 and 20 under tier 1; and in Alberta, every census district is under tier 1. I think I have made my point. In other words, Alberta is the only province which is fully tier 1 and fully denied any access through the tier system to the economic development funds which are available to other provinces. I find that to be totally unacceptable. We have had the Minister rise in the House and say that they were attempting to do away with the tier system. I would suggest that it is long overdue and that it should be done away with.
In some areas of the Province of Alberta there is massive unemployment, unemployment to a level unheard of in the past 10 to 15 years. We have experienced a downturn in the economy which businessmen and other people in the province are calling a depression, all due, I might add, to the National Energy Program introduced in the House by the former Government. Fair is fair. There is massive unemployment. The province cannot do it on its own. The citizens of the Province of Alberta are only requesting that they be treated in exactly the same way as citizens in other parts of the country. It is obvious when one goes through, as I did, province by province and finds that of 15 census districts, all of the census districts of Alberta, not one census district is eligible for regional economic expansion funds under any other tier but tier 1, it leaves them very little by way of assistance. I hope that the Minister will take my suggestion and move quickly to right an injustice that I feel is taking place at present.


Mrs. Monique  Bernatchez-Tardif@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question from the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) concerning the possibility of designating parts of Alberta as tier 2 under the Industrial Regional Development Program.
Tier designations for purposes of IRDP as originally designed are based on an index of development which is a little more than the unemployment my colleague was talking about. It classified the country's 260 census divisions into four tier groups according to selective measures of economic need. The statistical measures used consist of the level of unemployment, the level of personal income and the fiscal capacity of the province in which the census division is located.
According to the Act and regulations, tier designations are reviewed once a year for possible adjustment in light of
Adjournment Debate
changing economic conditions. This is done by recalculating the development index using the latest annual data available in each census division on income and unemployment.
As a result of the latest update of the tier designation announced on July 1, 1985, Alberta's 15 census division are still in tier 1. The new 1985 designations are based on indicators that measure employment and income conditions during the period 1982-1984. As such, the new index reflects changing economic circumstances as well as the differential impact of these changes in Alberta and various parts of the country. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it shows that classification and reclassification of census districts under the IRDP is being done on the basis of objective statistical data, using a formula provided under the Act and Regulations. The annual review of the development index is mandatory under the Act and constitutes the only procedure for updating tier classification in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial and Regional Development Act and Regulations. Any attempt to change the classification would require an amendment to the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I realize there is no regional designation system that operates perfectly in all circumstances and is able to guide Government assistance to industry with absolute fairness and objectivity. The Minister is also aware of the shortcomings of the system and continues to consider other ways of improving the criteria now being used for tier designation. That is why the development index and the tier method used by the IRDP are being reviewed by the Department.
As soon as a more objective and useful method is developed, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is prepared to formulate recommendations for making the legislative changes that will make it possible to implement such a method.
Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the ERDA program now in effect could be used to arrange a subsidiary agreement with Alberta, and the Minister soon hopes to be able to sign an agreement of this kind that will be beneficial to the people of that province.


FISHERIES-SALE OF CANNED TUNA. (A) REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION. (B) BASIS FOR MINISTER'S RULING
Raymond John Skelly: The last remaining question, Mr. Speaker, in the great Canadian tuna scandal relates to whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in fact knew of this issue many weeks or even months before the matter reached its culmination in the House of Commons recently. On Friday, September 20, in a press conference the Prime Minister said that he had only heard about this problem the day before and had acted immediately on it. He said that in quite an explicit and firm way. The former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on the same day, in a scrum after Question Period said that that in fact was not true. He said that this whole issue in detailed form was in the Prime Minister's Office several weeks ago. It is interesting to note that the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans survived the

September 24, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Star-Kist affair but what he did not survive was the enormous contradiction that he had set up between himself and the Prime Minister. When the former Minister subsequently tried to heal the problem, the Prime Minister sacked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
To return to the question at hand, there seems to be information indicating that the Prime Minister would have had several matters before him. First, David MacDonald publicly rejected this product weeks if not months before. On July 5, a close friend of the Prime Minister seems to have been given information that this scandal was upon us. On July 28, Ian Anderson who is now Deputy Principal Secretary, allegedly heard of this matter from two offices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I believe tonight's answer will reveal that Mr. Anderson had a lot more information of which he either advised or failed to advise the Prime Minister.
The Department of National Defence had the information. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) not have the information? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) should have had the information. Justice and Fisheries informed the Prime Minister's Office that this matter was pending. It is absolutely unthinkable that the Prime Minister of Canada would not have been briefed about the possible impact on a $2-billion industry and 100,000 jobs and the possibility of health problems arising from having a million cans of rancid and decomposing tuna at loose in the country.
It is amazing that we have been led to believe by the Prime Minister that none of his staff members and none of the Ministers briefed him on this critical matter and that he had to see it on television after which he knew that the right thing to do was to get that stuff off the shelves. It is pretty damned obvious that it should not have been on the shelves in the first place.
Only a few things make sense to Members of the House of Commons and the people of Canada. We have to make the assumption that the Prime Minister's staff has some common sense and fulfils the responsibility of briefing the Prime Minister on matters that are important to this nation. If we do not believe that, we have to believe that his staff is incompetent and the Prime Minister knew nothing. We have to believe that he gets his information about the nation's business from television.
Tonight we may see a clarification of this matter when it will allegedly be aired on television that information of this nature was in fact given to Mr. Ian Anderson, now Deputy Principal Secretary. One would think that he would have informed the Prime Minister of a very serious matter affecting a $2-billion Canadian fishing industry, a $ 1.7-billion exporting industry, 100,000 jobs and relating to the releasing on the Canadian market of a million cans of rancid and decomposing tuna. There is no way that we can accept the story that Mr. Anderson had not informed the Prime Minister of that. If that is in fact the case, the Prime Minister should have his head
first thing tomorrow morning and be prepared to make a statement in the House of Commons about the reorganization of the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office so that this country can run with some effectiveness and safety, something which has not been demonstrated by the Prime Minister to date. Other than that, the Prime Minister should stand up in the House and admit that he in fact knew about this issue weeks before, as the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, a man whom many people know to be an honest gentleman with a tremendous political conscience, stated unequivocally in the period before the scrum on Friday.
The questions which have been asked in the House are still wide open. The people of Canada have not been given an acceptable answer by the Prime Minister. The questioning will have to continue until the Prime Minister comes clean with us and tells us that, in fact, he has either reorganized his office and fired the people responsible, or until he comes clean with us and tells us that he did know long before and failed to act. Ultimately, we might see that it is the Prime Minister who puts up his damn seat in response to this very serious matter.


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to respond to the original question asked by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) which was the basis for the Minister's ruling. My statement today is intended to set out clearly the decisions taken by the former Minister with respect to the release of certain lots of tuna products.
Over a period of months, beginning in late 1984, selected lots of canned tuna production inspected by DFO Inspection were detained from release to the public because of inspection decisions that these lots did not meet the minimum quality standards set out under the Fish Inspection Regulations. It must be stressed that large quantities of Star-Kist production did pass inspection testing throughout this period and were distributed to the market-place in the normal manner. It must also be stressed, and underlined, that at no time were any doubts expressed about the health or safety attributes of any Star-Kist products, including the detained products.
Beginning in late 1984, the Star-Kist Company, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), and other interested persons approached the former Minister with criticisms of the quality standards applied by Fisheries inspectors to tuna production. He personally met with representatives of Star-Kist at St. Andrews at that time to see for himself what problems existed and how these could be corrected. In January 1985 the Government of New Brunswick contracted the Research and Productivity Council to conduct an independent assessment of Star-Kist production methods and issues of difference between the company and Inspection. Departmental staff co-operated with this RPC study. A report from RPC was presented to the New Brunswick Government on February 11, 1985, with a copy being provided to the former Minister.
Following receipt of the RPC report of February 11, the former Minister instructed that sampled of detained Star-Kist
September 24, 1985

products should be released to RPC for further testing. No detained products were released to the market at this time.
Normal inspection processes were continuing at Star-Kist. Some production passed and some did not. The former Minister formed an independent review committee to advise him on the resolution of differences of opinion between Star-Kist and Fisheries inspectors on March 4, 1985, and also to advise him on how to dispose of Star-Kist products which were still detained in accordance with the Fish Inspection Regulations.
The independent review committee presented a summary report to him on April 24, 1985. On the basis of this report, and also taking into consideration the information given to him in the RPC report of February 11, 1985, he decided to release all product under detention to Star-Kist for whatever disposition it chose to make. His decision was formally communicated to the Department on April 29, 1985 and Inspection released the product to the company during the First week of May. At all times he had been fully assured by his inspection staff, and by other interested parties, that health and safety concerns did not exist for these products.
Adjournment Debate
All the products in question were placed under Star-Kist control from the first week of May. The former Minister understood that Star-Kist continued to work with RPC but that this was an arrangement between those two parties. This process obviously had nothing to do with his decision to release.
In the period since the decision to release detained Star-Kist products, the former Minister requested that an industry-government working group be convened to review in detail the inspection guidelines applying to canned tuna. That working group met twice this summer and revised guidelines have been agreed upon. These revised guidelines now apply to the inspection of all tuna products sold in Canada, whether produced domestically or imported from abroad, and will be reviewed again in January 1986.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: 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 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 25, 1985