1985-09-18

Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, since current footwear quotas are about to expire, it has become imperative for the Government to renew import quotas so as to ensure that Canadian manufacturers will corner 50 per cent of the market over the next five years.
As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister made that commitment in Sherbrooke during the election campaign.
For a number of reasons quotas in the footwear industry are an absolute necessity. Among other things they guarantee 20,000 jobs equitably shared by Ontario and Quebec. They protect the interests of consumers, ensure the survival of the regional economy and might create many new jobs.
Last week Parliament Hill was the site of a gathering of a good many businessmen, employees and union leaders, here to convey to us a very clear message: We want to remain in operation, we want to keep our jobs, we need five-year quotas and 50 per cent of the market.
Do not let them down and deliver the goods as you promised during the election campaign by implementing quotas to guarantee 50 per cent of the market for the next five years.
# * *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as Members of this House know, many western Canadian farmers were hit very hard this summer by a combination of drought and grasshoppers. The impact has been particularly severe in the cattle industry because it is often not eligible for financial assistance from crop insurance programs. Consequently, the federal Government promptly announced on August 14 that
$48 million would be offered to cattle producers provided that the respective provincial Governments were prepared to participate on an equal cost-sharing basis.
Although most Manitoba farmers have benefited from substantially more rainfall than that enjoyed by their western neighbours, there are small but significant areas in the southwest where the volume of hay production is even lower than last year's. Consequently, the federal Government has allocated approximately $1 million to assist those Manitoba cattle producers, most of whom reside in my own constituency. Unfortunately, the NDP Government of Manitoba has so far failed to respond to that offer. As a result, cattle producers in my area are faced with the prospect of being denied what is rightfully theirs.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore my NDP colleagues in the House from the Province of Manitoba to add their voices to mine in order to persuade the Government of Manitoba to redress this wrong. That Government must not be allowed to play politics on the backs of Manitoba cattle producers.


FISHERIES
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, many observers have expressed concern about the blissful ignorance of science among politicians in this technological age. As a scientist, I could not have imagined a more deliberately intentional or dangerous demonstration of that ignorance than the action of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) in releasing one million cans of tainted tuna against the advice of a host of technical advisers. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should just fire all of his regulatory scientists, close down the Food and Drug Directorate, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Agriculture and, for good measure, the Science Council. For they all give scientific and not political advice. Think of the savings to the Canadian taxpayer if the Prime Minister just put that Star-Kist technician, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in charge.
I wonder if there is anyone in the Government who understands that scientifically based food inspections are to protect people and must be independent, precisely because lawyer-politicians judge by politics and not on the basis of scientific criteria or safety. Angry consumers in Ottawa Centre have provided cans of tuna for the Prime Minister's consumption.

September 18, 1985
Will he trust his health to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, or will he dismiss him and turn to science?

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS AUXILIARY AGREEMENT ON TOURISM SIGNED WITH QUEBEC
Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recall two events that reflect very significantly the new role this Government intends to play in the area of federal-provincial relations.
On December 14, 1984, our Government and the Government of Quebec agreed to sign a regional economic development agreement that was to be the prelude to a new climate of national reconciliation. Subsequent to this agreement, on January 16, 1985, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. Murta) signed a subsidiary agreement on tourism with the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of attending a press conference where the Minister of State for Tourism and his provincial counterpart announced two major contributions to the tourist industry in the riding of Labelle, one at Mont Saint-Sauveur in Saint-Sauveur and one at Chantecler in Sainte-Adele. These two contributions, which support initiatives by the private sector, reflect the importance of tourism in our region's economy. In concrete terms, it means that more than $6 million will be contributed by both governments and more than 240 jobs will be created, while existing jobs will be maintained.
* *
*


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the replacement of the Foreign Investment Review Agency by Investment Canada was intended, so we were told, to encourage new foreign investment in our country. It was surely not intended that it would oversee the outflow of foreign capital already in Canada. Yet that is exactly what will happen if the proposed merger of two American companies goes through. The $5 billion U.S. merger of Allield Corporation of Morristown, New Jersey, and Signal Corporation of LaJolla, California, which will effectively give control to Allied, includes a rather clever little reverse deal involving the Canadian subsidiaries of the two companies.
This deal would lead to $458 million of investment capital flowing out of Canada, and entail a loss to Canada of $69 million in federal taxes. These two companies have agreed that, prior to the consummation of their deal, Signal Corporation's Canadian subsidiaries will buy out certain of Allied's Canadian subsidiaries for $330 million U.S., in cash or promissory notes. They have further annnounced that any proceeds from the Canadian transaction would be used to retire the indebtedness of Allied Corporation in the U.S. The net effect of this gentleman's agreement is that Signal's Canadian subsidiaries will end up paying money to Allied Corporation in the U.S., which would then use that money to reduce the cost of taking over Signal Corporation itself.
I urge that both the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) review the details surrounding this shuffle immediately and see to it that under the loose rules of the-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring attention to a very important international event taking place in my riding as I speak. Over 600 learned men and women from 17 countries are attending the Muskoka acid rain conference from September 15 to September 20. They have assembled to address this important environmental issue from the scientific perspective on behalf of mankind.
The Government's new Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) opened the conference on a very positive note by admitting the politicians of the world are lagging dangerously behind in environmental affairs. He noted the need for positive action within the year, and there is no doubt in my mind that this will come to pass in Canada.
International symposia such as the one held in Muskoka are crucial in the movement toward acid rain abatement. We must learn conclusively whether acid precipitation is indeed affecting human health. When the results are in, we must move swiftly to ensure future generations are not stricken because of our mistakes and shortsightedness. This is the third such conference ever held, and the first held in Canada. Let us be the first to pick up the torch and run headlong into the future toward a cleaner environment.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) has not only endangered the health of Canadians by overruling his own scientific staff on the sale of tuna that was deemed unfit for human consumption, but has endangered our national and international reputation as a producer of superb quality fish products for the
September 18, 1985

Canadian and world market. With one of the largest and highest quality salmon packs in Canadian history sitting ready for sale on the B.C. coast, the Mulroney Government has placed the marketing of the product at risk. Our international competitors will now move at great speed to displace our products, be they tuna, salmon, herring, cod, crab, lobster, clams, or any other. The possibility of contaminated or unfit products is the strongest reason for any country or consumer not to buy up a product.
Regardless of the political deals surrounding the Star-Kist horror story, the Mulroney Government has failed the interests of the Canadian public and has now likely damaged our multibillion dollar fishing industry. All tuna related to this matter should be promptly removed from sale in Canada, the Minister canned as unfit for Canadian consumption, and a major program put in place to secure the trust of our markets and the value of our products at home and abroad.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, the workers at Versatile Vickers will fight "to the death" to prevent construction of two Canadian navy frigates from being transferred from Montral to Lauzon near Quebec City, because otherwise, according to them, the shipyard on Notre-Dame Street is doomed. All the refineries in Montreal East are along Notre-Dame Street as well, and they cannot be closed down either, anymore than the shipyards, otherwise Montreal East will be shut down entirely. We must keep the frigate contract in Montreal. This contract was awarded to Vickers in Montreal in 1983. If the contract is transferred, this means that Montreal East will be losing 650 jobs for four years.
I would urge my hon. friend, the Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), to keep working with the employees' union at Vickers to have the work divided fairly between the shipyards. Montreal East, with an unemployment rate of 19.5 per cent, deserves a fair chance.
Mr. Speaker, the workers can count on my full co-operation and support.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, it seems that the only people congratulating the Government on its employment policies are the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Conservative caucus. Yesterday, the provincial Ministers of Education issued a statement criticizing the Government's job strategies. The province are concerned about the reduction in funds for job creation from $2.2 billion in 1984 to $2.1 billion in 1985 and to $1.9 billion in 1986, and also with the duplication of these programs by provincial programs.
Last week the Canadian Association of Mayors and Municipalities asked Canadian Governments to set up a $12 billion fund to renew municipal infrastructure, which would create 60,000 jobs directly and 300,000 jobs indirectly. So far there has been no response. On Monday of this week a number of groups which attended the Government's Economic Summit, including 35 labour leaders and 20 social and religious organizations, said that the Government's employment practices rely too much on the private sector to create the jobs required.
The Prime Minister and the Minister take great pleasure in announcing that the unemployment rate has declined to 10.3 per cent. Who in their right mind can be content with a 10.3 per cent unemployment rate? Before the recession in 1982 the rate was 7.5 per cent, and that should be the minimum goal for the Government. We call on the Government-
Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


NEW YORK YANKEES-POOR SINGING, POOR PLAYING, POOR GEORGE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 address an open letter to Mr. George Steinbrenner, owner of the New York Yankees:
Dear George,
I, too, am proud of the longest undefended border in the world and 1 consider the U.S. our greatest friend and ally, even when it comes to baseball. But as the eyes of the sporting world focused on our remarkable Toronto Blue Jays, especially during the recent four game series in New York, I became quite angry with our friends in the Big Apple.
As I tuned into the game last Saturday night along with hundreds of thousands of other Canadians, I heard the words and the music of our national anthem being butchered by some misguided singer. Strike one, George!
That didn't bother me too seriously since many Canadians don't know our anthem either, but last Sunday, before a live national TV audience, a different singer finished off the wound from Saturday night with the coup de grace. He blew it as well. Strike two, George!
We have a great marketing job to do and will have that chance during the upcoming World Series. You can butcher our anthem, but you can't beat our Blue Jays. Go get 'em, Bobby Cox.
Love,
Barry


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

September 18, 1985
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED KINGDOM MINISTER OF STATE FOR IMMIGRATION
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of Members the presence in our gallery of the Hon. David Waddington, Minister of State responsible for Immigration, of the United Kingdom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM DENMARK LED BY MINISTER FOR TAXATION
Mr. Speaker:: I also draw attention of Members to the presence in the gallery of a delegation from Denmark, led by the Hon. Isi Foighel, Minister for Taxation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important to Canadians than the health of our families and our children, and nothing is more important to our fisheries than a world-wide reputation for good quality and performance.
The Minister of Fisheries overruled his own inspectors, his own health experts, and an independent review board, and allowed rotten tuna from the Star-Kist fish packing plant in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, to be sold to Canadians. Why is the Minister of Fisheries playing with the health of Canadians in this way? Why is he risking the world-wide reputation of our fisheries industry? Why did he allow the sale of one million tins of rancid and decomposing tuna to Canadian consumers? Give us the reason for this.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: First, Mr. Speaker, the allegations by the right hon. gentleman of course are not true. He suggested that health is an important matter, as well as reputation. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I advise the House that at no time, under any circumstances, was there any suggestion, or any finding, or any allegation, or accusation that there was any threat to health with respect to a certain tuna product from a certain plant in New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TUNA UNFIT FOR CONSUMPTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, David MacDonald, the co-ordinator of Canadian relief operations in Ethiopia, refused, and rightly so, a shipment of rotting tuna destined for Ethiopia. Why is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans letting Canadians buy and eat tuna he quite rightly decided not to ship to famine-stricken populations? Does the health of Canadian families mean nothing to the Minister? Is he going to have this spoiled tuna taken off supermarket shelves immediately?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that there was and is not any health threat from any tuna that has been or is being manufactured or produced in Canada. I want that clearly understood.
It is entirely irresponsible for Members of Parliament to proceed with those allegations, in spite of the fact that their mentor is Eric Mailing of the CBC.
I am sure that the Right Hon. Member would want to know that in determining this matter I obtained two independent reports; one from the Research Productivity Council in New Brunswick-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Hatfield's hacks.


John Allen Fraser: Then I set up an independent panel that was appointed by this Department. That independent panel's report approved the sale of the product outside Canada.


REQUEST THAT PRODUCT BE REMOVED FROM STORES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has advised Canadians to open the tins first before eating them-but I want to say to the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: Good idea.


John Napier Turner: Let me tell the Minister to get that rotten tuna off Canadian shelves. You knuckled under to Premier Hatfield. You put politics before health in this country. Do something about it.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Right Hon. Member knows that it is best to open the tin before eating the contents. But what the Right Hon. Member does not know is that it is best to think before opening your mouth.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 18, 1985


John Allen Fraser: The Right Hon. Member knows full well that there is not a tittle of evidence anywhere that any of this product is a threat or a danger to the health of Canadians. I would hope that the Right Hon. Member and other Hon. Members here would accept my word on this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: If you do not accept my word, then take the word of my own scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who tested the product in laboratories, and the word of the two independent panels. Both reports make it quite clear that there is no question of danger to health from these products whatsoever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPUTATION OF FISHING INDUSTRY-REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF REPORTS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, due to a serious error of judgment by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, thousands of jobs are now in jeopardy. Why has the Minister placed the reputation of the Canadian fishing industry in jeopardy? What is the Minister going to do to save those jobs now in jeopardy? Will the Minister produce the reports that he talks about that okayed this product?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, who is the critic for fisheries matters in the Official Opposition, has been a Fisheries Minister. I know that he will speak to the right hon. gentleman who leads his Party, and remind him of the necessity of not making allegations that affect the health of Canadians when those allegations are groundless.


Ms. Copps:: Fraser speaks.


An Hon. Member:: Table the reports.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Requests have been made of me by the media for these reports. My response has been that if the company involved is prepared to release them, I am.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are a dead Fish.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suspect this will be a difficult day, and I would ask for calm, please.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 view this as a serious matter because of the irresponsible allegations being made. I would think Hon. Members would listen.
I cannot release those documents right now and I will tell you why. There is an application by a media outlet under the Access to Information Act. That is being challenged by the company. Until that hearing on whether or not these documents should be released, which the Department of Fisheries
Oral Questions
and Oceans on my instructions has said we will release, is completed, I cannot in law release these documents.


Mr. Nunziata:: It is your public duty.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: It is one thing to ask me to release something, but when the law says that I cannot release the documents yet, Hon. Members have to accept that. These documents, I am satisfied, will eventually be released. We are taking the position in the courts that they should be.


FISH INSPECTION STANDARDS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, as a former Minister I must say I have never made a decision that has affected so many lives as the decision which this Minister just made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: Never, Mr. Speaker, in Canadian history has a Minister of Fisheries overruled his own experts on a matter of health. I want him to know that.
Do we have any standards for fish inspection in this country, or do standards change from day to day on the basis of political interference?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member persists in saying that this is a question of health. I have repeatedly said that it is not. The Hon. Member ought to be prepared to accept that. With respect to standards, one of the independent panels, which I appointed, commented that the guidelines were too vague. As a consequence, in June I invited industry to join with officials in my Department to revise the guidelines, which was done. I did not revise them; industry revised them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Broadbent:: That is good news!


Mr. Riis:: That is okay, John!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: I am sure that all Hon. Members will realize that an industry which has to compete will not come up with unsatisfactory guidelines.
The Hon. Member said that never before has a Fisheries Minister overruled his officials on a matter of health. I categorically deny that I would, or did any such thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 18, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the following irrefutable facts: that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has approved about a million cans of tuna which two sets of federal inspectors, plus a panel from four Canadian provinces, deemed to be unfit for human consumption. This means, among other things, that it could cause senior citizens or children to throw up, as well as other people. That is all medical fact.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept the judgment of the Minister, which was that he was prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the industry in such circumstances, that is to say, the Minister was prepared to gamble with the health of Canadians? Or will the Prime Minister do the proper thing and make clear that such a Minister is not entitled to remain in the Canadian Cabinet?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans never said that he would propose to give the benefit of the doubt and gamble against the health and safety of Canadians. This Government always resolves any doubt in favour of Canadians; that has been its record.
In response to the thoughtful question of my hon. friend, as I understand it, what we have so far is no objective evidence whatsoever of any threat to health and safety, which are very important matters. I think my hon. friend would agree that since that time, since the incident occurred, regulations have been changed in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of this kind of incident ever occurring again and, no less important, that in this area Canada has a superb reputation for quality. I hope that no Member of the House would inadvertently make a partisan or unfair comment which would diminish it.


REQUEST THAT PRODUCT BE WITHDRAWN FROM STORES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that his Government will always do what is in the interests of Canadians. As is always the case with the Prime Minister, which Canadians are we talking about? That is the issue.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is prepared to let this product remain out there on the shelves, almost a million cans, for Canadians to consume. Incredibly enough, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is reported to have said this morning that he agrees, thus giving up his obligation to the consumers of Canada. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that he wants an industry which is important to this country to continue with its international reputation, and that he wants Canadians to have healthy food by having that product withdrawn from shelves all across Canada and taking corrective steps to ensure that this does not happen again?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my first obligation was to ensure that there was no
evidence whatsoever of any threat to health or safety. That appears very much to be the case. My hon. friend asks about what would happen, notwithstanding that fact, if the product is less than desirable. If that is the case, it will be removed because the health of Canadians will be protected at all times and in all circumstances, and the quality of our products will be so recognized internationally.


INSPECTORS' FINDINGS
John Edward Broadbent: My question pertains to the last comment of the Prime Minister. Considering the fact that not one but two groups of federal inspectors have said that it is unfit for human consumption, that it can make people vomit, and that this judgment has been agreed to by a panel representing four provinces in addition to the Province of New Brunswick, is this not enough evidence for the Prime Minister to make him reach the right conclusion now, to stop those cans from being purchased even this afternoon in stores across Canada and have them taken off the shelves?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think 1 have responded fully to my hon. friend. The first obligation was to go to the core issue which was the issue of any possible threat to health and safety. I think that matter has been resolved. The benefit of any doubt, of course, is resolved in favour of Canadian consumers and our reputation internationally. We will take every action consistent with those objectives, I assure my hon. friend.


MINISTER'S RESIGNATION SOUGHT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has placed a new meaning on the term "tuna fish surprise". It is not a very pleasant surprise to open a tin of rancid tuna.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister who removed from his first potluck Cabinet the Minister of the Environment because she endangered Canadian animal lives. I am asking the Prime Minister will he ask for the resignation of the Minister of Fisheries whose actions are threatening the wellbeing of Canadian human lives?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, within the last little while there have been some liberties taken with allegations of fact that affect reputations. They will be dealt with at a parliamentary commission and will be looked at very carefully. Some of the allegations that have been made deserve a response before an objective forum.
I think there is one thing that I can say that would be widely acclaimed by all Members of this House and that is that the Minister of Fisheries who has served in this House honourably and well, has served as Minister in two Governments-


Mr. Marchi:: Play it again, Sam.
September 18, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: -as Minister of the Crown, a very effective representative of British Columbia and a proud Canadian.


Mr. Benjamin:: Why don't you take up the violin?


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: This is a supplementary to the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. With divided opinion, why did not the Minister of Fisheries request the Minister of National Health and Welfare to undertake an independent analysis of the tuna, and did you inform the Minister of National Health and Welfare when you made the decision to release the questionable product?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, there never was a question of health.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: There was no question of health because the product was tested in laboratories in Vancouver, Blacks Harbour and in Halifax.
The independent committees that addressed this subject all report that there is no question of health hazard whatsoever. What there is is a question of aesthetics and it is not a completely objective standard. The report commissioned by my own Department says that the former guidelines were vague.
I with the Members of the House would appreciate the fact that repeated allegations of something which is clearly not so do not do any credit to this House nor do they in any way help the fishing industry of this country.


REJECTION OF PRODUCT BY CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Prime Minister. On television last night the Minister clearly admitted what he had done. He clearly said that the company would have the benefit of the doubt in this case. The Armed Forces of Canada, after purchasing $100,000 worth of this tainted material that was at one point declared unfit for human consumption, examined it and rejected it as unfit for members of the Armed Forces. Why should Canadians, senior citizens in homes for the elderly, people in hospitals, and ordinary Canadians be subjected to this product that the Armed Forces rejected and that, in the minds of many Canadians today, poses a problem for their health and safety?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, here comes Erik!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It always amazes me when a question is asked that sometimes people choose, for some reason I don't understand, not to listen to the answer.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has explained, there was never any question as to health and safety involved in the product. Indeed, the Department did have a shipment and went to the trouble to obtain a reassessment, a re-examination in a laboratory environment. That laboratory examination certified that the product was completely free of any health or safety hazard.


REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF MINISTER
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister once again. The Prime Minister will know that several years ago the Canadian salmon pack was quarantined because of a hint of improper inspection of our fish products for our export markets. That is worth $ 1.7 billion a year with a half a billion-


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


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has jeopardized that. Will the Prime Minister do the correct thing and dismiss the Minister of Fisheries forthwith?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think 1 have already indicated my view of the role played by the Minister of Fisheries. The evidence is clear cut and I think it would be unfair of my hon. friend to take that attitude, given the assurances given by the Minister-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Would you feed it to your family?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and other colleagues, and his Department, to the effect that there was no evidence of any kind of any threat to health and safety.
Nobody in his right mind would wish for an incident that would cause even the possibility of a threat to anybody's well-being, or anything that might diminish even in such a tiny manner the reputation for quality that our products have abroad.
It does happen; we have taken the appropriate action. I am informed that it cannot occur again and that what we should be doing is exercise vigilance but also be proud of the products of the Canadian fishery.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INFORMED ABOUT TAINTED
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This morning, the Minister said, and I quote:

I think the consumer should be prudent, the consumer should check the smell and colour of the tuna. When a fish is improper for consumption I think we can smell it.

September 18, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]
Maybe the Minister should eat a carload of tuna!
My question is as follows: Since the spoiled fish is a consumer product, could the Minister inform the House whether he was told about the problem last April?
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question by saying that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is responsible for regulating the inspection of fish at the retail level only, and that such regulation or inspection is concerned with preventing fraud and with product packaging.
We are in no way involved in the health and safety aspect of food products. That responsibility lies with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
That is our position in the debate on this issue with our colleague at Fisheries and Oceans.


HEALTH THREAT CAUSED BY CERTAIN PRODUCTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister give Canadians the assurance that he and his colleagues will do whatever is necessary to remove this harmful product from store shelves and do so immediately, today?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I can assure the House that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has an abiding interest in protecting the consumer, and in this respect, we were given the assurance by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the product was safe, and we are satisfied with that statement.


REPUTATION OF CANADIAN FISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The disastrous decision made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has had the effect of damaging and compromising Canada's excellent reputation in the fish products industry and threatening the jobs of workers in the fish processing plants of New Brunswick. Now does the Prime Minister intend to go about repairing the harm done to the reputation of Canada's industry and restoring the confidence of Canadian consumers?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the answer is, of course, that in New Brunswick, where the people know all about this situation, there is a general sense that the matter was properly and fairly dealt with. There is no concern in the fishing industry in New Brunswick whatsoever.
My hon. friend talks about jobs. There is no safety issue here. I can assure my hon. friend that, as a consequence of the better guidelines that are now in place, those jobs are probably more secure than they were before.


ENFORCEMENT OF INSPECTION PROCEDURES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In order to restore Canada's good reputation in the fishing products industry, is the Prime Minister prepared to send the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to New Brusnwick immediately to assure the workers in that particular plant that the high levels of inspection and the procedures to ensure that quality products are put on the market will be enforced?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give my hon. friend the assurance that the Minister has done so on many occasions. In the area we are concerned with, the issue we are dealing with is a matter of health and safety. I think it has been dealt with today in the House to the satisfaction of all Members-


John R. Rodriguez: It is a matter of confidence.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and in doing so, I think that in this important matter, the Minister is sending a message of confidence to the industry's workers and to consumers.


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. On March 5, knowing that it was in financial difficulty, the Canadian Commercial Bank nevertheless declared a dividend on its preferred shares. Now that the Minister has had six months to examine the affairs of this bank, can she explain that decision to the House?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the problems of the Canadian Commercial Bank were brought to my attention on March 14, 1985, and not on March 5. In the spring, we had indicated in committee how the problems had arisen and that management at that point had some confidence in the company and its earnings.


TRADING IN SHARES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On the strength of the March 5 dividend, the price of CCB preferred shares rose and some 8,500 shares were traded

September 18, 1985
before the bail-out was announced on March 25 and prices fell to rock bottom. On April 29, in response to my question in the House, the Minister said that he was sure the bank had complied with all provincial regulations for full and timely disclosure of shares trading. Will the Minister tell the House if he still stands by that statement?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of question that should be put during a committee hearing. I will not stand here and answer a question with the complexity lying behind that one. Having served for a number of years in the investment business, I know the care that must be taken in responding to that type of question. I would ask the Hon. Member to save that question for when the committee sits.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses.
I would like to know whether his Department has taken steps to reduce to a minimum the number and complexity of the forms that small- and medium-sized businesses have to complete for Statistics Canada-


An Hon. Member:: That is politicking.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Will the Opposition side please keep quiet?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have the distinct feeling that there were caucus meetings this morning.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: There has been a notable absence of decorum since the House resumed sitting.
I would like to know whether there have been any tangible results to date, and this is further to complaints received from owners of businesses in my riding.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert for her very pertinent question. In February and March this year, I held national consultations and asked businessmen and my provincial counterparts a number of questions. These questions were raised with a view to achieving harmonization and a reduction in paper work in this country. We set up task forces in each province, and these
Oral Questions
groups have started their work. We shall be seeing concrete results within the next few months.
However, the matter is fairly complex, and we cannot reduce paper work by tackling only one form at a time. A comprehensive approach is necessary.


FISHERIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is a very easy one. Under federal regulations and by federal inspectors under the mandate of the Prime Minister's administration, the million cans of tuna in question here were found to be unfit for human consumption. Would the Prime Minister tell the people of Canada what the words "unfit for human consumption" mean to him?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the Hon. Member. The inspectors rejected certain stock on the basis of what is called an organoleptic test. That means that they touch it, they smell it, they look at it, and they consider its texture and aesthetics.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It stinks.


John Allen Fraser: This is a task which is not easy and which is at times very subjective.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: The plant in question was quarrelling with the judgment exercised by these inspectors. It appealed. The same inspectors sat on the judgment. They came to the Minister and asked if they could not have an independent look at this matter. The Minister gave them two committees which took an independent look at the matter, and made a ruling.
Hon. Members are so concerned with jobs, but if they keep on this way, they are going to have a delegation of workers from New Brunswick-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The answer is getting long.


LABELLING OF CANS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again directed to the Prime Minister. If these million cans of tuna were sold outside Canada, then according to Canadian law each can had to have a cautionary label on it showing that it had not been approved in Canada. Again, what do the words "unfit for human consumption" mean to the Prime Minister? Why would there have to be cautionary labels put on cans sold outside Canada? Did the million cans sold inside Canada not require precisely the same thing?

September 18, 1985
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the assumptions upon which the Hon. Member's questions are based are just not correct. The stock in question was recommended for sale outside Canada by one of the independent committees.


FISHERIES ACT-REFERENCE TO &quot;TAINTED OR RANCID FISH&quot;
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has some trouble with the definition of "unfit for human consumption and health". The Fisheries Act states in these words: "No one shall sell tainted fish or rancid fish". Is that no longer a requirement?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would get his legal research work done adequately, he would know that the words to which he referred are set out in certain guidelines. The question at issue was whether or not the objective or subjective application of judgment by the inspectors was adequate or inappropriate. That was the matter which was being appealed. It had nothing to do with health whatsoever.
I want to just remind Hon. Members that in this country when we have a Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which literally has the power of economic life and death over the people who are governed by its regulations, if a citizen cannot come to the Minister to get an independent assessment of something with which he quarrels with the Department, the citizen has no appeal at all. And you would transfer any independent assessment, any independent appeal, to the very people who rejected the product in the first place.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Rancid is rancid.


John Allen Fraser: I am sure that that would not fit well in the areas you come from, if you are talking to your own processors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. While many Canadians are concerned about the transport by rail of dangerous goods such as toxic and explosive chemicals, in some circles there is more concern about the transport by trucks of dangerous goods. Since the provincial Governments are quite involved in some aspects of transport by trucks, could the Minister clarify for us where we stand on this very important piece of legislation which appears to need strengthening?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on July 1 broad regulations covering the transportation of dangerous goods were promulgated. These regulations apply to all modes of transportation. In the case of provinces, Ontario specifically agreed and became a party to those regulations, which means that transportation by truck both interprovincially and intraprovincially is covered by the Dangerous Goods Act and by the regulations which were promulgated on July 1.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance have told us repeatedly that they relied upon the best available evidence before agreeing to a support package back in March which will probably now cost Canadian taxpayers about $1 billion.
Why did the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Finance refuse to accept an offer from the major banks to conduct a quick special audit which would have determined the value of the loan portfolio upon which the whole support package depended?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have said repeatedly in this House that we consulted with the banks, that the banks had some input into the decision which was made, that they had some right of examination, that the Inspector General had the right of examination, and that the combined decision-combined decision-was based on the impact that this bank could have on our system. And I am looking forward to discussing this further in committee.


OFFER MADE BY CHARTERED BANKS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of State for Finance deny that an offer was made by several of the chartered banks to conduct a quick special audit in order to determine the value of those assets, that that offer was made and refused?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have denied none of the events which are related to any of the activities surrounding this decision. This was a collective decision. It was made on behalf of the banking system in Canada, it was made on behalf of the Canadian dollar, it was made on behalf of the Canadian people, it was made on behalf of the Alberta economy, and the banks participated in making that decision.


Donald James Johnston: Yes or no?
September 18, 1985


FISHERIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the Prime Minister who did indicate earlier that he would be prepared at some point to take action in order to get the contaminated tuna off the shelves.


John Allen Fraser: It is not contaminated.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister said he was taking this matter seriously, and I have a serious question for him. Considering that we do know, and no one is saying that anyone's life is being threatened-no one on this side is saying that-


John Allen Fraser: Well, we got that out of you, anyway.


John Edward Broadbent: No one is saying that. But we do know that-


John Allen Fraser: You have been saying it all day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If I must admonish one side not to interrupt, I must also admonish the other side.


John Edward Broadbent: We know that lives are not being threatened but we do know that it has been said that this fish is unfit for human consumption and that it could cause elderly people, children, as well as others, to be sick. My question to the Prime Minister is simply this. How many Canadians have to get sick before the Government will take action?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. friend would recognize that that is an unworthy question-


John Edward Broadbent: Pardon?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Unworthy.


John Edward Broadbent: Unworthy?


Martin Brian Mulroney: And it was very much an unworthy question. I have given my hon. friend the assurance that he sought, quite properly, that at no time was there the slightest evidence of danger to health or safety at any time. I further gave him the assurance that as far as I was concerned, and the Government was concerned, any quality matter less than top quality was unsatisfactory. We will be moving in that direction.
I thought that we responded fully and completely to some accusations which may have caused panic and caused hardship and unfair damage to people and to reputations. I have given my hon. friend honestly and openly the full assurance of complete co-operation of the Government that any matter will be resolved on behalf of the ordinary Canadian.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Prime Minister, I say that his response was an unworthy response. If he is going to describe a serious question in those terms, then he deserves to get it back.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question on behalf of everyone in this House who is serious about the health of Canadians and about the viability of the industry. Since it is now known that the product on the shelf can cause people to bring up, which causes a lot of damage to people's health, as we would understand it, why will he not take action now to preserve the health of Canadians, instead of waiting? That is the question.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in any of the information which has been brought to me that justifies the allegation that the Hon. Leader of the Democratic Party is making. No matter how he wants to disguise it, he has now admitted that there is no health problem-


John Edward Broadbent: No.


John Allen Fraser: -but he is trying to create a health problem by using other words. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party and those Hon. Members who pursue this line of questioning will have to satisfy themselves, apparently, that there is no health danger in this stock.


TEXTILES
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Last week you said that the Government was seeking ways to help the textile industry and that it was about time the industry faced up to the reality of international competition. Would the Minister tell the House how he can possibly reconcile that statement with the recent shutdowns of two Dominion Textile plants in Saint-Jean and Valleyfield?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the Hon. Member, what was indicated last week was that we are in a very competitive world. The textile industry in many countries is extremely competitive today and we must accept the reality of the real world, which means that imports can come into this country at a very competitive price. Unfortunately, that is costing Canadian jobs. That is part of the reason the Dominion Textile plants were closed. This Government is now reviewing measures which we might take to relieve the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to petitions' reports, may I simply remind Hon. Members that we are developing an

September 18, 1985
Petitions
unhappy habit of putting questions and answers using the word "you". May I remind all Hon. Members, please, that for the future questions and answers must go through the Chair.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, September 17, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition from residents of Ontario concerning Vaclav Pivrnec, who is detained in Czechoslovakia and who is unable to reunite with his family in Canada. The petitioners ask the House of Commons to urge the Government of Czechoslovakia to issue Vaclav Pivrnec a permit to rejoin his family in Canada.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of the Toronto Blue Jay fans who were recently subjected to viewing the shabby treatment of the Canadian National Anthem at the hands of Yankee fans in New York City. While an apology has been received from U.S. officials, the petitioners request that the Government of Canada ensure there are no future affronts by making our concerns known and by providing for the distribution of our anthem as recorded by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and chorus at all future international events which call for the singing of our national anthem.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition entitled: Operation Justice for Families with Children.
The petition reads as follows: We the undersigned urge the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, to
restore full indexation of family allowances and of the tax credit-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the petition presented to Parliament or to the Government? This is the place to present to Parliament-


Sheila Maureen Copps: To Parliament, Mr. Speaker!
Cut-backs of $55 million will be imposed in family assistance unless the Government and Parliament reconsider this Budget measure.

I have the honour to present this petition on behalf of my Leader, my Party and the great citizens of the County of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 311 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on March 15 of this year, 1 put some 40 questions concerning the Richard Hatfield marijuana case on the Order Paper. They are still outstanding and 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can indicate a precise time when these questions will be answered.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to bring that to the attention of the new Solicitor General and I am sure the questions will be responded to as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 311 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Kaplan: 1.	How many photographs of the Solicitor General have been hung in the premises of the (a) Correctional Services of Canada (b) RCMP and, in each case, in which locations?
2.	What was the cost of the (a) photograph (6) framing (c) distribution (d) hanging of the photographs?
3.	Under what item of the departmental budget were the costs listed and what government objective was achieved by such expenditure?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 18, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of two notices under Standing Order 31. I propose to hear them in the order in which 1 received them. The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson).


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 31,1 ask leave to move that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) to permit the sale of tainted tuna.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a similar motion from the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I also ask leave to seek adjournment of the House to debate a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the withdrawal of a product which has been identified as a matter of serious health concern and safety to the Canadian public. It is apparent that the Armed Forces removed and disposed of that product and it would be in our interest to deal with that issue as expeditiously as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: That is somewhat different from the notice the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) sent me. I take it he would like me to deal with what he sent me which is the requirement under the motion.
I gave quite a lot of thought to this matter. I think the Speaker is always in a difficult position on these questions. I think I can conclude from today's Question Period that the matter has had at least a substantial airing. In that context I would find it difficult, given all the circumstances and given today's Question Period and the attention it has received, to find that the matter would qualify for a debate under Standing Order 31.
I remind Members that they may wish to look at other rulings to see what constitutes an emergency and what constitutes a question of urgency for debate. But I did think, listening today, that given the questions and answers which have aired the issue which needed to be aired, and there is no question about that, in that context I find it difficult to find that Standing Order 31 applies.


Mr. Deans:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would take under advisement and perhaps comment at a later time on the difficulty that would confront members of the Opposition if in a matter that was deemed by them to be a matter of urgent importance they chose not to raise it during Question Period and how that might influence the decision of the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Shame.
______________________________6741


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)-


John V. Nunziata: That is logical.


Mr. Speaker:: No, it is not logical. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is in fact using a point of order to comment on a ruling of the Chair, which he knows is improper.


Ian Deans: I know.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Unworthy.


Mr. Speaker:: He knows that. I think I know why he is doing it, because I think I sensed from Question Period the seriousness with which this issue is taken by every Member of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We thought it was serious.


Mr. Speaker:: The point the Speaker must take into consideration is the degree to which there is, prima facie, a perceived emergency. What I-


Sheila Maureen Copps: A million cans of tuna.


Mr. Kempling:: Shut up!


Mr. Speaker:: Some Members may think it is reasonable to interject at all times no matter who is speaking, but I do not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: That is stupid, Sheila.


Mr. Speaker:: What is not helpful on one side is not helpful on another side.
The dilemma I face in all of these situations is whether I perceive any emergency to exist. I am not suggesting that the raising of the question in Question Period eliminates an emergency if one should exist, nor would an emergency not exist if questions were not asked in Question Period. The question is: Has the information that I have on which to make a judgment been changed, added to, altered, augmented or modified in any way by what I have just heard in the last hour? What 1 am suggesting to the Hon. Member is that I have found that the information I now have on which to make a judgment includes all the press reports, Question Period and everything I have seen, and it suggests to me that the emergency issues contemplated very narrowly in Standing Order 31 are not met.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully ask you to consider for future decisions the matter of the proper interpretation of the relevant Standing Orders. I am not talking about your current decision, but since this is something which comes up quite frequently 1 would respectfully like to ask your consideration of the following brief comment. Subsection (5) of the relevant Standing Orders says:

September 18, 1985
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, the Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action and the Speaker also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
It may be argued that the wording is such that the criteria in this subsection of the Standing Orders are not exclusive. However, I respectfully submit that if the wording is not exclusive, it is very close to being exclusive, and calls upon the Speaker to look upon only two matters: one, whether the issue in question comes within the responsibility of the Government or is capable of ministerial action; and two, whether in future there is the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means. Therefore, I urge you to consider, Sir, whether any reflection on, or consideration of, current circumstances at the time the motion is raised is something that a Speaker should take into account rather than what opportunity can reasonably be expected to be provided for debating the matter in question within the very near future.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. Recognizing that he does not wish me to take it as a comment on a decision, I will therefore not take it as such. I suggest to him that he and I may need to have a conversation on this matter, and I am perfectly happy to do so. However, for the moment, I refer him not only to Subsection 31(1), but to paragraph 31(16)(a). I thank him for reading to me a part of our rule book that I can assure Hon. Members I know by heart simply because making decisions as to what is an emergency matter is taxing to every Speaker. Therefore, Speakers learn this rule.
Subsection 31(16)(a) narrows the issue substantially. It constrains the issue to find an emergency debate necessary only when:
the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration;
Those have been the two criteria which have caused every Speaker difficulty. I fully appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying and I can assure him that if I were persuaded that as of this moment a genuine emergency existed, I would not hesitate to find a need for debate.
As I may have just now left the wrong impression, may I also say that it is not up to me to find that there is an emergency. It is up to me to find that there is prima facie ground to believe that an emergency exists sufficient to justify changing the order of business of the day to allow a debate right now. That is where the other issues come in with regard to when another matter is appropriate. If I were persuaded that a prima facie case of an emergency has been made, I would not hesitate to grant the debate. I have, however, ruled that in my judgment I am not persuaded that a prima facie case has been made.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall notices of motions for the production of papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Frith (page 6625).
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the Government has introduced the anti-family, anti-child legislation which we see in the context of this particular proposed law, because we have seen quite clearly today that this same Government is prepared to play Russian roulette with the health of, potentially, a million Canadians. We heard the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) stand in his place in the House and say that the industry thought the standards were too high, so the problem was solved by lowering the standards. It is a not a problem of health, Mr. Speaker, it is a problem of aesthetics. We are talking about a million tins or rotting tuna that the Government refuses to take off the shelves. I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Government would adopt a cavalier, devil-may-care attitude with regard to the issue of family allowances, child tax exemptions, and, indeed, the issue of missing children which I dealt with in my remarks yesterday. Quite clearly, a Prime Minister who can stand in his place, as he did today, and defend a Minister of Fisheries who has ignored-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that we are debating the amendment to the Bill on family allowances. I do not know why we are debating tuna fish. I hope the Hon. Member will get back on track.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my reference to tuna relates to the health and welfare of Canadians, which is also being dealt a fatal blow as a result of this particular legislation on family allowances.


An Hon. Member:: She doesn't know what she is talking
about.
September 18, 1985


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member says 1 do not know what I am talking about. I believe that Canadians understand what rancid tuna is, and if we have to bring a can into the House to show them, we will do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With regard to the main question, which is family allowances, we are talking about the people who would be most affected by this cut-back. The Government says that $22 is not a lot for Canadian families. Well, families and single parents who are struggling to raise small children, often surviving on tuna, are being directly assaulted by the Government's anti-family Budget measures. Look at the package. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has said on numerous occasions that this particular measure will assist poor families.
Let us examine the facts. Let us examine the truth, if it is possible for the Government to put the truth before the Canadian people. The truth speaks volumes about the antifamily legislation that is personified in this family allowance attack. The truth is that as a direct result of the Budget measures introduced by the Wilson-Mulroney Government, the purchasing power of families earning $15,000 a year will be reduced by almost $2,000. Almost $2,000 will be taken from the tax credits, the family allowances, and the tax exemption of families earning $15,000 a year.


An Hon. Member:: We can't hear you.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry if the Member finds it difficult to hear the Opposition speaking out for the women of Canada. I can understand why the Member would not want to hear the truth-


Mr. Andre:: No one has difficulty hearing you.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -when it comes from the government side of the House, because there are not too many people on the Government side who have stood to fight for women and to save the family allowance cheque which, for some women who are not working outside a home, is the only support they receive from the Government of Canada. 1 can understand why the Member would support his friends from Bay Street with a $.5 capital gains write-off and a $1 billion bail-out for the banks, yet would wash his hands of the $20 that the Government has been sending out to families who are at the low end of the income scale.
1 wish the people of Canada understood now what they will understand from a fiscal point of view when the final impact of this sneaky and insidious Budget is felt. An average family of four, earning the average Canadian income, is going to lose almost $4,000 when the cumulative effects of this Budget are felt. That includes the deindexation, the cut-back on family allowances, and the reduction in the child tax credit as well as the insidious tax on over 2,000 health supplies which continues to be imposed by the Government.
I can understand why Members on the Government side of the House are not speaking to this legislation. It is quite clear
Family Allowances Act
that they are fighting for Bay Street, for the banks, for the billion dollar bail-outs, and for the tuna companies which want to have the standards lowered, but they are not fighting for the ordinary Canadian. I believe that Members on the Government side of the House have heard from their constituents, and women in particular, who do not necessarily receive any income from other sources. They have looked to the Government for leadership and follow-through on its promise to home-makers, which we have not seen materialize. Those women are looking to the Government to live up to its promise of the so-called economic partnership between men and women that the Prime Minister spoke about in his very first statement in the House of Commons.
Sad to say, we do not see any leadership among Progressive Conservatives with respect to programs concerning women. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that a great many women who are housebound are in no position to make personal representations to the Government to seek renewed justice in terms of family allowances. So it is up to us in the Opposition parties to show the Government how strongly opposed the people are to the decision of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and particularly the decision of the Prime Minister to slash $2,000 off the purchasing power of the poorest and most underprivileged families in Canada. I am talking about families of four persons who earn $15,000 on average. Those are not rich people. Bankers do not need the protection of the House of Commons any more than the big tuna industry, but it quite obvious that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) is prepared to speak up for companies and apparently could not care less about the health of thousands of Canadian men and women. The Government changed, quite clearly, in its approach concerning the promises made to the Canadian people.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I was a guest on a radio program and a man phoned from Kingston and said over the air-

The gentleman on this radio show said that he was conned in the last election. He voted Conservative. He said he was conned because he believed the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Government when they said that universality is a sacred trust. People believed the Prime Minister when, in his first statement in the House, he said that one of his greatest priorities was the economic integrity of women in this country. They believed him when he said that the support of the family was going to be a cornerstone of the politics of the Conservative Government. Unfortunately, we have seen that the Prime Minister has put the word "con" back into the Conservative Party.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has abandoned his responsibilities to women and children in this coun-

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
try. Ele has washed his hands of the support for families that has been a hallmark of the Liberal Government in the past.
How much does it cost to raise a family? No one is suggesting that the sums we receive from family allowance, the tax exemptions and child tax credits, even minimally support a family. According to the figures used by the Children's Aid Society in providing support for foster parents, and statistics dating back to 1984, it costs over $100,000 to raise a child from birth to 18 years of age. According to the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning and Research Council, it costs over $100,000 to supply the bare minimum in food, clothing and education for that same child. This does not take into account post-secondary education or luxuries.
Many women in Canada have welcomed that family allowance cheque and the support which Government provides for families. Two income families, such as a steel working family in my riding earning $30,000 a year, are not living in the lap of luxury. Rather than asking whether we should be cutting back from those families, we should consider whether a single income family should be paying the same taxes as a single person who is earning $30,000. Having been single myself, not supporting a family, I would suggest that I should pay a greater burden of the Canadian tax share than a man or woman who is supporting two, three or four children.
A basic principle of Canadian political life and Canadian social sovereignty has been that families be given support. That support has taken various forms, such as family allowance which is paid directly to mothers, tax credits paid directly to mothers and through the tax system indirectly in order to provide support for families.
[Translation)
But now, Mr. Speaker, once and for all we see the true colours of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. They are the real "blues" who cold-bloodedly work for the rich. They easily managed to come up with thousands and thousands or even a billion dollars-I am not sure I have it quite right in French but I think you know what I mean. They could find money for the banks, just like that. It does not matter-


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: One billion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: One billion ... It matters little to Canadians that you can come up with $1 billion for the bank, but can you not find any money at all for the families? Now that is really something, they easily found $1 billion for the banks without even asking for collateral, without any real guarantee that the bank will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry but the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to single parents. Could she provide the House with specific figures that will directly show the impact of this deindexation on single families headed by mothers? There are some single
males raising families but these single-parent families are primarily headed by females. Would the Hon. Member add to her already fine contribution?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I could provide some statistics that were gathered by the Liberal Party but I am sure the Government would immediately disavow these statistics. Let me refer to the documentation that was placed before us by the Canadian Council on Social Development. When considering single families headed by mothers, a yearly income of $15,000 would be higher rather than lower than average. However, according to these statistics, as a direct result of these Budget measures, a single parent family earning $15,000 a year will see a reduction of almost $2,000 in the moneys that it receives directly and indirectly from the federal Government.
In other words, by 1989 its purchasing power will be reduced by almost $2,000 through direct sales taxes as well as an indirect reduction in tax exemptions that will take effect in the latter part of the Budget.
What makes this Budget particularly insidious is the fact that the short-term effect of the provisions being implemented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare appear to be good. It appears that the family allowance cheque will be slightly increased for those families in need. Unfortunately, the cold reality of the Conservative Party's fiscal policy will hit those people between the teeth in 1989 when they see a net reduction of their purchasing power of almost $2,000.


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


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, today we are examining a Bill to deindex the family allowance. This is part of a Government plan that we disapprove of profoundly. It is a plan to redistribute income from lower and middle income Canadians to wealthier individuals. It is part of a plan that the Government has obviously instituted in its Budget.
The Government still uses the rhetoric of compassion and support of the welfare state. However, the measures throughout the Budget are ones from which lower and middle income Canadians will suffer particularly.
The measure before us to deindex family allowance by 3 per cent a year is, of course, very similar to the measure that the Government introduced for the deindexing of old age pensions. I am pleased to say that we persuaded it not to take that action. Millions of Canadians protested the deindexing of old age pensions.
It was for precisely the same reason for which people objected to that deindexation that I want to address the subject of the deindexing of the family allowance. These programs are universal social programs which have been developed over the years for which the CCF, the founder of the NDP, fought for decades. They were finally instituted by Liberal Governments after a great deal of prodding. Yet the principle of universality was one never very firmly held by the
September 18, 1985

Liberal Government and we have seen the erosion of the old age pension and the family allowance over the years.
It is with some sadness that I note this important principle has received only partial support from our Liberal colleagues who have joined us in this fight, although we welcome them aboard the fight for universality. We wonder where they were in past decades when they deindexed the family allowance, the old age pension, and capping under the six and five program. All these measures have made it easier for the Conservative Government to proceed with its even more diabolical plan of a massive redistribution of income.
This Budget has different measures in it, and the Bill we have before us today deals with one measure, but we must look at the global picture, which is quite terrifying. There will be federal tax increases. There are increases in personal income tax. The tax exemption will be reduced so the actual tax families will be paying, including lower and middle-income families, will be going up in a period in which wages are barely keeping up with the cost of living. For many people, wages are falling slightly behind. Many families will have lower real wages but higher taxes to pay. With the attack on the universal programs, which have been part of the total revenues for families, people will have to cope with that too.
Many people will say "What is $100 million for the federal Government? What is a few pennies a day, a few dollars a day for individuals?" The Conservative Government tries to justify its plans by saying it is a very modest sacrifice that people are being asked to make. But it is not a modest sacrifice at all. This Government is clever enough that when it wants to introduce massive redistribution it does not do it in one fell swoop, which would make everyone a little more than suspicious, but it does it bit by bit, year by year and program by program. The family allowance is not being abolished. There were Conservatives who opposed the family allowance and never wanted it in the first place but the family allowance will stay. Families will continue to get a cheque. The cheque they get will not be worth very much because its value will decrease.
What we have, which is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, is a triple whammy in four years. First, there is the deindexation of the family allowance. It begins January 1, 1986. People will not get the same increase according to the cost of living that they would have under current regulations. The deindexing of the family allowance begins in 1986 and continues year after year.
The second whammy begins in the next year, that is the attack on the child tax exemption, which will go down, and will not be worth as much. We have some concerns about this. If the money the Government is saving by not rebating it through the tax exemption would be going into other child care programs, we would be very happy, for the tax exemption is not a good point of public policy.
As everyone knows, the tax exempiton favours rich individuals because it is proportionate to income. The very poor do not benefit from it at all. We are quite happy to see the end of the tax exemption. We would be advocating it very firmly if it
Family Allowances Act
were not for the fact that the money is not going to other child care programs but is relayed into other Government programs, such as bailing out the Canadian Commercial Bank and any other number of preferred corporations which this Government likes to support. This measure will allow capital gains exemptions for wealthy individuals.
The second whammy of reducing the child tax exemption is one for which we have a more complex message, that is, yes, it is the right thing to do but the money should be redirected.
The third whammy is the one concerning the child tax credit, which begins two years later. It takes us into 1989 and it will continue in future years. All this time, of course, the family allowance deindexing is in effect, so it is declining. The tax exemption begins to decline a little bit later and then the child tax credit begins in the fourth year.
It is interesting to note that the Government has made it so complicated for people to follow that it is a sort of give a little here and take a little there, add and subtract. It has taken a little while for people to figure out what the net result will be, namely, that Canadian families will be much worse off. The long term results are a very substantial reduction in child care support for families.
One of the sneaky measures which this Government has used is to increase the child tax credit before beginning to deindex it. This procedure is being used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to say that the Government cares about families with needs, about single parents and families headed by women who do not have other financial resources and who depend more extensively on the child tax credit. We are glad to see the increase in the child tax credit but we are very aware that this increase in the child tax credit is a very temporary increase. It is to sweeten the blow. It is to make it not so obvious that the family allowance is being deindexed.
The family allowance is being deindexed, beginning in the next year. The tax exemption is going down beginning the following year. The child tax credit will go down only a little later. Then all three of them will continue to go down each year that we have a Conservative Government. Canadian families have to understand that it is not just a few pennies of sacrifice they are being asked to make in any one year. It is this ongoing erosion in support for the family.

The National Council on Welfare has projected the reductions in benefits for poor families over the next few years. For instance, before the Budget, a family with an income of $9,000 and two children would have received $1,549, but after the Budget, if the Bill is passed, it will be receiving only $1,527, a difference of $22. Families stand of lose $22 next year, and these are the poorest families. Furthermore, the purchasing power of that amount will be reduced, because we must take inflation into account. If the rate of inflation is 4 per cent, it will be as though they were receiving $1,466, meaning a real reduction of $83 for next year.

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
It is not true that the Conservative Budget will protect the most disadvantaged families in our country. It will simply cut spending on families for the benefit of other groups: investors and private corporations, the people that receive capital gains.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) says that Canada no longer has the money to subsidize family allowances at the same level. Is he right, or is he just using this as an excuse? What are the facts?
The Minister of Finance is wrong. When the family allowance program was started, family allowances cost the Government a lot more. In fact, they represented 7.7 per cent of the federal Budget in 1947 when the program was introduced. In 1965, family allowances represented 6.1 per cent of federal spending. This percentage has continued to decrease. There was a reversal in 1974 under a Liberal minority Government, when the New Democrats forced the Government to increase family allowances.
Since that time, family allowances have suffered cuts as a result of decisions by the Liberals and federal Conservative budgets.
I find it somewhat hypocritical that today, the Liberals are supporting us in our fight against de-indexation. Remember, it was the Liberals who cut family allowances before, and who did so several times.
Can we afford the family allowance program? Certainly that question is a reasonable one and it is being extensively debated. Let us look at the facts. Family allowance distributes $2.4 billion to 3.6 million families in Canada with 6.6 million children altogether. Obviously a very large number of people benefit from this program. Nearly 20 per cent of this amount is recovered in federal taxes, so the net outlay of funds for family allowance is just under $2 billion. This amounts to only 2.4 per cent of federal expenditures and it is only .57 per cent of the Gross National Product. When people indicate that we cannot afford the family allowance program, these are figures about which they are talking. In terms of federal expenditures, it is not a lot of money. In terms of the importance of raising the next generation in healthy and safe conditions and in terms of giving them adequate stimulation, leisure, recreation, sports and all other things which children need, it is simply not enough. It is not a great deal of money when we think of the enormous number of expenditures to which the Government has given higher priority. We would like to see fully indexed family allowances. Indeed, we would increase other child support measures.
Specifically, we would increase the child tax credit by 80 per cent. It would be a mechanism to ensure that more tax revenues went to families in greatest need. We would ensure the existence of a universal program for all families and an important increase in the amount of money for families in greatest need. These types of figures are perfectly reasonable.
They were afforded in previous times. There is no reason that they could not be afforded now. For example, if we returned to the tax rates of the pre-1982 period when wealthier individuals were taxed at a higher rate, and if we imposed a minimum tax on wealthy individuals, such as a 20 per cent tax for people with incomes of $50,000 and above, we would raise about $3 billion more. In short, there are other ways to ensure that money is available for families. It is a question of lack of political will, not an economic barrier, which keeps us from giving families what they need.
Why does the Government say that it cannot afford that now, when the Government could afford it 20, 30 or 40 years ago when the family allowance was instituted? In those intervening decades, Governments have come up with higher priorities to them, such as corporate giveaways. There has been an increase in corporate giveaways throughout this period and a decrease in taxation for wealthier individuals. The Auditor General estimates that $30 billion to $50 billion per year go into corporate giveaways. It is for those reasons that there is not enough money to pay a $2 billion program for families. Let us look at the proportions: $30 billion to $50 billion for corporations and $2 billion for family allowance. It is shameful to say that we cannot afford it, and it is patently untrue. It is a question of political will, children should be placed much higher on our political agenda.
Family allowance is a question for women because women do most of the child raising. It is the woman who actually receives the family allowance cheque, unless the father of the child or some other person is physically looking after him or her. It is a recognition of the enormously important work of Canadian women in the area of child care. It is shameful to think that the Government would want to reduce this very important recognition. In fact, in my opinion the recognition is not great enough. It is something for which Canadian women had to fight. They won the right to have their family allowance cheques payable in their names. It was a very interesting fight in the Province of Quebec, led by Therese Casgrain. They wanted the cheques to be payable to women because they were the ones who were looking after the children, buying the necessities and managing the family budget. It was felt that they were the ones who should have that money.
The last federal Government underestimated Canadian women in a battle over the Constitution. This Government has underestimated Canadian women as well, and the fact that there will be a terrific fight on this issue. I invite Canadian women and all people who care about children to join in this fight. They should say to the Government that families and children are important and that we can afford it. We have the resources. We simply have to use them in support of our children. I ask people to sign petitions, to write letters, to talk with their Members of Parliament and to lobby. I ask organizations such as church groups, parent groups and day care centres, to be active. All people who are concerned about children should speak up now. It is only the beginning of a fight, a very important fight. It may seem like pennies and dollars now, but it is a long-term erosion of the family
September 18, 1985

allowance and of social support for the next generation, the children of today. We ask the Government not to deindex the family allowance. It should be kept where it is and Canadian families should be given the support they need.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). In view of the presence in the House this afternoon of the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre), does the Hon. Member agree with the priority of the Government or the priority of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) in that it has $56 million to buy new military uniforms but does not seem to have $55 million to restore the family allowances which were just taken away?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my disagreement with the priorities of the Government in the area of expenditurese goes well beyond expenditures on uniforms. I think the Government is misguided in many respects. I do not quite see the point of focusing on any one expenditure as being a misguided one. If I were the Minister of Finance, I would go for a massive change in the taxation system in order to have fair taxes. I would certainly want to find money in the many other ways which are available through tax reform, through seeing that corporations paid their fair share and through seeing that wealthy individuals paid their fair share. I would certainly give social programs a very much higher priority. However, I do not see the point in focusing on any one expenditure. I think the Government needs a massive realignment of its priorities, and that is what I would advocate.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) criticized the Liberal Government's 6 and 5 Program. May I remind the Hon. Member that without this program, interest rates would now still be at the double digit level? The federal Government appealed to all groups in our society, unlike Bill C-70 before the House today, which singles out one particular group. May I remind the House that we appealed to the elderly, parents, employers, business people and unions, and everyone helped to bring interest rates down to what they are today. I think it was a great victory for the Liberal Party and should not be referred to as a black mark on the record of the Liberal Government.
Does the Hon. Member have any alternatives to the steps we took at the time?


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We opposed the six and five program, which was a method of deindexing. I think we were right to oppose it and I think the Liberals have a great deal of gall to be so much in support of full indexing now when they were not in the past.
Family Allowances Act


Mr. Blaikie:: By the way, Mr. Speaker, your French is "dobra".

I wonder if the Hon. Member from Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) could elaborate. She mentioned the significance of the family allowance for Canadian women and referred to the battle which Canadian women and their allies here in Parliament waged with respect to their economic rights during the constitutional debate. Could she comment on the way in which this is now shaping up as a battle on the part of Canadian women for economic rights and the need for them to win this battle as well.


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think there are some very important parallels between the two situations. First of all, the women of Canada, when they were engaged in the constitutional debate, were very worry of what the Government had proposed because women had been hurt very badly by provisions which Governments have brought in, such as in the Bill of Rights, and they were most insistent that there be strong wording and special protection to ensure that there were equal rights for women. I do not want to go into the details of this battle which are extremely interesting and we could certainly happily spend a great deal of time on them. But 1 think the point is that the Government of the day entirely underestimated Canadian women. It made some mistakes; they thought that these would blow over quickly, but in fact Canadian women did not let the Government forget about mistakes. They organized and they marched on Ottawa, they had meetings across the country and they lobbied their MPs. They did all of the normal political activities which Governments were not expecting women to be doing. They did them and they did them very successfully and indeed became a model to other pressure groups who were encouraged to see that the Government had to buckle under and change the wording of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights.
1 think there are parallels here. I have already been in touch with some women's organizations. The National Action Committee on the Status of Women has sent a wire on this subject. It is the umbrella group that represents most of the women of Canada. I have been in touch with representatives of the National Action Committee in Quebec, and of course there is going to be a big fight there. I think we are going to be seeing women across the country speaking out, because women who fought for their political rights do not want to lose their economic rights. Why did we win politically to lose economically? Women are going to see that and I think they are going to object.
It is not just going to be a women's fight, Mr. Speaker, because women and young people supported the old age pensioners in the fight last spring, and I think we are going to see the old age pensioners speaking up on this issue and indeed they have already begun and they are going to continue to do that. They will be supporting the women and families in this struggle. I think we are going to see a really interesting

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
coalition of people coming forward fighting for our universal programs and fighting for the family allowances.


Mr. Young:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) may be interested to know that I met with a group of single-parent families in Kitchener several weeks ago when they were expressing very grave concerns to me about the impact of this budget measure on the incomes of those families. They pointed out to me that in single-parent families there has been an increase in poverty in the last five years of some 25 per cent. They also pointed out to me that this is not just a question that affects women and children but one that affects society as a whole. They said to me that if the federal Government gets away with reducing that income to those families, the needs will still be there and other levels of Government will have to pick up that need. They were projecting that since provincial Governments, which are primarily Conservative also, are cutting back on fiscal expenditures, in all likelihood the municipal tax base will be required to pick up that need, which could mean an increase in property taxes at the municipal level.
I wonder if the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood would like to comment on that, or if she has heard similar expressions.


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course one thing that can happen when the federal Government cuts back is that these needs are pushed down to the provincial and the municipal Governments and they may or may not choose to meet them. The problem the Hon. Member raises, and I think he put it optimistically, was that they would choose to meet those needs at the cost of raising taxes, in other words that the needs would have to be met and they would simply be paid for in a different fashion.
The other alternative is much worse, and that is, that the needs will not be met and people will go hungry, people at the bottom level, and they are going to be hurt as well because they are affected by the tax increases and the reduction in the family allowance and they will simply go without. That is the dim prospect and that is a very decided possibility.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-70, the family allowances amendments Bill, because I think that this Bill and the deindexation of the family allowances is part of the over-all scheme and plan which we saw in the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last spring. Perhaps we did not realize at the time all of the problems that the Government was creating for municipalities and others across the country through the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank, but clearly that Budget was designed to unleash on Canadians a veritable rain shower of taxes, not massive taxes for any one individual at any one place but taxes which will be spread over the next 12 months or so. The deindexation of the family allowance is part of that general increase in taxation across the broad lower and middle-income families of this country while at the same time reducing the benefits made available to them.
There, of course, was the massive battle that took place last spring over the issue of the deindexation of the old age pensions. Family allowance is a similar payment made to families and the same thrust of the Budget applies to this benefit which in fact, for a family of four will start to knit in in 1986 and cost some $22 annually.
During that year we are looking at a general taking away of benefits, especially to lower and middle-income families of some $20 million, but by 1986-1987, the following fiscal year, it will be $90 million and by 1990-1991 it will be $400 million. We can see how this reasonably small reduction in benefits the first year continues to grow each year until we are talking about almost half a billion dollars being taken away from middle and lower-income families. The great concern of people across the country is that it will be very harmful to take $400 million in family allowances during that period of time.
In my constituency the area of Manitoulin has one of the lowest average incomes in the Province of Ontario. Of course, this reduction will be most harmful to low-income families that in many cases live in northern and rural areas of the country. This reduction in benefits due to a deindexation of the family allowance is a harmful and unwarranted attack on Canadians.
There is some concern because the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the 1984 election campaign were so strong. He promised that he would maintain the entire social security system of the country and that he would maintain full indexation for that system. I would like to quote from the speech the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) made in the House last November 15. I assume this speech was made in response to the Speech from the Throne, and it appears on page 277 of Hansard for this Parliament. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said:
It is my role as Minister of National Health and Welfare to put forward signals and initiatives which will strengthen the role of the family and give it more prominence in society than I feel it has been given before.
How can the Minister of National Health and Welfare make that speech and then, during the budget debate last May 23, support the cut-backs which took place through the deindexation of the old age security pensions and family allowances?
A week or so before that statement was made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare last November 15, we heard the Speech from the Throne of November 5, 1984. The Speech reads in part:
My government has as a high priority measures to support and strengthen the Canadian family, which is the cornerstone of our society. The need for accessible and affordable child care has in recent years come to the forefront of the social agenda facing Canada. In an effort to reach a national consensus on options in this area, you will be asked to establish a parliamentary task force on the future of child care in Canada.
We see a Government which has made maximum use of rhetoric, but after the decisions have been made in Cabinet, we see a Government that comes down against the average family. As I said, this is part of an over-all pattern of taxation which I
September 18, 1985

believe will total some $37 billion over the next four or five years.
First there were reductions in the old age pensions and the family allowance benefits through deindexation of those programs. There was an increase in the excise tax on fuel a week or two ago. There are sales taxes on pharmaceuticals and health care needs. As well, there is a deindexation of the personal exemptions on income tax. There has been a veritable rain shower of new taxes hitting the average and lower-income familes.
Let us look at the impact of the deindexation of the personal income tax rates. In this fiscal year, that deindexation will amount to some $80 million but by 1990-91, it will amount to $4.36 billion in additional taxes created by that deindexation. The personal surtax on high-income Canadians will only last for 18 months to two years while the deindexation of personal income tax goes on and on and amounts to billions and billions of dollars.
The exemption in the capital gains tax will be only $300 million in 1985-86. Although that is a substantial amount of money, it will be $600 million in 1986-87 and by 1990-91, the reduction in taxes for high-income Canadians will be $1.25 billion.
We see emerging a constant pattern of massive taxation imposed in a regressive way. Sales taxes and excise taxes are those kinds of taxes which bear more heavily on low-income Canadians just as the deindexation of the family allowance bears more heavily on low-income Canadians.
Who are the big winners in the Budget? Obviously it is high-income Canadians who are able to take advantage of the capital gains tax exemption of $1.2 billion by 1990. It is the large multinational oil companies. The PGRT will provide some $2.5 billion worth of benefits to the large oil companies. The deindexation of the family allowance will be a very heavy burden on lower-income Canadians, a burden of some $400 million per year by 1990-91.
The deindexation of the family allowance and child tax credit will cost low and middle-income families some $15 million in 1985-86. It will cost them $40 million in 1986-87 and this will affect the 3.5 million Canadian families with children.
Because of last year's election campaign, the Toronto Star published an article entitled "Promises, promises, promises" on June 8, 1985. The newspaper calculated that some 29 promises had been broken or had not seen any action. Some of these promises are very significant to our debate today because they represent this general attack on the family.
For instance, one of the promises made was to maintain the tax exemption for families with children at current or higher levels. Another was to increase funding to the provinces for medicare. If we look at the projections based on the Budget, we see that by 1990-91, there will be a reduction of $2 billion per year in transfer payments to the provinces. I am sure that as we approach the day when the transfer payments begin to be reduced, we will hear a great deal more from the provincial
Family Allowances Act
Governments because of this promise to increase the medicare funding to the provinces.
Another promise made by the Government during the election campaign was that all savings generated from any changes in social programs would be redistributed to other social programs and would not be applied to deficit reduction. The reduction in the family allowance alone of $400 million by 1990-91 will go to cover about one-third of the benefit which is being transferred to high-income Canadians under the capital gains tax exemption.
The Government made another promise to increase federal transfer payments to the provinces. We have heard the debate during this past year and I have just mentioned the $2 billion reduction in transfer payments which are provided for in the Budget.
There are no tax increases because that would start a recession. That is the really crucial part of this entire Budget unless we really believe that giving to oil companies suddenly is going to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs proportionate to the $2.4 billion reduction, or the exemption of $500,000 a year. What we have to look at is that massive tax increase not only from the deindexation of the personal income tax scales and exemptions but all of the regressive taxes, the sales tax, gas tax, and so on, which is estimated to be some $38 billion of additional taxation during the next four or five years.
The promise was right, Mr. Speaker, but the result of the Budget was wrong. The Government may think that because of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister this has somehow or other not got through to the average Canadian. However, a report in The Globe and Mail on July 25, 1985, showed the results of a poll conducted by Decima Research, which is the polling organization used by the Prime Minister's Office. Those results indicate that the Canadian people are pretty sophisticated and knowledgeable with respect to the Budget and the impact it will have on all Canadians. I would just like to read a couple of key paragraphs from that article. The first one reads:
The results of the poll obtained by The Globe and Mail show most Canadians are unhappy with Finance Minister Michael Wilson's budget and think they will end up paying more taxes than they do now.
Entitled Decima Quarterly Report, the poll's results also show 49 per cent of Canadians do not think the Conservatives will meet their promise to reduce the federal deficit through the new budget.
The article continues, and I quote:
According to the poll, 21 per cent of Canadians are "very dissatisfied" with the federal budget, while 39 per cent of the population is "somewhat dissatisfied."
In other words, Mr. Speaker, 60 per cent of the population are dissatisfied with the Budget and the impact it will have upon them and their families. According to the Decima Research poll, 3 per cent were very satisfied. Those are probably the corporate executives of the large oil companies.

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
The Decima Research poll further stated:
Two-thirds of respondents said the budget will not lead to a fairer tax system, while 27 per cent said it will result in a more equitable tax system.
Clearly, two-thirds of Canadians thought that the Budget was not a fair Budget. The article continues:
In addition, 77 per cent of those polled said they believed they will pay more taxes as a result of the new budget.
All of the aspects of the Budget which cut into family benefits are harmful, but the worst part of the Budget is that I do not believe it will result in the economic growth which the Government has claimed. In fact, the Government's own estimates in the Budget project that the economic growth, which was some 4.7 per cent in 1984-it was actually 5 per cent in Ontario-will be some 2.4 per cent in the year 1986, which is about half of what it was in 1984. The Budget will really start to impact then because all of the additional taxes will be in place and the drag on the economy will be felt even more than it is now. That is not surprising because regressive taxation, taking that amount of money away from low and average income Canadians, is bound to have a negative impact on growth and consumer spending.
Last spring, when we were in the Budget debate itself, I read that a family of four earning $15,000 a year in 1986, will pay $ 162 more per year. That same family will lose some $22 in family allowance. The Budget is simply an attack on average and low income Canadians. If we look at that same family of four and project ahead, because all of these things, the deindexation, the personal exemptions and the income tax scale are all cumulative over the years, by the year 1990, that family of four with the $15,000 a year income, will pay some 36 per cent more in income tax. But a family in the $200,000 bracket is able to take advantage of the capital gains exemption and so on and will actually pay $2,352 less in taxes. Surely this is a very unfair scheme. This Bill on family allowances which is before us today is an integral part of the whole budget process.
I commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for making an exception to a number of the sales tax items for health care needs and drugs and so on, but I feel he really needs to take another look at the family allowance benefits and the deindexation in his Budget because, surely, if taxing health saving drugs and medical supplies is clearly wrong and improper, then deindexing the old age pension is equally wrong and will be harmful to Canadian families. Therefore, I hope the Government will change its mind on these items, just as it has on other items in the Budget and allow this motion for the six months hoist which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), to be carried.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my good friend, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), if he would be prepared to comment: When the six and five program was debated, which he mentioned in his speech, which in effect deindexed family allowances, did he or did he not support the six and five program? And would the Hon. Member explain the holier-than-thou attitude of the Liberal Party now for something it did when it was in power?


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, the six and five program was instrumental in reducing inflation to less than 6 per cent and 5 per cent. There was really no loss in revenues to Canadian families in the family allowance or the old age pensions. Clearly, this Budget's provisions, which deindex old age pensions and family allowances, directly benefit very high income groups and the large multinational oil companies. But it is the low-income families who are going to be the most hard hit. According to the secret document put out by the Department of Finance, low-income families over the next five years will have to pay $4.3 billion due to the deindexation of the personal income tax exemption. Young couples in the lower income range will lose the benefit of RHOSPs. The whole thrust of the Budget is an attack on low-income families.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was not my question.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Well, I have outlined in some detail how this Budget attacks low-income families, and in such a strange way. It seems to me that if the Government wanted to wind up RHOSPs, which I do not agree with, and if it wanted to give the economy a tremendous boost, it should have said that people had to put the money into a home or major appliances for the home. That would have given the economy one of the greatest boosts it has ever received but, instead, the Government just said that people can take the money and transfer it to some other saving program. There was no economic benefit and the Government loses the taxes on that money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is another question for the Hon. Member.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has certainly said many fine things in favour of support for families. Does he agree that families need support more than just indexation of family allowances? Would he agree that the child tax credit ought to be increased very substantially as the NDP has recommended?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, everything I have said indicates that our Party favours improving benefits for families. Clearly, the child tax credit is less regressive than other means of taxation. That is the problem with the whole Budget. It is not improving the progressive aspect of our taxation system because so many of the taxes are very regressive. An example of that is the 2-cents a litre or 9-cents a gallon gasoline tax. It is very regressive for people living in the northern and western parts of our country. They have to travel longer distances. As well, the Government is imposing $1 billion worth of new taxes. We have the sales tax on health care and personal hygiene products and non-prescription drugs. The 1 per cent sales tax which the Government will impose on farmers next January will cost them $11 million in 1986.
We are faced with a very regressive tax regime and the deindexation of family allowances is part of that plan to increase taxes and reduce benefits for low and middle-income Canadians.
September 18, 1985


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the way the Hon. Member has managed to say all these things in favour of increasing child support. Could he explain how it was that the Liberals, when in Government, allowed the family allowance to decline? It was given a shot in the arm during the minority Government of 1972 to 1974 when the NDP insisted that it be increased, but other than that it has substantially declined.
The Hon. Member referred to regressive taxes. We are certainly against regressive taxes but it was a Liberal Government which reduced the marginal tax rate on wealthy individuals and increased the giveaways to corporations. Therefore, how does the Hon. Member manage to justify this principle of being in favour of progressive taxes when his Party has done the reverse?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member one minute to respond.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where were you when we needed you?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I always hear the NDP taking credit for old age pensions and their indexation, taking credit for family allowances and their indexation, and taking credit for the child tax credit. I do not remember the NDP actually being in power federally. If it is responsible for all these things why was it not in power?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We will take the credit anyway.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It was the Liberal Government which did these things and put them in place. As the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) says, the NDP did not do these things; it just likes to take credit for them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is right, and we kicked you into doing them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a former famous football player, I ask you if Hon. Members, in responding to questions during the last 10 minutes, are allowed to call time out and take three minutes to say nothing?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not think I should answer that question. I would like to recognize the excellent Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I appreciate as well the opportunity to address a few remarks in connection with Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act of 1973. This Bill has been repeatedly characterized by the Opposition over the past day or two as the Bill which deindexes family allowances. In fact, as all Members of the House realize, this Bill is only one part of a three-part package which deals with family benefits generally. The three parts include changes to family allowances, changes in the child tax credits, and changes in the child tax exemption under the Income Tax Act.
Family Allowances Act
I think it would be great to have all of these items before us at the same time to enable us to debate this issue in its totality. Unfortunately, that is impossible under the rules of procedure of the House. Coming from a municipal council background, as I do, it disturbs me that we cannot deal with an issue in that way. In municipal councils all of the issues revolving around a particular problem can be dealt with at one time. That points out, only too well, that we need further changes in the rules of procedure of the House.
The three-part package which I referred to has been the subject of much debate and scrutiny over the past number of years by a great many social agencies. There is now an organization called The Social Policy Reform Group which represents a coalition of four of those groups. It has been calling for substantial changes in this area for the past few months. It has called for three specific changes. The first is for a substantial increase in child tax credits. The second is for the elimination of child tax exemptions under the Income Tax Act, partly to provide funding for increased child tax credits, and partly because of the inequity of people earning higher incomes receiving more benefits than people earning lower incomes. The third thing they have been saying is that family allowances should not be modified and should continue to be fully indexed.
The net result of all the changes that they are proposing would be that people earning lower incomes would receive a greater net benefit than people earning higher incomes. The reason given for requesting these changes is that under the present system, which was established by the past Government, a family earning an income of $30,000 a year receives greater benefits than does a family earning only $10,000 a year. The Government recognizes that this is an inequity and it has been the subject of a great deal of debate in the committee relating to this matter. Therefore, the Government has acted in these three areas.
The Government has made changes in the child tax credits. In fact, in line with what was suggested by The Social Policy Reform Group, the Government has increased the child tax credits. They will increase from a maximum of $384 for a child to a maximum of $524 for a child in 1989. After that they will not decrease, as many members of the Opposition have been saying they will, but will continue to increase with modified indexing.
The child tax exemption is going to be changed too. It will not be eliminated, as is advocated by The Social Policy Reform Group and some Members of the House, but will be reduced in stages from the current level of $710 to $382 per child in 1989. Those reductions will generate additional funds which will allow for the increase of the child tax credits.
The third thing that will happen with be a partial deindexing of family allowances. Presently the family allowance is $31.27 per month per child. That will not decrease or be eliminated. In fact, if inflation is in excess of 3 per cent, it will continue to increase. The net effect of those three measures will be exactly what has been suggested by The Social Policy

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Reform Group and other critics. The effect will be that the total family benefit package will increase for people on low incomes and decrease for people on higher incomes.
In spite of those facts, we have heard a grat deal of criticism of these measures. Most of the criticism has been geared specifically to the legislation before the House. It is being implied that this is the only change being made to the family benefits package. In fact, that is not the case at all. One of the criticisms that can be levelled against the changes in the package is that the child tax credits should be increased even more. I do not think anyone would quarrel with that. Everyone would like to have the child tax credit increased even more. However, realistically, the Government has to take into account the total fiscal management of the country rather than one isolated area. Our annual deficit is now $35 billion a year and our cumulative deficit is $200 billion a year. I believe that Canadians understand that it is impossible to increase the child tax credits any more than they are being increased at the present time.
The second criticism that has been levelled against the legislation is that the child tax exemptions under the Income Tax Act are not being reduced enough. That criticism is not being levied by everyone, because most people realize that if the child tax exemptions are completely eliminated those funds will come out of the middle class. The Government has taken into account the suggestions that higher income people are getting more benefit from the child tax credit exemption and therefore is reducing it. However, at the same time, it is not being eliminated altogether so that there will still be some benefits for all sectors of the Canadian population.
The third criticism, obviously, is the one we have heard for the last few days concerning the partial deindexing of the family allowances. That is being done to provide some of the funding, at least, to look after the increase in the child tax credits. Without that additional funding there would not be enough funding generated by the reduction in the child tax exemption to provide for the increase in the child tax credit. Therefore, the total package will have the net effect of increasing child benefits and family benefits for low income people while taking it away from high income people.
It has also been suggested that some of the money that is coming from the modification in the indexation of family allowance will leave the social welfare package and not be spent in the social welfare area. In fact, that is not the case. According to the figures, it is estimated that in this fiscal year, 1985-86, the change in the family allowance will generate about $20 million in additional income for the Government, whereas the increase in the spouses allowance-which Members will recall was introduced before the summer break and then supported after much debate and discussion by all parties-will cost approximately $190 million in this fiscal year, 1985-86. In fact, even taking into account changes in the family allowance, that will not divert funds from the social security package altogether.
Next year, the money generated by Family Allowances- approximately $90 million-will go elsewhere. That is compared to the cost of Spouses Allowances next year which will be $325 million. Therefore, no money has been diverted from the social security package by the net effect of all of these changes. The net effect of all of these changes simply is that it will increase the family benefits for people who are at the lower end of the income scale and decrease it for people who are at the upper end of the income scale.
In the last few days the Opposition has indicated that the other changes in the Budget-referring to tax increases and other tax changes-will have a detrimental effect on everyone, not only low income people. That is quite true. Of course, we would like to be able to increase all of the benefits and take credit for it. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, whenever we increase them, the Opposition will always continue to say that we have not increased them enough. Of course we would rather increase benefits because all Members, whether in Government or Opposition, like to increase benefits. Furthermore, no one likes to pay increased taxes. Unfortunately, bearing in mind the total fiscal picture of the country, we must be realistic and I believe that Canadians are realists. They know that when they go shopping after earning $100 for the week, they cannot spend $150 because they would have to borrow from the bank. That is the problem we face as a country and that is the difficulty with raising taxes. No one wants to pay taxes and no one wants to be responsible for raising taxes. Unfortunately, when the financial affairs of the nation have fallen into the state they have it is necessary to correct that situation. It is a necessity not only for the Government but for everyone in this country.
We would all like to see improvements. 1 represent a constituency consisting of many low and middle income people. I am very conscious of any changes in their social security package. I listened very carefully to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he said that the Government would be monitoring the effect of these changes very carefully and that if any detrimental effect on anyone in Canadian society became evident, changes and modifications would be made to make sure that it did not happen. I want to assure Members of the House that I will hold the Minister to that statement. However, bearing all of that in mind, and in spite of the criticism that has been levied against this particular piece of legislation, it is quite clear to me that the total effect of this package is something that all of us can support. Like it or not, everyone supports the concept of improving family benefits for those in the lower income scale and that is what this Bill does. I am sure that Members of the Official Opposition and the NDP will finally support this bill.
[ Translation]


Alain Tardif: Well, Mr. Speaker, let us say that I am pleased and that I wholeheartedly endorse any measure likely to improve the situation, particularly if it restores the balance so that those who have the capacity to pay assume the social charges.
September 18, 1985

But the question I am asking myself, the question I was asked is this: Let us take a case which is not uncommon at all, a family with two children, a mother of two children who is the sole breadwinner and who asks: Why should I have to accept a cut-back, or will I eventually be forced to accept a cut-back?
I think the question is relevant, appropriate and to the point. And that woman, that sole breadwinner goes on to say: I understand and I am fully aware that our country's financial situation is not very promising, but when it comes to banks and matters of capital gains, do you find the means, the money, the resources? Yet, when it is a matter of small or minimum incomes, more often than not the strict minimum, you cannot find what is, under the circumstances, a relatively small amount, something like $50 million.
Here is my question: What do you say to the man or woman who asks: Why must I bear the brunt of this measure?
[English)


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member will have a very good and clear explanation for his constituents in answer to that particular question. Quite clearly, he can explain that we are not talking about one change to one program. We are talking about a package of three programs. The net effect of those three programs-with an increase in the child tax credits, a decrease in the tax exemption for children under the Income Tax Act and the modification in the indexing of the family allowances-is that families on lower incomes will receive more benefits.
I assume the Hon. Member was referring to a constituent in that position. I suspect he will be able to tell her that the net effect of all the changes in the Government's Budget for her and her family is that she will be much better off than before when under a Government of which he was a supporter.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). He made reference to the three packages and his belief that this measure will not negatively impact on lower income people. What if we add to that equation the other packages contained in the spring Budget, the changes in consumer taxes, the increase in RRSP limits and the capital gains break?
Does the Hon. Member agree that when you add those components and do a comparison by income level that in real dollars by 1990 those who are making $10,000 a year will actually lose $396 while those making $200,000 a year will be increasing their benefits by over $4,500?
In percentage terms, there is a greater difference. When you look at the percentage of disposable income, you find the $10,000 a year earner dropping by 4 per cent but as a percentage of the discretionary spending, a drop of over 11 per cent occurs while the $200,000 a year person increases his disposable income by 3 per cent and 4.2 per cent of his discretionary spending.
Family Allowances Act
Has the Hon. Member looked at the total package contained in the Budget, not just the narrow social one that he detailed a few moments ago? If he has, does he agree with the figures 1 have related to him?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have looked at the entire budget package. I have looked at it in comparison with the family benefit package as well. I must say that I have to take issue with the Hon. Member on his figures. I am sure that in making his calculations, the Hon. Member has utilized the absolute maximum benefits that anyone could obtain under all of the provisions of the Budget if they remained in effect until 1990.
I am sure, at the same time, the Hon. Member has not taken into account any other changes that may come along in the interim between now and 1990. As we know, this Budget is for the fiscal year 1985-86. There will be five more budgets between now and 1990. Obviously there can be very substantial changes in all situations. As indicated on many occasions by the Minsiter of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and by other Ministers of the Government, provided the economic situation improves, very substantial changes will be made in all of the benefit packages that Canadians receive.
The Hon. Member overlooks the impact which the other changes will have. For instance, what about improvements to the economic situation, bringing about a Government fiscal situation with the deficit being brought into line and having people back at work again. In doing so, we generate wealth in their hands which, as the Hon. Member has pointed out on many occasions, generates additional tax revenue which in turn helps to reduce the deficit and helps to provide revenues to allow additional benefits to be increased.
When you look at the net effect and the whole picture, it does not look anywhere near as black as the Hon. Member paints. Far from looking black, the net effect of the Budget should be that employment will increase, people will be going back to work again, and not as many people will be on welfare and unemployment insurance. This reduces the costs of Government and in turn the deficit because people will be paying taxes again. All of this will get the deficit under control and will put people back to work again. The net effect will be additional revenues available for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his colleagues to increase all of these packages.
When you look at things in a very narrow sense, and I understand that is the role of the Opposition-quite rightly so-the Hon. Member's job is to criticize, to be negative and to make sure that all of the negative aspects of a situation are brought out and not the positive ones, then you can certainly understand what the Hon. Member is getting at. However, if one takes a more positive view and looks at the net impact of all the figures in the Budget, he sees that we will be a lot better off whether a person is at the low end of the scale, the middle or wherever.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for
6754

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
York East (Mr. Redway) on his calm, cool and reasoned explanation of this Bill. With the debate we have had in this House over the last few days and some of the misinformation given, it is nice to hear someone tell it like it is. I think it is safe to say that the Hon. Member has convinced me to vote in favour of this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: The Hon. Member talks about his wish to increase the child tax credit measure. Should our Government not consider perhaps removing the child tax benefit for those making in excess of, say, $50,000 a year so we may continue this reverse Robin Hood method to provide more in the form of child tax credit?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member may want to answer that question behind the curtain. I would like to recognize the next speaker. Questions and comments are now terminated. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with two matters relating to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. I want to deal with the very obvious one, that of deindexation of family allowances. I want to begin, however, by dealing with the section entitled "Presumption of Death".
Clause 15.1 of this Bill is a new section. It does not deal with the question of deindexation or the amounts payable for family allowances. It deals with the Minister having the right to declare a child dead or alive.
I want to deal with this in two ways: the psychological impact and the financial impact on families who may be affected. Before doing so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the three paragraphs under the portion "Presumuption of Death":
(1)	Where a child has, either before or after the coming into force of this section, disappeared under circumstances that, in the opinion of the Minister, raise beyond a reasonable doubt a presumption that the child is dead, the Minister may issue a certificate declaring that the child is presumed to be dead and stating the date on which the child's death is presumed to have occurred, and thereupon the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date so stated in the certificate.
(2)	If, after issuing a certificate under subsection (1), the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the date of death is different from that stated in the certificate, the Minister may revoke the certificate and issue a new certificate dating a different date, in which case the child named in the certificate shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act, to have died on the date so stated in the new certificate.
(3)	If, after issuing a certificate under this section, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child named in the certificate is alive, the Minister shall shall forthwith revoke the certificate and cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child if the certificate had not been issued.
I am greatly concerned about this particular part of the Bill. Let us all think about what the impact would be on ourselves if
one of our children or grandchildren went missing. We all recognize that from time to time children go missing in Canada, some never to return. Of course there is a certain anguish on the part of the parents, the family and the community. We hear about abductions, runaways and murders. From time to time they are interrelated. However, we must consider the impact on mothers and fathers who still have some hope that their children are alive out there somewhere. For many of them that is all they have left-hope. What will happen if some bureaucrat, because obviously it would have to start at that level, decides that the period of absence has been long enough and the Minister must declare the child dead? What would that do to the hope of such parents? I ask all Hon. Members to think about that. I am sure we all know of instances in our communities where children have disappeared, have come to very unfortunate ends or have just never returned and no one knows where they are. In 1976, the last year in which Statistics Canada attempted to track disappeared children, there were still some 1,200 on the books as missing. I learned today from one of the organizations dealing with missing children that 90 per cent of all such children are abducted by one of their parents. We have heard of the stories involving a family separation, one parent receiving custody and the other parent deciding to abduct the child. I do not think we are talking about that because in most cases the parents know where the child is located. However, what about the remaining 10 per cent, the children abducted by non-family members or strangers for whatever purpose? For the first while a lot of work is done in the community, spearheaded by the parents and the authorities, in an attempt to find the child. The age range can be anywhere from one year old to some 17 or 18 years old. They always hold out hope, but this law will indicate to them that there is no more hope. For reasons of financial importance to the Government of Canada, the child will be declared dead and the Government will not have to pay the family allowance.
There is a psychological aspect and there is the actual financial impact on families who have, since their children went missing, spent every cent they could by posting rewards and by telephoning around the country. They scraped together every cent. Many times money is donated to the cause by friends and neighbours in the community. The Government would then come along and say that it is stopping the $31 payment because the child is not living at home. However, the parents could still be looking out for the interests of the children by trying to find them and to bring them back into the warmth and security of home.
I understand why the Government needs some kind of mechanism. Currently, with the Statute of Limitations, I gather that it takes seven years to declare a child dead. Conceivably someone could be receiving family allowance for those seven years. If we require a mechanism, perhaps we could have some kind of suspension procedure rather than a declaration of death. In that event the Government could say that until the child returns home or until there is clear evidence that the child is no longer alive, it will temporarily
September 18, 1985

suspend the family allowance payments. It could also tell the parents that the moment the child is found or has returned home, they should notify the Government and it will be reinstated. I urge Government Members and the Minister to look at the problem to see if there is any way to soften the blow or perhaps to see whether it is really worth the pain and anguish. If we are only talking about some eight to twenty children per year, surely that amount of money will not break the Government of Canada. We are not that bankrupt! I will continue to raise this matter, as I am sure others will, in an attempt to arrive at a solution. I encourage parents who have been through that situation to write to all of us to tell us what they think the effect of this proposal will be.
I should like to turn to another aspect of the Bill, one which touches most Canadians. The main principle of the Bill is the deindexation of the family allowance. What is deindexation all about? If inflation rises by 5 per cent per year, it means that the family allowance will only increase by 2 per cent. If inflation rises by 2.9 per cent, it means that the family allowance payment will not be increased. No one is suggesting that the Government is actually taking away the paper figure. It is not being reduced from the $31.27 per child, but the purchasing power of the recipient is being reduced. Each year the payment will be worth 3 per cent less in terms of purchasing power. If it is compounded over the years, it is even worse. In real terms it means that families, in particular women and their children, will have less money to spend on children's clothing, family food, school supplies, bus tickets and essential medications for those individuals who are ineligible for Government income support programs. Also it means that there will be less money for recreation or to sock away for future education. These are the types of things for which family allowance payments are used. Perhaps, for those of us here who are making what would be considered a damn good buck as Members of Parliament, $370 per year for each of our children does not seem to be much. However, for many Canadians it means the difference. For many women it is their only income. Let us not erode it. For many families it is a nest egg for the future, not only for their future or the future of their children, but for future generations, by providing for their education, because unfortunately we do not have free education.
The previous Hon. Member who participated in the debate talked about three particular components. I would like to ask him about the rest of them and to present to the House some detailed figures. First let me indicate that these are not my figures; quite frankly I am not an economist. These are the figures of the Canadian Council on Social Development, a well-respected agency in the country. Its previous head went on to become a Minister of the Crown in the Province of Ontario, the Hon. Reuben Baetz, who is not exactly what one would call a ranting, raving lefty. That organization is very well respected because it conducts research to ensure that we in the House of Commons know the impact of our decisions.
Family Allowances Act
There is a table in one of their documents entitled "Effect of the Budget on the Disposable Income of Families in 1990- Couple with Two Children". It has a range of the various income levels and I want to run through some of these.
For those whose gross income level in 1985 is $10,000 the tax deindexation and tax deductions will take $179 away from them. Child benefits will reduce this income by $89; consumer taxes will take another $130 away from them; the increase in RRSP limits really does not affect them because they do not have any money to put aside; capital gains break, for some reason they will get $2. In 1990 dollars that translates into a loss of $396 per year of 4 per cent of their disposable income and 11.3 per cent of discretionary spending. Those who are making $15,000 a year lose $398 through the tax deindexation and reduction; $103 through child benefits; $140 through consumer taxes; no increase in RRSP limits that benefits them; and $7 in capital gains break for 1990 dollars of $634. Their percentage of disposable income is 4.4 per cent while discretionary spending is 9.8 per cent.
We go on, Mr. Speaker, until we reach the last plateau where there is a decline which is in the $40,000 bracket. They lose $625 because of tax deindexation and tax reduction; $277 from child benefits; $361 due to increase in consumer taxes. They gain back $863 through the increase in RRSP limits and $42 in capital gains. Their net change in 1990 dollars is a loss of $358. That is a 1.1 per cent decrease in disposable income and a 1.9 per cent decrease in discretionary spending.
Let us take a look up the line, though, to the folks at the top. It is not the $500,000-a-year bank president who some people in this House like to refer to, but it is someone who is grossing $200,000-and I think sometimes that is an appropriate way to describe it. The tax deindexation and tax reduction will drop their income by $1,552; they will lose $344 from child benefits; they will lose $1,442 from consumer taxes, but here is where it changes, and this is the argument we are making. It is not a balance. The increase due to the change in RRSP limits is $3,825. They get $4,032 more because of the capital gains break. In total 1990 dollars they have a net improvement of their lot in life of $4,519. That is a 3 per cent increase in disposable income and 4.2 per cent as a percentage of discretionary spending.
Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, based on that kind of analysis, the phrase "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is no more or less applicable here than any place else in terms of this Bill and the other Government measures. Somebody with income of less than $10,000 loses $396 and someone with income of over $200,000 gets $4,500.
What about the ability of this country to afford family allowances? Do we really have to reduce the value, and I want to be careful in using those terms, of family allowances in order to pay for our deficit?
Mr. Speaker, I can see that I am going to have to go to stage two at some point in this debate which I suspect will be a fairly

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
long one. You would not want to declare it six o'clock, would you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Agreed.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will leave the affordability aspect for another time. However, I think it is very clear that the reduction in the value of family allowance is not the way to go if we must bring about a reduction in our deficit.
I thought for a moment that the Hon. Member who spoke before me was reading my previous speeches when he talked about the need for employment creation so we could get people working and paying taxes. That is what we have been saying all along. Let us focus on that; let us put people to work now so that they can pay taxes so we will have the money to keep the family allowance indexed.
The reason it was indexed originally, was to ensure that we did not have to keep coming back and increase the amounts by acts of legislation. It was to establish a base and from that base keep in tune with inflation so that nobody fell behind. It was hoped that perhaps from time to time, as Governments changed, we might be able to improve that base. The philosophy was that there was the protection out there and this Government, like the previous one, is quite committed to eliminating that protection wherever they can, particularly when it affects ordinary Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I look forward to another opportunity at a later date.


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


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was very happy to hear the remarks by the previous speaker. I wonder if he would entertain a question and perhaps provide some of his thoughts and the thoughts of his Party. As many of us know, the family allowance of roughly $31 a month goes to each child. I am wondering if the Hon. Member has in his constituency and knows of other individuals across this country who are in a situation where on paper a family may look as if they are fairly well, and I use the word "oiled" in terms of income.
I hope you do not interpret my remarks as being sexist, Mr. Speaker, but the income as a result of the family allowance goes to the mother and that money is not expended on frills, or on grandiose schemes to invest in corporations in the United States-and I am coming to the question-it is spent on the necessities of the child and of the family. It is spent on such things as rubber boots, jeans, T-shirts, sneakers, socks, school supplies and medicines.
I want to ask the Hon. Member as the first part of my question, does he have in his constituency situations of that nature and is he aware that there are large numbers of Canadians from coast to coast who are in that situation, where they use the family allowance not for what I think the Government is suggesting, as maybe for frills, but for the necessities of having a good family life. Could he answer that question?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) for his question. Very clearly, not just in my constituency and elsewhere in northwestern Ontario, the part where I come from, but right across this land there are people who need that money. They are just so close to the line in terms of their cost of survival. That relates not just to those who we traditionally think of as low-income Canadians but to those who through no fault of their own have been forced for years into very high mortgages. Mothers in particular have been forced out of the home to work in order to help pay for that. Those who have chosen to stay at home use the family allowance to provide those extras that, thanks to Government policy, were taken away from them through exorbitant interest rates, consumer price increases and things like that.
What we have to do is turn things around. We have to say to those recipients of family allowances that we are going to continue the protections. We are not going to allow the value of that cheque to be reduced through any Act of this Parliament. What we want to do now is make sure that we tackle those other things that will take the pressures off so that all Canadians can have a better life.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly leave time for my colleague to ask a question as well. With regard to the fairness of reducing the family allowance, does the Hon. Member not agree with me that there could be nothing more unfair than for a national Government with in excess of 200 seats to get tough by saying to families with children that the Government will reduce the family allowances? Would the Hon. Member not agree with me that that is absolutely unfair and shows the ruthless and uncaring attitude of the Government?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, not only would I agree with the Hon. Member but I would point out that since we are looking for fairness, perhaps the Government could impose a minimum tax on the rich, something which would bring in at least $400 million a year, provide some fairness in the tax system and eliminate the need to fiddle around with the support programs that exist for women and children in this country.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member, but before I ask that question, I would like to comment briefly on the previous question and answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, just ask the Hon. Member a question, please.


David Charles Dingwall: Can I comment on his question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments regarding the provisions in the legislation relating to presumption of death. I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware that the provision that is included in this legislation is already included in the Canada Pension Plan
September 18, 1985

legislation and that the provision that is being proposed in this legislation relating to the presumption of death is already included in the Old Age Security Act. I wonder as well if the Hon. Member realizes that under the current family allowances provision, as soon as a child disappears, the family allowance cheques are to be cut off and that in fact this provision allows the compassion to which the Hon. Member refers by allowing the Minister to have the payments continue rather than be cut off immediately as the current provisions provide.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member's first two questions is yes and the answer to the last question is no. With regard to the first two questions, one of my experiences both as a Member of Parliament now and as a provincial Member-in fact, it was 10 years ago today when I was first elected-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iain Francis Angus: I just thought I'd add that in.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Ontario's loss, Canada's gain.


Iain Francis Angus: I have experienced having to convince the powers that be that some senior citizens were really alive. Can you imagine the feelings of a lady receiving a notice from the Government of Canada, through a bureaucratic mix-up, saying that her husband who is sitting right beside her is dead? 1 think we do have to be careful.
In terms of the latter question, I suggest that providing that flexibility is a positive step but I think having it as a declaration of death as opposed to a procedure for suspension other than at the moment the child runs away would be a better way to approach the issue. I would ask the Hon. Member if he could communicate that to the Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there further questions or comments? If not, I will recognize the next speaker.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on behalf of thousands of Canadians who will be deprived of a sum of money that is essential to their well-being, if this majority Government manages to adopt Bill C-70.
In the riding of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, almost 10,000 families out of 20,000 are living on incomes of $19,000 or less, which means that half of the people in my riding have to live on a salary of less than $19,000. These families will be heavily penalized by the new measures provided in this Bill.
The more I listen to the debate, the more I think the issue is being confused, Mr. Speaker. In my comments I intend to make a sincere effort to explain to Canadians the injustice that will result if Bill C-70 is passed.
Women are penalized by this Bill, more so than any other group in our society. My colleague from Vancouver East (Ms.
Family Allowances Act
Mitchell) described yesterday the harsh reality of single mothers living on a minimal income, who are forced to count every penny to feed their families, and sometimes end up soliciting on the street. I think it is appalling for a Government that is able to find thousands and even billions of dollars to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank. And in the same breath, that same Government is talking about reducing the deficit. Where is the consistency in all that? What criteria are being used to support a large financial institution like the Canadian Commercial Bank instead of promoting the wellbeing of Canadians? Why is this Government penalizing our families and our children? And why should the needy once again have to pay?
In Hansard of November 15 of last year, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said in the debate on the Throne Speech, and I quote: "It is my role as Minister of National Health and Welfare to put forward signals and initiatives that will strengthen the role of the family and give it more prominence in society than I feel it has been given before."
What made the Minister of National Health and Welfare change his position between November 15, 1984 and September 15, 1985? Does he think Bill C-70 is going to strengthen the role of the family? Our analysis will prove the contrary. The argument being used in this debate on the other side of the House is as follows: There will be an increase in the child tax credit. True $450 for each child in 1986, $489 for each child in 1987 and $524 in 1988. However, they failed to mention that starting in 1989, the child tax credit will be only partially indexed.
As far as family allowances are concerned, in 1986, a family will receive $22 less in family allowances. From 1987 to 1990, as the increases in the child tax credit are added, a family will be getting higher benefits for their children under the Budget. As I just said, it is true benefits will be higher, but they will start losing ground in 1991, and these losses will increase from year to year, because the two child benefits, namely family allowance and the child tax credit, will be increased only by that percentage of inflation that is in excess of 3 per cent.
Without the Budget changes, these benefits would have been fully indexed to the cost of living. That is something we must not forget.
The neediest families will get increased child benefits from 1987 to 1990. Subsequently, they will lose money because of other changes in the Budget. However, the vast majority of Canadian families, including many families living below the poverty line and on low incomes, will be receiving reduced child benefits as of 1986. To understand why this is happening, we have to consider the Budget's further repercussions on child benefits and on our income tax system.

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
For instance, here is how logical they can be, as advocated in the Budget. First, partial deindexation of family allowances in 1986. Second, deindexation of the child tax credit. Third, deindexation of personal tax exemptions for both father and mother. Fourth, abolition of the $50 tax exemption. Fifth, higher federal sales tax rates, from 10 to 11 per cent as of January 1, 1986. Sixth, a new tax on drugs.
According to our figures indeed the poor will benefit from a higher tax credit for three years but, beginning in 1988, owing to the many other regressive measures 1 have just mentioned, the poorest of the poor will be penalized under Bill C-70.
On the other hand, wealthy Canadians will continue to claim their capital gains tax exemption and lower retirement plan contributions such as in the case of RRSPs. Given the capital gains tax exemption, people whose income amounts to $100,000 or more will receive in excess of $600 million in tax benefits, whereas under the amendments to the Act now under consideration, with respect to the child tax credit and the tax exemption, the Government will save only $150 million. It is easy to figure out even without being a chartered accountant that the Government will give $600 million to the rich, take $155 million from the poor and have middle class Canadians make up the $445 million difference.
The Budget will also cut down the number of families eligible for the maximum child tax credit because it will lower the limit from which the benefits start to decrease. The limit is now $26,330 but it will be lowered to $23,500 for the 1986 fiscal year. For instance, a family with a net income of $26,000 is eligible for maximum credit under the present system since it is below the limit from which the tax credit is calculated. Once the limit has dropped to $23,500 the child tax credit will be $155 less, which is 5 per cent of the difference between $26,000 and $23,500.
In addition the limit will be geared to the inflation rate less 3 per cent. As a result, since the average income will go up year after year, more and more families will earn more than the limit and will therefore get reduced benefits.
On Monday, Mr. Speaker, I met in my constituency office a mother who strongly objected to the deindexation on the basis of her family budget which I am going to read to you. The father is the only bread winner for his wife and his two children. Net income: $19,195.82. Food for the year: $6,360. Rent: $5,100. Heating: $780. Life insurance: $540. Telephone: $192. General insurance: $800. Back to school expenses: $100. Transportation: $110. Total expenses: $13,982. This gentleman has a taxable income of $10,240. This couple cannot afford a car. In this budget, there are no provisions for entertainment, clothing, drugs. In 1984, they received a Tax Credit of $367 per child, which means that they received $734 for both their children. In 1985, the wife was compelled to seek part-time employment. If we add the wife's part-time salary of $7,000 to the husband's net salary of $19,195.82, we get a total net income of $26,195.82. Now that the wife has decided
to return to the labour force to help balance the family budget, this young lower middle class couple will incur a tax credit loss of $155 the first year, because the budget, as I said earlier, is lowering the ceiling from $26,000 to $23,500. If the ceiling remained at $26,300, this young couple would be entitled to the full Child Tax Credit.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill will have other negative impacts on Canadian families. In the area of taxation, for instance, we are all aware that when the time comes for taxpayers to submit their income tax returns, people are anxious to get an advance payment on their income tax. To do so, they will go to companies which can get them the money more quickly. Did you know that these American-owned companies make between $15 million and $20 million profit on these Child Tax Credits?
Moreover, among single mothers whose income is below $2,000, one out of five of those entitled to Child Tax Credits had to contact a discounter. These mothers need the money, and such examples further demonstrate the need to maintain the social programs for Canadian families, for Canadian men and women. Last year, 60 per cent of the people who used that service earned less than $8,000. I am referring to the service of discounters. In 1979, there were 7,000 discounting operations. In 1984, five years later, there were 385,000 discounting operations compared with 7,000 five years before. In 1979, there were only a few discounting offices. In 1984, there were over 1,000 in Canada. Between $15 and $20 million in profits are made on income tax child credit payments. The assignment of income tax refunds is prohibited in the Province of Quebec and in the United States. The Social Action Committee and the National Anti-Poverty Group are urging that income tax refund discounting be abolished, because even if there is a temporary increase in the income tax child credit for the people most in need, the increase will find its way deep into the pockets of discounters, because if the income tax refund takes four months to come, the discounter is charging four times 15 per cent, which means the client will be paying the discounter 60 per cent of his refund.
I was dismayed yesterday when I heard the statement made by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) under Standing Order 22, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, there is a move on foot to abolish tax discounting or to make it impossible for the legitimate businesses to continue to operate.
He went on to say:
Today some 380,000 Canadian taxpayers use the services of tax discounters, compared with 6,000 in 1979.
As I said earlier.
By and large, the-large majority of tax rebate discounters are honest, upright citizens who offer their services to those who want to use them voluntarily.
In my view, the Hon. Member for Bow River is very ill-informed and I will keep on defending the rights of low-income people.
September 18, 1985

1 also want to remind the House that in Quebec, since the Budget of April 23, 1985, all Quebecers must pay a tax on all insurance premiums: life insurance, automobile insurance, fire insurance, theft insurance, personal insurance, group insurance, medical-surgical insurance, supplementary death benefit insurance-


An Hon. Member:: That is the provincial budget!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: That is the provincial budget, as the Hon. Member is saying but anyway I do represent Quebec families living in my constituency of Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic and-


Mr. Bernier:: This is mental distortion!


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: It is their budget that I am now defending, Mr. Speaker.
Who speaks on behalf of the poor? Who defends them? We do as Liberals, Mr. Speaker. This is why I rose today and 1 am taking this opportunity to urge all Members of our various organizations in Canada to sign petitions urging the Prime Minister to re-establish full indexation of family allowances and the income tax child credit.
Due to the complexity of the issue and the time that will elapse before people feel that reduction of income, I hope that all this will not slow down the mobilization of all those who are affected by that legislation such as single-parent families who live in many instances under the poverty level, families with low- and medium-sized incomes which will seriously suffer because of that legislation. We have to remember that sometimes it takes very little for a family to slip under the poverty line.
In addition to that, in Quebec ... I have in hand a Quebec mazagine called Rubrique economie, la gazette des femmes. Under the headline "The New Quebec Budget", we read:
Backward reforms which could bring women back to square one.
The Quebec Budget of April 23 last seems at first glance quite pleasant. The publicity surrounding the budget maintains that it will improve the budget of your family.
However, a careful review indicates that this is true for only certain classes of families. In addition it does absolutely nothing to improve the financial conditions of women. And, finally, a profile of a woman called Linda.
With respect to the subtitle "Family allowances radically reduced", it says:
You will point out that Linda will still get family allowances for her children. Of course. But what will they be worth in 1986? As far as federal allowances are concerned, which come to S582 a year, the federal Government is already collecting $101 in income tax on them. With the new system, the Quebec taxation system will also levy its share-
This is new.
Family Allowances Act
-that is $146. As for provincial allowances, they are worthless. From now on, they will be fully repaid to the Quebec Government by the parent claiming the child as dependent. On top of that, some people say that this fictitious income could give rise to the payment of an additional federal tax of $39.
I wanted to mention this even if it comes under provincial jurisdiction because, as I was saying earlier, I am defending the women in my constituency.
When we think of all the consultative processes initiated by the Government, we have to ask ourselves some serious questions. The following statement is found in the preface to the Blue book published by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp):
Through it, I invite all interested parties, whether individual Canadians, organizations concerned with social policy, business, labour or provincial governments to consider how we can ensure greater fairness in the distribution of benefits from these programs without disturbing the universality of Family Allowances and the Olf Age Security pension ... The views expressed by Canadians in this process will be taken fully into account before program changes, if any, are implemented.
Further, on page 5:
-the government's twin tests of social responsibility and fiscal flexibility will be guided by the following principles:
1. The concept of universality is a keystone of our social safety net. Its integrity must not and will not be called into question.
Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to find any consistency in those statements.
I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of this House to the open letter sent by the Canadian Labour Congress to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), which says the following:
Listen to all Canadians and not only those whose views you find convenient.
The letter also requests the continuation and increase if necessary of benefits under essential social programs such as Unemployment Insurance, Old Age Security and family allowances, and the preservation of the universality of certain programs.
The estimates and the previous debate on the universality of family allowances clearly show that the erosion of social programs may be an objective your Government is determined to reach-
-says the letter.
The letter asks for a reform of the tax system so that:
-all individuals and companies pay their fair share to the Government-
-and warns that, by 1990, the increases and fiscal rebates announced in the Budget will have resulted in a $2 billion reduction of corporate taxes, while personal income tax and sale taxes will have increased by $4 billion and S3 billion respectively, making present disparities even worse and-
-bringing about an even greater polarization of wealth and poverty.
We expect in the future continuously high unemployment, social programs in jeopardy, an increasingly unfair tax burden on low- and middle-income Canadians, a Government less and less present in essential areas of life. In other words, we foresee a more difficult future for most-
-warns the letter written by the Canadian Labour Congress.

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are on the point of rising and I shall therefore conclude my comments.
Those statements are not mine, Mr. Speaker. This is a letter sent by 56 participants in the national economic conference organized by the Prime Minister last March. It should be noted that these 58 signatories of what I have just read represent about half the participants in this conference. This is food for thought.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in this debate, the Opposition Members are those who speak for the people, and if I have another opportunity, I shall rise to speak again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.
The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier).


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, just a comment. Am I entitled to a comment or a question? A comment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, a comment.


Gilles Bernier: A comment? Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I think the Hon. Member who just made a speech, not a masterly one, I must add, because I would like to know the name of the assistant who prepared that pile of figures-she must have taken a leaf out of the book of the former President of the Quebec or Montreal Savings Bank, an expert on distorting figures and interpreting numbers, and she must have drawn her inspiration from her Party's finance critic.
The Hon. Member said that last April, our Government imposed a 9 per cent tax on insurance in Quebec, but she did not specify which Government, and I would ask the Hon. Member to make a correction immediately and make it clear whether it was the present Progressive Conservative Government or the present Government of Quebec that imposed the tax. It is being implied that our Government is doing all the taxing: taxes should be ascribed correctly and honestly and not the way the Hon. Member did a few moments ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens).


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at my notes and I think the Hon. Member is right, because I said: Furthermore, in Quebec, since the Budget was brought down on April 23- the Budget date makes it obvious I was referring to the Quebec Government. Mr. Speaker, it was indeed the Government of Quebec that imposed the tax on insurance.


Gilles Bernier: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier), on a supplementary.


Gilles Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Hon. Member's withdrawal, but now I wonder why she included this comment
in her speech. So it was just to have people think the Progressive Conservative Government was forever imposing taxes, but I would like to add for the Hon. Member's information that we inherited a situation of which she is well aware.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens).


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the comment I made earlier. I said that in my riding in Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, I represent people living in Quebec, and that is why I made a reference to the budget of my constituent who came to my office and who, of course, have to pay taxes on insurance in Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette).


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I was listening earlier to the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) arguing about the possibility-and I repeat possibility-of a reduction, but is that what people want or would they not rather have employment and lower interest rates, something which this Progressive Conservative Government has been striving to achieve and has succeeded in doing within a year? Did you tell that to the people in your comments? Did you point out those extremely important facts to the Canadian people?
We definitely did lower interest rates, we definitely did create jobs, 300,000 new jobs, about which you have not said a word. You referred to prostitution a while back. I am somewhat ill at ease when you suggest that people could be forced, when you tend to imply that people could be forced to engage in prostitution.
But, Madam, hearing such statements gets to be extremely frustrating. Even when the reference is to 3 per cent on a possible $15 family allowance, that boils down to 45 cents a month. Are you telling the people that a person might have to engage in prostitution because of a 45-cent a month reduction? I think a little more honesty and straightforwardness are called for.
This Conservative Government has been struggling to find jobs. We have created 300,000 new jobs. This must be stressed. I think you should look at the positive aspects rather than talking about prostitution in your comments.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: When I talked about prostitution, Mr. Speaker, I was merely quoting from the comments made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) in her speech this week.
Besides, to reply to the Minister's question when he asked what people want in my constituency, well, what they want in my constituency is "jobs, jobs, jobs"! You are right, but they
September 18, 1985

also want something else. They would like this Government to stop making foolish expenditures, when for instance it wastes $56 million on new uniforms for the Canadian Forces. Our taxpayers, those at home at least, are concerned when their tax money is being used to buy limousines for Ministers, cabinet Members and so on. Thirdly, hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent uselessly to redecorate the Ministers' offices. We hear also that hundreds of thousands of dollars, even millions of dollars, are wasted by the Ministers travelling on private jets both in Canada and to other continents. They are afraid, apparently. On top of this, we could add the billion of dollars the Government will spend to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank.
So my constituents back home are concerned because they feel that these are useless expenses and they are eager to see the national debt reduced and the social services maintained. Also, they want jobs. But they certainly do not have the same priorities as Hon. Members opposite seem to have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne).


Mr. Champagne:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask my hon. friend from the Opposition how she can talk in the House about spending public funds in an exemplary fashion, in order to redistribute the wealth among our constituents, among the Canadian people, when her own Government, over the past 20 years, managed to create a deficit that is practically insurmountable, and to accumulate a debt that the Canadian people, more specifically our families, our senior citizens and most everybody, will have to pay. Because her Party which was the Government at the time and which is now in the Opposition is now claiming that it has found all the answers that eluded it for 20 years. They are raising issues they were unable to solves successfully over a 20 year period.
As my colleague the Minister of State for Small businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) was saying, we have created a great many permanent jobs and we must repair the damage which your Government caused when it was in power.
I think also that if you were a little bit honest, you would stand up in the House and admit that your party is responsible for the deficit, a problem that we must now solve in the interest of all Canadians. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said and that is what we are going to do.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, 1 take this opportunity to point out that when we were on the other side of the House as a Government we had only 36 ministers, but they now have 40. That is what we mean when we talk about ministerial budgets. I did say something about the limousines, but that is peanuts. They decided that an executive assistant was just not good enough, so now they have put a chief of staff over the executive assistant, and is he ever well paid! Just one more item to boost
Family Allowances Act
the budget. I am saying this in passing, but I could mention a few other things.
I would like to say something to the Hon. Member-whose riding 1 forget-who shouted 6 and 5 a moment ago. Now that is one of the programs we are proud of, it is one of our better achievements because we got co-operation from all segments of society-the elderly, parents, management, industry, unions. It had to be a sound decision since we were successful in lowering the inflation rate from 12 per cent then to 3 or 4 per cent now.


André Bissonnette: The Hon. Member referred to the use of Government aircraft. Well last year we used them 30 per cent less than your Government did. Thirty per cent less last year. What do you say to the people of Quebec when we invest more than $160 million in Quebec industries to create jobs in your riding? Now that is something. More than $800 million in investments in the coming months, in Quebec alone. Only to create jobs. Now, what about interest rates-2.75 per cent less for a family with a $40,000 mortgage-what about that? It amounts to over $1,000 a year. Did you tell that to the Canadian people? No. I think one has to be more positive, even on the Opposition benches. One must be positive and see things as they are. That is the message I wanted to convey to you.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: 1 am not in position to argue about figures, about the $35 to which you refer. It could be less costly but I will surely have the opportunity to check and we will see in a few months whether


André Bissonnette: Some 30 per cent less.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: You say 30 per cent less, very well.
Now you know when a moment ago you took all the credit for the improvement in interest rates and everything else, all this is the result of our efforts. Now it is because-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are through with questions and comments.

Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say in this particular debate. It is rather amusing to listen to a Cabinet Minister across the way take credit for the jobs that were created in the country since the new Government was elected. The fact of the matter is that the best record in the past three years for the creation of jobs in the private sector in this country is held by the Turner administration. When one checks with Statistics Canada one discovers that on a month-to-month basis that is a fact.

September 18, 1985
Family Allowances Act
However, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) would not have the audacity to stand in this Chamber and dispute what the Conservatives are saying because the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the last Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister before had nothing to do with the job creation that this Hon. Member is talking about. If he would analyze it on a month-to-month basis, using Statistics Canada figures, he would find that this is so.
They should not dare to stand up and say "we created these jobs". That is like a lot of things with this Government. Do you know who said on December 21, 1984, on page 1459 of the House of Commons Debates the following: "All savings generated from any changes will be redistributed to social programs and will not be applied to deficit reduction"? The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who is now saying that we need to reduce the deficit, said that. Who said, on November 17, 1984, in an interview with The Toronto Star in response to the question, "Would the commitment be that all money that is saved would be applied directly to giving more money to the neediest?", "There would be, there could
be, no other reason". The question was asked, "It wouldn't be applied simply to the deficit?" And the answer was, "No, absolutely not". Do you know who said that, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister of this country.
Now we hear Government Members standing up and pointing out how bad the deficit is and saying that we now need to cut family allowances. Why are they cutting 22 cents here and 22 cents there? They say it is to reduce the deficit. Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough for the families in this country who are living on an income between $5,000 and $10,000 with five or six children.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are saying my time is up. 1 am sure you will allow me to continue this excellent debate at the next sitting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 19, 1985