1985-12-19

Hon. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie):
That, in relation to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, one sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said Bill and one further sitting day be allotted to the consideration of the Bill at the third reading stage; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting days, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what we have before the House today is an approach by the Government to bring order to legislation which has had much debate at all stages that have been brought forward to date. First, the Bill before us had exposure in the Budget. In the budget debate, as all Hon. Members know, topics can be debated; it is a very wide-ranging debate and there is very minimal limitation, if in fact any exists, to debate the issues of the Budget and the economic affairs of the country.
There was a six-day debate in which, the Budget being the main motion, with amendments moved by the Official Opposition and by the NDP, the House disposed of not only the main motion but of every amendment and every sub-amendment.


Mr. Boudria:: That was important.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I agree with the Hon. Member's intervention. It was so important that the House divided on it and the House approved the Budget and rejected the amendments. That is majority Government. That is what happened in the passage of the Budget.


Don Boudria: It is abuse.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not abuse; that is democracy. I cannot help it if the Liberals are down to 40 Members, a little rump. They do not yet understand why on September 4, 1984, the people rejected them. When there is a vote in the House, as is the case when there is a vote in the electoral
process, we accept the majority rule. They do not want to do that, nor have they accepted it to date. That is the issue with which we are dealing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Additionally, Bill C-70, came into the House and there was a long debate on it. When the Bill was being read the second time, again there was a division in the House and again the House decided, very clearly and in a wide majority view, that the Bill should be passed at second reading and passed in principle.
The Government did not stop there. This Bill was one of the first Bills which was subjected to the new House rules, namely reference to legislative committees. Under the rules on legislative committees, as all Hon. Members know, the size of the committee is generally much larger than that of standing committees. That Bill went through rigorous examination in committee.
Let us look at the British experience. When a Government or a Parliament has decided in principle on a Bill, then a legislative committee-and that is what its role is in the British parliamentary system-examines the principles of the Bill but, more important, examines it from the point of view of technicalities. This Government went further than that. Not only did we look at clauses, amendments and technicalities, we also asked witnesses from various groups in Canada to come forward. They made their points of view. That was also done, quite apart from what legislative committees had been established for in the British parliamentary system.


Ms. Mitchell:: You did not listen to them; they were all opposed to what you are doing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Again in committee the NDP and the Liberals were subjected to votes, and in each case they lost it again. That was also done.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You ignored the witnesses.


Mr. Frith:: They did not even listen to their own back-benchers.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we finally woke them up. We now come to the matter of report stage. We believe very clearly, for instance, that Clause 5 will give us more ability as a Government to deal in situations of family tragedies and not to move unless we have had consultations with the families. Specific members of the Official Opposition and of the NDP have tried to drag red herrings across the trail in order to stop the matter further. They know

December 19, 1985
Time Allocation
very well that what they have been doing has been explained time after time.
Thus, we come to the situation this morning. The situation this morning is that it is time for the House, after having those many votes, to decide, and that is the motion before us. In a democracy the Opposition does not always agree with what the Government is doing, and we obviously do not always agree with what the Opposition is doing. That is democracy, and I accept it. However, democracy also demands that at a certain point decisions must be taken. That time has come now, and that is why the motion is before us. I say to Hon. Members that the motion before us makes sense because we have had no indication whatsoever, at any stage, from members of the Opposition that they are willing to look at a reasonable time, beyond what they have already had, in which the matter can be debated and in which the matter can be decided.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: How about some reasonable amendments?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I can hear the NDP. I understand its Members because they have made opposition a fine art. They have never had to understand the other side of the parliamentary process. However, it is another matter when we talk about the Liberals. I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what Liberal Members have been doing. It is one thing for them to talk but we have to look at their actions. Their actions have been very, very different from their words, and they know it.
Let us look at the time when the Liberal Government froze family allowances. What did Liberal Members do? They froze family allowances in January. Now Liberal Members rise in the House to say that we should not pass these Bills. I have a press release ready which will show that family allowances will be going up on January 1, 1986. However, Liberal Members do not say that.
Additionally, the Liberal Government froze the family allowance in January. Do you know when it passed that legislation? It was passed 12 months later in December. Now we can pass this legislation after these many steps of the legislative process have been taken, but that is not good enough for Liberal Members.
I say that the time has come for a decision to be made. I say to Liberal Members and NDP Members that the case has been clearly made and it is time to make a decision. That is why we put this matter forward and I would suggest that these two hours will provide sufficient time along with another two days to dispose of the issue. I suggest that we dispose of it now.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who are listening will now understand why most people call him the Minister of social injustice.
Mr. Speaker, this Minister has yet to understand what his role is supposed to be.
I think we should recall that in this country's history, whenever a Budget was brought down, every Minister of National Health and Welfare, and even the Conservative Minister of National Health and Welfare, and even the Conservative Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) who is here in the House, has seen it as his duty to defend the interests of the elderly, the sick and our families. This is the first time in Canada's history, under any government, that we have a Minister who is supposed to defend the interests of these people and who sees it as part of his ministerial duties to crush those very same people and take away their purchasing power.
Today he agreed to move a motion to impose closure on the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, if anyone asks us why the Members of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party are violently opposed to this Bill, our answer is quite simply that the people of this country have asked us to do so.
The Minister has tried to show us how to behave with parliamentary hypocrisy, but I refuse to play the kind of game he wants to play in the House. The people of Montreal-Sainte-Marie did not elect and re-elect me to indulge in parliamentary hypocrisy; they elected me not to defend our institutions but to defend the interests of Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the role of Members in this House is not just to consider the British system or Canada, but to consider the people who live in this country.
Mr. Speaker, what this motion means, and I find this absolutely shocking, is that the Minister is asking us to cease debate at a time when Canadians, and I have a copy of the telegram sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and not only women are opposed to this measure, not just family agencies but the bishops as well, who are asking for a meeting with the Prime Minister on Friday . . . Mr. Speaker, these are the people who are asking their Members to object to the decision made by this Minister and by the Prime Minister.
We have received petitions from every riding in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Even people from the riding of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, even people from the Prime Minister's riding are against that measure.
And why are they, Mr. Speaker? First of all, because the Government wants to treat families the same way it tried to treat the elderly. They have been betrayed. People are angry with this Government, and angry with the Prime Minister because they have been misled.
Mr. Speaker, all this will go down in history. Remember when Mrs. Denis came up and told the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms: "You lied to us, Charlie Brown." She was right, and our Canadian mothers are saying the same thing. Mr. Speaker, this is the same Minister who bragged about consulting the people. This is the same Minister who, on behalf
December 19, 1985

of the Government, made a commitment to these people in a document bearing his signature, a document that says that any savings which may result from program changes will not be applied to a reduction of the deficit. That was to mislead the people and the organizations that came to testify. They thought they could trust him, but the Budget has proved them to be wrong.
Mr. Speaker, what the Minister then tried to have us believe about the new legislative committees was a lot of nonsense. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Members who were there were totally useless. All they tried to do was to obstruct debate, and all they wanted to do was leave. They did not even want to hear witnesses. The Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party had to force Government Members to listen to people who wanted to have their say. Extraordinary steps had to be taken to force the Government to hear the witnesses.
Still with respect to another Bill C-70 clause which has nothing to do with the de-indexation of family allowances, the Minister wanted full authority to decide on his own whether a missing child would be presumed dead. One outrageous incident was the case of a Quebec woman who came all the way to Ottawa. The Government could not spare any money to help her, but it is not so niggardly when time comes to throw a party. I was the one who found the money to bring this mother here to testify. I offered to give up my ten minutes just so she might give evidence before the committee, but the eleven Conservative Members turned me down right in front of the media.
The Minister is going too far, openly misleading the people, and that is why all Quebecers and all Canadians are fuming mad, Mr. Speaker. No wonder this morning's polls reveal that the popularity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is going down fast. No wonder most Canadians are against the policies of this Government.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition laid our cards on the table right after the Budget was introduced because we knew for a fact that three of its measures were unfair and unacceptable.
First, the de-indexation of old age security pensions. With the strong support of elderly Canadians we managed to make the Minister and all Conservative Members eat humble pie, and even the Prime Minister had to backtrack.
Second, the shameful tax on the health of citizens intended to enable the Government to recoup some money. Here again, in August, we were successful in throwing the Government off course, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Prime Minister and all the silent Conservative Members had to eat crow. The Government had no choice but to retreat.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that our fight for family allowances is not over, and we intend to use every means at our disposal.
Today the Minister announced a 4 per cent increase in Canada Pension Plan and old age security pension benefits.
Time Allocation
Thanks to whom? Not thanks to the Conservative Government, but thanks to elderly Canadians who won their point. And then the Government has been unwilling to say by how much the family allowances cheques would increase. Canadians ought to know that if the Bill is adopted, monthly family allowances will go up by 37 cents in English Canada, and 18 cents for each child in Quebec.
Yesterday I listened to the Prime Minister on the Radio-Canada program "Le Point" when he kept repeating that he wanted to be generous with the people. Generous to the tune of 18 cents a month, big deal! At the same time the Government drops the guillotine to push through a Bill to bail out rich depositors who had over $60,000 in the western banks.
Mr. Speaker, you should not wonder . . . Which province does the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) come from? Which region is he from? Whose interests is he trying to defend, Mr. Speaker? His western Canadian chums who had money in the bank that went belly up because they were bad administrators, but he simply could not care less about the three million needy Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to all the Conservative Members of Parliament, even those who are not in the House today, since it is useless to speak to the Minister as he is a lost cause. If you do not take steps in each of your constituencies to stop this Bill from being approved, if you do not take steps to ensure that family allowances will be fully indexed, if you continue to grovel before the Prime Minister, if you continue to be so spineless, if you continue to grovel and to defend the wealthy as you are now doing, during the coming months and next year, people will go to see you at your offices and ask you to justify yourselves.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, 1 would like to say that 1988 will come quickly, and during the next electoral campaign, the Conservative Members will do door-to-door canvassing, they will go to meetings, they will go and see the senior citizens and say that they need their support. The senior citizens will reply: "Where were you when I needed you? You did not take care of me; that's it!" As for families with children, when these Conservative Members go and see the mothers to tell them that they need them, they will say: "Where were you when it was time to defend our interests? You were not there so we are getting rid of you!" The same thing has been happening on all the issues, but I see that my alloted time is over. 1 urge the Conservative Members to reflect on this. It is Christmas time, the time of family reunions. It is the most important family holiday of the year, and I trust that the gift that the Prime Minister brings to Canadian men and women on New Year's day will not be a reduction in their family allowance cheque.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind Hon. Members that yesterday Father

December 19, 1985
Time Allocation
Christmas visited us out in the front lobby after Question Period. He had a long chin and no belly. In fact, he was a very skinny Father Christmas. He gave out empty Kraft Dinner boxes to people who were there, in particular a poor mother with her child. He appeared at the behest of a low income support group from Ottawa. He was here to show the feeling which low income people have that this was not really Father Christmas but the Grinch in disguise-a green monster. I would not hesitate to say that this was a green monster who represents the Hon. Member who comes from the hills of Provencher who wants to steal Christmas from children, mothers and, of course, families. The message which is being given out by the Conservative Government is that it will cut the value of the family allowance for Canada's children and families and, in particular, mothers who are struggling so hard to raise children. The Government is doing this as a Christmas present.
While this was going on Members of Parliament, at least those of us who sit in Opposition, continued to present petitions, something which we have been doing now for weeks. We have presented hundreds of petitions with tens of thousands of signatures on them which have been sent to us from people all across Canada. They continue to flood into Members' offices, at least into mine, every day. We had hoped that, as a result of this particular protest and appeal from Canadians, the Minister, like the Grinch, would perhaps have his heart warmed and reconsider, or at least delay until after Christmas, taking any action with respect to Bill C-70. Of course, this morning we know what the answer is.
As a Christmas present to Canada's children, the Government has brought in time allocation which will force us to push through this Bill. This is only a repeat of what the Government has done since the introduction of Bill C-70. It brought in time allocation when we first debated the Bill at second reading stage. It imposed time allocation when there was no need for it. Then, when the Bill was before the committee, the Government reduced the number of weeks which had been allowed for witnesses to appear before the committee. It refused to hear from certain witnesses who had appealed to appear before it. I am thinking particularly of groups which are very concerned about the missing children section of the Bill and the child find groups which wanted to appear. I have before me petitions from about seven or eight of those groups from across Canada who appealed to the Minister to let them be heard. Of course, the committee refused to hear them on the advice of the Minister. Again, we had time allocation in that respect.
Native women were not heard. Native groups which suffer the greatest poverty in the country and which also have much larger families depend on a fully indexed family allowance for their families. They were not heard from. The Government brought in time allocation with respect to the proceedings of the committee and here we see it being imposed again at the report stage of the Bill. I think this is an absolute disgrace. It shows the insincerity and the mess which the Government is perpetuating.
The Minister has said over and over again that his social policy was to reinforce families. He has said that he cares about families and that he supports them. Yet, as a result of this Bill, he is attacking them. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister responsible for the status of women and, in fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have said that women will be an important priority of the Government. Yet they were responsible for presenting a Bill the first thing this fall that attacks women. It attacks particularly low income women and those women are stuggling to raise children on their own.
The Minister can laugh, but it is no laughing matter to mothers across Canada who will see a reduction in their family allowance benefits as a result of this measure.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It's going up.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Minister again says that it is going up. The Minister has not listened to the consultations. He is trying to create a myth and perpetuate misconceptions for Canadians. He is trying to say that there will be a piddling increase in January, while at the same time the CLC has given him figures to which he has not paid attention. These figures show that the family allowance will be reduced considerably for all families over the next few years.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is going up.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The child tax credit will be reduced as well. The Minister is perpetuating a real myth and misconception on the people of Canada as a result of what he is saying. 1 do not think the people of Canada are so stupid as not to know what kind of games the Minister is playing. What is the Minister doing? He is giving some Christmas present to Canadians! He is telling mothers and fathers that what they do in terms of parenting is not important to the Government. He is saying that his Government can come in and impose time allocation with respect to debate on this Bill. He has not listened at all to what was said in committee. He has not listened to social policy groups or women's groups. He has not listened to poverty groups or groups of senior citizens. He has not listened to any of the groups which appeared before the committee and which sent telegrams and letters appealing to him. I bet he has not had one telegram or letter which expresses support of his policy.
I wish Conservative Members of Parliament would present the petitions which I am sure must have come into their offices. I know that stacks of petitions went to the Prime Minister himself. Yet, we have heard nothing about it. I have copies of those petitions which went to the Prime Minister and we have not heard from him about this matter at all. The Government is giving a negative message to Canadians, and it will come out. It will just be repeated again and again as the life of this Government goes on. Canadians will not forget this measure. They will not forget the Chirstmas present that the Minister and his Government is giving to Canadian families.
I cannot understand just from a political point of view why the Government is doing this at Christmas time. The Grinch
December 19, 1985

who stole Christmas has told us that he would do all these wonderful things for families. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) also, incidentally, told us that this was just a temporary measure. He said that these measures in the Budget which were hurting people were just going to be temporary until the economy improved. Every day in the House the Government tells us that the economy has improved, that there are many more jobs and more people are paying taxes. The Government brought in a minimum tax and it received our congratulations. That tax will give $300 million more to the Treasury, yet the Government will not use any of that money to maintain family allowances. It found $1 billion for the banks and is taking away $1 billion from our children by the year 1990, yet the Minister brags about putting a few more cents onto the family allowance in the new year. We know what he is up to and the people across the country know what he is up to.
I want to say to the Government that the protest is just starting. That is why the Government is bringing in closure. The United Church of Canada is just starting a campaign and we are receiving all kinds of telegrams and letters, which I hope are going to the Minister and to the Prime Minister as well. Last week the Catholic Bishops said that the proposed changes in family allowance payments is the latest in a series of measures which threaten the universal social rights of Canadians. They said: "It is our fear that the social and human impact of the proposed change to the family allowance will only add to the already widespread suffering of our families, particularly families headed by women". We also heard from the Vanier Institute, which was not that vocal earlier on but is now very deeply concerned. It said last week that Bill C-70 is a gift to families which does not fit and cannot be returned. It went on to say that the proposed change over time will make the family allowance program worth very little to Canadians.
We have heard over and over again from the social policy groups, and so has the Minister both in consultation privately and through the committee. But he has not listened. He is sitting over there laughing and exclaiming "Oh, ho, ho", and he does not listen to any of the groups which have told him what a devastating impact this will have on families. I have repeated in several speeches the information we have received from those groups. I am sorry I do not have the time to go through it again.
The Parent-Teachers' Federation is another group which is just beginning to become active in this area. The trade union groups are sending in petitions as well. And in the time I have left, I would just like to read one very touching letter, which is actually a poem. It is called "Broken Lives and Broken Promises". It is an open letter to the Prime Minister regarding Bill C-70. It is from June Wilson of the Unemployed Action Centre in Penticton, British Columbia. She writes: "What made us think you'd be different? What made us think you'd care? What made us think you'd keep your word and give the poor their share? You with your wealth and power-"
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am very sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allocated to her has now expired. Resuming debate.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the New Democratic Party talk about how terrible things are in Canada today, because consumer spending has never hit such heights. I suggest that those Hon. Members wander over to some of the shopping centres and take a look at the stores which are just jammed with people. That does not indicate that this country is going to rack and ruin.
There is certainly no hypocrite like a Grit hypocrite. I just want to set the record straight. The family allowance will now be increased by the annual increase in the consumer price index in excess of 3 per cent. That is up, not down. The principle of universality is maintained. And we are going to maintain universality. It is interesting to read what a top Grit has been saying. "Abandon universality, Liberals told", by a former Liberal cabinet Minister, Otto Lang. He wants universality abolished. It is interesting to note the double standards of the Liberals. Their hidden agenda probably includes the abolishment of universality.
The child tax credit, which is of particular benefit to low income families, will be increased by 36 per cent, from $384 in 1985 to $524 in 1988. In 1986 there will be a $70 increase, raising the credit from $384 to $454 per child. In 1987, there will be a further $35 increase. In 1988 there will be an additional $35 increase. The child tax exemption, which is of particular benefit to high income families, will be reduced, so we are not looking after the rich as someone mentioned here a moment ago. It will be reduced by almost half from $710 to about $380, to equal the amount of family allowances. These changes will enhance the support provided to low income families while reducing benefits to higher income families, thus correcting inequities in the existing system.
Speaking of taxes, my Province of Manitoba, which has a New Democratic Government, has the highest taxes in Canada. That is really tough on the poor. The NDP policy is "tax, tax, tax". Manitoba has the highest taxes in the country. Its payroll taxes put a burden on employers so they cannot employ more people. That is how the NDP governs in Manitoba. It makes it really difficult for everyone.
This Government is committed to protect and improve social programs in Canada. We are now spending more on the social envelope than on any other envelope. The total social spending will rise by $4 billion, to $46.7 billion, close to half of total government expenditures. In this vein, the Government has expanded the eligibility for the spouses' allowance, benefiting 85,000 younger widows and widowers who had previously not qualified for benefits. So more people are going to benefit, not less.
Veterans' benefits have been improved for more than 140,000 Canadians and tax assistance has been extended to 185,000 disabled Canadians. So there is no cut-back in social programs in this country.

December 19, 1985
Time Allocation
1 would like now to comment on the Grit hypocrisy. Between 1974-75 and 1984-85, the Grits reduced spending on social programs. They were not worried about the aged or the poor at that time. Spending on social programs dropped from 50 per cent of federal expenditures to 43 per cent. So that tells us they are against the poor.
Prior to 1973 the Liberal Government did not index family allowances at all. That is real hypocrisy. In 1976, the Grits suspended the indexation of family allowances for a full year. With respect to the petitions they have been distributing, I wonder if they have provided those people with this kind of information. I will bet not.
On January 1, 1979, the Grits reduced family allowances by 20 per cent. How come they are not telling the people that? They should put that on the petitions they are spreading around-those phonies. In 1983-84, the Grits brought in their six and five program, which dramatically reduced inflation protection at a time of rampant inflation. They should put that at the top of their petitions.
To give a clear indication that the poor are not being neglected and social spending is certainly not dropping in this country, I will read a list of the social programs we have in this country: Canada Assistance Plan, provincial tax credits, veterans' allowance, social assistance to on-reserve Indians, guaranteed income supplement and spouses' allowance, child tax credit, social housing, child care expense deduction, family allowance, child tax exemption, assistance to the married and equivalent to married, unemployment insurance, training allowance, workers' compensation, employment expense deduction, and seven different programs for the elderly. This comes to a total in federal and provincial spending of $61.6 billion. We are doing this despite the problem we have inherited from the Grits, the huge debt load for which the Leader of the Grits is responsible, that architect of the uncontrolled spending in this country. We are spending $61.6 billion, Mr. Speaker, and our problem is to try to maintain that amount, but I have no doubt we will certainly maintain it.
There is no shortage of spending on social programs in this country. The $61.6 billion does not include what municipalities are spending on social assistance. The Grits talk about how upset the seniors were when we were going to reduce indexing somewhat. What the seniors said to me was: "At least you listen". In the past, when the Grits were reducing pensions, they certainly did not listen. When I explained to these people the debt problem, and I gave them the entire explanation and all the information, then they realized how serious a problem it is. They want to co-operate. This is the kind of information Members opposite should be putting on their petitions. Explain everything to these people. Show them the amount being spent. Give them all the information.


Mr. de Jong:: Why don't you give that information to the bankers?


A. Daniel McKenzie: If they still want to object, then let them object. I provide my constituents with all the information on the debt load.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The way you gave us the information on de Havilland and the bank bail-outs?


A. Daniel McKenzie: The NDP does not like that. They would not give the truth to anybody.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Tell the bankers that. Tell the bankers to forget their billion-dollar bail-out.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Regina is really yelling his head off today.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Winnipeg is sure getting red in the face.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I would like to have a look at your householder. You just tell your constituents what we are spending on social programs. Explain it all to them. Then, if they want to criticize, they can criticize.
What about the original architect of this mess, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner)? I do not know how he has the nerve to show his face in this House.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: You had better go back and redraft your speech, McKenzie.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As Minister of Finance, that top Grit, between January of 1972 and September of 1979, was the father of deficit financing and big spending. After that man had finished horsing around with Canada's finances, this is what the Auditor General said: "I am deeply concerned that Parliament, indeed the Government, has lost or is close to losing effective control of the public purse". That is the record of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra who created this huge national debt where, out of every $3,000 in taxes collected, $2,400 goes just to pay interest on the debt. Put that on the petitions you are distributing.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, it is rather fitting that this debate, which opened one year ago, has come full circle and is coming to a close in the final two days of this parliamentary session. I would like to take the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on a trip down memory lane and recall for him some of the words spoken at the very beginning of this debate one year ago in this Chamber. At that time there was apparently a genuine effort being made by the Government front bench to address some of our problems, not only the size of the federal deficit but also the way in which our social programs were supposedly not being targeted to those who needed help the most. I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated at the very beginning of this debate that he did not know why a bank president making $500,000 a year should receive family allowance benefits. That was the beginning of the debate one year ago. I also recall that the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated that any money saved in the Government's attempts to retarget social benefits towards those in our society who
December 19, 1985

need the help most, would be used only in the social policy envelope and would never be used for deficit reduction.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Did he say that?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Those were the promises made at the very beginning of this debate. Six months after the debate began, and 1 bring us now to the spring of 1985, the whole issue of child benefits was referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I, along with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), spent hour upon hour listening to the various groups who came before the commitee. We made a series of recommendations to the Government in the spring of 1985 which we felt would address at least some of the problems reflected in the present system of child benefits. All of those recommendations were totally ignored by the Government when it decided to bring in changes to child benefits on the night of May 23 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) finally brought in his Budget.
At the heart of this issue, the reason why the parliamentary Opposition are so fundamentally and adamantly opposed to the measures put forward in Bill C-70, is the fact that these measures do not address the major issue we began discussing at the time we started the debate on universality, the issue of fairness. This Government began the debate based on the concept of putting in place more equity and fairness in the package of child benefits. However, it then comes forward with Bill C-70 which will, along with the tax measures in Bill C-84, impact severely on the low and middle-income earners of this country. That is an affront to the intelligence of all Members of this House, including the Government back-benchers. I note that those back-benchers have been conspicuously silent in this debate from the very beginning through to May 23.
I do not want to but I am going to ask that Members recall some of the words they used when they were in opposition four and five years ago and there was some discussion about the possibility of deindexing the tax system. The Conservatives placed an ad in the newspaper which said that that form of deindexation was a form of taxation with staggering consequences for every taxpayer, especially the low-income earner. Deindexing, they said, is a scheme to guarantee that everyone will pay higher federal income taxes year after year after year. That is what they said when they were in opposition, but my, how the tune changes when they find themselves to the right of the Speaker.


Mr. Lewis:: And the left-hand side, too. Both ends.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: It is true that they did bring forward a very conservative Budget. I am glad they did so because the Canadian public can see what the Conservative Party stands for. One has to realize the impact of not only Bill C-70 by itself, but also as it is linked to the income tax proposals in Bill C-84, which is now at report stage. One now begins to see the kind of social policy that the Conservative Party is advocating.
Time Allocation
The numbers I have chosen here are numbers which have been used in the debate previously and they are undisputed. The net effect of plans to deindex family allowances and personal income taxes and fully implement the budget proposals means the following. If you have a family income of $15,000 a year you are going to pay an additional $1,879 in taxes over the next five years as a result of those two Bills alone. A family earning $35,000, which StatsCan indicates is a middle-income family, will pay an additional $3,452 in taxes. However, what happens to the family who earns $80,000 a year? They will only pay an additional $1,125 in taxes. In other words, the low and middle-income earners will pay more in taxes than the family with an $80,000 a year income. That is why the Opposition in this Parliament stand adamantly opposed not only to deindexation of family allowances but also to many of the measures in the May 23 Budget concerning taxes.
How in heaven's name can we justify a social policy which will widen the gap between the rich and the poor? It is evident that that is the Conservative social policy and it reflects the lack of a common sense approach to the difficulties faced by this country. We on this side of the House in the Opposition recognize that the deficit is a problem which has to be addressed by whichever Party is in power. However, if you are attempting to create the political will in this country to undertake the necessary reforms, you certainly do not do it with a Budget which widens the gap between the rich and the poor in our society.
I will respect the rules of the House and not wave an ad that I saw in The Citizen in Ottawa several days ago. I think most Members in the House have seen it. It is a full page ad which shows a well-to-do middle-aged couple. The wife is wearing a mink and the husband is wearing a tuxedo. The caption reads: "Buy your wife a condo for Christmas". The ad goes on to explain the various tax breaks that the Budget of May 23 will give to that group. The disparity in the country between the poor and the rich is the major reason we are fundamentally opposed to the social policy direction which the Conservative Government has undertaken since it assumed office in September of 1984.
To be a competent Opposition we should be able to put forward amendments to the Bill which we feel would improve the legislation. The recommendation that we made last spring to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs were totally ignored by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he finally brought forward his plan to deindex the family allowance. More important, when Bill C-70, which we are debating on the floor of the House today, was referred to the committee, members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party put forward a series of amendments to it which we knew would significantly improve the Bill. Yet, the Conservative majority on that committee steadfastly refused every amendment we put forward. They did not allow certain groups which both opposition Parties recommended be allowed to testify to do so.

December 19, 1985
Time Allocation
Why is it the Government, which supposedly placed such a high value on consultation, has now introduced time allocation on this Bill to deindex the family allowance? Why did the Government, which put so much value on consultation, refuse to listen to every major social agency in the country that represents the poor and middle income people and have said that the plan to deindex the family allowance and, in particular, the technicalities of the way in which the Government is going to do so, is going to result in a new child benefit package that will help no one after 1989? Even the poorest of the poor will lose purchasing power under the proposals in Bill C-70.
The Government misleads the public when it indicates that next month's cheque will be larger than this month's cheque. It is true that it will be larger by 31 cents. However, the Government fails to point out that by deindexing the personal income tax system and the child tax credit beyond 1989 every family in the country will lose purchasing power. That includes families earning $9,000 a year and those earning $15,000 a year. That is at the heart of the matter, Mr. Speaker.
The Government does not seem to place any importance on the fact that its policies will widen the gap between the rich and the poor in our society. I predict that, unless the Government reverses this trend, there will be a disturbing trend of increasing violence in our society which tolerates the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer on the backs of the middle-income.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to speak on the motion which is before the House today which, as other Members have pointed out, will bring this debate to a close. I would like to address that issue. We have been hearing for many, many months now the arguments concerning this legislation. The time of the House has been taken up day after day since the introduction of the Budget on May 23 with the presentation of petitions. The time of the House has been taken up with debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That's what the House is for. What do you think we are here for?


Mr. Penner:: That's why we exist.


Murray Dorin: That is right, that is what Parliament is for, but there comes a time when the Government must make a decision.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You should decide not to go forward with Bill C-70.


Murray Dorin: The Government was elected in September of 1984 to make decisions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Dorin: The electorate did not ask us to go to Parliament and debate for four years and then have another election.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They didn't say to cut the family allowance either.


Murray Dorin: They said that we should go to Parliament, make some decisions, get this country moving again, and get people back to work.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You won't get the country moving by cutting the family allowance.


Murray Dorin: We have put people to work by creating 411,000 jobs. We have put some fiscal responsibility back into government. We know it is working, Mr. Speaker-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Why are you cutting the baby bonus if it is working?


Murray Dorin: -because the OECD report issued yesterday did not have any recommendations to offer Canada. It said that the Canadian Government is on the right track and doing a good job and that it should keep up the good work.
I would like to discuss the motion before the House. When the six and five legislation was brought in in 1982 it was debated for three days at second reading, on December 1, 2, and 3, 1982. It was debated for three days in committee, on December 7, 9, and 13, 1982. It went through report stage in one day, on February 7. It was concurred in on February 8, and given third reading on February 10, 1983.
Bill C-70, which flowed from the Budget, which itself was debated for six days in the House, was introduced on September 13. It was brought forward for second reading on September 16 and was given seven days of debate at that stage before being given second reading on September 30. It was sent to committee on October 8 where it was debated for 13 days. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-70 was debated for twice as long at second reading as was the six and five legislation and for four times as long in committee.
We are hearing arguments from members of the Opposition that we have not spent enough time on this Bill. They are suggesting that we should defer a decision on this Bill until after Christmas. We understand that the Opposition is opposed to this Bill, but the Opposition must also understand that the Government has to go forward with the important Bills which are before the House today awaiting decisions in order that Canadians can understand the tax regime which is going to prevail so that they can make their decisions based on it. We must give them some certainty about the regime they will be operating under in the next taxation year.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the motion moved today to end the debate on this Bill is appropriate. 1 have pointed out that we have had a long debate. We have heard the arguments and heard from interest groups. 1 believe that we have tested the endurance of every Member of Parliament almost daily on this Bill. We are now coming to the time when we are going to make a decision.


Mr. Axworthy:: Like the Crow debate.


Murray Dorin: Well, we may have a Crow debate next year as well. I expect that that will be coming. Having addressed the motion before the House, I would like to discuss briefly the
December 19, 1985

Bill itself. I have not yet taken an opportunity to speak on this Bill. I have received virtually no letters on this Bill from my constituents. I have received virtually no telephone calls in my office. I have received far fewer calls and letters on this than I have on any single major issue. It is by far fewer letters than I have received about the post office, the national institution which probably causes Members of Parliament more difficulty than any other government organization.
Having said that, I have gone to public meetings and spoken to constituents about what they felt the Government was doing right and what it was doing wrong. The overwhelming response is that the provisions in the November 8 economic statement coupled with the Budget of May 23 are right. This is one of those important provisions of the Budget and I believe that after the debate which has taken place, after the creation of over 400,000 jobs in the last year and the fact that the OECD has said we are on the right track, we can now say with some confidence that we are headed in the right direction. This Bill is an important part of that direction. It is time that we passed this Bill, ended this debate and brought it to a vote so we can begin to debate other important pieces of legislation waiting to be passed prior to the Christmas break. These Bills include Bill C-84 and Bill C-79.
It is for that reason that, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4)(a), I move:
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour for the purpose of continuing its consideration of the motion now before it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I believe Hon. Members have heard the motion.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have two points. The Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) rose on a point of order. The Speaker looked toward the Member to recognize him but the Hon. Member's microphone did not come on. It was not turned on. He made his point but it was not heard in the House. We have not heard the motion from the Hon. Member opposite. We do not know what is being moved. One must speak in one of the two official languages in order for Members of the House to know what is being proposed. In this case we do not know what is being proposed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I will admit frankly that the Speaker is a little surprised by the comments made by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). First, when an Hon. Member puts his motion before the House, it is normal practice for the Speaker to wait until the motion is forwarded to the Chair.
I recognize that I did not hear or see the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) rise on a point of order. If it is the case that the Hon. Member's microphone did not work, of course this is a matter that will be brought immediately to the attention of those whose responsibility it is to see that the equipment works correctly. We can only regret that.
With respect to hearing the motion, the motion will be put to the House. That is the way we usually proceed. The motion
Time Allocation
is as follows: Mr. Dorin, seconded by Mr. Kilgour, moves that, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the motion now before it.
Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And more than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Twenty-five or more Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(6), the motion is deemed to have been negatived.
Motion (Mr. Dorin) negatived.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was the intention of the Government to move this motion in order that we would go four minutes into the normal lunch hour and accomplish the business of the House. The point 1 want to make-


Mr. Gauthier:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is questioning our motives.


Philip Derek Lewis: 1 am not questioning the motives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Unless 1 am greatly misled, I am not under the impression that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is going to make a point of order. Resuming debate.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put into the record the poem that my colleague, the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), began to put on the record. It is a poem written by a person from Penticton, British Columbia, who is active with the Unemployment Action Centre Co-op. The poem is entitled "Broken Lives and Broken Promises". It reads:
What made us think you'd be different?
What made us think you'd care?
What made us think you'd keep your word?
And give the poor their share
You with your wealth and power You with your easy life What do you know of poverty And accompanying grief?
While you sit in your ivory tower Decreeing life or death 1 sit alone with my children By a cold and dismal hearth
1 dry their tears And still their fears With lies
Like the ones you told When you rode to the throne A year ago
On the backs of the sheep in the fold
Do you really believe I care to live Stripped of hope and pride,
Will you stand up and say "1 didn't know",
Will my death be justified?
9606

December 19, 1985
Time Allocation
But what made us think you'd be different?
What made us think you'd care?
What made us think you'd keep your word?
When we'd heard it all before
Indeed, 1 think the person who wrote that poem really put his finger on the matter. We have seen in the last number of weeks, and are seeing again today, a very blatant display of the real priorities of the Government.
Members of the Government have justified moving closure on this motion because there are other pieces of legislation with which the House must deal. What are those other pieces of important legislation to which they refer? One of those important pieces of legislation which they say must be passed is the Bill to bail out the banks and provide some $800 million to bail out uninsured depositors, many of whom are foreign bankers and large banking concerns in this country.
Another piece of legislation which they say must be passed is a Bill to give half a million dollars in tax free capital gains to the wheelers and dealers in this country.
It is blatantly obvious that the priority of the Government is to spend some $800 million to bail out large sophisticated depositors who had money on deposit at the Canadian Commercial Bank because they could get a half point higher interest at that bank. It is to provide a half million dollars tax free to people who speculate in condominiums, jewellery and other luxuries. That is the priority of the Government. Today we are seeing a blatant transfer of weatlh from the poor and middle class of this country to the well-to-do and filthy rich of this country. It is shameful. The Minister and Government Members laugh as they sit in their comfortable seats. Let me warn them that it will be the mothers of this country who will have the last laugh come the next election. They will not forget the blatant transfer of wealth which the Government has perpetuated with the Budget and the tax measures that it has introduced. Of course, this is all being done in the name of fighting the deficit. There is no doubt the deficit is a serious problem, Mr. Speaker. But to justify nickel and diming mothers and families in the name of fighting the deficit is a disgraceful farce. It will not be believed by the people. People will not believe that nickel and diming mothers and children will effectively put a dent in the deficit when the Government is forking over billions of dollars to the banks.
The Government is allowing capital gains. What about the $32 billion or $33 billion in deferred taxes alone that the large corporations owe to the Government? Corporations have been able to defer taxes from year to year until now and most of the large amounts now owing to the Government are being written off.
Canadians will not be hoodwinked. They know what is going on. If the Government were genuinely sincere in reducing the deficit, the Government would go to the people who have the ability to pay and who legally owe the money and would start collecting from them. Instead the poor are getting nicked.
The other argument the Government uses is that a universal scheme-the family allowance-has a lot of money going to the well to do. A study recently released by the Canadian Council on Social Development explodes this myth. It pointed out that families earning the average income or less-and the average income for a family estimated in 1984 is some $35,000-will be losing the bulk of the money that would have normally gone to them through the family allowance.
When you look at the figures you begin to realize that those whose incomes are $50,000 or more only account for 12 per cent of what the Government will save on this measure. The people who earn less than $50,000 a year will lose some 78 per cent of what the Government will save in this measure. They are the ones who will pay.
It is obscene for a Government to elect to save money through programs like the deindexing of family allowance while it introduces regressive tax measures, such as the capital gains measure. It is obscene for any civilized country so blatantly to take from the poor and give to the rich. It goes against our tradition and our sense of values. It is, as 1 mentioned before, an obscenity. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Government which started out with such popular support is now seeing its popularity decrease month after month after month?
We have seen and heard groups that have gone public as opposing this tax measure. We have received petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of people. The Family Service Bureau has publicly come out against the measure. So have the National Action Committee, the Vanier Institute of the Family, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, the Canadian Council on Social Development and the churches. The Government is prepared to ignore this wide representation of Canadians and instead is listening to the pleas of the well-to-do.
Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, and let me remind the Government, that the time will come to face the public, and the public will not forget.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today. However, 1 would not be entirely honest if 1 did say that because today, we are facing a Government that abuses its powers, a Government that for the seventh time in 21 days has moved a motion of closure in the House. In this particular instance we are considering a Bill that will take away from those who have less and give more to the wealthy.

At the present time family allowance in Ontario for one child is $31.27. What does a 3 per cent index which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) wants to give the families in Ontario amount to? Thirty-one cents more. The family allowance cheque will rise from $31.27 to $31.58.
December 19, 1985

That is the Christmas present of the Tories to the families of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Don Boudria: It is a 31 cent gift, Mr. Speaker. It is not enough to buy a bow to go around a gift. The Tories in these few days before Christmas are attempting to be the Grinch who stole Christmas. We in the Liberal ranks do not intend to allow them to be the Grinch who stole Christmas.
If all this were done to save money, if all of this were done with good intentions, then maybe there would be a small amount-and I say small-of redeeming value to the whole scheme. Why are we doing this? Is it to reduce the deficit? Is ti because the people who receive those amounts are too rich? Is it because the Government has great plans to put the money to better use elsewhere? No, not at all, Mr. Speaker. The Government is saving some $55 million over two years by cancelling full indexation on family allowances. Do you know what the Government is doing with that money?


Mr. Hopkins:: Giving it to the banks.


Don Boudria: The Government is giving billion dollars to the rich people who did not know enough to secure their assets before investing in the banks. The Tories collectively misled the people who had invested in those banks and now they have to give back the money to save their faces. It will not work. Obviously the people who invested in the banks still know that they were misled by the Government. They still know that the Government is incompetent. The poorest people who will suffer as a result of the Government cancelling full indexation are not taking too kindly to it.
We will save $55 million, but at the same time we will spend $56 million to buy new uniforms for the military. I have a little picture of the new military uniforms. It was provided to me by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen). It shows one officer in beige, one in blue and one in white. They will be in three colours so that the Minister of National Defence can tell one from the other. This will cost Canadian taxpayers $56 million. At the same time, the Government is taking away $55 million from those people who receive family allowances. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to name one soldier who would not give up his uniform so that the people of the country could keep the full indexation of the family allowances. Obviously you would not find such a person. Of course, if such people were sitting in this room instead of the Tories across the way, they would have better judgment and they would know which is the correct priority.
I see Hon. Members across the way, the surfers who move behind cabinet Ministers so that their mothers can see them on television every now and then because that is the only chance they have of being seen. Why do they not rise in the House and speak on this Bill? Why do they not rise in the House and say that they will not put up with it, that their constituents are fed up and that their constituents think that money for fami-
Time Allocation
lies is more important than money for bankers? Why do they not stand up and say that? They cannot. The Government House Leader, "Erik the dreaded" and others have told them that they do not have the authority to speak in the House.
Let us look at the total effect of these budgetary measures on families in Canada.

A family with an annual income of $ 15,000 will have $ 1,879 less, five years from now. And all this thanks to the budgetary measures of the Conservatives. A family with an annual income of $35,000 will be getting $3,452 less, while a family with an annual income of $80,000 will be getting $1,125 more. That is where we see the true colours of the Conservatives, Mr. Speaker: a Government for the rich-


An Hon. Member:: Tory blue!


Don Boudria: Yes, a Tory blue government, exactly; a royal blue government, an aristocratic government, a government that does not represent the Canadian people. What did they say during the last election campaign? Did they promise they would remove benefits? Did they promise to take from the poor and give to the rich, a reversal of Robin Hood? Why, not at all!

The Tories, as you know, Mr. Speaker, being a non-partisan person, made many promises to Canadians. In fact, there are 338 of them in this little book. I may have mentioned this once or twice before, but I just want all Canadians to know that if they want a copy of this book of 338 Tory promises, all they have to do is to send a letter to my office and I will gladly send them one. No stamp will be necessary, Mr. Speaker. If you want one, I will provide one for you.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Free of charge?


Don Boudria: Absolutely free of charge, I say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). The book contains two full pages of Tory promises on social programs. What do they promise? I will read their second promise, which I am sure Mr. Speaker has memorized already:
Assist Canadians who are unable to provide for their own needs.
Let me read another promise:
Enable women to participate fully and equitably in the economic life of the nation.
How does one do that by taking money away from women? Many times family allowance cheques are the only money they get. I see Hon. Members across the way reflecting upon this. They may be having second thoughts. Hopefully they will be able to vote the right way on this issue, as opposed to voting like training seals, the way their Leader and deputy Leader told them to. More than likely it was the deputy Leader.
Also the Tories promised to reform the institution of Parliament. They promised that under their regime they would not use closure. The Tories said that they would be accountable

December 19, 1985
Time Allocation
through the Parliament of Canada to Canadian people. However, what happened to these accountable Tories? The spoils of power-no sooner were they elected and started to use fancy limousines parked by the west door, that they forgot about all the promises. They invoked closure seven times in 21 days. That is a record in the history of our country, a record of disrespect for Parliament. That is the Tory record. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives go to their ridings this weekend, they will have to think about how they voted today or tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I seriously advise them to change their minds and prevent the Government from reducing family allowances. The Canadian people will not stand for it!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 listened to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) defend this indefensible proposal by the so-called Progressive Conservative Government, I wondered if he would have made the same speech in an earlier Parliament when he represented the constituency of Winnipeg-St. James. In that constituency, unlike the constituency which he now represents that includes in its boundaries the wealthiest people in Metropolitan Winnipeg, he represented some poor people. 1 wonder whether he would have made the same speech then. I wonder whether he would make the same speech if he took the time when in Winnipeg to visit some of the church agencies which are handing out food baskets to people who are hungry, or some of the centres which provide meals for people who are hungry, or some of the schools in the core area of Winnipeg which have nutrition programs so that some of the children attending those schools get their only decent meal of the day. That is the situation in Winnipeg.
It is because of those kinds of situations, because we know how many people are in need and how many children are in need that we are so unalterably opposed to what the Government wants to do, insists on doing and brings in closure to achieve its aim.
From the end of World War II to about 1975, Canadian people and the political Parties which represented them federally and provincially seemed to agree that the country was wealthy enough and had the ability to provide a whole series of programs to meet basic needs and to put in place a floor below which people would not have to live. Therefore, we established the Unemployment Insurance Program and improved the Old Age Security Program. We established the Canada Pension Plan and provided universal hospital and medical insurance. We brought in the Canada Assistance Program under which the federal Government shared with the provincial Governments the cost of providing for basic needs of people who are unemployed or unable to work because of illness.
The Family Allowance Program was a fundamental part of the whole range of programs which we provided to the Canadian people. Until about 1975, there seemed to be a consensus
that these programs should not only be continued but should be improved upon and expanded. Beginning in 1975 when the Canadian economy, like the economy of the rest of the world, began to experience serious problems, we began to see the beginnings of cut-backs. We saw a new and more onerous provisions imposed on the Unemployment Insurance Program. Doctors began to extra bill when provinces did not provide in their medical insurance plans enough money to pay doctors what they thought they should get. The Liberal Government put the six and five cap on programs including the Family Allowance Program.
During the last federal election campaign, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that social programs were a sacred trust. He said that if the Conservative Party formed a Government, it would not only maintain the programs but would improve upon them. What we have seen since the election of the Conservative Government has been the exact reverse.
We have seen, in the Conservative Government's supposed determination to reduce the deficit which it claims is higher than the country can afford, that the Government is determined to impose cuts on a whole series of programs. We know about the new restrictions and cuts in unemployment insurance benefits. We know that the Government proposed to deindex old age pensions. Fortunately for the senior citizens, we were able to mount the kind of campaign that made the Government realize that there would be tremendous adverse political consequences if it proceeded with that proposal, so the Government backed down. However, as we can see today by this closure motion, the Government is determined to deindex family allowances.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), in his speech, tried to confuse the issue again by saying that family allowance benefits would increase. Of course they will increase. If the cost of living increases next year, as it seems to have increased this year, by 4 per cent, the family allowance benefits will increase by 1 per cent rather than 4 per cent. The amount Canadians will receive will decrease by 3 per cent in real value. If the cost of living goes up by 4 per cent in each year, and that is a relatively modest estimate as in the past it has risen by 10, 12 and 14 per cent, it is pretty obvious that the real value of the family allowance benefits will decrease throughout the years.
Why has the Government proposed to do this? It is because the Government says that we must reduce the deficit. What the Government is doing has been criticised by every single agency and group which is interested in the welfare of children and families. Let me put on the record a couple of the views of organizations which know a great deal more about the needs of families and children than the Conservative Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who brought forward this proposal. The Canadian Council on Children and Youth put out a press release dated December 12, 1985, which indicated the following:
"By de-indexing family allowances, reducing the child tax credit and lowering the income level at which families are taxed on the child tax credit, the
December 19, 1985

Government of Canada is stating that Canadian parents are getting too much to raise their children."
"Nothing could be farther from the truth," said Brian Ward, executive director of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. There are 6.3 million in Canada, and a shocking 20 per cent of them or 1.2 million are living in poor families.
I would invite the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine to join me in visiting some of these families to see what the proposal he is supporting will mean to them.
Again on December 12, 1985, the Vanier Institute of the Family said the following:
"Under their Christmas trees this year, parents will find a present to them from the federal government, a present wrapped in the prosaic prose of Bill C-70 which proposes to partially deindex Family Allowances."
The Institute goes on to say:
"It proposes a change that, over time, will make the Family Allowance program worth very little to Canadian families."
If the people of Canada have to tighten their belts, any Canadian Government which really cared about the people of Canada would see that the belt tightening would be equitable and would be done by those who could afford it most. What do we see? We know that there are something like 8,000 Canadians who had taxable incomes of over $50,000 and 270 Canadians who had taxable incomes of over $200,000 who did not pay a penny in income tax for the last year for which figures are available.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has announced that he is bringing in a minimum tax, a proposal which we urged for years and which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) endorsed during the federal election campaign. We welcome that announcement but now that we have had an opportunity to look at some of the fine print, we realize that what the Minister is proposing is a great deal less than it seems to be.
It is not only individual Canadians who have not been required to do their fair share of belt tightening. Dome Petroleum Limited, under terms of a special law that gives the Cabinet almost unlimited powers to skirt the Income Tax Act, was given a tax break that could save the company up to $1 billion by 1990 on taxes payable by its subsidiary, Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas. If I am not mistaken, that was done under the former Liberal Government, so there is not much difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Petro-Canada saved $250 million in taxes on its 1981 takeover of Petro-Fina Limited after the Liberal Government pushed through retroactive legislation in January 1984 to iron out a wrinkle that would have denied Petro-Canada tax breaks. According to the Auditor General, this extra $250 million is in addition to another bit of paperwork under which Petro-Fina's Belgian shareholders avoided about $200 million in taxes. As well, Olympia & York Corporation, when it purchased Gulf Canada, was able to use the loopholes in the tax system to reduce its taxes by between $500 million and $600 million.
The few illustrations given simply prove that the Government, while it talks about the need to reduce the deficit and
Time Allocation
the need to realize that we will not be able to have the same kind of benefits that were implemented over the many years, and while it talks about the need for ordinary people to tighten their belts, is continuing the same kind of policies which the former Liberal Government implemented and which this Government has expanded upon. An example of this is the $500,000 capital gains tax provision. The percentage of Canadians who can benefit from that provision is very small. It has been estimated that only 7 per cent of Canadians can benefit from this Government proposal which will cost the people of Canada hundreds of millions of dollars. It is only for the wealthy, while this reduction in family allowance benefits is only for ordinary Canadians.
Again, we see the Government, as we so frequently saw Liberal Governments, asking ordinary Canadians to make sacrifices and to pay a much higher percentage of their taxes to meet the requirements of the Government. At the same time the people in higher income tax brackets and large corporations are permitted to avoid, to a large extent, their fair share of what is required.
Again I say, as members of my Party have said, that the first time the Government brought forward this proposal we opposed it. We intend to continue to oppose it. We intend to alert the Canadian people to what is happening. We intend to remind them now and in the years to come until the next election who is responsible for the retrograde provisions which are included in this proposal.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, here we go again-another time allocation order. Closure has been imposed once more. More and more it is becoming the pattern, a matter of course, for this Government with its massive majority which surrounds the Opposition on all sides. More and more we are seeing time allocation orders with respect to debate on important principles.
I have said before, and I repeat, that under all circumstances time allocation is not objectionable. There are certain circumstances in which it can be quite legitimately justified. For example, let us suppose that there was a program or policy which was central to the philosophy of a political Party which was elected to power. In this instance, after due debate, let us suppose it was decided to bring in time allocation with respect to this central policy. I think Members of the House can understand and accept that. I have already used the illustration of Investment Canada replacing the Foreign Investment Review Agency. During the election campaign members of the Conservative Party made it clear that they did not believe in having a monitoring agency look at foreign takeovers in the country. They wanted to open the doors wide and let foreign investors come in and buy whatever they wanted to buy. They brought in a Bill to deal with this philosophy early in their mandate and they imposed time allocation on it. I disagreed with the Bill and argued against it. However, I can understand why the Government would use time allocation with respect to su8h a provision.

December 19, 1985
Time Allocation
I now wish to turn to the matter of time allocation. Is it true that the central policy of the Conservative Government is to begin the dismantling of the Canadian social security system? Is that the central policy of the Conservative Party now that it is in government? It certainly appears to me that it is. Yet, I remember well that catchy phrase used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was asked repeatedly across the country about our social security system. He was asked: "Sir, is it under any threat by you?" He replied with that very memorable phrase: "No. This is a sacred trust". That question was asked for good reason since there has always been a suspicion in the country that the Conservative Party does not really believe in a comprehensive social security system. That is a suspicion which lingers in the minds of Canadians. That is why they wanted to be assured before they voted in the last federal election that our system would not be dismantled. They were given that assurance and we are now beginning to dismantle it. In order to get on with the dismantling, time allocation has been imposed.
I would like to ask the question: When is there sufficient debate on a Bill which is as controversial as this one? I suppose there are many answers to my question. I believe debate should not come to an end until the public has been made fully aware of the implications of a piece of legislation. That takes some time. After all, Canadians do not focus all of their attention all of the time on the House of Commons. They have jobs to do. They have families to raise. They have recreational pursuits to follow. They just do not spend all their time following the proceedings of the House. That is why they have sent us here. They say: "Look. We do not have time. We have important things to do. Go down there and keep an eye on those fellows. See what they are doing. Watch over them for us". Even though technology has given us an effective communications system, it still takes time to inform the public fully with respect to what is being done as a result of legislation which is introduced in the House. I would say that although the public is catching up quickly to what Bill C-70 means, it still needs additional time. That is what the Opposition is providing-additional time to inform the public and make it completely aware of what is involved in Bill C-70.
I argue that the Government has failed to make its case with respect to the validity of Bill C-70. We know that because petitions continue to pour in. They have not all been read, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) argues that the House of Commons is having its time wasted because petitions are being read. He fails to understand what Parliament is all about. Do not the people of Canada who have become aware that a certain piece of legislation is threatening them have the right to petition the House of Commons? Do they not have the right to have their petitions read here in this place? They certainly do. It is a fundamental right. It is a basic right. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine who suggests otherwise really reveals that even after all his time here he has failed to grasp the importance of the parliamentary system.
I wish to say that the petitions which have been presented have not only been presented by members of the Opposition. Some petitions have been presented by those who sit on the benches in the bookends. Those Government Members have had the courage to say that their constituents have a right to petition the House of Commons with respect to Bill C-70.
The Minister has said: "The Opposition is getting it all wrong. The family allowance will be increased". As my colleague just mentioned a few moments ago, the family allowance will be increased by 31 cents. At the same time we know that the rate of inflation has increased by 4 per cent. Therefore, the buying power of the family allowance cheque which will be sent to families in January will be much less. The Government knows that. It is a kind of callous misinformation for the Minister to suggest that the family allowance will be increased.
When the legislative committee met and representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress appeared before it, they pointed out clearly that the social security system and, in particular, the family allowance, will deteriorate and be undermined over a period of time. They gave this fact. They said that over a 20-year period, if one assumes a rate of inflation of only 3 per cent, and if we use 1985 dollars, today's $32 family allowance cheque will be worth only $18 in terms of its spending power in 20 years' time. This is a standard way of proceeding for the purpose of making such a projection. The child tax credit about which the Minister likes to argue will offset this decrease. He has said: "Don't forget the child tax credit". The Canadian Labour Congress looked at that as well and stated that in that same period of time, the Child Tax Credit will go from $384 in spending power to $326. The family income level for those who can qualify for this universal benefit will go from $26,500 today down to $13,800.
This Government has been rather clever in that the present formula for the child tax credit will improve for a three-year period. That cannot be denied. From 1987 to 1990, there will be an improvement in the child tax credit. But what the Government has not been forthright about is what happens after 1990. What happens to the child tax credit in 1991? We have looked at this area very carefully and we know that in 1991, deindexation will cause poor families to fall further and further behind in their buying power. We know that after that time the child tax credit, instead of increasing, will start to go down.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has called these changes unfair and unjust. It goes on to point out that the present system-the system this Government is changing-of family allowances fully indexed to the cost of living and taxed back from the wealthy by a progressive tax system, is clearly effective in transferring income from wealthy families to poorer ones. That is exactly what is the essential and primary role of any Government. What the Government does in allowing the family allowance cheque to deteriorate is to weaken one of the most prominent universal social programs
December 19, 1985

in the country. I call upon the Government and the Minister to let the present system of universal fully indexed family allowances be maintained. 1 ask that the increase in the child tax credit be not only for a short duration of three years but that it continue to increase to meet the genuine needs of families and their children in the future. I ask that the total amount of money spent to benefit families and children not be reduced but in fact increased.
1 know why members of the Government would not want to listen to Liberals or New Democrats. I heard the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) spit out the word "Grit" with all the anger he could muster. 1 could understand that, but I wonder if that Hon. Member, who cannot stand Grits and New Democrats, hates with equal passion the Catholic Bishops of Canada?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: He probably does.


B. Keith Penner: Perhaps he does. I don't know. The Catholic Bishops have joined with other social agencies in this country to urge the federal Government to abandon its plan to limit inflation protection of family allowance payments. Bishop Proulx said that the Conservative Members of Parliament should persuade the Government to put a stop to this Bill. That same bishop, who heads the Council on Social Affairs, has written to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and has described the changes in the family allowance payments. He said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time allocation has now terminated.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, this is the eighth closure motion I have participated in. It is becoming a habit. I guess it is called "Government by Progressive Conservatives' eighth closure motion".
Bill C-70, on which the Government has brought in closure, was introduced in the Budget back in May. The Government did not bring the Bill forward for months and months. Now here we are in the dying days of 1985 and suddenly it recognizes that it has to speed this thing up, and the only reason it has to speed it up is that it has all the cheques printed. The cheques are all ready to be put in the mail. That is exactly the way the Liberals used to operate. Before they even got Parliament to pass a law, they had all of the provisions in place. Then, of course, that forced their hand to use the kinds of Draconian methods such as closure to close off debate.
Bill C-70 is a very important Bill. It does not only deal with the deindexing of the family allowance. There is also a very sensitive clause which gives the Minister of National Health and Welfare the power to declare that the child is dead. So we have the spectacle of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) setting up a national registry of lost children, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare, because of the very insensitive Clause 5, has the power to declare the child dead. The Government has not asked for the opinion of the provin-
Time Allocation
cial Governments on this question. It is a very serious constitutional question. Does the Government have the authority to do that in the first place? As I understand it, only one witness appeared before the committee to discuss the implications of Clause 5. The Government does not comprehend the seriousness of this issue. What are the implications for police forces across the country in terms of looking for lost children once they know that the federal state, because of one of its pieces of legislation, has declared a child dead? Is there the same incentive to look actively for the lost child?
I suspect it is only part of the cosmetology of the legislation to have the Solicitor General set up a national registry for lost children. 1 really want to appeal to the Conservative Government. I do not want to get members of the Government stirred up because I have their best interests at heart, but 1 must say to them that the Government is falling in the polls. 1 know Members of the Government read the polls and believe them like a Bible. I want to say to Members of the Government that their Party is dropping in the polls like a stone. Why is this happening? It is because the Government is bringing in legislation like Bill C-70. I want to tell the Government: cancel this Bill. Forget it. Let it die. Reprint the cheques or send them out and make good on the amount the following month. The Government can add the 60 cents back on in the following month. Then it might just go up in the polls just as it did when it backed off on the old age pensions. 1 think that is a wise suggestion which the Government should consider. It is not too late. It should repent before it is too late. Repent or ye shall be lost. I make this plea: You can be saved, brothers. Put your hand on your desk and repeat after me, "I will withdraw Bill C-70".


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


John R. Rodriguez: All those in the House who think that Bill C-70 should be withdrawn say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


John R. Rodriguez: All those who think it should not be withdrawn say nay.
The yeas have it, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Members who said yea join thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have asked their Members of Parliament, through petitions, letters and telegrams, to plead with the Government to listen to the voice of the people, to be saved. I want to say to the Government that if it does what we ask, it will thank us in three months' time.
May I call it one o'clock, please, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

December 19, 1985


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the difficult situation in Montreal East, and I must say that ever since the Montreal East Survival Committee was set up on October 15, it has shown a tremendous spirit of solidarity and co-operation in its efforts to save both jobs and industries.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec the situation is very bad in connection with the transaction between Gulf and Ultramar. I think the attitude of the president of Ultramar who is blackmailing and threatening the federal and provincial Governments is absolutely deplorable. 1 think he ought to follow the example of the people in Montreal East, who, instead of resorting to blackmail, sat down together to find a solution to their problems.
Unfortunately, we are now seeing the oil multinationals getting involved in an attempt to shut down the Gulf refinery and prevent Gaz Metropolitain, in which the Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec has an interest, from acquiring the Gulf refinery and getting a foothold in the market.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister and his Government will have the political courage to resist the pressure being exercised by the directors of the multinationals, that they will listen to the voice of reason and common sense and will find solutions to protect the jobs at the Gulf refinery in Montreal East and-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
* *
*



OPPOSITION TO USE OF DEPO-PROVERA AS CONTRACEPTIVE

Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, Depo-Provera is a hormone drug which can be used as an injectable contraceptive. Among its reported side effects are blood clots, high blood pressure, irregular bleeding, excessive weight gain, severe depression, and hair loss. The long-term effects are not known at this time, but animal and clinical tests indicate infertility and increased risk of cancer and heart disease.
The U.S. Federal Drug Administration refused to approve Depo-Provera as a contraceptive in 1974, 1978, and again in 1983. Some 62 groups in Canada have formed a coalition to demand public hearings into this issue which is too important to be decided behind closed doors where the Minister's officials listen only to the company's story. I call upon the Minister to release the documents and research on which the advisory committee made its recommendation, and to open up the entire process to the public.
It has also come to my attention that this drug is being used on mentally retarded teenagers and other young people considered to be juvenile delinquents. This is not only unacceptable by any standard, it is immoral. I call upon the Minister to ban the use of this drug in Canada immediately and specifically prohibit its use on young children who are developmentally handicapped or are juvenile delinquents, until it has been proven safe.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Aurele Gervais (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak today about the recent acquisition of Kidd Creek Mines Ltd. by Falconbridge Ltd. The main asset of the company is an ore body in Timmins, the major community in my riding. Kidd Creek is the major employer in Timmins. Workers, suppliers and others have called my office and I want to assure them and the community that we feel the transaction will be a positive one. We have spoken to various people about this matter and all feel the local mining industry will be strengthened and Falconbridge will broaden its economic base.
We have been told that in the past Falconbridge has had a hands-off policy toward its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and we expect that to continue. Therefore the community can look forward to dealing with the same excellent management team at Kidd Creek which has operated the mine for the past few years. This team will now be seconded by the management team at Falconbridge, headed by President Bill James, who is also President of the Mining Association of Canada.
We would draw to the community's attention that the other major shareholder in Falconbridge is Dome Mines Ltd. As a result, people are available to Falconbridge who are very familiar with Timmins and local conditions. We have the same rich ore body, the same management team, enriched by those from Falconbridge and Dome, and the same highly trained and dedicated workforce, along with one of the most modern smelters in the world. Therefore the Kidd Creek operation and Timmins can look forward to the future with confidence.
December 19, 1985



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the May Budget provided that a farmer, to qualify for the immediate $500,000 capital gains exemption, had to have farmed the land for at least five years since 1972. Older Canadians who farmed for many years, but not for five years since 1972, expressed concern. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for listening to these concerns and acting by eliminating the reference to 1972, thereby expanding the definition of farm property qualifying for the immediate $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption.
Now, effective January 1, 1985, land owned by the taxpayer and used by him, his spouse or children in the business of farming in Canada, either in the year of sale or in at least five years during which the property was owned by the taxpayer or his family, will qualify. Older Canadians who may have rented out their land in recent years, but who have farmed for at least five years, will now enjoy the immediate exemption retroactive to January 1, 1985.
Livestock drought assistance, fuel tax rebates, crop insurance, western grain stabilization, crop disaster assistance, the domestic wheat reference, the Soviet grain agreement, and the capital gains exemption, are but a few of the many responsible agricultural initiatives put forward by the Government-a Government that listens and acts.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this House and the present Government will be well advised to start plans and policies that will take into account the consequences of the greenhouse effect which, according to scientists, will cause temperatures to rise by two or three degrees centigrade around the globe over the next 70 years. Many will be the consequences of the warming-up trend. For instance, agriculture will shift northward. In southern Canada lands presently used for agriculture could be lost because of dryness. Therefore water will become more and more precious because our needs will increase considerably.
As a consequence of these climatic changes we will have to learn to manage our water better, to squander less and, most of all, not to yield to pressures for export and diversions of fresh water. Water conservation is a practice we should adopt. We should also drastically improve ways of controlling and regulating what we discharge into water so as to protect water quality.
At present, Mr. Speaker, water is perceived to be an abundant commodity. As our climate warms up, water will gradually become a commodity in short supply. This trend need not be a disaster provided we plan and manage well the transition to a warmer climate by a judicious use of our water resources and by becoming a water-efficient society.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on December 13 the United Nations General Assembly passed its first resolution expressing deep concern over "specific and detailed allegations of human rights violations in Iran". The resolution, 1 am proud to say, was initiated by Canada and the Netherlands, with 10 other countries co-sponsoring it. The resolution comments on the summary executions, torture, and oppression of religious minorities in Iran, and endorses continued monitoring of the situation.
Iran has been asked to extend full co-operation which, up until now, it has refused, including not allowing the U.N. Special Representative on Human Rights to visit Iran. We are told that it is of tremendous help to the Bahai's and other oppressed minorities in Iran to know that they have not been forgotten by the world, even when they are apparently without rights in their own country.
I urge the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to remain fully informed on this grievous situation and to support the Canadian delegation at the U.N. in maintaining the vigilant and courageous international leadership by which it has been distinguishing itself on this issue in its efforts to end persecution and atrocities in Iran.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, during the holiday season, in the Quebec metropolitan area, we will have what is known as Operation "Red Nose", a project initiated by Jean-Marie de Koninck, a professor at Laval University. For the time being, this operation is to be seen as a preventive mechanism. Now in its second year, after only six days there were 715 calls from people who took advantage of the service, and as a result, everyone got home safe and sound. "Play it safe for everybody's sake". Mr. Speaker, how distressing to recall that according to the statistics of Health and Welfare Canada, 49.7 per cent of drivers killed in accidents had alcohol in their blood. What folly!

December 19, 1985
The second point I want to make is public awareness. Not long ago, at a cocktail party in Quebec City, I was very pleased to see that thanks to all the publicity about this operation, many business people had come by taxi. The organizers of this project are very serious-minded and always work in co-operation with one of Quebec's youth organizations, in this case, the "Rouge et Or" swimming team at Laval University, the local municipal police, in this case the Quebec City police, and a radio station with high ratings, in this case CHRC. The operation is part of our fight against drunken driving, and I may refer the House to Bill C-19. Mr. Speaker, 1 would urge other regions in Canada to do likewise.
I want to congratulate the sponsors, the volunteers and the participants in this operation-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians mourn the recent tragedy of the crash of the DC-8 at Gander, Newfoundland. At the moment the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration are working together to determine the cause of this disaster. To date, the cause has not been found.
In wake of such a tragedy the Opposition have insinuated that with the Government's current proposals for economic regulatory reform of Canada's transportation sector, many more aviation accidents will occur. I find such insinuations morally reprehensible.
The Government will make a lot of changes to our regulatory framework but it will never allow safety standards for transportation services to be sacrificed for economic expediency. For the past several weeks the parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport has listened to the recommendations and concerns of many interested parties. During its entire lengthy proceedings, the committee stressed to all parties that safety standards would not be debated.
Canada's high level of safety standards is being maintained and has been enhanced. An example of this is the Government's passage of Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act. As the Minister of Transport stated in the preface of his policy paper entitled Freedom to Move: "I would like to indicate unequivocally that the Government will neither propose nor permit any economic regulatory reform that might be detrimental to safety standards".
I hope that certain members of the Opposition who have an inclination for distorting the truth will take heed of the Minister's words and not try to induce panic into the Canadian public regarding transportation safety standards.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INCOME TAX


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, 1 bring to the attention of the House an unfair situation involving my constituents in the Hemlo Gold find area of northern Ontario. It is an unfairness created as a consequence of the May 23 Budget.
The employees of the Teck-Corona Mine, near Marathon, as a result of the May 23 Budget have been divided into two groups: one group of 51 employees are forced to pay tax on a benefit derived from the company, a benefit in the form of a housing loan; at the same time another group of 49 employees with the same company will be receiving a non-taxable benefit from the same type of loan. This is all because of an income tax change which was included in the last federal Budget.
The company has been hiring its staff over the past year and a half. Therefore, many employees bought their houses before May 23. When Teck-Corona suggested that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) allow all housing loans to be exempt as of May 23, the Minister stated in a letter that an extension of this kind would represent an additional tax expenditure and would add significantly to the deficit. I doubt the validity of that assertion.
More important, we have a new tax measure which creates inequity among employees working for the same company and living in the very same community.
Therefore I ask that the Minister of Finance immediately reconsider his initial response. Let there be a grandfather clause in this tax relief measure.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, recently there have been some rumours about Bell Canada proposing a charge for local telephone calls. I have been assured by both Bell Canada and the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission that there is no such proposal in the works.
Following press reports implying that local charges may apply in the event of deregulation, many of my constituents and others across the country have approached me with deep concern. Our senior citizens depend on local calling in emergencies, and for companionship during lonely hours. Children
December 19, 1985

and teenagers are a cash-poor group who need unlimited local calling to maintain healthy social Ivies. And, of course, I need not tell any Member in this place about the devastating effect local calling charges would have on small business throughout Canada.
If the CRTC deems deregulation is advantageous for Canadians, so be it. However, Bell Canada should not react with local calling charges as part of a rebalancing for providing cheaper and more competitive long distance rates. If local charges become the only route to maintaining Bell profits, let us have smaller profits and equal service instead.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Perhaps we could just give him a minute to get into his seat.


Mr. Siddon:: Thank you for your consideration.


George Roland Henderson: Would the Minister confirm news reports that fish inspection standards have been lowered? It was only yesterday in the House that the Minister of Health stated-
[Editor's note: And the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion having entered the Chamber:]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Roland Henderson: I hope that period of applause is not deducted from me, Mr. Speaker. I, too, want to welcome the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion back to the House. It is good to see him here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: Yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in the House that rancid fish products are intolerable. Why has the Minister of Fisheries allowed the standards for fish inspection to be weakened? Has the Minister not learned from his Government's mistakes?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, indeed we can be proud of the standards that are applied to the quality of fish products produced in Canada, notwithstanding the unfortunate incidents of recent months with regard to canned tuna products. I can assure this House that the quality standards, while they may have been changed, have not been weakened. Nonetheless, I am taking initiatives
Oral Questions
that will be announced later today to ensure those standards are reviewed to ensure the ultimate quality of product available to all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REVIEW OF STANDARDS
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Minister is going to review the standards once again. Why do the new inspection standards require that smell from rancid tuna be persistent, distinct, and linger for 10 to 15 minutes, before being rejected? Is tuna that only stinks for five minutes okay for human consumption?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Roland Henderson: 1 want to ask the Minister some of those questions, and I hope he will look after them.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if standards are changed under this administration or this Minister, those changes will be designed to enhance the quality, not to lower the quality of product available to Canadian consumers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPEARANCE OF TAINTED TUNA ON STORE SHELVES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Two months after the Prime Minister said of tainted tuna:
As soon as I found out about it, I dealt with it immediately.
and two months after the Minister of National Health and Welfare recalled the tainted tuna from the grocery shelves, it is still appearing on grocery shelves.
Is the Government so inept and the Minister of Health so incompetent in his control of the Department that they could not get the tainted tuna off the shelves and keep it off?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. I want to tell the Hon. Member that we have now recalled over 800,000 cans as a result of the recall ordered in September.
Since September, on the basis along with other responsibilities that people have in the Atlantic region, we have had between 75 and 100 people at a given period of time working on this recall. That is why I think we have had a very good recall with over 800,000 cans having been returned. Two cans have been found and detained. I would think that two cans in the retail system wherever they might have been, behind a box, behind a shelf, underneath a shelf, speak very well for what we have been doing.

December 19, 1985
Ora/ Questions


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ALL CANS OF TAINTED TUNA
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, it is two cans for today, but we do not know what the future is going to be.
What steps is the Minister going to take this afternoon to ensure that every can of tainted tuna is off the shelf? In addition, what procedures will be tightened up within the Health Protection Branch to ensure that cans are not missed in some other future recall?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is tight. We have been devoting the amount of person-years and the amount of money to that issue which I just outlined to the Hon. Member. He is a reasonable person. We have now found two additional cans in a recall of over 800,000 in the Canadian retail system. I think even he would admit that that is a pretty good system. We are continuing to monitor it. As I said yesterday, as the Prime Minister said, and as 1 said in September, we are not overlooking any effort which is physically possible for us as a Department to make sure that none of that tuna is on the shelves in Canada.


RANDOM INSPECTION PROCESS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When we questioned yesterday about the most recent discovery of rancid tuna, the Minister in reply seemed to suggest wrongdoing by the former Government when he stressed that this particular batch had not even been inspected. Of course the Minister knows and acknowledged outside the House that the random process of inspection was not only conducted by the previous Government but is still ongoing. Considering that it is possible by this method of inspection to miss a whole lot of tuna, a considerable lot, without it being inspected at all, will the Government now tighten up the process to make sure all the tuna is inspected?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer the question asked by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. I will be announcing this afternoon a significant tightening up of the sampling procedure. I have ordered the meticulous examination of all canned tuna products produced in Canada on shelves in Canadian stores, by a rigorous sampling process. I have instructed my officials to implement immediately new inspection procedures ensuring that samples are drawn and analysed from every production lot of canned tuna at the plant of origin.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to hear this today. It is just unfortunate that the
people of Canada did not have this process already in effect; perhaps we would not have have had this problem. Since the Minister said that he would make an announcement later today, does he plan to make it outside the House, or will he show respect for the institution of Parliament and the questions raised in the House by making his announcement here in the House of Commons?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have just indicated to the House some of the procedures which will be followed. If the Hon. Leader of the NDP cares to ask more questions, I will elaborate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT IN HOUSE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to shift the question away from the Minister, because we do not want to go through the whole process that we had on the de Havilland deal. It was like trying to pull teeth to find out information. I ask the House Leader or the Deputy Prime Minister whether they will take steps to ensure that the statement, to which the Minister just alluded, will be made later today in the House of Commons instead of outside the House.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the Minister will be prepared to table his statement just as soon as he has it completed, later today.


PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, we witnessed public outrage earlier this year when a Minister of the Government intervened to lower fish inspection standards, which caused tainted fish to be sold in stores across the country. The Government has had time to plug the holes, but now we discover that it has not. My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Why has the Government not been able to protect the public against unacceptable food products?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what we have is an inspection procedure which was put in by the Liberal Party and followed throughout the entire Trudeau years. The Minister of Fisheries has said today that he is going to tighten it even further. What 1 am saying to him-and it goes back to what happened yesterday-is that that tuna was canned when his Leader was Prime Minister of Canada. That is what he should remember.


NUMBER OF GOVERNMENT INSPECTORS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my supplementary question will answer the first question better than the Minister did. Will the Minister confirm the
December 19, 1985

facts that we already have, which are that the numbers of inspectors have actually decreased since the Tory Government took office? Why did the Government do that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the first fact is that the Department of National Health and Welfare has not cut the inspectors. The second fact is that when the Leader of the Opposition was the Prime Minister, and when Herb Breau was the Minister of Fisheries, they approved that fish and that procedure. They approved the inspection procedure and the canning of the fish.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That was the system at that time. Today it is being improved.


FOOD INSPECTION DEREGULATION INQUIRY
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. We know from information gathered previously that hours allocated to food inspection have been decreased by the previous Government and are continuing to decrease under this Government due to the philosophy of deregulation of food inspections. Does the announcement made in the House today by the Minister of Fisheries indicate that deregulation of food inspection is now a dead issue and that we will return to the kind of food inspection service that we had before?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is no question whatsoever of deregulation in the food industry. For the Hon. Member to be sowing that kind of seed of fear in the hearts of Canadians is totally unworthy of him. If anything, the regulations applicable to food inspection will be tightened in order to ensure the highest possible standards of health and safety for the Canadian consumer.


AVAILABILITY OF INSPECTOR'S REPORTS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Fisheries has just acknowledged that they have to tighten up those regulations, can he tell us how consumers will be able to monitor the food inspection system so that they will have a way of knowing that their health and safety are being protected? At this time consumers cannot get the reports of the federal food inspectors. The only reports we are able to get are those from U.S. inspectors who do annual tests of Canadian plants anf file the information through the information laws in the United States.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will recall that when I was answering questions of a similar nature some time ago, I mentioned the food inspection services with respect to the work of the Ministerial Task Force on Program Review. At that time I mentioned an improved and centralized food inspection service that will eliminate the overlap and duplica-
Oral Questions
tion of four Departments of Government. 1 am happy to inform Hon. Members that that work is progressing very well and is very close to completion. It will see vast improvements in the application of a regiment of regulations that will insist upon the highest standards of health and safety for all consumers in Canada.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I am glad to see him back in good health.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Knowing the Minister, I am afraid he has retained his obsession with dumping de Havilland at any price. Having followed the debate, as I am sure he did, has the Minister watched the public interest in the matter? Is he now prepared to take some of the 90 days that he negotiated within which this deal can be closed to tell Canadians what the real deal is all about, in order to settle the confusion and uncertainty and fill in the blanks before the deal closes?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the Hon. Member for York Centre for his kind personal remarks and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all Hon. Members who sent such kind good wishes to me while I was in the hospital and afterward. It was very much appreciated.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I have been following the discussions. In fact, I have been both disappointed and almost alarmed in many ways that a deal, which I think is essentially a good deal, should be given a negative side and that misinformation is being circulated concerning it.


John Napier Turner: There is no information; that is the problem.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am sure that the Hon. Member, and other Hon. Members, will probably be pleased to hear that I certainly have no objection, and neither do my colleagues, including the President of the Treasury Board, to this matter being considered at the appropriate time by a committee of this House, at which time the information, other than that which may have some commercial sensitivity, can be put before a committee for full discussion.
Hon. Members will also be interested to know that this can be done prior to the closing of the deal. It turns out that while we are anxious to close this deal by the end of the month, in order to save about $60 million which the Crown may have to provide to de Havilland in additional financing, partly for procedural reasons and partly because Boeing has no objec-

December 19, 1985
Oral Questions
tion, the closing can be postponed until some time later in January. I would be pleased to meet with a committee of this House, if it is so desired, to give the type of information which I am sure the Hon. Member would like to have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Now what are you going to do?


Mr. Deans:: Claim a victory. What do you think?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in light of that, I am really glad to see the Minister back. This change in the Government's attitude with respect to informing Parliament and the Canadian people about the deal is very welcome. I am glad that we will be given this opportunity.


REVIEW BY INVESTMENT CANADA
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 now wish to ask the Minister about the review by Investment Canada. He is bound to accept advice on the question from the Investment Canada agency which has been established by legislation introduced by the Government. Has he received the advice yet from Investment Canada? Will he inform Members of the House what that advice is when he does receive it?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have been in touch with officials of Investment Canada. I have to tell the Hon. Member that, to date, they have not been in a position to advise me on this deal. However, I can certainly assure the hon. gentleman that I do not see any particular reason Investment Canada would have to rule prior to the committee hearing to which I have referred. At that time, undoubtedly, there will be ample opportunity for people to make comments, if they see fit, with respect to this transaction.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE HEARINGS IN JANUARY
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. We have made more progress in terms of parliamentary scrutiny on the de Havil-land deal in the one-half hour since the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has returned than in the 11 days we spent questioning the President of the Treasury Board.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Let's hear it for Sine!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Since the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has indicated that we can have committee scrutiny of the de Havilland deal before it is concluded, will the Government now undertake to permit a committee, and give it a mandate, to look at the deal early in January, and possibly before the House returns, so that we will have scrutiny of the deal by Parliament before it is concluded?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just responded to that question. I see no inconsistency with his willingness to inform a committee of the House and the statements which have been made by the President of the Treasury Board. He now tells us that the closing may well be delayed until the end of January. Assuming our return here on January 13, there is that period of time between January 13 and the end of January to hold committee hearings. I can see no reason why those cannot be arranged through the usual machinery of Parliament.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: This is the Christmas spirit!


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT TO COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it looks as though the spirit of Christmas cheer may well be with us in the House. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his comments. However, I would now like to be a bit more specific.
The Deputy Prime Minister also indicates that he sees no reason why this cannot be arranged before the deal is concluded. Could we have a commitment given here in the House today that a committee of the House of Commons will, in fact, examine the Boeing purchase of de Havilland before the deal is made final? Will the Minister assure us that we will have an opportunity to question the various parties involved and look at the documents before the deal is made final?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if that is the wish of the House, and if the Hon. Member would like me to sign today's "blues" for him, I would be happy to do that. In the meantime the usual process would be for the House Leaders to discuss those arrangements, as is customary in making arrangements for that type of committee sitting.


Ian Deans: What do you think we have been doing for the last three days?


John Edward Broadbent: Why didn't you tell Ray about that today?


Erik Nielsen: The Leader of the New Democratic Party asks me why I did not tell my House Leader. I am asking my House Leader now to get together with the other House Leaders, as he has been all along in this whole scenario, to make those appropriate arrangements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 19, 1985


INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I also want to welcome him back to the House, and I hope he will be as nice to me as he was to my hon. colleague. Mr. Minister, you are aware that the Montreal East Survival Committee, the Official Opposition and the Quebec National Assembly are asking your Government to stop the transaction between Gulf and Ultramar.
Could the Minister inform the House today whether a decision was made by Cabinet this morning to advise the employees that you intend to stop the transaction between Gulf and Ultramar and allow Gaz metropolitain to buy the Montreal East refinery? Are you ready to announce that decision to the House now?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, he is quite correct. This is a matter which is before Investment Canada. Investment Canada is advising me. It has certain additional information which it would like to have confirmed or otherwise before it gives me final advice. As of this moment, I have not been put in a position to approve or disapprove the proposed purchase by Ultramar.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware that a decision must be made promptly. Speed is of the essence. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has recommended that the transaction be stopped, for the sake of Quebec consumers. Could the Minister give the House the assurance that his decision will be made before tomorrow, or Monday at the latest?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can give the Hon. Member the assurance that we intend to arrive at a decision at the earliest possible moment. I doubt if it will be this week. Hopefully, it will be early next week.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard how the Government has seen the
Oral Questions
wisdom of reregulating the food inspection system in the country. I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question regarding the impact of deregulation on aviation safety.
I wish to ask the Minister if he is he aware that the safety record in terms of injury and damages with respect to U.S. charter aircraft is nine times worse than that with respect to flights of scheduled airlines. American industry analysts are saying that travellers would be wise to choose their charter airlines carefully. Does the Minister accept this concept of buyer beware?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since 1979 aviation safety in this country has improved progressively, thanks to the steps which we took when we were in government in 1979.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I refer to the Dubin Inquiry and the legislation which flowed therefrom. As a matter of fact 1985 will probably go down as one of the best years in aviation history for Canada in terms of fewer accidents and fatalities. 1 think that is recognition of the fact that Canada's safety standards are high, will remain high, and will be enhanced wherever necessary.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, in light of what the Minister has just said, and since the inspection staff he has available to him is only able to inspect carriers once a year, and then for only about two hours, just in terms of performing a paper inspection, how can he say to the House that in a deregulated environment we will not have some problems? How can he say that to us?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is something in excess of 600 people involved in the inspection service for all elements of the inspection. If we need more, we will certainly consider that. But I must tell the Hon. Member that the Auditor General was very critical of some of the things Transport Canada was doing with respect to air traffic control towers and services of that nature. Perhaps that report will have to be looked at with some degree of objectivity.
However, I want to assure the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members of this House, that this Government has no intention of degrading safety. It is clearly stated in the Freedom to Move paper. The Standing Committee clearly recognized that. And wherever necessary, as we have done in the past, we will be taking measures to enhance and secure safety for the travelling public at all costs.

December 19, 1985
Oral Questions YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO DEAL WITH SENTENCING


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is aware that because of the Young Offenders Act, a 14 year old, who was convicted in Toronto yesterday of the first degree murder of three people, faces a maximum sentence of only three years imprisonment, one year for each of the murders. Will the Solicitor General assure the people of Canada that the changes he is contemplating in the Young Offenders Act will deal to their satisfaction with this problem? And can he tell us when those changes will be placed before Parliament?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can indicate to the Hon. Member that I hope to place before Parliament legislation to amend the Young Offenders Act in the new year. I would like to have it passed prior to the summer recess, if at all possible. The next stage will be to meet with the provincial Attorneys General and Solicitors General in February to discuss this issue.
I might indicate that there is a provision in the Young Offenders Act for transfer to adult court with the consent of the court in cases where it is deemed to be appropriate. My understanding is that, in this particular case, leave to transfer was not sought.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-STATEMENT MADE BY U S. NEGOTIATOR
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday, in a meeting with the U.S. trade representative, it was stated that we would be shooting ourselves in the foot unless we agreed to put all matters of economic consequence between the two countries on the bargaining table. It really appears that the U.S. is aiming a gun at another part of the Canadian anatomy, not at our feet. Has the Minister agreed to those conditions which were put forward by the U.S. trade representative? Are we now agreeing that matters such as the cultural industry, the auto pact, financial services, and agriculture will now be on the negotiating table contrary to all of the assurances given in the past to the provinces, to private industry groups, and to this Parliament?


Hon. Janies Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: 1
am pleased to be able to advise the Hon. Member that I have not agreed in any way whatsoever to any conditions, as he put them, which were set forth by Mr. Yeutter yesterday. Let me say that it is quite normal, prior to the commencement of any negotiations, for parties to put their positions forward. That is their privilege. Mr. Yeutter did that yesterday. I would like to remind the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members of this House, that our Prime Minister did so in Chicago and I did so
in New York, and our position quite emphatically is that our cultural sovereignty and identity-


John Napier Turner: Tell us right here.


James Francis Kelleher: -are not on the table in these discussions.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the new willingness to be forthcoming established by the Minister responsible for DRIE today, perhaps the Minister for International Trade might be prepared to make the statement in the House of Commons, not in New York or Chicago, on what the position of the Government might be.


AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade specifically about the statement made by the Secretary of State in a letter written to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers that he sees no reason why the auto pact should be subject to negotiation. Specifically, did the Government now agree that the auto pact will be on the negotiating table as demanded by the U.S. trade representative?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would again, if I may, remind the Hon. Member that not only have I made my statement in New York but I made the same statement here in the House on many
occasions.


Mr.   de Corneille@: Answer the question.


An Hon. Member:: Lloyd either doesn't listen or doesn't understand.


An Hon. Member:: Lloyd was never there.


James Francis Kelleher: Perhaps the hon. gentleman was not here on that particular occasion. I can state that we have no intention at this time of putting the auto pact on the table, nor have we been asked to do so. But if the Americans wish to put it on the table, as the Secretary of State has set out in the past, there are two sides to a table and they are entitled to discuss it if they so desire.


UNITED STATES' POSITION ON AUTO PACT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The reason we are so concerned about this set of demands is that the auto industry, with its safeguards for Canadians, gives us 130,000 jobs. When the question was raised by Mr. Yeutter yesterday, did the Minister turn to him and put it quite bluntly that in this case the U.S. was out of luck and the auto pact is not up for grabs in these trade negotiations?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can reply by reading to the Hon.
December 19, 1985

Member just exactly what Mr. Yeutter said yesterday: "From my viewpoint, everything is on the table but that should not be interpreted as meaning that the auto pact would be changed in any way. We should not draw any conclusions as to whether the pact will be changed at all. It seems to be working well".


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is not the question. We are trying to get a measure of this man's capacity as a negotiator.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: When Mr. Yeutter made his comments, did the Minister also add that not just himself, but the Minister of State for External Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister had already ruled that out? Did the Minister take it off the table as he should have, given those comments in the House of Commons?


Mr. Fulton:: Come on, fence post.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I said previously on many, many occasions, we are not in the process of taking particular subjects off the table at this time. As I explained earlier, Mr. Yeutter is entitled to put forward the position of his country, just as we have put forward the position of our country on many occasions.


INSURANCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I gather the Minister is familiar with the plight of an insurance company called United Canada which happens to insure 238 of the major trucking companies in Canada which represent 25 per cent of the trucking industry or approximately 23,000 jobs. During the last month United Canada has been in a deficit position and effectively 238 trucking companies on the road have been technically uninsured. Tomorrow the Superintendent of Insurance will close down that company and I want to know what action the Minister has in mind.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to explain to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that both the Minister of Transport and myself have been in constant touch with the Truckers' Association and with the Province of Ontario.


Mr. Foster:: There goes another $1 billion.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We do recognize the seriousness of this situation and have been working with the industry toward a solution. Even as we speak, the industry is discussing a private sector solution and when I have the complete facts on that I will be happy to inform the House.
OraI Questions


IMPACT ON TRUCKING INDUSTRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the company goes under tomorrow-it has been in deficit for a month and 25 per cent of our entire trucking industry is technically without insurance-it will be too late.
The Canadian Trucking Association has been in touch with us. It said it has been talking to the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Transport for the last four weeks without results. It is unable to find a private solution without some sort of federal guarantee to get it going. Is the Minister going to supply that guarantee?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first of all, some of the truckers have found insurance with other insurance companies so I do not want the Hon. Member to over emphasize the problem, although I recognize it is serious. The truckers themselves know of my concern. However, at the moment negotiations are going on and I would not be prepared to prejudge their conclusion.


NEED FOR ACTION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to impress upon the Minister that she has no more time. Only 30 of 238 companies have managed to find other insurance and tomorrow some 25 per cent of the industry on the road will be uninsured. She has no more time and the Canadian Trucking Association takes this very, very seriously indeed.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not actually hear a question, but let me just say that the Trucking Association is very well aware of the concern and assistance this Government has given.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and concerns small business financing. Many small businesses capable of making profits and competing in the market-place cannot survive simply because of cash flow problems as a result of the past recession. Can the Minister tell the House if reform of the corporate income tax now being considered will be aimed directly at alleviating this most serious problem for small business?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the interest of the Hon. Member in both the problems and opportunities of small business is well known to all Members. I appreciate his question. He is aware, 1 am sure, that in the May Budget we released a paper on corporate tax reform which touches on some of the concerns he raises. The tax reform is directed at reducing some of the tax incentives but at

December 19, 1985
Ora! Questions
the same time reducing tax rates if corporate tax reform is followed, and that should result in some increase in cash flow for small businesses.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I hope the spirit of Christmas is still flowing in the Minister's heart.


Mr. Nystrom:: Optimist.


John R. Rodriguez: Some time ago the Government announced it was going to change the Unemployment Insurance Act so that pension income would be considered earned income as of January 1, 1986. I want to give the Minister a chance to repent before it is too late. Does the Government intend to proceed with that most barbaric regulation?


John Edward Broadbent: Don't be barbaric, Flora.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this question has been asked on a number of occasions. I provided the answer on a continuous basis.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Back to church.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That change to the regulations was first proposed on November 4, 1984. Implementation was delayed for a year in order to give employees and employers time to adjust to the change. As we announced at that time, it will come into effect January 1, 1986.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Scrooge.


FORGET COMMISSION STUDY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has told this House that she has referred this matter to the Forget Commission. Does she think it is fair or sensible to go ahead with the change on January 1, 1986, when the Forget Commission could very well study the matter and make recommendations? The Minister could then move on the matter. Does she not think she is being rather precipitate in this action?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, indeed I expect the Forget Commission will study this change as it is studying all aspects of the Unemployment Insurance Program.


John R. Rodriguez: Then why make the change now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This one is no different. This was proposed much earlier than the establishment of the Forget Commission and will go into effect as we have indicated.
I will say, however, that there are many other issues in this field which have to be addressed, other adjustments which have to be made, as for instance the announcement made in Sudbury yesterday when the Government of Canada joined with the Government of Ontario and the private sector to provide some $5 million to help the people in the Sudbury area to adjust to changes in the labour force.


PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I am very happy to see him back, because his Government is in a state of utter confusion, and this is particularly true in the case of the petrochemical industry. My question to the Minister is as follows: Considering that his colleague at Energy, Mines and Resources claims that Quebec has a surplus production capacity, that the Director of Combines and Investigations is claiming there is a shortfall and that today, Quebec workers are caught in the crossfire, I want to ask the Minister who is telling the truth? What is the real situation in Quebec? Is there a surplus capacity or is there a shortfall, according to his information?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to receive the good wishes of the Hon. Member but I must inform him that I am no Solomon.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Sure you are, Sine.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: You used to be Solomon.


Mr. McLean:: Where did this modesty come from, Sine?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I cannot determine, as he says, who is telling the truth when there appears to be two conflicting statements. However, I can tell the Hon. Member that we noted the different conclusions referred to and 1 have asked our DR IE people to give me an explanation of why the two conclusions were arrived at.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRESSURE EXERTED TO PREVENT NEW COMPANY FROM ENTERING QUEBEC MARKET
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister has decided to postpone announcing his decision in the case of Ultramar and Gulf, contrary to what was promised
December 19, 1985

by the Secretary of State, who said it would be announced tomorrow. Now, considering recent events, including the stated intention of Gaz metropolitain to get into the petroleum industry, could the Minister confirm to the House that he has had endless calls from the Petroleum Club and, more specifically, that there have been strong pressures on the part of the multinationals to stop a new oil company from entering the market in Quebec?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to reassure the Hon. Member that no pressures of the nature he has referred to have been brought to bear on me. He must bear in mind that the Gaz metropolitain offer he referred to was never put in a final written form. It also had certain conditions and it was $40 million or more less than the Ultramar offer.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will be aware that there has been a great deal of confusion regarding the level of beef and veal imports into Canada over the past few years, particularly highly subsidized imports from the European Economic Community. Can the Minister advise the House what those levels were for 1985 and what our Government will be doing to protect our valuable beef industry in 1986?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that question because it gives me another opportunity to demonstrate this Government's continuing support for the agriculture industry and, more specifically, the cattle industry. The Minister of International Trade and I announced today that we are going to invoke the Meat Import Act in 1986 in the same way we did 12 months ago for the year 1985. The heavily subsidized EEC beef which came into this country in 1984 amounted to some 50 million pounds. We invoked the Act, negotiated levels, and reduced that to 23 million pounds. That is a real measure of support for the Canadian cattle industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to say to the Minister that this may continue on statements.


Some Hon. Members:: More!


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
1986 SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and
Petitions
Immigration who today announced her summer employment program for youth. Bearing in mind that $205 million was spent in 1985 on youth employment, how does the Minister have the gall to claim that this has been increased to $210 million in 1986 when $30 million is being used to subsidize the census without any guarantee of youth employment?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to confirm that some $210 million will be spent during the summer of 1986 on employment for young people across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We estimate, Sir, that that will involve some 118,000 young people during the summer months. I would hate to think that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville would try to deny young people the opportunity of taking part in the census which is a very important socio-economic part of the operations of government and, indeed, the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDING INQUIRY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am as interested in summer employment and the census as is anyone else. However, I do not understand, and I would like to know, how the Minister can stand in her place and defend a scam through which money is taken away from the Canadian Jobs Strategy and transferred to the census without creating a single new job or a single new training place. Those are the facts.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, last year when the Government announced Challenge '85 the Hon. Member was very critical. 1 must tell you, Sir, that despite that criticism Challenge '85 was a tremendous success. It produced over 101,000 jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if Challenge '85 was that kind of a success without the co-operation of the Hon. Member, just think how successful Challenge '86 will be with his co-operation, which I invite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of eight, presented by Hon.

December 19, 1985
Business of the House
Members on Wednesday, December 18, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), the Hon. Member for Rich-mond-Wolfe Mr. Tardif), and the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), and the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate to ask the customary question about the business of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that the best way to respond at this time, without being in the least frivolous, is to say with all sincerity that we are now in the process of having meetings to see whether an agenda can be reached with respect to what will transpire between now and tomorrow afternoon. It is my hope that those meetings will be fruitful. I think 1 should say no more at this time other than that I intend to carry on the discussions as long as there is a possibility of coming to an agreement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader a question which does not relate to anything that we are discussing. In the House yesterday the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), in response to a question about whether there could be a parliamentary review of the de Havilland-Boeing matter before the deal is closed, said:
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last of the three questions is no. I have made that very clear before. The answer is absolutely no.
The Minister said that and, understandably, he is not in the House today. Since the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) has indicated quite the contrary, could the Government House Leader tell us under what order of reference the committee hearings which have been promised by the Government can take place since, as far as I know, there are no Estimates before any of the committees which would provide a vehicle. If I am correct in this, will he immediately table a mutually satisfactory motion referring the matter of Boeing and de Havilland to the Committee?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated behind the curtains to the Hon. Member, my distinguished colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens),
indicated just after I had my first meeting with the Opposition House Leader today that the matter would not finally be closed until later in January. This gave us a new dimension in terms of the available time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sure it did.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) was, of course, only talking in terms of whether the House would have a veto power prior to the closing of the deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: This is revisionist thinking.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This Party has always been quite prepared to use parliamentary vehicles and committees to their fullest extent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is another demonstration of that willingness. I suggest to the Hon. Member and to the House Leader of the New Democratic Party that we will make arrangements that are mutually satisfactory to ensure that a full hearing will be held at a time convenient to the Opposition and to my distinguished colleague.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Sixteenth Report of the Striking Committee.


PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, on the Canadian Budgetary Process, to which the Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 70 (16), requests a comprehensive response.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee
December 19, 1985

on Labour, Employment and Immigration concerning the refugee claimant backlog. In accordance with Standing Order 70(16) I request that the Government make a comprehensive response to the sixth report.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PARLIAMENTARY LOBBYISTS
Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, a discussion document entitled: "Lobbyists and Registration of Paid Lobbyists".


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members will recall, I promised that before the end of the current year I would report back to the House and to the Canadian people on the results of the investigations into the so-called "blob" in the St. Clair River. Before doing so, Sir, allow me to apologize to the official spokespersons of the opposition Parties. It simply was not technically possible for me to get a copy of my notes for these remarks to them beforehand.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: We are getting used to this.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Although the scientific investigation is not yet complete, I would like to make a preliminary report on the situation in the St. Clair River. It should reassure-


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but it is necessary in this sense. This procedure of not giving the spokespersons for members of the Opposition adequate time is becoming contagious among Ministers of the Government. I wonder whether the Minister would give our representative and that of the NDP some time to look at copies of the statement by postponing it until later this afternoon or until tomorrow. We have had not time to look at this.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. I think that in the interest of informed exchange on ministerial statements it would be far, far better if at least a short period of time were permitted for opposition spokesmen to review the material to be read.
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Speaker:: I am required, of course, to indicate that this is not technically a point of order but a representation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It's a point of politeness.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I have apologized to the Opposition.


John R. Rodriguez: That's not good enough.


Mr. Keeper:: That is not good enough. Resign.


Thomas Michael McMillan: What I am giving to the House is the most-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Minister why he cannot make this statement tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If he was not planning to be in the House he should give the House priority and be here tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) rising on a point of order?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask why, under the circumstances, the Minister cannot make his statement tomorrow. If he does not plan to be in the House tomorrow, why can he not give the House priority, show some respect to Parliament, be here, make the statement tomorrow-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please! I did indicate that these are not points of order but representations. I cannot, therefore, allow a point of order that is not a point of order to continue to be presented. I think Hon. Members know that.


An Hon. Member:: What arrogance.


Mr. Thacker:: Go downstairs then. If you don't want it in the House we will go downstairs to the press room.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister of the Environment.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to members of the Opposition who rose on this point of order, they can hardly argue that members of the Government have been discourteous, especially when the Liberal Party, when in gov-erment, made a practice of not even making statements in the House.


John Napier Turner: You don't know what you're talking about.


Mr. McDermid:: You weren't even here, Turner. How do
you know?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

December 19, 1985
Statements by Ministers


John Napier Turner: We are not going to take that. We have had enough of you, Ray.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Stewart:: Oh, Johnny.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Napier Turner: We won't take any of this nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Rossi:: One language Stewart.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), order. The Hon. Minister may resume his statement but 1 caution him that a point of order which I have ruled out of order should not be continued or commented on.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, although the scientific investigation is not yet complete-


Cyril Keeper: Arrogant.


Thomas Michael McMillan: -I would like to make a preliminary report on the situation in the St. Clair River based on the most up-to-date information as of 3.10 this afternoon. It should reassure both the Canadian public and Members of the House that the federal Department of the Environment is moving, in co-operation with the Opposition and the Government of Ontario, on all fronts to remove and identify the source of the tarry substance that is disfiguring the river and causing concern about the quality of the drinking water of thousands of Canadians.
I should explain that this statement is an interim one only, because the situation has proved to be more complex than the investigative team originally thought. Moreover, ongoing clean-up of the river has been complicated by bad weather. Since the House will not be meeting until after the New Year, as of tomorrow, I thought that nevertheless it would be useful to report on the findings to date.
To put the matter into context, let me briefly review the sequence of events in the St. Clair River. Certain tarry substances have been noted in the river since the mid-1970s. Continuous sampling has taken place, but it was not until two years ago that more sophisticated analytical methods were developed for this type of natural phenomenon. In 1984, the Great Lakes Institute, acting on behalf of both the federal Department of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, conducted a survey to identify "hot spots" in the St. Clair River. In August, 1984, a sample of the tarry substance was submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment for analysis. In mid-August of this year, the tests were completed and, based on the results, additional sampling was authorized.
Between August 13 and August 16 of this Year, Dow Chemical situated on the river, spilled perchloroethylene, of which all but 2,500 gallons was recaptured. My first act, after
my appointment as Minister of the Environment on August 19, was to instruct department officials to offer full scientific and technical advice to their Ontario colleagues in order to clean up the remainder of the spill.
By November 1, information from officials of the Department of the Environment made it clear to me that the problem was much more complex and potentially more serious than just the spill itself. That same day I set up a team of scientists whose only task since then has been to identify all the components of the so-called blob and to identify other pollution problems in the St. Clair River, locate their origins and begin working on solutions to them. That analytical team, I might say, includes Canada's most distinguished scientists in every relevant field-organic chemistry, hydro-dynamics, hydrogeology, pollution enginering, diving and underwater photography to mention just a few. There are more than 50 scientists in all working literally seven days a week on the St. Clair River problem. Moreover, because our American neighbours have a direct stake in the purity of the St. Clair River, I have kept Lee Thomas, Director of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, fully informed, and his scientists are giving my Department their complete co-operation.
In that first week of November, the CSS Advent, Environment Canada's scientific research vessel, was dispatched to the St. Clair River. Underwater photography gave us the first clear picture of the extent of the pollution there. Divers immediately began collecting samples from the riverbed and these have now been analysed in the laboratories of the National Water Research Institute. The scientific team has completed more than 2,000 analyses for a full range of organic pollutants.
On the basis of those analyses, the scientific team, established on November 1, is now integrating and interpreting data in order to provide a complete and coherent picture of the St. Clair River. By January 20, I expect to have their report and be able to release it to the House, and through the House, to the Canadian public.
On the basis of the work done to date, we do know that the so-called blob comprises extremely high concentrations of perchloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride. The two chemicals are used as dry-cleaning solvents and, in fact, it is the very properties that render them useful in dry-cleaning that make them obnoxious in drinking water. In this case, they have absorbed other contaminants throughout the St. Clair River into themselves and of course compounded the magnitude of the tarry-like substance that is now being vacuumed.
Let me turn now to private sector involvement in the St. Clair problem and the context in which it exists.
First, every Member of the House, and in fact every person in the country, has to recognize that we live in a chemical society. Today there are more than 60,000 chemicals being used in the world's trade and commerce, and more than 1,000 new compounds are being introduced annually. Each year, companies in North America produce more than a ton of chemicals for each man, woman and child living on the entire continent.
December 19, 1985

In Canada, economic and historical forces have combined to create a chemical valley along the St. Clair River and it includes Dow Chemical Canada Limited. We know that a key to the current problem is a spill of perchloroethylene by Dow between August 13 and August 16, 1985. Moreover, for many years, Dow disposed of chemical waste by placing them in abandoned salt caverns that lie below the riverbed. Other companies injected their wastes into the shallower Detroit Formation. 1 should stress that the companies' waste disposal methods were consistent with what was understood at the time to be safe.
Dow has been vacuuming the St. Clair River since concern first focused on the tarry material and is continuing to do so to this day. An area approximately 30 metres square is being cleaned. It has been divided into a grid comprising 66 squares and, as of noon today, 52 of them, or 80 per cent in all, have been cleaned. The material being vacuumed is being stored in a holding pond on Dow's property.
My Department's scientific team posits that three possible factors have contributed to pollution problems in the St. Clair River. First, over the years there have "been spills from Dow and from other companies. Second, there is continuous discharge from the property of various companies directly into the river itself. Third, there is a continuous leakage, not from direct sources, that is to say from the companies themselves directly into the river, but from past underground waste disposal practices.
In my few remaining remarks I will address the third theory, a theory which has received wide attention. It holds that industrial wastes injected into the salt caverns at a depth of 600 metres have seeped through crevices up into the river bed. That particular doomsday scenario, my experts tell me, is an extremely unlikely possibility. They are, therefore, concentrating their efforts elsewhere. The question of seepage from the Detroit Formation has not been answered, either positively or negatively, to date. There is no absolute certainty yet, but there is increasing evidence that the dominant cause of the problem is Dow's recent spill, combined with a degree of continuing seepage from various sources, plus past environmental accidents.
I can assure Members of the House, in conclusion, that my Department is taking strong measures to counter pollution of the kind that has concerned us in the St. Clair River. However, the steps now being formulated for action in 1986 will go far beyond the one situation, the St. Clair River, however serious.
First, my Department is drawing up plans to control chemicals from the cradle to the grave and even before, using birth control on some new chemicals, if you will. This action will take the form of tough screening to ensure that only safe compounds and safe uses are permitted.
Second, the Department has already begun a thorough review of all existing environmental legislation, in particular the Environmental Contaminants Act, with an eye to overhauling and strengthening the entire range of laws and regulations.
Statements by Ministers
This process will be completed in co-operation with the other federal and provincial Departments which share jurisdiction for pollution control.
Third, in connection with the aforementioned review, we are laying the groundwork for a major rationalization of environmental law within federal jurisdiction.
Finally, there is a need to be concerned, not only with pollutants, but also with the resources they damage. In that regard my Department is drawing up plans for a Canada-wide water policy, a need which was clearly enunciated in the recently released Pearse Report.
Despite these bold measures, no Government, no company, no individual can be complacent about the events which have occurred in the St. Clair River. However, 1 think that these events have been highly instructive for all Canadians concerned about environmental protection. The St. Clair is an index of the degree to which we have become a chemical society. What is more, the state of the river is an indictment of our society for its carelessness and shortsightedness. If we are committed to a new era of chemical care and control-and 1 can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is unequivocally committed to that era and to bringing it about-the country must do an awful lot more than it has done to cope with what I have called the chemical society. If we take the actions required, the St. Clair River will be seen in future years to have been a turning point-yes, a watershed, quite literally-in the country's history.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, certainly it is not very helpful to receive a copy of the Minister's statement five minutes after he has started reading his text. It shows vacillation, it shows indecision until the last minute, and perhaps it shows a sloppy and disorganized office which cannot come up with a text in time for the Opposition to see it, even at the beginning of the Minister's statement. That process leaves very much to be desired, and my Leader has already made an intervention to that effect. It does not seem to be an isolated case. It seems to be an alarming and increasing pattern on the part of the so-called Progressive Conservative Government.
However, what disturbs me in the approach of the Minister is the fact that he made a high-sounding declaration about a chemical society and the St. Clair River perhaps being a turning point in the treatment of the situation in those waters. He did not address the broader and basic questions which flow from the cuts which he and his Government allowed in the research of toxic chemicals at a time when we badly need them. I am referring to the badly needed scientific knowledge, as corroborated two weeks ago by the Royal Society of Canada in its study, about the effect of toxic chemicals on human health and the cancellation of the centre which was announced in November, 1984 by the Conservative Government.
In addition to that, I refer to the cancellation of the $2.5 million which the Department of the Environment usually and regularly sought from the Treasury Board every year before

December 19, 1985
Statements by Ministers
April 1, in order to intensify and conduct research on the leaking of toxic chemical dump sites into the Niagara River. Of course I am referring, in larger terms, to the broad $70 million cut in the National Research Council which includes matters related to chemicals and substances affecting human health.
In his statement the Minister focused upon the St. Clair River, but he failed to address the broader question of our international obligations to the Americans under the Great Lakes Water Agreement. That is a very serious flaw in his presentation today. We have an obligation under that agreement to the Amercains. We have an obligation to the communities downstream to Sarnia and Windsor and to our native people on Walpole Island. We have an obligation to deliver on the Canadian side of the river because we want the Americans to respect their obligations along the Niagara River where millions of Americans and Canadians are affected by a similar situation. It is only that the chemicals are different.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: It is the linkage, the overview and the understanding of the totality of the picture in the Minister's statement today that dismay and shock me. The Minister arrived today a few minutes after three o'clock, apologized and expected to be treated in a kind manner both on substance as well as on process. That, Mr. Speaker, we cannot do for him.
Second, there has been a failure on the part of the Minister to recognize that the problem is not that of having a chemical society. We can have a chemical society with the number of chemical products that are produced and still have a clean society. The Minister has not addressed that point, the major point which preoccupies everyone in the country. Responsible companies and institutions can produce chemical products and still ensure that our water and air remain clean.
In his statement, the Minister failed to address the number of incentives that already exist in the Income Tax Act which favour the corporations operating along the St. Clair River. He has not indicated whether or not he has incentives in mind for those same corporations, incentives which would encourage them to introduce along the St. Clair River the necessary works that will permit the companies to clean up their acts at an accelerated pace.
Everyone knows that there are some companies along the St. Clair River which, in their daily operations, do discharge into the St. Clair River without sewer separation. This is a situation that must be remedied. Therefore, it is necessary to focus on the instruments the Government of Canada has in the Income Tax Act to accelerate the initiatives of companies toward cleaning up their daily operations now. If the facilities that exist in the Income Tax Act are not adequate for this purpose, perhaps the Minister could indicate which incentives he1 would like to adopt in order for the, companies to separate the sewage, treat the discharges so that they will not be released into the river until they are safe and ensure that the
monitoring equipment is up to date and not just mechanical as is the case with some of these corporations.
As the Minister said, the report is incomplete and I agree with that. It is a report that is based on temporary information. It does not really go to the cause of the problem. It simply deals with an assessment of the situation and its manifestations about which we know already. We have here a dangerous situation. Dow Chemical alone experienced some 11 spills between January and August of this year. Evidently, it is a company that has had certain difficulties and certain operating shortcomings that must be addressed.
The Minister has not addressed the shortcomings in the day-to-day operations of the companies that are causing the problem, willingly or unwillingly. In true Tory fashion, he has dealt with the symptoms and not with the root of the problem. That is what is distressing about his statement. He has simply told us to accept the fact that we have a chemical society and that we are now examining this particular river. He said in beautiful words that he was unequivocally committed to a new era but how are we going to arrive at a new era? That is what we want to know. I would have hoped that the Minister would have shown some leadership in coming to the House today before Christmas to indicate to us the road that he intends to travel beyond expressions of good intentions. That is not good enough.
We would like to express our dismay with the handling of this matter so far and also with another matter. At this time, two months have gone by since the Americans have submitted to the Government of Canada a plan regarding another river but one which is linked with this one because of our international obligations. The plan involves how to deal with the leaching along the Niagara River, a plan to which the Minister has not yet responded. The Government has not said a word about it. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Point of order, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek your guidance on the events which have just occurred. I want
Statements by Ministers
first to raise with you, Sir, whether you might consider and perhaps rule later on a question I want to place before you, that being that it was my understanding and has been ever since my entry into the House of Commons that it was necessary for a motion to be before the House in order that a motion to adjourn could be considered. 1 have attempted personally, in times past, to move adjournment during Routine Proceedings and I have had that adjournment motion ruled out of order inasmuch as there was no motion before the House. 1 would very much appreciate if at some time in the future you might reflect upon that and perhaps give guidance to the House as to the occasions during which such a motion might be acceptable.
The second point I want to raise for your consideration is this. Upon making such a motion to adjourn it must be assumed by the mover that the question could be decided in the affirmative. Thus the motion today had the potential of preventing my colleague from commenting on the statement of the Minister. That is most unusual behaviour. I can think of no occasion in this House of Commons-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: 1 can think of no occasion in this House of Commons where such a display of bad manners and lack of co-operation has ever been accepted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: We knew he needed time to prepare, Ian.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member raises two points, one of which is clearly not a point of order. The other one has caused me, I can tell the Hon. Member, some difficulty. He may have seen me, when I had a sense of what might be coming, consulting book after book after book. Let my try to say in the best way I know that it would give the Chair very useful quidance if the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization were to deal with this question. 1 think that is all 1 should say on that matter.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is rising to respond to the Minister's statement?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with either the question of lateness of receipt of the official statement or with the points raised by my House Leader concerning the performance of the Liberal Party. Let me start with the conclusion of the Minister's statement where he says, I think eloquently, that the state of the St. Clair River is an indictment of our society for its carelessness and short-sightedness. That is absolutely true. That is the touchstone from which we should start. That is the basis on which we should proceed. If we take the situation in front of us, one which is summed up by the fact that at least 12 of the major pollutants which are part of the blob in the St. Clair River are also part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency priority pollutants, we have a small measure of just why that Minister and his Government have said that we face an awesome situation with respect to the cleanup of that river.

December 19, 1985
Statements by Ministers
I want to pay tribute to a young man who came into my constituency office late in August of this year and said to me: "This may cost me my job but it's something 1 think you should know about". That was the first public acknowledgement, outside of the environs of the scientific community and members of Ministries of the Environment, that a classic, absolutely catastrophic environmental problem was in front of us as a society. I want to pay tribute, and I hope the House will also, to the courage of that young man. He is not part of any of these official agencies. He knew his job could be at risk because he was prepared to let the rest of society know that these high concentrations of cancer-causing dioxin had been discovered in the source of drinking water for my community and the communities of a great many other people in this country.
This is a deeply serious problem as I said when I first raised this question with the Minister at the beginning of our dealings with the problem. It is a chronic problem which we have known about since 1979 and 1980. At that time studies by the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario identified benzines and chlorethylenes within the St. Clair River, all of which have cancer-causing properties. Yet, at that stage nothing was done. The nature of the problem is demonstrated by the fact that between 1972 and 1984, 275 spills took place in the chemical valley. That is a totally irresponsible, totally unacceptable, and totally abhorrent level of consistent, chronic pollution which we should have acted on years ago.
This problem has not only affected the St. Clair River. Studies have been done by the Great Lakes Research Institute which indicate through their analysis of octochlorostyrene that throughout much of Lake St. Clair, a large, large body of water, there has been a spread of the chemicals coming from the St. Clair River. It is a problem which has been recognized by the Royal Society itself just this past week. Its damning study said that the people of the Great Lakes region face toxic chemical levels far in excess of those in any other part of the country. This is, again, an unacceptable, intolerable, and abominable situation.
What are the solutions to this problem? There has been a myth crated by Dow Chemical that all that is required is a short-term cleanup of this blob from its properties in the St. Clair River. It claims that because of a great spill-which no one denies took place-of laundry cleaning fluid last summer. Yet, Mr. Speaker, this blob and its toxic qualities existed in 1984, before that large laundry cleaning spill took place. Therefore, we are dealing with a problem which is much more deep-rooted than is suggested by Dow's excuses. We have a problem that has its roots, in part, in the lack of government action to give us guidelines on water pollution. Scientists have told us that 36 ou of 37 of the times within this blob do not even have guidelines to give us a direction as to what levels are safe within the waters outside our communities.
Above all, Mr. Speaker, we have a long-run challenge which is recognized by the Minister, although he does little about it
in this statement. The challenge is recognized by the interim report of the scientists who have investigated the issue of a long-run problem of seepage from deep-pressure wells which have already had their effect in the tunnel that goes beneath the river at Sarnia.
We have challenges, Mr. Speaker, but from challenges there are lessons that we can learn. The lesson in this case is to toughen significantly the action that we as a society take against this pollution problem in our waters. This problem does not only affect our drinking water, but, through the food chain, affects our fish life and, through evaporation, affects the rain which falls on the crops on some of the best agricultural lands in the country.
We must respond with urgency. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the vague commitments in this statement, welcome as they are, are not urgent enough. There are no commitments in this statement to ending the self-compliance by the companies in studying pollution. That is crucially required. Self-compliance has proven to be a recipe for irresponsibility on the part of the companies. There is no commitment to put in place urgently a zero discharge process which will stop, rather than reduce, the discharge of these dangerous toxic chemicals into our waterways. There is no commitment to making pollution a criminal matter as should surely be the case after 275 spills. There is no commitment to this ministry spending the money to give us the details we require for the new guidelines which will be able to give our communities a sense of security in their drinking watrs in the future. There is no commitment to reinstate the cuts to agencies such as the Toxicology Research Centre at the University of Guelph.
There is no commitment to restore morale within this Ministry. I do not think the Minister is responsible for that decline in morale, but that his Government is. I say to him with regret that he must take that decline in morale seriously. It must be a matter or urgent concern when some of the best scientists are seeking to leave the Ministry. It must be a point of priority for him to change those conditions of poor morale.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will make a point which has been made across Ontario. We have had far too many years of disaster in the St. Clair River, in the Niagara River, and in other parts of the country. We must have a commitment to probe why those disasters have been permitted to occur. The Environmental Law Society in Ontario has called for a judicial inquiry in the case of the St. Clair crisis. I support that call 100 per cent. Everyone in the House should support that call 100 per cent because we must get to the bottom of a situation that has allowed 275 spills to take place over a 12-year period.
Finally, I want to make a general point. Water pollution is not just a problem for Members of Parliament and Ministers. It is a problem for our communities and one which is killing people in our communities.
Our communities must fight back. They must form their own action groups and their own grass roots citizens' organizations, as has happened in Wallaceburg and in Windsor this
December 19, 1985

weekend, to lead the fight against pollution. These groups must be committed in a non-partisan way to water quality in our country.
1 call on the Minister to display leadership. 1 believe that throughout the country there is a sense of hope that the Minister will take leadership. Above all, I call for urgency, seriousness and citizen involvement. We must stop trying to pretend that these pollution problems should be covered up in order not to give a bad name to our community. We must become serious and act now with urgency.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the opposition House Leaders with respect to the possibility of the House returning to tabling of documents so that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) can table a document. I believe if you were to seek unanimous consent there might be disposition to allow us to return to that item under Routine Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for that suggestion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 47(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages a document laying out measures to ensure the quality of Canadian canned fish.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the House that because of the ministerial statement this day's sitting will be extended by 41 minutes. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 5.41 p.m.


PETITIONS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a large number of petitions which concern family allowances. These petitions ask the Government of Canada to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, these petitions are from residents in the federal ridings of Richelieu, Shefford, Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, Quebec East, Levis, Portneuf, Trois-Rivieres, Frontenac,
Petitions
Saint-Maurice, Champlain, Scarborough North, Scarborough West, Etobicoke Centre and the community of Saint-Thomas, and finally, the City of Toronto.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition I wish to table-

-signed by an number of constituents in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe declaring their support for family allowances and the need to continue these allowances without de-indexing them.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition containing seven pages of names of residents from Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revert the schedule of the ferry service between Borden, Prince Edward Island and Cape Tor-mentine, New Brunswick to the one that was provided for the winter service of 1984-85.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario expressing their concern that the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, contributes to the nuclear arms race and militarism in general. They ask the House not to renew the agreement between Canada and the United States authorizing the joint maintenance of the said test range, bringing to an end all weapons testing at the test range and to undertake to convert it to peaceful purposes.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by Sharon Thomas and Lana Bowey of White Rock. They humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


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


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think everyone is starting to get into the Christmas spirit.
I have the honour of presenting a series of petitions, and I will do as you suggested to the House, which is simply to announce the subject and the ridings, but I would like to name

December 19, 1985
Petitions
the ridings because there are several, and they like to be considered individually instead of being lumped together.
As you know, this concerns the tax credit and family allowances. The petitions are from our friends, a lot of people from the riding of Sherbrooke.
I also have the honour of tabling a petition addressed to the Prime Minister by the riding of Saint-Denis, and one by Mrs. Marthe Frechette, in charge of the Comite culturel of the well-known Cercle des fermieres d'Ahuntsic, making the same request; I have a strong petition from the riding of Chateau-guay on the same topic, namely family allowances and the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has given me the privilege of presenting one of her petitions from the riding of Mount-Royal, for which I thank her, and I know that she herself will have another one later on from my riding. Mr. Speaker, we also have a petition on the same subject from the federal riding of Abitibi.
Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that people as energetic and well-informed as the residents of the riding of Laval should also be very keen on having a petition presented on their behalf and on the same subject. And from the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, I think this is very important, since-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May 1 ask the Hon. Member to be very brief in continuing with his petitions?
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: It is important.


Marcel Prud'homme: 1 do not know how I can be any briefer, I am saying they are on the same subject. Mr. Speaker, since the formula is that the petitioners "humbly call upon the Chair", I would rather not say; "Here is a pile of petitions, that's it". There has to be a limit. If we expect petitioners to declare something humbly, I think it should be done with dignity, and that is what I am doing.
From the riding of Northumberland-Miramichi, a petition along the same lines. From many people of various Toronto ridings, yours included, Mr. Speaker, we have a similar petition. From the riding of Huron-Bruce, from the riding of-


Mr. Speaker:: May I invite the Hon. Member to simply file the rest of his petition with the Table?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present a petition concerning family allowances and the child tax credit. You know, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people in my riding have asked me to present this petition on their behalf. I have several others which I present together, they come from my riding. And then, of course, hundreds of people
from Vancouver Centre have asked me .. . They have a problem and I think they have asked us to look into it. Residents of the Ottawa region-certainly not Ottawa-Vanier, the other Ottawa ridings-did not have an opportunity to tell us about their concerns. People from Halifax have also asked me to present this petition to you, Mr. Speaker.
Naturally, the people of Nickel Belt have grave concerns about family allowances, Mr. Speaker. They have asked me to convey them to you.
My colleague from Sudbury (Mr. Frith) is out of the House for the moment, but he did ask me to present a petition from his constituents who feel exactly the same way and expect you to understand their problem, Mr. Speaker.
Then the people of Prince George who want us to present their petition.


Mr. Speaker:: May I invite the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) to conclude as briefly as possible, please?
[ Translation]


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you, but those people went to the trouble of having the petition signed by their neighbours, they deserve and have the right... I could read the whole formula.
Mr. Speaker, one here from residents of Ontario. A petition which has been circulated, and another one from the region of Sudbury urging you to give every consideration to their request.
Mr. Speaker, I have so many of them, and I know it is an important issue. More people from Sudbury who have asked us . . . Mr. Speaker, just so you will not lose patience-


Mr. Speaker:: May I advise the Hon. Member that of course he knows that simply filing the rest of the petitions with the Table has exactly the same effect?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have ... and I think you have every right to advise the House of the way we should proceed, because I do not understand. Canadians-


An Hon. Member:: -men and women!


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes, Canadian men and women, as my hon. colleague has just said, have an ancient right. Should we say immediately: Mr. Speaker-
December 19, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has not raised a point of order.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour and duty to table a petition on behalf of residents of the Hull-Aylmer riding, more specifically the executive of the Cercle des Fermieres du Quebec, who are asking the Government to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.
I also have the pleasure and duty to present petitions from residents of the Manicouagan riding and the Brome-Missis-quoi riding.
Mr. Speaker, I have similar petitions to table on behalf of residents of the Province of Quebec, more specifically from the federal ridings of Charlevoix, Chambly, Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, Jonquiere and Langelier, who are asking the Government to reinstate full indexation. Also from the federal ridings of Drummond and Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, the latter being represented by our colleague who is ill and to whom we wish a Merry Christmas, a very Happy New Year, and a quick recovery-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I invite the Hon. Member to conclude as briefly as possible?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -the federal ridings of Trois-Rivieres, Saint-Maurice, LaSalle and Champlain, all in Quebec, as well as the riding of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I simply advise the Hon. Member that he has the same effect by filing the rest of his petitions?
Petitions
Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. They believe that it contributes to the nuclear arms race and militarism in general, and call upon the Government to bring an end to all weapons testing at the said test range and to undertake to convert the said test range to peaceful purposes.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and, even more, the duty to present a petition from some of my constituents in Vancouver Quadra who ask that the Government of Canada restore full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of Saint-Jacques, people are also concerned about the cutbacks to the family allowance and child tax credit programs. They therefore ask that this Government reestablish
11 im/|ava4j am rtf fn t^iltr nllrtiimnnao n rt rl  L n /-* 1-* 11 tn v iliu liiuuAauuii vji laiuu) anuwauvea anu mu vmiu iqa viuuh.
In accordance with your instructions that we be brief, Mr. Speaker, I shall simply say where these other petitions come from without giving their contents since they are all on the same subject. I have one from Hamilton-Wentworth, in Ontario; another one on the same subject from Belleville, in Ontario; one from Pointe-aux-Roches, in Ontario, also about the indexation of family allowances; and one from the federal constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in Ontario. I have another petition from residents of Toronto, one from the federal constituency of Saint-Maurice, in Quebec, and one from the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude as briefly as possible, please.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions dealing with the same topic to present. They are signed by several residents of St. John's, Newfoundland; by 216 residents of Windsor, Local 444 of the United Auto Workers Union; and by several individuals from Hamilton. These petitions call upon the Government to reverse the decision it has taken today in respect of using pension income as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, which will take effect on January 1, 1986.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition dealing with a different topic to present. It is signed by residents of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Quebec. These individuals protest the use of the


Jacques Guilbault: I have another one from the beautiful constituency of Frontenac, in Quebec, one from the constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, in Quebec, one from the federal constituency of Saint-Jean, in Quebec, one from the constituency of Richelieu, one from the constituency of Shefford-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the Hon. Member to table the rest of his petitions which are on the same subject?


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present petitions, and I know that you will forgive us, Mr. Speaker, for taking so long on this side of the House, but it is because the Government does not have any petitions, and the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) seems-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

December 19, 1985
Petitions


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I want to present petitions from the federal constituency of Richelieu, the federal constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in Quebec, the federal constituency of Quebec East, the federal constituency of Portneuf, the federal constituency of Skeena, the federal constituency of Victoria, in British Columbia, the federal constituency of Comox-Powell River, the federal constituency of Prince George-Peace River, and also a petition from the good people of the consituency of Champlain, in Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! May I ask the Hon. Member to conclude as briefly as possible?


Carlo Rossi: I have two more, Mr. Speaker.
From the federal constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, from a federal constituency in the City of Toronto and from the riding of my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier.
The undersigned pray that the Government of Canada will reinstate full indexing of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it an honour and my duty to present a few petitions signed by women who ask the Government of Canada to reinstate full indexing of family allowances and of the child tax credit.
Those women live in the following constituencies: Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, Brome-Missisquoi, Abitibi, Charles-bourg, Richelieu, Shefford, Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, Champlain, Megantic-Compton-Stanstead; Saint-Boniface, Manitoba; Trois-Rivieres, Quebec; Vancouver Quadra; Saint-Maurice, Quebec; Restigouche, New Brunswick; Mississauga-South, Ontario.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in the House today a petition signed by the residents of Dauphin, Manitoba, and the residents of the riding of Provencher, the riding represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). The petitioners indicate to the Government of Canada that they wish the Government to withdraw its plans to deindex the family allowances and they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to do that.
In addition, I table a petition on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Restigouche in the great Province of New Brunswick and from Campbellton indicating that the people of that riding have the same concerns about the plans of the Government to deindex the family allowances. In addition, I rise on behalf of my own constituents from the riding of Sudbury who also indicate to the Government their total displeasure with the Government's intentions with respect to family allowances.


John Napier Turner: Very well represented.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I would say that as well.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member can conclude more briefly than this if he tries hard.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: As well, I have petitions signed by the residents of Simcoe County and Renfrew Country. In addition, I want to indicate that I have a further petition from the residents of the great riding of London North who indicate their displeasure on the same matters of which I have spoken previously. As well, I have one last petition from the great Province of British Columbia which my Leader has the privilege to represent, including Surrey, British Columbia and Delta, British Columbia, and they also indicate their displeasure at the intent of the Government.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of petitions. The first petition is from residents of my riding who live in Foam Lake, Kelvington, Elfros, Ban-kend, Hendon and Humboldt who note that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits which will reach $600 million annually by 1990 on top of sales tax increases, excise tax increases and stiff income tax increases are unfair and place an extraordinary burden on middle and low-income households so they call on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a second set of petitions from the Hamilton area including residentss of Cambridge, Waterdown, Dundas and Ancast-er, Ontario, who note that the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range at Nanoose Bay contributes to the nuclear arms race and that the said station could cause environmental damage so they call on Canada not to renew its agreement with the United States, to bring to an end all weapons testing at the range and to undertake to convert the range to peaceful purposes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from people of my riding of Vancouver East and the Lower Mainland around Vancouver asking that the Government rescind Bill C-70 and fully reindex the universal family allowances and also rescind unfair tax increases.
I have another very interesting petition which is one of many which come from the riding of Surrey-White Rock-North Delta. I was very interested to see that the Hon. Member had only two signatures when we have had hundreds from his riding protesting the family allowance deindexation.
December 19, 1985


John Napier Turner: They want to go to a
sympathetic Member.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That's right. They know where to go and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I must say that there have been a great number of petitions from that riding.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to do her petitions without comment.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the Province of Quebec which is also opposing the Government policy to reduce the indexation of family allowance and asking for full indexation. Another petition is from Fort Erie and surrounding communities in Ontario and the petitioners are asking for the same thing.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have two other petitions on different subjects. The first one is from people in British Columbia who live in the Delta-Surrey area and they are asking that the House act to remedy the crisis which has to do with the youth unemployment in the Province of British Columbia which is at excessive levels and mention the fact that the provincial Government's five-year forestry program is inadequately funded and under-spent and the petitioners respectfully submit that the House remedy these two crises by initiating labour-intensive reforestation and silvaculture projects.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my next petition is on a different subject and comes from many people in the Vancouver area and I see that there is representation from Guelph, Ontario, as well and from Victoria and it asks that the House of Commons not renew the agreement between Canada and the U.S. authorizing the joint maintenance of the test range at Nanoose Bay and bring to an end all weapons testing at the said test range and undertake to convert the said test range to peaceful purposes.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from my constituents in that great riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and some from other parts of Canada. These petitioners protest vehemently the deindexing of universal family allowance and feel that this move is very unfair to women in particular and that it is also particularly unfair to young families and single-parent mothers. They pray that the House of Commons reinstate the full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind this unfair form of tax increase. The first petition is from the
Petitions
Pembroke-Petawawa, Ontario, area. The second petition is signed by people from the communities of Cobden, Forester's Falls and Renfrew and the Opeongo Road. The third petition is signed by people from Pembroke, Eganville and other places in the Valley. Fourth, I have a petition here signed by several citizens from Scarborough West. I have another petition here from people who live in the constituency of York North. I also have a petition signed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I invite the Hon. Member to conclude very briefly, please?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: This petition is signed by many people from the Toronto area including those from Scarborough, Etobicoke, Rexdale and Mississauga. Next 1 have one from-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must invite the Hon. Member to table the remainder of his petitions. That has exactly the same effect.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I also have here a number of petitions from citizens who ask the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw Bill C-70 which is aimed at deindexing family allowances.
The undersigned believe that the whole of our society must share the responsibility for children and that the principle of universality must be maintained.
The first petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from residents and citizens of the federal constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere.
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from the federal riding of Verdun-Saint-Paul, which has been represented here by our former colleague, Mr. Savard, who was recently elected Mayor of Verdun.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member could conclude by presenting his petitions briefly without comment.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from the federal riding of Sherbrooke.
The fourth petition comes from the riding of Chambly, Quebec, and they have the same objective as the previous ones.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of the federal riding of Rosemont, which as we know is represented by the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Blais-Grenier). I also have a petition, Mr. Speaker, from the federal riding of Longueuil, on the south shore from Montreal. There is also a petition from the federal riding of Restigouche, New Brunswick.	.

December 19, 1985
Petitions

I also have a petition from the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the Hon. Member to table the rest of his petitions.
The Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions which call upon the Government to withdraw the deindexation measures with respect to family allowance. In this regard a petition from St. Hyacinthe points out that this measure will cost families $55 million over the next two years in respect of family allowance benefits.
The second petition I have is from Etobicoke North. It calls upon the Government to withdraw the Bill with respect to the deindexation of the family allowance.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I also have petitions from Skeena, Portneuf, Shefford, Richelieu, Champlain, Saint-Maurice, Comox-Powell River, Toronto, Surrey-White Rock-North Delta in British Columbia, Saint-Jean in Quebec, and Quebec-Est. Each and every one of these petitions prays that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who is with us this afternoon, withdraw Bill C-70. I hope he will bear these petitions in mind and soften his heart at Christmas time.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have three different petitions to table in the House today. The first contains eight pages of signatures from petitioners in the Queen Charlotte Islands, specifically from Queen Charlotte City, Tlell, Masset, Skidegate and Skidegate Landing, who are concerned about the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay. Their concern is that Canada and the United States should stop the use of the test range and bring to an end all weapons testing at the said range.
The second petition is from petitioners in the Vancouver area. They also share the concerns about Nanoose Bay. They hope that the test range will soon be converted to peaceful purposes which would be more useful.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the third petition I have is from Ontario. It raises concerns about the amount of money which is going toward tax-free capital gains and handouts to the oil companies and banks while at the same time the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is cutting back on the indexation of the family allowance.
The final petition I have is again from the Delta area. The Hon. Member who represents that area does not seem to receive too many petitions from constituents in his own riding. It concerns-


Mr. Speaker:: Just present the petition, please, and no comment.


James Ross Fulton: The petitioners who have signed this petition are concerned about the deindexation of the family allowance.


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty, as the Member for Abitibi, to table a petition requesting full indexing of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the entire Liberal caucus to resume their seats, please.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, that petition is signed by 80 Members and by Jeannine Barrette, President of the Cercle des fermieres of St-Mathieu, Abitibi.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to follow a Conservative Member of Parliament who has backbone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, as per Your Honour's instructions, I wish to present a series of petitions which are all on the same subject. I will not bother to read each and every one. 1 wish to present a petition signed by people from the federal riding of Hull-Aylmer who protest the cut-backs and deindexing of the family allowance.
I wish to present a petition from the constituency of Saint John, New Brunswick. The residents who have signed the petition protest the cut-backs in family allowance payments.
As well, I present a petition from the residents of Laval. The people who have signed this petition protest the reductions and cut-backs in family allowance payments.
1 wish to present a petition from residents of Richelieu who protest, as well, reductions in family allowance payments.
I wish to present a petition from residents of Vercheres, who protest the vicious cut-backs in family allowance payments. 1 only used the adjective, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to present a petition from the residents of Saint-Jean who are protesting the brutal and vicious cut-backs with respect to family allowance payments.
December 19, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to conclude briefly.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this is what the petitioners are saying.
I wish to present a petition from the people of Drummond, who protest the terrible cut-backs in family allowance payments and ask Conservative Members to stand up and to be counted.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have here a number of petitions from residents of some of the major constituencies in Canada asking the House of Commons that the Government withdraw Bill C-70. They are the constituencies of Etobicoke Centre, represented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), of St. Paul's and of Manicouagan.
Mr. Speaker, I have another one here from the constituency of Manicouagan. Those people ask and demand that the House of Commons urge the Prime Minister to withdraw Bill C-70 in order to protect family allowances. They are from the constituencies of Champlain, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Rosemont. .. the people from the riding of Saint-Jacques are very well represented. The people from the riding of Vercheres ... Mr. Speaker, I have only two other petitions left, from the ridings of Richelieu, and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, and I can assure you that tomorrow we will deal with the rest of them, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Environmental Affairs-Task force on chemical accidents; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Great Lakes chemical toxicity. (/>) Government actions; and the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria)-Trade-Canada-United States negotiations-Agricultural marketing quotas. (b) Quotas-Government position.
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I have in hand three petitions coming from ridings in Quebec. 1 would like to begin with a petition from the federal riding of Richelieu; secondly, with a petition from Champlain, and thirdly, one from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot.
Those three petitions, Mr. Speaker, obviously have to do with the indexation of family allowances. Each one of them urges the Government of Canada to restore the full indexation of family allowances.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people from the Ladysmith and Vancouver areas of British Columbia. They protest the plans which are going on with respect to the test range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, which I am told is a beautiful part of the world just north of Nanaimo. They pray we not renew the agreement between Canada and the United States of America to authorize the joint maintenance of the said test range.
The second petition I have concerns Nanoose Bay as well. It is signed by people from the City of Vancouver. They want to see an end to all weapons testing at the said test range brought about.
The third and last petition on this particular topic comes from Vancouver as well. The people who have signed this petition want a public inquiry before the present agreement is negotiated between the two great countries of the United States of America and Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by people from British Columbia. This petition is with respect to the question of family allowances. The petitioners protest the deindexation of the universal family allowance.
The next petition I have is also from the City of Vancouver. The petitioners protest the deindexation of the family allowance. They say that this will place an extra hard burden on low and middle income households.
The last but not the least petition I have is also on the subject of the deindexation of family allowances. The petitioners protest the fact that this will mean that a very unfair and intolerable burden will be placed upon low and middle income people. I am sure the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would agree with that and he would be doing the same thing if he were sitting here in opposition.
9638

December 19, 1985
Petitions


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my petitions are very unusual because they include not only the signatories but also a boot which is full of coal and which will be sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I invite the Hon. Member to present her petitions without comments or displays.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my boot is from Susan Shoes and Cougar Shoes in Hamilton whose employees are among the hundreds of signatories who have already sent petitions to our office. Because the Canadian footwear industry is responsible for 20,000 jobs at an estimated value of $830 million per year and because the industry has made serious efforts to improve its efficiency and productivity, the Government's decision to end quotas on footwear imports as announced on November 20 will cause widespread damage. We pray that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and the Prime Minister will reinstate quotas on all footwear imports for the next five years thereby protecting existing jobs and allowing for the creation of new jobs in the industry.
I have another petition from the employees of the De Carlo Shoe Co. in Toronto. There are almost 100 signatories.
I have another petition signed by more than 100 workers in the great area of Cambridge who are concerned about the fact that over the last four months, five shoe manufacturers have either closed down their operations or have had serious lay-offs as a direct result of the Government's decision to cut import quotas. They humbly call upon the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade to reinstate quotas in order to save 20,000 jobs in the footwear industry.
of the decision of the Government to terminate shoe quotas. The petition is signed by more than 200 workers in Toronto who call upon the Government to reverse its unwise decision to cut off the workers in the footwear industry.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have another petition from the great-


Mr. Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to please conclude very briefly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 1 have a petition from another group, the Coalition of Women for Family Allowances from the riding of Champlain, which is asking the Government-


Jean-Claude Malépart: They have no Member there!


Sheila Maureen Copps: With those deuces of spades over there, we of course have to present their petitions. This petition comes from citizens asking full indexation of family allowances for all children and families, especially the single-parent families.
Mr. Speaker, I only have another petition which I will briefly introduce. It comes from the riding of Trois-Rivieres and asks the Government which had undertaken during the election to take steps aimed at helping women-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is also reading the petitions, which is not allowed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the great riding of Hamilton East, the greatest riding in the country of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Hon. Member conclude her petitions briefly, please, and restrict herself to the petitions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This particular petition is from the Women's Coalition on Family Allowances which calls upon the Government as follows: We the undersigned ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to act immediately to withdraw Bill C-70 which would reduce the indexation of family allowances. We believe children are everyone's responsibility and the principle of universality must be maintained.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have a petition from a different group, from 211 workers from the city of Toronto, again referring to the loss of jobs which is imminent as a result


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, 1 only have one petition from a group of citizens from the riding of Longueuil. They ask me, through you. Sir, to beg this Government to restore full indexation of family allowance and child tax credit. I must say, Mr. Speaker, these people are in very hard straits and I want some sympathy for them.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present and they do not deal with the same matter. I will try to make it short, because 1 am sure that you would like me to do so.


Don Boudria: I have another petition on the same topic. It is signed by 95 employees from Toronto who work at the Eve Footwear Incorporated Shoe Factory in Toronto.


Don Boudria: I have a series of petitions with respect to family allowance which I would like to present to you, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. The first petition is from the town of Rockland and Clarence Creek in the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I have another petition from the federal constituency of Sudbury. The people there, of course, are so well represented in this House. I have other petitions from the riding of Mississauga South, from Hamilton-Wentworth, Scarborough West, Broadview-Greenwood and the City of Toronto.
[Translation\
The federal riding of Trois-Rivieres, the ridings of Champlain, Jonquiere, Portneuf in Quebec, Quebec East, Saint-Hyacinthe, but I wonder where are the Members for those ridings, Mr. Speaker. The next and last-


Mr. Speaker:: Well, that is fine, thank you.


Don Boudria: -one cames from constituents of Shefford who are so well represented in this House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions to present. The first group requests the House of Commons to not renew the agreement between Canada and the United States of America authorizing the joint meetings with respect to the test range at Nanoose. These come from Edmonton, Alberta and Victoria, Smithers and Parksville, British Columbia.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The second group of petitions deal with family allowances. The signatories are from British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to present a petition today. I have two petitions dealing with different subjects and I will go through them briefly.
The first petition comes from Nanoose, British Columbia. It deals with the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range which contributes to the nuclear arms race and militarism, causes environmental damage and is of doubtful
Petitions
economic value. The petitioners call upon the Government and this House not to renew the agreement between Canada and the United States authorizing the joint maintenance of the said test range, to bring to an end all weapons testing at the said test range and to undertake to convert the said test range to peaceful purposes. That is the first set of petitions.


Cyril Keeper: The second set of petitions, Mr. Speaker, deals with family allowances. The petitioners point out that the deindexation of family allowances is an attack on families and children and is unfair in light of the tax breaks which are being given to the rich. They call upon the Government to rescind the deindexation of family allowances and return to a just social policy in this country.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, 1 have several petitions as well to present from various parts of the country. To expedite matters I will refer to one only. The petitions are from areas in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan. The petitioners state that the deindexation of the universal Family Allowance is an unfair attack on women and families. They further state that this attack will not be offset by changes to the Child Tax Credit and that other tax increases in the May Budget will place an unfair burden on low and middle income earners.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to do my humble duty in the name of the constituents of Mount Royal who are quite distressed about the Government cuts and wish to have full indexation restored to the Family Allowance and Child Tax Credit. This budget measure will take away $55 million in family benefits by 1987.
[ Translation]
And now from the riding of Brome-Missisquoi. Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege of presenting, on behalf of the constituents of this riding, a request for repeal of the measures aimed at reducing family allowances and the child tax credit which are vitally needed by families with children.
That was from Brome-Missisquoi. And the organization is called: Operation Justice Families avec enfants.
Mr. Speaker, from the riding of Richelieu, of Saint-Hyacin-the-the riding of our Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne)-the riding of Dollard, whose Member has been in China for three weeks, and the riding of Etobicoke Centre, and I think the Hon. Member is in the House, the riding of Quebec East, the riding-

December 19, 1985
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: Could I ask the Hon. Member to conclude as briefly as possible, please.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, these are very concerned citizens. I am pleased to present petitions from the ridings of Portneuf and Shefford in Quebec, as well as Broadview-Grennwood, Spadina and Thunder Bay-Nipigon. I have two petitions as well from extremely unhappy people in Kitchener and Toronto, Ontario.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, the constituents of the lovely riding of Saint-Maurice have been calling me at my office, insisting that their Member rise in the House to present petitions on behalf of the electoral district of Saint-Maurice.
Mr. Speaker, the residents of the riding of Saint-Maurice respectfully state that the Government programs providing family allowances and the child tax credit are vitally needed by families with children, and that a large proportion of these families are headed by single parents, who form one of the most disadvantaged groups in our society.
And they therefore humbly pray that this petition be tabled in the House of Commons. I think I will dispense with reading all the names mentioned in this petition, since 1 would not want to take up too much of the time of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I have another one from the riding of Saint-Maurice, because these constituents are very disappointed with the Government's attitude. They have asked me to present another petition on the same subject. Family allowances are extremely important to the people of the riding of Saint-Maurice and the residents of all neighbouring ridings including Trois-Rivieres . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Another petition on the same subject?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 would like to table a petition on family allowances. Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to lay on the Table of the House another petition from the people of the riding of Saint-Maurice.
I even received a petition in my office from residents of the riding of Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. They sent me a petition that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I don't think I have to explain our practice with respect to petitions for the benefit of the former Minister. Has the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice almost finished?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the people from Moose Jaw have written a petition asking the Government not to proceed with this disgraceful legislation which will take bread away from their children. They are humbly asking me to present to
Your Honour here this afternoon this petition of concerned citizens from the beautiful City of Moose Jaw in the beautiful Province of Saskatchewan.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to present to this House petitions sent by residents of various constituencies. I have a very special one from the federal constituency of Manicouagan, represented by the Prime Minister, whose residents object to the decision of the Government not to provide full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. I have been asked to present this petition to this House in the hope of convincing the Government to reverse this very unfortunate decision.
I also want to present a petition on the same subject from residents of the federal constituency of Charlesbourg. I also have a petition from residents of the federal constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe. I have another petition from residents of the federal constituency of Vercheres. 1 also want to present a petition from residents of the federal constituency of Louis-Hebert, Mr. Speaker. I also have a petition sent to me by residents of the federal constituency of La Prairie. Also, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on the same subject presented for the same reasons by residents of the federal constituency of Terrebonne.
Finally-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask the Hon. Member to be as brief as possible, please.


André Ouellet: I shall hurry, Mr. Speaker, but the least I can do is to point out that this petition comes from residents of the federal constituency of Rosemont. I have another one from the federal constituency of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May 1 invite the Hon. Member to file with the Table the rest of his petitions?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from a grand coalition of people across this country who deeply protest the injustice of this Government and the victimization of children and families as contained in the present legislation. My first petition is on behalf of the very wonderful people in the constituencies of Saskatoon East and Saskatoon West in the Province of Saskatchewan. Accompanying those petitions are petitions from the federal constituency of Victoria which is in the Province of British Columbia. They too protest this injustice perpetrated by the Government.
Quickly jumping from Victoria to parts of central Canada with which you would be most familiar, there is a large petition from people in the City of Toronto, a place which you dearly adore and love-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could we have the petitions without the travelogue?
December 19, 1985


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is all for the sake of information. The people of Toronto also protest this action.
Along with the people of Toronto we have their wonderful neighbours in Scarborough North. They also wish to present a petition on behalf of children and families. Just slightly to the other side of Toronto we have a petition from people in Hamilton-Wentworth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I invite the Hon. Member to conclude as briefly as possible.


Lloyd Axworthy: Hamilton-Wentworth is a very long word and I want to get it out clearly.


John Napier Turner: Very badly represented, too.


Lloyd Axworthy: There are a number of people from that area who also wish to protest. Coming back from Toronto to the west coast, we have people from the constituency of Vancouver Quadra who also wish to present a petition.


John Napier Turner: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows be can achieve the same purpose by filing the rest of his petitions with the Table.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have one further petition, if I might, from Calgary South, Calgary North and Calgary West.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, without imposing a travelogue on you, I simply want to report the fact that the Women's Coalition for Family Allowances has completed a petition in Toronto and wishes to have it deposited in the House. The petition urges the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) to abandon the deindexation of the family allowance and to restore it to its normal process.
A group of citizens from Red Deer, Alberta, have expressed the same wish. In Saskatoon East and North a group of citizens have presented a number of signatures with the same intent.

1 also have the honour, Mr. Speaker, to present to the House petitions from citizens of the Moncton region and the riding of Montreal-Sainte-Marie who want the full restoration of the indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit. I have another one	from	the	riding	of	Montreal-Sainte-Marie;another one	from	the	riding	of	Montreal-Sainte-Marie;
another one from the riding of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I invite the Hon. Member to be as brief as possible in his conclusion.
Petitions


Charles L. Caccia: -Montreal-Sainte-Marie, plus two more from the same riding.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions from several federal ridings of Canada in protest against the deindexation of family allowances. Naturally, the first petition I am presenting comes from the beautiful riding of Outremont, and it has been signed by men and women who vehemently protest against the decision of the Government to deindex family allowances.
I have also received petitions from the ridings of Montmo-rency-Orleans and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. I have several petitions from the riding of Sherbrooke. I have many more petitions in my office, and all those people are protesting against the de-indexation of family allowances.
I received others from Lac-Saint-Jean and Beauce, in Quebec. Still against the deindexation of family allowances, petitions from men and women of Trois-Rivieres, Saint-Mau-rice and Champlain who protest against the deindexation of family allowances. I have some from Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, sent by the Coalition des femmes pour les allocations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 would ask the Hon. Member to please conclude quickly.


Lucie Pépin: Quickly . .. Brome-Missisquoi, St. John, N.B., New Westminster-Coquitlam, Saskatoon West, LaSalle and Richelieu. Of course, all these people are asking the Government to reconsider its decision to deindex family allowances.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions here on different subjects. The first two deal with the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia. It point out that it is of doubtful economic value, causes environmental damage, and contributes to the nuclear arms race and militarism in general. It calls upon Canada not to renew the agreement with the United States of America and to bring to an end all weapons testing at the said test range.
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with the same subject. It calls for a full public inquiry before the present agreement is renegotiated. The signatories on both of those petitions are from Vancouver Island.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the third petition I have deals with Bill C-70. It points out that one in five children under 16 in Canada live in poverty, that Bill C-70 will party deindex family allowances,

December 19, 1985
Petitions
and that this means that all families with children will eventually lose-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Member, but I think he knows that all references to "points out" or the preamble are out of order.


James Douglas Manly: It calls upon the Government to rescind Bill C-70.


James Douglas Manly: 1 have a third petition which calls upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases. This petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by residents from the riding of Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition which I am sure Members from all sides of the House will wish to join me in. It reads as follows: "We, the undersigned, do humbly pray-" and I stress the word "humbly"-"that the name of the riding of Saint-Maurice be changed to "Saint-Maurice-Bay Street".


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from the liberated riding of Spadina signed by people who point out that the 3 per cent deindexation of the family allowance and the tax increases are hard on families with children. They, therefore, humbly call upon the House to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.

I have also a petition from Canadian citizens residing in the City of Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, who also object to the Government's decision to deindex family allowances and increase taxes, and who humbly ask the Government to reinstate full indexation of family allowances and rescind the unfair tax increases.

I have a similar petition, only in English, from residents of Vancouver which also protests the decrease in the family allowance and the increase in taxes on low-income families.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from residents of Peterborough, Islington, Waterloo, Windsor, Niagara Falls and Gloucester, Ontario. There are also signators from some areas of Vancouver. They are concerned about the Nanoose Bay test range and its contribution to the nuclear arms race and militarism. They request that this honourable House not renew the agreement between Canada and the United States of America authorizing joint maintenance of the test range and say that the test range should be converted to peaceful purposes.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions to present today. In presenting them, 1 trust you will correct me if I fall into the Liberal errors of heaping gratuitous and undesired praise on my-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Hon. Member just present his petition without comment?


John Edmund Parry: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and without incorrectly naming federal ridings either. I have a petition concerning the Nanoose Bay test range. The signators to this petition are from areas such as New Hamburg and Kitchener, which used to be Berlin. The petition indicates the contributions of Canadians of German descent who petition this honourable House to bring to an end all weapons testing at the Nanoose Bay test range and to undertake to convert that range to peaceful purposes.


John Edmund Parry: The second petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by residents of British Columbia. 1 also have another petition which is exactly the same signed by residents of my own riding of Kenora-Rainy River. The signators humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petitions this afternoon on two different topics. The first petition I have deals with the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental and Test Range at Nonoose Bay which, the petitioners show, contributes to the nuclear arms race and militarism in general. They call upon the Parliament of Canada to convert this range to peaceful purposes. This petition is signed by a great variety of people, Mr. Speaker. One petition is signed by persons from the Kitchener-Waterloo area in Ontario and by signators from parts of British Columbia. The other petition is signed by people from Vancouver, Burnaby, and Gabriola on the Island in British Columbia as well as by persons from New Hamburg, Stratford, Mitchell and Tavistock in the Province of Ontario.


Abram Ernest Epp: My second petition deals with family allowance and protests the deindexation of the universal family allowance and massive cut-backs in public
December 19, 1985

commitment to child benefits which will have the effect of reducing even the poorest families to a worse state by 1990 than they otherwise would face. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to re-establish full indexation. This petition is signed by persons from Campbell River and Nanaimo in British Columbia, from Govan, Saskatchewan, Spiritwood, Saskatchewan, Saskatoon and other good towns in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, concerning the ill-advised decision concerning the footwear quotas, I wish to table a petition on behalf of several hundreds of workers who deplore this outrageous decision to abandon the quotas in the footwear industry.
Through this petition, these Canadian men and women would like the Government to reconsider its decision and give back their jobs to those who have lost them.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, 1 have also several petitions addressing the major issue of family allowances. Hundreds or rather, in a still more realistic way, thousands of mothers are horrified by the most despicable decision reached by this Tory Government who wants to have us accept the deindexing of family allowances.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those Canadian men and women want the Bill to be withdrawn, or at least they would like full indexing to be reinstated.
Those petitions, Mr. Speaker, originate from a number of constituencies. In view of the rules set down, I will simply refer to the area where they originate. I have a first one from the federal constituency of Manicouagan, Mr. Speaker. I have another one from a constituency whose Member is doing nothing, the federal constituency of Champlain-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! No comments and briefly, please.


Alain Tardif: I have another petition, Mr. Speaker, still on that same question of family allowance deindexing, from the federal constituency of Champlain. A fourth one, Mr. Speaker, that one from the federal constituency of Quebec East, in the Province of Quebec. From the federal constituency of Portneuf, in the Province of Quebec, where again many Canadian men and women have stepped forward. .. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be as brief as possible, simply naming the constituency where it originates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I invite the Hon. Member-
Petitions

I invite the Hon. Member to table the rest of the petitions with the Table. It has exactly the same effect.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker,
I also have a number of petitions from various constituencies and dealing with family allowance deindexing. Those citizens ask that the Government reinstate full indexing of family allowances and the child tax credit.
They are referring to the $55 million budget cuts that will affect the area of family support within the next two years if the Government does not reconsider that unfair and discriminatory budget proposal.
Mr. Speaker, this is just about the end. Those petitions, from the beautiful multicultural constituency of Saint-Leonard-Anj ou-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfonso Gagliano: And again from the riding of Saint-Hyacin-the, from the federal riding of Peterborough in Ontario, from the federal riding of Mississauga in southern Ontario, from the federal riding of St. John, New Brunswick, and the last one, Mr. Speaker, from the riding of Richmond-South Delta in British Columbia.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions relating to the withdrawal of Bill C-70 which would reduce the indexation of family allowance. In order to facilitate the matter, I will simply read the names of the communities in these petitions. They are the area of Etobicoke Centre: the area of Brampton-Georgetown; the area of St. Catharines and Fort Erie; the area of Calgary North and Calgary South; the area of Renfrew, Nippising, Pembroke which is very well represented; the area of Scarborough East; the area of York Centre and Beaches; the area of Edmonton North and Strathcona; the area of Edmonton South and the area of Brampton and Beaches.
I have another petition from the area of Shefford. The next petition is from Malpeque.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude briefly.


George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Other areas include Mississauga South; York North; Vancouver; Edmonton-Strathcona.

December 19, 1985
Petitions


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on a different subject. It deals with the shoe industry. The petitions state that the Government's decision to end quotas on footwear imports as announced on November 20 will cause widespread damage to the Canadian footwear industry and threatens thousands of jobs. That petition comes from the Pickering and Toronto area.
I also have a petition concerning the footwear industry, on practically the same subject matter. It comes from the area of Scarborough, Ontario.
There is one other petition which I cannot locate. However, I will certainly get to it tomorrow.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of concerned Canadians. They wish to register their protest against the actions of the Official Opposition. The nature of this petition is to request-


Some Hon. Members:: Read the names.


Jack Wendele Shields: By unanimous consent I will read the names.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just a brief summary of the petition.


Jack Wendele Shields: The brief summary is that they are saying they voted for change. They want the Official Opposition to stop its juvenile tactics and allow the Government of Canada to get on with its work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it may not surprise Your Honour or the Hon. Member who just spoke that I have a petition, the essential thrust of which is somewhat different. It is protesting the Government's announced change in its inequitable and, I say to Members opposite, unfair proposal to make changes in the family allowance legislation which is now in the law books of Canada. These petitioners come from such esteemed Canadian communities as Harrow, Brampton and Woodstock in Ontario. At this point I have the great honour of concluding the long list of petitioners for my Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently not. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Iain Francis Angus: I snuck up on him, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege to present a petition from residents of Thunder Bay, Ontario in the heart of the northwest. They object strongly to the deindexation of family
allowance and call upon the Government to give them the kind of change they really voted for.
I also have the privilege to present a number of petitions from the cities of Kingston and Toronto. These people feel that the financial arrangements which the Government is offering are not appropriate, and they call upon the Government to continue to index family allowances.
Finally, I have a petition to present from a number of people in southern Ontario who believe strongly that the deindexation of family allowances is not appropriate and call upon the Government to reverse its decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-89, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1986.
I am now prepared to recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on a petition, the last Member who indicated to me that he wished to present a petition.



Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of the federal riding of Saint-Jean, Quebec, who now exercise their secular and indisputable right to present a common grievance being certain that your honourable House will bring remedy thereto.
And the undersigned humbly pray and call upon the Government of Canada to restore full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from residents of Toronto who also exercise their secular and indisputable right to present a common grievance being certain that this honourable House will bring remedy thereto.
This petition calls upon the Government of Canada to restore full indexation of family allowances and child tax credit.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.41 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
December 19, 1985


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to study the question of designating, as Senior Citizens' Day, the second Sunday in June each year in order to recognize the outstanding contribution made by our senior citizens to our country and our lifestyle.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present this motion. I hope the House will concur and send it to the Standing Committee, so that we will have a day to pay tribute to those in our society who have contributed so much to the enrichment of our lifestyle.
I wish to say at the outset that the purpose of the motion is not to establish another holiday but simply a day to pay tribute to senior citizens in Canadian society. It seems only fitting that we recognize in an official way our gratitude for the rich heritage which has been given to us by our senior citizens. They have given long years of dedicated time, effort and skill to make Canada one of the most favoured nations on the face of the earth. They have provided an environment in which succeeding generations have flourished and prospered and will continue to do so.
It is not enough to strive only to see that the physical and economic needs of our seniors are met. We want to express our gratitude to them by publicly recognizing the priceless legacy they have given to us. Our senior citizens have a unique place in our society. They are the channels through which the traditions and cultures of earlier generations are passed on to the ones who follow them. They are the custodians of our history, our story, our progress. They are the molders of our present day lifestyle. It is our responsibility now to uphold those traditions of righteousness and integrity which have been our inheritance from them.
Canada is a new country. There are still many of those with us who left the Old World to make a better life for themselves, for their children and for their grandchildren. Religious freedom, economic security and a sense of adventure brought them to Canadian soil. However, often a high price was paid for those freedoms. Great physical hardship was endured in establishing a foothold in this country and in pushing its frontiers north and westward. Personal leisure and comfort was necessarily sacrificed in the carving out of our future in this magnificent country. They wrestled a living from the soil, often combating an inhospitable climate, plagues of insects, backbreaking toil and loneliness. The agony and deprivation of wars and years of depression were a part of their historical past as well.
I am sure I am speaking for all Members of the House whose parents, like my own, immigrated to Canada to enjoy the freedoms with which we are presently blessed.
Senior Citizens' Day
I will keep my comments very short, in the hope that the House will agree to referring this very important motion to committee so that we can pay tribute to a generation which contributed so much to the lifestyle we enjoy today.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with members of the two Opposition Parties. I think, if you were to seek unanimous consent, you would find that there is disposition that the sitting of the House to consider Private Members' Hour not extend beyond 6.41 and that, when the debate ends at 6.41 or sooner, the motion be put without a recorded division.
We are content that this go to committee. My colleague has discussed it with the two people in the Opposition Parties who normally handle this type of matter. I think if you were to ask-and I have discussed this-it would be agreeable to the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, what the Parliamentary Secretary has said reflects the agreement which has been concluded. This motion will be passed without recorded vote and the House will not sit past 6.41 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The House has heard the motion. There is unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Agreed and so ordered.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, as was the case with the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) who moved the motion, 1 will not interfere too long with the proceedings before the House. I find the proposal to have the second Sunday in June designated as Senior Citizen's Day to be amazing, ironic and sad. Perhaps it is fitting that the Hon. Member chose the second Sunday in June to commemorate the attempted assault of the Government on our senior citizens' last June. On the night of May 23, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced plans to deindex the pensions of senior citizens. It was only through the efforts of both Opposition Parties, along with senior citizens, that a victory was won, for the plans to deindex their pensions were rolled back by the Government. A great deal of work was done by the Opposition and by senior citizens' groups across the country.
I should like to reiterate our Party's stance in this sense. The idea which the Hon. Member presented to the House bears some merit. We have had other occasions in the calendar year to honour various groups in society, and 1 think it would be rather fitting so to honour our senior citizens who have done so much, as the previous speaker indicated, to build our country of Canada.
Without delaying the House, I should like to indicate concurrence on behalf of my Party in the idea of designating the second Sunday in June each year as Senior Citizens' Day. The

December 19, 1985
Senior Citizens' Day
matter could be referred to the appropriate committee. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will find disposition of this side of the House to concur in the recommendation made by the Hon. Member from Alberta.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also concur in the motion and agree that it be referred to committee. In so doing, we certainly acknowledge the particular contribution of people in the older age group of our society. We respect and appreciate not only what they contributed in the past, but what they are contributing today and will indeed contribute in the future.
In bringing forward this motion, I wonder if there has been consultation with senior citizens' groups from across the country. My experience has been that people in this age group feel increasingly that they do not all want to be categorized together and they do not like to be labelled. I would be very interested to know the feelings of this group as to how this day might be celebrated.
Certainly one of the things I have learned from various groups not only in my own riding but in meetings with councils of seniors who have come to Ottawa is that seniors are very resentful of any kind of Government program or policy that is in the least bit patronizing. They want to participate in society as equals and they have much to contribute. Certainly, past and present experience indicates that their experience is extremely valuable and something which society needs.
I am thinking particularly of the experiences of my own riding. Seniors have helped each other and not only have they helped each other but they have helped other people in society. I am moved to say as did my colleague that it is the seniors who showed how much fight they had when they organized to force the Government to repeal the very unfair policy which would have deindexed pensions. It is the grandparents and older people in society who also believe that the Government should back down in the same way and remove the deindexing plan which exists in Bill C-70 and would impose a reduction in indexation on family allowances. Many groups to which I spoke last spring felt just as strongly about the children of Canada as they did about the pensioners.
I am sure all Members will agree that a very important contribution made by seniors is their real desire to contribute as reformers in society. One example of this is the experience to which I just referred but there are many others of which I can think. In Vancouver, it was senior citizen and pensioners' groups that formed together in a very effective coalition to work as a solidarity movement to oppose many of the very unjust policies that were being imposed by the provincial Government of British Columbia. They did it not only because the policies were very damaging for people in their own age groups but because the policies were very damaging for society in general.
We certainly agree that senior citizens should be recognized on a special day. They should be recognized as the builders of
our country and contributors to it during the productive working years of their lives. They should be recognized as being great fighters for reform. They certainly deserve not only the respect of all of us but also the very great sensitivity to the situation faced by many seniors today.
Just briefly, I would like to mention the particular concern all of us should have and I hope do have for the older poor and particularly for elderly women who are not yet 65 years old but are in the middle years of their lives and who have very few resources being alone and not able to enter the workforce. Their poverty continues as they reach a pensionable age. They receive very low pension benefits and are therefore condemned to a cycle of poverty. These are things that we must remember as we celebrate a day that would honour senior citizens. We would hope that it would be considered by all Hon. Members of the House. In closing, I would like to say that we agree with the proposal. We hope that there will be consultation with senior citizens' groups as to how best we should celebrate this day. With that, I will sit down.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, since there is unanimous consent on both sides of the House, I ask that the motion be referred to committee.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this motion. 1 am rather puzzled that a Government Member, after they decided to cut back, to deindex Old Age pensions, after they forced senior citizens to make a historic gesture, something they never had to do before to defend their rights in Canada . . . these people had to come all the way to Parliament Hill, although under previous governments, Members of this House had been ready to defend their interests, to protect them from undue health care costs, and to guarantee them a better income. And now the hypocrisy of designating a Senior Citizen's Day! Mr. Speaker, will it be the day Mrs. Denis came here to tell the Prime Minister what senior citizens thought of him? Will the honorary president be Mrs. Solange Denis, who stood up for the rights of senior citizens? Where was the mover of this motion when senior citizens were asking him for help?
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shocking that now that Christmas time is approaching, when families go to visit their parents, that we had to fight those Government Members who wanted to cut Old Age Security pension cheques-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand), on a point of order.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, since earlier, we received the consent of both sides of the House, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) whether he is for or against the motion?
December 19, 1985


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. First of all, the House will realize this is not a point of order, and I am going to ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to proceed.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I assume I have ten minutes.
Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, we agreed not to ask for a recorded vote, but personally, 1 do not agree with the kind of hypocrisy we are seeing here today. Conservative Members will have to realize that being here is a serious matter. We represent people. We represent human beings. And today, just before the holidays, they want to set it up so that the Prime Minister can say to senior citizens, in his Christmas and New Year's message: This is what 1 am doing for you. In June, we are going to have a Senior Citizens' Day, while three months ago, we saw the other side, when he wanted to cut back the benefits to which these people were entitled. Now I ask you! Let's be serious, let's be honest. We represent human beings.
I agree with the previous speakers that our senior citizens are the people who built this country. But one wonders why the Hon. Member who moved the motion and why the Parliamentary Secretary forgot about this when the Government decided to deindex Old Age Security pensions? Is there anyone on the Conservative side who has an answer to that? Is there anyone on the Government side who is willing to answer? It is absolutely shocking! This is hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, and that is something 1 cannot tolerate. And I am sure that the vast majority of my colleagues are of the same opinion. The Prime Minister and his Government will have to make a New Year's resolution for 1986 to change that. They will have to say and do things differently. We saw this on television. Everybody from Quebec saw the broadcast Le Point yesterday. All that talk about being generous, but people never get a nickel out of it, Mr. Speaker, only cut-backs for the citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether my Conservative colleagues are indeed realistic, honest, and aware of what is going on. Not so long ago after the Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was telling Opposition Members that he had met with senior citizens and that those people were prepared to accept smaller old age security benefits. They had to demonstrate. People of 75 and 80, women came from every region of Canada, those people had to spend a lot of time to circulate petitions in an attempt to make the Prime Minister and the Government realize the consequences of what they were doing. And today a fine speechmaker on the Government side rises and would have us believe ... We want a day like that, Mr. Speaker. I would agree to have a day like that, a memorable day when Mrs. Denis told him what the people thought of Charlies Brown, Mr. Speaker. I will agree to designate that day on the condition that Mrs. Denis be appointed honorary president. I want to be sure. If she is appointed, Mr. Speaker, I
Senior Citizens' Day
will be sure, but if it is somebody appointed by the Progressive Conservatives, never, never. I am very much afraid that such a day would be used to make people swallow something else, like another Budget cut-back.
We all remember those promises. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, you were there. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was in Sherbrooke when he said: We will restore full indexation. You remember how generous he can be, all ears when he listens, clean-cut, ever so generous with everybody. Words, and more words. He is not stingy with words.
Remember when he tabled the blue paper of the Minister- the Minister of social injustice, that is how we call him now. It said: We will not tamper with old age security pensions. You can sleep in peace. The Prime Minister is indeed a generous man. I solemnly declare that I will protect the elderly.
So what happened in the Budget, Mr. Speaker? What happened after he guaranteed social programs, saying that universality was a sacred trust, Mr. Speaker? Those were the words of the Prime Minister of Canada. What about the Budget cut-backs? He was the great champion of universality. When elderly people took him to task on Parliament Hill, Mr. Speaker, when those people came here they forced the Progressive Conservatives to eat their words, they forced the Prime Minister of Canada to eat his words, and he had to admit he was wrong. And then, like a sore loser, the Prime Minister tried to blame all Canadians, saying they were not mature because they did not want to talk about universality and accept changes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this man is off his head. He had just said that universality was a sacred trust. Having lost face, he criticizes the Canadian public for not being mature enough. That is utterly ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that all Hon. Members should speak out.
1 remember that there were a number of PC Members from Western Canada who were against deindexation. A number of them even told the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson): I should like you to show me the senior citizens who are in favour of that. It is a fact that the pals of the Minister of Finance are certainly not the same people I meet.
The people I meet are ordinary people, while his friends and himself are concerned only with money. Are we going to allow this to happen in this holiday season? It is just another scenario full of hypocrisy designed to make it possible for the Prime Minister in his New Year message to list all his so-called achievements. Some people say that we should beware when he starts talking in his sugary fashion and be very careful of what he says. This year, we are thinking of designating a Senior Citizens' Day. No! I want to listen to what other Members have to say about this. I should like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand) really and sincerely thinks of that.

December 19, 1985
Senior Citizens' Day
I should like to know what she thinks in her heart of hearts. I should like to know how it is that these people, who are prepared to pay tribute to our older citizens who have built this country and made great sacrifices to raise their families, are not willing to stand up and speak against the Government'sdecision to deindex Old Age Security pensions. How is it that all senior citizens whom he met were in favour of cutting their pension cheques by 3 per cent? And if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) announced today a fully indexed increase in the Old Age Security pension will be fully indexed, it's not because of PC Members. It is today that the Minister has made this announcement and it is today that a motion was introduced to designate one day for them. I wonder if it is not out of sheer remorse.
Yes, you should be ashamed of yourselves!
I understand why you would be ashamed of yourselves, but you will not redeem yourself simply by designating a Senior Citizens' Day. It is not a day but a week it should take, Mr. Speaker! A whole week would be required to consult senior citizens, seek their participation, ascertain their needs. From now on, Canadian men and women will no longer accept that Parliamentarians decide for senior citizens in Canada. Senior citizens are clever enough to want to participate and meet their members to tell them: This is what we need and this is what we want, as far as housing needs, social policies, cultural, sporting and leisure activities are concerned. These are adults; they are intelligent and able people. Tomorrow, it will be our turn. It is not because one day you are 64 and the next day 65 that you loose all your ability and intelligence, Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite! We have to put to good use the talents, the natural abilities, the knowledge and the experience of our senior citizens. They are willing to use them for the benefit of all Members of Parliament-


An Hon. Member:: We have to listen to them.


Jean-Claude Malépart: -but, as my Leader has just said, we have to listen to them. We have to do what they want. They do not want to have a special day just for show, just for appearances' sake. Was this decision made by the Conservative caucus or by the federation of senior citizens' clubs, Mr. Speaker? I would really like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister to rise and tell us whether the Quebec Federation of Senior Citizens made such a request. I did not hear about it and I am very close to these groups. Was this requested by the AQDR, an association which came here and asked to meet the Quebec Conservative caucus to defend their rights under the employment development programs, but the Conservatives refused to see them. How hypocritical for these people to refuse such a request one day and to do this the very same week. It is really too much, Mr. Speaker. Today, someone rises to say: We are proud of our senior citizens because they have built this country and sacrificed a lot for us and we are going to have a special day for them. Mr. Speaker, the time when others make your decisions for you is over. People want action. They have
had their fill of the broken promises of the Prime Minister. They have had enough of the messages and speeches of the Prime Minister. They have had enough.
One year and a few months later, the people are fed up with the comments of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Members of Parliament. The people say: We want action, we want to be consulted. You have not consulted us. You have misled us. We want you to listen to us and do what we want. We know our own needs, we know what we want and we know the answers, but if you want to listen to us and help us, we are going to tell each Member of Parliament what they can do. However, I have not seen one of them do so, Mr. Speaker. I have distributed petitions in the House. It was under a year ago that the Government discriminated against widows and widowers in its spouse allowance legislation. If only one Conservative Member had had the courage and the honesty to rise and say that he wanted the spouse allowance to be extended in 1986 to people living alone, whether they are single, separated or divorced! At this time, Mr. Speaker, there are still 80,000 people in Canada, most of whom are women, whose applications for the spouse allowance are rejected by the Health and Welfare officials simply because they are single, separated or divorced. Mr. Speaker, those people are between 60 and 65 years of age, and they are turned down because of that party's decision. And you think that all those people in each and every one of our constituencies today will buy that proposal to have a day designated in their honour?


An Hon. Member:: They are not stupid.


Jean-Claude Malépart: They are not stupid, as my Leader said. And they say: No, thank you, Mr. Speaker. In Quebec, we know what those words mean: No thank you, Mr. Speaker. It means we will not be fooled. This is unacceptable and I feel certain that my colleague for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), who is very dedicated and has a long experience of many years with all the issues relating to the aged and social problems, will want to rise.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there is something I have to say: We have leaders in each of our parties, but the difference between my leader and the one you have on the other side is this: mine is sincere, honest, and a man of his word. Mine does not work on the basis of winning votes and for his image on TV. He works on the basis of honestly fighting for the rights of Canadian men and women. My leader accepts that we fight, that we struggle to defend the rights of citizens. Yours thinks only about presiding before TV screens and press cameras. It is for a reason that the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) was looking up the results of the polls. He was anxious to know what percentage of the people oppose and disagree with the Government policies, but this today is going a bit too far.
December 19, 1985

Mr. Speaker, nobody can find words for that masquerade, that blue Santa Claus suit that someone would have us put on today. In Quebec we feel we are being literally conned in this festive period with respect to the issues in the east end of Montreal, but here someone is trying to sell a crooked blue Santa Claus to senior citizens.
But, thank God, as on many other issues, the Official Opposition was there. I remember having to think things over and arrive at a decision: whether to go back to the National Assembly in Quebec or to stay here in Ottawa. And I will tell you that I had decided to stay here at the federal level, and here I am, knowing full well that I would be elected as an MLA in Quebec. And the strongest reason for staying here in Ottawa rather than going back to Quebec, as I said publicly, was that as we see it confirmed today, and my wife and children were of the same opinion-the present Prime Minister cannot be trusted with social programs. What is going on today justifies the decision I came to a month ago, Mr. Speaker.
I am looking at the Hon. Member who put that proposal forward. Maybe he was honest and sincere, but where was he when the decision was made to deindex old age security pensions? What did he do at that time to protect senior citizens from having their income slashed? What did he say at that time? They were ignoring everything about those people who built this country. Was it Mrs. Denis' indignation when she cried out with all her heart to the Prime Minister: "You have betrayed us, Charlie Brown!" Was it that cry that stirred you up and caused such twinges of conscience that you are looking for forgiveness? If that is what Progressive Conservative Members want to be forgiven for, I will help them. I am ready during the Christmas break-I will be spending Christmas with my family-but after the New Year, I am ready to organize in Quebec for all of Canada, a meeting with all the representatives of senior citizens's associations in Canada. We will sit down together, Liberals, New Democrats, Conservatives. We will listen to them, but we will do what they tell us. I have a small idea what they will ask about. It is not enough to have a day named in their honour. In the first place, they will say: Remove the discrimination in connection with the spouse allowance. Give it to everyone, whether they are single, separated or divorced.
Secondly, they will say: Tell your Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and your Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that within your reform of private pension plans you should add minimum indexation because the income from our pension plan was satisfactory seven or eight years ago, but today we are on social welfare, since our pensions have not been increased. Finally, with respect to the pension plan, Mr. Speaker, we should set aside that hypocrisy and that masquarade before the Christmas season.
I would rather we did not pass that measure, because we have to be sincere and honest but if after the holiday season
Senior Citizens' Day
some Tory members want to co-operate with me to improve the quality of life of our senior citizens, I would suggest to all Members to reconsider their decision and to remove all those discriminations as soon as possible because it is a bad record for the Tories.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, although lacking the experience of my hon. colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), I cannot agree with the general tenor of his speech, and I intend to try and explain, very calmly, why I disagree, and what my position is.
I think that as a group, the elderly are a very convenient subject for making political points and generalizations ... I let you speak your piece . . . and generalizations, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to say that just before the holidays, these people are being abused. It is easy to make this point and that point just before Christmas-
Mr. Speaker, I have said before in the House that it is easy to confuse issues. I am against any form of indexation, Mr. Speaker, and indexation is being confused with universality, which is not the same thing at all. Removing indexation of family allowances today does not mean taking away their universality. Lifting indexation as we wanted to do at the time and on which we reversed our decision as a Government, removing indexation of Old Age Security pensions does not at all mean eliminating the universality of these pensions. It is not the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, I was talking to one of the FQDR clubs. Yes, 1 am also interested in meeting senior citizens clubs, just as I am interested in meeting people who are on welfare. I said to these people, to some 300 or 350 members of the FQDR, and 1 wrote to them saying that although it was perhaps not politically advantagious, that I was against indexation. 1 am against this kind of payment and payment increases which means that next year's has to be indexed to last year's. It does not make sense to run a country like that. And people confuse this with universality, and it is not the same thing at all. These are two entirely different concepts.
Mr. Speaker, I would be attacking universality if I said: 1 am taking away the Old Age Security pension from people with an income of so much or over. That would be eliminating universality. But when I say I am removing indexation, I am neither removing nor attacking universality. I am not attacking the program's universality. That is what I want to make clear to my hon. friend. I have every respect for his views, and he is entitled to express them. But I feel I have a duty to set the record straight and say that universality is not indexation.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking to the people at the FQDR, I said . . . and there was a Mr. Miron there, whose youngest son had just graduated from university. And I wondered what was more important to Mr. Miron: The fact that he would get a dollar more in Old Age Security

December 19, 1985
Senior Citizens' Day
pension benefits every week or that I could do something about the economy so that his son could get a job.


An Hon. Member:: He wants both.


Jean-Guy Hudon: He wants both, of course I realize that. But I am sure you know which of the two he is willing to give up. He will choose indexation, a way to share wealth which is so automatic that it allows the Government no alternative whatsoever. You made exactly the same speech in 1980.
What I mean to say, Mr. Speaker, is that indexation and universality are two completely different things. The FQDR people think so too. First of all, they said: We wish to congratulate you for your frankness. I said so publicly. That I told members of a great many senior citizen's clubs and it was widely reported in the media.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to be aggressive about this. 1 said stricly this: Indexation and universality are two completely different things and mixing them up is a mistake.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of real sadness. I truly find it mind-boggling that Members across the way chose a time like today, on the eve of very solemn and important family celebrations, to put forward what is essentially the most ridiculous suggestion I have heard in a long time. Members across the way cannot say and do what they have been saying and doing over the last year and expect anyone to believe they truly want a day to celebrate the role senior citizens have played in our society. I said yesterday that this place gets curiouser and curiouser. I was quoting Lewis Carroll and Tweedledee. Believe me, I hit the nail on the head.
Stop and think about just who are our senior citizens. They are the people who, over the course of the building of this country, made many sacrifices so we could have what we have today. They built this nation from the roots up. They sacrificed. Then I have to listen to my colleague across the floor say that they should now sacrifice themselves once again in the interests of their children. I do not think that the youth of this country expect our senior citizens to tighten their belts because we as a whole have not found the answers to some of the problems in our society. That is not the way to go about it.
Senior citizens are perfectly able to express their concerns for themselves. They are able to say to the Government: "We have some very serious problems. Don't cut our income because we live close to the poverty line already". People have to live on 25 per cent of what they had been living on before they turned 65. The Government may not believe this but there are people who did not have enough income to buy a private pension plan or they may not have worked in a business where private pensions were available. These people are entitled to a continuity of lifestyle but we have not, in our review of pensions in our society, found a way to enable those people
to have that continuity of lifestyle. Having a day to celebrate the fact that they have lived this long is no way to celebrate.
We need concrete proposals by seniors for seniors. These people did not lose their marbles the day they hit 65. They are intelligent, competent, capable and educated. Whether they have a university degree or not is of no consequent. Ask them about social issues. Ask them about their housing, transportation, and medical health service problem. Ask them about what they need. Stop treating them like children and speaking for them. What right have you or 1 to speak for older people? Our obligation as elected Members of this House is to go out and consult.
This Conservative Government came into office on a great big wave promising open Government, the Government will consult, it will be open to society and reflect social concerns and needs. I have not seen this Government consult with anyone. I have been witness to and even participated in consultations which are so strict and rigid that you do not have time to listen. I sat in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. We heard from one group after another who had plenty to say about deindexation and the changes required in the OAS and pension system. The Government, misleading as usual, indicated it would not touch the system because it was fine for now. It then proceeded to touch the whole system.
Our lack of attention to the needs of older people to maintain their jobs, to have access to education and retraining means we do not give credit where credit is due. We do not allow them the kind of facilities they require. However, did we talk to them? Did we review our job programs with them? Or, have we left them out? If we do consider them-

-for a few twenty-week jobs and then goodbye.

I would like to come back to what my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) said. If it had not been for Madame Denis, who said "Bye, bye, Charlie Brown", I wonder what would have happened. The senior citizens, including Madame Denis, do owe the Conservatives one major vote of thanks. By indexing OAS pensions, the Government mobilized Canada's grey power. Never will this country be the same as a result of those inept, inconsiderable, indeed unconscionable actions. These people have been organized and they will certainly let the Government know what they think. They will no longer allow themselves to be ignored in the political process. They have become a powerful lobby and the grey heads of this country will have to be listened to.
I suggest that the Government not throw them a sop, or whatever Members opposite think it is, in the form of a one-day festival. The Government can be sure that we will appreciate that nevertheless because it will be a great day to remember the foolhardy measures taken by that Government affecting the people who built this nation. I suggest it would be a great day every year to talk about the broken promises. We can talk about the Government that wanted to cut back the
December 19, 1985

OAS, We can talk about the Government that did not give a darn about what is happening to older people, the Government which did not bother to consult.
I think, along with my colleague from Montreal-Saint-Marie, that perhaps this is the best think to have happened. Not only did the Government precipitate the organizing of the grey power, it now wants to give them a day to speak out. Maybe we will end up with the best possible deal.
If the Government is so concerned, which I wish it was but it is not, about the well-being of senior citizens, then show that concern by legislating the money we need for spouses' allowances to cover the 80,000 people who were left out because they were either single, divorced or separated. That is a fine way to be equalitarian, to treat people equally, particularly in light of Section 15 which we brought in and which the Government fought-


Mr. Gurbin:: Why are they still there, Sheila?


Sheila Finestone: Why is who still there?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Those people who were left out?


Sheila Finestone: They are not voting for you, I can assure you.


Gary Michael Gurbin: They are there because you left them there. You left them hanging for years.


Sheila Finestone: The Government's attitude is that it can, without consultation, determine what our seniors need in the way of health care, housing and transportation. The Government has cut federal-provincial transfer payments.
Yes, I know, you are going to tell me you have added dollars but you have not added anything to the provinces' net purchasing power. You have created a lot of problems around the educational and health institutions across the land.
I am not pleased, Mr. Speaker I certainly am not going to speak against a day for the elderly in our society. I think that is great. We are going to have a great big festival when we can celebrate an unconscionable, unthinking, and cold-hearted group in our society, the Progressive Conservatives.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I am curious and ask for some direction. 1 am not going to get into the hypocrisy that the Liberal party is presently dealing with.


Charles L. Caccia: That's not a point of order.


Peter Elzinga: I would like to receive some guidance from you, Sir. The Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) consented to the referral to committee of this motion for the establishment of a senior citizens' day, being the second Sunday in June. I am not sure whether, in the event that the Liberal Members opposite continue to talk, this motion will die at 6.41, or whether it will go to committee. I seek your guidance as to
Senior Citizens' Day
which is the case. The hypocrisy of the opposite side will really shine through in the event that this motion does die.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. In response to the question of the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), according to the order of reference on which the House agreed, we will go to 6.41 and I will put the question to the House at that time without any vote.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was part of the agreement which we understood to have been adopted by the House. Indeed we go to 6.41. At that time there could be a vote, but it will be a voice vote rather than a recorded vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif).


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, it is both a pleasure and an honour to take part in this discussion.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to make a nuisance of myself, and I wish to acknowledge the outstanding contribution you are making to this House. However, I find it rather odd that when a Conservative Member rises after a Liberal Member has spoken another Liberal Member would be recognized.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Nobody else is standing.


Ian Deans: Who rose?


Charles L. Caccia: He has been recognized now.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if I may.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please, all Members. The Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) brings up the fact that there may have been another Member rising at that time. The fact is that the Chair did not see that Member at that time and recognized the Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif). I am very sorry if that has caused an inconvenience, but that is the situation and we will resume debate with the Member for Richmond-Wolfe.


Alain Tardif: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest to the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) who, through his remarks, has clearly demonstrated that, like his Party, he has entirely lost contact with reality.
This PC Member has just told the House: Mr. Speaker, I am against indexation. But to make such a statement in the House in 1985 when dealing with our senior citizens is simply outrageous. For him to state publicly that he is against indexation is simply odious.
And to use that term he just did use ... Mr. Speaker, whoever knows the way senior citizens live . . . The senior

December 19, 1985
Senior Citizens' Day
citizens come to us and say: Sir, I have to choose my housing on the basis of what I get.
Mr. Speaker, a great many of these older people-something my hon. colleagues have recognized-have built this country and provided us with what we have today. Now that they need the Government, the Government is saying to them: Listen, you must share in the sacrifices. You still have obligations and you will have to do without an indexation which would provide you with the basic requirements.
Today, we are discussing the possibility of designating a Senior Citizens' Day. This demonstrates clearly to what extent this Government is odious and irresponsible in its dealings with older people, some of them came to Ottawa very recently to denounce this injustice and say: Listen to us, gentlemen, who are managing the country: we need what to us appears to be essential. In order to eat decently, we need not only what you are giving us but a little more, and there is no way we want to give up our indexing. But you are telling them: Listen, you have sons and daughters in the university, you will have to tighten your belts in order to allow us as a Government to give them a little more. But I will say to you honestly: You do not go to your constituencies, you do not speak with those senior citizens, in other words you are completely disconnected from reality.
Mr. Speaker, hardly a few months have passed since that historical insult to senior citizens, and the Government is now saying here in this House: Let us have a national day for senior citizens. My view is this is a slap in the face, an insult that is too horrendous for words. You think this will make them forgive, make them forget what you just did to them a few months ago?
Mr. Speaker, senior citizens are most responsible people, people who have developed over the years a wisdom that is a real wealth to this country. They are people who, in difficult times, in hard times, are capable of listening to reason, of willingly accepting sacrifices and sensible measures. But they are not imbeciles, they can see day after day through what you have been doing since you came to power. They are well aware that hardly a few hours ago you wanted us to push through a $800 million-plus blank cheque for people who are very well off indeed. Those seniors do not understand and do not accept such a way of managing the affairs of this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of nerve to come up with such an unbelievable initiative, an initiative that, as I said, is truly an insult to those people who worked all their lives and are now in 1985 at the mercy of a society which they themselves have built, and developed, entirely dependent on a small cheque over which they have no control whatsoever and for which they impatiently wait to buy the things that are simply essential. Those people, as I said, who have to plan months ahead for expenses that often to us their juniors look irrational, things we could easily do without but which those people need; they are in crying need of all that we are giving them,
and their only way of coping with the future is the hope of having that part we call indexing, and now members opposite are saying: "They agree with that, they are responsible people, they are willing to do without indexing". And we are told: "We are for universality but against indexing".
Senior citizens had an opportunity, as you very well remember and as you will remember for quite some time yet, believe me, to state that indexing was a vital issue for them. And now, to have them forget, to have them forgive that historical insult, you are offering them a national day. I think it shows very clearly your absolutely irresponsible way of managing the country, when you directly attack those people whom we, their juniors, definitely need and whom we have a clear responsibility and obligation to support, and to defend, something which apparently you have completely forgotten since you came here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). There are 30 seconds left.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I also find it incredible that the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) would say that deindexing family allowances and the old age security pension is not the same as removing universality. It is obvious that he does not understand the basic facts of this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this week-


Jacques Guilbault: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) on a point of order.


Jacques Guilbault: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member who is now speaking.
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a problem about how to interpret the arrangement made in the House about an hour ago. May I ask Your Honour to read it so that everyone will know what is involved?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I do not have the text of the arrangement itself. As I understand the agreement made in the House when this debate began, at 6:41, when the debate comes to an end, the Speaker will put the question, but there will not be a recorded vote. This is what I intend to do in a few minutes. This means that-

There would be no recorded vote on this specific motion. [Translation]


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I understand quite well, but I repeat that there seems to be some confusion. In my opinion, the only way to clear up this confusion would be for Your Honour to read the exact text of the agreement. It
December 19, 1985

would be surprising if the Chair had made a ruling without having read the text of the agreement.


Jean-C. Lapierre: He was not the one occupying the Chair at the time.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. It was my understanding of the agreement which was made with my colleague across the way-and I also discussed it with the critic for the NDP-that it would go to committee on a voice vote but there would not be a recorded division. That was the whole reason for the discussion.
1 am sure that 1 speak for the Progressive Conservatives in the House when I say that we are prepared to have the question of designating a Senior Citizens' Day considered by a Standing Committee. We think that that is very worth while, and we would be prepared to have that happen. However, if the members of the Liberal Party who are here-and I specifically say members of the Liberal Party who are here-do not want to have that very important matter discussed by the Standing Committee, I am prepared to hear their nays.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was party to the agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of ordeer.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was one of the people consulted in this regard, and I want to give you the benefit of what I recall as having been the consultation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader spoke with me and asked whether I would be agreeable to an arrangement in the House which would allow that at 6.41, or when the debate completed if it were prior to 6.41, this matter could be referred to a committee for further study, and that that would take place without a recorded vote. That is what I was asked to agree to, and I agreed to that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Indeed the agreement, as I understood it, differs from what I just heard from the Deputy Government House Leader. My understanding of Private Members' Hour is very much the same as that which all Hon. Members are used to working under, and that is that if a vote was indeed put, it would not be a registered vote. "IP' is the big word I must use. I insist that you read the order, Mr. Speaker, unless I misunderstood the situation. I have no personal objection to this motion going to a committee, and I said so to the Hon. Member. However, I cannot, nor can the Government or anyone else take it upon ourselves to make deals as to how the private Members in the House operate within their own hour.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Private Members' Hour has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, just over one year ago on December 3, 1984, the world experienced the most disastrous chemical spill that had ever occurred, in Bhopal, India. Officially something like 1,757 people were killed at that time as a result of a leak of poison gas from a chemical plant owned and operated by Union Carbide in Bhopal, India. It is likely, however, that there were many more than 1,757 people killed. It has been estimated that that figure may have gone as high as about 2,500. It is also estimated that there were likely something in the neighbourhood of 17,000 people injured in that chemical spill, and perhaps even as many as 300,000 people who will be affected either directly and immediately or indirectly and at some later stage in their lives, or perhaps even in the lives of those yet to be born. It has been suggested that there could be a great many side effects like birth defects, miscarriages and lung, eye, liver, kidney, brain and nervous system problems resulting from all of this. As well, a substantial number of lawsuits have been launched in India against Union Carbide over the chemical spill.
Why did all this happen? How is it possible that it could have happened? It has been suggested that there are at least three reasons for it. One is that a town of some 17,000 people was built cheek to jowl with the chemical factory. Another is that the technology at the factory was outdated and outmoded. A third is that the warning system in the factory was not up to modern standards. Whatever the cause, it did happen. We in Canada do not want to see it happen here.
Many people have suggested that it could not happen here and that this sort of thing would be impossible in our own country. However, at the same time we know that we have already experienced problems with chemical spills here in Canada. We know, for instance, of the Mississauga train derailment. Some 250,000 people had to evacuate their homes

December 19, 1985
Adjournment Debate
as a result of that. We know that train derailments have not stopped. In fact, there are on average two train derailments in Canada every month. If it happens that chemicals are being carried on those trains, obviously there will be the potential for another Mississauga disaster or something even more significant.
We know as well that back in 1982 there was a blowout at a sour gas well in Lodgepole, Alberta, and that one person was killed as a result. Thousands of people were sickened by the fumes from that leak. We know that earlier this year, there was a PCB spill near Kenora, Ontario. We know that there is also a great potential for disaster with the chemical dumps along the American side of the Niagara River. Those chemical dumps being the Love Canal, Hyde Park, S Area and the 102nd Street dumps. We also know that there are many mini-spills occurring all the time.
In my own community we have experienced three of these spills in the last very few years. One of them resulted in a fire at the Bate Chemical plant in my community. Another one just two or three years ago occurred at the Bristol-Meyers plant where there was a chemical spill into the sewer system which flowed into the Don River. That resulted in the pollution of a poriton of Lake Ontario. Not more than a year and one-half ago there was another chemical spill at the Nuodex plant in my own community. All of these spills have indicated to me the great potential for disaster which can occur on the spur of the moment, quite unexpectedly.
I am concerned about what we are doing about these matters in our own country and in our own provinces. We are doing something. I know that the Government has taken certain action. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) indicated in the House a short while ago that he intended to establish a task force on the transportation of dangerous commodities by rail through metropolitan Toronto and area. I am looking forward to seeing that task force established in the very near future.
As well, we know that there are currently negotiations ongoing between the EPA in the United States and Environment Canada. We also know that there was a task force set up to investigate industrial chemical spills with a view to seeing what potential is for similar spills in Canada, similar to the one which occurred in Bhopal, India.
On December 10 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what recommendations the task force had made and when they were likely to be made public. At that time he indicated that he expected they would be made public very soon. The Parliamentary Secretary is here with us tonight. I am hoping he will advise exactly what those recommendations were and when they will be made public. Canadians are waiting and hoping for an answer so that we can be sure to avert other potential disasters such as the one which occurred in Bhopal, India.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for his question. He is very consistent in the attention which he pays to this type of matter. He asks the best questions and, hopefully, he receives some of the better answers.
His question specifically relates to the Bhopal incident, but really includes all types of industrial accidents. No one in Canada escaped a sense of emotion over the vulnerability we might have to a big accident. The Hon. Member quite correctly points out a number of smaller incidents which may be occurring on a daily basis without our knowledge.
With respect to the substance of the question in terms of the task force, four days after the Bhopal incident we initiated at the federal level, in co-operation with the provinces, an approach to the problem. The approach was the establishment of the task force which commenced its study in March of 1985, and concluded in July of 1985. That task force consulted with a whole range of interested parties-if we can call them that- across the country. There were really three working groups which came together and produced this report, which is now being assessed, and those working groups first looked at a whole list of areas where in fact we might have a vulnerability, where we could experience accidents. One of the groups looked at procedures which are now in place to try to manage those incidents if they should occur. A third group looked at the strategies and levels of responsibilities between jurisdictions and so on. So all of those factions have come together to bring that report forward.
In short, what they have indicated is that we do have some problems. They have made a specific series of recommendations, all of which are being considered by that broad range of interests which I indicated in the previous answer.
We will in fact, federally, through the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), be releasing that assessment and the final report with recommendations by the end of January, 1986. I believe that will help to make sure that in the future in so far as possible, and within the jurisdiction and limitations we have at the federal level, we are meeting as fully as possible our obligations to prevent that kind of thing happening in Canada.
I would like to say in conclusion that we have had excellent co-operation from the provinces and from the industry.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL TOXICITY. (B) GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how much more the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) knows that he didn't know before having received that reply.
The Royal Society of Canada produced a week ago a very important and far reaching report on the Great Lakes and on the agreement we made with the Americans. It analysed what is happening in that eco-system and put forward a number of
December 19, 1985

recommendations, too many of them to quote today. I will just mention a few of those extremely important recommendations.
The report recommends, given the continuing problems of operating some of the largest sewer treatment facilities and the difficulties in correcting combined sewer overflow problems, that the agreement between Canada and the United States continue to emphasize the improvement, maintenance and replacement of sewage treatment systems. This recommendation alone will require on the part of this so-called Progressive Conservative Government that it make a renewed commitment to sewage upgrading, particularly in regions like Vancouver, the Fraser Estuary, Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence River, downstream to the Maritimes. There is no evidence whatsoever on the part of the Government of a commitment of this nature. That is demonstrated by the fact that so far, despite renewed requests and pressure from my municipality in Metropolitan Toronto, not one penny has been devoted to the question of sewer separation in that large municipality.
The Royal Society also talked about the necessity of mapping ground water conditions around and under the Great Lakes Basin and the necessity of collecting data on geology, hydrology, soils and depth of water tables. But what we have seen so far on the part of the Government is a withdrawal from any substantial activity in terms of research and collection of further data with respect to toxicity and other activities.
The Royal Society recommends a comprehensive toxic substance strategy. It makes the point that we need an inventory of toxic chemicals found at potentially significant levels in the Great Lakes ecosystem. The second portion of that strategy is for action towards an effective long-term solution to leaking toxic waste dumps. The third strategy is for control actions against all identifiable sources of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes Basin. Finally, it recommends the operation of modern toxic waste treatment centres in all regions of the Basin.
When I read the specific recommendations for a strategy, I ask myself what on earth can the Royal Society expect from a Government which has not been able to say one public word on a proposal by the United States, which is already two months old, with respect to the Niagara River. This has been kept a secret in Canada even though it is public south of the border. The Minister has had this on his desk for two months and not a word or an indication as to what the people in the Niagara region and around the Lake Ontario Basin can expect from this Government in reply to that proposal.
The Royal Society recommended the development of better data on contaminants in the food chain. This is an important new development which has emerged from a recent study by scientists in Ontario concerning contamination in the food chain resulting from evaporation of water from our lakes and precipitation in other areas.
In contrast to that recommendation, this Government has taken steps which have led to the virtual elimination from the face of the earth of a plan to build in Guelph the finest toxicology centre ever to be established. The Government has
Adjournment Debate
eliminated $2.5 million of toxic chemical research programs which were approved every year by Treasury Board for specific research in the Niagara region. Then it eliminated some $70 million in general research under the auspices of the National Research Council. Then the Minister comes into the House today with a shallow non-document which recites what we knew already. Neither does it give us any indication as to what specifically will be done to correct the situation and prevent deterioration along the St. Clair River. He tells us that he will improve certain laws. Laws will not enable us to clean up this mess or eliminate the possibility of this happening in the future because they do not impose specific controls on the performance of industry along that water body, or any international water body for that matter.
So here we have a fantastic report by the Royal Society of Canada, and an answer to my question exactly one week ago in this House by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) which said nothing and which had nothing to do with the content of the report. I am therefore anxious to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what on earth this Government will do-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Charles L. Caccia: -in relation to the recommendations contained in this report.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, the Royal Society can expect a lot more consideration, co-operation, understanding and action from this Government than it ever got from his Government.


Charles L. Caccia: What do you know?


Gary Michael Gurbin: I can say with some certainty because 1 sat and watched his Government do nothing for four or five years.
What we have from the Royal Society is an assessment which really did not tell us a lot more than was already pretty obvious. We have major problems in specific areas and there are ways to try and deal with those problems.
Time after time I hear the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) ask questions, give responses, and make comments. I wonder why he is so limited in his readings of some things. Why, for instance, would he not take a look at the Government's new initiatives in the toxic chemical research area? Take for example the wildlife toxicology fund. The Member takes great exception to this. It is politically easy for him to talk about herring gull aid programs in spite of the fact that he knows that the major and important part of those programs are still in process.


Charles L. Caccia: Not in full.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I agree totally that it is not fully in process. However, in the time I have I would like to be very specific because the Member likes specificity. He asks a hundred

December 19, 1985
Adjournment Debate
questions and wants a hundred specific answers. I will be specific on this point.
The wildlife toxicology fund now has 14 proposals before it; six of which have been accepted, one of which has been refused, and eight of which are in additional assessment areas. Those are additional active programs in areas of research which include the effects on agriculture and forest chemicals as well as the effects of toxic pollutants on wildlife, the monitoring of the success of measures to mitigate these effects, the development and implementation of techniques that use wildlife as indicators for toxic chemicals in the environment, and environmental pathways by which toxic substances may affect wildlife. That is just one specific example of what is working and what we are doing.
I would like to speak very specifically to the matter of inventory which the Member brought up in his comments. Canada is one of the few industrialized countries that has not had an inventory of toxic chemicals. We have had serious meetings in preparation for providing that inventory of over-


Charles L. Caccia: That is a Liberal initiative.


Gary Michael Gurbin: It started and was not finished. It is something that has to be done. It is something that the Government will accomplish.
There were many other things which were started and talked about. The Member for Davenport was very careful to talk about Treasury approval year after year of funds which were never sure and about different programs that were never sure. He knows that the majority of those programs were concluded or incorporated into other programs. In fact, we have taken and will continue to take new initiatives following the three major assessments which are now underway. One is being done by ourselves and one is being done by the Science Council of Canada. An additional area of assessment is in our scientific research into toxic chemicals.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker, so I must stop, but I look forward to my next interchange with the Member for Davenport, and I wish him a merry Christmas.


TRADE-CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS- AGRICULTURAL MARKETING QUOTAS. (B) QUOTAS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his warm round of applause. On December 2 I asked a very important question of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) which he dealt with in a very light manner. That really surprised me because I have the utmost respect for the hon. gentleman. I asked him a very fundamental question on trade as it pertained to the shoe industry and to agriculture.
I asked the Minister if dairy programs would be sacrificed in free trade negotiations with the United States. To that he answered, of course, that the programs would not be sacrificed. Being the non-partisan person that you are, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree that the only reasonable supplementary question would be to ask the Minister how we could believe him when the Government lied about the quotas on shoes. Why should we believe that the Government will preserve the quotas in the dairy industry, as it said it would, when it also said the same thing about the shoe industry? 1 am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, that the Government did not live up to its promise in that regard. I will prove to you that it did not.
I have a story from the Canadian Press of May 4, 1984, which appeared in Le Journal de Montreal. It says:
A Conservative Government will not remove footwear or textiles quotas imposed by Canada, stated the Leader of the Conservative Party, Brian Mul-roney, to the newspaper La Tribune.
"The quota policy will remain the same as it is", declared Mr. Mulroney, adding that he was not for free trade in those industries.
He added that he will not "bow" to the pressure that might come from countries of the Common Market or from the United States in order to reduce footwear and textile quotas.
What we received was in fact inconsistent with the truth. 1 bring this to your attention because the dairy farmers of my constituency are very concerned. They have been phoning me and asking if their quotas will disappear next. That is a very legitimate question.
In attempting to represent my constituents the best way I can-which I am sure all Members of the House would want me to do-I have sent a petition to every farmer in my riding which 1 will table in the House in the same manner that we have been tabling petitions lately. The purpose of this is to get a firm commitment from the Government and ensure that it will not bargain away the dairy programs, poultry programs and other market-sharing quota programs that we have in Canada.
I sent this petition, with a letter which I have in my hand now, to every farmer in my riding. I am asking that they sign a petition which states that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) give his immediate personal assurance that no agricultural program will be sacrificed in the free-trade negotiations with the United States.
The farmers of Canada have to be reassured, not simply with empty words as we heard about the shoe quotas. We need the truth rather than more empty rhetoric. We have had enough of the Government making promises and breaching them.
The Tory Government breached another promise this afternoon when it failed to introduce lobbying legislation in the way the Prime Minister promised in his death-bed repentance speech of September 9.
We on this side of the House are fed up. The people of Canada are fed up, as demonstrated in the public opinion polls, with getting evasive answers from the Government. We need a commitment that what it says in the future will be the truth.
With respect to this issue, the Government should ensure that free-trade negotiations concerning agriculture will not endanger the existing programs. We need a firm commitment
December 19, 1985

that our market-sharing quotas will be maintained. The dairy farmers, the poultry farmers and egg producers want that commitment. Nothing less than that personal assurance from the Prime Minister, who I thought would have been replying to this question personally, is acceptable.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are two issues contained in the Hon. Member's question. With respect to the first issue, I can only comment that the Government took the advice of a Liberal-appointed tribunal. Perhaps such appointments are not always the best, but the Government accepted that assessment of the shoe industry and took what action made sense. I do not know if the Hon. Member is mixing up shoes and milk, but it is somewhat like comparing apples and oranges.


Don Boudria: Read the question.


Gary Michael Gurbin: When the Hon. Member talks about agriculture, I believe there are a couple of issues that he does not want to address or does not want to know. I would wager that there are some facts that he does not even tell his farmers. For instance, in 1984 there were $2.3 billion worth of agricultural exports to the United States. I wonder if there are any hog farmers in his riding?


Don Boudria: Yes.


Gary Michael Gurbin: They probably know what happened.


Don Boudria: I have hundreds of them.


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is good. They know what happened when protectionist sentiments arose in the United States and tariffs were implemented. The industry was threatened and the price of hogs went down.
Many other agricultural products, including potatoes, have been affected by those protectionist sentiments in the United States. There are 300 protectionist measures currently in the
Adjournment Debate
United States which could affect a wide range of products in Canada, many of which are agricultural products.
The Government is looking to secure approved access for Canadian agriculture. Throughout these free-trade discussions we will in fact be talking and dealing closely with all sectors of Canadian agriculture. We will do our best to get a good deal for all Canadian agriculture. We will not sign an agreement that is not a good deal for Canada.
On September 26 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) proposed that Canada and the United States pursue bilateral freer trade talks. The Government's aim in pursuing discussions with the United States was to secure and enhance Canadian access to what is by far our largest export market and provide a predictable trading environment with a better set of rules. This is welcomed by the United States.
At this point in time, these agricultural issues, or any number of other issues, are part of our discussions. We will not go in there with a set position on any number of issues, quite simply because that is not the way in which to negotiate. If the Hon. Member does his reading, he will know that yesterday a farm Bill was passed through Congress. The United States has a number of farm policies and measures in which it has just as much at stake as we have in ours. The Hon. Member also knows that the Conservative Party has always supported market supply management systems in agriculture when producers wanted them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 31.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 20, 1985