1985-09-19

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Frith (page 6625).
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude the remarks which I started yesterday. 1 was pointing out to the House the great contradictions in the statements made in this Chamber by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) as recorded in the House of Commons Debates with regard to the intent of this legislation. As recorded on page 1459 of Hansard, on December 21, 1984, the Minister said the following: "All savings generated from any changes will be redistributed to social programs and will not be applied to deficit reduction". That same day, as recorded on page 1444 of Hansard, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said: "I can confirm that the regular indexing of the Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and family allowance will be increased as of January 1, 1985 . ..".
1 point that out to indicate the contradiction in Government policy. There is an even greater contradiction in what the Progressive Conservative Party proclaimed prior to the election campaign and what actually happened in the Minister's Budget. In introducing this legislation which will cut back on family allowance increases, the Minister said that this is part of a package deal. The Bill before the House proposes that the amount of money a mother receives for a child will not be increased by its normal amount. The Minister said that that is only part of the package and there are other things that will be done that were included in the Budget which, he claimed, will offset this reduction is income for the poorer families.
That is why we have a motion for a six-month hoist before the House today. That motion should be for a fifty-year hoist. However, in parliamentary procedure we cannot do that. But let it be understood, Mr. Speaker, that we would prefer that this Bill not be presented to the House at all.
In the budget papers we see an increase in the child tax credit for the taxation year 1987, but we also see that the child tax exemption will be reduced to $560 per child under the age of 18 at the end of the year. The Budget calls for a further increase of $35 per child in the child tax credit in 1988, and a reduction in the child tax exemption to $470 per child under the age of 18 at the end of the year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said in his Budget that in the taxation year 1989 the child tax exemption will be further reduced to equal the value of the family allowances.
That is not all, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that starting in 1986 the existing federal tax reduction will be eliminated. He said that, consistent with the Government's general approach, indexation of personal income taxes will also be modified starting next year. He said that beginning in the 1986 taxation year the indexation of personal exemptions and tax brackets will be based on the amount of the annual increase in the CPI that exceeds 3 percentage points. Further on in the budget papers, the Minister said that as part of the deficit reduction measures the Budget proposes to eliminate the federal tax reduction for 1986 and subsequent taxation years. The maximum tax increase from this measure will be $50 for single and $100 for married taxpayers in each year. The package which the Minister is talking about includes tax increases all over the place. There will be a reduction in the amount of money that can be claimed on income tax forms.
The Canadian media have looked at these Figures and the over-all package and concluded that new calculations show that the Budget will hit poor parents the hardest. In an article on June 13 the Canadian Press said that families earning $20,000 will lose something in the order of $100 or $150. The article then goes on to discuss families earning between $10,000 and $20,000. The Minister of Finance presented a Budget which projected that poorer families would benefit. However, no one knew how much they would benefit by because it depends upon how much the Budget takes away from poorer people.
[DOT] (i HO)
There was a claim made by one of the New Democratic Party Members in this Chamber yesterday that perhaps in the first three years some of the poor families would benefit more. I doubt that very much. That is stretching it to the hopeful extreme. When you look at this package which the Minister of National Health and Welfare is talking about, you see there is a loss. Everybody loses. The people who lose the most are the poor people. I will tell you why, Sir. This Bill is one of the reasons.

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
It is fine to look at all the reports of the social agencies and people who examine the income of poor people. They say that the best way to give money to parents for children is through the child tax credit because it is based on a person's income. The less you make, the more you get back.
There is one flaw in making calculation totally on the basis of income at the end of a taxation year. The cheque we are talking about here today is a monthly cheque. Someone in my riding is making perhaps $5,000 a year. He has seven or eight children at home. His total income is $5,000 a year. Add up what this person gets in the monthly family allowance cheque, multiply it by 12 and it comes to half of $5,000. Now his income is $7,500. Then you add on what the family gets. The head of the family gets this money. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker? Because that money is used to pay the light and the heat bill as well as groceries. That is what that monthly pay cheque is used for. When you add the child tax credit, the income goes up to $9,500 for the year. You can now see the importance of the family allowance cheque and the child tax credit cheque. The most important cheque is the monthly family allowance cheque.
What happens if that cheque is delayed? I was going to say, "The Government of Canada in its wisdom", but I do not know where the wisdom was when the Government cut back on the hours in which the rural post offices could be open in Newfoundland and in other parts of Canada this year from 40 hours to 30 hours. When that happened, a problem arose. UIC cheques come on a certain day, Canada pension cheques come on a certain day, old age pension cheques and family allowance cheques come on a certain day. Some of those post office closures meant that for three or four days the family had to go to a merchant and beg for some food. They owed money for food. That is the normal thing in rural and other areas of Canada, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people, and certainly the Minister and the Government of Canada, do not realize this.
1 recall the time when the Government of Canada, under the auspices of this Minister, changed the place of issuance of the Canada pension disability cheques from St. John's, Newfoundland to Ottawa. All of a sudden the Government discovered, when it changed the system on March 31, that the cheques did not arrive on time. The Government blamed the delay on the mail. But Members of Parliament received phone calls, as I did from one lady, who said that for the first time in her life she had to go to the local merchant, whom she disliked intensely, to ask if she could charge her food because she did not get the Canada pension disability cheque on time.
Under consideration in this debate today is the family allowance cheque that a person gets on a certain day. Hon. Members of the House of Commons on all sides of the House may find it difficult to understand, although the majority of them in this Chamber know exactly what I am talking about, that the family allowances cheque which does not come on the anticipated day causes mayhem in that household. The bills cannot be paid. The children cannot eat. We are not talking here about clothing or school books; we are talking about
absolute daily necessities of life. That is what is wrong with this Bill.
U5)
I would like to refer back to what the Minister and members of the Progressive Conservative Party of this country have said during the election campaign and after-


Mr. Malone:: Read the polls.


George Baker: The Hon. Member says to read the polls. His is a Government that operates by polls. If you analyse the polls, Mr. Speaker, you will discover that the Progressive Conservative Party picked up 6 per cent but the New Democratic Party went down 6 per cent. So just imagine that Party bragging about the polls when it apparently got its support because of the shift of support from the New Democratic Party. But this is a Government of contradictions, anyway.
I would like to get back to my point now, Mr. Speaker, without any more interruptions from the Hon. Member from Alberta. The Minister of National Health and Welfare can satisfy his Party's position prior to the election campaign. He can satisfy what he said in this Chamber as it appears on the official record last December, 1984, that the social programs could not be used for deficit reduction. I will give the Minister an honest suggestion. Why not take the amount of money he is saving by reducing the family allowance and add it to the cheques of the poor people in this country? When the analysis is made of the child tax credit, why not add more on to the family allowances?. If he is so concerned about poor people as he claims in this Chamber, why not add that money to the monthly family allowances cheques of those poor people whom he professes to supports? That is an obvious solution for the Minister. But I am sure the Minister cannot do that because he is tied into a system of deficit reduction. It is deficits, deficits, deficits. Yet, the Government is steadily increasing the deficit at an alarming rate. Why is it doing that, Mr. Speaker? Because the Government has friends. It can give away $15 billion to the oil industry and we will see an increase in gas and oil prices.


Arnold John Malone: Oh, oh!


George Baker: The Hon. Member is laughing. The Government can put up a billion dollars to bail out a bank or it can put up any amount of money for anything it wishes. At the same time the Government says it wants to reduce the deficit and that is why it is taking money away from the monthly family allowance cheques of Canadian mothers. What an outrageous claim that is on the part of the Government of Canada!
Surely, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of this country can do better than that. Surely they have some heart. Surely they can at least try to comply with the promises they made prior to getting elected.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is aware of the fact-and he referred to this in his comments-
September 19, 1985

that this particular measure is part of a three-part package in the Budget which refers to family benefits. The first, of course, has to do with this change in the family allowance. The second is the child tax credit to which the Hon. Member referred, and the third is the change in the child tax exemption under the Income Tax Act. I know that the Hon. Member is quite aware, in spite of his comment that he has great doubts, that the net effect of all these changes is that the benefits for families earning low amounts are increased and the benefits for families earning larger amounts are decreased. In fact, I am sure he is aware, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated in his comments, that right now under the present system a family which earns some $30,000 a year receives a greater advantage from these benefits than a family who earns only $10,000 a year. Of course this will change that situation.
I know as well that the Hon. Member is aware that nothing is being taken from the social package by the changes being made in the modification to family allowances. In this fiscal year, 1985-86, for the $20 million that is coming out of the family benefits package, $190 million will be used to pay for the new spousal allowance for spouses between the ages of 60 and 65. In fiscal year 1986-87, for the $90 million which will be coming out of the family benefits package, $325 million will be going into the spousal allowance provisions. I know the Hon. Member is aware of all those facts, but I am interested in knowing the official policy of the Liberal Party, of which he is a member, with respect to improving family benefits for those at the lower income end of the scale and taking into account the proper and reasonable financial management of the company-


Ms. Copps:: To bail out banks.


An Hon. Member:: It is not a company.


Alan Redway: Of course some opposition Members feel that this matter is not serious and that they have to interrupt at this time. They should listen carefully. I am sure the Hon. Member will tell us the official position of his Party with respect to improving family benefits for people at the lower income end of the scale, many of whom he represents, of course bearing in mind proper and reasonable management of the debt with which we are now faced.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. member has noticed that some of my colleagues are a little restless this morning. The reason for that is that we are debating our particular motion for a six-month hoist; in other words, to throw the Bill out of the window where it belongs. The Hon. Member referred to three elements of the social package, but when we think about the social package in the Budget, it involves at least a dozen elements. It does not only involve the Bills of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It involves reductions in the amount of exemptions one can claim on one's income tax form, which affects everyone. Also it involves the elimination of the federal tax reduction program, which affects everyone. In the Budget it was indicated that that was introduced in 1973
Family Allowances Act
because there was a difficult economic time and that it is no longer needed.
I could go on and on. However, I am sure the Hon. Member will have to agree that when we look at the total social package, there is an over-all reduction. There has to be. If we look at only three programs, wherein the Minister takes away from two and gives on one, there is a benefit to some poor families. However, the total social package is covered by the Budget. How much will we end up with in the end? As a matter of fact, everyone in society will lose except millionaires.
Before sitting down, I want to say that there is one particular clause in the Bill on which the Minister should perhaps be congratulated. I am referring to the amendment in Clause 4. Some Hon. Members in a future speech should make reference to it. I did not have a chance to do so because the Speaker cut me off; the Speaker would not allow me the time to explain my point on Clause 4. That particular clause enables the forgiving of amounts owed to the federal Treasury. That is a very important clause. We have difficulty with it from one point of view in that it says the Minister "may". It does not say the Minister "shall". It says it would apply in cases of hardship perhaps over a period of time-it is a judgement call. The provision should be more specific than it is in this particular Bill. That is another clause that should be talked about more generally.
To conclude, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, let me say this, that family allowances and old age security and all such programs are Liberal measures. Liberal policies. The Liberal Party brought them in. The NDP says, well, the Liberal were forced to do it by the NDP.


Ms. Mitchell:: Right on.


George Baker: But certainly the one claim that cannot be made in this Chamber is that the Tories had anything to do with it at all.
I think that is the final point and I think it answers the Hon. Member's question. He can perhaps understand our frustration here on this side of the House. We want this Bill thrown out through the window, thrown out, kicked out, not rewritten, not even discussed. That is why we have the motion before the House today and that is why some of the Members here in the House are perhaps a bit unruly at times.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. colleague, considering the comment made by the Hon. Member on the Government side, who, I am afraid, only reads the Bible according to Brian-
Perhaps my hon. colleague would consider what was said by the Advisory Council on Health and Welfare, a non-partisan advisory agency whose role consists in advising the Government. It stated clearly,-I wish the Hon. Member would read

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
these comments instead of the Brian Bible-that poor families will lose $22 in the first year,
I have another question. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on what the Government has done in this area, because it is the first Government to decide to take advantage of the illnesses of its citizens to reduce the deficit.
What does my hon. colleague think about the 10 per cent tax on medication? I am thinking, for instance, of arthritis sufferers who must take medication regularly, and who use liniment and aspirin to relieve their pain and suffering. This Government has also taxed all medication that belongs to the "family pharmacy".
According to the Advisory Council on Health and Welfare, the increased number of taxes under the new Budget will cost a Canadian family $125 more. Nevertheless, Progressive Conservative Members and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would have us believe that they are helping poor families with the proposed changes to family allowance payments.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, even down to pet food and candy in the confectionery stores and down to woodburning stoves- practically everything. I do not know if they left anything out. Do not forget, too, that they have increased the normal rate. That is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, the total package put before this Chamber by the Minister of Finance.
When examining the total package and adding on to that the provincial sales tax on the bottom line, because the federal tax goes on first, one sees that those living in Alberta do not pay as much for that product as do those who live in Quebec or Newfoundland where the tax rates are different.
This Government also, Mr. Speaker, because of that package gave a windfall profit to the provincial Departments of Finance right across this country. About half of the federal tax is added on again in provincial sales tax at the provincial level. It is sometimes very comical to hear a provincial Premier say, "We did not increase taxes in our Budget." He did not have to do so because he knew from this new-found federal co-operativeness that he was going to get a windfall profit from the Minister of Finance when he presented the federal Budget. The provincial Ministers of Finance did not have to increase the tax on gasoline; the federal Government did it for them. I see you are saying 1 am out of time again, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: And everything else, too.


An Hon. Member:: Rest your jaw.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to rise today to say just a few words regarding Bill C-70. The Government says it is an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. I think maybe it should be called an Act that is part of the Conservative program to make the rich richer and the poor poorer in Canada. Perhaps it can be called a Bill that is a symbol of the real Progressive Conservative Party's programs for Canada. It
is actually with a great deal of sadness that I rise today to speak to this Bill which will reduce family allowance payments. That is hardly the kind of Bill about which one looks forward to speaking.
[DOT] (mo)
We should consider the kinds of Bills that we should be discussing at this time. At a time when we should be coming to grips with the economic and social challenges facing this country, to be debating a Bill that is asking for a reduction in the amount of money paid to mothers for their children is absolutely disgusting. Yet I have been waiting patiently for members of the Conservative Party to rise and explain to the people of Canada why they are taking up the valuable time of this House to reduce the family allowance payments to Canada's children.
I have not heard many Members justify what is going on today. I hear Hon. Members of opposition Parties asking questions and pointing out the unbelievable nature of this waste of the time of the House of Commons, but I do not hear many Members opposite rising to justify the taking up of valuable time for such silly nonsense.
Perhaps there is some value in this exercise because it provides us with an opportunity to find out what this new Government is really doing. Multimillion-dollar PR campaigns are going on all the time and there are pages and pages of Government advertising in newspapers trying to explain all of the wonderful things the Government is doing. There is the usual mumbo-jumbo and bafflegab that one hears during political discussions. Therefore, people are a little bit confused. However, discussing this Bill will provide us with an opportunity to give the public a clear example of the priorities of this Government.
I would like to remind Hon. Members that the Government thought it was important that we spend tens of millions of dollars on new uniforms members of in the Armed Services. Ask the people who are in the Armed Forces and the people who provide leadership in the Armed Forces if they thought that this was a priority. I do not think a single one has come forward to say that this was priority. However, tens of millions of dollars were spent on new uniforms.
We have seen corporate bail-outs occurring one after the other. I do not have to name the corporate giants of this country that were involved. The Government spent tens of millions and hundreds of millions. It did not matter.
There was a fair bit of discussion by Members opposite about the Western Accord. One of the aspects of the Western Accord was a $7-billion tax relief to multinational oil companies. I know that the Hon. Member from Alberta is an honourable man and he will agree with me that $7-billion worth of tax grants went to such multinational corporations as Texaco. There is enough money for that. There are billions of dollars for that and there are millions and millions of dollars for Ministers to jazz up their offices and to take special flights to their constituencies when time and time again commercial flights are leaving at virtually the same time.
September 19, 1985


Mr. Manly:: Forty thousand dollars to Peru.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There is all kinds of money for little junkets to Peru. There is all kinds of money for Government advertising. I do not know if you saw the newspapers last weekend, Mr. Speaker, but just to remind us of all the good things the Government is doing let me point out that it took out full-page ads in the newspapers. It must cost tens of thousands of dollars to advertise like that in national newspapers, and this is occurring day after day. I think that if the Government were doing good things for the people of Canada, it would not have to tell the people what it was doing. It could tell by example and show by action. It becomes rather suspect if the Government has to advertise its programs just like Coca-Cola advertises the new Coke.
We saw the Budget cut services to Planned Parenthood and to social housing at a time when there is not one housing group in this country that is not appealing for greater support for social housing. The Government cut $2 billion in transfer payments to the provinces, and that means that there will be cuts in health care and education payments.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) rose the other day to say that he was concerned about families in Canada and about providing support in whatever way possible for the family unit. One of the very first things the Government did was to cut the Registered Home Ownership Savings Program when 75 per cent of those using that program were young couples in their twenties saving money to buy their first homes. The Government felt that it did not need to help young families to buy their first modest homes.
Then the Government increased the sales taxes and gasoline taxes. Sales taxes are the most regressive taxes that exist because they place the largest purchasing impediment on the shoulders of low-income families. Statistics Canada came up with an interesting comment the other day. It said that as a result of the Budget that was brought in by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the new Government, 750,000 Canadians would be placed below the poverty level. Three-quarters of a million people will find themselves living below the poverty line as defined by the Government itself because of the measures introduced in the Budget. I could go on and on. I could talk about the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption which will help thousands of upper-income Canadians.
In the last few days, we have seen when this Government really focuses its support. In a matter of a few hours, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), the Minister of Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Inspector General of Banks and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) found $1.5 billion to help all those large depositors in the Canadian Commercial and Northland Banks. They did not find money to help people with $20,000 or $60,000 in the bank. They found money to help the Bank of America, CitiBank, Barclays Bank and the Royal Bank, large financial conglomerates with deposits of up to $50 million. The Government indicated that it was going to give them back all their money even though it was not insured. The Government
Family Allowances Act
indicated that it would be able to find $1 billion or even $2 billion to help its friends.
I made that point because it is important that we see the context in which we are debating this Bill today. While the Government has no hesitation in finding billions of dollars for the deficit by raising taxes or cutting services, it has the courage to come to Parliament to ask for authority under Bill C-70 to cut family allowance payments because it cannot afford to pay for them. It is almost unbelievable that this is taking place within this context. We cannot afford a modest monthly increase in family allowances just to keep up with the cost of living. We must recognize that the cost of living is increasing and that a modest family allowance payment should increase at least to keep up with the cost of living. That is all we are asking, but the Government says that it cannot afford that.
I would like to remind Hon. Members of the cost of all of this. In 1984, family allowances cost $2.4 billion and that money went to help 6.6 million children. About 20 per cent of that is taxed back because upper-income families pay taxes on their family allowances. Therefore, the net amount was of $1.9 billion. That is probably about the same amount we are going to be paying to the banks in this instance.
Are Government Members saying that we really cannot afford to pay people a cost-of-living increase on their family allowances? I do not know if that is what they are saying. I suppose it is, because that is what this Bill asks for.
Last weekend I had the opportunity to tour three housing complexes in my riding, two in the City of Kamloops and one in the City of Salmon Arm. By and large, these housing complexes were the homes of people with very modest incomes. A number of the families were single-parent families. I went door to door and I asked these people whether they were aware that the Progressive Conservative Government which they had recently seen elected intended to reduce the increases in their family allowance payments because the Government, could not afford it, apparently. When the people heard that their family allowance cheques were going to be reduced from the cost of living, on a number of occasions tears came into these people's eyes. Hon. Members opposite may laugh at that, as Hon. Members are doing now. They are chuckling at that. Imagine people getting a little nervous and perhaps bleary-eyed because the Government is going to be cutting family allowance payments.


Mr. Thacker:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not laughing at it. I insist that the Hon. Member withdraw his comment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will say that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) was not laughing. Not all Members were laughing. I simply said that some Members opposite were laughing.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You did not say "some Members".

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am saying that some Members opposite were laughing when I said that when mothers heard that their family allowance payments were going to be decreased tears came into their eyes. 1 do not find anything funny about that. 1 realize that not everyone was laughing; I am simply saying that some Members opposite found that to be humourous.


James Douglas Manly: They should be standing up defending those people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know that for many people the family allowance cheque which comes each month does not make a big difference in terms of purchasing power. However, when one considers that there are something in the neighbourhood of 1.5 million Canadians who are children of low income families, believe me, when that monthly family allowance cheque comes it is important. To some families it means the difference between having winter clothing for the children to wear to school and not having those clothes. To other families it means being able to afford a pair of running shoes in order that those young children can participate in school sports. In some cases, it means whether or not there will be food on the table for those young people to eat.
In the City of Kamloops, and in many other cities across the country, food banks are very busy at a certain time of year and at a certain time of month. I am speaking of the time when funds from welfare cheques have run out and when people are waiting for family allowance cheques to come in. I am speaking of the time when mothers have to go to the food banks to obtain food in order to put it on the table for their children. That has become a reality now for an increasing number of families in the country.
As responsible parliamentarians, we cannot overlook that. We cannot pretend that it is not taking place. That is why we as New Democrats feel this legislation must be hoisted-it must be stopped. That is why we speak in favour of this motion to hoist this Bill for at least six months. Quite frankly, it should be hoisted for an eternity. It should be an infinite hoist, not one for just six months. I am certain that six months from now it will not make any more sense than it does today. However, it is a way of deferring the decision until, hopefully, saner heads prevail.
It was an extremely stressful situation for me to go door to door and speak to these individuals who will be receiving diminished family allowance payments. It was not easy to ask them what it would mean to their lives; nor was it easy to find out that a decreased family allowance payment over the next number of months will have a profound influence on many of the families whom I visited. It was but a handful, Mr. Speaker. However, I remember vividly a few months ago when the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) had this to say; "Mr. Speaker, you have to be tough, mean and nasty and do all kinds of unpleasant things." The context of the preceding quote was in the sense that we cannot tell the people of Canada what we will do when we get into power because if we tell them then they will never elect us. That was a statement by the present Minister of Justice before the last election. I
remember his words. I remember referring to them on a number of occasions and recognizing that there is an honest man who spoke the absolute truth. I realized that if the Progressive Conservatives had actually laid out what they were going to do before the last election, it would be quite a different result today. However, that is past history. I just wish to point out that, in a sense, we were forewarned when senior spokespersons for that Party indicated that the Government has to be mean and nasty. I suppose a great many of us did not think that the Government would have to be mean and nasty to Canada's children and to mothers struggling to raise those children. We really did not think that is what the Minister of Justice was referring to when he made that comment.
Today, in Canada, one out of every five children under the age of 16 lives in poverty. I hope Members opposite will reflect carefully when they vote on the motion before us. 1 hope Members opposite will reflect on what this legislation will mean to those young people who are living in poverty. I hope they will reflect on what this move will mean to families who really look forward to the family allowance cheque to make up the difference.
I realize there have been changes with respect to tax credits and to the Income Tax Act which will help some families. Let us also recognize that that happens once a year, at tax return time. The people I am referring to are people who are literally struggling on a day-to-day, week-to-week and month-to-month basis. The fact that they will receive some relief at the tax year-end is encouraging. However, it is a year late. What will those families do for the other 12 months of the year?
I ask Members opposite to think seriously about what this measure will do to so many people in their own constituencies. This is not unique to any region of Canada. It is not isolated to any one constituency or province. When one considers that the legislation which is before us is being placed on top of legislation which was introduced with the Budget to cut back on housing for low income Canadians, legislation which removed the possibility for so many Canadians under the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan to afford decent housing, and when one considers the cut-backs on planned parenthood and on transfer payments, and when we see the Government increasing the cost of living for people as a result of the federal sales tax, we see this measure as simply one more burden. We do not have to go through with it. When one considers the total federal Budget, the amounts of money we are considering here are infinitesimal. I plead with Hon. Members, particularly those who sit on the government benches, that, when the time comes to vote on the motion, they realize the importance of doing whatever we can as responsible parliamentarians to ensure that those people who need help today receive it. What that means is that this legislation must not be allowed to proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) on a question or comment.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, 1 was pleased to hear the Hon. Member finally recognize toward the end of his remarks the
September 19, 1985

fact that the piece of legislation which is before us is only one part of a three-part package. I am speaking of changes to the child tax credit, the child tax exemptions under the Income Tax, as well as the measure which is before us. I am glad the Hon. Member recognizes that the net effect of all this will be an improvement for people at the low end of the income scale.
I am sure that the people to whom the Hon. Member spoke in his riding were at the low end of the income scale. Being an honest man and an upright Member of Parliament, I am sure he explained to those people that, in spite of this one change to the family benefits package, the entire package will actually benefit people at the low end of the income scale.
I know that his Party, unlike the Official Opposition, did have a positive and constructive position to put forward with respect to changes in family benefits. However, one of the suggestions that was made, as I understand it, was to eliminate completely the child tax exemption under the Income Tax Act. As the Hon. Member is aware, it is proposed that that exemption decrease from $710 at present to $382 in 1989 for each child. The reason, of course, is to generate extra income in order to increase benefits under the child tax credit. There will be other income as well, some of which will go to help pay for the spouses' allowance provisions that were brought in last fall.
Can the Hon. Member tell the House if he personally supports the total elimination of the child tax exemption under the Income Tax Act? This would mean that modest middle-income families, many of whom I am sure live in his riding, would be deprived of substantial benefits that they will continue to get under the package proposed by the Government as a result of the Budget. Does the Hon. Member support the position of his Party that all of the child tax exemption should be eliminated?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. Yes, I did explain the total package to the people I visited, not simply an edited version. However, as the Hon. Member is aware, my concern is that people have to live 12 months of the year. The monthly family allowance payments are very critical to so many families. Having said that, I want to respond directly to his question: Yes, indeed, I do support that position. I want to make it very clear that this is not just the NDP position or my position; virtually every single social reform group which advised the committee on this issue made reference if not to the exact proposal, then to something very similar.
Our proposal is for an 80 per cent increase in the child tax credit, which perhaps the Hon. Member did not mention, I do not really recall. This would provide a significant increase for virtually all middle and lower-income Canadians. That is based on the assumption that upper-income Canadians do not require support in the same way to assist them in raising their children, and as well that the family allowance should remain universal, no question about that.
Family Allowances Act


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that his Party's proposal would increase total family benefits, but the way it proposes to do it is not only by eliminating the child tax exemption but also by pumping in substantially more new funding. However, I know the Hon. Member is well aware of and concerned about this country's financial position. He is aware of the deficit and I know he would like to see it reduced and eliminated if possible. I know as well that he would never advocate anything irresponsible and which might increase the deficit. I am sure he recognizes it would be impossible to find money from other sources because all it would mean would be an increase in the deficit. Bearing all those things in mind would he still advocate, in order to improve this package, the complete elimination of the child tax exemption, something which, if we did not pump in all this extra money which no one has, would obviously have a detrimental effect on the low and middle-income people of this country?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, both I and my Party have no hesitation in providing the necessary funding to assist those in need in our country. As the Hon. Member well knows, our program does not result in an increase in the deficit, however. His Government is doing that. The Minister of Finance said the other day he was going to increase the deficit by $1 billion at least-there was no hesitation-not to help children or families but to help large financial corporations, domestic and international. There was no hesitation there, not one bit. There is no hesitation in saying we are going to give everyone a $500,000 capital gains exemption and lose all kinds of money, billions of dollars over the years. But we do not have enough money to help children. That is what the Government has been saying.
We feel quite differently. We say that it will not increase the deficit to do this. We can pay for it by reforming the tax system, something which every Member of this House agrees needs to be reformed. There are many corporations and individuals who do not pay their fair way today. We feel, as 1 am sure all Hon. Members do, that if those corporations and individuals simply paid their fair tax, we would have all the necessary funds to provide the capita) injection to assist those people in need, whether it be young children or families. We would not increase the deficit, we would just have a fair collection of taxes, which I am sure the Hon. Member would endorse 100 per cent.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has referred to his Party's proposals concerning a fair tax system. Certainly, as he indicated, all Members of the House endorse the idea of a fair tax system. Of course where we would have our differences, I am sure, is over the question of what is a fair tax system. As he knows the Budget proposed a minimum tax and the Minister of Finance this week, in answer to a question I posed myself, indicated that a minimum tax is on its way and will be introduced to be effective as of January 1, 1986. In addition to that, there are other proposals in the Budget for raising funds. The net effect of all those proposals and all the proposals I have heard from the Hon. Member's Party which

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
suggest we should reinstate some of the marginal tax rates which previously existed, as the Hon. Member knows, will not be to eliminate or reduce the deficit or change the course this country is moving in, because those marginal tax rates were in place at a time when the deficit was growing and they did not halt the growth of the deficit. Regardless of how we may differ on reform of the tax system, I think we know that that alone will not change the direction of the financial affairs of this country and eliminate the deficit. He and I both know that in our hearts and minds.
However, bearing in mind that regardless of reform there would still be a deficit and we would still have financial difficulties, would the NDP and the Hon. Member personally still advocate that we eliminate altogether the child tax exemption in the Income Tax Act?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What does the Hon. Member want me to do, Mr. Speaker, put it in writing in blood? We have a position and I do not know what more I can say. Yes! Yes! What I find interesting, as I try to answer his question, is that what we are debating here is not the deficit. I wish the Hon. Member would rise and say that he believes that the appropriate thing to do is to reduce increases to family allowances. Does he really believe that we should be reducing the increases to the family allowance payments across the board to all Canadians? Does he support what is before the House at the moment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Give him a chance to answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Member for York East (Mr. Redway) to answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier:: For a short answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, the Member for York East has the floor for a short response.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we are talking about a three-part package-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Hon. Member being given the floor to explain his position. However, I would like to reserve the position of the next speaker, because you may have noticed it is now 12:01 p.m., and I think there are 58 minutes of debate left. If the Hon. Member recognized on this side of the House takes the floor before the 50 minutes are up, he will be entitled to take 20 minutes for his speech and not the additional 10 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is right. However, the 58 minutes are up in any case, and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) will have 10 minutes.


Alan Redway: Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member realizes that we are talking about a three-part package, the net effect of which is to improve benefits for low income families. The second point is that, apart from that, there is going to be no decrease in the family allowance. It may not increase as fast as it would otherwise, but there is to be no decrease, and the Hon. Member knows that quite well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, regarding the tax on medication, the Prime Minister knows perfectly well, although Progressive Conservative Members may not be aware of this, that the "family pharmacy" is now taxed. Arthritis sufferers need liniment and bufffered aspirin.
The Government said it would tax that because it is not important. I would like to give you some figures. How many youths under age 15 suffer from arthritis and whose parents are faced with additional expenses just to pay the 10 per cent tax?


An Hon. Member:: There is no tax.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, a Progressive Conservative Member claims there is no tax. Read the press release. He does not know anything, Mr. Speaker. I have no idea which riding he comes from, we have never heard of it.
Mr. Speaker, 3.2 million Canadians suffer from arthritis, including 600,000 in Quebec. Some 30,000 young Canadians under age 15 suffer from arthritis and must use pain relieving drugs on a regular basis, yet this Government and this Prime Minister of Iron Ore fame have chosen to levy a tax on sick Canadians. Who are the biggest consumers of cough syrups, congestion relieving drugs, dressings and band-aids in Canada? Families with children. Here again this heartless Government has seen fit to launch a frontal attack against families with children. I see the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) indicating it is not so. He has stood up for millionnaires, he has decided he came here to protect million-naires, and that is his right. Well, Mr. Speaker, I for one, thought I would come here to champion the cause of poor and middle income Canadians.


Mr. Bissonnette:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State (Small Businesses) on a point or order.


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) wants to rake me over the coals, but he has precious little to say. This is just another opportunity for him to speak nonsense, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that was a point of order. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) may continue.


Jean-Claude Malépart: He does not know anything, except perhaps in the field of structural beams, and that is just about it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to prove that the Government, the Prime Minister and most Members on the other side of the House have misled the population. They did admit to misleading the elderly, so they apologized for that, they did admit to misleading the sick, so again they apologized for that, and
Family Allowances Act
once again we will do everything we can to force them to apologize for misleading families with children.
The November 5th Speech from the Throne was a Progressive Conservative document in which the Prime Minister had the Governor General say this about social justice:
My Government has as a high priority measures to support and strengthen the Canadian family, which is the cornerstone of our society.
The Government slashes $55 million off income support programs then throws that money down the drain-$56 million-to change the colour of military uniforms. That is one of the measures endorsed by the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote), the Minister of State for Small Businesses. That was the option of all Quebec Conservative Members, $56 million to switch colours at the expense of families with children, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) on a point of order.


Clément M. Côté: I should like to make a correction, Mr. Speaker. The Member for Lac-Saint-Jean is not Minister of State for Small Businesses.


An Hon. Member:: Nor will he ever be!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I continue. There is a conflict, and it is a very nice start for the Conservatives.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been nicknamed the Minister of Social Injustice. It is the first time in the history of our country that the person in charge of that department has fully endorsed the interests of the multinationals and the rich at the expense of the poor, Mr. Speaker.
For the information of Progressive Conservative members who know how to read, I should like to quote a statement which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) made on November 15, 1984, as reported on page 277:
It is the family and commitment to community which guarantee stability in our social fabric.
That is the Minister of Social Injustice speaking.
It is my role as Minister of National Health and Welfare to put forward signals and initiatives which will strenghten the role of the family and give it more permanence in society than I feel it has been given before.
He has succeeded, Mr. Speaker, he has cut $50 million from the assistance programs aimed at helping them. Here is another proof, Mr. Speaker. This consultation paper entitled Child and Elderly Benefits has a blue cover and was published by the Progressive Conservatives under the authority of Jake Epp, Minister of Social Injustice.

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
When we want to determine the intellectual honesty of this Government, of this Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, we must use as criterion the principle of universality which is the basic element of our social safety net. Its integrity should not be questioned and will not be questioned.
In January, 1985, speaking on behalf of his Government and on his own behalf, the little guy from Baie-Comeau stated: We are not going to touch universality. Four months later, he blamed the Canadian public for lacking the necessary maturity to discuss social programs. That is the image of our Prime Minister!
In this same blue consultation paper, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Social Injustice of Canada pledged that the findings were aimed at starting a debate, both open-I wonder if he knows what it means-and objective on our tax benefit programs and at redirecting all the savings to programs aimed at urgent social objectives, including the protection of needy Canadians, rather than the reduction of the deficit. It is written black on white. That is the word of the Government and the member from Toronto or wherever he comes from who wants to reduce the deficit on the backs of our children. There is a contradiction in that party, Mr. Speaker. And there is still more evidence that the accused is guilty as charged.
On December 20, 1984, as shown on page 1401 of Hansard, my colleague for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) asked the following question to the Prime Minister:
Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether it is his Government's policy, or whether his Government intends, to reduce gradually over the years the tax exemption for families with children?
The answer of the Prime Minister, whose words must normally and quite rightly be believed, was as follows:
No, Mr. Speaker. That is not what the Government intends to do.
However, if you look in the Budget, you find that it is exactly what he has done.


Mr. Boudria:: Aunt Jeanne was right!


Mr. Jourdenais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) on a point of order.


Fernand Jourdenais: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has just quoted something that I never said in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I never spoke about the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais); it is not worth it because nobody knows him. I can understand that he would feel insulted because we never speak about him, but-


Sheila Maureen Copps: He has nothing to say.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I only have one minute left?
Mr. Speaker, I could also quote the comments of the Minister who, in his honesty, invites the committees ... it is true that he looks good. When I was an MLA in Quebec, Maurice Bellemare called people like the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister clean cut guys because they are neatly combed, neatly dressed and have a distinguished appearance, but they are just empty shells, Mr. Speaker. I agree with Maurice Bellemare.
Mr. Speaker, all the groups, that is 92 groups of citizens from across the land came here to tell the Minister: All the money you will be slashing from income tax deductions should be transferred to the income tax credit. What do we see in the budget? It is taking $55 million out of the pockets of families in need. They are not surprised to hear the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette), who defends million-naires, suggest that indeed they were going to reduce the deficit with that.
We find in the document that a member of the organization of the Health and Welfare Advisory Committee, an independent body, which is neither Liberal nor Conservative or NDP has carried out a major study, and I would urge Progressive Conservative Members to read it. It clearly shows that needy families will lose money starting from the first year. Secondly, couples with an average income of $26,000, which does not make one rich, will lose $125 starting from next year because of this Government's senseless actions and the ignorance of Progressive Conservative Members.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, and I will conclude on this for lack of time, unfortunately, yes, I can tell you that when we supported the senior citizens, we worked day and night, body and soul to force those Members who, as they are now saying today about family allowances, pretend they support that and today they look foolish because the Prime Minister backed down, because he recognized his error; we will be working body and soul and all the groups in Quebec are joining together, and I can tell you that Progressive Conservative members are in for a show and we will find another Mrs. Denis, and Charlie Brown will again have someone speaking his mind to him.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, 1 like very much the title to which the previous speaker referred, "The Minister of Social Injustice". Several years ago, the former Prime Minister ran a campaign on a "just society". He was in power for a number of years but he failed to reach that goal. Chief Cardinal from Alberta wrote a very good book entitled The Unjust Society which tabulates the injustices which have been done to the native people across the country. I think it is time for a new book. Perhaps we can use Chief Cardinal's title and call it, "The Government which is Developing an Unjust Society". Not only is that the net result of the Government's Budget but in the area under discussion we
September 19, 1985

do not have any kind of suggestion that the people of Canada should trust the Conservative Government to produce a just society. In its scramble to protect its friends at the higher levels of income and to eliminate the deficit, the Government has put itself into such a position that none of the people of Canada at any level will be able to trust it.
What did the Budget do, Mr. Speaker? It was aimed at getting more money from the lower and the middle income groups. Bill C-70, which is before us today, is only one of the steps in the process of getting money out of the lower and middle income groups and, in effect, passing it on to the large corporations and to the shareholders of those corporations who will profit from the situation.
Step number one was obviously the intended reduction in the senior citizen's pensions. That failed. It embarrassed the Government, the Prime Minister and it embarrassed the "Minister of Injustice", as the previous speaker suggested.
Number two is a tax on illness because the Government has established across the board, and is already collecting, a tax on many of the drugs which people need to survive. We have a tax on illness we have a tax on old age, and now we have a tax on children. The Government is attempting to reduce the amount of money which the mothers of Canada are going to need to keep their families going. It is not just the poor people in the country who are going to feel this. Anyone who is having difficulty making ends meet recognizes that as the family allowance goes up with inflation, they have that little extra money which helps them to keep going.
What does this Bill do, Mr. Speaker? First of all, it attacks universality. I know that Members of the Government side will say that it does not attack universality but if we project what is happening in this Bill over a period of time, we find that eventually the family allowance will be very insignificant and the tax credit will be increased, so that we will end up with a program which is selective and not universal. That is the direction in which we are headed. It is obviously part of the government agenda to eliminate universality of social programs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), when he was commenting on the MacDonald Report suggested that he would like to reopen the case for universality. The defence of the Government on this matter has been to suggest that it will raise the tax credit, and that suggestion is valid and worth-while.
There is no doubt about the direction and the agenda of this Government. It shows up in this Bill and it showed up in the previous suggestion which failed concerning reduction in the senior citizens pensions. It shows that this Government is willing to choose selective payments over universal payments. Even if we did accept the idea of the tax credit as being a replacement, the amount being put into the tax credit is so insignificant that it will not pay for the increases in sales tax. It is not enough. The tax credit is not enough to help a poor mother or a poor family pay for the taxes being imposed by this Government. The Government keeps telling us and hopes
Family Allowances Act
that we believe-but I think the people of Canada know better by now-that it is trying to do these things for the benefit of the family.
The effect of this Bill falls mostly on two groups of people. First, it affects the families. Within the families there are two other groups. The Budget and this action affect the amount of money a person on social welfare will get. In many places, Saskatchewan is probably a good example, the amount of social welfare has been cut so drastically that it is very difficult for a family to get along on what it gets from social welfare.
With the number of unemployed increasing and with the lack of jobs being developed by the Government, more and more people are receiving social welfare. By the third or fourth week of the month, perhaps at the end of the second week if a person is paid every two weeks, people find themselves without enough money to eat well. That is just one group of people who will be affected by this Bill over a long period of time.
We recognize that the immediate effect of the Bill will not be felt. I think the Government is counting on that to make the Bill acceptable. Canadians know what indexing is. Canadians know that this Government committed itself to social programs and said that it would not cut back on universal or social programs.
In one of the Minister's main statements he said that the Government would not cut back social programs to reduce the deficit. When he rose in his place the other day, his first statement was to say that everybody knew the country has a deficit, that we must do something about it, and as a result he was introducing Bill C-70 so the Government would be able to reduce the deficit. That was a direct statement that the Government will reduce the deficit by reducing social services and that it will be done on the backs of children and families, the lower and middle-income groups.
Several months ago, the same Minister guaranteed that any reduction in social programs would not be used to reduce the deficit but would be given to people more in need than others.
What we have is an absolute lack of trust. If the Government thinks that in this approach it will get the support of Canadians, it is badly mistaken.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in my place, but not at all pleased that it is necessary for Members of Parliament, yet again in a period of a few months, to remind this Government of its broken promises, broken commitments and of its abandonment of the principle of sharing the burden of taxation equitably.
It was only a few months ago that many of us stood in our places and suggested to the Government of Canada that it had done something unjust and immoral in attempting to balance the books on the backs of senior citizens, those least able to defend themselves, but here we are again. We are to get a message through that targeting precious dollars predicated on

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
the notion that the state has a role to play in ensuring the welfare of Canadian children is a mistake.
I remember standing here as other Members did, including the Hon. Member who just spoke so eloquently, telling the Government it was making a mistake in attempting to take dollars out of the hands of mothers and fathers, primarily mothers, used to caring for their children. This is immoral, unjust and wrong and the Government will not get away with it.
I am sure I speak for both opposition Parties when I say that Members are not here simply to make noise, to score political points or to embarrass the administration. We are telling the Government that this measure is unacceptale to us as parliamentarians and that Bill C-70 is unacceptable to Canadians. Let me tell the Government now that this country is going to organize. The Coalition for Justice that spontaneously came together just before this House rose for the summer will come together again. The sense of moral outrage expressed by Canadians last May, June and early July, shall be expressed again.
Bill C-70 will progressively, over the next four year period, take precious dollars and cents out of Canadian households, the dollars targeted to ensure the health and welfare of children.
When I sit and look at the assessment undertaken by the health critic for the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), showing the impact of this Bill on Canadian families, I am startled. By 1990, a family with an income of $15,000 a year-two earners and two children-will pay an additional $1,844 in taxes. A family with an income of $80,000 taking advantage of capital gains, will pay an additional $404, and one not taking advantage of capital gains will pay an additional $1,125. Where is the justice in telling a family with an income of $15,000 which puts them squarely below the poverty line and on the bottom of the totem pole, that it will have to pay an additional $1,844 while a family earning $80,000 will have to pay only $1,125? Where is the justice in that kind of measure? Where is the reflection of the so-called sacred trust which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) claims was bestowed upon him by Canadians last September 4? How can that kind of regressive and immoral measure be described as keeping faith with Canadians?
We in Ottawa live in an ivory tower, not only as we work in the House of Commons, surrounded by stained glass windows and marbled imported from the continents of the world, but as we live in the suburbs of Ottawa, in Rockcliffe Park, Craig Henry and so on. These are neighbourhoods of beautiful brick homes with two-car garages, paved driveways and even pink flamingoes on the front lawns. However, that is not reality. It is a lovely model for the rest of the country and it is a dream to which those who have not aspire.
What about a $15,000 wage earner in the community of Anchor Point, Newfoundland, with a house built on the rocks overlooking salt water? The husband slaves for four months of
the year in the North Atlantic in order to bring home some income. I see the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette) nodding his head; he visited that area not too long ago. In fact, the wife works in a fish plant splitting fish for three or four months a year so that the family can make that $15,000. Do the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) really believe that such people can afford to pay an additional $1,879? Do they really believe that loggers in northern British Columbia can afford to pay that amount? Such loggers find themselves facing a diminishing resource. They work with their hands in order to bring home incomes for their families. They are not living on taxpayers' dollars from bureaucratic jobs and living in Craig Henry or Rockcliffe Park. They live in northern British Columbia communities such as Smithers and work with their hands for a living. Can they afford to pay an additional $1,879, which will be taxed away from their income? Is that the trust which he placed in the hands of the Prime Minister, the sacred trust which the Prime Minister claims is a mantle of prime ministership? No, it is not.
Last summer Canadians amazed this administration when they spoke with one voice in defence of the quality of life of senior citizens. The true measure of any nation is how it treats its elderly citizens and its children. We saw that Canadians would not accept a measure or an attempt to balance the books on the backs of senior citizens at a time when the Government was contemplating capital gains giveaways and giveaways to multinational oil companies. Every Member of the House knows that Canadians will not stand by silently and watch a measure being introduced which, between now and 1990, will have a serious impact upon the ability of the poorest people to provide for their children-to provide a roof over their heads, to provide proper clothing and to provide decent food. Canadians will not stand for it.


Mr. Lapierre:: Nor for tainted tuna.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Nor for tainted tuna, that is for sure. 1 plead with Hon. Members opposite to do what they did last year. They should speak up in their caucus meetings and in their private councils. They should warn the Minister of Finance that this will not wash any more than the Government's last attempt to punish those least able to fend for themselves. If they were astonished last summer and learned respect for grey power, they should remember that every senior citizen, among the most unselfish people in Canada, who stood and demanded justice at that time will join the cause and demand justice for their children and grandchildren. I advise them to withdraw this Bill.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a degree of sadness that I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-70. At this time in the progression of civilization and the human race, major social, economic, cultural and technological changes are taking place. They are changing the way in which society operates and traditional family structures. They are also affecting the manner in which children are raised and the traditional roles of males and females. Also at this time
September 19, 1985

there is very little certainty and it is no longer possible for a youngster to attend school, obtain a degree and be assured of a job for 20 to 40 years and then to retire. In fact we are all experiencing tremendous changes, very fast and severe social changes. There is a need for collective government action at this time. Very often the elderly and the children are the victims of fast social, economic and cultural changes. Yet it was the old and now it is the young which the Government attacked in its Budget.
Earlier this year the people of Canada, not just old people but men and women of all age groups and from all walks of life, joined together and created such a massive protest that the Government had to back down on its deindexation of pensions. The same will be true when it comes to the attack of the Government on the children of Canada.
Raising children nowadays is not an easy task. I should know, in that I have been a single parent for part of my life. Right now I have six children for whom I have some responsibility. They range from teenagers to a young baby. The task is certainly easier for me than it is for most of my fellow Canadians. In terms of my income, I am one of the few privileged Canadians. However, most parents do not fall into that category. Even though I am a member of this privileged class, I know that family allowance cheques are an important part of my budget. I know what it is like to purchase new running shoes and jackets for five teenagers to return to school in the fall. The purchase of such shoes can involve an outlay of some $20 to $40 per pair.
Also we must remember that we are living in an age of mass media advertising, much of which is directed to children. Some of the best psychologists are working on that advertising, and the children of today are subjected to forces at work which are much more poweful than in earlier days. They are concerned about peer groups and peer acceptance, much of which is affected by consumer items.
This summer I had occasion to visit some of my constituents. I knocked on doors in a low-income district. I spoke with an older, single parent woman who had a teenage son attending high school. She could not afford to buy him a new pair of running shoes. It was a $25 to $30 outlay which she just could not afford. Mr. Speaker, she expressed her frustration at not being able to provide her teenage son with the things that the other teenage children at school had.
As these families and as all families in the country do the difficult job of trying to raise their kids in a half decent way and provide them with love, a sense of security and a sense of belonging, and they, hopefully, in turn will become upright, decent and productive citizens of this country, I think families need help. They do not need to be attacked. The state cannot, Mr. Speaker, do all those things that will ensure that the kids of this country will have a decent family home, with equal opportunity and the ability to become productive citizens. The state cannot guarantee that, but the state can do those things that will help parents do their jobs.
Family Allowances Act
We hear from the Tories tremendous rhetoric and they wrap themselves, Mr. Speaker, in righteous and moral platitudes about the importance of the family. I agree, the family is a very important, very essential unit for the social fabric which has been under tremendous strain. We hear many members of the Government, as they wrap themselves in this moral selfrighteousness and talk about the importance of the family, denounce some miserable soul who might have got pregnant out of wedlock and seeks to have an abortion because the alternatives in her life are not very attractive. Oh, no, these moral, selfrighteous people will denounce the poor child, but they are the very same ones who will attack the opportunity of that young girl to carry through with her pregnancy and to raise her child. They will attack her economic opportunity of raising that child. They will force her into an option that is unacceptable.
It is unfortunate that people are forced to discontinue a pregnancy through economic circumstances. I think that when a civilization and a society reaches that stage where people cannot continue with a pregnancy and cannot give birth and raise their children because economically they cannot afford it, then the civilization and society has reached such a low point that it can surely be considered barbaric.
Instead of this Government helping the family, helping young women make a "pro choice" it is in fact creating the economic conditions in which the opposite occurs. Surely the responsibility should be the Government's for the type of society that it is creating in this good, rich country of ours.
Mr. Speaker, I stand opposed to the motion.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased with this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-70.
I think that when considering this legislation, we have a choice of two approaches. One is more or less mathematic, and by that I mean that, on the basis of this Bill, we can imagine a whole series of situations and scenarios in which a number of families could possibly benefit by the implementation of these provisions.
However, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that all this is entirely hypothetical, and further assumptions must be made with respect to the inflation rate and salary levels, so that the range of possible answers is very broad indeed.
I intend to ignore this approach, for the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the mathematics of the question may be, I feel that if there is even one case, one family in Canada where the implementation of this Bill will result in a potential or outright loss, that in itself would be reason enough to take an energetic stand against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I would prefer another approach which considers the humanitarian aspect, that is, the impact on many hundreds of families as a result of a reduction in family allowance payments.

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
The Opposition will say this reduction is only marginal and hardly significant.
Mr. Speaker, I think they forget that to these families $5 can make all the difference.
We must remember that those families and we meet them in the course of our work, where one person has full responsibility for one or two children in many cases depend on welfare. They wonder how they can afford to send their children back to school in the fall, because of all the expense involved. They worry because the family allowance they get seems hardly enough to start the school year. For these people, $20 when you have to live in that kind of situation-it is simply disastrous, and I think that justifies opposing the passage of this Bill most aggressively.
Besides, the principle of these cuts has already been clearly established, and I would like to quote from a document entitled: "Securing Economic Renewal", in the Budget Papers, where it says:
Net federal expenditures will be reduced by approximately $15 million in fiscal year 1985-86 and $40 million in 1986-87. Provincial tax revenues will not be affected in 1985-86 and only marginally in 1986-87.
Thus, it is clear from the start that the purpose of the Bill is to save money and add to the Government's revenues.
The justification given for a decision of this kind is, of course, the size of the national debt and the fact that the country's ability to pay has become problematic. We can accept the argument up to this point, that is, academically and theoretically speaking. Except for the rich, as my colleague so rightfully points out.
Canada's present financial situation is a matter of fact for everybody, rich and poor alike. But the problem, the catastro-phy, the drama is that we are so indulgent towards the rich, we are making unbelievable concessions to them. To the poor, to old age security pension recipients and to others who cannot do without drugs we say: You have a social burden, you shoulder a responsibility and so you must share the problems facing this country.
And then we turn around and think nothing of granting generous tax concessions to oil companies, we readily support banks, and we make all kinds of decisions in favour of individuals who we know full well can indeed pay their own way.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is imperative and essential to correct the situation. As a matter of fact, the recurrent theme advocated by our friends opposite throughout the election campaign can be summed up by the word generosity. I doubt if I ever heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rise to speak without saying that we had to be generous, particularly towards underprivileged people. Generous here, there and everywhere.
Well, this Government has indeed been very generous, extremely so. The problem is that it has been generous towards people who, in the circumstances, could also be generous and accept to share part of the financial burden, if only to give some respite to men and women who simply cannot support our ever increasing Financial load.
Here is a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), whom my colleague rightfully dubbed the social injustice minister: "The stability of our social fabric is guaranteed by the family and our attachement to the community. As Minister of National Health and Welfare, my role is to give directions and take initiatives designed to strengthen the role of the family and give it more importance than ever in our society". As a philosophy it seems encouraging and reassuring for those who are anxiously waiting to see what the future has in store for them.
Those people are sitting at home watching TV and wondering what they can do. How can 1 show my disapproval? How can I say I disagree? They are totally help less. They cannot afford to hire lobbyists. They cannot afford to have friends close to the system express their discontent. However, they are the ones who have the most crying need for those crumbs, for those amounts which I know are marginal but still something important for them. And there are people asking us: How is it that you the managers of this country cannot find the money, the big money of course, because $50 million have been mentioned, which we need to enjoy at least the same stability we had under the Liberal Government when you find the money needed to help out banks, to buy icebreakers, to change armed forces uniforms and to allow so many other usually harebrained expenditures? I must honestly say that unfortunately I do not know the answer.
Look at the party opposite. I was listening yesterday to the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) bragging about inflation and about interest rates. But Canadians are not that dumb. They know quite well that today's inflation and interest rates are not the result of steps taken by the Government, by the party opposite, but the result of those taken before this Government ever came to power. When things are going badly they say that it is the fault of the previous Government and when inflation and interest rates are low they say we owe it to the previous Government.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to do exactly as you did on the issue of old age security pensions that is to back down as you did when you acknowledged that you were wrong about that. Please do now what you did for medicine and for old age security pensions and the opposition members will back you up.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the last 30 or 40 years, we have seen some very important programs adopted in this country, programs which have improved the lot of most Canadians. I am thinking of the Unemploy-
September 19, 1985

ment Insurance Program, the Old Age Security Program, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan and others. Most Canadians who are working seem to feel that we have solved most of the country's problems. They believe or want to believe that we have eliminated poverty in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In the City of Winnipeg and in every city of Canada, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people who are appearing every day at facilities provided by churches and other community groups to get a decent meal. At the Stella Mission in Winnipeg, just a few blocks from my own constituency, they are again providing food hampers for people who are in need. That is something which occurred 75 years ago when the founder of the CCF, J. S. Woodsworth, the Party which preceded the NDP, was in charge of that mission.
Schools and churches in Winnipeg and in every other city in Canada are collecting used clothes to provide for people in need. There are people who cannot go to work unless they receive those used clothes because they cannot afford to buy needed clothes to wear. There are children in the core areas of Winnipeg and other cities who cannot go to school because they do not have shoes unless they receive them from voluntary organizations who are trying to meet those needs.
I relate these facts because when the Government proposes to deindex family allowances, to take away from many women the one sure source of income they have, it is striking at the hearts of people in need. We are not talking about a few people, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people.
It has been estimated that half of single-parent families headed by women are living in poverty. That is the situation; yet the Government is proposing that beginning next year we deindex family allowances by 3 per cent. It is almost certain that in the next number of years, the cost of living will increase by more than 3 per cent.
Let us assume that the cost of living increases by 4.5 per cent. If one considers what has happened in the last 10 years, that is a very conservative estimate. That will mean that the real value of family allowances, particularly for those in a lower-income bracket, will be reduced by 3 per cent each year. If that continues for three years, as it undoubtedly will, we are talking about a very substantial decrease in the real value of family allowances.
We say that this is unacceptable, and we are not alone in saying that. Every organization involved in working with families and children has expressed very clearly that what the Government is proposing is unacceptable. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the Elouse took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as custodians of the land known as Canada we have the responsibility of conserving and protecting the fragile nature of the Arctic. With the important issue of Canadian sovereignty looming over us, certain questions become necessary and timely. Should sovereignty become an expression of military presence only? Is sovereignty to be asserted by breaking ice and taking oil south? Should we rely on icebreakers, submarines, oil rigs and the like, in order to assert our presence?
Rather than using all this disruptive technology as the only way of asserting ourselves, why not identify and encourage civilian presence by way of reinforcing the native people, their lifestyle and activities in the Arctic? We could facilitate and strenthen traditional life-the living off the land-as was practised so well before the arrival of the white people, and which is now endangered. We could encourage the expansion and facilitate the movement of caribou, musk-ox, and reindeer herds.
We could accelerate the creation north of 60 of a network of national parks and wilderness areas. Our native people have proven over the centuries their ability to live in the Arctic and they should be active participants in reinforcing Canadian sovereignty. In the long term, we will be better served by developing sovereignty with the help of the native people rather than relying on the technology and values prevailing in southern Canada.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a story of three billion-dollar Conservative Ministers and each had a little pen.
The first Minister was in charge of the Wheat Board. By the stroke of his little pen he cut out our quality advantage over other wheat exporters by permitting the sale of low quality unlicensed wheat. This was in keeping with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) wish that we have a level playing field in our trade relations with the United States. We have now lowered our quality standards to theirs; but the cost to western farmers in lost future sales will be in the billions of dollars.

September 19, 1985
The second Minister gave a billion dollars to bank depositors-some of them were even Canadian. With her little pen she showed the world that Canadian banks are not terribly well supervised. Not only did she cost the taxpayers over a billion dollars in bailout guarantees, but she sent a signal to all future foreign investors to avoid Canadian banks. That is billions of dollars that we will not get to use.
The third Minister used his little pen to overrule his food inspectors' advice on some rotting tuna. Military cooks would not use it. We would not let starving Ethiopians eat it, but he insisted on putting it on the market. Now nobody wants Canadian processed fish-not Canadians and not foreign buyers. By lowering our standards he, too, has cost us a billion dollars in lost sales and lost reputation because he did not pay attention to quality.
Quality counts. Canadians used to have it. With their three little pens, three Ministers took us from world class to bush league.

[ Translation]



BEHAVIOUR OF CERTAIN MEMBERS DURING PROCEEDINGS

Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, as I was asking a question of great importance to the businessmen of my riding, the Liberals-and I hasten to say that the New Democratic Members were quite respectful-the Liberals were practically raising hell in the House. I am saying that because it was not the first such incident since we came back earlier this month.
Last spring only the odd Member behaved like that, but the attitude of the Liberals has deteriorated so much since last September 9th that those Members, bent on emulating the belligerent approach of their leader, keep shouting and kicking up a row, systematically opposing all interventions by Government Members. They no longer bother to listen to answers given to their questions by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues.
It is not as if they were trying to defend the interests of Canadians. What matters to them is the political points they might score. The Gallup poll proves it and Canadians are not fooled. The moment they enter the House, those men and women follow their leader, forget all about good manners and behave like uncivilized people. This is a deplorable situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley).



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, for ten days those of us in western Canada have witnessed the debate over the Canadian Commercial Bank. In this time Parliament has reached a new low in partisan irresponsibility. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has departed from his usual high role as a responsible spokesman and has chosen the rankest and most dubious kind of denunciation.
In the House, the Leader of the Opposition indulged in some wild flights of fancy of which the House should take notice. Furthermore, the House is entitled to an explanation. The Leader of the Opposition has levelled wild, unfounded accusations at the Government, its Ministers, high public servants, the banks, and everyone connected with the demise of this western Canadian bank. His statements and unfounded charges have done grave damage to public confidence and to Canada's banking industry at large.
I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to make public, away from the protection of the House, his destructive allegations. Parliamentary privilege has thus far protected the Opposition Leader in his wild accusations. It should protect him no longer. Surely the Leader of the Opposition will endeavour to rescue his tattered credibility and explain his allegations. If he fails to do so, with his credibility now reduced to a level even below that of the Rat Pack's, he should resign.



HOUSING


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the near future the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be meeting with his provincial counterparts to sign agreements on the future of social housing in Canada. All signals indicate that the Government wants nothing more to do with providing adequate and affordable housing for Canadians. Co-operative housing associations, native Indian bands, social planning groups and labour unions have condemned the transfer of social housing responsibilities to the provinces as a foolish and costly mistake of the Government.
In British Columbia, where the Social Credit-read Conservative-Government was given responsibility for senior citizen housing in 1979, the Bennett Government cut housing starts from 1,700 in 1978 to 600 in 1979, to 350 in 1983. While the PC Government of Alberta spent $128 per capita on housing last year, the British Columbia Government spent a total of $13 per person. Giving the Bennett Government control of social housing would mean thousands more Canadians living in the streets with no homes to call their own.
I call on the Government to begin caring for Canadians in need of housing. Do not leave them freezing in the cold this winter without adequate shelter.
September 19, 1985



FINANCE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the application of the sales tax now being applied for the first time to non-prescription drugs, which was announced in the Budget last spring, has created real hardship for thousands of people in Canada, but particularly for two groups of people-our retired people, the seniors, who frequently need to purchase drug items such as aspirin, cough remedies, anticids and laxatives, and mothers with young children, who make frequent and regular purchases of items such as cough and cold remedies, baby aspirin, baby oil and powder, and vitamins.
We are told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that he had to do these things because he has to deal with the record deficit. At the same time as he puts this tax on people who really cannot afford to pay the increased cost, he has increased the benefits to people in the highest income brackets through the $500,000 exemption for capital gains, through the increased reduction of income taxes, and so on.
I call on the Minister of Finance, who has been able to reduce taxes for those upper income Canadians by several billions of dollars, to remove this new sales tax which he has applied to non-prescription drugs and which is having such adverse effects on so many Canadians in the low and middle-income brackets.



THE LIBERAL PARTY


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the actions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) leave much to be desired. It is too bad he ignored the advice of the editor of the newspaper Le Devoir, Jean-Louis Roy, who wrote on September 16th: "It is time for the Liberal Leader to go beyond the level of crassly partisan speeches in the House and set forth his vision of what this country needs."
Mr. Speaker, it is doubly unfortunate that the Leader of the Official Opposition has failed to take advantage of this opportunity to moderate his comments.
Instead of taking the very apt advice offered by Mr. Roy, the Leader of the Opposition has preferred to make countless unfounded comments and accusations. The inordinate and excessive charges he made involving the Prime Minister, the Governor of the Bank of Canada and Canadian bankers have had the effect of seriously harming the financial institutions of this country.
Now that many of his statements have been contradicted by officials in the United States and by presidents of Canadian banks, he owes the House an explanation. The House of
Commons is neither a neighbourhood bar nor a businessmen's club: it is the public forum of this country.
Unless he wants to be branded as irresponsible, the Leader of the Opposition ought to take this opportunity to give the House and this country the explanations to which they are entitled.
Fortunately, Canadians are not fooled by the Opposition's accusations. Look at this morning's polls-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.

[DOT] (MIO)



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, early this week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) claimed the Canadian Commercial Bank transferred all its good assets and good loans worth $300 million to its California subsidiary between the time it received a cease and desist order from the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco and the time it came before the Inspector General of Banks.
This claim has been repudiated.
David Scott, the Deputy Superintendent of the State Banking Department in Los Angeles, is quoted as saying the U.S. Federal Reserve Board did not warn the CCB of a pending cease and desist order in February. Mr. Scott is also quoted as saying there was no flow of $300 million from the CCB to its California subsidiary. I talked to Mr. Scott today and he confirmed the accuracy of the report in an Ottawa newspaper.
On Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister if he knew about this transfer of funds. On Thursday we ask the Leader of the Opposition: Did he know about it? Did he look for evidence before making his allegation?
It is because I have a real and profound respect for the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps more than some of his Members do, that I now urge him to return to this subject today, present the evidence he has to support his claims, if he has it, and, if not, withdraw his remarks.

[ Translation]



IMMIGRATION


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of Canadians to the intolerable situation prevailing at the Ville Saint-Laurent Detention Centre for refugees in Montreal. Yesterday, detainees who were on a hunger strike were involved in a Fight with security guards, and one refugee was wounded.

September 19, 1985
The conditions under which refugees are detained in these centres are deplorable and fail to meet the minimum standards of the United Nations. I visited the Centre in June with several other Members, and we found conditions similar to those in prisons.
The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration transmitted a report on these detention centres to the Minister last June, and we are still waiting for a reply.
A few months ago, five security guards at the Ville Saint-Laurent Centre were fired because of their brutal treatment of the refugees, which means that the authorities are aware of the problem.
The detainees who are on a hunger strike want to meet the regional authorities responsible for detention centres tomorrow, with their lawyers.
I hope the authorities will have the decency to listen so that finally something can be done about the inhuman conditions under which these people are being detained.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we have in the last few days seen the development of a serious situation in Canada. As we all know, the Opposition often releases information which becomes the news in the nation. This news quickly reaches into the homes of the people of Canada. The credibiity of the Opposition rests on the accuracy of that information.
Over the last couple of weeks the Leader of the Opposition has made a number of serious allegations about people and about issues. He has been quick to call for resignations and to offer his condemnation of actions on nothing more than what now appears to be rumour. Today we read that the Leader of the Opposition has been dealing in rumours. He called for the resignation of others on the basis of rumours; what will he now do faced with the facts of his own?
Will he, one, take the advice of the Hon. Member from Shawinigan and call a convention?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert Glen Cooper: Or, two, will he check his facts before attacking the credibility of others?
Or, three, will he continue as he is now by keeping the rest of the rats quiet while he is out in front of pack?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think Hon. Members would expect me to indicate that the last reference in that statement would be normally out of order.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, as arts and culture critic for the NDP caucus I joined with the arts community and Canadians generally in pressing for more Canadian programming, especially in entertainment. Thus it is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome the CBC's announcement of an increase in Canadian television programming to 80 per cent in prime time this year.
If the focus on Canadian programming last week is anything to go by, we have a most exciting season to look forward to. The announcement of a 30 per cent increase in drama programming is even more welcome and more overdue. This new programming will mean jobs and opportunities for Canadian writers, performers, directors and producers, independents as well as those in the Corporation. Yet there are losers as well, for the CBC is continuing its policy of treating women as second-class citizens. The increased opportunity for male writers, actors and so forth is not being matched with similar opportunities for women. Indeed, since more women appear in American programming than in Canadian programming, this move by the CBC may reduce the portrayal of women to below the current and paltry level of one-quarter.
I call on the CBC to become the excellent national network it could be and portray the dynamism and creativity of Canadians of all regions and both sexes.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In reviewing Hansard and the answers to questions yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Prime Minister, I can only conclude that the Government is more interested in covering up incompetence than in coming clean with Canadians.
In view of the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday to the House that "less than desirable", tuna products would be removed from consumer shelves, why does his Minister persist in refusing to withdraw that contaminated tuna from Canadian grocery shelves in light of the Prime Minister's very categorical statement in the House?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the right hon. gentleman's question without necessarily accepting some of the rhetorical comment which preceded it. I would like to tell the House that in the interest of public confidence-
September 19, 1985

Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: -and because there are public concerns about the acceptability of the disputed stocks for consumers, I have today asked my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to invoke the power of the Food and Drug Act and to effect the seizure of the disputed product.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Better late than never. It is a number of months too late but we on this side of the House welcome that statement. In the circumstances, we will review the situation and see how effective it is.
I want to say to the Minister, on behalf of a number of people who telephoned my office, particularly Richard McColl of Killaloe Station in the Ottawa Valley, who was sick all night a few months ago after eating a tin of Bye The Sea tuna, that he and thousands of others of Canadians will be relieved that the Minister is taking strong action-belatedly and too late, but finally.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. McDermid:: What is the question?


Mr. Speaker:: That being no one else rising to ask questions-oh, the Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: The whole House is exhausted.


DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF MINISTERS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to say it is good to see the Government do something. Even though it is acting late, it is now going to be done.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the discretionary power which would still reside with the Minister. It is still possible for a Minister, on his discretionary authority, to reach a decision which could see food substances going on the shelves of stores all across Canada which could technically be described as unfit for human consumption. Therefore, will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that that kind of discretionary power will not reside with a Minister of the Crown?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, in the course of his review of various aspects of federal operations, pointed out some time ago in a preliminary report the almost inherent conflict of interest which exists in some situations where various Ministries are called upon to pass value judgments upon products under their legislative purview. One of the recommendations he is bringing forward is to centralize this capacity for review and judgment in the Department of National Health and Welfare. I think that is a recommendation that most Members would look upon with favour.


CENTRALIZATION OF POWERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister would say, in the spirit in which he answered that question I would like to ask him another one just so that we are very clear. Is the Prime Minister telling the House that the discretionary authority which currently resides with a Minister of the Crown to make a decision that has health implications is going to be removed and put into the Ministry of Health and Welfare?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the discretionary authority which the Hon. Member is speaking of resides in several Departments including those of Agriculture, Corporate and Consumer Affairs, Fisheries and Oceans, and Health and Welfare. The thrust of the recommendation that will be brought forward will be to centralize these inspection services in order that a common standard and a higher degree of excellence can be achieved to ensure health and safety in inspection services throughout the broad range of government authority.


RECOMMENDATION TO CABINET
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not wish to be pedantic on the point, and I understand that the thrust of what the Minister said is to turn health matters over to the Minister who has responsibility for that. However, he did not answer the question, although I am not saying it was deliberate.
The question concerns the discretionary authority specifically. Is he assuring the House that the discretionary authority, which now resides in a variety of Ministries, to make a decision over and above the technical advice on health matters, will be removed and put into the hands of the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that essentially is precisely the consideration that will be brought forward to Cabinet for its decision.


Mr. Frith:: It's about time.


Erik Nielsen: It certainly is about time. It's a pity that it wasn't done many years ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I expect that that proposal will be before Cabinet by approximately the middle of next month.


MINISTER'S ACTION
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I too, was very pleased to hear the announcement of the Minister today. I am sure that to some extent the industry is going to be pleased

September 19, 1985
Oral Questions
as well. However, the Minister made a very, very serious mistake in judgment. In doing so I believe that he contravened, probably deliberately, the Fisheries Inspection Act which bans the sale of fish that is tainted, decomposed, or unwholesome. That includes, of course, fish that is aesthetically offensive to man. Why did the Minister violate the Fisheries Inspection Act and allow that tuna to go on the market in the first place and cause all this damage?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again what I think Members of the Opposition accepted yesterday. There was no hazard to health through any of this product. Under the present situation, citizens who believe that they are aggrieved by any application of the standards by inspectors have only one appeal, that is to the Minister. I listened to those grievances. I did not make the decision on whim or caprice, but as a consequence of two independent committees. On the basis of that advice I released the product.
I am sure that the Member, who has been a Minister of Fisheries, would be interested to know that it is my intention to bring about, as soon as possible, an adequate appeal procedure for such cases.


FISHERIES COUNCIL'S ADVICE
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I was also extremely disturbed this morning when I learned that the Minister had placed a gag order on his own staff regarding this issue. I was disturbed because you do not restore confidence by muzzling the troops.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: Will the Minister accept the advice of the Fisheries Council of Canada and the industry, and publicly state in his place today that under no circumstances will he ever again overrule, for political expediency, the decisions of his inspectors regarding the quality of Canadian fish products?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I can assure all Hon. Members that I will endeavour to do everything possible to ensure the high standard of Canadian fish products and to serve the fishing community to the best of my endeavours. I must say, though, that I do not appreciate, nor do I accept, any suggestion of political interference.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONDITION OF ATLANTIC REGION FISHERY-GOVERNMENT'S INTENDED MEASURES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, and I was very pleased with his statement. However, the fact remains that the Minister has plunged the Atlantic fisheries in a serious crisis that might result in a loss of jobs.
I would therefore ask the Minister what he intends to do to restore the industry's credibility and protect the jobs at risk as a result of his actions.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that 1 have as great a concern for jobs in the Atlantic fishery as has anyone. I can only say that the steps which I have taken today with my colleague should address any question of confidence in that regard.
[ Translation]


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Fernand Robichaud: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
To get back to my question, the Minister said that he was taking certain steps. What are those steps? 1 would like to know so I can give the Atlantic industry some reassurance. May I know what those steps are?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was obvious to all Hon. Members that I have today asked my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to effect a seizure of the disputed stock.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's it?


EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL DISCRETION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Fisheries appears to have overruled the Deputy Prime Minister, indicating in the House today that he will be setting up his own appeal procedure. Would the Prime Minister clarify exactly what is going on here with ministerial discretion?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I see nothing inconsistent between what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said and what I said in trying to be helpful to the Hon. Member's Leader. The Task Force on Program Review will be bringing forward, for consideration by the Cabinet, a recommendation that all food inspection services be consolidated in the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
We have just been discussing the overlap that exists in federal Departments. In provincial jurisdictions as well there are parallel food inspection services which we will have to discuss with our provincial colleagues in the hope of achieving a high-level, centralized food inspection service that guarantees the health and safety of all Canadians.
September 19, 1985


INSPECTION OF FISH PRODUCTS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said in the Chamber today that he was setting up his own appeal procedure and that he would do it again. There has been a misuse of discretionary power which has resulted in a serious problem. Would the Prime Minister clarify exactly what is going on now in inspection services rather than what will happen in the future? What is going on now?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is the fisheries critic for his Party and he knows full well that there is very grave concern within the industry about appeals with regard to inspection matters. My colleague has indicated that because of overlap this problem will be addressed, and I will be making representations at Cabinet to ensure that a proper appeal procedure is in fact established.


TAINTED TUNA-PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Yesterday, the Minister said he was satisfied with the decision made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to authorize the sale of tainted tuna. Mr. Speaker, it is incredible that yesterday the Minister should have been satisfied with the situation and that today, his colleague at Fisheries and Oceans should be withdrawing the tainted fish from supermarket shelves. How can the Minister claim to protect the consumer and what does he intend to do in future to prevent such a catastrophe?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that yesterday I repeated several times what I would do, and I urged consumers to be careful. Today, I am very pleased with the request made by my colleague at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and also with the Government's announcement that it will make the same agency responsible for both food and drug inspection.


REQUEST THAT CODE NUMBERS ON CANS OF TUNA BE PUBLISHED
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, even if the cans of tainted tuna are withdrawn from store shelves, I want to ask the Minister whether he at least intends to publish the code numbers on the cans.


Michel Côté: My answer is simply that it has always been our concern to protect the consumer. We have carefully followed all developments in this debate, and we are satisfied with the
Oral Questions
procedures and with the decisions that were made in the best interests of Canadian consumers.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Yesterday the Prime Minister said: "This Government always resolves any doubt in favour of Canadians". The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on television last Tuesday said that he had to make a decision on this tuna problem and he gave the benefit of the doubt to the company.
Can the Prime Minister tell this House-and he was supportive of the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans yesterday in the House-whose interest the Government is really protecting, the health and safety of Canadians, or of the companies?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that, should there be any doubt, that doubt would always be resolved in favour of the Canadian consumer. That is precisely what transpired at the request of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today.


PROTECTION INQUIRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed again to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said yesterday in this House that as a result of this whole episode he had invited industry to help revise the ground rules for inspections "I did not revise them-"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: "-industry revised them".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Preambles are not allowed to supplementary questions. A supplementary question, please.


John R. Rodriguez: My question to the Pime Minister is this: whose interests, really, is the Government trying to protect, those of the company? Are you protecting ordinary Canadians, or is this an ordinary way to run a country?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sorry, 1 did not see my colleague rise, but his answer would be the same as mine.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The only interest involved is the interest of the taxpayer and of ordinary Canadians.

September 19, 1985
Oral Questions MULTICULTURALISM


GOVERNMENT PRIORITY
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism. There have been some recent concerns expressed to me by various ethnic organizations in my riding that the Government is no longer giving the multiculturalism portfolio the priority it deserves. Their concern focuses on the fact that the new Minister of State for Multiculturalism has a dual portfolio instead of a single portfolio as was the case previously. I would ask that the Minister please address this concern and give his assurance that multiculturalism remains a priority with the Government.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is typical that the concern for the ethnic community comes from a member of the Conservative Party rather than from the Opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I compliment the Hon. Member for asking the question. In answering it, however, I can assure the Hon. Member and others that they can put that concern to rest. First, dual ministries are not new. Second, this Government over the past 12 months has laid a strong foundation on which to build, including the devleopment and establishment of a permanent Standing Committee on Multiculturalism.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a total and absolute commitment, dedication and sensitivity to this area by, myself and the Government, which will guarantee success. We will reach out, Mr. Speaker, to 8 million Canadians of ethnic origin like never before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, if we take those words as reality, could the Minister still get up in his place and tell the House why the First Ministers' Conference was void of any results? And why did the Government cut the budget by 9 per cent? If that was a priority, it would not have cut the Budget. Could the Minister please answer that question?


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, those Hon. Members have been sleeping for the last three weeks. They have finally come on board after my colleague has asked the question. The answer is simple. My predecessor, for the first time ever, was able to hold a federal-provincial
Ministers' conference. Work from that conference is going to come to the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Where is the 9 per cent?


Otto John Jelinek: -and I look forward to this member's participation. As far as the reductions are concerned, the Hon. Member will be very happy to know that we have already increased the budget of multiculturalism and we will proceed on that basis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Trinity. Is the Hon. Member rising to ask a supplementary question?


Sergio Marchi: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. SIZE OF BUDGET


Sergio Marchi: If the multiculturalism budget has been increased, then it is news, not only to this side, but to the other side as well, because last April that budget-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member indicated he had a supplementary question.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very simple question. By how much was the budget increased, and when?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that there is "Panic City" across the floor on the other side.
Now that the Hon. Member has finally woken up in his seat, I invite him to come to the Standing Committee where I will explain the details of the whole thing.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As he knows, flight attendants are responsible to be aware of and continue to pay attention to the well-being of passengers abroad the aircraft. Is the Minister aware that on an Air Canada flight which arrived in Toronto nine days ago, a passenger who was taken on board in a wheel chair as a debilatated passenger, passed away during the flight, and the attendants did not notice and were not aware of the passenger's death until it was time to take him off the aircraft in a wheel chair?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of the subject to which the Hon. Member refers. As he knows, there were some 72 alleged infractions which were submitted by the CALFAA organization. Most of those have been investigated. There are
September 19, 1985

still 16 which are undergoing further consideration but 1 will certainly undertake a look into the incident to which the Hon. Member has referred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hope that passenger didn't eat any tuna.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: No comment. A supplementary question.


FLIGHT ATTENDANTS' STRIKE-APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister if he does not now agree that the situation of amateurs operating cabin crews on Air Canada has gone on long enough and the issue should be resolved with the immediate appointment, as requested by CALFAA, of a mediator, and more stringent enforcement of the regulations by the Minister's Department?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 can advise the Hon. Member and the House that my colleague, the Minister of Labour, has indeed appointed a mediator this afternoon. He has announced the appointment of Roland Doucet as mediator pursuant to Section 195 of the Canada Labour Code.
I can assure my hon. friend that the surveillance and monitoring of safety standards is ongoing. As I indicated to him earlier, it has been beefed up substantially.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Don't be so happy.


Aideen Nicholson: The Government has lead us to understand that the Bank of Canada has first claim on all the assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank, but U.S. regulators have seized $255 worth of CCB assets in California and are quoted as taking the position that California residents will have first claim. Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to protect Canadian interests?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the first protection for Canadian
Oral Questions
interests is that we do not spread around misinformation picked up at lunch at the Toronto Club.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: What about the Albany Club?


Barbara Jean McDougall: What has happened in California is a routine matter of regulation in that the Superintendent of Banks of the State of California took steps to take possession of property. Officials of the Bank of Canada are in touch with the state regulators. Our position continues and the Bank's position continues to be that Canadian interests are covered.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: By whom?


UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD REPORT
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said that she is trying to get the U.S. regulators to make available to this House their report of February 20 on the Canadian Commercial Bank.
An official of the Federal Reserve Board in Washington has been quoted as saying that she has not yet had a request. Could the Minister explain just what is happening?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the request to the U.S. regulator, the article that appeared in the press today was surprisingly based on invalid information. Concerning that inquiry, I will read the telex response, and I am prepared to table it, Mr. Speaker. It reads:
The report of examination is the central tool of the supervisory process in the United States. It contains the findings of the examination, including information about specific assets and borrowers and criticisms of various aspects of an institution's operations. Confidentiality of the document is intended to respect the private business affairs of individual customers-
Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Reserve not to accede to requests from outside parties-
That was confirmed by telephone this morning. We are continuing to pursue other channels.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On September 7, the Prime Minister made what appeared to be a very clear statement about Canada and star wars. The Prime Minister stated that it would not be in Canada's interests for the Government of Canada to participate in SDI research.
Since then the Deputy Prime Minister has totally muddied the waters. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to restate that policy and tell us in no uncertain terms that if government agencies and Departments, such as the National Research Council, the RCMP, and research centres in
6786

September 19, 1985
Oral Questions
Defence and Communications, are asked to assist or invited to join in star wars work by the SDI office in Washington, they will decline and join the Prime Minister and say no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on September 7 that the policy of the Government of Canada was that we did not feel participation on a Government to Government basis was in the interests of Canada or Canadians, and that it might inhibit the exercise at all times of an independent foreign policy, which is exactly the primary interest of the Government of Canada. That is why we said no on a Government to Government basis. I thought that was in the interests of Canada.
This is still a democracy, as the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -well, relatively speaking.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I thought the Deputy Prime Minister set out the other criteria fairly and well.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL INQUIRY
Pauline Jewett: Fairly well, my foot.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: The Deputy Prime Minister has suggested that the National Research Council getting involved in star wars research would not involve the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Prime Minister saying to the House that the National Research Council, the RCMP, the research centres in Defence and Communications are free to become involved with the SDI office in Washington? This is what we are confused about. Would the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister, make it quite clear that they must not be involved, consistent with his policy on SDI?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member is going to get the Deputy Prime Minister whether she wants to or not, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: So much for your foot.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: What she has said in her preamble is utterly false. I have said it before and I say it again that, as research
projects come up involving the continued co-operation that we enjoy with the United States in this field, and hopefully they will grow, we will determine whether or not to proceed on any individual project on the basis of Canadian priorities and Canadian objectives.


Pauline Jewett: You are saying yes to star wars.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, this week more than 150 employees of Cape Breton's heavy water plants were laid off. Tomorrow and over the weekend I will meet some of these people. My question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. What can I tell these people when they ask if there will be new employment opportunities in the region?


An Hon. Member:: Nothing.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Rely on the market-place.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I am sure he will be very pleased to learn that since we indicated our new Cape Breton initiatives we have had over 400 inquiries. To date we have made 90 offers aggregating several millions of dollars. If all the offers are put in place with new businesses established it will result in over 500 jobs being created in Cape Breton.
In addition to that, we have 51 major projects defined as projects under review that could produce employment for 100 people or will involve over $2 million. Those projects would create thousands of jobs in Cape Breton. Cape Breton has never had such a job creating effort before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Finance.
According to information contained in public documents released by the California Banking Commission, the Santa Ana Canadian Commercial Bank branch had outstanding loans of $396 million on its books as at December 31, 1984 and, on June 30, the loans totalled only $165 million, a
September 19, 1985

decrease of $232 million U.S., or roughly $300 million in Canadian dollars.
Can the Minister tell us what happened to those loans? Were they transferred to other Canadian Commercial Bank branches?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the first order released on the Canadian Commercial Bank, its agency and its subsidiary bank in California from the regulatory authorities, came in February, 1984.
I am not sure where I was then precisely, but I know I was not here. I think the question around the transfer of assets could be addressed to some of the Hon. Member's former colleagues since the activity in those agencies started long before my time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS
Raymond Garneau: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Am I to understand that the Minister is telling us that between January 1, 1985 and June 30, 1985, when the bank was bailed out, when the fiasco really began, she did not know and still does not know where the loans went, who got the loans, or even whether they were repaid? Mr. Speaker, how can we possibly launch a proper investigation in committee if the Minister does not know anything at all about a situation where she did ante up $1 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody who has not ignored the situation, it is myself. We have indicated to the Hon. Member, to his colleagues, and to our other colleagues across the aisle, that we are prepared to discuss this matter in full in committee. I am really looking forward to that discussion.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday an announcement was made with regard to the Sydney Steel Corporation indicating that the federal Government was willing to co-operate in some development there. When will the Government commit itself to complete funding of Phase II and, in doing so, will it make some commitment
Oral Questions
that Canadian railways, CN especially, will be ordering their rail lines from Sydney Steel?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member undoubtedly knows, I met with Premier Buchanan yesterday. Among other things, we discussed the situation at Sysco. We received the updated Hatch report concerning Sysco. We reviewed its recommendations and felt that they were quite positive. In the context of those recommendations, we have agreed in principle to come to an agreement which will hopefully affect the recommendations in the Hatch report, and an announcement should be made within a few weeks.


MODERNIZATION OF PLANT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Will a commitment be made by the Government to complete funding of the Phase II modernization of that plant, or will we have more years of delay and indecision as we had under the Liberals?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member was concentrating on his supplementary question without listening to what I said. When he has an opportunity to read Hansard, I think he will see that a very definitive, positive answer was given.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. He will know that the national energy policy of the former Government devastated the economy of the Province of Alberta with resulting high unemployment. Has the Minister taken action to designate areas of Alberta as tier 2 areas so that they may qualify for the Government's economic development programs?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of how the tier 2 and other designations are determined. We have the entire tier system under review. He will be pleased to know that under the existing ERDA program a subagreement affecting his area will likely be entered into very soon, and I think the area residents will find it very beneficial.

September 19, 1985
Oral Questions BANKS AND BANKING


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK COLLAPSE-REPORT OF AUDIT OFFER
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I have listened to, and I have read her answers in Hansard. She is becoming a master at circumlocution and stonewalling. There is one fact which will do much to clarify the situation. Why did she or the Minister of Finance, or the Prime Minister, refuse the offer of a special audit from Canadian chartered banks, which could have avoided this entire disastrous situation? Why was it refused?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I see that the St. James Club has the same kind of misinformation as the Toronto Club.


Sheila Maureen Copps: How about the Albany Club?


Barbara Jean McDougall: At least the Albany Club lets in women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Barbara Jean McDougall: 1 believe some senior bankers stated publicly yesterday that there were some bankers looking at the portfolio. I have never indicated otherwise and have denied nothing.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald James Johnston: There was not much substance to that answer, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister reacquire some credibility and respect by at least confirming in the House a rumour, which is now commonly held on the street and elsewhere, that she and the Minister of Finance refused to bail it out, probably wanted the special audit, but were overruled by the Prime Minister for purely political purposes? Will she confirm that here for our benefit and reacquire some respect?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, once again we are dealing with things which happen on other streets. We have been standing beside each other. This was a collective Government decision which we all reinforced, and it was reinforced by two provinces and the chartered banks. I do not know how many times I have to say that before the Hon. Member listens to what we are saying here instead of to what is happening out on the streets.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REJECTION OF LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE APPLICATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. After very extensive hearings, the CRTC turned down the application of CNCP Telecommunications to enter into the long distance telephone business in competition with existing systems. In view of that decision, why did the Minister send a document to Cabinet proposing that he be permitted to spend $1 million in a propaganda campaign to educate people on the advantages of deregulation?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, this document was submitted to Cabinet within the framework of a general review of the Canadian telecommunications policy and it was not issued the week following the application by the CNCP, but last winter. Indeed, it is within this framework that a federal-provincial conference will be held in mid-November to discuss the issue of telecommunications. This is not a propaganda document, but a document to promote consultation, and the amount put aside for it is largely to be used for research so that those who will have to make decisions, including the provinces, will be well-informed.


REQUEST THAT COMMISSION NOT BE OVERRULED
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, various groups, including provincial Governments, made representations in opposition to the application of CNCP.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


David Orlikow: Can the Minister give us assurances that he will not recommend overruling the decision of the CRTC?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received any notice of appeal from the CNCP in this matter.


IMMIGRATION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration.
For the last few days in Montreal, refugees have been on a hunger strike at the Ville Saint-Laurent Detention Centre.
September 19, 1985

Yesterday, three refugees were involved in a fight. Two were sent to Parthenais and the third was wounded. These people are protesting against detention conditions which do not meet the minimal standards of the United Nations.
What does the Minister intend to do about this urgent situation which will soon turn into a riot.


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member that I have been monitoring closely, with officials of the Department, the situation in the Montreal detention centre. As the Hon. Member will know, it was part of the study of the standing committee into detention centres. These centres were never intended for longer stays. At the moment I am informed that those who are being detained for longer periods receive regular medical care. The situation is quiet. There will be a meeting of support groups, those who are incarcerated, and officials within the next day or two.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: 1 have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Please make it a very short supplementary.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROBLEM CAN BE SETTLED IN SITU
Lucie Pépin: I am very happy to learn that the meeting will take place, but I would also like to know whether the Immigration officials who will take part in this meeting will be able to solve the problems on the spot.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, a number of the problems were outlined in the Standing Committee's unanimous report which contains 22 recommendations. I will be reporting on those to the House in October. We have acted on some four or five of those recommendations relating to health, safety, and other provisions. We will be acting on the basis of that report immediately, and in fact even before the response is brought in.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, September 18, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.
Business of the House
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Girard) by filing with the Clerk of the House also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I seek your indulgence so that I may withdraw unequivocally the unfortunate remark I made in the preamble to my supplementary question today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) if he can outline the business of the House that he intends to call over the coming several days.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of informing the House of the agenda. Hon. Members will know that we have now had a long and interesting debate on Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. This matter has received the attention of the House and I am anticipating that it can go to committee where it can receive the-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, I hesitate to interrupt the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), but it is almost impossible for Hon. Members who are interested in the answer to the question on the business of the House to hear it. Could I ask those who are having conversations if they might conduct them somewhere else?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-70, now having received a very thorough discussion, should make progress and get to a legislative committee where there will be an opportunity for Hon. Members to investigate the details of the legislation as well as to speak in a meaningful way to the principles involved.
We are intending to call Bills C-67 and C-68 which deal with the Parole Act and the Penitentiaries Act. Hon. Members will know that these two Bills are being debated together and will go to one legislative committee. 1 understand that there will be a very brief debate on those Bills. I am so informed and do really believe that there are not very many more speakers.
As well, I would like to bring forward Bill C-74, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, again with a view to having this matter referred to a committee so that we can examine the

September 19, 1985
Tabling of Documents
various dimensions of the legislation and call witnesses to make sure that Members of Parliament from all sides of the House have a full opportunity to examine the proposal which I put forward. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I put that draft Bill before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections last June and that that committee had a chance to look at the draft legislation before I brought it forward.
In addition, Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, will be brought forward. I would like to see what progress we make with these Bills. This would be the sequence of Bills as I see it for the foreseeable future unless there are circumstances that lead me to change the order of business. It may be, for example, that in the course of the next few days, we will be able to bring forward the motion with respect to the reference to the Finance Committee of the bank matter and I would hope that we can get that done at an early date so that the work of the committee can be organized and all Members will have an opportunity of examining in detail the circumstances leading up to the statement made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) on September 1.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, I would like to ask your permission to withdraw a notice that I filed with you earlier this day requesting an emergency debate. The response by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Fraser) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) today that the defective fish will be withdrawn from the shelves of all stores satisfied the requirements that I had sought to have satisfied.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Fourth Report of the Striking Committee under Standing Order 75(A).
[Editor's Note: For above-mentioned report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have all recognized that one of the major problems facing the country today is the number of Canadians on welfare rolls who are ready, willing and able to work. This fact cannot be measured simply in financial terms. It must also take into account the human price that is paid by too large a number of Canadians who are forced into this situation. I am pleased to report that I have concluded an agreement with my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), and with our colleagues from all the provinces and Territories on action that we shall take together to break this deadly cycle of welfare dependency. Together we are going to provide hope and encouragement to these people, but above all we are creating for them the opportunities they deserve.
Two of the seven points of the agreement refer to programs that are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I will give a brief explanation of each of them. First, we agreed to specify participation levels for social assistance recipients in the Canadian jobs strategy. This is in response to a long-standing concern of the provinces that employable people receiving social assistance have not been getting their fair share of places in the employment programs of Employment and Immigration Canada.
Employable social assistance recipients make up about 30 per cent of the total unemployed population. By contrast, rough estimates suggest that employable social assistance recipients did not make up 30 per cent of the participants in CEIC programs under the previous Government. It is this situation that we have agreed to address.
Of the six components of the Canadian jobs strategy, three can potentially benefit employable social assistance recipients. They are job entry for those entering the labour force, targeted mainly on youth and women; job development, targeted mainly on the disadvantaged, and the innovations program fund for pilot projects. I will deal with this component in more detail in a moment.
Our objective in negotiating the agreement was to ensure that employable social assistance recipients would have access to a share of Canadian jobs strategy funds that reflects their representation among the jobless. At the same time, we recognize the importance of maintaining flexibility in setting participation levels, both by province and by component, of the Canadian jobs strategy.
Under the agreement, my colleague and I will negotiate appropriate participation levels with each province and Territory to take effect April 1, 1986. Second, we agree to use a portion of the innovations program funds for pilot projects aimed at enhancing the employability of social assistance recipients. We did this because we recognized that many social assistance recipients face multiple barriers to securing employment and hence gaining self-sufficiency. Traditional welfare programs have not been designed to address the problem of
September 19, 1985

enhancing the employability of their clientele. It is important, therefore, that we experiment with ways of doing this and test their efficacy through actual pilot projects in the field. Specific proposals for the use of innovations program funds will be ready by the end of the year, based on discussions among my officials, those of my colleague and those of provincial and territorial Ministries.
Before going on to areas dealing with my Department, I would like to give a special note of thanks to my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, because of the work that she has done with the provinces and the Territories and the negotiations that she has undertaken almost from the very first day this Government took office. It is work that is starting to show results, and I commend her for that today.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration is not in the House at this point because she is in my home province participating with the provincial Government of Manitoba on a further job-creation program, namely the Limestone Program. That is the reason that rather than being in the House of Commons, she is in an important place like my home province, to work further with the provinces.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: She should be in Sudbury.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The rest of the points refer to one of the most important programs of my Department, the Canada Assistance Plan. This is the program that supports Canada's social safety net by sharing with the provinces the cost of Canada's network of social assistance and social services. Since its inception in 1967, the Canada Assistance Plan or CAP has fulfilled its mandate to provide financial assistance and social services to Canadians who are in need. Our review of the program has shown that however well it may be fulfilling its basic task of maintaining persons who are on social assistance it does not give us all the tools necessary to assist those persons in getting off social assistance and into stable, rewarding, long-term employment.
The new approaches outlined in this agreement will go a long way toward making CAP a program that not only assists people but helps them develop the skills and experience to assist themselves. The first of these new approaches involves the question of disincentives. These vary from province to province, but we have discovered that the guidelines of the program have sometimes worked to make work or training less attractive than remaining on social assistance. A primary example of these disincentives was the requirement to deduct 100 per cent of all training allowances from welfare cheques. These allowances, which were designed to help meet the additional expenditures involved in following a training course and to serve as an incentive for people considering taking such courses, meant nothing to social assistance recipients because for each dollar of training allowance they received they lost a dollar of social assistance. Under this agreement, that will not be the case.
Statements by Ministers
Another example is the non-cash benefits that are often so important to persons on social assistance, such as free prescription drugs, medicare premiums, dental care, eyeglasses, just to name some. These usually stopped as soon as a person took a job or entered a training course. This was often a major disincentive. Under this new agreement, provinces will be able to eliminate this disincentive and still maintain cost sharing under CAP.
The second new approach involving the Canada Assistance Plan is one that I consider a major improvement in our ability to use the money now being spent for social assistance in a positive fashion to permit Canadians on social assistance to assist themselves. This is so important that I would like to read point 5 of our agreement, with the indulgence of the House:
In addition to item 1 above-
-that is the one to negotiate the bilateral agreements between the provinces, the Territories, and the federal Government.
-to expand opportunities for social assistance recipients to participate in training and employment by permitting provinces, who wish to do so, to refer social assistance recipients to Canada Jobs Strategy programs or similar provincial programs, and also to transfer to those programs those funds that the provinces would have spent on social assistance payments to those programs. The federal Government will then transfer an equal amount of money, which would have been paid under the Canada Assistance Plan as the federal share of the social assistance payment, to the programs involved.
The design, eligibility criteria, administrative requirements and evaluation methodology relating to these new arrangements will be developed by November 30, 1985, and the impact of this initiative will be reviewed in three years.
The money now allocated for social assistance can only be used for that purpose. This restriction exists for a very good purpose. This money is meant to provide for the basic needs of people who cannot support themselves. If people are in need their needs must be met and no conditions can be attached to that assistance. In particular, they cannot be required to perform work as a condition of receiving that aid. CAP does not permit "workfare". This principle is one of the most important principles of the Canada Assistance Plan, it will be maintained, and I want to stress that point.
What will be changed is the rigidities in our system of funding that prohibit funds now used to maintain a person on social assistance from being used to defray the costs of those programs that will provide that person with job skills and work experience. The Canadian jobs strategy provides precisely the kind of programming required by employable persons now on social assistance.
The first point of our agreement, increased targeting of these programs for social assistance recipients, will help. However, we want to make even more of this programming, or similar provincial programmings, available to our clients. To this end my provincial colleagues, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I have agreed to use jointly moneys that would have been used to maintain a person on social assistance to pay the costs of the work experience programs that will enable him or her to get off assistance.
The mechanism is straightforward. The results may be profound and the costs will be no more than that of current programming. When an individual social assistance recipient is

September 19, 1985
Statements by Ministers
eligible for and volunteers for an employability program that promises to be of benefit, the province and the federal Government will direct to that program the money that would have been spent to maintain that individual on social assistance.
The idea is simple. The effect on the client will be vastly increased opportunities for self-sufficiency. There is no coercion, simply increased opportunity. There is no increase in cost, simply a more creative and positive use of existing funds.
The fourth component of this strategy initiates federal-provincial pilot projects to evaluate new approaches that would promote self-sufficiency of social assistance recipients who face multiple employment barriers. This initiative, funded on a cost shared basis, will involve CE1C in the screening, approving and monitoring of projects to eliminate duplication of those already funded under the CJS innovation fund. Vigorous evaluation techniques will of course be established and results of such evaluations will be shared with all Governments concerned.
Finally, my colleague and I and our provincial and territorial counterparts agreed to collaborate on improving the flow of information and on evaluating our programs and, most important of all, on maintaining the "four-cornered" consultative approach. This four-cornered consultative approach, linking my Department, the Department of Employment and Immigration and provincial and territorial social services and employment Departments is the basis for the virtually unprecedented co-operation that produced our agreement. Its continuation is essential if we are to achieve lasting benefits for people on social assistance.
In conclusion, I would say that this agreement proves the value of open federal-provincial and territorial co-operation. All levels of Government are deeply involved with this issue; it does not bear on one single jurisdiction. The agreement we have made will increase the chances for welfare recipients to break their dependency on social assistance and to find selfsufficiency in stable employment. Together, Governments are going to create opportunities and real encouragement for welfare recipients to participate. The Ontario Minister of Community and Social Services, the Hon. John Sweeney, has described this as "An historic and giant step forward". It is indeed, and I want to thank all members of the House for taking the time to listen to me.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I begin where the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) left off when he indicated that the new Minister of Community and Social Services for the Province of Ontario indeed called this an historic moment, an historic agreement and a giant step forward for all of us who are in the profession of politics and are here to serve our own citizens.
That comes as no surprise to me because I know that in years past when we have attempted as the federal Government, when the Liberal Party was in power, to reach similar types of agreements, we often found that it was the Conservative Party in Toronto that was the stumbling block to a lot of improvements under the Canada Pension Plan and under the Canada
Assistance Plan, and therefore it does come as no surprise to me that the new Liberal Government in Ontario has agreed to sign this document and bring forward this kind of imaginative proposal.
[ Translation]
I also wish to point out that the Quebec Minister for Social Affairs, Mrs. Pauline Marois, stated yesterday that this came as the result of the efforts of her Government and that it is clearly an idea which originated in Quebec. I mentioned that because when Mrs. Monique Begin was Minister of National Health and Welfare, she began with her Quebec counterpart implementing the programs that we have seen today.
I,	too, would like to join in congratulating the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for having reached this type of accord with his provincial counterparts. Politics aside, I think all of us recognize that there were great stumbling blocks under the Canada Assistance Plan. Those stumbling blocks were not only costing the provincial Governments and the federal Government large sums of money, but they were also taking away the opportunity from a number of families to engage in a meaningful pursuit of work. As a result of this type of agreement, I hope that we will be able to find meaningful jobs for those who have found themselves in the vicious cycle of welfare in order to have a meaningful role to play in our society.
I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in the context of being a beneficial criticism of the proposals in his program in which I feel he may find some blockages. I hope that the Minister can overcome them.
First and foremost, we have learned over the last several years that Governments often bring in programs designed for certain target client groups. Those programs fail mainly because we cannot reach the client groups which we were attempting to reach. I hope the Minister will inform the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to be aware of the difficulty in reaching those target groups, particularly with respect to the target groups which fall under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Second, I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will inform the Minister of Employment and Immigration that we on this side of the House have a great many concerns with respect to the job-creation strategy that will be brought forward to target the group which is presently on welfare and which comes under the Canada Assistance Plan. I say that because if one takes a look at the number of unemployed in our country and the number of people who are on welfare, it will be seen that all of those people are not found in the urban centres of our country. A great many of them are in the hinterland regions. I am concerned that in the job-creation strategy which the Minister of Employment and Immigration put forward earlier this year with respect to Summer Works many of the regional incentives are being taken out of those
September 19, 1985

programs. Thus, Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario, northern Quebec and rural Quebec do not have access to some of the manpower programs which people living in urban centres have. As a result, many people who are in the target group will not benefit from this type of program, if the same type of job-creation strategy as used in the past is used now. I hope that the Minister will make sure that concern is brought to the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I also hope that in the job-creation strategy a great deal of attention will be paid to the ability of municipal Governments to create jobs for which welfare recipients could well be targeted. That was not found under the previous programs of this year.
I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will recall that there was an incentive program in which the private sector fueled the job-creation projets. I know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has indicated the success which the program has met in certain parts of the country. I will not dispute the numbers here on the floor of the House of Commons. However, I will tell the Minister that that program was certainly a flop in other areas of the country. I am speaking of an area such as Sudbury, where there is a tremendous depression in the private sector. As a result of that economic depression in the private sector, we simply do not have private sector sponsors ready to go out and create jobs. In those areas of the country in which that economic fact is evident, municipal governments, boards of education-the public sector-were not allowed to get their projects up on the drawing boards to create those jobs for the people we are trying to target here. I hope that point will be brought to the attention of the Minister.
I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take this matter one step further. He knows, as do all of us in this Chamber who have been in politics for any number of years, whether it is at the municipal, provincial or federal levels, that we recognize the problem of lifetime welfare. That is a problem which is not found in just one area of the country. Every one of us as Members of Parliament has these client groups within our constituencies. Therefore, what I am about to say has a great deal to do with what I hope this historic accord can do to aid one other situation which has been pointed out in the House in the last ten days.
As the Minsiter is aware, the Minister of Employment and Immigration was instrumental in the creation of this accord. A great many of the programs will be administered by her Department with money which will come out of the budget of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would like to use Sudbury as an example to illustrate my point. Ten months ago, the Minister of Employment and Immigration introduced rule changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which would, as of January 1, 1986, count severance payments and pension payments as part of the entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. As a result of that, there will be fewer incentives for workers to take early retirement.
The Sudbury example brings home the truth. I can tell Hon. Members that in the City of Sudbury, this year, the municipal
Statements by Ministers
welfare budget is the highest it has ever been in its history. Part of the reason for that will be compounded by the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now that there will be fewer incentives for those who are older to take an early retirement package, the unions and the companies will be left with no choice but to lay off the younger workers. This will affect people with 10 to 12 years of seniority who are around 40 years of age. These people will have to go on the unemployment rolls for the next year. At the end of the 52 weeks, unless some alternative job is created for them, their only alternative for living is to go on welfare.
It seems to me that, with the degree of co-operation exhibited by the provincial Governments and the federal Government which can bring forward this type of accord, surely the same type of co-operation and open-ended thinking can lead the Minister of National Health and Welfare to convince the Minister of Employment and Immigration to change the proposed uses of the UI funds. I say this without any desire to make political debating points on the floor. That type of change would place another 1,200 people on to the welfare rolls. If the intent of the accord is to reduce the number of people on welfare, I welcome it.
I point out to the Minister that there are other measures being taken by the Government which run counter to this type of accord. I hope he can convince his Cabinet colleague to undertake those necessary changes under the unemployment insurance rules so that we in Sudbury do not end up with more people on welfare. I use Sudbury as an example only because 1 represent that constituency and I know it well. I have colleagues on all sides of the House who have indicated to me that they have people who face the same situation in their ridings.
Last, but not least, I wish to indicate to the Minister that most of us in the political field welcome this type of accord which has been signed. I hope that in the coming days and months the implementation of the strategy will be successful in eliminating a number of people from the welfare rolls in each municipality across the country. I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare for being part of this historic accord.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on the intent and the changes which have been proposed in co-operation with the provinces to make training and job opportunities more accessible to persons who are on social assistance. Of course, it is essential that programs and policies be integrated in a far more flexible way so that people are not caught between the provincial, federal and territorial jurisdictions with little choice but to remain on welfare. We can think of many examples of how this has happened in the past. I would also mention the local jurisdictions when we speak about day care, which is also part of the needed program.

September 19, 1985
Statements by Ministers
I would mention to both my colleagues who have just spoken that I think we need to be careful in terms of how we refer to people who are unfortunate enough to be on social assistance. The words we use to describe them are important. I heard them referred to as client groups, et cetera. We must be careful, even though we are sometimes talking in technical terms, that we do not put a label on people who are on welfare and, in that way, perpetuate a stigma which exists and which is often being promoted in the larger society. I know many people feel like second class citizens and they should not. Social assistance is one of our security programs and it is their right when they have no other option.
As a person who practised social work for many years and as someone who has worked with many low-income people in my own community, I have never met a person who really wanted to be on social assistance. Most people would far prefer to have a job at a decent rate of pay and be independent. Unfortunately, jobs are either not available or they are so low paid that a person cannot support a family and so they have no alternative but to seek social assistance. In many cases as well a person may have been unemployed for such a long time, or not have been in the job market at all, that they lack the skills and confidence to compete in the open market. Here again it is easy for people to deliberately speak about people on welfare who do not want to work. That is not the case. It may be that sometimes they need further support and training, but they certainly need jobs. People on welfare have such abominably low incomes that it is hard enough to feed and clothe their families and pay the rent; they certainly have no money left to spend on transportation looking for work. As well, most of them do not have the kinds of clothes needed to seek work or get into the work-force. There are many things which inhibit and discourage people and make them feel depressed.
I think social assistance should be used in a positive way and I commend the Minister for this approach. I also commend him for indicating his opposition to what 1 think is commonly known as work for welfare schemes where persons are forced into almost any job to in effect pay for their welfare. That is a very negative kind of social policy and I am very glad we are all against that. We welcome moves to remove the disincentives which exist in the system and I hope the opportunity will be provided for people on welfare to move into training programs and federally-subsidized jobs. I hope that is what we are talking about. I am not altogether sure because the Minister did not spell out the job opportunities. It is essential that social assistance allowances be maintained while people are training or looking for work so I commend the Minister on these changes, as well as his colleagues in the various provinces and territories.
My main concern, Mr. Speaker, is that we must be sure there are training opportunities for people generally. We should not differentiate between those on welfare and others in this respect. The training opportunities must be realistic with respect to the education some people have as well as future job markets. I commend the Minister for these moves, but I hope
that he makes sure there are the right kinds of training opportunities for people. There is nothing more discouraging for someone who has been on welfare or unemployed for a long time than to take a training program and, at the end, end up back in the welfare cycle again. However, that is what is going to happen if we do not have jobs at the end of a training program. Neither do we want people coming off welfare and competing for jobs by pushing someone else out. That is not going to solve anything. We really need many more jobs in the community.
I appeal to the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), to take a whole new look at an old area of work, that of community jobs. There are many, many examples in my community where literally thousands of people, particularly women who have been on welfare, got their first start through work in this area. They might have worked in one of the local food co-ops or in the local school or library. They might have started in child care services. While I never did really like the short-term nature or low rates of pay of the Manpower programs we used to have, I must say there is an advantage in these kinds of programs if they can be extended for people who have been on welfare. I know many hundreds of them living in public housing projects in my riding who have developed a lot of self-help services and shown they have the talent and potential, but they really need to be able to feed their families while doing this kind of thing. I have worked in situations in the past where these kinds of programs have been developed very aggressively and training has gone along with them. Many of the people involved have subsequently moved up into para-professional kinds of jobs.
I therefore ask the Minister to consider this as one area which is particularly suited to people who have been on social assistance, particularly mothers, many of them in their middle years, who are going to find it hard even with training to get into the competitive job market. People on welfare should be treated the same as other citizens, although 1 hasten to add that often certain kinds of pre-employment programs are necessary for people who have been unemployed for some time. We have a lot of figures to show that when people have been unemployed they begin to get more and more depressed. They soon begin to lose their confidence and blame themselves. It is not their fault. It is the system we have which really does not have enough jobs for the people who need and want them. We really have to give much greater emphasis to the job end of the problem if this program is going to work.
I would also like the Minister to consider, along with his provincial colleagues, whether there might be a more flexible use of social assistance or family allowance programs. There could be a type of family benefit program which would continue an allowance for children at the same rate, let us say, that they get while on social assistance, when a mother who is able to get a job inevitably finds it to be low paying, barely sufficient for a single person. I think a program like that would more than pay for itself because it would allow women to get off welfare and stay off.
September 19, 1985

Finally, I want to refer to the whole question of day care, which I noticed the Minister avoided. I thought he would be discussing that with the provinces as well. Many people are very concerned about this issue and they want to know if the Minister is or is not in favour of day care for profit as was reported recently in the Ottawa Citizen. Is he willing to take the Canada Assistance Plan money away from existing nonprofit day care centres to give to profit-making commercial day care centres without creating any extra facilities? There is no way that we as taxpayers should subsidize commercial day care operators for a profit. Experience has shown that commercial day care centres often violate standards, pay staff indecent wages, have lower adult-child ratios, less enriching programs for the children, and less involvement of parents which is very essential. We cannot afford to use children for profit and I urge the Minister to go on record opposing this type of day care.
I also ask the Minister to speed up, if he can, the report of the task force on child care which, I am sure, will recommend a plan for affordable, accessible day care which is non-profit and which incidentally, is not part of our welfare system. I hope that we will consider that. In closing, I think that the proposed changes to make the Canada Assistance Plan more flexible are based on a sound premise and I commend the Minister and his colleagues. However, the goal of independence will only be achieved if there are jobs at the end of this so that people will not wind up on the welfare rolls again.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 380 will be answered today.


Mr. Murphy: 1.	Since September 4, 1984, have any construction agreements been signed with the government under Section 5 of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act and, if so (a) how many (b) what were the names of the parties (c) on what dates and, in each case, did the Government exempt the agreement from the provisions of paragraphs 3(1 )(<z) and (b) of the Act?
2.	In which of the cases outlined in part 1, was the grant or payment made by statutory authority?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. None. 2. Not applicable.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?
Family Allowances Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 wish to inform the House that because of the Ministerial statement consideration of Government Orders will be extended by 35 minutes this day. Therefore, Private Members' Hour will begin at 5:35 o'clock p.m.

[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be now read a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee, and the amendment of Mr. Frith (p. 6625).
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to take part in this important and momentous debate on the future of Canada's family allowances program. I am sorry to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) had to leave, because he was really put to the test in recent months when he attempted to slash old age pensions and had to reverse his decision as a result of pressure from the public and from various quarters. Here he is now searching for a logical explanation to do exactly the same thing at the expense of families.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the logical reasoning which prompted the Government to change its mind about old age security pensions should do similar wonders with respect to family benefits.
Mr. Speaker, estimates show that the net loss brought about by changes advocated in the Budget in the case of a family with an income of $15,000, for instance, will amount to $1,879. A family with a $35,000 annual income stands to lose $3,452, but another one earning $80,000 will lose only $1,125.
If that is what they want to call justice, it is injustice, nothing less. It is totally unacceptable that they should want to deprive low- and middle-income families of such social benefits. I see that my colleagues opposite are wondering just where the Government is leading them.
Mr. Speaker, you know very well that Canada needs a policy which supports the family and a rising birth rate. Young couples cannot feel overly enthusiastic when they think that the Government is abandoning them to face their family responsibilities, especially after hearing the Prime Minister say that those social programs were a sacred trust, that they need not fear since he would not tamper with them.
Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed umpteen attempts aimed at undermining our social programs. They tried that with old age

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
security pensions, now they are launching an attack against family allowances. Next in line is unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, we have lost some of our faith in the promises of those men and women on the other side.
Let us get back to family allowances. I must tell you a little secret, Mr. Speaker. When I was still a young lad-I was raised in the Magdalen Islands, probably the poorest region of Canada-if my mother had not had her family allowance cheque she would have been unable to buy me the shoes and the various supplies I needed to go back to school.


Fernand Jourdenais: Otherwise he could not have become an MP.


Jean-C. Lapierre: One thing I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that the insignificant man from La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) should stop laughing and remember that some Canadian families did experience difficulties. Just because he came here with a big salary does not mean he should try to forget his modest background. Mr. Speaker, I am not anxious to ignore my humble background and leave the poor to fend for themselves. Just because we have managed to obtain the public's trust does not mean we should now leave the poor to their own devices. And that is exactly what the Hon. Member for La Prairie would have us do.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the family allowance cheque had a special significance. At the end of each month, when the children needed something at home, the family allowance cheque made all the difference. There are other Members who also look down on that sort of thing today, but I say that at this very moment, there are still millions of families in Canada that depend on their family allowance cheques. And I say it is unfair and inhuman to want to make cuts in the system and destroy it.
Mr. Speaker, whether it is a school bag or shoes or clothes to go back to school, I used to work at a corner store and a store where they sold men's and boy's wear, and I can assure you that in September, all those back-to-school items are paid for with family allowance cheques. Sure, all this is supposed to improve with the tax credit and tax exemptions, but let us stop putting our heads in the sand and start facing the facts. For most women in Canada, the only income they can call their own and spend as they wish is the family allowance cheque, even in families where the husband has a substantial income.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I believe family allowance payments are very important to the women and children of this country. For many Canadian families and women, this cheque may be the only cheque they get. It is the only money they have of their own to buy things for their children. You know this as well as I do, Mr. Speaker. So why does the Government want to take that away from them? That is what I find unconscionable! Mr. Speaker, I do not care what kind of advantages they are promising in the way of tax exemptions. You know that in most cases, it is not the wife who benefits.
And what about the tax credit? I can give you any number of examples of what happens when the tax credit cheque arrives. The husband uses it to buy a video and for any number of things, but the children do not get anything out of it. I will tell you why. Because the tax credit is a big cheque. You know, in most family budgets, there is always some pressing need, and whenever there are any really big debts, people say: Well, we will wait until my wife's tax credit comes in.
That is the problem. That is why the monthly cheque is so basically important, and I believe that no one can deprive Canadian women and families of this established right.
Mr. Speaker, we may see hundreds of women who will not dare admit this, but we all know the facts, and I am certain that you are aware of some cases yourself. This is what I would like the Members opposite to understand. As for their story of wanting to balance the budget, Mr. Speaker, we are not taken in. They want to balance the budget on the backs of women when they have lots of money for the Canadian Commercial Bank, which will cost us nearly $1 billion. That is not a problem! They have enough money to buy an icebreaker that will cost $500 million, including $30 million a year simply to operate, and they have the audacity to tell us that they cannot afford to help Canadian families. It is shocking, Mr. Speaker. As parliamentarians, I do not think that we can accept this. Mr. Speaker, we cannot accept to see money being wasted the way the Government does it. They spent $60 million to change the colour of the uniforms of the Armed Forces when some children do not even have any running shoes to go to school, when some children have nothing in their lunch boxes. What kind of morality do these people and this Government have? What sense of value do they have? What priorities do they have? Mr. Speaker, I think that it is time for those people to stop listening to the business sector and to start speaking to ordinary people. They should go and see the children as they enter the schools in the morning, not in the rich neighbourhoods, but where the real people live, and I am certain that they will find out in the schoolyards that the children do not have too many clothes on their backs. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this issue is so important. I am among those who benefited from the family allowances which my mother received. My school friends also benefited. If you take this away from the poor families, what will they have left? This is what we find unacceptable. You have enough money for everyone else, especially for the wealthy. You have enough money for big companies and for the oil companies. There are other Members in this House who will not admit it, but I am certain that family allowances made a difference in their own family. Salaries were not always what they are today, and I am certain that, if they had the honesty to admit it, they would say that it made a lot of difference. They have friends and they have families. Yet, they are taxing suffering, they are taxing medication, they are looking for money for all kinds of fantastic projects as long as they preserve the Prime Minister's
September 19, 1985

image. But when we are dealing with issues as fundamental as the family, they say that they are very concerned about traditional values, Mr. Speaker. What kind of society do we want to build? Is it now more important to make sure that the Prime Minister looks good than to encourage the Canadian family? God knows, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a traditionalist! Yet, I would say that, when such basic values are involved, the politicians have no right to ignore them and to listen blindly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister and be party to an injustice. There is no partisanship in my comments, Mr. Speaker. This legislation is simply unacceptable, whether you are blue, red, green or orange, because there are families in every political party.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to reflect on this because one day children will blame them for their attitude.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this debate on the six-month hoist motion with respect to Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Family Allowance Act. I am very happy to take part in this debate because it is absolutely essential that we use every opportunity we can to have this Bill set back in time and if the Government will not withdraw it, kill it by that means.
In explaining why I believe it is so necessary for this Bill to be killed, I want to say a little about the beginning of this session of Parliament. In November of 1984, I remember being in this building for the Throne Speech and going to the Senate Chamber to listen to the Governor General read the Throne Speech. I found myself just outside the doors with many other Hon. Members, including Cabinet Ministers. We were all listening carefully. At one point I looked over and saw the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who stood not more than six feet away. As the Governor General read the sentence, "That we must deal urgently with the deficit is beyond dispute", I glanced over at the Minister of Finance and raised my eyebrows because it is most certainly a matter which is open to dispute. He nodded his head portentously and I realized one of the realities about this Government. Whatever promises were given to the Canadian people in the summer of 1984, certain key people in this Government were convinced that the only way in which this country could advance toward prosperity was to take action on the deficit, no matter what.
As we walked back toward this Chamber, I seized the opportunity to meet the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that had a special significance for me since I had not had the opportunity to shake his hand before and to chat briefly with him. We walked into the Chamber together and as we parted, I said, as one Epp to another, "Beware the cutters". It took a moment for that to register. The Minister laughed, as did the Tories around him. Ten months later, it is obvious, as it was obvious last spring, that that was no joke. In fact, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was going to be forced to yield to the "cutters" whatever his protestations.
Family Allowances Act
It became clear, in fact, on May 23 that Bay Street had triumphed over Main Street, that River Heights and Tuxedo were socking it to Steinbach and Ste Anne. As I travelled early in July through southern Manitoba and areas in which I grew up, I wondered to myself what the people of Provencher must think about their Member of Parliament, the Minister who spoke so bravely in months past about what the Government was going to do, and who was forced into ignominious retreat with respect to the deindexation of family allowances. After all, in January, he published a consultation paper in which he suggested-and I read from page 6 of this booklet, the third principle which would govern any reconsideration of family benefits and old age pensions, and I quote:
Any savings which may result from program changes will not be applied to a reduction of the deficit.
That was a bold and categorical statement. He had in fact invited Canadians and Members of Parliament to think with him about how we could ensure greater fairness in the distribution of benefits from these programs without disturbing the universality of family allowances and the Old Age Security pension.
It became all too sadly clear in his comments on Monday that he has been forced to yield this point. He went so far in fact as to straightforwardly present the savings which were going to be made in this area as a means of deficit reduction without any particular apology, nor any defence that I could see.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said in his speech on Bill C-70, and I quote from Hansard on September 16, 1985 at page 6619:
In the Budget of May 23, 1985, the Government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), announced its intention to restructure the federal child benefit system to provide greater assistance to families with lower incomes while at the same time moving to bring our national debt under control. This Bill represents a first step toward meeting those dual objectives.
That seems to me a very candid concession. What had been rejected in January as an option, what had been denied in the statement of the principals who govern the actions of the Government, had been abandoned under the pressure of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of National Health and Welfare went on in his speech to say:
Many of those concerned about the problem of the debt and the deficit advised a more drastic course of action. Indeed, there are those who advocated that Government spending be reduced through the elimination of some of our social programs, and that includes family allowances.
That paragraph is an astonishing admission of the kinds of battles which appear to have been fought if not in caucus, then in Cabinet. There had been struggles to maintain something or other of the system. I suppose I should recognize that the Minister achieved something in maintaining what he has maintained, but there can be no doubt that the sacred trust of the summer of 1984 lay in tattered ruins when statements of that sort were being made on September 16.
What happens to the hopes of Government that remain? He is, after all, convinced. I am sure his colleagues will support

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
the fact that the changes being made to the family allowance system are part and parcel of better targeting. ETe concluded his observations on Monday by saying:
-I believe this Bill merits the support of the House. It is part of a restructuring of the child benefits system which will ensure that the benefits given to families with children are distributed on a fairer and more rational basis.
He goes on to add his thoughts about the fiscal situation and the deficit. Do the changes represent an improvement in the circumstances of poorer Canadians, about which the Conservatives still presume to cry crocodile tears at times?
The Canadian Council on Social Development last spring gave an assessment of the impact of the whole package of Budget changes on Canadian families. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, without being particularly open to question, that surely as a Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have available to him the kinds of assessments which the Ministry of Finance could make, applying fairly straightforward assumptions to the consideration of the circumstances of families of various levels of income. The astonishing thing about that, as the Canadian Council on Social Development has demonstrated, is if one applies those assessments to families, a couple with two children earning $10,000 a year all the way to $40,000, one finds that they will suffer a loss in income. The loss as far as a percentage of disposable income is concerned, runs as high as 4.5 per cent by the year 1990. If one takes not disposable income, which is income after taxes, but discretionary income-the amount of money people have left after having paid for food, clothing as well as taxes- one finds that a family with $10,000 a year will lose over 11 per cent of discretionary income because of the changes which the Government is bringing in. That is quite scandalous, given the statement that the Government is seeking, at the very least, to orient things to needy Canadians. On the other side, Canadians with resources, those with large incomes, end up quite nicely ahead of the game with gains of 3 per cent to 4 per cent rather than losses.
The point has been made by the Canadian Welfare Council, which has the opportunity of making published reports under the Government of Canada because it is officially appointed, that only the poorest families with incomes below the tax-paying thershold will benefit from these changes, and at that in rather modest amounts for a few years. After the various changes are phased in-and I will not read the list of the various changes-even the poorest parents will receive less than they would from the existing child benefits system. In the meantime, some lower-income and all middle-income families will suffer losses in child benefits, starting in 1986. The Council concludes that in future fewer and fewer families will qualify for the child tax credit, and the value of child benefits will decline for everyone. Universality will be maintained in name, but, in fact, child benefits will lose value and be increasingly concentrated on families on the bottom rungs of the income ladder. This is what we get in the fortieth anniversary year of the family allowances in Canada from a Party, the Government now, many of whose Members probably never thought family allowances were a good idea and were quite
preapred to accept all the media talk of baby bonuses. Conservatives never recognized that the point of the family allowance was to take people on minimum, limited wages and to provide them with something toward the cost of maintaining a family. The family allowance was always a vital part of Canadian fiscal economic policies established in the middle 1940s resulting from the experience of depression and war. Conservatives, I suspect, in many cases have never appreciated that.
I am personally very disappointed that the Minister of National Health and Welfare yielded, as he did. I say to my colleagues on both sides of the House that the only decent thing to do to this Bill is to hoist it six months and kill it, as it deserves to be killed, and get back to really building up the benefits that families need.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying that it would be politically naive in the extreme to say that Parliament and the Government of the day ought not to be concerned about the size of our federal deficit. Having said that, however, I ask the House how can we ask mothers and their children to lead the way in a program of deficit reduction? How can we do that, Mr. Speaker? The Government has already backed down under pressure from Opposition Parties and from senior citizens organizations from imposing a financial penalty on senior citizens as proposed in the Budget. Now we ask the Government to do exactly the same thing again, to think about it.
The Government should think about this Bill which imposes a penalty on children. This is no temporary measure just brought in for a short while. This is a permanent feature of our social contracts with this nation. It will hurt families more as time goes on. If we need austerity measures, and I do not deny for a moment that we do, then I say that the Government should begin with its own house.
If this Government is committed to a program of austerity to bring fiscal balance back, why do we have the largest Cabinet in our history? Why do we have all those expensive new staff positions in every Minister's office?


Don Boudria: And the limousines?


B. Keith Penner: Why do we have expensive redecorating and refurnishing of Minister's offices? Why do we have such an increase in the size of the Prime Minister's office when the Conservative Party yelled and screamed in anguish at the previous levels in the size of that office. Now the Conservatives have gone far beyond that. They have bailed out a bank at what may yet amount to $1 billion, a failed endeavour. If we need austerity, let it begin with the Government and the way it operates.
There are many expenditures that can be postponed or reduced. I ask the Government to leave the children of this nation alone. Leave the children and their mothers aside in the deficit fight until every other avenue of saving, every other means of expenditure reduction, has been fully explored and implemented. Once the Government has done all of that and it
September 19, 1985

has its own house in order then it can say with pride "Look at our austerity measures". If still more are needed, perhaps the Government can make a plea, beginning with middle-income families and up, but not until the Government has done its own work.
This Bill indicates to me that something is very seriously wrong in Canada with our priorities. We limit the flow of money to needy persons but we can find money for almost anything else that comes to mind in Government operations.
I just returned last evening from visiting an Indian community on the coast of James Bay, a community which this past spring was flooded out. I went to see how the repair work was coming along and found that it is not coming along well at all. Houses are still partly demolished. I asked the officials why and they told me that there is not enough money to repair the homes. Winter is coming on and the houses are standing on blocks with no insulation. I saw a child playing in a dirty, muddy pool in front of his partly demolished home. Not far away from him was a huge garbage disposal site. That site ought to be moved away from the community because it is creating problems with the drinking water and causing disease. However, it cannot be moved because there is no money. We are asking that child to help us in our fight against the federal deficit. In the recently leaked Buffalo Jump report, the Government indicated that it wanted to cut more than $300 million from the program to assist the poorest of poor, the Indian people of Canada. Let austerity begin with ourselves; let austerity begin with the Government itself. We cannot fight the deficit on the backs of needy people. We cannot fight the deficit by calling for the co-operation of children and their mothers who need those few extra dollars.
The Government argues that the child tax credit will offset this reduction in the family allowance. We know from a careful analysis of this by the National Council on Welfare that that is not so. In speaking about child benefits, the council indicates that many lower and all middle income families with children will receive less than they do from the current system. After 1990, even the poorest families stand to lose child benefits. In future, fewer and fewer families will be eligible for the child tax credit. That argument which has been offered on the other side does not stand up under analysis. It is a false argument. The buying power of the family allowance cheque must be maintained. It is unfair, unjust and unreasonable to do otherwise.
I remember when the child allowance came into existence. I recall, as a child, being told about it by my mother. I could not imagine that some Government in far off Ottawa was concerned about a person like me, a child, and that it would actually give money to my mother to provide some of the things I would not have otherwise had. I remember the war years, those years of austerity. There was little money for things such as a pair of skates, a baseball mitt, a bicycle or even a movie at the cost of 12 cents. We accepted that as children because we were told that there was an ongoing war
Family Allowances Act
and that everyone had to sacrifice. Brothers, uncles and fathers were dying overseas. Later came the child allowance, money for mothers to provide their children with things they ought to have in the process of growing up. Those few extra dollars have become important. It is not extra money that can be thrown around. It is now important money, especially with unacceptably high levels of unemployment, soup kitchens and the increase in poverty. Mothers need that money to provide their youngsters with items to enrich and enlarge their lives. We are not talking about luxuries; we are talking about necessities.
What sense is there in saying that this small sum of money will not be increased fully in accordance with the cost of living? What sense is there in asking for this small cheque to be reduced by the rate of 3 per cent per year? According to the National Council on Welfare, by 1990, as a result of budget changes to child benefits and the income tax system combined, a family with an $80,000 income will lose $1,125 per year. No tears are shed for them. However, a low income family will lose more, $1,879 or $754 more per year, and a middle income family earning $40,000 will lose $3,452. Where is the justice? Where is the rationale?
I should like to conclude my remarks where I began. Most Canadians agree that the mounting federal deficit must be brought under control. However, the Budget proposes to do so by turning away from what has been a long-standing commitment on the part of the federal Government of Canada, that is, to continue the fight against poverty. It is a wrong-headed policy. We are debating a cheap, petty, public policy. I am certain the Minister feels ashamed about it. Therefore, I call upon back-bench members of the Conservative Party to join with us in bringing pressure upon the Government. It should be given the message that this is not the way in which to proceed in a reduction of the deficit. It is an injustice to do it on the backs of children, their mothers and families which need these few extra dollars that we give them each month.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points I should like to cover this afternoon on Bill C-70. The first one was just made by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). He left the impression that this was the first time that family allowances had been affected by Government decision. 1 draw to his attention that when I first rose to speak on Bill C-70, I pointed out that the former Government had made more radical changes in 1976.


B. Keith Penner: Not permanent, though, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I hear the Hon. Member saying that they were not permanent.


B. Keith Penner: They were just temporary measures.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I point out to him that they were much more permanent than anything we have suggested. Whereas the family allowance payment per child is now approximately $31 per month, if the decision of the Govern-

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
ment which he supported had not been taken, the payment today would have been $51. That is a permanent change. If he takes a look at the six and five proposal also introduced by his Government, there was a change as well. The Hon. Member used the word "permanent". The first time I rose to speak on the Bill, I said very clearly that as financial circumstances permitted, we would examine the benefits level. That is not permanent. I know him to be an honourable man; he has demonstrated that throughout the years. I clearly point out to him that some of the things he said cannot be substantiated in fact.
I also rise today because I am concerned about the statements which were left on the record by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). At the time of the introduction of Bill C-70, I made proposals relating to more flexibility. I said that there would be more discretionary power for the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding unfortunate circumstances where children were presumed to be dead, and that we were looking for a means by which to be more caring and more flexible in our dealings with parents in that unfortunate and tragic situation. Unfortunately the Hon. Member absolutely misinterpreted the intent of the proposal. She literally called it an attack on parents in those unfortunate circumstances. In order that the record be very clear in this regard, I point out the effect of that amendment once again. During debate in the House on the family allowance amending Bill, Bill C-70, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East questioned the rationale behind one of the minor amendments included in it. The amendment in question proposes to give the Minister discretionary authority, for the purposes of the family allowance program, to issue a certificate declaring that a child is presumed to be dead in cases where a child has disappeared and there is reasonable evidence to believe that the child is dead. What it will do is enable the Government to settle with the parents in those cases, not to remove any money because at the present time the payment is not for seven years.
In fact, the Act says very clearly it is to be curtailed. That is how the Act now reads. The payment is to be curtailed in that month. Generally we have been paying on a six months basis. That is beyond the date. In fact, what it will now enable us to do is to have the flexibility to meet the exact circumstances of those unfortunate situations.
The third point I make, Mr. Speaker, is this: I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties of the House and that it is not possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 82 or Standing Order 83 with regard to the allocation of time to the second reading stage of Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973.
Therefore, at the next sitting of the House it is my intention to propose the following motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84:
That, in relation to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and that Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time
provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings 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 successfully, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Moments ago the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) asked the members on the government side to think about what they are doing. When in the Chamber speaking as we have been about this Bill and when one looks around the Chamber, one would have to be one of those who likes to sing in the shower where the echo enhances your voice because, really, all the value that attends these interventions is to have the sound of your voice enhanced because it is clear. Look around us. Except for the rat pack making noises behind the benches nobody is paying any attention to what is going on. There is very little likelihood that the arguments that have been repeated over and over again about the unfairness of the Government's action are going to penetrate, except by a process of osmosis.
Yesterday the Hon. Member for York East*(Mr. Redway), in dismissing the rather considerable number of statistics advanced to demonstrate that a great many families were going to be hurt by the actions set out in this Bill, advanced the hypothesis that in spite of the fact that the statistics based on what the Bill purports to do now may indicate some harm done to low-income, middle-income and poor people, that if you think about it there may be some changes in the economy, there may be more people going back to work, the Government may change its mind about something or other and when it all gets shaken out in the wash, it will not be so bad after all and, if it is looked at maybe in 1990 or 1991, in fact things will be a great deal better for the poor and the low-income and middle-income people who are going to be hurt by this legislation.
I had great difficulty in following the argument until I observed that the speaker was projecting a map of his logic. I noticed that that map constituted a circular movement of the finger, as I do now, so we could recognize that the logic of his argument was the same as the logic of the entire argument on that side, circular and inpenetrable.
It is an argument that must be extremely perplexing and confusing to the Canadian people, particularly in the context of the events that have been transpiring in this House over the last few days. We have a Government that assured the voters that it would do nothing that would hurt the quality of life or affect the benefits of the poor or the middle class in our society and certainly would not commit itself to attacking the deficit on the backs of those who could least afford it. In spite of that we have heard speaker after speaker on the other side, with rotating finger, clearly indicating that one of the motivations for the kind of legislation that we have before us was indeed to cut back the deficit. This is at the same time as we are in the process of discussing the contribution of something in the order of $ 1 billion to make up the losses that resulted from this government's ineptitude.
What is transpiring now is really quite shocking when you think about it. After all, it has only been a few weeks since the
September 19, 1985

Government attempted to make changes in the Old Age Security and thought that they might do it at the expense of a set of tired and sleepy targets that proved to be neither tired nor sleepy. The senior citizens rose up, with the support of the entire country, and the proposal to partially deindex old age pensions was a decision that had to be changed, and so full indexation was returned.
Now, looking around for easy targets and I suppose with a new dimension of sexism perhaps, certainly looking at children as easy targets, the Government thinks that it is going to attack women, children and families and not get a reaction. The reaction is already taking place. The reaction is manifestly affecting the attitude of the Government because the Minister stood up only moments ago and said "We have had enough of this, too many people may be aroused to what is going on, so we had better have closure." But it is too late. It is unnecessary and ridiculous. One would think we were talking about an extremely expensive program here. The fact of the matter is, by comparison to many of the programs that continue and in terms of some of the measures that this Government has already advocated and in terms of the savings that they hope to achieve, this program is trivial. It has been contracting, not only in terms of cost but benefits that have been going to citizens over the last few years. By the way, when the Member who spoke earlier asked this Chamber to think, I suppose it is worth noting that he ought to contemplate what was said by the Minister earlier and that is as a result of the actions of the past Government the family allowance was indeed cut several times over the last 15 years. The result, I will repeat what the Minister said, is that it amounts to only some $30 instead of the $50 it would have totalled per child if the former Government had not been as deliberate as this one in saving money at the cost of children, families and women.
Let us look at the record. Ten years ago family allowances consumed about 1.2 per cent of Gross National Product and 6.4 per cent of federal expenditures. Presently it consumes .57 per cent of the Gross National Product and 1.2 per cent of Government expenditures. In dollar terms we are talking about something like $2 billion a year, just twice as much as we are going to have to put into the bank fiasco, just twice as much. In the first year of this partial deindexation the Government just may save as much as $20 million. Not until 1990-1991 is it going to save as much as $400 million. That is trivial compared to the $1 billion that it is going to throw the way of the banks. It is certainly trivial compared to the amount of money that is going to go to the oil companies and it becomes a joke in its triviality compared to the tax expenditures benefiting the largest corporations which are not producing jobs in proportion to the amount of money going into those coffers.
Let us recognize that the Government, under the leadership of the Minister, in consultation with the other two Parties, did attempt to look at some changes which were purported to be to the advantage of women, the family and children. However, what was the net result? No attention has been paid to the
Family Allowances Act
substantial changes in the tax structure that will affect people, whether or not they have children or are women. There has been partial deindexation all along the line. We should look at the pattern of changes to the child benefits.
What about the claim advanced by the Hon. Member for York East and by others yesterday that the poorest are going to be better off? I would just point out that in the first year, a family with two children making less than $9,000 per year will lose $22 in the first year and will make some gains until 1990 but after that will continue to lose. A family with two children and an income of between $15,000 and $35,000 per year-and the $35,000 per year is about average-is going to lose simply on the basis of those changes in benefits.
Having heard some of the utterances of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), I am sure that he did not intend this to happen. He is groping around looking for a means by which he can modify things to some slight degree so that he can get back to a program that will fulfil the intentions that he has broadcast over this land. I would suggest that the first step would in fact be to withdraw or modify the Bill in committee. Better still, I would suggest that the Minister rise like a man who stands for the principles that he preaches to the country to support us in this six-month hoist.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I listened to what I think is the absolute height of hypocrisy supposedly on the part of the poor. I listened to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) talking about-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that the terms "hypocrisy" and "hypocrite" or any term like that is considered unparliamentary language.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It just depends how it's used.


Don Boudria: Only when referring to another Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" as applying to a specific speaker. I believe that it was used in a more general way. Therefore, it is parliamentary.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior who referred to some renovations in the Prime Minister's Office that he conveniently did not make reference to the renovations to Stornoway, the home of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), renovations which were much more substantial. I must say as well, Sir, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took a 15 per cent reduction in his salary increase and Cabinet Ministers took a 10 per cent reduction. That same offer was made to the Leader of the Official Opposition as well as to the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and they both refused. They were not going to take any reduction in salary to show any leadership.
Second, I would like to refer to the little Indian boy to whom the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior referred. The

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Hon. Member spoke of the immorality of depriving that poor little duffer. I agree that it is immoral but what is surely more immoral is that that Hon. Member and all Hon. Members of the NDP who happen to have two children are taking 79 bucks a month in family allowance payments. We know that the top tax rate in this country is 50 per cent. It is surely more immoral for us to take that money while that little duffer does without, and that is the goal of this Party.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Let's have fair taxation then.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Make it more progressive. We agree with you.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We are trying to have the people who make more money give up that family allowance. Members of the NDP are trying to keep that money because of sheer personal greed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House to deal with Bill C-70 and try to focus the debate again on the children and not on what is now going on in the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or in the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). I should like to say how surprised I am to hear that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would like this debate to come to an end, thereby muzzling the Opposition which is trying to defend Canadian families. I am also somewhat disappointed, because the role of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is to protect Canadian families, women and children. He is clearly trying to muzzle the Opposition.
I feel it is most important to emphasize that family allowances are just about the only social recognition women get for having and raising children. I think it is also very important to emphasize their particular nature.
In 1944, the Government of the day adopted legislation providing for family allowances because of the distress of poor families and the extremely high infant mortality rate at the time. It can be said that poverty today should be one of the major reasons for maintaining family allowances.
I think it is necessary to maintain the universality of family allowances to avoid the group within our society receiving allowances being stigmatized and because selective social programs would cost a lot more to administer and absorb the resulting savings. Today, it is not the universality of family allowances which is being questioned, although the Government is often tempted to establish a beach-head in this direction.
What we are dealing with here today is a possible reduction of the purchasing power of families with children, because family allowances will no longer be indexed on the cost of
living increase, but rather on the excess of this increase over 3 per cent.
I listened to the Minister of National Health and Welfare when he introduced his bill. He said among other things that the difference between what he is proposing and a normal increase of the family allowances based on the consumer price index was only $22 per family per year. He emphasized also the steps which the Liberal Government had taken in 1976, 1983 and 1984 to reduce the annual increase of family allowances.
Let us examine closely the arguments put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to see if they will stand the test of a serious and thorough analysis. In 1976, the Government decided not to increase family allowances and, in 1983-84, it decreed an increase of 6 and 5 per cent, in line with the program it had implemented to end the economic recession. What we must understand is that each time a Liberal Government was compelled to limit the yearly increases, it implemented temporary measures and, the following year, everything returned to normal.
We should emphasize that the purpose of its budget restraints was not to reduce the deficit. The Liberal Party has never tried to solve the deficit on the backs of the poorest of the poor. What do we have here? When we consider the historic background, we realize that the purpose of Bill C-70 and the budget tabled on May 23 is to empoverish our middle and low income families gradually.
What is involved is not a mere $22 per family, Mr. Speaker. To cry out that $22 is peanuts is to miss the point. Liberal members are not as near-sighted as Conservative members. We are well able to see what the Budget and Bill C-70 imply for the coming years.
This is why I have no problem stating that what the Liberal Party did in 1983-84 with its 6 and 5 program was small beer compared to what this Conservative Government wants us now to swallow.
If you look at the table of estimates for up to 1991, you will see that for the fiscal year 1985-86, the Conservative Government will be taking $20 million out of the taxpayers' pockets by reducing family allowances. That figure is increased 20 times for the fiscal year 1990-91. This means that the Government is considering family allowances as its future reserve for solving deficit problems.
Old age security benefits also were a very significant source of revenue that would have been used to wipe out the deficit had it not been for the firm step taken by the senior citizens in coming here to remind the Government last June that their duty was to support our elders, those who helped make Canada what it is today.
September 19, 1985

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to compare the savings that will be gained on family allowances up to 1991, with the expenditures this Conservative Government is prepared to make until 1991 in the case of those who can afford to make capital gains.
As 1 said earlier, the Government will take $400 million from families with children to reduce its deficit in the next five years. At the same time, it will forgo-


An Hon. Member:: Rob the poor and give to the rich!


Lucie Pépin: -at the same time it will forgo $1.25 billion because of an income tax exemption on capital gains.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Lucie Pépin: Unfortunately, the impression I get is that the argument of the deficit holds only when they want to reduce social expenditures. When it comes to helping the rich in our society, there is no mention of the deficit whatsoever.
Indeed, the corporation surtax will have disappeared by 1991. The removal of the oil and gas revenue tax will entail a $2.5 billion loss to the Government, but a gain for multinational corporations. The Government will also lose $1 billion in special Canadian ownership levies.
Mr. Speaker, in this speech opposing Bill C-70, I am going back to the whole budget debate. Ironically, I am doing exactly what the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) suggested opposition members should do, that is put Bill C-70 back into historical context.
Bill C-70 makes no sense when viewed in the light of election commitments made by the Conservatives. They promised to maintain social programs to help Canadian men and women through the economic recession.
During the debate on the Speech from the Throne in November 1984, the Minister of National Health and Welfare stated: "It is my duty to give signals and take steps to strengthen the role of the family and give it more importance than ever before in our society".
Today, by removing the indexation of family allowances, the Government is attacking social programs designed to support the family. I wonder what kind of signals the Minister of National Health and Welfare is giving them?
Our social programs are not wasteful. The Macdonald Report points out that Canada ranks in the lowest third group of industrialized countries as far as its expenditures for social programs are concerned. This is what the report says: "Considering the moderate funds which, according to OECD criteria, Canada allots to its social sector, there is really nothing to warrant drawing from the social envelope to reduce the deficit."
With Bill C-70, the Tory Government is denying families with children the maintenance of their purchasing power. At
Family Allowances Act
the same time, it is increasing taxes on fuel and health products. Family allowances are often the only income going directly to women.
I think that the financial security of women should not be eroded but rather strengthened. By reducing the annual increase in family allowances till 1991, the Tory Government is asking mostly women to make up the deficit.
I would like to recall what the National Action Committee on the Status of Women said before the Standing Committee on National Health and Social Welfare during its hearings on benefits granted to senior citizens and their children. The National Action Committee believes that the assistance now being paid out universally to all parents is too low. Consequently, it has urged the federal Government on several occasions to increase family allowances to a more realistic level. The Committee opposes one of the options in the paper under consideration published in January which would entail a reduction in family allowances. It opposes any actual decrease of the allowance by way of a surtax or a ceiling on cost of living indexation.
On the other hand, the group for the reform of social policies writes in connection with family benefits that the Conservative budget has been said to be increasing the assistance paid to low-income families but actually such assistance will be reduced by 1990, when the combined effects of income tax increases and the reduction of family allowances will offset any gain from the increased child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, like many pressure groups representing families, children and women, I oppose Bill C-70.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate and make my views known on Bill C-70. 1 feel this Bill is just another nail in the coffin in which the Conservative Government is trying to bury our whole social security program. I especially welcome this opportunity to speak since the Minister has just given notice of a motion he will move for time allocation. I must admit I was a little surprised by that notice after only nine or ten hours of debate on a very fundamental question facing Canadian people. After a mere nine or ten hours, the Minister has decided that the Canadian people have had enough of this debate and there will be time allocation. This is a significant change for the Conservative Party. One need not have a long memory to remember the times when Conservatives at least maintained that they upheld the principle of full and open debate on measures such as the one before us. Now, just nine or ten hours after debate had begun, they wish to shut the lid on it.
It was also interesting to hear the exchange between some of the Conservative Members, the Minister and some of the Liberals over which one of those two Parties had done the most damage to our social security program. The Minister pointed out very rightly that if it had not been for some of the changes introduced by previous Liberal Governments the

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
family allowance today would be $52 instead of $31. I remind Hon. Members this is the first time the Conservative Government has been at bat for a while and we are just beginning to see the way in which they are attacking our social security programs. We had several years in which the Liberals slowly but surely eroded those programs. It seems that once again we have to be fighting a rear guard action protect our social security programs and to ensure that all Canadians have a right to participate fully in Canadian society and have, at least, a chance of living a life with some dignity and equity.
Canadians should have known that when they elected a Conservative Government that this was the type of agenda that it had in mind since, in the past, some Conservatives had let slip that they were going to have to do some very mean and nasty things. We now see those mean and nasty things happening. The reason the Canadian people did not really believe that this was going to take place was because they accepted, at face value, the promises made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was campaigning. For example, last August, he very solemnly gave the assurance that no social programs at all affecting anyone in need would be touched by a Progressive Conservative Government. Without hesitation, the Prime Minister gave that assurance and, now, with very little hesitation, we can see this Government moving to remove full indexing from family allowances.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) introduced this legislation on Monday, he said that we cannot separate social programs and benefits from economic reality. That is a proposition with which we would all agree. Social programs and benefits have to be tied to economic reality. The question I would like to raise is how do we perceive that economic reality? If we look at the actions of the Conservative Government in the past few months, we see that its view of economic reality is basically one of cutting back on social programs in order to grant a tax holiday to people with capital gains of up to $500,000. We see proposals to bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank to the tune of $1 billion. At the same time, we see proposals to cut back on programs like Old Age Security and the family allowance. The seniors of Canada made the Government see the folly of trying to cut back on the OAS. However, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) pointed out, they may have persuaded the Government politically that it was folly but they have not yet persuaded this Government morally. It is important for the Government to face up to the fact that what it is doing is not moral.
If we are going to talk about economic reality, let us do so from the perspective of hundreds of families in my constituency. I am sure this would also be true of hundreds of families in most Members' constituencies. In fact, it would be true of millions of Canadian families coast to coast. They face an economic reality which I think is rock bottom and we have to deal with it in this House. It is the economic reality of being poor, not having enough money from month to month to meet basic necessities. It is the economic reality of children having
to go back to school in need of new clothes and school supplies and their financial resources are stretched to the breaking point. That is the economic reality we should be looking at first of all.
The Macdonald Commission, when it looked at the question of distribution of income, seemed rather surprised that there has not been any real change in Canada over the last 30 years. The overall distribution of income has changed remarkably little during the past 30 years, according to the report. The poorest fifth of Canadian families and individuals continues to receive about 4 per cent of all income while the most affluent fifth receive about 40 per cent. It seems surprising that the distribution of income appears so stable and existing research has not fully discovered the reasons for this phenomenon. Whatever the full explanation may be, the gap between the affluent and the poor in Canadian society remains as wide as ever. In one table to the report, the effect of some of the transfer programs on the distribution of income is shown. Before programs such as family allowance and OAS are counted, the poorest fifth of Canadian society received only 1.4 per cent of Canadian income. That is, 20 per cent of Canada's people received one-seventieth of Canada's personal income. After those programs are added in, they received the magnificent amount of 4.6 per cent of national income. With aboriginal people the question is even more severe. Government transfer programs constitute the second largest source of income for these people. With that in mind I want to go back to what the Minister said about the fact that previous changes to the family allowance program have meant we are only paying $31 per month today compared to what it should be, $52 a month. We wonder why there has not been any real improvement in the gap in income equality in Canada, yet we continue to have Governments such as the previous Liberal Government and the present Conservative Government cutting back and eroding such basic programs as family allowances.
When the Catholic Bishops spoke on this issue two years ago, Mr. Speaker, they talked about putting an end to these cut-backs. They said the economic realities in Canada revealed a moral disorder in our society and I want to say to the Conservatives opposite that Bill C-70 contributes to those moral disorders and I support fully the motion that this Bill be given a six-month hoist.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Conflict of Interest-(a) Request for details concerning formation
September 19, 1985

of certain private companies. (b) Company shareholdings; The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Fisheries-(a) Exercise of ministerial discretion-inspection of fish products; The Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)- Multiculturalism-(a) Federal-Provincial Conference-size of Budget.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee, and on the amendment of Mr. Frith (p. 6625).
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to participate in the debate on Bill C-70, which has the effect of deindexing family allowance benefits to the tune of $55 million. It is out of sad necessity that I speak on this Bill. It is an obligation on this Member and certainly on Members of my Party to speak against another piece of regressive Tory legislation. This Bill has its roots in a Budget that one can characterize very accurately as a give and take Budget. It takes from the poor, the working class and middle class and gives to the rich and wealthy Canadians.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, what does this Bill mean in real terms to the average Canadian? To better answer that question one cannot only look at the ambit of this particular Bill, one has to look at the number of measures introduced last May in the Conservative Budget. When you do that you see that by 1990, including changes to personal income tax and family benefits, a two-child family with both parents working with income in the neighbourhood of $15,000 will lose about $1,879 in purchasing power. Compare that to a family earning $80,000 who will lose $1,125. Even with this very quick arithmetic, we can see very clearly that low-income families will lose $775 more per year than high-income families, and middle-income families will lose three times as much. Then consider the increase in consumer and gasoline taxes, the tax on health care products, and the removal of the RHOSP program which permitted young couples to put money aside to purchase their home. Then you get an idea of where this Tory Government is going.
As if that was not enough, the pre-Christmas debate was one which the Government wanted to use to open up the question of universality. Then prior to the summer recess we had the issue facing senior citizens of this country. This Government wanted to fight the battle of the deficit on the shoulders of our senior citizens. This month we see that senior citizens have been replaced by the mothers and children of this
Family Allowances Act
country. To make matters worse, the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has moved for closure on this Bill. Is that because the Government is embarrassed to have Members of Parliament debate Bill C-70 further? Is it worried that Canadians will get agitated as they did in May and June to stop the regressive move of deindexing old age pensions? I recall hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talk about civility, parliamentary procedure, democracy, and the will of the people. Where are those words today? Where is the Prime Minister today with his great oratorical skills?
Those were not the only words uttered by the Prime Minister. In the Speech from the Throne it says, "My Government has a high priority measure to support and strengthen the Canadian family which is the cornerstone of our society". How do those words compare with the Bill before the House? The Minister of National Health and Welfare was not to be outdone by the rhetoric of the Prime Minister. He said, "It is the family and commitment to community which guarantees stability in our social fabric. It is my role to put forward signals and initiatives which will strengthen the role of the family and give it more prominence in society than I feel it has been given before".
Hon. Members on the other side were talking about hypocrisy. I ask them to look at the statements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Prime Minister. It does not take a genius to discover that there is a serious credibility gap between their words and their actions. Canadians no longer trust the Government. They no longer have any confidence in the Government's plan of action. Most importantly, Canadians will not allow the Government, despite its absolute parliamentary majority, to take them down a path they do not wish to travel. There is no better example of that than the actions of our senior citizens. The Government was prepared to deindex old age pensions. It made statements in the House and across the country that it would not back down. How long did it take for the Government to buckle under and listen to Canadians across the country? Canadians are facing another issue on the same principle, only this time senior citizens are being replaced with children and mothers.
The Government has been accused of lacking decisive leadership, and rightfully so. One can look at the banking fiasco, the broken promises, the on-again-off-again waltz with star wars, and the tuna fish issue. On those issues they did lack leadership. The only position that they are clear on is that of social security programs. The Government is comprised of a regressive group of men and women who are taking us backward rather than forward. The Government introduced a Budget which gives the wealthy tax breaks, loopholes, and a $500,000 bonanza and asks senior citizens, mothers, and children of the country to bear the brunt of the financial situation that the Government finds itself in. They are being regressive rather than progressive as their Progressive Conservative label would suggest they should be.

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
Time after time history has taught us the consequences of allowing misery and neglect to fester unremedied. It is indeed very dangerous to make these matters worse. When speaking to this country some time ago President Kennedy declared: "If we cannot help the many who are poor, we cannot save the few who are rich". Mr. Speaker, while our circumstances are different than those on other parts of the globe, the words still ring very true and they should be heeded. If the Government is honest enough, it will realize that compared to many countries Canada is very wealthy.
Our challenge as a Parliament is to tear down that vertical mosaic which John Porter described 20 years ago in his book. We must tear down that vertical mosaic and redistribute the wealth and power of the country. These policies will not do that. Rather, they will reinforce that vertical mosaic and that is dangerous. The Liberal Government of the last 16 years initiated many of these programs and Canadians realized that this was the social contract they had with the country. Closure or no closure, Mr. Speaker, the children and families of the country do not want to renegotiate a new contract with this or a future government. My Party will remain true to that social contract. Let us see whether the Government has the courage to stand up to something that is very wrong.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words about this particular motion to hoist Bill C-70 for six months, and the few words I want to say will take exactly 10 minutes. I do not see Machiavelli on the other side of the House, but if I were machiavellian I would tend to think that this plan to cut back on family allowances was a deliberate scheme. The proposed cut-back in old age pensions was the stalking horse put forward to get everyone to jump on it. We all did, and we did a very effective job. The polls following that decision of the Government showed that its popularity had dropped. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) then struck his breast and said, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. We were wrong, we will index it again".


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Shame on him.


John R. Rodriguez: He said that and the polls went up again. What he really wanted to do was undermine family allowances. There are those who see that the Government was really out to stick it to the children of the country, particularly the poor children.
I was reading a very interesting statistic earlier and I would like to share it with you, Mr. Speaker. According to Statistics Canada, in the past five years the number of children living in poverty in Canada has grown from 723,000 to 1,113,000 which is an increase of 54 per cent. The Government says that it is increasing the child tax credit but even with an increase in the child tax credit, it has lowered the income level at which the child tax credit would be paid. In fact, we look at the proposed cut-backs in the family allowance as part of that whole budgetary proposal which lays on top of the federal sales taxes. We look at that whole package and see in fact that the poor in society will get even poorer as a result of the particular
measures being proposed with respect to deindexing family allowance.
I am sure all Members of the House when they are in their constituency offices have people telephone and come to see them. There are fixed times for the receipt of the family allowance, certain times of the month when it arrives in the mail. If that family allowance is one or two days late, the telephone rings. I am sure Members of this House are well aware of that. It triggers a response. I do not believe this Government really understands the extent of poverty in this country, the extent to which the family allowance has become an integral part of the family income. In fact, probably in many families that is the only cheque which a woman receives in her own name.
There are many communities across this country where wives do not have the opportunity to find work outside the home and depend in a real way on the husband's income. The family allowance cheque will probably be the only cheque she ever receives in her own name. What has this Government decided to do? Cut the family allowance. It then turns around and says it is increasing the child tax credit which by the way, comes at the end of the year when the income tax form is filed by the spouse. In fact we are not really addressing the problem of wealth redistribution in this country.
The other provisions in the Budget ensure that the wealthy in Canada will continue to accumulate greater and greater wealth. The Prime Minister during the last election campaign promised there would be a minimum tax on the wealthy in Canada. That remains a campaign promise. Nothing has been done to effectively deal with tax reform. Do the wealthy of this country really need the $.5 million capital gains gift which this Government has given them? Do they really need it?


Mr. Duguay:: Do you really need to yell?


John R. Rodriguez: Well, obviously, the Hon. Member does not hear very well. When those Members were in the opposition, they were great ones for dumping on the Liberal Government. Now they are the Government and in fact what they do is deal with people in just as cruel a way as the Liberals before them. The Members opposite should be ashamed. They have an opportunity to revamp the Income Tax Act. They have a vast majority. Now is the time to seize that opportunity and really ensure that those who need income support in Canada will receive it. Surely the Government should be using the Income Tax Act to ensure that it redistributes wealth to the families who really need it. In fact, this Bill will only exacerbate the poverty which presently exists.
According to the Canadian Council on Social Development all the various taxes which are proposed in the Budget will cost the average family over $1,000 in purchasing power by the year 1990. Surely the Government has to be concerned with that sort of regressive kind of tax, the sales tax. Even the children pay federal sales tax on candies and pet food for their
September 19, 1985

pets. All the various pharmaceutical products which Canadians may need will be taxed.
Is it the real purpose of this Government to separate the classes in this country? I have accused it of that. I think what was really intended in the Budget was to reinforce class distinction, to really ingrain poverty into Canada and to help the wealthy to accumulate even greater wealth. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said in a speech in Montreal that the problem in Canada is that there are too few wealthy people. I would like him to consider the fact that there are actually too many poor people in this country and that the Government should really undertake a program of tax reform in order to make sure that as much as possible we eliminate that grave discrepancy.
I once said, Mr. Speaker, that there are three purposes of an Income Tax Act. First, it must be redistributive in nature. Second, it must be just and, third, it must be progressive. It seems to me that there is no redistributive nature in the proposal of Bill C-70. All the witnesses who came before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs testified that this was not an appropriate way to go. We should not cut the moneys which go directly to the wife and to the children. Yet the Government proceeds in its arrogance. I do not know if it is trying to prove it is decisive. Government gave notice that it will introduce the guillotine tomorrow. It is going to close off debate. I suppose Government is trying to prove how resolute it is.
I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has been a fair person in the past. I think he should really consider putting off this measure. I appeal to him to put off Bill C-70. I believe we should take a good long hard look at it, Mr. Speaker, and I make that recommendation to the Minister.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it will not be easy to say something novel in this debate. On the other hand, it is also very difficult not to say anything because this measure is so upsetting and backward in terms of the evolution of the social policy in this country, it makes it impossible to remain silent.
I would like to answer a few questions about some things which have puzzled me. My first question is how is this money spent when it reaches the mothers of this nation? The money, Mr. Speaker, is usually spent very quickly and it is spent on purchases at the corner grocery store and the department store for the necessities of the child. If we multiply this family allowance by the numbers of people who spend it-and I am told that it is spent very quickly-we can see that this as a total sum could be an economic force of considerable impact on our economy. Therefore, it helps the family, the retail stores and it helps trade and commerce.
To look at this only as an expenditure of the state is a very narrow outlook. It is actually a good stimulant of the economy. It puts money where it is needed and it helps the growth of our
Family Allowances Act
economy. It puts money where the need is immediate and at the level of our retail system where sales can make the difference, particularly at the small business level.
The second question is how will the deficit be reduced by this proposed deindexation? That is the main hobbyhorse of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in his explanation. If you compare the sum of money, which the present Conservative Government will not distribute once the deindexation takes place next year, it is a fraction of the deficit, at best a fraction of 1 per cent. It is a figure that will not make an indent in the deficit, nor will it have any impact to speak of. To use the deindexation issue as one that is going to help the economy by reducing the deficit is a very serious way of misleading Canadians into believing that it will. It is an illusion, and the Progressive Conservative Party better wake up to this reality.
The third thought that comes to mind in analyzing the consequences of this Bill is what does it do to our social security system. This Bill is being presented by way of smoke and mirrors, which I regret to say, is pseudo-justice. The appearance of the increase in the child tax credit at first sight leads one to conclude that we are making progress. When you look at the cumulative combined effect of the three measures which have been so well elaborated and analyzed by previous speakers, you can see this is a backward social measure. It is not worthy of the fine progress made over the last few decades in developing a solid and strong social security system for our families.
I believe that universality is the more cost effective method. It is the fairer method and it is also the one that administratively can be better carried out. Everybody receives whatever the sum is but you make sure that the income tax system takes back from those who have more for the benefit of those who have less. It has worked and served us well until now. We should make sure that it will continue to serve us.
This Government will have some difficulties when it administers this program when certain families move above or below the threshhold. People will have to apply for consideration and some people will be disqualified. There will have to be a continuous administration of the system, which is costly. A means test will be required. That seems to be the guiding philosophy and criteria of the so-called Progressive Conservative Party. What there is progressive, I fail to see.
I submit that the nation is in trouble when the Minister of National Health and Welfare begins to talk like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The Minister of National Health and Welfare is the Minister of the poor and the Minister of the Canadian people who have so far benefited from the measures for their welfare. When he begins, as he has done in recent months, to echo the tune of the Minister of Finance, I submit he is abandoning his mandate. He is somehow representing the interests of the Minister of Finance, the interests of those who want to reduce the deficit, but he is not fighting in the interests of all of us who are concerned about the future of our social security system. More than that, he is not fighting for those

September 19, 1985
Family Allowances Act
who have benefited from the system as it has been administered so far, namely, in a universal manner.
We all gain by a system, Mr. Speaker, that distributes wealth through universal programs and taxes those who can pay, rather than by the selective application which, by 1990, and this is the bottom line of the Bill before us, will mean that the average Canadian family will in real purchasing power lose over $1,000. That is the sadness of the measure. All of a sudden Canadians are being told that as of next year their family allowances will no longer keep pace, with the cost of living that is, up to 3 per cent. Everybody's capacity to receive and use this income will be affected by 3 per cent beginning next year. There will be an erosion in purchasing power of family allowance recipients.
To us who are the architects of the social security system of Canada, this is a profoundly hurting experience.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: I hear some Members of the New Democratic Party howling. They have never been in power. They have never put into practice any scheme. We, successive Liberal Governments, have put and built into place a fine social security system. It is very hurtful to see a dismantling operation as a result of the Progressive Conservative Party getting into power and gradually shifting the income to the advantage of those in the higher income brackets and to the disadvantage of those in the lower income brackets because that will be the net effect of this measure in the long run. Let me repeat, that will be the net effect in the long run. You have to see it in its totality and as it will affect people by 1990. At that time, we hope we will have an opportunity to settle the accounts on the hustings. We will certainly have something to say about the Tory candidates in each of our ridings concerning this measure. The present Minister of National Health and Welfare will also have his own riding defending this measure. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that that will be the case.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I take no great pleasure in talking about this particular Bill. It is extremely regressive and will have a serious effect on Canadian women and their families. Why would the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who I know to be a fairly reasonable type person, suddenly rush in to declare closure on debate on this Bill? What is the Government afraid of? The Government must know, as I do, that there are a growing number of Canadians across the land who view this Budget with some dismay. They have examined the Budget-and for very good reason-in a way that Canadians have never examined previous Budgets. Senior citizens across the country indicated their displeasure during the month of June when, despite the arguments of the Government that the seniors supported what it was doing, they clearly showed that they did not support it. In fact, they organized in a political way rarely seen before among the senior population. They organized so effectively that they will never view Governments as they did in the past when they trusted Governments to treat them properly and listened to the promises of politicians. They
suddenly found that all the promises made to them were betrayed and that they were being asked to be sacrificial lambs in the Government's fight to reduce the deficit. Seniors saw what the Government was doing to them in the Budget, and I think women are seeing the same thing.
9 (1730)
Like most Hon. Members last summer, I spent time talking with people in my own constituency and in other communities to hear what they had to say about the Budget of the Government. It is widely recognized that the Budget, more than any other Budget, certainly in my experience and in the experience of many other people, constitutes probably the largest shift in disposable income away from people at the low and middle income levels to people in high income brackets. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the Budget dealt a severe blow to those people who could least afford to pay to reduce, as the Government put it, the national deficit. That Budget is being fully understood and women are beginning to organize against this attack on family allowances and, I would even say, an attack on the family as we in Canada know it.
There is absolutely no question that the deindexing proposal, in addition to the other ones in the Income Tax Act-and we will have plenty of time to talk about them specifically as they affect family allowances-is an outright attack on women. Many women rely on that cheque as their only source of independent income. Contrary to the promises of the Government during the election campaign that it would do many things for women, it brought in these proposals. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appeared on national television several times promising to provide more dollars for rape crisis centres. What did he do in the Budget? He did nothing, absolutely nothing. What about the promise with regard to transition houses for battered women? There has been nothing. What about equal pay for work of equal value? There has been nothing. What about more money for child care services? The Prime Minister referred it to a parliamentary committee. I am sure the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) will ensure that women's rights and the rights of children are advanced on that committee.
What about research and development? The Prime Minister promised oodles of money to step up the efforts of the country in the area of research and development. What did we see in the Budget? We saw nothing but departmental cuts for research and development. What about the Canada Council? All we see is less money for the arts. What about social programs? The Prime Minister declared that social programs, particularly universal ones, were a sacred trust and that if there was to be any change in social programs, the money saved would certainly not go toward reducing the deficit. What have we seen since then? We have seen that the Government was clear in its intention when it decided to deindex old age security benefits and that any money it saved, as if it was its money and not that of taxpayers, would go toward reducing the deficit. The same thing is happening in the area of family allowances and in other areas of the income tax system. If the Government were seriously interested in
September 19, 1985

reducing the deficit, there are other ways of doing it rather than attacking the poor, those least able to afford it. Regardless of the protestations of the Liberal Party today, it could have reverted to the marginal tax rates of 1980. At that time we argued that the Liberal Government had no business revising marginal tax rates for high income earners. If the Government were to do the proper thing and revert to the marginal tax rates of 1980, in our estimation it could raise something in the order of $1.7 billion. It would ensure that the people who could afford to pay would pay to make the country run economically. I see that my time is up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have four minutes remaining the next time this matter is before the House.
It being 5.35 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE VOLUNTEER SECTOR AUTHORIZATION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS TO STUDY AND REPORT
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau) moved: that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to study and report on the volunteer sector in order to evaluate its social and financial impact and to recommend appropriate ways of offering fiscal or other compensations to volunteers and volunteer organizations.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in my speech I intend to cover three aspects of volunteer work in our society. According to Statistics Canada, this kind of work represents, in Canada, the equivalent of $3 billion per year in salaries alone. Volunteer work continues to be a very important asset which the Government should encourage and support through measures adapted to the needs of volunteer workers.
Mr. Speaker, volunteer work has changed a great deal in the last 25 years, and that is why I would like to define, first of all, the concept of volunteer work, and then describe the typical volunteer worker. In concluding, I intend to elaborate on the role of volunteer work in our society, its limitations and its problems, and I will stress the vital role of government in this area and ways of giving tangible recognition to volunteer work and its practitioners.
Basically, we can distinguish three kinds of social volunteer action: factual action, spontaneous action and volunteer action. Since we are concerned at this point with volunteer action or
Volunteer Organizations
volunteer work, 1 shall briefly describe what is generally understood by the two other types of actions.
Factual action, although the conception may be somewhat vague and ambiguous, and although there are several types of factual action, refers to the kind of action resulting from membership in established groups or institutions that exist for the purpose of achieving certain objectives or in order to perpetuate customs or tradition. Although the individual's participation in such action is not compulsory, the kind of factual action will depend on certain natural criteria such as age or sex and belonging to a given professional or occupational group. Factual action is always the result of a society's natural and institutional structures.
Spontaneous action, which by definition refers to freely chosen and voluntary participation by its members, takes place within the framework of small, unstructured groups that have no clear-cut social function, except at certain specific moments. Although the importance of spontaneous action and its contribution to society cannot be denied, it is primarily aimed at satisfying the individual needs of the participants themselves. Taking part in spontaneous action is a way of accomplishing individual aims which are not seen as being part of a community effort.
[DOT] (U40)
As to voluntary action, it is more commonly referred to as the volunteer sector.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of making an exhaustive retrospective of the various definitions of the volunteer sector. I would rather try to give a clear and practical definition of voluntary action so as to make the significance of my motion more readily understandable. As early as in 1948, Lord Beveridge defined voluntary action as private action, in the sense that it does not come under the State. While following in the footsteps of Beveridge, let us say that it is necessary to identify the five aspects of voluntary action: voluntary action that implies non mandatory participation; voluntary action through participation in a group project; in voluntary action, consideration of profit is non existent; the voluntary action done within existing institutions in a society at a given moment in its history; voluntary action focused on the achievement of societal objectives.
Indeed the Social Affairs Department has already classified volunteer actions as follows: social or service volunteer action; sports or recreational volunteer action; artistic, moral support, leisure volunteer action, and so on. And so it is that voluntary action is done through constant exchange between an individual and society. Such is the thrust of my motion, Mr. Speaker, because, since then, the impact of the voluntary sector on the evolution of society has been growing and the difficulties inherent in this mass movement keep making headlines.
I propose to use statistics to draw the classical profile of a volunteer and show that the Standing Committee on Health,

September 19, 1985
Volunteer Organizations
Welfare and Social Affairs must be empowered to study and report on the volunteer sector in order to evaluate its social and financial impact.
Notwithstanding the great interest in the volunteer sector, there are practically no independent or empirical statistics on a national scale, except for Novia Carter's 1975 study. Statistics Canada's national survey is the first wide-ranging survey ever done in Canada. It will go a long way towards filling the gap of missing data in that field, but it alone cannot possibly meet the demand for statistics. It was designed only to gather information on volunteer workers generally rather than to make an in-depth study of the characteristics, activities and motivations of a given group of volunteers.
The survey was aimed at one third of all participants in the February 1980 survey on the working population, roughly 18,745 households or 43,000 individuals. Its objective was threefold: Obtain information on the total amount of volunteer activities in Canada as well as descriptive data on individual volunteers; determine the kinds of volunteer organizations which exist and the types of services they are offering; discover why the people who were previously engaged in volunteer work have quit and why those who at one time considered engaging in volunteer activities have abandoned this idea.
In view of the enormous amount of data collected, I will limit myself to a brief analysis covering the widest possible range of general information. I will deal with three major issues: the rate of participation in volunteer work and the characteristics of the people involved in it, the amount of volunteer work done, and the types of volunteer organizations.
Mr. Speaker, the generally accepted notion of the typical volunteer is that of a middle-age married woman who is bored, well-off financially and anxious to help others. But the few empirical studies made so far runs counter to that notion. A 1969 survey carried out in Great Britain indicated that middle-age married women of the middle class no longer make up the vast majority of volunteers. On the other hand, the Novia Carter study indicated a surprisingly high proportion of men and a large participation of young people, low income workers and poorly educated people. A similar survey made in the United States confirmed these findings.
To draw up an adequate profile of the volunteers which this survey has identified, we should consider two factors: the rate of participation in the volunteer sector and the social and demographic traits of the volunteers.
Before looking into the rate of participation in the volunteer sector, it is logical to deal first with volunteer activities as a whole. The survey indicates that there is in Canada a large number of volunteers, 2.7 million in all, or 15.2 per cent of the active population have done volunteer work without pay during the year under review, namely, from February, 1979 to February, 1980.
The analysis of the rate of volunteers per age and sex brought to light a number of interesting findings, the most important of which being the comparable rates between men and women, respectively 14.2 per cent and 16.2 per cent. Age seems to be a determining factor in both sexes, the oldest groups, 25 years and over, demonstrating higher rates of volunteering than younger groups. For instance, the rates for people aged 25 to 44 being 19.8 per cent alone is more than twice that for people aged 15 to 19 at 9.4 per cent, or for those aged 20 to 24 at 9.3 per cent.
Moreover, the highest rates are among those aged 25 to 44, married and with an education up to at least one university degree. It is interesting to note the higher incidence of volunteer service among people having an occupation, namely 16.4 per cent, as compared to the unemployed, 9.8 per cent, or to people outside the work force, 14.2 per cent. It therefore appears that, contrary to a widespread belief, volunteer service is not limited to people without gainful employment. Figures show, however, that part-time workers are more likely to engage in volunteer service than those with a full-time job.
Finally, a breakdown by occupation shows that workers in the "management and professional," "primary sector occupations" and "business" groups have the highest rates, while a breakdown by industry shows the highest rates in "farming" and "public service".
To summarize, let us say that the highest rates of volunteer service have been noted in the following groups: middle-aged persons of either sex, married people, employed people and people with a relatively higher level of education.
Finally, in relation to population and volunteer service rates, employed persons have the highest ratio of volunteers when compared with other groups of activities and more than 80 per cent worked full-time.
Indeed, a few months ago, Mr. Speaker, I had a poll taken of my constituents in Argenteuil-Papineau in order to know and compare the results of the Carter Survey and the volunteer situation in my constituency.
Now, my constituency has some 327 volunteer associations, in which 9,062 persons do volunteer work for a total 993,316 hours. The typical volunteer is married in 79 per cent of cases, his or her income is approximately $20,000 in 46 per cent of cases, and $25,000 and over in 31 per cent of cases. He or she is aged 51 to 64 in 29 per cent of cases, a female in 52 per cent of cases and a male in 48 per cent of cases. The volunteers of Argenteuil-Papineau want to contribute to society in 62 per cent of cases, and to increase old-age security benefits in 24 per cent of cases.
In short, it seems that the profile of our volunteers is essentially as drawn by Mrs. Carter. The stereotype of the unemployed, middle-aged, married woman true to the traditional concept of the typical volunteer does not come out in
September 19, 1985

this analysis. On the contrary, we have noted relatively equal distributions for most of the demographic variables.
More striking still is the almost identical distribution of men and women, the high percentage of people with high school education or better, and the high rate of employed persons.
At present the highest ratio-31.5 per cent-of persons who did volunteer work during the reference year, that is from February 1979 to February 1980, belong to the "social services and welfare" group. That group includes a relatively wide spectrum of social services, including child care, convassing organizations, service clubs and so forth.
Although we do not have more detailed breakdowns, there is reason to believe that a large part of the respondents in that group work for a canvassing organization.
In order of importance, religious organizations rank second among organizations, representing 25.5 per cent of all volunteers. As far as recreational organizations are concerned they include one quarter of all volunteers. Then there is education with 16.3 per cent and health with 7.9 per cent.
However we can say that there seems to be some relation between paid and voluntary work because according to our findings, the work done by volunteers vary to some extent according to their professional work for which they get paid.
Finally, the Government cannot remain indifferent with regard to the potential of the voluntary sector. Not only can voluntary organizations provide direct and complementary services to institutional resources but, in addition, the voluntary sector can become a place for privileged training for young people and adults. It can also be perceived as the anteroom to the formal sector where young people can prepare themselves to enter the world of paid work.
The voluntary sector, because of the jobs that it still manages to create, may be considered in this period of financial crisis and unemployment as a buffer in terms of jobs created and also in terms of jobs saved. We know that the services rendered by voluntary organizations allow in many cases public institutions to save paid jobs, but we now have the tendency to overlook the fact that at present the voluntary sector is one of the few areas where jobs are created. Of course, those are temporary, and short-term jobs offering very low wages, but in spite of those aspects for many people work is the important thing. Under the circumstances, we understand the interest of the Government which finds in voluntary organizations some openings for young people, women, or marginal workers looking for jobs and this at a relatively low cost.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that each year, the general public and the Governments hand out millions of dollars in gifts or grants to voluntary organizations. Whether under manpower programs or direct subsidies such as New Horizons, etc.,
Volunteer Organizations
thousands of Canadian volunteers are managing public funds. In my constituency, noteworthy tourist activities such as the crossing of Lake Simon, the Montpellier Summer Festival, the Lachute agricultural fair bring in thousands of dollars and create hundreds of jobs. Mr. Speaker, such activities are entirely organized and managed by volunteers.
In short, the Government is for more than one reason concerned with voluntary action. However, at present, many volunteers are restless either because they are wondering about the results of their action or they are physically or morally tired of always being at the forefront and finally because the costs of their action go beyond their financial resources. Consider the cost of fuel, of child care, etc.
The want of relieving forces and the financial crisis are adding to the already very heavy burden weighing on that fellowship chain both so strong and so vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, this is the subject of my motion: That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to study and report on the volunteer sector in order to evaluate its social and financial impact and to recommend appropriate ways of offering fiscal or other compensations to volunteers and voluntary organizations.
The tax system should be thoroughly amended to bring a more significant support to people and organizations involved in the voluntary sector, whether it is in arts, recreation or community action. Without such steps, Mr. Speaker, the crisis now threatening the voluntary sector could cost a lot more to the Governments than the few thousand dollars which would entail a reasonable and stimulative fiscal compensation that would help democratize and extend to all strata of the community the access to volunteer and community work.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member who raised this issue and who spoke so eloquently in support of greater recognition for volunteers. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I will certainly strongly support the proposal which she brought forward, a proposal to study the volunteer sector to evaluate its social and financial impact and to recommend appropriate ways of offering fiscal and other compensation to volunteers and to volunteer organizations.
I recall that in 1979, a similar proposal was made. For a short time I sat on the subcommittee which was established to look at volunteerism. We had really just begun to get into the subject when there was no more Government and we had to go to the polls.
My Party recognizes the very many hours of volunteer time and the very valuable contribution that many thousands of volunteers have made to community services, the movements for social reform and many kinds of self-help services across the country. I think we all recognize that these are very important and essential contributions that these people, the majority of whom are women, are making to society.

September 19, 1985
Volunteer Organizations
Most volunteers work many hours with no financial recognition and often without other kinds of recognition. This is one thing about which we should talk in committee. It is important that volunteers who are so dedicated and give so much of themselves also have some form of recognition. If they do not receive some form of honorarium to cover their costs, as the Hon. Member is suggesting, then at least they should have something on paper. One of the things I had proposed before was that homemakers giving of their expertise and developing a great deal of skill in community services should be able to put that on a resume when they go looking for jobs. Often women have not had paid job experience. It would be very valuable to have some proof of their unpaid experience. I asked the former Liberal Minister of Employment and Immigration if this could not be one of the things that Canada employment offices would do.
It is also important that there be some form of honorarium for certain kinds of volunteers and certainly for low-income people who have just as much skill and perhaps far more motivation for helping out in their communities but simply cannot afford to do so unless there is some way that their costs including bus fare and babysitting are covered.
Before I move on, I would like to mention one thing. If I understood the Hon. Member correctly, she mentioned that the typical volunteer is married and has an income of probably over $20,000 per year. I would like to mention a very interesting volunteer experience with which I was connected for many years. It was a very productive service in British Columbia composed of a group of welfare mothers who started up a program called the Vancouver Opportunities Program, a program which subsequently expanded throughout the province. These welfare mothers decided that if they were ever going to get out of the welfare trap, they needed to get experience and training and there were many services with which they wanted to help out.
These women developed a program which allowed them to put in a certain number of hours per week on a volunteer basis, not taking a paid job away from anyone, in schools, self-help programs, day care centres, libraries and a vast number of different agencies and services. At one time, thousands of them were involved in the program. One of the important incentives was the fact that they received an extra $100 on their welfare payments which helped cover costs and gave them a little extra boost. That money was very much needed as well.
I knew many of the people involved in this program, most of whom were women, although later on, men were included. Many of these women went on into paraprofessional jobs. They took training and some are working in the administration of public housing or as paraprofessionals in welfare agencies. Some have gone on into the regular job market. This is the kind of program at which it would be interesting to look in committee.
We also want to recognize the very important contribution made by the many, many volunteer organizations across this country. In my riding of Vancouver East, I am very proud of the fact that there exists probably more citizens' organizations
that in any other community in Canada. Yet this riding is largely composed of low-income communities with many different ethnic groups. We have many ethnic organizations in which people give of their time. There are Chinese, Italian, Indo-Canadian, Portuguese, Korean and Japanese, just to name a few. We have many native people who come from rural areas who help each other in forming their own organizations and reaching, as a network, to help native people so they will not be trapped in some of the problems of the street which are so common.
We have area planning groups which are assisted by municipal groups which have developed community plans in five areas of my riding. They have spent hours and hours of heavy work, with a great deal of technical expertise, in developing plans and actions which would improve their communities. I am also very proud of a group which I helped to organize called the Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Group, which completely changed the type of urban renewal programs which we have. Some 15 to 20 years ago when it was established it helped to redevelop the Chinese community of downtown Vancouver. There are block representatives and all kinds of meetings in two languages involving a lot of resource people. They put hours into this. The same is true of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association which represents an area of Vancouver which people said was a slum with which nothing could be done. Those people have organized. It is simply remarkable to see the type of things they have done to improve services, to build new housing and to make the area into a real community. Those are just some examples. I know that Hon. Members will have many more.
There are volunteers who work in community centres, neighbourhood houses and sports programs. I want to say that I am concerned that we look very carefully at what volunteers should not be doing. It is important that volunteers not replace essential public services, for example. It is important that they not be seen to be replacing paid workers and professional workers who are essential to carry out legislated services. It is easy, and I know it has happened in British Columbia, for Governments under restraint, and because they think it would be economical, to completely disregard the essential public function of services which are the right of Canadians and which must remain under legislative jurisdictions. This is not to say that voluneers cannot often help as part of a team with professionals, even in these services.
We are also opposed to privatization. I hope it is not being suggested that some of these essential services be turned over to the private sector in the thought that it would cut costs by putting in volunteers, cutting salaries and undermining unions and workers who have worked hard to get their salaries up to a decent rate of pay. Recently, we had a real tragedy in Vancouver, where a transition house which was formerly operated by the Department of Human Resources was turned over to the private sector. The YWCA tried to maintain it for a while and they just could not do it. They were not given enough money. It is now back into no woman's land. It is without staff and, at
September 19, 1985

the moment, women are occupying that service demanding that it be reinstated with adequate government funding. We do not want to see this happen in other sectors. I know that most volunteers would not want this to happen either.
Thus, we must define in this committee the appropriate role of volunteers. I would like to see some real supports which would help volunteer organizations. I know that many groups are advocacy groups and they are essential. I am speaking of tenant organizations, anti-poverty groups, consumer groups and environmental groups which are working for reforms and, perhaps, taking small "p" political action. It has been very difficult for Governments to give these organizations the type of objective help they need in the way of funding. It has been difficult for many of them to be classified as charitable organizations so that donations they receive can be income tax deductible. We must recognize the many volunteers who are involved in the peace movement which, again, performs an important function. I wish to recognize the number of women who are dedicated to this type of movement. I have mentioned the environmental movement and the involvement of groups of all kinds, including unions. Incidentally, the solidarity protest we had in British Columbia reached out and involved networks of volunteers in every community. They advocated progressive changes. They protested the type of services that were being cut back, which was hurting people and which is still hurting the people of British Columbia.
I am sure we will be discussing all of these measures in committee. I will not take more time tonight to go into the matter further. I just wish to reiterate that volunteers must never replace essential public services. I think we need to define what we mean by private agencies. They are sometimes called voluntary agencies, although they are operated with paid staffs. We need to clarify what we mean by those words. We need to recognize in every positive way we can the outstanding contribution of volunteers across Canada.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: It is a pleasure, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, to reply to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault) and to emphasize the importance of the volunteer sector in Canadian society, something on which I am sure all Members of this House are in agreement.
Many federal departments have ongoing contacts with volunteer organizations, either as a way to facilitate social action or to promote various policies. The Department of the Secretary of State has programs that are concerned exclusively with volunteer organizations. It has a national budget of $480,000, plus $300,000 for a regional component. The program provides support for 16 national and nearly 100 provincial and territorial organizations.
We feel that the Secretary of State's voluntary action program plays an essential role in supporting social action,
Volunteer Organizations
community development, economic development and the creation of volunteer organizations.
The Department also has a program for participation by the disabled, which has a national budget of about $430,000 and a regional budget totalling $287,000. This program provides assistance to four national organizations, which include the Coalition of the Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Association for the Hearing Handicapped and the Canadian Association for Legal Assistance, Information and Research for the Disabled. The program for participation by the disabled supports volunteer organizations for the disabled and provides financial assistance for projects promoting their full and active participation in our society.
We see these programs as examples of the kind of projects our Government is promoting in the volunteer sector. The Department of National Health and Welfare also has support programs for community groups, which are very well known and very useful. In addition to its supportive role, designed so as not to undermine the self-sufficiency of the volunteer sector, the Canadian Government has played a major part in resolving the difficulties arising from our tax structure and the structure of Government services that are particularly problematic for the volunteer sector.
There has been one issue in particular that was of some concern to the volunteer sector, namely the definition of "political activities", because it meant that certain charitable organizations were unable to be recognized as such for tax purposes, while others were concerned they might lose their status.
Members of the House will recall that this question was dealt with and quite clearly explained by the Minister of National Revenue last May 29 in Vancouver. The Income Tax Act provides that all the resources of a charitable organization must be used for the charities of the organization itself. Therefore any charitable organization getting involved in political activities may very well lose its acquired status. Charitable organizations then began to fear that the simple fact of telling Members of their choice their point of view on certain issues might be considered as a political activity likely to warrant the loss of their indispensable status.
In contemporary society it has become obvious that militancy, on the part of non-government organizations or individuals, is now a central element of our democratic organization.
Therefore it was a decisive step for charitable organizations when the Minister of National Revenue announced that he would allow non-partisan political activities and would consult with charitable organizations before going ahead with his current projects. In short, henceforth a charitable organization will be allowed to express its views to elected representatives of its choice inasmuch as the issue in question relates to the charitable activities of the organization. There is no question

September 19, 1985
Volunteer Organizations
of condoning activities favourable to candidates or political parties, even if it were the Progressive Conservative Party.
It is certain that the Income Tax Act has significant effects on charitable organizations and this is why it is important for the future and the health of the voluntary sector in Canada to allay any fear those organizations may have of losing their very crucial status simply because they expressed their opinions to the duly elected representatives of the people. The Government needs the opinion of voluntary organizations. Often, they are the first to inform the Government that such or such a service should be given to meet new social needs. As they work directly with people, and especially with those in need, they can see problems and challenges which escape the Government. Voluntary organizations have to be active and militant, and therefore the changes proposed last May are quite welcome.
However, as concerns the tax system, the status of these organizations is not the only matter at issue. The tax credit for charitable donations is still under considerations. For instance, we have to find out how the implementation of the tax credit would affect the taxation system and what would have to be the cost-sharing agreements between the federal and provincial Governments. Obviously, the advantages of the tax credit have to be balanced against those of the deduction from income. Would abandoning the deduction from income and replacing it with the tax credit add to the tax burden of the average taxpayer, and if so, how can we avoid it?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are well aware that, unfortunately, all taxation matters are complex, and as much as a proposal seems desirable and complete, its repercussions always have to be examined before it is implemented. The voluntary sector has expressed its views at length to the Government on taxation matters.
Various departments have held consultations, public servants have made analyses and groups of volunteers have come to Ottawa to express their opinions. This exemplary show of sustained efforts will certainly enable us to solve progressively any future problem, and our Government will eventually find an equitable response. However, if we explain in detail all these taxation and income issues which concern the voluntary sector, it is because this is indeed an area where the Government can be helpful.
We are not at all certain that new mechanisms are needed to look at the voluntary sector as, because of its very nature, this sector includes many enthusiastic individuals and groups throughout the country only too eager to impart their ideas and points of view to us. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to listen to what they have to say and, from there, to find ways to improve the organization of Government services in this area.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, it is with much interest that I take part today in this debate on the motion moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault). I congratulate her for the quality of her speech and I thank her for giving us the opportunity to make the apology of the volunteer sector. I think it is important that we, in the House, take once in a while the time to praise the admirable work of volunteers.
Mr. Speaker, as elected representative of the Temiscamingue riding, I can assure you that distant regions like mine and many others in Quebec have been developed thanks largely to the generous contribution of volunteers.
I wish to take this opportunity today to thank and pay tribute to all volunteer individuals and organizations who are at work in my region and greatly contribute to improving the quality of life of my fellow Canadians.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to provide an example of the kind of volunteer organizations which we have in our distant regions and which dedicate themselves to the safety of the people.
There are here a number of members from remote areas who suspect that I am referring to this great bunch of guys who are our volunteer firefighters. They are not paid, they give themselves the training of professional firefighters and decide, out of sheer generosity, to save the lives of their neighbours. There are a number of them in my own riding and I know that there are some people here who have a number of them in their own municipalities or small parishes. In order to understand their courage fully, Hon. Members should see it in the context of a region like mine, some cold winter night in December, when they must leave the comfort of a fireplace, rush out in a below 40 degree temperature to try and put out a fire and save lifes. There are people like that back home. And 1 think it is an excellent occasion to pay tribute to these people who often risk their lifes to save others.
In this sense, I think the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau is providing us with a great opportunity to pay tribute to all these peoples in our communities who, by the thousands, work very hard for the development of our communities.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal more specifically with the motion before us which asks that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs report on the volunteer sector in order to evaluate its social and financial impact and to recommend appropriate ways of offering fiscal or other compensations to volunteers and volunteer organizations. I should like to make the following comments.
The volunteer sector has been there for a long time, Mr. Speaker. Over the years, it has taken up an important place amid the other well-known sectors in our society, the public sector and the private sector.
September 19, 1985

It is a fact that compared to the other two, the volunteer sector is somewhat mysterious. Its dynamics cannot be seen, by reason of its very nature, because it needs no official framework nor structures. This means there is no question of specific numbers of person-years or hours, of measuring or assessing each task, or looking at payrolls.
Mr. Speaker, in my view, that is exactly what makes the beauty and the greatness of the volunteer service, this concept of gratuitousness and total availability.
As I often say, Mr. Speaker, true volunteer work is an ailment, the altruism ailment, the ailment to want to serve others at any cost. And I know volunteers would want that kind of ailment to be as contagious as possible.
And if the Government, Mr. Speaker, had to pay for those services rendered by volunteers, it would never find the funds or the money needed.
It is precisely because volunteer service precludes any assessment that it has become over these last few years an interesting subject of study. Many attempts have been made to better identify the economic and social force of volunteer service in this country.
A number of studies, analyses and surveys were done on the subject. I am thinking specifically of an important survey of the work force done in 1981 that was one of the first attempts to evaluate the contribution of volunteers. Honourable Members will recall that that survey brought forth very interesting facts indeed. For instance, volunteers in Canada provided an average 137.4 hours during the reference year, and married people, as was said earlier, had the largest total of volunteers and hours worked. Generally speaking, single people, either widowed, divorced or separated, spent the most time individually doing volunteer work. The survey also pointed out that the typical volunteer was employed and had a higher education.
The labour force survey was followed by other interesting studies, the best known of which no doubt is that done by the economist David Ross on the financial and economic dimensions of registered charitable institutions and volunteer activity in Canada. Mr. Ross estimated that the total economic contribution of charitable institutions and volunteer workers included in the two Statistics Canada surveys he analyzed were the equivalent, in comparative terms, of 1.7 per cent of the gross national product. Compared with other industries, that contribution is twice that of the primary wood processing industry. It is close to a tenth of that of the whole sector of social, cultural, business and personal services, and close to a third of the economic contribution of the building industry.
Mr. Speaker, you may ask why I refer to the Statistics Canada surveys and Mr. Ross's study. Well, it is to show that this sector is currently being seriously researched, and the public can at any time consult those studies to get information.
Volunteer Organizations
Moreover, the Volunteer Work Program of the Secretary of State Department is now working with Statistic Canada on the holding of a national survey on volunteer work. Apparently, it also accepted to fund a survey on employer attitudes towards their employees' volunteer activities. This is the point I wanted to make: The Government already is funding many research activities, each of which opens new vistas. This is a way to increase knowledge.
I also want to point out the work done by the Coalition of National Volunteer Organizations to define the concept of volunteer work. The Coalition of National Volunteer Organizations, which represents many of the 50,000 charitable institutions in Canada, attended the National Conference on the Economy that was held in Ottawa in March. It outlined the various ways in which the volunteer sector contributes to economic life, especially by offering job training programs, creating new services and promoting discussion on issues of general interest. The participation of the volunteer sector in that Conference and the submissions of voluntary organizations to the MacDonald Commission also made the Government aware of the views of volunteer workers, so that they may be recognized in the future review and development of policies.
Mr. Speaker, polls, like Decima and Gallup also have supplied a lot of useful information on the subject.
The Decima Poll in May 1985 has shown that the great majority of respondents, 87 per cent, feel that groups work is the best for influencing corporate and Government decisions. Further, young people and women are among the most likely to consider group work as a good way of exercising decisive influence. In view of the increasing role of those two groups in decision-making, this shows that the influence of the voluntary sector could be felt increasingly.
The Gallup Poll in turn shows that donations relate to a rather unpredictable behaviour. Nearly 90 per cent of the respondents have stated that they never decide beforehand on the amount of their annual charitable donations. This points to the importance for charitable organizations of using dynamic and innovative techniques for collecting funds.
I mention these surveys, Mr. Speaker, simply to show that they are one of the means through which we can learn more about the social and economic implications of the voluntary sector. Through its voluntary action program, the Department of the Secretary of State is in a good position to assemble all these bits of information and analyse them, and this is certainly being done.
The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau would like appropriate means to provide these fiscal or other compensations to volunteers and to voluntary organizations to be recommended. Could it not be said that, as soon as a voluntary worker receives some compensation, he can no longer be considered a voluntary worker?

September 19, 1985
Volunteer Organizations
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, what differentiates the voluntary worker from any other is precisely this element of working for nothing and self-sacrifice. The bona fide volunteer does not seek financial compensation, for his wages or salary consist in realizing that he is participating in the well-being of those around him.
If, on the other hand, we are talking about tax incentives, that is something else again. We know that the give-and-take proposition led to a study on the possibility of offering tax credits in exchange for charitable gifts. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has made a note of all recommendations received and I have the impression that the establishment of such credits remains a valid option. However it does require further consideration, for we must at least assess the indirect impact such a step might have. Be that as it may, the first steps have been taken and the matter is under active consideration.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the intent of the motion is commendable but, as I see it, should Parliament seek additional information there are plenty of reports or surveys and other documents. Thanks to all the work done, this sector is now gaining even wider recognition.


Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault), that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to study and report on the volunteer sector, deserves careful consideration. As has been pointed out earlier in this debate, the voluntary sector is a key element of our society. Its strength lies in its freedom of action and its self-sufficiency. It is interesting to compare the voluntary sector in this country with that which exists in some other parts of the world. In some countries, where full democracy is not a way of life, voluntary organizations are very circumscribed in what they may do. Fortunately, Canada is characterized by a sector that adds appreciably to the quality of life of our citizens. However, its social and financial impact is elusive and that explains the desire to examine the sector from a closer vantage point.
The national household survey on volunteer activity, which the Department of the Secretary of State and Statistics Canada are undertaking, should help to clarify many aspects of voluntarism including economic, social, and even philosophical and psychological, if you consider factors such as the motivations which lead people to volunteer.
Parliamentarians have various opportunities at present to question Ministers about the voluntary action aspect of their portfolios. The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, for instance, allows us to put questions to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) seeking clarification on that Department's many dealings with the voluntary sector. We do this in the framework of the departmental estimates, and have always received co-operation from the departmental officials
in supplying us with whatever additional materials we may require. A mechanism thus exists for us to examine Government links with voluntarism in this way.
The question of offering fiscal or other compensation to volunteers and their organizations is an interesting one. One may note that many volunteers are not interested in receiving compensation for their services, that their motives are completely philanthropic and humanitarian. For many volunteers, the fact of helping someone in need or serving the community is compensation enough. Compensation could raise the spectre of bureaucratic mechanisms for allocating it, which would be anathema to the sector which, after all, is built on the free spirit I have referred to.
Fiscal incentives to organizations are already being looked at, as has been indicated earlier in the debate. The Government has received the benefit of the views of a great many organizations, all offering their viewpoints and suggestions as to how fiscal incentives should work. I understand that discussions took place between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) before the Budget and that discussions are continuing.
It is interesting to note Gallup's findings when they polled on tax incentives. Fifty-four per cent of the respondents were unaware of the existence of tax incentives to encourage charitable giving. Awareness increased with income-education level and white collar occupations. There was also a correlation between performance of volunteer work and the incidence of charitable donations. Fifty-five per cent considered the current tax treatment of donations as fair and 28 per cent thought it unfair. Fifty-one per cent of this latter group named low income people as being disadvantaged by the tax treatment and another 8 per cent said the system favoured big donors in high income brackets. That was in a November, 1984 survey, so it is still reasonably current and probably still reflects attitudes. It provides food for thought for Parliamentarians and voluntary organizations alike.
One might well ask, Mr. Speaker, what the voluntary sector thinks of being studied and surveyed. We have at least one answer to that question. Last year Drs. J. J. Rice, David Ross, and Jean-Bernard Robichaud carried out a national consultation at the request of the Department of the Secretary of State. They conducted 100 three-hour interviews with persons interested in voluntary action across Canada to see what their requirements were and to determine their support for studies which would clarify the social and financial impact of voluntarism. In addition to the interviews, this team sent out and analysed 400 questionnaires to voluntary organizations. The result was a clear call for undertaking national surveys. Knowing that the sector itself is interested in such surveys is encouraging to researchers and Government departments which help fund such research.
I am personally very encouraged by the kinds of studies which are already being done by and on behalf of the voluntary sector. The pace of research is indeed accelerating, and 1 am of the view that present means and methods are adequate
September 19, 1985

for evaluating the social and financial impact of the voluntary sector.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, following the remarks made by my colleague on the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau, I must emphasize the great benefits which Canadian men and women get from volunteers ... As recently as last week, I had the opportunity to meet with a group of volunteers, and I should like to indicate to the House that like various other organizations, in this case it was the junior Chamber of Commerce of Saint-Urbain which organized for all volunteers a special evening to emphasize the enormous contribution of volunteer men and women working with various groups and they expressed to these people the gratitude of the community.
The reason my collegue moved this motion clearly stems from the fact that she wants to develop the volunteer sector, to encourage individuals to get involved in the volunteer sector which is one of the outstanding strengths of both Quebec and Canada. I think that no level of Government would be in a position to satisfy all the needs. It is a well-known fact that Canada is a large economic entity with limited resources which must try to satisfy boundless needs. Without volunteers in many areas of activities, including culture, health services and sports, our communities could not provide youths with the necessary training in all areas.
I think therefore that our colleague's proposals stems from the fact that she would like to move volunteers to do again something for their community and to obtain, if possible, a certain compensation. Well, volunteer means "he who does something out of his own free will." The volunteer gets a lot of satisfaction by feeling that he is doing something that will benefit the community and that he is doing it without pay and according to his own way of doing things. I think that today, Canadian wives and mothers who have children out of their own free will-today that is possible, in years gone by it was less so-could perhaps obtain a fair compensation for bringing Canadian men and women into this world. But do we collectively have the financial means to do it and how could we determine how much is worth the contribution of all Canadian women who are bearing children for this country? I think that those who are devoting themselves to the welfare of their community get tremendous benefits. I think that, as my colleague was saying, if we try to bureaucratize or institutionalize this generosity which is so essential to Canadian men and women, we would be taking a very dangerous step. However, I think that the purpose of our colleague's motion is essentially to encourage volunteer work within our community in the best interests of Canadian men and women throughout Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members, Business has now expired.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday l asked a question in the House about the staff in the Prime Minister's Office and a rather extraordinary procedure according to which certain employees, including three senior advisors, received preferential treatment by being allowed to arrange personal service contracts and set up companies acting on their behalf. I wanted to ask the Prime Minister whether he or the Minister responsible for Treasury Board had in fact approved this contract procedure, and at the time, as Hon. Members will recall, the Deputy Prime Minister answered that he saw nothing irregular in it.
Mr. Speaker, it is not up to me to criticize, but all I know is that according to the Estimates, 120 person-years were approved for the Prime Minister's Office, and now we hear that three people, Messrs. Van Dusen, McMilland and MacAdam, would be hired by contract, and thus surplus to the person-years approved in the Estimates.
What I wanted to know was whether these people, who had established private companies in Ontario, so-called numbered companies, whether these people had complied with the conflict of interest guidelines or, to use the official term, the conflict of interest/post-employment code for public office holders, one of the documents tabled last week by the Prime Minister.
No reply was forthcoming, and that is why I asked for an adjournment debate.
There are two or three reasons why such contracts are set up. First, a private company obviously enjoys tax benefits. In Ontario, a private, incorporated company pays far less income tax than the individual taxpayer. It would be an advantage for someone in a situation like the three gentlemen in the Prime Minister's Office to be able to receive his salary, deposit it in the company and thus avoid taxes. It is legal, and I do not think there is much that can be done about it.
What I wanted to know is whether these contracts and companies were examined by Treasury Board and by the Prime Minister and whether they are in order.
Mr. McMillan of the Prime Minister's Office, one of the officials who earns a rather respectable salary, admitted he had personal reasons for establishing that service contract
6818

September 19, 1985
Adjournment Debate
instead of being paid a regular salary. 1 should think that the other two, Van Dusen and MacAdam, also had personal reasons to set up private companies to have their salary.
What I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary this evening is, first, can he assure the House that those three individuals who work in the PMO come under the code of ethics governing the conduct of holders of public offices with respect to conflicts of interest and, second, can he assure the House that the Government as employer, and particularly the President of the Treasury Board, have indeed made sure that there are no conflicts of interest in those companies?
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make the contracts public and tell us whether those companies have clients other than the employees mentioned, the three individuals. Do they have other clients? Can we find out from the Government whether those three public officials who work in a rather important office, the Prime Minister's Office, are beyond the shadow of a doubt and considered as such in terms of conflicts of interest?
Mr. Speaker, my question is simple: Are they pure, in the clean, and not subject to any conflict?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the Hon. Member bringing up a new aspect to this question about which I had no idea. He wants something tabled. 1 will have to look into that. It is not normal to table certain matters in the House without all involved parties being in agreement. 1 certainly will not do that. However, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this question.
First I should like to assure him that the matter at hand has nothing whatever to do with conflict of interest. It is normal to have contracts of this nature. Many individuals work for the Canadian Government on contract. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people working on contract for the Canadian Government from time to time. These three individuals have been engaged to work for the Government in a perfectly normal way. It is well known in the private sector. Thousands do it. It is accepted by the Department of National Revenue and has been for many years, in fact for decades. These contracts were approved by Treasury Board in the normal way contracts are approved. I assure the Hon. Member that there is no reason for concern.
All persons, including those employed under contract, working in the Office of the Prime Minister have been directed to comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. Full disclosure is required under this Government by all such people. I should point out that this is the first time a Prime Minister has required all people working in his office to comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. This was not so under previous administrations. This covers and includes people on contract.
There is no way to state the case more clearly. They have complied fully with the guidelines administered by the Assistant Deputy Registrar General.
As to the matter of taxes, taxes have always been a private matter between the Department of National Revenue and the individuals involved. Suffice to say, they have been employed in a manner approved by the Department of National Revenue, and the Department is taxing them in the manner in which it has taxed others over past decades. It is extremely common, there is nothing surprising, and the matter has been approved by Treasury Board.


FISHERIES-EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL DISCRETION-INSPECTION OF FISH PRODUCTS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the question I asked in the House today concerning the activities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). On April 29, 1985, the Minister overruled his federal fisheries inspectors and permitted a large quantity of tuna, which had previously been determined by his inspectors to be unfit for human consumption, to be distributed in markets in Canada and the United States. It has been deemed that this product could in fact affect the health of Canadians and definitely would affect the nature of a $2 billion industry in Canada.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) completely supported the actions of the Minister. Today, I guess after examining the thing, the Prime Minister ordered the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to withdraw this. It appears to us that the Minister's use of his discretionary power was completely unwarranted and presented a very serious threat to a very viable Canadian industry. In fact, it caused a health concern in the minds of Canadians. As a result, the Minister should have been dismissed.
We cannot have ministerial discretion used in such an inappropriate way. Never for one moment did the Minister of Fisheries deny doing this. Never for one moment did he indicate that he would not be prepared to do this again. That must be corrected only by the removal of the Minister.
My second point is that the Minister has made three serious errors. He made one with the native people of New Brunswick by launching and assisting in what could only be called very ill-considered raids against those people. Also he was involved in an ill-conceived licensing arrangement in which he overruled officials in his Department on the basis of what can only be construed as political advice. Of course the third was allowing contaminated food unfit for human consumption to be distributed in the market-place, going against his inspectors.
The Prime Minister must consider today that we have a $2 billion industry, $1.7 billion of what is known as a top quality product being exported into the world market where we are struggling to get more of a share. There are 100,000 jobs and
1,000	registered processors in this country and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans jeopardized that whole industry.
September 19, 1985

What very clearly must be done today is that the Prime Minister must organize a national advertising campaign, indeed an international campaign, that will reinstate the confidence of people to whom we market fish, assuring them that we thoroughly inspect it and that we have a competent and expansive inspection process. They must be assured that the Government of Canada will no longer be overruling those people who are doing a good job but that it will in fact be backing them to the hilt to ensure that our product when marketed is top quality product safe for human consumption.
This House and the committee before the House definitely has to take a look at the licensing facilities and the threat that this Government is taking something in the order of $65 million out of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We must be sure that that $65 million in the November cuts, in the May Budget and in the kind of slashing and cutting that is going on is not coming out of the inspection service, that this Government does not deregulate inspection, leaving it up to the company, as the Minister says, to draw guidelines together.
This Minister says the benefit of doubt goes to the companies. Those are direct quotes from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is absolutely unacceptable that that course and direction be established by this Government.
It is not too many years ago that it was the individual Canadian who had to make a decision at his table, or in the supermarket, that he was buying quality food. Because of the tremendously serious hazards of doing that the Government stepped in and for a number of years had effective inspection processes. We are now seeing a process by which it would appear that that is being turned back to the companies, that the benefit of doubt would go to the companies, with the attempts to cut back civil servants and cut back the deficit resulting in a diminishing of this Government's resolve to ensure that Canadians can have confidence at their table in the food they consume, particularly in the fish they consume.
The Government must also ensure that our cutomers overseas can have confidence that our product is thoroughly inspected and is a top quality product safe for human consumption.


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the fish inspection regulations made under the Fish Inspections Act prohibit the import or export, or processing for export, of any fish product that is tainted, decomposed or unwholesome. These terms are defined in regulations, and normally through his officials the Minister provides an interpretation of these definitions by developing standards for minium acceptability.
Where an individual or company is not satisfied with a decision of an inspector, the decision may be appealed to the Minister. The Minister must then order a re-inspection, provided the product does not contain harmful or poisonous substances. Following a re-inspection, on the basis of the advice provided to the Minister, the Minister makes the final decision.
Adjournment Debate
There are a number of other powers in regulations provided to the Minister. For example, to process for export a plant must have a Certificate of Registration. If the plant fails to meet requirements of the regulation, Mr. Speaker, the Minister may withdraw the certificate.


MULTICULTURALISM-FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-SIZE OF BUDGET
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow up in today's final debate on a question I earlier asked today, only a few hours ago, of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek). I asked that question, not only because I am the critic for that particular portfolio for my Party, but also because it involves a principle that is very dear and goes to the heart of what this country is all about.
One of the back-benchers on the Government side began the questioning today during Question Period when he said that there was some concern out in the country that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism has a dual portfolio, that is to say he is the Minister of State for Multiculturalism as well Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sports. There is concern-there is great concern in the country that we are going backwards with respect to a vibrant multiculturalism policy. If we go back to the era of 1979 under the then Conservative Government we find then too that the Minister of Multiculturalism was also the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport and somehow had to divide his responsibilities between fitness and amateur sport and multiculturalism. So there is concern.
Mr. Speaker, when I rose in my place today I asked the Minister why the budget for multiculturalism was reduced by some $2,255 million or 8.5 per cent in the Estimates that the Government presented to this House last February. The response of the Minister was that as far as the reductions were concerned, I would be very happy to know that the Government has already increased the Budget for Multiculturalism and will proceed on that basis. That is a very serious statement, Mr. Speaker. The only information this House of Commons and the communities across Canada have is that this budget, through the Budget Estimates, was reduced by some 8.5 per cent, meaning $2.2 million.
Under consecutive Liberal Governments that budget has always increased. This was the first time that it was decreased. It might have been okay to have the budget stay the same but to absorb a reduction of 8.5 per cent in the budget when Government spending was on average 7.3 per cent certainly flies in the face of the serious priority of Conservative Members who wanted to leave ethnocultural communities with the opinion that this was something very dear to their program. We see that it is not.
The Minister's statement in response to my question is very serious, because it leads me to believe that if in fact the budget was increased, whether by his predecessor or himself, as he has

September 19, 1985
Adjournment Debate
been in this position only a few months, he would have informed the House and Canadians from coast to coast that the budget had been increased. I will give my hon. friend from the Government side an opportunity this evening to expand on that.
If in fact the budget for Multiculturalism was increased, I would certainly like to know by how much it was increased and for which particular programs. Under the reduction announced by the Government there were cut-backs in projects aimed at helping immigrants, in the support for multi-ethnic organizations, heritage language programs, support for projects and organizations devoted to the preservation and development of cross-cultural understanding, funding for publications and on and on. If in fact the budget was increased, I would like to know when the budget was increased.
One of the serious problem I face when dealing with the leaders of various ethnocultural communities and organizations is that there is never enough money from the directorate to do the types of things they wish to do. I think it is certainly a responsibility on the part of the Government, if in fact it has seen fit to increase this budget, to announce to the Canadian public where, how and when the budget was increased. People still believe that this Government reduced the budget through the Budgetary Estimates that were brought forward in April.
Finally, if the budget for the Multiculturalism Directorate was not increased, then I think the Minister of State for Multiculturalism owes the House and the country an apology for misleading this House. I do not say that he did so intentionally, but certainly if this budget as of today has not been increased there is a problem, because the record speaks for itself. I look forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader respond to these very crucial and important questions.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, of course the Hon. Member smuggled in considerably more material than he had in the question he put this afternoon. I do want to point out to him that, unlike the previous Liberal Government, we did not close down the Ministry of Multiculturalism right after the election and then set it up again a year before the next election, as the Liberal Government had a habit of doing. In fact, the Hon. Member could ask the former Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park, Senator Haidasz, how he got ousted immediately following an election. We have a Ministry of Multiculturalism which will continue to be in existence throughout the term of this Government, rather than only for election purposes.
It is with considerable pleasure that I rise to respond to the Hon. Member's question. I wish to emphasize at the beginning
that there has been no slackening of the Government's commitment to multiculturalism. In fact, our commitment is much greater than ever existed under any Government. We have a Ministry; we have a Deputy Minister and an Assistant Deputy Minister for the first time, and we have established a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to deal with issues of multiculturalism. Previous Liberal administrations never took such action.
The present Government will provide an additional $4.9 million over this fiscal year and next to strengthen the multiculturalism sector's capacity in the areas of race relations, cross-cultural development, assistance to community groups and public education.
The Hon. Member has noted a 9 per cent cut in the 1985-86 Estimates which were tabled in the House in March of this year. That came about as part of the Government's review of expenditures. This reduction is more than compensated for by the $2.5 million additional for 1985-86, as part of the $4.9 million which I previously mentioned.
These actions make it clear that even when programs in several areas are being reviewed for rationalization and expenditure control, this Government has maintained and, in fact, has increased its financial commitment to multiculturalism. These increased funds have been allocated after ongoing consultations with the provinces and with communities. They underline the Government's continuing commitment to follow up on the extremely worth-while recommendations made in Equality Now.
Furthermore, the Government is increasing the complement of the multiculturalism sector by 15 person-years and has raised the profile and status of the multiculturalism program within Government by appointing for the first time an official at the Assistant Deputy Minister level.
As has already been noted, a Standing Committee on Multiculturalism has been created for the First time. It will have the opportunity to consider the details of these and other governmental initiatives relating to multiculturalism.
Our support for multiculturalism and equal opportunity for all Canadians is strong and will be a fundamental tenet of all Government initiatives in the future. Our ongoing concern for Canadians of all backgrounds is manifest and our intentions are being translated into action. We intend to make sure that the skills, talent and expertise of all Canadians are used to the fullest extent.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 20, 1985