1986-10-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's interim response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am tabling today Orders in Council made since the Government's last tabling before the summer adjournment. There has been a slight delay in the tabling only because we had to await yesterday's motion which named Members to the standing committees and which in turn enabled the organization meetings of those committees.
As the Government House Leader indicated to a Member opposite, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I believe, who sought information on the status of these Orders a few days ago, once they are tabled the 30-day countdown for the committee to which they are referred begins. The Government did not wish to disadvantage any of the committees that way so we awaited the passage of yesterday's motion on committees before we tabled them.
I would like to thank Hon. Members opposite for raising this point and for their understanding on it.


PETITIONS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty to present a petition duly certified and signed by about 110 Niagara residents, most of whom reside in the riding of St. Catharines. The petitioners wish to record their objection to increased taxation and the reduced government spending programs implemented by this Government in its fight against increased deficit spending.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions this morning. The first petition calls for the tightening of immigration regulations because of the admission of 155 Tamil boat people into Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks Parliament to revoke all sanctions against South Africa.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the ridings of Thunder Bay-Atikokan and Thunder Bay-Nipigon who call upon the Government of Canada and the House to implement a revitalization of VIA Rail and to ensure that the necessary rolling stock for the transcontinental trains are ordered and that the contracts go to the Can-Car Rail facility in Thunder Bay to ensure continuation of employment.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions which calls on the Parliament of Canada to deal honourably with Canadian citizens of Japanese descent by entering into negotiations immediately with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. The petitioners note that the NAJC is the only national organization which has dealt with these citizens and has developed a position on redress, and they call upon Parliament, therefore, to negotiate this. The petition comes from residents of Toronto and Ottawa and from some residents of the Vancouver area of British Columbia.

Introduction of Bills


[Stage Direction]
October 16, 1986
Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-225, an Act to amend the Official Languages Act (institutions of Parliament).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to have the Official Languages Act apply specifically to the institutions of Parliament, which, according to an age-old rule, are not bound by general legislation unless specific provision is made.
The proposed legislation would apply to the Library of Parliament and the permanent offices of the Senate and the House of Commons. The private offices of senators and Members would remain exempt.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (mo)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there will be unanimous agreement to put the following motion, which would have the effect of enabling the newly reconstituted External Affairs Committee to fulfil travel obligations it had made before prorogation of the House. I move:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada for the purpose of holding public hearings and studying Canada's official development assistance policies and programs and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee, consistent with the committee's budget as approved by the Board of Internal Economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the flagrant misuse of House of Commons stationery and the frank by the eight B.C. Members of Parliament of the New Democratic Party, signed by each of them, including the Member for Comox-Powell
October 16, 1986

River (Mr. Skelly), to deliver a blatantly political message by way of a mass mailing on the B.C. election campaign solely for political gain.
The letter in part states:
We are asking you to join with us in getting to work to elect the next provincial New Democrat government. Phone your local campaign headquarters and get involved now.
Mr. Speaker, I consider this to be an abuse of my privileges and my station as a Member of Parliament, both in terms of the proper application and use of stationery and the frank. If you look at Hansard for December 15, 1982, you will find that the position taken by the then Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Mr. Anguish, described the position of the NDP then, as opposed to the position of the NDP now.
I ask that you rule in favour of this matter.


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Further to the comments of my hon. colleague from Kootenay West (Mr. Briscoe), I would ask that this matter be referred to the appropriate committee, perhaps the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, and request unanimous consent of this House that this letter be tabled with the House. This a blatant abuse of parliamentary privilege for political gain by the Members from Skeena (Mr. Fulton), New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), Cowichan-Mala-hat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).
We all know that during election campaigns we are representing particular political Parties. Once we become Members of Parliament we represent all of our constituents, no matter what their political stripe. This kind of abuse must be stopped.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, if you are about to hand down a ruling on the point that was just raised, perhaps I may contribute to the debate and point out that the privilege all Members have to send mail free of charge is a privilege they have under the Post Office Act and not under a Standing Order of this House. I think there is a very real danger here. How Hon. Members make use of the privilege they are granted under the Post Office Act is starting to be the subject of decisions made here in the House. This may lead to a situation where we have Members commenting on the contents of mail sent by other Members. I think the danger lies in the fact that the Chair is getting involved in ruling on the contents of sealed first-class envelopes sent to Canadians across Canada. It is the principle of the thing that bothers me. I am not saying that I support the manoeuvre of our NDP Members, but I do maintain it is not up to the Chair to start ruling on the contents of first class mail sent by Members pursuant to the Post Office Act.
Privilege-Mr. Brisco


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make my remarks on this issue. Every time there is an election across this country, whether it is federal or provincial, by-elections, or the referendum in Quebec, the same type of issue is raised either in the House, in a letter to the Speaker, or a letter that is sent to the appropriate committee of the House. We can all find examples of that happening and I do not think it is anything new.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Blatant abuse.


Rodney Edward Murphy: If you want to go into examples, I have a householder put out by the Minister of International Affairs with the Premier of B.C. which was sent out during the B.C. election. Obviously, that would be another example of people interfering or getting involved in the provincial elections. We all have examples.
What I am saying, and I think it is an important issue, is that yes, people do always have some political bias in their householders or their mailings. That is a well-known fact. By the rules of the House it is up to the Member to take responsibility for what he or she mails. Of course, the constituents who always have the wisdom know the source of the information, know what is going on and make the ultimate decision as to whether or not they deem it appropriate.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that whether the Speaker finds this an abuse of Members' privileges remains to be seen. It certainly is an abuse of the taxpayers' privileges. How the NDP in such a sanctimonious fashion can stand up and say it is all right for them to flog their Party in the B.C. provincial election is outrageous and disgraceful.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this whole question of the use of our franking privileges under the Canada Post Corporation Act has got to be looked into by the House. What happens is that people take a look at us as Members and say that we are abusing our franking privileges for reasons for which they were not given in the first place. I think that the matter goes deeper than the British Columbia election and the clear abuse there. I say it is "clear abuse", but Members from the New Democratic Party may say, for partisan reasons or whatever, that it is not. In any event, whether it is this particular alleged abuse or some other alleged abuse, this question of the franking privileges and the use of franking privileges by Members is surely an interest that goes to the concept of Members and the concept of the privilege of Members generally.
It reflects upon us as Members whether we are honestly conducting our business as far as the public is concerned or whether we are taking advantage of our position as Members to feather our political nest, so to speak. Whether or not it is this issue, this matter ought to be referred to the Standing

October 16, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Brisco
Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure for a study and a report to the House, to set out for all Hon. Members the guidelines under which franking privileges might be used.
I am sure you, Sir, have received complaints from your constituents concerning material which you sent out. Whether or not it was partisan, you may have felt that it was perfectly accurate. I sent out material which people complained was perhaps an improper use of the frank. There is no question about it; the postal Act gives us a very broad right to use the frank. Indeed it directs that Members' mail should be franked.
Certainly in my view-and I think it is the view of other Hon. Members-it ought to be looked at and examined at this point by the committee.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I think what is bothering all Members of the House is the fact that it is such a blatant abuse of the franking privilege and such a blatant political move to say, "Phone your local campaign headquarters and get involved now", when it is a provincial matter. That is what is bothering all of us.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of hypocrisy going around the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let me finish. I have the householder of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) entitled "Report From Parliament", and there she is with Bill Vander Zalm on the cover.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: So what?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: So what!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a different Party.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Like hell it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No doubt the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) would like to put forward an argument on whether or not this is a question of privilege. I would ask him and other Hon. Members to confine their remarks to just that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 will. It is not a point of privilege. It does not affect that Member directly on the narrow technical ground. It may be a point, on examination by the committee, as the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said, about the use of the frank. If the committee wants to do that, then the committee should do it. It has the appropriate means of doing it. There is a chairman of the committee, and it has ways of taking things under consideration, but this particular point should not be referred from the Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't play politics.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is yelling at me-


Sheila Maureen Copps: No, no. I am the Hon. Member for Hamilton
East.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) was not here when the referendum was going on in Quebec. She should look at some of the stuff her own Party-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Fighting for Canada is hardly the same case.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Shut up and sit down. Why don't you get some more government business-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has made his point.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not finished making my point. On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan).


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, my point is on the same issue but it is somewhat different. When Your Honour is considering whether this matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, the use or misuse of the frank is one issue.
Something which deals directly with the privileges of Members of the House of Commons is the use of House of Commons stationery and equipment. It is clearly within our privileges to have free stationery provided for our work as Members of Parliament. I contend that the use of the stationery itself constitutes a breach of the privileges of Members of Parliament when it is used for a provincial election purpose.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly and just to respond to the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), I would beg to differ with him in that I think this issue indeed affects all Members of the House of Commons. From the standpoint of privilege, it goes to the very heart of our functions as Members of Parliament. Anything done individually or collectively which would serve to undermine the integrity of individual Members of Parliament, or to undermine the honour or dignity of this institution, has an impact upon all of us.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who suggested this was an issue which should be clarified. I think it is time that we had some clear guidelines, rules and regulations that would give all Hon. Members some guidance in the future in respect of the use of the frank, the use of mailing privileges, and the use of House of Commons stationery and envelopes. It is a much broader issue than simply the fact that a group of New Democratic Members of Parliament saw fit to get involved in an election campaign by
October 16, 1986

so directing mail to a selected list, 1 take it, in the Province of British Columbia.
In the interest of the honour of this institution, I would urge that this matter not be considered in the narrow context but indeed be considered in the broader context. We are all trying to improve and restore confidence in this institution, and I think this would be one way in which we could move toward achieving that objective.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I had not finished my remarks. I know 1 sort of interrupted myself and that you, Sir, ruled me out or cut me down. I would ask for an opportunity to be able to complete my remarks, and I will try to keep them temperate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will understand why the Chair moved to another Hon. Member. Would you please complete your remarks as quickly as you can.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there was no attempt on behalf of the Members to abuse privileges blatantly. The attempt was to try to get people to involve themselves in the provincial election.


Mr. Kaplan:: On the NDP side.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Of course, on the NDP side.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to tell Hon. Members that I have received no feed-back from my riding, no complaints. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said, I think the whole matter should be looked at in the sense that I referred to the householder of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) and to other stuff sent out by the Liberals in the referendum campaign and so on.
That is the work of the committee, and the committee chairman has it in his or her power to consider those things. I do not think it should be directed on this specific issue by the Chair. The matter has been vented in the House, and I would respectfully suggest that that is the remedy the Hon. Member should take.


Robert Hylton Brisco: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) rising on this question of privilege?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am rising on a question of privilege arising out of a statement which was made by an Hon. Member during the course of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member would permit us to deal with the question of privilege before the House and then I will hear the Hon. Member.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sure.
Privilege-Mr. Brisco


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief point as well. I think we are seeing an example of an abuse by Members of Parliament in participating in such a partisan way in a provincial election. On the other hand, 1 have difficulty seeing how it amounts to a breach of privileges.
If constituents agree or disagree with what their Members of Parliament have done, it may tend to bring particular Members into some disrepute and criticism in their ridings. 1 think they deserve to be criticized and brought into disrepute for taking the step of participating in a provincial election in the way they have.
I do not know whether the Province of British Columbia, like the Province of Ontario, has limits on campaign spending. However, I can see the implications of getting one's friends or Party supporters at the other level of Government to involve themselves in some special manner in one's election campaign in a way which is worth money but is not counted within one's campaign limit. It seems to me to be an abusive thing to do. 1 hope the voters of British Columbia focus on this issue and make it clear in the way they vote that they do not approve of Members of Parliament using the advantages they enjoy as Members of the House of Commons to participate in such a partisan way in an election.
I also think it is going a long way to ask the Chair or a committee of the House to read the first-class mail which Members of Parliament send out and to decide on some basis or other whether it is a violation of privileges. I want respect for Members' right to be able to put what they like in the letters which they send out so far as privileges are concerned. However, so far as the approval or disapproval of the electorate is concerned, I think this debate is very well founded, but perhaps not the point of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair feels that there has been sufficient argument on the point of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) and to which the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg) spoke. The Chair has been assisted by the interventions from all sides of the House. I am persuaded by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault)-and that argument was supported by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-that the Chair should not move without great care in ruling on whether or not a communication sent under the frank is a question of privilege. However, having said that, I think it is clear that there could be cases where, depending upon the content of the communication sent under the frank, it could be a question of privilege if the content worked against the right of Members to free expression and the carrying out of their obligations as Members.
I have had the opportunity to look carefully at the document in question. It is the view of the Chair-without at the moment commenting on the propriety of sending that particular document, and I want that clearly understood that I am not

October 16, 1986
Privilege-Ms. Copps
commenting on that at the moment-that it is not a question of privilege.
The question of propriety, which has been clearly raised as a matter of concern to Hon. Members, is properly a matter that ought to be taken up in another place. The Chair has no power to allow a private Member to table the particular document, and the Chair cannot unilaterally refer the matter to whatever committee might be appropriate to do so. That is a matter which Members can consider among themselves, and there are other means to deal with the issue. Again, I find that it is not a question of privilege. I am not commenting on whether it may very well be an appropriate subject in front of another forum.
1 want to thank all Hon. Members for their interventions which have been helpful to me. Especially I want to thank the Hon. Member for Kootenay West and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni for bringing notice of this and giving me the opportunity to see in advance the actual document.


COMMENTOF MR. MURPHY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the representations to Your Honour with respect to this issue, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) stated and I quote: "Shut up and sit down. Why don't you go out and get some more government business for your family".
1 believe that the Member's statement was completely unparliamentary and absolutely wrong. It was a total distortion and it was uncalled for. I would ask him to withdraw it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is part of the record or not, but I certainly did not mean to cast any aspersions with regard to the Member or her family. I think the record will speak for itself.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I heard the statement. The statement was also heard by my colleague. I would ask the Member, in light of the new spirit of generosity in the House, to make an unequivocal withdrawal. He knows what he said and what he said was completely wrong. It was uncalled for and it is an abuse of my privileges. He is implying that I am using my position to secure government business for my family, and that is wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has not had the advantage of being able to read the "blues" nor have other Members. As is obvious, there may be somewhat of a different recollection as to what was said and what was heard. However, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) might be disposed to indicate that if the comments were offensive, whether or not they were meant to be that he would withdraw them, otherwise the Chair will have to consider the "blues" and bring this matter back to the Chamber. Would the Hon. Member for Churchill like to comment?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. As to the exact nature of the comments, I do not recollect every word that I said. I suspect the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)
certainly heard my intent, and if she takes any offence with that, 1 do withdraw them without any qualifications.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg).


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me, just to go back to your earlier ruling on this matter, is it not possible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has made the ruling and it would not be appropriate to open up that matter. I am sure that if the Hon. Member has any further matters he wishes to discuss, there is a disposition in the Chamber to discuss it further among all Members and I am sure the Hon. Member can take it to the appropriate place.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-ll, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-ll. This Bill represents another in a series of Bills introduced by the Government improving family benefits. Members on all sides will recall that the first major reference given by the Government to a parliamentary committee in January, 1985 was to study family benefits and pension reform. I participated very actively in that study. During the course of our deliberations and family benefits, we made a number of findings which were reported in our parliamentary report. First, the benefits as they existed up to that time, after tax, had a roller-coaster effect. What this meant was that the worst off in our society received the least benefits. As income increased, benefits after tax increased. They increased until you hit the level of $27,000 and then very gradually decreased. A person making $50,000 received only slightly less than a person right at the poverty line.
It was the finding of our committee that benefits should be increased for low-income families, that they should remain roughly the same for middle-income family and that net benefits from the three programs should be reduced for upper-income families. At the same time, we made specific recommendations that the child tax credit should not be paid in a lump sum as part of the tax refund. We also identified that the tax rebating process, as a result of people turning in their tax refunds for a discount, was resulting in a significant loss to the taxpayers who were trying to benefit with moneys being diverted to the outside.
October 16, 1986

Might I quote two very brief extracts from the committee's report because they are directly relevant to the Bill. First:
5.9 There are practical problems with the Child Tax Credit as it now exists. First, for lower-income families the benefit is delivered as a yearly lump sum. Some witnesses have proposed that it be delivered monthly, with the Family Allowance, to increase the amount available for day-to-day expenses. However, we were most impressed by the evidence of the National AntiPoverty Organization who suggested that families, who have no access to credit, appreciated receiving a bigger sum to cover larger expenses such as household repairs, back-to-school clothing and so on. We were persuaded by this argument.
We proposed that if reform results in a substantially larger Child Tax Credit than exists at present the Government should consider the feasibility of paying the benefit out more than once a year, but not monthly.
This recommendation of our committee is directly reflected in the Bill. Let us continue:
Second, the Child Tax Credit has encouraged the growth of tax discounters. Pursuant to the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, discounters are allowed to charge up to 15 per cent for their services. We do not want money which helps provide for the needs of families diverted to tax discounters. We feel that 15 per cent is an exorbitant rate of return for the risks discounters take in advancing refunds to low-income families.
The Government has acted on all six of the recommendations of the parliamentary committee. We have increased benefits to low-income Canadians dramatically. By the end of the transition period, the benefits will have increased to those earning the least, that is, from $1,484 a year to $1,812 a year for a family with two children in Ontario. Similarly, benefits remain the same in the key threshold area of $30,000 to $40,000, but once you get over $40,000, net benefits after tax are reduced. By the time you are looking at a family with an income of $50,000, the net benefits after tax have been reduced from $1,048 a year to $764 a year, exactly the direction which the parliamentary committee recommended. Similarly, our recommendation that the child tax credit be split into two or more installments and an advance payment made has been adopted. This will provide money at a key time of the year when winter clothing is being purchased.
Finally, the Government acted on our recommendation to limit tax discounting of family allowances in two ways. First, we passed an amendment to the Tax Rebate Discounting Act to limit the amount charged by discounters to $45 a year plus up to 5 per cent of the amount in excess of $300. As well, in providing an advance payment we are eliminating the possibility of tax discounters getting their hands on the money. This Bill will result in a payment of $300 per child to families with incomes of less than $15,000 a year. Some 700,000 families will benefit, primarily female-led families. We are acting on a problem that was directly dealt with in our report.
We also pointed out that measures of this type were necessary to combat the rising incidence of poverty. In the years from 1970 to 1980, the incidence of poverty decreased each year. However, under the last Government, in the years 1981 to 1984 inclusive, the incidence of poverty in our country increased. Members will be aware that last year, as a result of the measures we took, the incidence of poverty in Canada fell
Income Tax Act
for the first time in five years. That is a very important achievement for this Government and I fully expect that it will fall again next year as a result of measures introduced in Bill C-ll.
It is obvious that these measures will improve the lot of the poor. I was very disturbed yesterday to hear the Liberal Party finance critic and the health and welfare critic for the NDP suggest that these were merely administrative measures and there was no substance to the Bill. Indeed, we heard the familiar refrain that there was no new money in this Bill. Yet it is obvious to anyone who looks at it that the result of the Bill will be to put substantial new money in the hands of people who need it most. Previous to this a very high proportion of people receiving the child tax credit went to tax discounters and received only 85 cents on the dollar. Some 15 per cent of the money provided by the federal Government was being diverted to tax calculation agencies rather than being used by the people for whom it was intended.
It may be the view of the Liberal Party and the NDP that the only thing that counts around this place is spending more and more taxpayers' money without looking to the question of efficiency. It is pretty obvious to anyone who looks at it that for many families there will be an immediate increase of 15 per cent in the amount they receive as a child tax credit because of this Bill. I am surprised that the Liberal finance critic, a former Treasurer of the Province of Quebec, could suggest that money paid six months in advance is not worth any more than money paid in the late spring. Everyone knows that the cost of living is increasing, everyone knows that if you have to borrow money to buy clothing for your children or if you have to go to tax discounters, you have to pay for it, and that means benefits to the poor are decreased. It is pretty obvious that we are operating much smarter than the previous Government did because there is going to be a dramatic increase in the income of low-income families affected by this Bill.
I have outlined six specific measures that we as a Government have taken as a result of the recommendations of the allParty committee on child benefits. However, I do not think the process has yet ended because, as all Members are aware, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated that he will be looking at social benefits in his Budget next February to see how we can, within the principles he outlined, provide more money, better directed, to those most in need. This measure is a good example of how the Government can be a lot smarter while being prudent with taxpayers' money.
Finally, the one point in this Bill which I think should be highlighted is consistent with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs of which I am also a member. We recommended that there be tax reform in this country to produce a much more accessible and simple system for the poor. Under this Act the money will be paid automatically to those most in need based on their prior year's income. They do not have to apply for it. We feel, and I am sure Members of all Parties are aware of this, that people

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
were not applying for benefits because they were overwhelmed by the complexity of the tax system. Under this new system there will be an automatic distribution of the money, and under the tax reform proposals which will come to the committee next month I am sure we will see a much simpler income tax form.
Finally, once again 1 would like to congratulate the Government for listening to the unanimous recommendations of the all-Party committee and acting so quickly to bring in this Bill which we are discussing today.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: Questions and comments?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member. The Bill proposes that if the payment is higher than that to which the individual concerned is entitled, the Government will require that the excess not only be repaid, but that interest will apply to that excess beginning April 30. We in the Liberal Party would like to see this amended so that only the excess paid be recovered, and I wanted to ask the Hon. Member what he thought about that. This is an important point because low-income families, at least in my riding, who are entitled to the child tax credit, the ones who are going to get this prepayment of $300 in November, surely cannot be expected to pay interest on that money if for some reason their income for the year was such that they were not entitled to receive the amount they did. Would the Hon. Member agree with us that the excess can be recovered by the Government but that charging interest is pushing it a little too far?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that. This Bill proposes to make an advance payment of two-thirds of the amount of the child tax credit to low-income families, those who earned less than $15,000 in the previous year. Families will receive the child tax credit until their income is significantly above that amount, and the amount of the child tax credit will decrease fairly slowly as income rises. What we are talking about is someone who was in very dire straits the year before but whose circumstances have improved substantially during the course of the current year. For example, the recipients in November or December of this year will likely know full well whether their income has jumped from below $15,000 to above $25,000 and whether they will be at the level at which the child tax credit decreases substantially. You will obviously be very aware of your situation if your income has jumped by over 60 per cent. I do not think it is unrealistic to ask that those people recognize that this is an advance and return it as quickly as possible if they no longer qualify for it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I understand the point the Member is making. However, he forgets that the people to whom this prepayment is addressed are those who have possibly had changes in their family status during the year. For example, there may have been a death of a child which the Government would not know about. The child care situation
may have changed during the year. The income tax department makes a mistake, and it may have done just that, yet that individual will receive that money and will be charged interest in the following year if he was not entitled to it. I think it is quite reasonable that the amount to which people are not entitled be recovered. However, many of these families are not familiar with the complexities of the income tax system and I do not understand why they should be asked to pay interest on something they did not ask for and which has been given to them because we think they need it. Why should we charge them interest on moneys which should be recovered?


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for posing that question because it highlights an important part of the Bill. He asked hypothetically whether if a child has died during the year the family will receive the money without knowing they are not entitled to it. Under the administration of the previous Liberal Government, which the Member represented, if a child died during the year the family would lose the child tax credit. One of the important provisions of this Bill is that if a child dies during the year the family keeps the child tax credit. The premise of this question is flawed because we have corrected the very problem about which he posed his question.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened carefully to the interventions made yesterday. I apologize to the last speaker for not having heard his intervention due to another commitment.
I fully understand the necessity for government Members to highlight the positive aspects of this Bill. Quite frankly, I am very disturbed by this Bill because if you analyse it in isolation, Bill C-ll, which provides for the prepayment of the child tax credit, seems to be a step in the desirable direction. However, if you look at it in conjunction with income security and the policy that we would like to develop for Canadians for the future, you must regrettably conclude that this is only public relations to create an impression of government action and improved conditions but which actually makes no progress at all.
The Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) made interventions on this yesterday which 1 thought addressed very well the technicalities of this Bill and some of its shortcomings.
I would like to add to those interventions an observation with regard to discounting. The provision of two payments per year instead of one per year allows for greater exposure to discounting practices. Why does the Government not accompany this Bill with a measure to eliminate, as has been done in the United States, the practice of allowing the discounting of government cheques, thus eliminating the losses thereby incurred?
I would have preferred if the Government had taken an approach which would have given Canadians the total picture rather than creating a false impression. There is nothing in this Bill about improving the redistribution of income in Canada.
October 16, 1986

There is no reference to tax reform for low-income Canadians, or to security systems to provide protection for incomes that are below the poverty line. It seems to me that the Government has lowered the poverty line arbitrarily to a level of $15,000. I cannot understand why that was done or what the reasoning for it was. I have listened to several interventions by government spokespersons and so far in this debate an explanation for that has not been given.
The disposable income of low-income families in Canada has gone down as a result of the two Budgets since 1984 because of increased federal taxation, deindexation and the totality of the child benefit package of which this Bill is a component. In the end, that detrimentally affects the income situation of Canadian families in the lower income levels. I will say more about that later. First I would like to put some facts and figures on the record to illustrate the point I am attempting to make.
The tax measures introduced by the Government in the May, 1985, and February, 1986, Budgets are affecting the personal income taxes of individuals considerably and reducing their purchasing capacity and cash-in-pocket situations. I will give you some examples of how this has been done. First, as a result of the modified indexation measure, Canadians will have $570 million less to spend. The second example is the elimination in May, 1985, of the federal tax reduction which used to be available. That has resulted in a total reduction of cash for the average consumer of $490 million. Third, when one takes into consideration the 5 per cent and 10 per cent surtax on the basic federal tax which was introduced in May, 1985, the pockets of the average consumer are soaked for an additional $550 million. When we consider the deductions that were allowed under the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan in the income tax system until May, 1985, we see an additional $80 million that Canadians cannot put aside on their own.
Finally, the 3 per cent surtax on personal income tax which was introduced in February of this year has meant that $560 million is not available and in circulation for the Canadian consumer.
When we also consider the effect of sales and excise taxes, some of which are visible and some of which are not, we see that there are some rather staggering amounts that are no longer available to the average Canadian consumer. Obviously this affects the low-income consumer more than others. The broadening of the sales tax base as a result of the 1986 Budget has meant that $510 million is no longer available to average Canadian consumers. The 1 per cent sales tax increase alone, in May, 1985, has meant that $990 million is no longer available to average Canadian consumers. The addition of the 1 per cent increase in sales tax rates, which was introduced in February of this year, means that $815 million has been cleverly soaked up, with very little political impact so far because it is virtually a hidden tax that nobody can see at the moment of purchase. The excise taxes of various kinds,
Income Tax Act
introduced between the Budget in May, 1985 and the Budget in February, 1986, amount to some $390 million.
When we consider the total amount of money that has been taken from the pockets of the average Canadian consumer, particularly as it affects the low-income consumer, we see from a personal income tax point of view that there is a total reduction of $1,175 billion in available cash, so to speak. That is the combined effect of the two Budgets of May, 1985 and February, 1986. The combined effect of the sales and excise taxes in the two Budgets, at the expense of the consumer, particularly the low-income consumer, is $2,695 billion. The effect of personal income tax plus sales and excise taxes is that there is more than $3.8 billion of less disposable income available to the average Canadian. In light of that information, I wonder whether some of the speeches of yesterday and this morning would have rung the same.
When the capacity of Canadians to purchase is being adversely affected, the Government suddenly introduces Bill C-ll, acclaiming its generosity by providing two advance payments and even providing some cash before Christmas. Of course, this sounds very attractive, and that is why I am objecting to such an approach in isolation from the total picture. Instead of improving the over-all situation, 1 believe it has been seriously degenerated at the expense of Canadian taxpayers through this kind of Progressive Conservative charity with the compliments of the Canadian Government. What a sham.
There are certain elements of the dimension of poverty in Canada that must be put on the record. For instance, in the 1960s, poverty was mainly associated with the elderly, the disabled, natives and people who lived in economically depressed areas. Today, the main groups are women, natives and disabled persons, with unemployed youth representing an emerging fourth group. That is a completely new dimension.
Second, poverty today is becoming more strongly associated with women. In 1984, the rate of poverty among non-elderly female-headed families was 46.4 per cent, compared to a rate of 11.4 per cent among male heads of families. Fifty-two per cent of unattached elderly women remain in poverty. In 1984, 2.3 million, or 56 per cent of all poor people, including children, were female.
Two-thirds to one-half of those who rely almost exclusively on federal and provincial social assistance for support consist of the elderly, the disabled, lone-parent mothers, which is another emerging group, and members of native groups.
Finally, some 56 per cent of poor Canadians worked during 1983 and few relied on social assistance, contrary to the widespread mythology that exists in many circles. Only in Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan can the working poor receive benefits while working. Only the Quebec program is specifically designed to help low-income workers.
We can see from this observation on the dimensions of poverty in Canada by David Ross, who has written extensively

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
on social policy issues in Canada, that we have a long way to go in rectifying the situation.
Let me return to examples that relate to the family as it is affected by the Budget. First, let us look at the two-earner family earning $10,850, which is a low wage by anyone's standard. That represents half the poverty line for a metropolitan area and little more than one-quarter of the average income for a couple with two children. We find that in 1986, the family gets $23 less in family allowance than it would if the Government had not chosen to index benefits partially. That observation applies to all the families with this and similar incomes.
Because of the elimination of the federal tax reduction, the imposition of a 3 per cent surtax and the partial indexation of the tax system, a couple which earns somewhere between $10,000 and $11,000 a year pays $35 more in federal and provincial taxes. The $23 loss in family allowances and the $35 tax increase means that the family loses $58 in disposable income in 1986. This figure, of course, is included in the larger figures which I itemized for you a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate that actually what we are facing is a slippage, a reduction in purchasing power and a decrease in the capacity of low-income families to compete in the market-place for what they need.
It must be recognized that the same family which earns between $10,000 and $11,000 gains $60 in child benefits in 1987 because the increase in the child tax credit is more than the loss in family allowance. The family pays $85 more, however, in income tax. The family now receives a refundable sales tax credit of $145 in respect of the 1986 taxation year and, in the end, the family finds itself, as a result of this Budget, in a very peculiar situation.
In 1989 the income tax payable by the family will increase more than is offset by the child benefits and the sales tax credit gains, so that the family's disposable income in 1989 will be $48 less than it would have been without the Budgets of 1985 and 1986, and the loss will rise to $167 in 1990.
This may sound, and does sound, a bit complicated, but the accounting is important to see this measure not in isolation. It must be seen as it converges with other measures affecting the well-being, welfare and social security of the average Canadian family, particularly the 20 per cent of families at the lowest income levels across the nation. In two and a half to three years from now, in 1989, the impact of all these measures will come together, negatively affecting the purchasing power of the average Canadian family and, in particular, the income of those who are struggling at below the poverty line.
Therefore, I cannot join with others in hailing Bill C-ll. I find it a measure which creates a false impression of a progressive measure which is in itself only a technique of payment, not an increase, as has been properly pointed out. It somehow creates the illusion that things are improving while in the medium term, namely, by 1989, the position of the average Canadian family, particularly those who are struggling at just
above or below the poverty line, will be negatively affected. Therefore, we on this side call upon the Government to come forward with an income tax reform which will redress this situation and permit the development of an income security position for Canadians who are reaching the income levels of a minimum of around $20,000, which will permit them to regain the ground they lost as a result of the measures contained in the Budgets of 1985 and 1986.


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


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-ll, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act in order to permit a new system of advanced payments on the child tax credit for 1986, and for future years. I welcome the opportunity to speak as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and as a Member of Parliament from the prairie region, the southwestern corner of Saskatchewan. This is an area which has been treated unkindly over the past three or four years, first by drought and now what was to have been the bumper crop of 1986 is suffering serious deterioration owing to poor weather conditions.
The Prairies, as you will know, Mr. Speaker, is an area which is very heavily dependent on agriculture. Besides the actual producers, certainly much of the employment is directly dependent upon the prosperity of agriculture. It is an area in which the grain farmer in particular is feeling the pinch owing to low world grain prices, a situation which has arisen as a result of conditions beyond our borders such as the disastrous grain trade subsidy war between the United States and the European Economic Community.
It is from this "prairie" perspective that I would like to address Bill C-ll, which is a part, albeit a small part, of the Government's over-all agenda which was charted back in the fall of 1984 and which has continued through the Budgets and the recent Speech from the Throne. It is a course of action involving responsible and prudent management of the economy and of the taxpayers' contributions. It aims at specific areas, economic renewal, national reconciliation, and social justice in particular.
I would like to talk about economic renewal because we cannot afford much social justice or regional assistance if our economy is moribund. The stark reality is that Government has no money of its own. This should not be a sudden inspiration. The fact is that the Government's only source of funds is those moneys that we as citizens choose to entrust to it. Obviously, we cannot continue to borrow into perpetuity for programs, social or otherwise. It is not a matter of choice. Unless the Government shows restraint, Canada will, in ihe not too distant future, reach the point of no return where interest charges on the national debt would be such as to consume the entire federal revenues, thus leaving no moneys for social programs such as the child tax credit.
October 16, 1986

The short-sighted opportunistic policies of the past have created a mountain of debt which has placed this nation on the very precipice of disaster. When this Government came to power, the nation's finances were in a serious state of deterioration. A string of deficits, which began back in 1970 and continued through to 1984, created a huge accumulation of debt which of itself is contributing more and more to the fiscal problems in the form of ever higher debt servicing requirements, ever higher interest payments. Furthermore, government expenditures continued to rise throughout this period continuing a trend established back in the mid-1960s. This fiscal situation is an effective barrier, a road-block, an obstacle to economic growth. Heavy government borrowing cannot help but put upward pressure on interest rates. As the debt accumulates and interest costs mount up, investors naturally become concerned about future inflation. Their concerns have the potential to manifest themselves in a downward pressure on our dollar and consequent upward interest rates.
Interest rates, as we all know, are the single determining economic factor in Canada. Lower interest rates have the potential to encourage the kind of initiative and investment on which our future prosperity depends. Lower interest rates will result in more small business activity, small business now being the backbone of this nation, and will result in more home building, more construction and, most important of all, more jobs.
We saw in September 1984 that we must alleviate the misery of unemployment and invigorate the regions of this nation. We have had to reduce government expenditures and at the same time raise government revenues in order to be able to cope with and to overcome this legacy of debt.
This Government is the first in 15 years to face reality. The Government decided to take some courageous measures toward bringing government expenditures under control by improving management procedures, by increasing government efficiency and by eliminating obsolete and ineffective government programs. For the first time in probably 40 years, discretionary government spending has actually decreased. For the first time in four years, government revenues have actually exceeded expenditures when excluding the factor of interest payments.
The trend to ever-increasing deficits has been arrested and reversed in spite of the catastrophic servicing problems arising from the compounding of interest on accumulated debt. Measures were introduced to encourage private initiative with the sure knowledge that it is the small business private sector which generates growth and employment in Canada.


Mr. Parry:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. My understanding is that we are debating Bill C-ll. 1 would submit that the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) is using the pre-scripted speech designed for government Members to use in addressing the Speech from the Throne.
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe that this is a point of order. I think the Hon. Member will probably speak on Bill C-ll. I think he is getting to it. If the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) would like to ask him questions or make comments after he has finished his speech, I would be delighted to hear from him.


Geoff Wilson: 1 appreciate the generous intervention made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). I think he might be right in a court of law, but 1 suggest that in the court of public opinion we are given a little more leeway. I am sure he will appreciate that. Indeed I will welcome the opportunity to respond to his questions in due course.
The November 1984 economic strategy laid out the need for enhancing and drawing upon the strengths of all of the regions in order to keep a solid foundation for economic renewal which was to be based on the encouragement of public initiative, on the streamlining of Government and on responsible deficit reduction. Subsequent Budgets have continued in this direction for renewal charted in the fall of 1984.
The question to be asked now is if the strategy is working. I suggest that by any reasonable measure or standard, the policies of the Government have been successful. In terms of economic growth, the growth in the Gross Domestic Product of Canada was the second highest of all of the industrialized nations in the world last year. Inflation has been stable at around 4 per cent for the past several years creating the most encouraging investment environment in the last 15 years. Interest rates are down almost four points since election day. The prime rate is at 9.75 per cent and that is the lowest it has been in some eight and a half years. Of course, mortgage rates have responded accordingly.
Job creation is fundamentally important because more Canadians finding work will mean not only additional tax revenues coming into the pot but also reduced government expenditures through lower unemployment insurance and social assistance contributions. This is the absolute bedrock. The most significant and important problem to address at this time is unemployment, and the need for the provision of conditions under which meaningful, permanent, durable jobs will be available for Canadians is compelling. It is the task of Government to try to create the conditions and environment in which the private sector can flourish and in which private initiative can be undertaken with a minimum of red tape in the knowledge that there is some possibility of success.
The facts are there. Over the past several years, some
595,000	new jobs have been created. Youth unemployment is down by some three points. The unemployment rate has decreased from 11.7 per cent back in 1984 to 9.5 per cent at the present time. In my Province of Saskatchewan, the unemployment rate is 7.5 per cent, some two points below the national average. All of this has happened in the face of extraordinarily low commodity prices.

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
Clearly the results prove the correctness of the direction and thrust of our policies. We have been doing something that our predecessors never dared to do. We have been trying to grapple meaningfully with a mountain of inherited debt and at the same time help out the disadvantaged regions and deal compassionately with those who find themselves in need.
My hon. friend asked where Bill C-l 1 fits into all of this. It is part of the over-all strategy of the Government commenced in the fall of 1984 leading to economic renewal, to the alleviation of regional disparity and to social justice. The 1986 Budget presented a clear promise that fiscal integrity would be restored over a reasonable time frame. It also took steps to improve tax fairness, to aid small business, to help the farm community, to provide more flexibility for RSP withdrawals, to extend the fuel tax rebates for primary producers and to initiate new measures to assist low-income Canadians.
Bill C-l 1 calling for partial prepayment of the child tax credit is in keeping with our clear commitment to help those in our society who find themselves in need. This prepayment will provide timely assistance to Canadian families and will reduce the need for them to resort to tax refund discounting.
Last year, the 1985 Budget increased the child tax credit for lower income families from $384 per child to $454 this year, $489 next year and $524 in 1988. In instances where there are not taxes payable, the credit is refunded, thus ensuring that low-income families are able to benefit. The amount of the credit is reduced by $5 for each $100 of family income over $23,500. This child tax credit initiative has been targeted, of course, to those in society who need it most and represents a compassionate and caring approach.
As the child tax credit increased, the prevalence of tax rebate discounting services also increased. Some of these discounting services preyed on the recipients of child tax credits by charging 15 per cent of anticipated refunds. In many cases, over 50 per cent I am told, these refunds consisted solely of the child tax credit. In response to this problem, the Government passed last year an Act to amend the Tax Rebate Discounting Act so as to increase the level of consumer protection provided to those who use the tax rebate discounter to receive an immediate cash settlement of their anticipated payments. The maximum rate was reduced in that legislation to 5 per cent on any amount over $300. That legislation helped to break the cycle of dependence on the tax rebate discounting operations. Bill C-l 1 will certainly further that objective.
Bill C-l 1 will permit the Government to prepay a portion of the child tax credit that would otherwise only be payable at tax time the following spring. The legislative measures required are, first, to ensure that prepayment will be $300 per child, an amount equal to approximately two-thirds of the full credit. The remaining amount will be paid after the 1986 income tax return has been filed and processed. Second, the prepayment will be made automatically to eligible claimants who had a family income of less than $15,000. No application will be required. An estimated 725,000 families will benefit from this.
The essence of the Bill is to provide timely help, help when it is needed. This help is needed in the fall, a time when the burdens of caring for children are the greatest.
The initiative under this Bill will assist a number of farm families in my constituency who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a difficult cash flow position. They are also heartened by a number of other measures that have been instituted by this Government, which I briefly want to mention. These include the recognition of agriculture as the most important building block in western Canada. They will remember that this Government overturned two of the most catastrophic man-made disasters ever to face western Canada in the form of the National Energy Policy and the capital gains tax. Both of those measures were dealt with by this Government in the first year.
Mr. Speaker, western Canadians remember when there was a drought and a need and this Government contributed $48 million to livestock drought assistance, and a further $150 million by way of crop disaster assistance. They recall that compulsory metric measurement was causing all sorts of grief in the fields and on the farms. They know that we allowed imperial measurement and mixed measurement on a voluntary basis. When the cattlemen were being devastated by the dumping of beef by the European Common Market, a practice that the previous Government permitted and which allowed importation of Common Market beef to increase from zero in 1980 to 50 million pounds in 1984, they will remember that it was this Government that invoked the meat import law and assisted them in their successful countervailing application. Because cash flow was tight and there was a need there, they know that we doubled the cash advance levels under the Advance Payments for Crops Act. We promised that we would make western grain stabilization more responsive to the needs of the farmer. They will recall that we instituted amendments which permit a timely interim payment in the spring, when the dollars are needed most. They know that we improved the Canada-Saskatchewan crop insurance program by increasing coverage from 70 to 80 per cent without premium increase. This same program, contributed to jointly by the farmer and the federal Government and administered by the province last year, paid out some $376 million to Saskatchewan farmers, $125 million in my riding alone.
This list goes on and on. I see that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I just want to close by saying that this Government has done all it can do to help the needy and the disadvantaged and to assist the regions of this country. We have done it in spite of historically low world oil and grain prices. We have persevered in spite of the legacy of debt left by our predecessors. We shall continue to build this nation and to forge a better tomorrow.


John Edmund Parry: I would like to ask the Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson)-and it did not escape my notice that eventually he did get around to talking about
October 16, 1986

the child tax credit-whether the Government's introduction of Bill C-ll should be construed by the Canadian people as indicating at last a commitment to that principle of universality which is so necessary to maintain not only equity within our system of family benefits, but also the commitment of all levels of income earners to such a system.


Geoff Wilson: In responding to that question, for which I thank the Member, I have a duty to point out to him, as I thought I had done on numerous occasions during my discourse, that the fiscal position of this country at this point simply does not enable us to achieve an ideal Utopian world.
I would like to quote a passage from the Fiscal Plan, which the Hon. Member has I am sure and which was presented to him as part of the Budget papers in February, 1986. On page 13 it says this:
Rapid growth in the public debt over an extended period, as has been experienced in Canada in recent years, can seriously limit the growth potential of the economy. As the debt accumulates it fosters uncertainty and heightens fears of inflation. These erode investor confidence, reduce the incentives for risktaking, put upward pressure on interest rates, discourage private investment and slow economic growth.
In short, a vicious circle can be created where higher interest rates and slower economic growth put upward pressure on the deficit, adding to the debt and debt service charges, which feed back again on to interest rates and the economy.
1 want to say to the Hon. Member that I share the concern which he feels for the needy in our society. But I suggest to him that the Government has only a couple of alternatives: One is to increase its revenues, the other is to decrease its expenditures. As I mentioned, there is another possibility, and that involves getting people back to work so that they can be putting into the system rather than taking out. That is the direction that this Government has pursued with some considerable success.


Mrs. Sparrow:: The early payment of the child tax credit certainly demonstrates the concern for the need of low-income families in Canada. I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson). He has worked very hard to have this Bill introduced and I know all Canadians welcome it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague in regard to the $300 per child that will be made available to the eligible claimants whose family income is less than $15,000: Does each claimant apply? Is it based on the 1985 tax return? Is it based on a 1986 estimated earned income? Also, I would like to have him explain the ramifications of an overpayment.


Geoff Wilson: The essence of the Bill is that the calculation will be based on the previous year's income, so for 1986 prepayments the calculation will be based on family income as determined in the 1985 tax return. The cut-off at $15,000 of family income was made in order to avoid problems which could arise with substantial overpayments. The limit is $23,500 of family income. Below that level the entire child tax credit is payable, but it is payable in advance automatically only to those with a family income
Income Tax Act
beneath $15,000. I am sure that level was set sufficiently low in order to avoid the kind of problems which could arise in the event of overpayments, which was alluded to earlier in this debate. The balance of the payment will be received once the current income tax return has been filed and processed. It would appear, with the level set where it is, that there would be very few overpayments, but should there be overpayments they would be recovered from the recipients.


Mr. Rompkey:: I was very interested in the Hon. Member's speech and I wanted to ask him about a couple of points he made. Earlier on in his speech he talked about cutting the deficit and helping the disadvantaged in the country. I take that to mean the regions, although I realize that he referred to the child tax credit as well. That is a Herculean task. The fact is that it has not happened. In cutting the deficit and trimming government programs, the Atlantic area in particular has been devastated as a result. When central Canada catches a cold, we get pneumonia, and that is exactly what has happened in terms of that particular region. The government record in cutting the deficit and helping disadvantaged regions is not very effective.
I wanted to ask him too about a topic that we share, and that is the energy policy and particularly the demise of the PGRT. If you want to help disadvantaged regions, one way to do it is by helping the Canadian oil industry. I do not know about companies in the west, but I understand many of them are having difficulty and many people are getting laid off. I do know that there are no rigs off the East Coast of Newfoundland and that projects like Hibernia are on the shelf. I want to ask the Hon. Member, if he really wants to help the disadvantaged regions, if he really thinks the National Energy Policy was so bad, and if he really believes in the demise of the PGRT, what is he going to recommend? What is he going to say to Canadians who want to work on the oil rigs? What is he going to say to small Canadian companies? What is he going to recommend to his Government to replace the PGRT and to try to put some order, some stability, some optimism, and some hope in the energy industry, and particularly the small Canadian companies in Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to the first point of the Hon. Member. I think we have been over it many times. We had the choice of going along the old path. It was a wide and low road, and it had been travelled many times in the past. It was a road which involved spending without responsibility, a road which involved handing out programs without responsible taxation, and a road which led our country to the edge of bankruptcy. It is a road which leads to nowhere.
I think it has been stated and restated a thousand times that if we persist in the ways of the past, in the old ways, we will have a debt with servicing charges which will consume all revenue. In that event there would be no funds for the day-today operations of the country, let alone the kinds of programs
414

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
or social net to which Canadians have become accustomed. We really have no alternative. We cannot carry on with the old ways of the previous Government of which the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was a Member. Clearly a different approach has been necessary.
It is fairly evident, by examining every available statistic and every available critique, that the handling of the economy by the Government to date has been reasonable. I think the results are pretty clear. We are walking a very precarious line. We would like to do more; there is no question about it. The Government would like nothing better than to open the coffers wide and come forth with all sorts of programs. However, they cost money, and if by doing so we cause a run on the dollar and shoot interest rates up three or four points, we have accomplished nothing.
With regard to the Hon. Member's second point, I must say 1 was somewhat confused by the question. I had understood, when he talked about replacing the PGRT, that in fact it was a tax burden. The industry was very vociferous in wanting it taken off. In fact, the Government has responded by eliminating it. It forms part of an over-all package designed to try to stimulate activity in the industry and to get away from the old policies which involved taxation before getting down to the bottom line. We must provide for an environment where Canadians can earn some money and be taxed after they make it rather than before.


Mr. Ravis:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Swift Current

Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson); he made some interesting points. I assure the House that there are many people in my constituency of Saskatoon East who will certainly welcome receiving some advance payment in the form of the tax credit proposed in Bill C-ll, particularly at this time of the year.
On behalf of the agriculturally based people in Saskatchewan, who are the backbone of our economy, does the Hon. Member see a parallel between western grain stabilization and the child tax credit; in other words, giving people assistance when they most require it?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) for his observation and question. I certainly think he has hit upon one of the very important thrusts in Bill C-ll, that is, to provide timely assistance to those who need it.
The Western Grain Stabilization Act was amended last year in order to permit timely interim payments so that producers of the country could have the funds in time for spring seeding. Indeed, one of the purposes of Bill C-ll is to enable recipients of the child tax credit to receive a timely interim payment, a payment in the fall when the expenses of running a family are highest. There is a very significant parallel. It is all part of the over-all thrust of the Government to try to put funds into the hands of Canadians when they need it, not when some bureaucrat thinks they should have it.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-ll, which represents the first of the measures growing from last February's Budget that the Government has brought before us for consideration.
The measure has been debated by speakers from all three Parties in terms of its significance, with members of the Government arguing for its importance, and with members of the Opposition making more of it as a change in the administration of one particular part of the child benefit package provided by Canadian Parliaments in years past for families in Canada. My own feeling tends to be toward the latter one. I see it more in the nature of an administrative change than a change of great significance. However, who would deny the importance of putting money into the hands of families late in the year as winter sets in and before Christmas in order to allow them to make use of the money? Since this money will be going to the more needy families in Canada, those with incomes in the previous year under $15,000, it will certainly be a significant advance to them.
The Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare heard many representations while it was considering child benefit provisions over the past 18 months. Certainly presentations were made about the timing and the administration of the child tax credit. There were those who pointed out the importance of this payment to families, a payment which is in the hands of mothers at whatever point they may receive it and which allows them to make purchases that are so important to poorer families. Those with very limited incomes see very small cheques from week to week. For them to have this lump sum, a sum which for 1986 will be $454 per child, will certainly put into their hands a significant amount of money with which they can make the kinds of purchases households inevitably require at various times. One can think easily of the need for appliances, the cost of winter clothing, and all kinds of needs of children which the poor find very difficult to provide from the weekly incomes they may otherwise have. Obviously a payment of $300 per child, to be received some time late in the calendar year and to be based upon the previous year's income to determine who receives it, will be very important. I am sure all of us join in in recognizing the validity of making the change.
However, one aspect of it that concerns me is the possibility that part of this change in administration has been made because of the existence of tax discounting. Discounters were allowed over the past several years to develop their business by working out income tax returns, advancing part of the returns to the persons for whom they made the calculations, and then taking off consent forms which entitled them to receive the total returns after they were administered by Revenue Canada. The practice of tax discounting has led to some monstrous abuses. If this year's change in the administration of the child tax credit is something like a Christmas gift for 1986 from the Parliament of Canada, last year's gift in a sense might have been the passage on December 20 of Bill C-83 which amended


October 16, 1986

the Tax Rebate Discounting Act and established limits on how much tax discounters could take.
I note that discounters were allowed to keep a full 15 per cent on the first $300 of a refund, which of course nicely matches the amount being advanced this time, and 5 per cent on any portion above $300. For those receiving a little more than the tax credit and perhaps a provincial tax credit of some sort or another-and I am thinking of the one in Ontario with which I am familiar-the $300 might well represent the larger part of what they were receiving. In fact 15 per cent of that or $45 over a few weeks-and certainly it would be no more than two months or three months between the filing of the return and receipt of the money by the discounters-represents a very high rate of return.
What should have been done, as has been done in the United States, is to end this particular practice of discounting. The fact that two-thirds of those who were discounting tax returns had incomes under $8,000 and that half of the discounted returns in 1984 involved child tax credits indicates something of the significance of the faiiure of the Government last year to put before Parliament a measure to end this practice. When 1 point out the further fact that almost $20 million of the discounted child benefits ended up in the hands of discount firms-and $20 million seems an outrageous amount of money which the Parliament of Canada had wished to put in the pockets of mothers for the sake of their children-is quite monstrous. That leads me to say that if the purpose of the provision this year is designed to prevent tax discounters from getting as much money then it represents a curious sort of thing.
On the one hand I have conceded that there is a gain to families. There is a sort of social gain from this change in administration, but it would seem to me that the obligation put on Revenue Canada to pay these cheques out is going to cost the Government something. If that were to be done only for the failure to deal fully with tax discounters, it would represent a very nice way in which millions of dollars is remaining in the hands of the tax discounters while the people of Canada have to pay the additional money for making these advances. If the purpose was to avoid tax discounting, then it is costing the Canadian taxpayer a good deal. If it is designed to put money in the hands of mothers at a time when they can use it and to spread out the payments early in the winter rather than at the end of the winter, it achieves its original purpose and of that I am not being critical.
Just looking at one particular item in the child benefit package can easily take our attention away from the entire problem that faces us. I would like to spend a few moments on other matters, Mr. Speaker. The increase in the child tax credit, and this particular change in the way it is administered, is a relatively small part of what the Conservative Government has done in the area of family benefits. We have had a great deal of talk about reform. We received from the Minister of
Income Tax Act
National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) early in 1985 a booklet setting forth various possibilities and suggesting the desire of the Government to make savings in some areas in order to focus the money better toward those most in need. That last phrase, the need of some Canadians over others, has been a refrain in all of this discussion. The tragic thing that happened through 1985 is that the actual decisions which the Government made in following through on this supposed reform did not lead to changes that saw the total budget in this area being better targeted. What we saw instead was a decision to reduce benefits and to use the saving in order to reduce the deficit of the Canadian Government. That decision, which was quite clear by the time the Finance Minister presented his Budget in May, 1985 and which the Minister of National Health and Welfare conceded when he spoke in the House in September, 1985, is one I want to explore. Though we see one particular decision on the child tax credit that is to the advantage of poorer Canadian families, other actions that have been taken on the family allowance, on the child tax exemption, even on the child tax credit itself in the long run, are decisions to the loss of Canadian families.
There was a year ago the struggle over deindexation of the family allowance itself. The Government had been severely stung, harshly attacked, and justly attacked in June, 1985, for its decision to deindex the old age pension. That battle the people of Canada won. We in the New Democratic Party and in the Opposition generally were pleased about that victory for the people of Canada.
The tragedy of the situation for children and for families was that the battle to prevent deindexation of the family allowance was not won. The Government insisted that in the future the inflationary increase in family allowance payments would be decreased by 3 per cent each year. At times when the inflation rate is only 4 per cent or so, that represents a deflation by three-quarters of the amount that the family allowance would grow. If we remain in the economic doldrums in which the country has been for some time, which is marked, among other things, by these lower inflation rates, we will see very significant decreases in the real value of the family allowance. We will see a dropping from over $30 down toward $18 over the next 20 years. That seems to me to be a very significant attack on Canadian families ultimately. It represents a fiscal spending decision in the Finance Department which contradicts all the rhetoric of the Government as far as its concern about families is concerned.
When we look at the child tax credit itself, we see a significant increase by $70 this year, and we see plans to increase the child tax credit for 1987 and 1988. Then some of those other provisions kick in and we have the deindexation of increases in the child tax credit after that, with the result that over the years through the 1990s and after the turn of the century families will see that figure shrinking too.
For us in the New Democratic Party concerned about Canadian families in their various situations, not just the most needy but average Canadian families, the working poor all

October 16, 1986
across the country, these decisions were mistakes. What we should have had was a significant increase in the child tax credit, not by the $80 that takes it to $454 but rather by some 80 per cent over the base of the previous year. That would cost the Canadian Government a fair amount of money, but other decisions could be made. If we were seeing a genuine reform of the child benefit package which reflected and responded to the needs of Canadian families and at the same time we saw the kind of reform of the tax system which Governments should be carrying out to ensure that the Government has the resources needed to provide for Canadian needs and to give us the resources here in Parliament to meet those various needs, then there would not be the kind of crisis the Conservatives are always talking about. We could find the resources.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if we had had a really thorough minimum tax we would have raised more than enough money to cover the costs of the child tax credit which we had proposed with an 80 per cent increase in it. If we took the 1981 MacEachen Budget and the reductions in marginal rates for the wealthy Canadians and rolled those back, we would have more than $1 billion to use for the purposes of the child benefit package.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, after three o'clock the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) will have five minutes remaining for his debate plus a 10-minute period for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, up until October 18, 1929, your mother and mine, your grandmother and mine, and your great-aunts and mine did not know that they were not legal persons in this great land of ours. It took five courageous Albertan women to challenge the law all the way to London, England, to get an interpretation of the BNA. Only then were women in Canada declared persons in their own right. That was an historic and landmark decision which I salute today. However, women still remain disadvantaged in terms of income, social and employment benefits, and pensions. The Government has legislated a loss of economic rights for women through deindexation of family allowances,
discrimination in spousal allowances, and in the child tax credit. Equal sharing in pension benefits has not been achieved, and true employment equity will not be realized because there is no mandatory enforcement mechanism.
Just as those five women were not content with the way things were in 1929, we are not content in 1986. Women, speak out or your silence will be taken as acceptance or, worse still, satisfaction with the way things are.



NATIONAL LITERACY DAY


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was National Give the Gift of Literacy Day. This was the first occasion for the observance of a highly commendable initiative by Canada's private sector. The Canadian Book and Periodical Development Council has set a three-year goal to raise $400,000 to combat illiteracy across Canada. This is precisely the type of partnership and momentum in our society which our Government wishes to support. I personally am pleased that the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) will carry the lead federal role in this initiative.
An estimated four million Canadians lack the necessary reading and writing skills to take part in many activities which the majority of Canadians take for granted. I am confident that the Secretary of State will provide the national leadership needed on this issue to enhance public awareness, and launch joint ventures which can help overcome this silent but very pervasive barrier to citizen participation.



FINANCE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, Gaz Metropolitain today has been awarded first prize among all companies which pay no corporate taxes.
Indeed, through a series of tax measures implemented by the Liberals and the Conservatives, this company was given the right not to pay any corporate taxes for four years on profits of about $61.1 million.
Had Gaz Metropolitain been expected to pay even only 25 per cent of the corporate tax rate applicable to its profits, average Canadian men and women would have paid $15 million less in taxes.
May this first prize stand as a reminder to the Conservative Government that a major overhaul of the tax system is urgent and long overdue.
October 16, 1986



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government will be making every effort to promote small- and medium-sized companies throughout Canada during Small Business Week, October 19 to 25, whose theme is: Managing for Success.
The week's activities will be sponsored by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion in co-operation with the Federal Business Development Bank and other organizations such as Boards of Trade which will hold over 600 various events from coast to coast.
In recent years small business has led the way in terms of job creation in Canada. The Conservative Government is fully aware of the dynamic economic prospects of small business.
In his economic renewal statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stressed the need to promote the entrepreneurship and risk-taking spirit. Therefore I invite all businessmen to meet with officials of various federal departments who will make themselves available to provide information on Government services and programs.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) swore there would be no cuts in unemployment insurance benefits. So how does he reconcile that with what was said by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), who clearly indicated in the document that the Government saved $30 million on unemployment insurance benefits for pre-retirees?
Mr. Speaker, there are 50,000 Canadians whose unemployment insurance benefits have been cut following a decision by this Government.
And, Mr. Speaker, if this Government approves the Forget Report's recommendations, Quebec stands to lose $930 million; Newfoundland, $210 million; Prince Edward Island, $50 million; Nova Scotia, $130 million; New Brunswick, $230; Saskatchewan, $60 million; Alberta, $130 million and British Columbia, $430 million.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Conservative Members to wake up and force this Government to be fairer to unemployed Canadians.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak from this end of the House. The Throne Speech on October 1 renewed the Government's commitment to multiculturalism and the ethnic communities in Canada. The Government encourages the entrepreneurial spirit which characterizes our many minority communities which contribute so essentially to Canada's economic development. Any existing remnants of institutional barriers are being dismantled. This is indeed welcome news in my riding of Edmonton East with its large and varied ethnic communities.
We have taken a positive leadership role in opposing all forms of racism and discrimination. We will continue to recognize the great contribution made to Canada's social and economic fabric by our many different cultures. Mr. Speaker, multiculturalism has been and will continue to be a top priority of the Government.



APARTHEID


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Government of South Africa once again tried to protect apartheid by increasing its aggression against the front-line states of southern Africa. South Africa's firing of tens of thousands of Mozambiquans working in South Africa, on top of military attacks against Mozambique by forces mounted in South Africa, may well mean outright starvation for many in Mozambique.
Canada takes pride in being in the forefront of the struggle against apartheid. The Government was warned by CIDA in February and by the Human Rights Committee this summer of the need to prepare plans for helping the front-line states, including Mozambique.
I now call upon the Government to raise Mozambique immediately from the lowest CIDA category for bilateral aid to the highest category, to reinstate CIDA humanitarian and technical aid to the African National Congress, and to rally other like-minded Governments and multilateral organizations to co-ordinate a response to South African aggression.

October 16, 1986



THE JUDICIARY


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. Like all Canadians, the people of Newfoundland have a right to a fair and speedy trial, but at present a full 20 per cent of the positions on the Supreme Court of Newfoundland are vacant, including that of Chief Justice. This is the responsibility of the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and his delay is unacceptable.
One reason for the delay in filling the vacancies mentioned in the St. John's Sunday Express is that there is widespread opposition to the Minister's reported plan to appoint the present Minister of Energy of the Newfoundland Government to head the court. The Canadian Bar Association has come out very strongly against the appointment of active politicians to the bench and the Minister of Justice has expressed a willingness to accept their advice. The Minister should do his duty and make the necessary appointments.
This is not a hypothetical problem, Mr. Speaker. There is a backlog of cases before the Newfoundland Supreme Court which must be heard. There are 31 criminal cases and 365 civil cases awaiting hearing. With five judges missing, the Minister of Justice should be called on to do his duty or resign.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: "Button, button, who's got the button?" At the CBC though the game is "Million, million, who's got $57 million?" How can Pierre Juneau claim that the CBC has increased its operating efficiency when $57 million is unaccounted for? In the CBC annual report the Auditor General claimed, "I am unable to express an opinion as to whether these financial statements are presented fairly in accordance with acceptable accounting principles". Is that good conduct, Mr. Juneau? I think not. The Auditor General went on to say, "In my opinion the Corporation did not maintain proper books of accounts". Is that good conduct, Mr. Juneau? I think not.
Can you imagine if a Minister of the Crown were to come before Parliament with $57 million unaccounted for?
As a member of the Communications and Culture Committee I call upon the Minister to suspend Pierre Juneau immediately from his duties until this blatant incompetence is fully examined by the Public Accounts Committee.



NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, just two weeks after the big talk in the Throne Speech about the need for new initiatives in the area of research and development, the Conservative Government has announced yet another round of budget cut-backs to the flagship of scientific research in Canada, the National Research Council.
These drastic new cuts to the NRC budget will cost the agency over $20 million and eliminate up to 200 jobs. Irreplaceable research programs will once again be lost to Canada, including the very photochemistry and kinetics laboratory where Professor John Polanyi began his Nobel Prize winning work. Jobs and astrophysic research in an institute named after another Canadian Nobel Prize winner, Gerhardt Herzberg, will also be cut.
Since the Conservatives came to power, the National Research Council has been forced to endure a reduction of almost one-quarter of its budget and almost one-sixth of its workforce. Many of the most highly skilled scientists, technicians, laboratory assistants and support staff who have lost their jobs are my constituents. I can tell you that they are demoralized and disgusted with the Government's approach to research and science policy. It is no wonder that Canada is losing its scientific talent and intellectual resources to other countries.
When the Conservatives announced that they would double their spending on research and development in Canada, little did we dream that they would be cutting it instead in this dastardly way.



AWARDS AND DECORATIONS


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, many retired firefighters across Canada are being discriminated against by their exclusion from the list of eligible candidates for the Fire Services Exemplary Service Medal.
The criteria for this honour stipulate that firefighters who have been on a force on or after August 29, 1985, with 20 years service, are eligible. Therefore a firefighter who retired on August 28, 1985, does not meet the eligibility requirements as outlined by the Chancellery of Canadian Orders and Decorations.
My concern is for those firefighters who served not only for many years before August 29, 1985, but for those who displayed exemplary qualities of leadership and selflessness,
October 16, 1986

who should not be discriminated against because of age or date of retirement. Therefore I urge the Government to remove the August 29, 1985, eligibility deadline for the Fire Services Medal so that as many as 5,000 retired firefighters can be considered for this national honour.



EDUCATION


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, with universities and colleges in Toronto closed down in protest by administrators, faculty, and students alike, our national Liberal task force is going across Canada for the next three weeks to pinpoint immediate steps the federal Government could take to rectify the grave crisis in the field of postsecondary education.
Why has the Government changed those individuals responsible for post-secondary education twice over the past two years? We now have our third Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie), and our third Deputy Minister. Is it because they were all incompetent, or was it because those Ministers and Deputy Ministers were embarrassed by the Government's betrayal of our youth and our country's future?
Does the Government have anything creative to offer to the more than one million students and teachers in our colleges and universities other than cuts to the transfer payments formula, a freeze on the level of student loans, and proposing to call yet another conference to stall off federal action?



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, a former New Democratic Member, Mr. Anguish, stated in the House on December 15, 1982, that a Member's frank must be used:
-in a way that upholds the honour of this institution. This is not accomplished if Members use their privilege as Members of Parliament, especially with regard to franking of correspondence, to send correspondence which has a political leaning or nature to it.
As usual, the New Democratic Party speaks from both sides of its mouth when just such an abuse is being committed by NDP Members from Skeena (Mr. Fulton), New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), Cowichin-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), and Vancouver- Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). They have all signed a blatantly political B. C. election campaign letter on House of Commons
stationery and mass mailed it, postage free, to British Columbia.



VIA RAIL


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday morning I had the opportunity to meet over a thousand workers at the Can Car rail plant in Thunder Bay. They are members of the Canadian Auto Workers and the Office and Professional Employees International Union. They asked me to send a message to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). They believe that it is important that Canada, as a nation, replace its existing VIA Rail transcontinental passenger cars with new ultramodern double-deck equipment. They believe that a revitalized VIA is essential to the Canadian economy.
They also know that their jobs depend on VIA getting the funds in order that that contract for double-decker cars can be placed. Eleven hundred jobs at Can Car in Thunder Bay, along with jobs for Bombardier, depend on the Government ensuring that VIA has the necessary funds to replace its rolling stock.
I call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and his cabinet colleagues to announce immediately they will provide the necessary funds for this project.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the reported recommendations which are contained in the Forget Commission Report. We have information which proves conclusively that the Government of Canada is participating with this particular Commission in trying to take moneys away from the very people who are in desperate need. That is typical of the policy and ideology of the Party opposite which is simply that there is no room in this country for weak regions, weak businesses and, more particularly, weak individuals who, through no fault of their own, cannot find any employment.
The recommendations contained in the Forget Commission Report would see $210 million dumped out of Newfoundland's economy, $50 million from Prince Edward Island, $130 million from Nova Scotia, $230 million from New Brunswick, $930 million from Quebec, $60 million from Saskatchewan, and $430 million from British Columbia.

October 16, 1986
Oral Questions
The unemployed do not need a signal from the Government of Canada which tells them it wants to take away their last and only hope of survival. What the unemployed and the weak people need is assurances from the Government that it will come forth with a job strategy program which will provide opportunities for them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has gone overboard in its admiration for the Diefenbaker Government. It is now trying to repeat the Avro Arrow disaster.
The President of the National Research Council of Canada said yesterday that the latest cut-backs at the Council were regrettable, tragic and worse.
My question is as follows: How can the Minister justify cut-backs that according to the President of the Council are regrettable, tragic and a threat to Canada's economic future?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would help if I told the Hon. Member that in the Speech from the Throne there is an announcement of $1 billion of new money going into university research. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into provincial subagreements to strengthen regional capabilities in the new industrial sector. There is $800 million going into the space program which led the President of the NRC to say: "We are presently engaged in building up new programs for which the Government has provided new resources", one of these being biotechnology and one being a space program, 40 per cent of which will be allocated to the NRC. That is what-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has a lot of nerve to say that, when the President of the National Research Council has called these cuts "tragic".


LABORATORY WORK
David Berger: The internationally recognized member of the Order of Canada, Dr. Basinski, said yesterday when his position was slashed: "It is easy to wreck a lab. It is extremely difficult and takes decades to build one up again". If it takes a generation to repair the damage that the Minister is inflicting on the Council, why is he destroying these research teams? No more Avro Arrows!


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, there is no destruction of any research teams.


Mr. Axworthy:: You can say that with a straight face? Get serious. Shame on you.


Frank Oberle: With respect to the specific person the Hon. Member mentioned, his information is once again false. We make no apologies. There are no cuts. There are reallocations and reassignments in line with new priorities. We are going into the 21st century; that is what we are doing.


An Hon. Member:: You know that's not true.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, if the Nobel Prize winner, Dr. John Polanyi, was starting his career today and turned up at the door of the NRC, it would be slammed in his face because the Minister would have closed the lab at the time he began his career. Why has the Minister slammed the door on future Canadian Nobel Prize winners?


An Hon. Member:: Because he doesn't know any better.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member mentioned Professor Polanyi of whom we are all so proud. Professor Polanyi is a recipient of precisely the money I mentioned, the $1 billion which is going into university research, because that is where he worked.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, come on. Don't give us that nonsense.


Frank Oberle: And he was the recipient of $1.5 million.


Mr. Caccia:: Sit down.


Frank Oberle: That is what resulted in his Nobel Prize.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are an embarrassment.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMPETITIVENESS OF CANADIAN INDUSTRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. His own election promises of 1984, the policies of our trading partners and particularly the United States which spends double what we do on research and development, and the comments of the very distinguished President of the National Research Council have all indicated that Canada needs to do more and spend more on research and development. Why is the Minister jeopardizing the competitiveness of Canadian industry with his broken promises and the cut-backs that occurred yesterday?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, not only do I agree with the Hon.
October 16, 1986

Member that we must spend more but I also announced that we are spending more: $1 billion over the next five years into universities, hundreds of millions of dollars into the provinces, $800 million to get us to the new frontier. These people might want to torque around in the 19th century but we are looking to the 21st century.


INDUSTRIAL SUPPORT PROGRAM
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister would not want to mislead the Eiouse. Pursuant to the Minister's own estimates for the National Research Council of Canada, $34 million will be cut in this fiscal year from direct support for industrial innovation and development. Will the Minister tell the House why these cut-backs which will jeopardize Canadian industry are being made? Do not be speaking out of both sides of your mouth.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the reallocations being undertaken by the NRC were announced yesterday. There are no reallocations to the Industrial Support Program.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF FUNDING
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the same Minister. The Nobel Prize given to Dr. Polanyi yesterday indicated the respect the international scientific community has for the work of Canadian scientists. The same day, the Government negated that achievement by cutting many of the basic research programs conducted by the National Research Council. Today will the Government recognize the achievement of Dr. Polanyi and many others at the NRC by restoring the very small amount necessary, some $20 million per year, so that future Canadian researchers will have the same opportunities Dr. Polanyi had?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Polanyi has not been associated with the National Research Council for some time. He is a professor at the University of Toronto. I just reiterated what was in the Throne Speech. There is a strengthening of our university research capability which must be linked with the training and teaching of highly qualified personnel to the tune of $1 billion.


BASIC RESEARCH FUNDING
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Polanyi is a long-term critic of efforts on the part of Canadian Governments in the field of scientific research. In 1976 he said:
Wc are in the process of forcing mediocrity on our established researchers, while denying even that dubious privilege to our aspiring scientists.
Does the Minister agree with Dr. Polanyi's concerns about funding basic research, and if so, what plans does the Government have to redress the disaster dealt to the NRC?
Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do support Dr. Polanyi's assertion that we do have to spend more money. That is why I announced more money for university research. The students who have worked with Dr. Polanyi throughout all these years would certainly not agree that there is mediocrity in their university.


SCIENTISTS EMPLOYED BY COUNCIL
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, what explanation is the Minister prepared to offer to the many scientists who have worked for the NRC for 20 or 30 years, who have gained national or international recognition for their work, and who have been told in the last day or two that their employment has been terminated? Is that the kind of thanks this country will give to those talented people?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, first I am pleased that the Hon. Member has given me the chance to say that their employment has not been terminated and perhaps to ask him why he would insist on destroying the morale of the finest institution we have in this country.


GOVERNMENT'S PRIORITIES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
The reallocation of funds referred to by the Minister is proceeding on the basis of some very strange priorities.
Dr. Lark Kerwin tells us that projects in the medical field will be cut, and this includes, for instance, research on the preservation of blood plasma. And meanwhile, the Government wants to support U.S. space projects.
I would like to ask the Minister where this Government's priorities lie. Should the health of Canadians come first, or should we support U.S. space projects? Where are this Government's priorities?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, just to put the record straight, I will quote Dr. Kerwin who said: "We are still Canada's largest and strongest general purpose research agency and do intend to go on into a period of expansion".
[ Translation]


CUT BACKS IN TOXICOLOGY RESEARCH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, among the areas that unfortunately will suffer cut-backs, we find the ecotoxicology section at the National Research

October 16, 1986
Oral Questions
Council, which tells Canadians how they can combat the toxicity of pollutants.
I want to ask why a Government that says it is trying to fight pollution has decided to axe the toxicology section at the National Research Council. Is that an acceptable priority?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the chance to examine in detail the reallocations that were made. I wish to take this opportunity to assure the House that there will be no injury to public health, to public safety, or to the environment. If the programs from which the reallocations are intended to come are not already carried out in another Department of the Government or in a university, I shall not be signing the Estimates which have to be produced for next year.


SCIENTISTS' POSITION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Would he tell us who among the NRC, the Science Council, representatives of any scientific organization in the country, any industrial scientists, or any of the hundreds of academic scientists who have written to him and various Members of the House, recommended the savaging of the NRC for space research or any of the other hare-brained cuts or reallocations in scientific research support the Government has perpetrated?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I could cite hundreds of examples, letters, and recommendations which I have received from all the associations to which the Hon. Member referred, telling me of the need to readjust our priorities, to ensure that we have the necessary highly qualified personnel, to ensure that we are in a position to cope with the new society in terms of strategic technologies which underpin our industrial capacity, and to ensure that we are in a position to stay in the fast current which will lead us into the next century. That is what these people are telling me.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister has not answered my question. Perhaps he can answer the following one. For a Government for which trust is a problem, how does it expect scientists whose advice has already been ignored to believe now that they will have any impact at all upon government policy by participation in the so-called four point program to strengthen science announced in the Throne Speech?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech is quite explicit. If there is one area where the Government has identified a clear priority, it is in the area of research and development and science related activities. This is why we have identified $1 billion of new money for university funding, and this is why we
have attempted through industrial subagreements to allay regional disparity through science and technology and all other programs inherent in the Throne Speech.


ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTROCHEMICAL RESEARCH CENTRE IN MAURICIE
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. My region of central Mauricie is recognized as one of the cradles of the electrochemical and electrometallurgical industry in Canada.
Following the 1984 election, the Government announced that an electrochemical research centre, planned for central Mauricie, would not be built, but that it was negotiating the conclusion, the content and the administration of an agreement for a research program with the IREQ. Since then, nothing.
In view of the importance of this research centre for the economic recovery of our region, could the Minister tell us what he is planning to do to expedite these negotiations? Will he have the guts to reconsider his decision and decide to build a centre separate from that of the IREQ, as suggested and wished for by the NRC?
Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and
Technology): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his first question in the House. The project to which he is referring has nothing to do with any involvement of the National Research Council but would come about as a result of the subagreement we have with Quebec. Let me tell the Hon. Member that there is perhaps a greater sensitivity in the Province of Quebec for science and technology, and that is why we have a $100 million science and technology subagreement with that province. I will do whatever I can to examine the Hon. Member's concern.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN IREQ AND HYDRO-QUEBEC
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he could indicate the terms of the agreement between the IREQ and Quebec Hydro concerning the centre and the possibility for NRC people to do research at the IREQ centre?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the initiative has come from the Province of Quebec. Question Period would not lend itself to permit me to give the Hon. Member every detail of the initiative, but I will undertake to procure it and communicate it to him in another fashion.
October 16, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Prime Minister two weeks ago announced that there would be $1 billion for grain farmers across Canada. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm, as farm groups have told us today, that the federal Government has no specific proposals to make to the farm groups that are meeting with the various Ministers this afternoon?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister and what the Minister of Agriculture have said in this House on previous occasions, namely, that a meeting was held with the provincial Deputy Ministers of Agriculture. Today, I believe, a meeting is being held with representatives of farm organizations.
This Government does not choose to outline its programs in a unilateral manner but seeks co-operation and the goodwill of the producing community and the provinces to put together the best and the biggest farm aid package ever put together in the history of this country.


REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. This is not a new problem. The problem the grain farmers face has been known for many, many months. Why is it that the Government does not have any specific proposal? Why after all this time are there not specific proposals about which these farm groups can be consulted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Hon. Member does not pay attention to what goes on in the agricultural community because on August 27 the federal Minister of Agriculture and his provincial counterparts did meet to lay out a strategy for assistance to those producer groups affected by the price war in commodities, namely, grain and other commodities affected in the international marketplace. That is precisely what is going on. At that time a figure of around a billion dollars was outlined. This Government has responded indicating a willingness to support the farmers of Canada to the order of approximately a billion dollars. The details are now being worked out.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The banks got better treatment than that.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the changes to the unemployment insurance system recommended by the Forget Commission.
Can the Minister tell us whether he was informed at his meetings with Mr. Forget that the Government should reduce its expenditures by $2.37 billion on the backs of seasonal, temporary and part-time workers who work less than six months a year?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as he did yesterday and the day before, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has referred to the recommendations of the Forget report. I have to tell him that, when the Government establishes a Royal Commission, it must then wait for the Commission to table its report officially. It will do so on November 30, 1986.


POSSIBILITY OF MAKING CUT-BACKS IN RELATION TO CERTAIN GROUPS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister learn in his two meetings with Mr. Forget that, according to the recommendations of the Commission, the Government should take away 40 per cent from the group of workers with an income under $200 a week while the cut-back will be 22 per cent for those with a weekly income over $400. Is the Minister aware of that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that it is wrong to quote what a report might say to try to put fear into the minds of Canadians. This is an example of such a practice.


COMMISSION'S REPORT
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, a Minister who wants us to believe that he hears no evil, sees no evil, and refuses to speak evil of the recommendations of the Forget Commission.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Does the Minister not realize that he can no longer ignore those recommendations simply because the final report has not been presented to the Government? Is he prepared to respond fully if I provide him today with yet another detailed oral briefing on the contents of the report?


An Hon. Member:: Are you the commissioner?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have got the report.

October 16, 1986
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, when I last heard about it, the Chairman of the Commission was Mr. Forget and not the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


EFFECT OF POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I am not the chairman, otherwise the report would be radically different. Will the Minister not agree that the contents of this table that come straight out of the report, which I am sending to the Minister along with the minutes of the meeting of the Commission at the end of August, indicate clearly that the Commission's recommendations will damn Canada's poorest citizens to a life of increased welfare dependence? The Minister now has those tables in front of him.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to certain documents, but I do not know where he got them. As all the Members of this House who have much more experience than either the Hon. Member or myself will agree, when a Government asks a Royal Commission to table a report, the Government must then await reception of this report before commenting how it will be applied, whatever the Opposition may say. This is what I am trying to do.


FINANCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, given the final report of the Royal Society on lead in the environment, and given the report's confirmation of the need to get lead out of the environment as soon as possible, could the Minister of Finance consider in his next Budget, if not sooner, equalizing the taxes on leaded and unleaded gasoline so that there would at least be no encouragement to Canadians to use leaded gasoline over unleaded gasoline?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of the Environment that the Commission, having released its report, endorses the Minister's decision to eliminate leaded gasoline by December, 1992. That objective still remains the objective of the Minister and this Government.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Minister had paid attention to the conference this morning he would have noticed that Dr. Hare said he stood by the Royal Society's original recommendation that the switchover be made by 1990 and not 1992. The Minister, however, has not answered my question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Government, whether it sticks to 1992 or not, consider in the meantime equalizing the taxes on leaded and unleaded gasoline so that there is no encouragement to Canadians to use leaded gasoline over unleaded gasoline? That is a question for the Minister of Finance and one that he can answer.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be advised by the Hon. Member what questions I can or cannot answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: What I can say to him is, yes, we have reviewed that recommendation. We tried to see whether there was a possibility of putting it into the last Budget, but we were advised by experts on this particular question that it would not have had any major effect at all on the production of leaded gasoline. For that reason we decided against doing so.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is the use of it.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is a very serious question. Yesterday the Minister told the House "no information was kept secret" about the huge lawsuits the Government could face from de Havilland's secret Texas deals. How does the Minister explain that there is no mention whatsoever in committee records of these lawsuits for false dealings when the previous Minister had full knowledge of them for six months?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my friend did not do his homework yesterday so I will do it for him today. On January 28, 1986, my colleague, the former Minister said: "As you can see, we have narrowed down the Government's ongoing obligation to something exceeding $500 million, compared to the $1.5 billion I indicated was our ongoing obligation at the present time." Once again, Mr. Speaker, this Government dealt appropriately with the matter.
October 16, 1986


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, once again this Government is just not being upfront with the Canadian people. I have in front of me the document to which the Minister refers. Why has he attempted to persuade the Canadian people that this outline of liabilities, which is very precise and has nothing to do with the possible lawsuits 1 have talked about, has any relevance with respect to this question? The points on this document do not deal with this issue.


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, we did not have to persuade Canadians of the necessity of selling this company. It had already lost $1.2 billion. We dealt with a company which provided technology in Canada. We made sure that the jobs here were secure. That is exactly what Canadians expect us to do and that is what we did.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Communications with whom, incidentally, I and six other Members were first elected eight years ago today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Last year the CBC spent $57 million which it cannot account for. Can the Minister guarantee to the House that none of this money was misappropriated or, indeed, stolen?


Hon. David Crombie (Acting Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications is out of the House on business. The Hon. Member may or may not be aware that the Auditor General is continuing to work with the CBC to reconcile the differences. I also gather that the CBC has established a task force with respect to this matter. It may well be that the Hon. Member may want to raise the question with the Minister when she returns on Monday.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Multiculturalism and concerns a
Oral Questions
confidential report written by the Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council and addressed to his Government. It says that all council members are committed supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada, reflect advice from a selection of the Government's principal supporters, and are committed to the Government's survival beyond the next election.
Why has the Minister's Government changed the mandate of this national advisory body and given it over $350,000 in public funds to safeguard and satisfy the political interests of the Conservative Party of Canada?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I guess a couple of points are probably in order. First, I have not had a chance to read the report. Secondly, the Hon. Member will appreciate that this is something which his Party established two years ago and we are simply carrying on the mandate.
I met with the executive committee of the council and will be meeting with the full council at the end of the month. In my meeting with the executive committee they did not raise the report. I have no idea whether these people are Conservatives, Liberals, or New Democrats. If the Hon. Member says they are, he might want to ask them because some of those people-


Sergio Marchi: Your Vice-Chairman says they are.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York West.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF COUNCIL'S VICE-CHAIRMAN
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if the Government wants partisan advice-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Sergio Marchi: -the Conservative Party should pay for it, not the taxpayers of Canada.
Will the Minister put an immediate end to the scandalous manipulation of the multicultural program and begin by asking for the immediate resignation of the Council's ViceChairman, and initiate an immediate investigation into the affairs of that council?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, members of that committee were chosen two years ago on the basis of their knowledge of their community and their willingness to make a contribution to this country. The Hon. Member may want to impugn their integrity but he ought to be careful before he does. That is why I say to him that he should remember that their contribution is to this country and they should not be asked to contribute to the Hon. Member's politics.

October 16, 1986
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the post office. Right now the post office is in the process of taking 700 mailboxes off the streets of Toronto. How can the Minister square this reduction with his often-stated intention of improving service at the post office?
[ Translation]


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have said on several occasions that Canada Post officials must administer their appropriations as efficiently as possible and constantly monitor deliveries to make sure they offer the best service at the lowest cost possible. This is their commitment. Corporate decisions are made and we intend to abide by them.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE PRIORITY TO NEED FOR SERVICES
Cyril Keeper: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What is the Minister's rationale for concluding that savings due to the smaller number of mailboxes will exceed the revenue loss resulting from more service delays? Is cost his only consideration? Why not consider the need to provide services?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think I just answered this question as well. I am saying that Canada Post must try to provide the best service possible at the lowest cost. It constantly monitors services to achieve this goal.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Again it has to do with the matter of patronage on the part of the Conservative Government. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the fact that one-third of the applicants selected among those who submitted resumes to our human rights committee indicated that one of the major reasons why they were chosen is that they belong to the Progressive Conservative Party? For instance, does he agree with Mrs. Marie-Therese Landry who stated in her summary: We had good years, Mr. Leon Balcer was Minister of Transport in the Diefenbaker Government. Is this the way applicants are selected-


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the appointments which the Hon. Member impugns are appointments to the Human Rights Tribunal where the
Government's role is to appoint members representing a crosssection of Canadian society. I do not know if any of them happen to have an allegiance to the PC Party, but surely if one-third of them did, that would not be too high. Even in the present polls, one-third of the Canadian public support us. By the time of the next election it will be two-thirds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


APPOINTEE'S QUALIFICATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is not only we in the Opposition who disagree, it is human rights advocates across this country who realize it has been turned into a mockery.
Does the Minister believe that the qualifications listed, like those of Mr. S. Charles Facey-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -who lists among the reasons for his appointment the fact that he contributed to the Robert Coates defence fund, does that make him a good government representative on the Human Rights Tribunal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Hon. Member does not think that Conservatives have any human rights or any interest in human rights. She is completely wrong. Why does she impugn Goldie Hershon of Quebec, Maria Teresa Domaradzki of Quebec, Peter L. Bortolussi of Ontario, Jenny C. Wong of British Columbia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: -and Ronald Lou-Poy of British Columbia with these attacks on their merits and qualifications to accept these posts which are voluntary and which will help the people of Canada? It is a dastardly attack on these good people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Auditor General of Canada announced that $57 million had disappeared into thin air. No one knows what it was used for. If this had happened in a public company whose shares are traded on the stock exchange, an investigation would have been ordered right away and the books seized. This is happening at a Crown corporation. Is the Secretary of State, who today is replacing the Minister of Communications, prepared to make a commitment to immediately suspend the President of the CBC and place the CBC Board of Directors under
I:

October 16, 1986

trusteeship, pending an appropriate and urgently needed inquiry?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the primary interest of the Government is to ensure that the financial situation is cleared up. The Hon. Member may want to make his representation with regard to personnel directly to the Minister.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION ORDERING REIMBURSEMENT OF BELL CANADA SUBSCRIBERS-THREAT OF APPEAL
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications I will direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Bell Canada has threatened to retaliate against consumers, its own telephone subscribers, as a result of the CRTC decision. Will the Minister tell us what action the Government will take to protect consumers if Bell Canada follows through with this threat?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that question most probably should be directed to the Minister of Communications who is responsible for the CRTC which, in turn, is responsible to ensure that consumers of telephone services are protected from any such action.


TELEPHONE CHARGE ROLLBACKS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a supplementary question to the same Minister who does have responsibility for consumer affairs. Will the Government at least undertake not to cancel the rollbacks in telephone charges which the CRTC announced, irrespective of whether Bell Canada appeals to the courts? Will the Government at least undertake that it will not cancel the decision made by the CRTC on Tuesday?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member will allow due process to proceed. It would be most improper to decide the matter in advance of an appeal to the courts. That would be to say, in effect, that we do not care what the courts do with this appeal, that we will make our judgment regardless. I do not think that would be responsible on our part. I can assure you that I share concerns for consumers which are at least as genuine as those of the Hon. Member.
Oral Questions BANKS AND BANKING


TAKEOVER OF CONTINENTAL BANK
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance and concerns the takeover of the Continental Bank by British-owned Lloyd's Bank by a method which avoided the need for parliamentary approval. Since the Government was involved in all the negotiations will the Minister tell the House if he advised the bank to bypass Parliament?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that Lloyd's is a world-class bank. It has substantial resources and has the intention to pay off the Bank of Canada. All of this was very good news for the people of Canada. I will be explaining, as much as I can, the point of view of the Government in the committee which will be reviewing this issue in a couple of weeks.


REPAYMENT OF BANK OF CANADA ADVANCES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, although the purchase agreement calls for repayment in full of Bank of Canada advances of $2.5 billion on the closing date, October 31, a bank spokesman has said that in fact paper will be issued on October 31 to pay off the amount in the next few months. Did the Minister approve this arrangement?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the fashion in which the line of credit with the Bank of Canada will be paid back is subject to negotiation. It will be decided in the next few weeks.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. There is a report in the press today that the Government has approved the lowering of the percentage of Francophones for the RCMP. Is that allegation correct?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the House that today's newspaper reports do not in any way reflect a Government decision. Apparently, there was some discussion on the subject among officials, but the circular issued by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police certainly did not have the approval of Treasury Board.

October 16, 1986
Oral Questions


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in a letter to the Cree of Quebec, stated last week that it could not make the final payment due under the Cree-Neskapi Act giving as justification the fact that Supplementary Estimates have not been passed and that another agreement had used up existing funds.
Is it satisfactory to the President of the Treasury Board that signed legal agreements of the Government of Canada are allowed to be dependent upon the passing of Supplementary Estimates?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for having sent me notice of the substance of his question a few minutes ago. I would be very happy to look into the allegations and discuss them with my colleague, the Minister responsible, and I will endeavour to have an answer for the Member in the very near future.


GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATIONS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, is the President of the Treasury Board considering the institution of a unit which will ensure that all signed legal agreements of the Government of Canada are paid when due, in full and on time?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very well known that this Government, the only Government for which I can speak, has always respected its engagements and will continue to do so.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the matter of the RCMP and direct my question to the Solicitor General, the responsible Minister.
In a publication called Pony Express, it was made very clear that the RCMP has adopted a policy of reducing the number of Francophones within the corps.
Was the Government consulted? Did it give instructions to the RCMP about this policy to reduce the percentage of Francophones from 20 to 14 per cent?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, there were some discussions between officials of the RCMP and officials of Treasury Board. The circular to which the Hon. Member referred appeared following these discussions, discussions that never received the approval of the Treasury Board or Cabinet. It is to be regretted that the directive was issued, but it is certainly not Government policy.


POLICY RELATING TO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I can therefore assume that the Government rejects the document and that the present 20 per cent will be maintained.
Could I ask the Solicitor General who can use his executive powers to inform the RCMP that we have no inclination of starting discussions of this kind at a time when a review of the official languages policy is imminent?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act in the Public Service, I can inform the Hon. Member that we review the proposals from each department, which must be submitted to Treasury Board and approved by Treasury Board before being approved as Government policy. And that is exactly what is going to be done in this case. The same procedure will be followed.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Friday last the NDP asked if the Government was giving up on prairie grain farming through a LIFT type program. In the meantime the NDP leader in Saskatchewan was quoted as saying, "If we were far-sighted and able to do it, we would be taking land out of production".
Would the Deputy Prime Minister leave the land in production as requested by the Member for Yorkton- Melville, or would he take it out of production as requested by Mr. Blakeney?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for being very observant. That is a very incisive question. It is certainly the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan, and Mr. Blakeney in particular, that has talked about taking land out of production, land banks, and government ownership of land. We in this Party choose to support the production efforts of farmers and that is what we are in the process of doing.
October 16, 1986


VIA RAIL
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Canadians have been waiting for years through two Governments to hear whether we are going to get replacements for the ancient VIA Rail rolling stock. Can the Minister advise this House whether he has finally obtained funds from Cabinet for the replacement of that VIA Rail stock?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a similar question the other day by the transportation critic for the hon. gentleman's Party. I gave him a succinct and, if I might say so, brilliant answer at that time.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister can advise us and all the people of Canada exactly when a decision will be made, or do we have to go through this like a long-running epic which is years in the making and costs billions?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have that matter before my confreres now and, before too many suns or moons have passed, I hope to have an answer for the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre. One question, please.


THE JUDICIARY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Justice. What possible excuse is there for allowing a 20 per cent vacancy in the Supreme Court in Newfoundland? The Government should be appointing judges because 20 per cent of the spaces are vacant. There is a backlog of cases. What is the excuse for that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the backlog of cases has nothing to do with any shortage of judges. Newfoundland amended its legislation in the past year to require the appointment of three more persons to the Court of Appeal. The present Court of Appeal already has four and is in perfect order to function. Newfoundland passed legislation to provide for two more District Court judges. They have now been amalgamated with the Supreme Court. There is no emergency at the moment with respect to the number of judges in Newfoundland and we are considering, long and well, who we appoint to ensure that people of the highest quality are appointed to those positions.
Privilege-Mr. Lewis PRIVILEGE


QUESTION PERIOD-ALLEGED PRACTICE OF IMPUTING MOTIVES AND CASTING ASPERSIONS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise on a brief question of privilege. I noted in the media this morning that Members of Parliament on all sides of the House are approaching Question Period on a different basis and I think we are providing a better product and, for the Opposition and the Government, a better Question Period.
There were certain aspects of Question Period today which caused me concern and I want to raise a brief question of privilege so that you might take the time to review the "blues" and see if you are in agreement with my point.
I am concerned about offences against Beauchesne Citation 359(7) with respect to Members of Parliament imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it. I am speaking specifically with respect to appointments to the Human Rights Commission. The Government has taken great strides, with the co-operation of the Opposition, to make sure that appointments are reviewed by standing committees of Parliament. It does this House no good and does the appointees no good to have their reputations slandered in the House by Members, whether inadvertently or not. I would ask you to review that citation in Beauchesne and take what happened today into account.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention, and particularly to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), that Citation 359 in Beauchesne are only the guidelines that were set down some ten years ago by a previous Speaker who described to the House how that Speaker would use his discretion during Question Period. These guidelines have been superseded by others, most recently the guidelines set down by the previous Speaker, the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley).
I suggest, with the utmost respect, that Citation 359 is not a citation that is binding on the House or on Mr. Speaker. In any event, whatever this citation says, the kinds of questions about which the Parliamentary Secretary complains were asked over and over again, without complaint, by his own Members when they were in opposition.
I repeat what I said before, when we saw an attempt by the Government to impugn the efforts of the current Speaker to do his duty, that it does not sit well for Members on the government side to make this kind of comment when they refused to follow this course of action when they were in opposition.
The facts speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I leave this matter in your hands.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I believe in keeping with the attempt to reform the House of Commons, that these issues should not be brought up at the end of

October 16, 1986
Business of the House
Question Period. I think there has been an honest attempt by all Parties in the House to try to resolve these differences. Question Period has been going much smoother. In future, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would bring these issues to the opposition Parties, if he has any legitimate concerns.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis), the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) for their interventions. Of course, I will review the "blues" and report back to the House when it is appropriate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the customary question of the Government House Leader as to the business he intends to call for the balance of the week, which I trust will not contain the kinds of questionable points of order raised by his Parliamentary Secretary today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member might find a point of order about the order of business which he can raise if he so wishes.
Today we will be continuing with Bill C-ll, as well as tomorrow. There seems to be much interest in this Bill. It is very popular and we will continue with it.
On Monday we will proceed with Bill C-ll if it is not completed. Once completed, it will be followed by Bill C-4 standing in the name of the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald). If time permits, we will call Bill C-2 in the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
On Tuesday we propose to introduce second reading of the Bill standing in the name of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) concerning the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
I expect that Wednesday will be designated as an allotted day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-ll, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act,
be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) has the floor. I want to advise the House and the Hon. Member that he has five minutes remaining in his speech.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, in my final comments on Bill C-11 I want to address the need for substantial action in the area of family benefits. The decision to prepay the child tax credit partially has been generally supported in the House, including myself. However, there are aspects of the child tax credit which, in future, will all too much resemble many other government programs, specifically the partial indexing of the cost of living after 1989. It resembles the gradual decreasing value of the family allowance which was deindexed last year and has the effect of gradually reducing the amount of real income for people for supporting their families. As well, the expenses which families must pay are not only affected by the normal inflationary aspect which tends to prevail in the business community, which is used to match costs and increase the profits of enterprises; they are affected by the various tax changes imposed by Government.
I focus particularly on the increase in sales taxes which the Conservative Government has, in several steps, increased very much. I think of the tax on construction materials which was increased by a percentage point, increased once more to 7 per cent in the fall of 1984, with an additional percentage point being put on. In this respect, we are seeing a 50 per cent increase in taxes.
While it is true that an increase of two or three percentage points on higher taxes is proportionately less, the cumulative effect of these sales and excise taxes is increased costs which are borne by all, including the poorest families in the middle range of income and the wealthy. Of course, it is the poorest and those in the middle-income range who experience the effects of these taxes most seriously. Their incomes are smaller and they must pay as much per purchase as someone with a far larger income. These various effects have been recognized by the Government in part because there was a provision in last spring's Budget, which we shall be legislating one of these days, for a refundable sales tax credit. That offsets it to some extent, but the fact remains that families in the middle range of income, average Canadians, are paying more for less as these taxes take effect. They find the refundable sales tax credit and the child tax credit doing very little, if anything, for them.
What is most serious is that there are more and more Canadians who find themselves in those situations. The skilled workers in Collingwood who lost their jobs with the closure of the Collingwood shipyard a month ago are sad examples of those Canadians who had good incomes and did not have to
October 16, 1986

worry too much about these increases but who found themselves, when pushed out of work, looking for jobs in Lord knows what areas. The difficulty employers have finding employees in retail and service areas must surely be because the kinds of incomes people earn there are simply not adequate. That is where the decision of the Government to put some money towards the neediest does nothing for these people. They are paying money in taxes, losing income and seeing no effort on the part of the Government to offset that. There is the challenge to the Government to do something far beyond a prepayment of the child tax credit to ensure that families have the kinds of incomes they need.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member, since 1 know his personal commitment to the health of families and family benefits-and if we extend the money paid, we have to find a way of paying for the extra expense-if he has any suggestions from the point of view of tax reform or any other measures which would justify the Government giving more priority to support for families?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), whose dedication to the cause of families and concern that their needs are met is highest of all in our caucus and, I believe, in this House.
The answer to what could be done in the way of tax reform to provide the resources to meet those needs is very important. A cartoon was published in the daily paper in Thunder Bay on Tuesday. It probably ran in other papers as well. It portrays two bedraggled men talking. One is tempted to use other terms given the stereotypes suggested in the cartoon. However, one bedraggled man is saying to the other: "The thing that really worries me is that the national finances are in even worse shape than we are". In that particular cartoon is one of the deadliest suggestions which could be made about our national social and economic policy.
The decisions of Governments in years past to use various tax inducements in order to produce prosperity has clearly not worked. The result of all those tax breaks has been an increase in deficit to a very significant amount. That high level of deficit, of course, is the utter preoccupation of the Minister of Finance whose review of social programs is surely designed to do one thing, and that is, to reduce the amount which actually goes out.
It is imperative that we have tax reform which ensures the tax system is fair, and that means ultimately achieving a far better balance between individuals paying income, sales and excise taxes and other sources of revenue. It is clear from statistics on corporate profit-making that there are very successful enterprises which do nothing to support the Government directly in maintaining social programs. That is the imperative need.
The Speech from the Throne talks about achieving a better balance between personal income and other taxes. I am really concerned that what we are going to see is an increased
Income Tax Act
burden, or at least no lightening of the burden on individuals, because there will be a business transfer tax, I fear, used to replace the existing sales taxes. That will be used to reduce the income tax somewhat, but what that will do is to make the tax system even more regressive, even worse for the low and middle-income range income earners. The result will be no improvement at all. It would be a worsening of their lot.
What we need is a return to the progressive principle applied to both corporate and personal income taxes in order to ensure that the Government is taxing fairly and has the resources it requires. Having done that, we would then have the resources to maintain social programs and to bring child benefits up to the level at which they should be.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no further questions and comments, I will recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes).


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be recognized today as the Parliamentary Secretary. Thank you. It also gives me a great deal of pleasure to participate in this very important debate on Bill C-11 and to speak once again on the improvements made by this Government in Canada's system of child benefits.
The last time I had an opportunity to discuss the child tax credit was some 10 months ago. I noted then that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) agreed that our child benefit measures provide great assistance to low-income families. The Leader of the New Democratic Party said: "If one looks at the specific changes the Government is making, there is improvement". The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador added his Party's support by reluctantly admitting: "It may be true that for a while there is going to be some sort of net benefit". Both Hon. Members of the opposition Parties recognized the tremendous benefit the increase in the child tax credit has on low-income families. Both Hon. Members, as well as all government Members, recognize the justice in decreasing the child tax exemption which proved to be more of a benefit to upper-income Canadians.
When the Government came into office over two years ago we committed ourselves to expanding and enhancing Canada's system of social benefits. We were not prepared to continue social assistance measures which actually offered greater assistance to upper-income earners. We were not prepared to introduce more inefficiency or complexity into federal social policies. What we have resolved to accomplish and, indeed, what we are accomplishing is to direct more assistance to those in our society who most need it. It is not just for the sake of economic efficiency but to truly help those in need.
Improvements to the child tax credit represent one example of the measures we are taking to fulfil this commitment. The child tax credit provides direct financial help to nearly three

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
million low-income families. It is a simple, effective and important form of social assistance.
The Government has acted to improve the child tax credit in several key ways. First, it has been increased. This year the child tax credit has been increased by $70. It will go up by another $70 in the next two years, and by 1988, the maximum amount to be received will be $524 per child. We also decreased the child tax exemption which, until we acted, actually provided more assistance to upper-income families.
Second, we addressed the problem of tax discounting. Tax discounting has literally robbed thousands of low-income families of their child tax credit benefits. In fact, in 1984, nearly one-half of all money retained by tax discounters was made up of child tax credit payments. Furthermore, one in five single mothers with an income below $2,000 and claiming the child tax credit used the services of a tax discounter. The Government acted to decrease the amount of money discounters could collect. Bill C-83, which was passed in the first session of this Parliament, capped the maximum discounter charge at 5 per cent on any amount over $300.
These actions represent the importance the Government attaches to improving family benefits. They also fulfil the commitment we made in the Throne Speech to defend and strengthen the institution of the Canadian family. Improvements to the child tax credit provide the kind of family support the Government is proud to initiate.
I think all Hon. Members would agree on the importance of the family unit in our society. Indeed, it has been said that if things go well with the family, life is worth living; when the family falters, life falls apart.
I was pleased to be a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs when it reviewed the issue of child benefits. The committee's report of April, 1985 recommended a prepayment of the child tax credit, and I know that all members of the committee are pleased to see that the Government has taken action on that recommendation. Bill C-11 offers effective and needed help to low-income families. It also furthers the positive social justice measures the Government is taking to benefit all Canadians.
Yesterday in debate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) called the increase in the child tax credit a token. I can assure the Hon. Member that low-income families from my riding of Scarborough Centre do not consider $140 per child in extra benefits to be a token amount. I can also assure the Hon. Member that low-income families in my riding do not regard the new sales tax credit, the extension of the spouse's allowance or the increase in the disability deduction as being token gestures.
Together with improving the social safety net, the Government is offering low-income families new hope through a more dynamic economy and through meaningful job-creation programs. Low unemployment, low interest rates and low
inflation all benefit underprivileged Canadians and offer new opportunities for full participation in the economy by all Canadians.
I think it is important to point out that as a result of this legislation introduced by the Government, total spending on income-security programs will go up substantially. This includes some $200 million in extra benefits as a result of the extension of the spouse's allowance. The Government's family benefits policy reflects the commitment we have made to strengthen our social safety net and to encourage new economic opportunities for low-income Canadians.
On behalf of the families of Canada, I am proud of the excellent initiatives in this Bill. I applaud both opposition Parties for resolving to pass Bill C-l 1 in good time.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the Hon. Member for the majority of her comments. Obviously the existence of a child tax credit is a positive move for low-income families.
I wonder how the Hon. Member squares the move on the part of the Government to have a child tax credit and give money through the tax system to low-income families with the over-all nature of the tax system in Canada which is generally conceded to be regressive. Over the last 20 years, the taxation burden has moved from corporations to individuals so that individuals are paying more by way of taxes. As well, the ideal that those who earn more must pay more has been eroded over the past 20 years. How does the Hon. Member square the fact that, on the one hand, the Government takes some positive actions in terms of the child tax credit while, on the other hand, it has left the over-all taxation system with low-income families having to continue to bear an unfair share of the burden?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and also for recognizing the positive aspects of this legislation. He joins with the Leader of his Party in publicly endorsing in this Chamber the positive effect of this initiative on Canadian families.
In the social envelope, we have made some savings in those areas dealing with people with higher incomes. We have directed those amounts of money to those people who need it the most. By the end of this year, there will be an additional $200 million put into the social envelope for the social benefits we are directing to those persons who need it the most.
I believe that the comments made by the Hon. Member concerning the tax burden are valid ones. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) recognized this some months ago when he stated the need for the review of the entire tax system. We are awaiting the White Paper the Minister of Finance will be submitting to the House for discussion with the public so that we may look at those aspects of tax reform that are recognized and required.
October 16, 1986


Cyril Keeper: A child tax credit gives more money to people who have low income rather than people who have a high income. Does the Hon. Member see the contradiction between the Government supporting a child tax credit and supporting the $500,000 exemption for capital gains? Does the Hon. Member see the contradiction between giving a large tax gift to wealthy people in this country and at the same time having a progressive tax measure which helps the poor? Would she not recommend to her own Government that it eliminate the $500,000 tax gift to the upper-income people?


Pauline Browes: Let me begin by saying that the buoyancy of the economy and the confidence of Canadians right across the country will help all Canadians at all levels of the economy. Some months ago I put forth a questionnaire to businesses in the riding of Scarborough Centre asking them if in the next 12 months they were planning to increase, decrease, or keep the number of employees at the same level. Ninety per cent of the businesses in the riding of Scarborough Centre responded that they intended to increase the number of employees in their businesses and manufacturing companies. That speaks mountains for prosperity in the country, particularly in this riding, but it is catching on across this country. I believe with those kinds of initiatives taking place more people will be working, more people will be paying taxes, and that buoyancy in the economy will be very good for low-income families. It will make a great contribution.
Let me just mention the child tax credit in particular. This Bill is going to be very helpful, especially to single parent families. Having $300 per child available in the latter part of * this year; just before Christmas, just before snow suits and boots, and all of those things that are so much required for children, is going to be a very positive aspect, and families will be very appreciative. I applaud the Minister for bringing this forth so quickly so that we might be able to get those cheques in the families' pockets to help the children of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask the Hon. Member what effect she thinks will be the effect of this Act on her constituents.


Pauline Browes: Thank you for that question. My background has been in working with the Department of Health for the'' City of Scarborough as Chairman of the Public Health Board.
I have had the opportunity of going into subsidized housing and areas of low incomes to work with single-parent families. This initiative is one that is welcomed and praised. When the Christmas tree is lighted, the children are around that Christmas tree, the parents are happy, the gifts and snow suits are there, and they are going to say, this is a great Government that we have in Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a disposition on the part of all Members of the House to seek unanimous consent to revert to Statements by Ministers so that the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) can make a statement relative to the softwood lumber issue.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It certainly is our intention, because of the importance of this particular issue, to agree to reverting to Statements by Ministers. I assume we will follow the usual rule that a Member from each of the Parties will have the opportunity to respond. I assume also that the time will not count, or will count, after six o'clock in respect to Government business?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: There have been consultations and, as I said during those consultations, we will be happy to revert to Statements by Ministers to hear the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). I would also like to confirm that the rules of the House pertaining to Statements by Ministers will be in application for this particular purpose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Am I then to assume that we will have a statement by the Minister, a response by the Opposition, a response by the NDP Party, and that there will be no extra time tacked on this evening?


Some Hon. Members:: We don't need extra time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Ail right. I agree that we do not need extra time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: The
U.S. Department of Commerce has just announced that it has made a preliminary subsidy determination which could result eventually in the imposition of a countervailing duty on exports of softwood lumber from Canada. The preliminary determination is a 15 per cent subsidy.

I deplore the measures taken today by the United States. We believe it was not the right decision to make.

This decision cannot be justified either under U.S. law or GATT rules. I am deeply disappointed that Secretary of Commerce Baldrige has decided to reverse the decision he made in 1983 in the previous countervailing duty investigation involving softwood lumber. Stumpage does not provide a

October 16, 1986
Statements by Ministers
subsidy to Canadian lumber producers. We are going to fight this all the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Political leaders cannot stop the process of industries petitioning to restrict imports under existing U.S. trade laws. This is why it is so important that we pursue our bilateral trade talks with the United States. Today's decision is a graphic illustration of how protectionist pressures in the United States impact on Canadians and Canadian jobs. That is why we are at the table. Canadians need a trade agreement with the U.S. to secure our access to U.S. markets and to deal with trade disputes. This Government is vigorously pursuing these objectives because it is in Canada's best interest to do so. That is why the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) launched this historic initiative a year ago.
I want to emphasize that today's decision is not the end of the road, it is a preliminary decision. It is just another step in a long quasi-judicial process. We will pursue all avenues available to us to argue against this determination. We have already invoked GATT dispute settlement procedures. The U.S. Commerce Department must now verify its determination and make a final decision by late December. Even if the preliminary decision is confirmed, countervailing duties would not be applied unless the United States International Trade Commission finds injury in its final determination due in mid-February. If either of these rulings is in Canada's favour the case is terminated. In addition, both sides have the right to appeal the outcome in the U.S. courts.
It is important to note that today's preliminary determination does not result in any duty being imposed on Canadian lumber. Canadian exporters will be required to post bonds until there is a final disposition of the case. This will be a burden to Canadian softwood lumber exporters and represents a potential liability. Today it is lumber; tomorrow it could be any number of issues. Uncertainty prevails. This is not the way to conduct business between the world's largest trading partners. There must be a better way. We must change the rules in order to stop the harassment of U.S. interest groups against competitive and fairly traded Canadian exports.
We have worked closely with the provinces, industry, and labour throughout this investigation. Early next week we will be meeting to review in detail the basis on which Secretary Baldrige has reversed his earlier decision and to plan our strategy for the next phase of this investigation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for making a prompt statement to the House. On behalf of, I expect, everyone on both sides of the Chamber, I say that this is a sad and tragic day for the Canadian economy, particularly for the forest industry which is a supplier of so many jobs.

The consequences are many and far-reaching. In the short term, this will create instability in the forestry industry, the existence of smaller businesses will be threatened and consumers and industry will have to absorb substantial costs.

There is an old saying-I told you so. Last spring when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) rose and said that there was a clean launch and that there were no attachments to his grand design for free trade negotiations, we said that there was a price to be paid. Today we know what the price is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It is 15 per cent on our forest products. It is a $600 million additional cost to the Canadian industry. That is the price this Government is forcing Canadian industry to pay.


Pat Carney: This Government?


Lloyd Axworthy: There was no clean launch. The fix was in at that time, and now we know what is the cost to Canadians. There is no way that the Government can evade that responsibility. That is the cost we have to pay and the bill is now being put on the table. The bungling or mismanagement of trade negotiations which we have seen in the last several months is deplorable. The Government cannot manage its way out of this Chamber, let alone into difficult negotiations with the United States.
It is incredible to think that now the Minister will say "we will fight in every avenue" when only three weeks ago she was prepared to surrender and to try to make a deal which would have provided even more serious consequences for the Canadian industry. It is no wonder that they made a decision when we telegraphed a message weeks ago that we were not prepared to give in. It is no wonder that our case before that tribunal was compromised. The Canadian Government was already backtracking for days and weeks and saying: "Please accept it; we will try to work something out". If it is a quasi-judicial process, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said last spring, why did the Minister change her mind and change the position of the Government and thereby weaken our position?
The fact of the matter is that this decision goes far beyond the implication of immediate cost. That is bad enough. There is no doubt that the addition of a 15 per cent import duty is a very severe blow. As a spokesman for the industry said in a recent report, 20 per cent would be a disaster. I can say that 15 per cent is just short of a disaster. It will have a crippling effect upon the economic capacity of the industry. However, far more important, the United States is now establishing a very dangerous principle of international trade. It is saying that it now has the right to determine the prices of natural resources in other countries. That is contrary to every international rule of trade, that is contrary to the spirit of the Quebec
October 16, 1986

Summit meeting, and that is contrary to every rule we have followed in dealing with that country.
Unless the Government is prepared, at least for once, to stand up to the United States and say very clearly that it can go no further, that kind of precedent will be used on sulphur, potash, and other lumber products, to the point where our natural resource industries will be threatened across the board. Lumber is just the beginning. The Americans know that they have us on the run on this one because the Government has caved in so often in the past.
The initial statement and initial reaction by the Government and by all Canadians must be that we will not accept this decision, that we will not only fight them in their own courts but take it to the international body-


Some Hon. Members:: We have already done it.


Lloyd Axworthy: -which they have undermined and weakened up to now. They have undermined the international process. They have undermined our position in GATT by temporizing and compromising up to this point in time. However we must continue that fight. Furthermore, before any further decision, we request at this point in time a proper and full debate in the House so that we know exactly what the Government will do, so that it will not make decisions behind closed doors, so that all Canadians and all members of this Chamber will have an opportunity to say what our trade policy should be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there are perhaps 20,000 jobs across the country threatened by this decision. That threat hurts people, communities, the future of small businesses, and the whole fabric of society, especially in British Columbia.

It is a decision that is very problematic for the entire country. It is problematic for Quebec, for Ontario and for the other provinces.

I have to say that it is something which I personally feared very much when the decision came from the Senate finance committee last spring. Hon. Members may remember that I predicted at that time that the first price we would pay would be a cost on our lumber in the order of 15 per cent to 20 per cent. Fortunately it is 15 per cent, not 20 per cent. As the Minister said, this is a preliminary decision. Unfortunately with preliminary decisions, they can go up as well as go down.
I think the entire House feels a sense of regret, of unhappiness, and of having been badly used by the process in the United States. That process does not even permit lumber producers in the United States to have the subsidies they receive assessed against any subsidies which they claim we receive. I think I speak for the House when I say that that
Income Tax Act
process is simply unacceptable. In respect of the Government's own approach to the issue, I must say that we have had a series of missteps, a series of mistakes, a series of ridiculous turnarounds which have badly damaged our case up to now and which I fear will badly damage our case in the future. For instance, we finally heard the statement from the Minister today that we would fight this all the way and that stumpage does not provide a subsidy to Canadian lumber producers, coming just two weeks after the same Minister in fact took a public position which completely undermined our position in respect of the very points she is now making.
We have to look as well at this bizarre, ridiculous attempt to justify the U.S. free trade talks on the basis of yet one more disaster into which these trade talks have led us. We were promised in the special committee that the free trade talks would keep us secure from American retaliation. In fact, since then we have been attacked on issue after issue, whether it be fish, shakes and shingles, lumber, possibly potash, brass or possibly steel. This has happened since September when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he was going to take us into free trade, and that was going to be our protection. Instead we have been hammered again and again. That hammering has today reached the final stage with this heavy 15 cent tariff on our lumber.
My last point is to say that the Minister should surely, as her office was suggesting earlier this week, have come to the House today with suggestions of what the Government intended to do about it. Instead the Government intends to sit and to talk, a final ignominy, of which I think this Government should be ashamed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to advise that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Am I to assume that the 14 minutes will not be tacked on this evening and we will just carry on with Orders of the Day? Is there unanimous consent for that to occur?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-l 1, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it seems, I suppose in some small measure that rather than a diversion we have had a statement by the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), which has come not as a shock to a lot of us,

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
but it has certainly taken our minds off the main issue for discussion today, the issue of the child tax credit. I would like to take a few moments to address some of the Government's arguments in trying to move this Bill quickly through the House.
We have heard a number of government speakers on the issue of the child tax credit say that it is important for us to move very quickly because we are getting money into the hands of those people who need it most, those with an income of $15,000 a year or less. On the surface we in the Opposition definitely agree with that position. We agree that any move that can appease the level of poverty facing people and those families living on and earning $15,000 a year or less should be taken. But in the process I do not think we should be hoodwinked. I do not think we should be bamboozled by a Government which on the one hand giveth and on the other hand taketh away. It is giving in the form of a refundable tax credit, not the full amount of the child tax credit but merely a portion thereof. We will be introducing some amendments that will address certain inequities.
While the Government is saying to the poor people: "We are going to give you an immediate child tax credit rebate of $300 before you actually have to file your income tax return", it is wreaking havoc in the pocket-books of poor and middle-income Canadians because of its tax grabs. According to the Canadian Council of Welfare, for the first time this year we will see people in the $15,000 income group paying taxes. That tax burden will increase over the next four years as we see the effect of the Wilson Budget on low-income Canadians in particular. Only six years ago, in 1980, a two-earner couple with two children living at the poverty line were paying just under $1,000 in tax. That was already too much, but they were paying $1,000. From 1984, that tax load, which was under $1,000 in 1980, was increased to reach $1,600 in 1986. By the year 1990 a two-earner family living at the poverty line will be paying almost $2,000 in tax, amounting to an increase in tax of over 70 per cent in only one decade.
I do not think the Government can take much solace from the fact that today it is asking all Members of Parliament to pass the child tax credit bill which will put $300 quickly into the hands of families, which we support, when at the same time the same Government which is preaching equality, selfsufficiency and talking about getting people out of poverty will be taxing people at the poverty level almost $2,000 by the year 1990. The situation is equally dismal for the family earning about $20,000.
Those of us who have constituents in our ridings will know that for a family in 1986-87, $20,000 in annual family income is not a large amount. Those families are struggling to make ends meet. The family living at the poverty line will pay over 70 per cent more taxes in 1990 than in 1980. The family that earned $20,000 in 1980 will be paying 40 per cent more taxes over the next decade and the family that earned $30,000 will be paying 25 per cent more in income tax. The moot point and the point this Government has failed to address is that a family
earning $50,000 will be paying only 17 per cent more in taxes. A family, however, that earns $80,000, which can best be described as living in the lap of luxury, will pay only 7 per cent more in taxes.
What has gone wrong with the system which says to a family living at the poverty level that its tax burden will go up by 70 per cent while it tells a family earning $80,000 that its tax burden will rise by only 7 per cent? Is this the equity which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was talking about when he said he wanted to re-establish tax reform? Is this the kind of equity that the Government has been talking about in Throne Speeches in which it says the child tax credit is a great progressive measure and that this Bill should be passed? Of course this Bill should be passed, Mr. Speaker. This Bill is a good piece of legislation, but it does not go far enough. There are a number of shortcomings and I would like to take a few moments to outline those shortcomings.

About the $15,000 level, Mr. Speaker, in 1986, a family with an income of $15,000 and living in Toronto or Montreal is already $5,000 or $6,000 below the poverty line. I am thinking of a Liberal amendment that would raise the cutoff point for the child tax credit to $22,000 or $23,000. This would be acceptable, because if, for instance, the cutoff point is raised to $23,000 as we in the Liberal Party are suggesting, at least we will be taking in everyone living below the poverty line in Canada. If the $15,000 is maintained, there are still thousands of single-parent families, and thousands of families with two parents who both work, that cannot live on an income of $15,000 to $23,000. Mr. Speaker, that is why one of our amendments proposes to raise the cutoff point for the child tax credit from $15,000 to $23,000.
Another problem, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians who receive the child tax credit know, they know that if they have no other income, the tax credit this year will be about $454. This means that Canadians without sufficient income from other sources will receive a cheque for $454 for each child.
In the Bill, the Government proposes to give an advance payment of $300 to each family, per child, which leaves $154 to be given when income tax returns are filed.
Mr. Speaker, instead of leaving it up to the Department of National Revenue to pay the difference, the $154 to these families, in other words, instead of bringing in legislation to provide for advance payment of $300 this year, why not give the whole $454, and say: You are entitled to advance payment of the full child tax credit, and should changes be required, they can be made subsequently.
Mr. Speaker, what happens with this kind of Bill is that it adds to the bureaucratic process which has to produce two cheques instead of one, while single-parent families and poor families have to apply for the $154 that should have been included with the first cheque.
October 16, 1986

We are proposing a number of serious amendments which we believe would improve this Bill. One amendment is that, in order to be fair to all Canadians living below the poverty line, all families with an income below $23,500 should be covered under this Bill. As Members of Parliament we know there are many families scraping to make ends meet on incomes which fall in that grey area between $15,000 and $23,500. That is one of our amendments and it is a good and supportable amendment.
The second amendment deals with the bureaucracy involved. The Government came to power suggesting that it was going to clean up a bureaucratic mess. Most of the families covered under this Bill, those with $15,000 or less in annual income, will be eligible for the full tax credit of $454. Why has the Government decided to send out one cheque for $300 and then another cheque for $154 when the appropriate papers are filled out? This doubles the bureaucratic paperwork. It would be far easier to say to these people, we know you need the money before Christmas, we know you do not want to be taken advantage of by tax discounters, so we will send you the full amount of $454 before Christmas. Those families with incomes above the level of $15,000 or $23,500 can apply in the normal way. To do otherwise is to duplicate the bureaucratic effort.
As well, the provisions covering an overpayment are extremely complicated, as you know. If by accident the Government sends Mrs. Jane Doe a cheque for $300 and she was only eligible for $200, then after Christmas, when she has spent the money on presents or winter clothes or necessities for her children, or even food for the table, she is going to hear a knock on the door from the taxman who will say we sent you $300 but it was an accident. We were only supposed to send you $200. Could you please give us $100 plus interest. All Hon. Members who work in their constituency offices will know what getting an unexpected bill for $100 means to a family with an income of $15,000 a year or less. What does it mean to a Member of Parliament to get a bill for $100? I do not think it is going to send us to bankruptcy court. However, when a family trying to support a couple of kids, perhaps a single-parent family, gets a bill for $100, money they have already spent, they are going to be put in a very difficult position.
We also suggest that no interest should be charged on overpayments, but we could simplify matters by simply sending out the $454 in total. However, we are very concerned about the overpayments which will put poor families in a very difficult position, and we think that only the excess should be recovered and it should not be subject to interest.
As I mentioned before, we do support the motion, but we feel the $300 payment is not sufficient, it should be $454. The ceiling for eligiblity should be raised from $15,000 to $23,500, to better reflect the reality of Canadians living in poverty.
Income Tax Act
However, I do not think we can agree with the Government's premise, as we have heard in speech after speech after speech in the House, that it is somehow knocking itself out to help poor and needy families. Frankly, this is a pittance, a crumb; a very shallow measure in the fight against poverty. That is particularly so when you consider the figures of the National Council on Welfare which outline the increasing tax burden on families, the working poor, and those families earning less than $30,000 a year. All the tax measures introduced by the Conservative Party since 1984 show that families with two children earning only $15,000 are going to be paying $355 more in taxes. We have Santa Claus Mulroney and his friends dropping $300 in the basket of the poor and needy in November of this year, but when the taxman cometh next April, that same family is going to have to pay $355 more in taxes which leaves them with a net loss of $55.
Our figures show that the percentage tax increase for families earning $15,000 is the same as for families with two children earning $100,000. The Government talks about sharing the tax burden fairly, so I ask is that fair? I think all Canadians would agree that when it comes time to increase taxes, those increases should be paid by those who can most afford to pay, not those who can least afford to pay.
One of the things which has made us unique as a society is that all political parties have the philosophy of helping those who are least able to help themselves. Unfortunately, the reality of Conservative policy is reflected, on the one hand, in the giving of the $300 child tax credit, which is laudable and should be appreciated, but on the other hand taking $355 away this year alone in tax increases. As well, that increase is cumulative and over the next four years that same family will experience a tax increase involving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
We should also be aware of one other issue. I am not sure how much time I have left to address that, in that we have had such a long break-I am losing my voice, heaven forbid. In any case, I think what prompted the Government to introduce this legislation in the first place was our desire to prevent the gouging which often occurs when people with very modest incomes need money for the purchase of winter clothes or major appliances and they end up going to a tax discounter. As we know, that service will cost them 15 per cent of the first $300 and 5 per cent on anything over $300. I think the facts will bear out that most people who use tax discounters are classified as either working poor or people of very modest means. In 1985 half a million Canadians who sold their child tax credits to tax discounters had incomes of less than $8,000. It is quite clear that the tax discount business has been directed toward those people who are least likely to be in a position to come up with ready cash flow. According to government estimators, discounters received over $20 million in child tax credits in 1984 and they kept more than $41 million of the 1984 tax refunds in general.

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
One way of dealing with the issue is by giving part or all of the money in advance, as is being suggested in this legislation. There is another method which 1 think we should look at for the longer term, that is to specifically prohibit the sale of child tax credit returns to discounting companies. We have done that with old age pension cheques and family allowances because we do not think that poor people should be penalized by 15 per cent or 5 per cent on money which should be going to them alone. The Government does not pay these benefits to make the coffers of tax discounters swell by $20 million or $40 million, depending upon which figures you use.
One way of dealing with the problem of tax discounting would be for the Government to introduce specific legislation to prohibit the sale of child tax credit refund applications to tax discounters. This is one way of dealing with the problem. I urge all Hon. Members to consider, as a bare minimum, the two Liberal amendments. One deals with increasing the ceiling of eligibility from $15,000 to $23,500 in order to keep pace with the level of poverty in Canada. The second amendment says that the people receiving the tax benefit should not receive only the $300, which is only a portion of the tax credit, but should get the full amount. The $454 should be mailed out to them before this Christmas so they can get the paperwork over with and do not have to worry about the bureaucracy. That would simplify it. It is a better system and I think it is supportable. As I know how much the Conservatives talk about the simplification of the tax system, I urge them to support this amendment.


Mr. James:: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the statements which this speaker just made. I think she was attempting to cause concern for the very people who are going to benefit by $300 per child by mentioning that there will be interest charged. There certainly will not be interest charged on those funds unless income tax returns are filed late next year. The point which she raised causes concern, and I want to ensure that it is clear on the record that that is not the case. I cannot help but think that it is talking out of both sides of one's mouth to say that some people may be overpaid. I suppose that could happen in some cases, but I am sure that if you asked the people whether they would want to receive those moneys with the possibility of having to send some back if their income increases dramatically from the previous year they would opt for the provisions of this Bill.
The previous speaker also spoke of prepayment. I do not recall that the past Government initiated a prepayment proposal. I think the Hon. Member has sincere concern for the poor people of our country. However, I do not think she should be causing them concern. They could very well use the $300, $600, $900 or $1200 in November for snowsuits or Christmas.
I hope she does not mean to take away from this very important development in Canadian history. The Government, hopefully with the support of the Opposition, wants to put money in the hands of the people who need it most in our country today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) misunderstood my comments. I think I specifically referred to the fact that, according to the legislation as it is currently tabled, if an overpayment was assessed the full amount of it plus interest would be charged back to the family from the date that the overpayment was received. One of the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party suggests that if there is an overpayment through a change of circumstances, or simply an administrative foul-up, the amount to be repaid should be restricted to the amount of the overpayment and that any interest to be charged should be calculated only 60 days following the receipt of the notice of overpayment.
I do not want Canadian women to be in a situation next April of receiving a notice from the tax department that they accidentally received $300 extra which they have to repay and that they are being charged interest on the amount of the overpayment retroactive to the date of receipt of the money they have already spent, not knowing that it was an overpayment. That is the intent of the Liberal amendment. I think it is quite clear and I hope the Member will support it.
With regard to the historic step which the Member mentioned, I will only say that for the $300 which will be paid out in advance to poorer taxpayers this year the Government will collect about $354 through the tax system, so they are still in a net loss position of $54.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Bertrand:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the argumentation of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East who, I am sure, is genuinely interested in the well-being of destitute families in her riding, just as are all Members of the House.
Still I noticed a certain inconsistency in her presentation. On one hand she does not seem to be overly enthusiastic about this outstanding piece of legislation we have introduced, on the other hand she blames discounters for taking advantage of the situation in the past.
That is precisely what we seek to avoid through Bill C-11. The fact is that those families which are in dire need of their money at a certain time of the year are forced to deal with discounters.
Now then, why does your Party blame us today, and why in those days-you were not here, but the others were-did the Liberal Party fail to take that step, namely pass legislation as we did with Bill C-83 to set a ceiling on the interest which discounters are allowed to charge and, at the same time, give such advance payments to families as advocated in Bill C-l 1?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think I did say at the outset that it was a good Bill, that I agreed with it, and that I would support it. I said so in the House. I said that the Bill as drafted might be amended, for instance to provide for a payment of $454 instead of $300, which would still not be the total tax credit. Other changes might include raising the ceiling for people eligible for payments, families with an income ranging from $15,000 to $23,000. Such adjustments would improve this measure which is good to begin with.
October 16, 1986

The Bill as drafted is good. One thing I should like to point out to the House and to all Canadians is that at the same time as we introduce this good Bill which will allow Canadian families to get $300, the taxman will recoup $354. It is said in the Bible that what the right hand gives the left hand takes away. You represent the right hand, you give $300 to families, but your tax department and Mr. Wilson represent the left hand. Unfortunately, they are the ones who will take away the $354.


Mrs. Collins:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to clarify something to which the Hon. Member alluded that caused me some concern. She seemed to imply that if there was an overpayment because the mother or family had earned more than $15,000, the family would have to repay that amount with interest. She talked about people knocking on doors and I want to assure her that that is not the case. People will not be knocking on doors. In fact, if there should be an overpayment there would be no interest charged until after April 30 of the following year.
When people file their income tax and find that they have earned over that amount, they would have to send it back, but there would be no interest charged unless they were late in filing the income tax return itself. I believe it is important to make that point, because we certainly do not want people to be fearful that if the amount they are receiving is not quite right they will have to pay it back plus interest. That certainly is not the case and I want to draw that to her attention.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think we could probably get some of the details from the Parliamentary Secretary. However, it is the impression of the Liberal Party that the interest which will be accruing will be from the date of the delivery of the cheque, as opposed to April.
There is another difficulty that may be considered. I remember filing my income tax return at the beginning of March. After yelling and screaming loud enough for my return, I finally received it in September of this year. If I had been a recipient of a child tax credit-although obviously I am in a position where I am not receiving a child tax credit-some months would have elapsed from the time at which I would have been responsible for repaying that amount, even though I had filed within the required time and the Government was just slow in processing the income tax return.


Mary Collins: I want to assure the Hon. Member that with the tremendous changes that have taken place in the last two years-


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was this year.
Proceedings on Adjournment Debate


Mary Collins: -since the Government has come to power the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) has made changes so that people are getting their income tax returns very quickly. I really do not think that it will be a problem at all.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick reply because I know that my time has lapsed. My nightmare with the Income Tax Department was this year. It related to the fiscal year 1985, so I think the Government can beat its breast quite a bit, but there are still many Canadians who must wait a long time to get their returns.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Wilson) have a short question?


Geoff Wilson: I have a short question for the Hon. Member. I appreciate her view that this is basically a good Bill. I wonder about the purpose of the amendment she has suggested which would increase the threshold to $23,500. In fact, this means that all of those people who might potentially receive the child tax credit ought to receive the prepayment. By so doing, would this not complicate matters to the point where indeed the potential for overpayment and the problems of collection would be drastically increased? I do not think the concern is so much a matter of interest, but of getting the original money back. I can envisage that there would be many problems in collecting money where it has gone out perhaps erroneously or accidentally. Would the Hon. Member not reconsider that amendment, seeing that perhaps it might cause more problems than it is worth?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is no doubt aware that there is a partial tax credit that also goes to families with incomes between $23,500 and $31,600. While the Government has used $15,000 as an arbitrary cut-off point, the reason we feel it should be raised to $23,500 is that if one takes most norms for establishing poverty into consideration, including the Senate Report on Poverty, Statistics Canada and the various national indicators of poverty, $23,500 is the figure at which every Canadian family living in poverty will be entitled to the tax credit in advance. Those people living above the line of poverty but still receiving the tax credit will wait for the child tax credit income tax return in the normal course.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 66, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
adjournment are as follows: the Elon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-Agriculture-Creation of national marketing board for incubated eggs-Government position; the Hon. Member for Eglington-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille)- Education-Post-secondary	education-(a)	Statement
attributed to British Columbia Minister (b) Funding of student loan program.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hockin that Bill C-l 1, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to take part today in the debate on this excellent initiative to provide for the prepayment of the child tax credit to help low-income Canadians. This initiative is part of the changes made last year to the child benefit system.
Hon. Members will recall that, last year, to provide more assistance to low-income families, our Government undertook a restructuration of child benefits. First, we amended the indexing formula for family allowances. This measure, which came into effect in January 1986, provides that family allowances will be indexed only by the amount of the yearly increase in the Consumer Price Index which exceeds 3 per cent. Any increase over 3 per cent of the inflation rate is fully compensated by indexing.
I feel compelled to point out that, in spite of the scarcity of our resources, we have maintained the universal character of family allowances. We have also enhanced the child tax credit provided selectively to low-income families. For this year, the maximum child tax credit payable in the spring of 1987 will amount to $454 compared with $384 in 1985. This represents an increase of $70. The child tax credit will continue to increase by $35 both in 1987 and in 1988 to reach $524 per child in the 1988 fiscal year. On the other hand, the point at which the child tax credit begins to decrease has been brought down this year to a family income of $23,500 from the 1985 level of $26,330. This new ceiling will also be indexed annually on the basis of any increase in the Consumer Price Index over 3 per cent.
Finally, the exemption for dependent children will be reduced over three years beginning in 1987 to reach a level equivalent to family allowances in 1989.
Mr. Speaker, the initiatives I have just described will allow us not only to improve the equity of our child benefit system, but also to focus our resources better in this area. The May 1985 Budget increased the child tax credit and improved the position of low income families. The Budget of last February provides for the prepayment of the child tax credit and it is in this regard that this Bill innovates. Prepayment of the child tax
credit will allow eligible families to shorten by several months the waiting period for receiving their money as well as avoid the need for them to go to the tax discounters. In 1986, the prepayment of child tax credit will amount to $300 per child and will be made in late November or early December to eligible people whose family income was $15,000 or less in 1985. The prepayment represents approximately two-thirds of the $454 maximum credit which otherwise would be payable only in early 1987, after the beneficiary has submitted his income tax return.
Mr. Speaker, I hope sincerely that through the co-operation of all Hon. Members, some 725,000 Canadian families will benefit from this prepayment. From now on, these families will no longer have to use the services of tax discounters who, more often than not, greatly abused these families' precarious financial situation.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that this program is directed only to the families whose income in 1985 amounted to $15,000 or less. The reason we have limited this program's eligibility stems from the fact that these very low-income families are more likely to use the services of tax discounters. Moreoever, because of the limited financial resources of the State, the Government must strive above all to improve the situation of the most needy in our society.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that, contrary to what the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has stated on a few occasions, and also the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), the people who are not eligible to prepayment of the child tax credit are not penalized. As in the past, these people will get their child tax credit when filing their income tax return. I stress the fact, Mr. Speaker, that those people will not be subject to any reduction in the child tax credit they are entitled to, they will not be subject to any penalty.
I am also happy about another proposal contained in Bill C-ll, which is to extend the child tax credit in respect of a child deceased in 1986 but who would have been eligible for family allowances in 1987, had he lived. Currently, no child tax credit is paid for the year in which the child has died. According to my information, some 3,000 families would benefit from that proposal.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, from October 6 to October 10, for the second year in a row the National Family Week was held. During that week dozens of organizations and agencies from all across Canada joined their efforts and pooled their ideas to make the public aware of the importance of the family cell in our Canadian society. Let me take this opportunity to commend Family Services Canada for that initiative.
While recalling a wide range of happy social events usually experienced by people who live together, such as births, birthdays, marriages, these social partners do not forget that there are other day to day events of a painful nature. Family life sometimes involves disappointments and sorrows, and difficulty to make ends meet. This Government, and especially our Prime Minister, are well aware of those facts, that is on the one hand the importance of the family in our society and the other hand our social commitment to them.
October 16, 1986

In his first Christmas message to the Canadian people, in December 1984, the Prime Minister said the following, and 1 quote:
To me, the family is, and shall always remain, the primary source of unity in our society. It forms the basis for all the elements that bring us together, including national unity.
However, as is the case for so many of the benefits we enjoy, we may be too inclined to take our family ties for granted and not be as aware as we should of the pressures to which they can be exposed. These pressures are a threat to the continued existence of the family unit as the foundation of our society.
In recent years, governments have taken a number of measures, both legislative and otherwise, to try and attenuate the consequences of family breakup.
However, the question arises whether we have directed as much energy and concern toward ensuring that the family unit remains the cornerstone of our
society.
And last week, during the National Family Week, the Prime Minister said:
The family is such an intimate part of our existence that sometimes we hardly realize how enormously it influences our lives.
It is the crucible in which our most basic values are formed, a source of confidence and support that gives meaning to our existence.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when demographers, social workers and parents are thinking about problems such as the falling birthrate, the structure of our tax system, poverty, broken relationships and unemployment, it is imperative that the Government play a major role in helping to remedy the situation. However, that does not mean society as a whole can afford to shirk its responsibility.
I felt these comments were particularly apt, considering the Bill before the House today, a measure designed to provide some financial remedy to our neediest families. They are the ones that need help first of all, and that is indeed the purpose of this legislation. Too often, as past experience has shown, parents who were short of money or wanted to be able to make some major purchase would rush to the tax discounter, to get their cheques in advance. Now, 725,000 families in Canada will receive their advance payments around the end of November or the beginning of December, without having to pay the exorbitant interest they were charged in the past.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to say again how delighted 1 am that the 725,000 Canadian families who are to benefit under this legislation will include some 1,400 families in my riding who will be able to take advantage of Bill C-11, a positive step towards re-structuring our social policies.


John Edmund Parry: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Government for its decision to allow families who have lost a child to receive the child tax credit for the year during which the child died.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether her Department has forecasts about the amount of tax credit discounting reduction which will occur thanks to the prepayment amendment.
Income Tax Act


Gabrielle Bertrand: I have not checked yet, Mr. Speaker, but I could do so within the next few minutes and reply to my hon. friend in a little while. But something is sure, and it is that tax discounters were asking a 15 per cent interest on the amount borrowed, which was enormous for low-income families.


Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and comment on Bill C-ll. It is an exceptional Bill and certainly indicates the direction in which the Government is going in tax reform, which is something all our constituents, indeed all Canadians are looking forward to.
As outlined in the Speech from the Throne, fairness will be one of the guiding principles in all reform we make in taxation. This has to be considered as very fair. From the comments made by Opposition Members today and yesterday I am sure they also believe it is very fair and that it is a measure which all Canadians will welcome. Fow-income earners in Canada deserve assistance and this is one way the Government can provide that assistance and at the same time correct inequity in our tax system. Consistent with the reform of the tax system involving lower personal tax rates, this is another measure which will be effective. Changes in the tax system of the United States have made it mandatory for us to rely less on personal income tax and look toward other areas of corporate income tax and sales tax to bring in revenues.
The child tax credit is very timely. The payment will come before Christmas at a time when families will require the money most.
Some 1.3 million children will be affected by this new Bill. The $300 per child will be very useful for people with lower incomes and will assist them at a time when requirements for money for clothing will be the greatest.
I have already received some calls from my constituents indicating that they are very supportive of what we are doing. Of course, they look forward to receiving that cheque in November. I am sure as all Canadians become aware of this legislation, they too will be anticipating that cheque in the mail which will assist them in the shopping they normally do at that time of the year.
The elimination of the need for tax discounting services is also very positive. Many people were losing a substantial portion of their tax refund and, of course, the requirement for the services of a tax discounter will now be not nearly so great as it was in the past.
This Bill is just the beginning. There will be more tax reform legislation which the House will be reviewing in the upcoming months. The Finance Committee will have a very

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
busy year. We not only anticipate a large number of Bills from the Department of Finance, we anticipate a very busy year as tax reform becomes much more of a concern for us.
Tax reform in the United States has had a considerable impact on the American personal income tax system and we must continue to remain competitive with the United States, our very close neighbour. Workers have a certain amount of mobility in that they are able to move back and forth between Canada and the United States. Particularly for those at higher income levels, a great imbalance in the tax system might sway professionals and highly paid people to move to areas with lower personal income taxes. The Finance Committee looks forward to dealing with this problem in much more detail.
In the spring we looked at tax expenditures, a fairly complex area. We found that many of the tax expenditures did serve a good purpose but at the same time added to the complexity of the Income Tax Act.
As we strive toward fairness in the tax system, unfortunately we create a more difficult tax Act. At the present time, the tax act is so difficult that very few people can actually understand it in its entirety. As we move along with tax reform, we will look not only at fairness but hopefully at ending up with a much simpler, less complicated and less involved Act, with less need for tax advisers, tax discounters and many of the people who make a living off the complexity of the tax Act. Perhaps these people will be better employed in more productive areas.
I mentioned earlier the importance of the reform of the personal income tax system in the United States. This is something we have to monitor and study carefully, because many of the initiatives that have been taken there will have to be considered here. One area where the Americans found substantial revenue was in the area of tax expenditures. They eliminated quite a few things with which we may have problems in Canada.
Fairly soon the Auditor General will be bringing out his report. It is expected that he will have comments to make on tax expenditures, comments which could prove to be quite interesting to the Finance Committee, the Department of Finance and all those who will be reviewing the tax Act with the idea of a fairer, more useful tax system which will still provide for initiatives that will allow regional development and assistance for communities that have been provided initiatives through the tax Act.
There are many factors involved in reviewing a tax Act. We want to have something that is fairly simple and understood by a great many people. As well, we want a system which will work for all Canadians. I am quite pleased that this particular piece of legislation is very fair and targets those who need assistance most.
I am sure all Members of the House will join with the Government in supporting the Bill. I know that all Canadians who will be recipients of the $300 per child will be very thankful when they receive their cheques in November.


Mr. Caldwell:: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Warner) represents a sizeable rural community. I wonder what effect he thinks this new tax change will have on the rural area he represents.


Norman Melvin Warner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will be very well received in all the rural areas across Canada. At the present time, as the Hon. Member knows, many rural constituents have experienced considerable problems, particularly farmers who have been very badly hurt by the drop in commodity prices and the very difficult times they are now facing. They would certainly appreciate receiving that cheque at a very timely moment next November.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Warner), on his very excellent contribution to today's debate. The Hon. Member has listened, as I am sure have other Members to the debate today, and has heard comments by members of the Opposition along the lines that this is a good Bill and basically worthy of support, but that the Government should be doing more for those disadvantaged in our society. I am sure the Hon. Member shares our desire to be able to do more. Considering the kind of financial inheritance this Government received from its precedessors, I am wondering how the Hon. Member would propose to better assist the needy in this country without raising taxes or getting rid of programs. Does the Hon. Member have any ideas along those lines?


Norman Melvin Warner: Thank you very much for the question. Yes, there is a way, and it is something that should be shared by all Members of this House, namely, the creation of new jobs. Fortunately, in Stormont-Dundas the small businesses and the employers have been able to create in excess of a thousand jobs in the last two years, and this trend continues. Traditionally and historically we have been an area of high unemployment. It is very gratifying to see companies locating in our area and continuing to locate in our area. What this Government has done in stabilizing our economy, in making efforts to deal with the deficit, and indicating to the international financial community that we have a stable economy and that we are going to deal with our deficit, has allowed us to have lower interest rates, which in turn has stimulated our business and industrial community, and created a considerable boom in home building in our area.
In dealing with our economic problems and problems facing the Government, job creation is one other area which we can all work at and deal with very successfully. I hope the trend will continue in my area and will spread throughout Canada into some of the areas that have been less fortunate than Stormont-Dundas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since there are no further questions or comments, I recognize the next speaker.
October 16, 1986


Mary Collins: As did my colleague, I would like to say how welcome this Bill will be in British Columbia. I would like to commend the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) for introducing this measure so quickly in this new parliamentary session. This particular measure is certainly in accordance with the four pillars which form the basis of our Government's policy, particularly the one of promoting social justice.
When I had the opportunity of speaking in reply to the Speech from the Throne, I talked about the goal of this Government. We want to enlist all Canadians in the pursuit of this common goal of a modern, tolerant, and caring nation in which our citizens are secure and prosperous. The measure that we are discussing today, Bill C-ll, is certainly an important step toward achieving that goal. It shows that we are a modern society, that we have the technology which enables us to send out these payments in advance. It shows that we are a caring nation, and that we certainly care about that part of our society which needs help the most and that we are going to make every effort to ensure that they are well looked after. Ultimately, we want our citizens to be secure and prosperous. As much as possible we want them to have the opportunity for employment. But certainly at the minimum we want to ensure in every way we can that we provide economic security. The prepayment of the child tax credit will certainly move a very large segment of our society toward a greater sense of security.
This legislation is one further step in helping those in our society most in need. The measure promised in the February Budget earlier this year puts money in the pockets of those who need it when they need it. It is such a simple concept I find it amazing that no one ever did it before. Perhaps they did not have the technology. But we have it now and we are going to use that technology to meet those needs.
As we have heard already, this measure will provide for the interim payment of $300 per child in November this year to those families who are eligible. It will be two-thirds of the total child tax credit which amounts to $454 for 1986. They will receive the $300 by cheque in the mail in November of this year.
As my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) discussed earlier today, at this time of year with the onset of winter-I know as a mother of three children myself-we are aware of some of the costs that are associated with the onset of winter. The way kids grow these days, they need new winter boots, new winter coats, and there is Christmas. We all want to be able to do something special for our children around Christmas time. This payment will really be welcome because it coincides with a time of year when expenses are often a little higher than normal.
Canadian society is a dynamic society. It is also changing very rapidly. One way it is changing is in the family structure. Our challenge as a Government is to take into consideration these changes and to formulate social policy to respond to them and to help those who need it.
Income Tax Act
We are aware of the rising divorce rates, the sad fact of desertion, and the great number of single parents with a lot less support than that received by extended families which perhaps existed to a greater extent in our society in the past. As a result there is a growing number of single mothers who are single-handedly raising their children, often without any other kind of financial support. One of the very sad facts still in our Canadian society is that many of these families are poor. In fact, 42 per cent of families with a female head live below the poverty line. This legislation recognizes the plight of those low-income families and provides them with money at a time when it is needed the most. Seven hundred thousand recipients will be eligible for this prepayment. In my own Province of British Columbia we estimate there will be 67,000 families with a total of 119,300 children. That is a lot of children. The average prepayment of $535 will go a long way in helping them to meet their needs over the next few months.
One of the other facets of this Bill that has been discussed and I think it is very important given the discussion we had in this Chamber earlier this year, is that it is going to reduce the attractiveness of the services of the tax rebate discounters. Child tax credit recipients account for half the clientele of the tax rebate discounters. With the prepayment of $300 of the child tax credit in November, parents will no longer have to seek out tax rebaters to cash in on their forthcoming tax credits. That service has a cost. This innovative move will put money directly into the hands of a parent at the time when they need it. They will no longer have to wait for the money or pay a higher interest rate for the early use of this money. I should add that Bill C-ll complements our Government's tougher controls on tax discounters. What is important is that in addition to those tougher controls, we are going to do away with the need for a very large part of their services, particularly on the part of those we feel can least afford to pay for those services.
Another interesting aspect of this program is that it is in accordance with the Government's commitment to eliminate and reduce red tape. That was also part of our commitment in the Throne Speech. People do not have to apply for this payment, they will not have to fill out application forms, and we will not have to hire more people to process forms. This year it will be sent automatically and will be based upon the 1985 tax return. By paying out the child tax credit to families with incomes below $15,000, we are getting the money to those who need it in the fastest and most efficient way.
The advance payments will be made to the recipients of family allowances who in most cases are the mothers. A mother of three children who is eligible for prepayment will receive $300 per child for a total of $900.
There was a point raised earlier in the debate by an Hon. Member across the floor. I should like to point out again that obviously in some cases there will perhaps be some discrepancies between the amount of money a family might have earned

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
in 1985 and what they might earn in 1986. There may be some overpayments in some cases. They may receive the $300 and, based upon their income tax, they perhaps are not eligible for it. In that case, when they file their 1986 income tax return, in March or April of next year, they will have to deduct the overpayment. There will be no interest on the overpayment until the end of April of next year. If they file their income tax returns on time, in compliance with the law, there will be no interest payable. For the interest of Hon. Members opposite, I point out that that is based upon Section 164.1(3).
We cannot look at Bill C-l 1 in isolation. It is really part of a total package of programs we have put forward during the past two years and will put forward in the coming two years, to help those most in need, particularly women. I look back on the work we did in the Enforcement of Maintenance Act in conjunction with the Divorce Act. The House will recall that new measures were brought forward which created for the first time a national system to track down and try to ensure that a spouse who owed money on behalf of an estranged spouse or divorced spouse and dependent children paid that money. We all know of the horrible history of the past. I think up to 80 per cent of spouses were in default of maintenance and support payments. That measure will also help to ensure that many of these same families-and in most cases women lead these families-will have access to greater economic security.
Of course we are aware of the increases in the child tax credit. They will be increasing each year as well. Our commitment does not end with social programs. Hand in hand with these programs are policies which promote economic renewal. I am sure Hon. Members opposite will agree that an excellent way to ensure fairness and to break the cycle of poverty for low-income families is to provide them with meaningful job opportunities.
Since the election-and we have heard these figures often-
595,000	jobs have been created, with 271,000 having been created in the past year. The unemployment rate in September was 9.5 per cent, compared with 11.7 per cent in September, 1984. More than 75 per cent of the jobs which have been created are full time. It is an impressive record. Since women are the bread-winners for a considerable portion of singleparent families, I believe it would be enlightening to provide the House with a breakdown of statistics which indicates the Government's record in respect of job creation for women. There are 328,000 more women working today than there were in 1984. The unemployment rate for women has fallen by 2.3 per cent since the election, from 12 per cent to 9.7 per cent. As a result of the economic policies pursued by the Government, there have been instances across the country where single mothers have been able to obtain meaningful employment and many other cases where mothers in two-parent families have been able to go to work to add to the family's income. This has had the effect of breaking the cycle of poverty for many Canadian families and has provided them with opportunities of which tliey could only have dreamed a few short years ago.
As well, under our job training programs, I know from my own experience in my riding of Capilano, some exciting and exhilarating results have occurred for women. I should like to cite one-a project carried out by North Shore Continuing Education under the Job Re-entry Program which is part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program. It involved a number of single women who were out of the workforce. Many of them were on social assistance, many of the women we will be targeting with the child tax credit prepayment. They had the opportunity of an 11-month period of training, partly in the class-room and partly on the job training with a variety of employers. I visited those women during the first week of the program, and again about half way through. I also had the honour of being invited to their graduation. A tremendous change had occurred in those few short months. Women whose outlook was of hopelessness, who saw themselves with no future, who had little sense of self-respect, had turned into women of spirit, high regard, and optimism. Almost all of them already had job offers at the time of graduation. I checked again recently and found that about 80 per cent are still in those first jobs and that many of them have even started their own businesses.
Those are the kinds of programs and commitments which the Government is undertaking. They are helping women from Capilano right across to Newfoundland. A tremendous change is occurring in the country.
The Government will continue to foster policies which will help with economic renewal, just as it will continue to implement policies that further social justice. We are looking forward to the report of the Special Committee on Child Care because its input will be important to Canadian women and Canadian families. We are a compassionate, caring Government. When we see an opportunity to improve one of our social programs so that it better addresses the needs of Canadians, we act on it.
In respect of Bill C-l 1, we are improving the delivery mechanism of the child tax credit so that money is put into the hands of Canadian parents at a time of the year when they need it most. I believe this is a measure which Hon. Members on both sides of the House will support and applaud. It will certainly have a tremendous impact upon 700,000 families in November of this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Hon. Member who described her Government as being compassionate and concerned about low-income people. How can she square the action being taken by the Government in terms of the prepayment of child tax credits with the continuation of the $500,000 capital gains exemption which gives a tax gift to the very wealthiest people in the country? If the Government were to rescind that tax giveaway, could it not then increase benefits such as the child tax credit for people with low incomes? If the Government is really compassionate, why does it not take this further step?
October 16, 1986


Mary Collins: I am pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's comment. It concerns me somewhat that there has not been enough discussion about the measure on capital gains, introduced some time ago. I think it is totally consistent with the four pillars of our Government of economic renewal and social justice. I might just remind the Hon. Member that people talk about the measure being up to $500,000, meaning you have to be wealthy to take advantage of it. But this measure also applies to many middle, even lower-middle class people who have small investments and who buy a few shares in a company. If they get a little gain, they will be able to keep that gain tax free. The measure is certainly helping many people that I know in the middle-income level with a piece of property. They are encouraged to buy some property because they know they can get the benefit. This is the very measure that we feel is helping to create a positive environment for individuals to take risks and create wealth. It encourages investment, particularly in Canadian companies across the land. I just wish more Canadians would invest. I think the possibility that they can make a capital gain without it being taxed is just the kind of incentive they need. We need to talk about this more to encourage people to take advantage of the opportunity. What we are doing is providing opportunities for Canadians to participate in the growth and the wealth of Canada.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to take a longer term look at child benefits and compare them with the present measure which, as I and my Party have said, is one that we support. Will she compare the impact of this prepayment with the erosion to the real value of child benefits which will occur if the 3 per cent peg is kept in place, the peg which the Government has instituted?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the amount of child tax benefits will be increasing each year. Given the excellent economic policies of the Government, we have also been able to keep inflation at a very low level, so there will be some growth, certainly in the benefit received by families, in the child tax payments which are planned over the coming years. There is a good sense of proportion there.


Mr. Cochrane:: Mr. Speaker, I have just a comment or two on my colleague's statements, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). The thing that perhaps excites me the most is that this measure it takes away the unsavoury side we saw accompanying the child tax credit, namely, the tax rebate discounters. When families have a limited amount of money, and certainly these families do, it is encouraging to see the Government taking action which will keep as much of that money as possible in the hands of the recipients.
The Member's comments with regard to British Columbia would also apply to my constituents and other constituents throughout the Province of New Brunswick. We would have proportionately a larger number of people in that income group affected positively by the change. I want to echo the
Income Tax Act
same comments from the East Coast that my friend has echoed from the West Coast, that this measure is beneficial to all Canadians.
I too have seen some of the effects of our caring Government and some of the positive effects of the Job Entry Program. Once again I would like to add to what the Hon. Member has said in that it has changed attitudes of people who have had the opportunity to take part in these courses. Personally I have gone to six graduations, and over 80 per cent of the graduates have found work in our communities as a result of the extra experience and work-related activities they have enjoyed through that program. It is not just a West Coast phenomena, the effect will be enjoyed by Canadians across the country. On behalf of my constituents I am most excited and enthusiastic about the initiative taken by the Government in Bill C-l 1.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a very brief question of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). I know of her concern regarding women's and children's issues. I was pleased to hear her say that she felt this move by the Government would cut down on the number of tax discounters now in operation. Does she feel that tax discounters will be on their way out or will there simply be fewer in number? Is there any possible way that tax discounters could get hold of this money?


Mary Collins: They are not going to be able to get hold of this money, Mr. Speaker. This money will go in a cheque directly to the recipient delivered by Canada Post. There is no problem about that part. We looked at this issue of the future of tax discounters last year. We discussed whether they should be outlawed entirely, but we are a free society. If there is a demand for certain services, I am not sure we should be saying they are not allowed if people want to use that service and are prepared to pay for it. As the Member will recall, we have limited the rates they can charge so the rates cannot be usurious. I think Members will find, as I mentioned, that about 50 per cent of tax discounters' business in the past has been dealing with this child tax credit. Obviously that business will decline. Some may not stay in business at all. Many are also involved in helping to prepare income tax returns. Probably those that are well respected in their communities and are providing a service in some other areas will continue in business. Others may not be able to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any other questions or comments? Does the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) have a question?


Cyril Keeper: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I was just curious as to whether the Chair preferred a question to a speech.
446

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I always look forward to the Hon. Member's speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: I welcome the opportunity to address this legislation. I must begin by saying that 1 think the notion of prepaying the child tax credit is worthwhile. I think it will have some beneficial impact and the Government deserves credit for taking the action that it is taking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: The problem with the action the Government is taking though is that it does not quite go far enough. While this prepayment of the child tax credit reduces the problem, it leaves in place the practice of tax discounters. I wonder why the Government wants to take this meliorated action to reduce the problem but does not go all the way. Why not eliminate the problem? Why not have a ban on tax discounters? Has the Government given serious consideration to that proposal?


Herbert O. Sparrow: This is a democracy.


Cyril Keeper: I hear someone on my right saying that this is a democracy. I guess the implication is that if we do not allow poor people to be ripped off by large tax discounters we are somehow undermining the basic notions of democracy. I would point out that tax discounting is banned in the U.S. Surely members of the Conservative Party would not want to imply that the American system of government is anything but democratic.
I ask why the Government does not go all the way and simply ban tax discounting. I have to speculate that the reason has to do with the ideological commitments of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are wedded to the notion of a free market and therefore find themselves unable to take effective action in this area. They are unable to bring themselves to say that tax discounting is immoral, wrong, a rip-off and should not be allowed, because tax discounters are private business people and the Conservatives are committed to the free market. That is a narrow point of view and a sad misapplication of Conservative philosophy.
I also have to believe that the Government has chosen to put in place a prepayment of the child tax credit rather than banning discounting because they were lobbied by the tax discounters. It is a lucrative business and these people have obviously been able to gain the ear of the Government. Certainly much more so than those who are concerned about the continued existence of tax discounting and the rip-off of the poor which it implies.
Perhaps some elaboration on just what exactly tax discounting is would be of assistance. Let us say that you file your income tax return and you expect a refund. Since it takes so long for Revenue Canada to process refunds, people in need of the money will go to a tax discounter and in effect sell their
refund at a discount so they can get the cash in their hands right away. Two-thirds of those who use tax discounters have incomes of less than $8,000. Clearly it is those who live below the poverty line, the poorest in our society, who use discounters and are in turn exploited by them.
With specific reference to this legislation before us today, it is worth noting that the amount of money from child tax credits which has gone into the hands of tax discounters, rather than into the hands of the poor for which the money was originally intended and allocated by the taxpayers and Parliament, was in the order of $20 million. These companies are actually benefiting from the existence of poverty and the compassion of Canadians. Canadians, because they care for their fellow countrymen, have put in place policies to aid the poor. These tax discounters come in like wolves and ravage the poor.
My point is that while what the Government is doing today is worthwhile and deserving of credit, I really must question again why the Government did not go all the way and ban tax discounting. It is already banned in the United States, a country dedicated to the free enterprise system and headed by a man who is the darling of the private sector.
Another approach the Government might take to cut discounting would be to ensure an effective and timely administration of tax refunds. Why should it take months to receive a tax refund? If Revenue Canada were organized in an efficient way there would be no reason for people to use tax discounters.
We have this legislation before us not only because of tax discounters, but because we have a large number of poor people in Canada. It is before us because of the existence of poverty. While this measure will deal with one specific problem from which poor people suffer, I must say that I hope to see the Government do more for the poor, do more to see that their basic human needs are met, do more to reduce if not eradicate the existence of poverty in this wealthy land. I have heard statistics over the last few months which indicate that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, that the number of people living in poverty is increasing. A great percentage of those who are poor are women. They are often single parents and have to stay home to look after the children. As a result of the loss of the other parent and the loss of income, they end up in poverty. If the Government were concerned about poverty, it would look at the situation in which poor single parents find themselves. The Government would see that it is possible to move people from poverty to a decent standard of living. Many of these women, given training, the opportunity for job experience and social support, could move from below the poverty line to a reasonable standard of living. This has been demonstrated through special training programs which offer the income support, counselling and social support people need to make a success of the training programs.
October 16, 1986

I call upon the Government to take significant action in the area of policy which affects poverty in the country. The Government should consider the notion of a guaranteed annual income. A guaranteed annual income assures people that they will have the income to meet their basic human needs of food, clothing and shelter. It also encourages people to work. A guaranteed annual income is structured in such a way that if you had a job and made some money you would not lose that income by having it deducted from your income support. You would be able to keep a significant portion of it. This gives people an incentive to work because the money they earn will not be deducted from their social support.
It is time that Canadian governments took a serious look at a guaranteed annual income. Perhaps as part of that reexamination we could find a new name for the policy. Guaranteed annual income has a ring that leaves some people with the impression that it just encourages people to be lazy, or that people do not have to contribute to society. Perhaps we need a new label for this policy.
Rather than bringing in piecemeal, band-aid measures, why does the Government not bring in a significant measure that would have a real impact on poverty? The other way in which the Government could have such an impact is through the pursuit of a full employment policy. One of the reasons we have increasing levels of poverty in the country is that there are more and more people unemployed. According to official statistics, over one million people in the country are unemployed. Such a high level of unemployment naturally leads to an increase in poverty and suffering.
We need a serious commitment by the Government to put in place a network of policies with employment its highest priority. All citizens should have the right and opportunity to work. All citizens need the opportunity to contribute to society and to have a reasonable income to meet their needs in order to enjoy life and be a part of our community. While I applaud the Government for having taken a worthwhile step today, I think the step should be seen in the larger context of the level of poverty in the country and the alternative measures which the Government could be undertaking in order to demonstrate to Canadians its compassion and concern about the disadvantaged and poor people.
Tax discounting raises an issue regarding the way in which our tax system is administered. We have created the child tax credit, a system of taxation which benefits poor people more than those who are affluent, which is a good social policy. Then along come some wolves who seek to take advantage of the social policies. While the child tax credit does benefit the poor and adds to the progressiveness of the income tax system, if you stand back and get a wider view of the situation the inequities stand out. Today we are trying to enforce some of the equitable aspects of our tax system. We are trying to salvage a good tax policy.
Income Tax Act
While the Government deserves some credit for taking a worthwhile step, we must ask why it did not go further.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Government has done something good today. But if it really cares about poor people, 1 suggest it could do more. Other things must be done, and the measure we are dealing with today is good, but the gouvernment must do more.

Mir. Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I must first applaud the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) for complimenting the Government on its move in Bill C-ll. I join with him in that. I think it is a great piece of legislation. In particular, it demonstrates that the Government is not only fiscally responsible but also very compassionate. I say that because the NDP tends to think it has the exclusive right to compassion in the country. The Government, through this and many other pieces of legislation, is showing that it too cares about the people who are having a difficult time, whether they be single women or families with young children who, not necessarily through their own fault, need a helping hand. I recognize this need in my constituency of Saskatoon East; all of my Conservative colleagues recognize that need throughout the country. I think this is a good piece of legislation and the Member for Winnipeg North Centre certainly agrees with it.
The NDP is trying to grab a piece of the action on tax reform. The message to come down from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) very soon will demonstrate to that Party that this is a priority with the Conservative Government and that it will be taking the lead on that issue. These are things which the Liberals did not attempt in the last 20 years. There are new initiatives which can be taken in order to broaden the tax base and reach the people who are having difficulty in the country today.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have never claimed that New Democrats have a patent on compassion. However, I believe that this Party seeks to speak out for fairness in Canadian society. I would claim as well that we have a history of speaking out in the interests of ordinary people. The Hon. Member indicates that his party is a compassionate party. I ask him why his compassionate party, in the last two Budgets, increased taxes for ordinary Canadian families by approximately $1,000? He talks about tax reform. We have been pushing for tax reform.
The Government mentioned in the Throne Speech that it would lower the rate of income tax. I would caution him that if on the one hand the Government moves to lower the rate of income tax, while on the other hand increases taxes by way of a hidden taxes, I will want to look at the bottom line to see whether taxes have gone down or have increased. I would hope that a compassionate party and a compassionate Government

October 16, 1986
Income Tax Act
would not, in the name of tax reform, end up increasing taxes even more for ordinary families in this country.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make a supplementary comment. I know that we are not here to ask each other questions, but I want to make a statement concerning increased taxes, and it relates to that old expression we have heard a thousand times in the House and throughout the country, that there is no such thing as a free lunch. In other words, after one has given away so much, as the previous administration did over the last 12 to 15 years, there comes a time to face up to the debt. That is precisely what we are trying to do. I get very frustrated when members of the New Democratic Party fail to realize that perhaps it is necessary to face up to the debt, that we just cannot continue to send out blank cheques. Taxes are not raised because people get a kick out of raising taxes. They are raised because somebody has to meet the expenditure of the Government today, whether it is for social programs or economic programs. I am stating the obvious. I just have to say that I get a little tired of continually hearing about how the Government has raised taxes. I think somebody should be standing up to say that the Government finally had enough guts to face up to the issues in this country.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned that he and his party do not get a kick out of raising taxes. I am sure they did not get a kick out of raising taxes, but something they will get from it is the boot. Canadians will boot them out of office because they continue to raise taxes on ordinary families in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have terminated. Debate.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in the second session of this Parliament and I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you on your reappointment to your duties as the Deputy Chairman, as well as to congratulate you for a record that you and I hold. Each time I have spoken in the House you have been in the chair. I saw you rush back with wild anticipation to make sure that you did not break that record.
I also know that my good friend, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish), has been waiting patiently all day. The hour is getting late, so I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of this Bill.
I sat on the Legislative Committee that dealt with the tax discounters legislation and had the opportunity to become interested in this Bill. The Government stated in the Throne Speech that it is committed to the preservation and reinforcement of the family institution. This Bill is part of that program, because bringing forward the child tax credit at this time will help to strengthen families and lessen economic problems in low-income families. In addition, it follows our theme that social justice demands that those in the greatest need should be helped the most. Both of those themes are being followed in this Bill. It is important that the Government
has decided to put forward $300 per child for low-income families earning less than $15,000 a year.
When I was on the committee dealing with Bill C-83, the Consumers' Association of Canada made a presentation which clearly describes the impact this Bill will have on tax discounters. They state that the statistics reported in chart 5 of the consultation paper indicate that almost two-thirds of the discountees reported an annual income below $8,000, and that 84 per cent of the female discountees claimed a child tax credit. This Bill will eliminate the majority of these instances with tax discounters and will put the money into the pockets of the families in need. I have always believed that it is far greater to have the family bread-winner working than throwing his or her hands up in disgust and saying: "I am going to go on welfare". The approach we have taken with the child tax credit for those in need follows one of my beliefs.
I might say that when I was Minister of Community Services in the Province of Manitoba I had the opportunity to institute a program that follows the belief that we should keep the family together by having the bread-winner working rather than on social assistance. I introduced a program called the child-related income support payment that gives $30 a month per child to low-income families in Manitoba. That program has worked very well. I am pleased that the Government is following this approach to provide funding to those families in the greatest need.
What does Bill C-l 1 mean to Manitoba? When we consider that over 700,000 families will benefit from a payment of $300 per child in November, we are probably talking about 30,000 families in Manitoba who will benefit from this Bill. I represent a cosmopolitan type of riding, Winnipeg-St. James, with part of the riding in the core area of Winnipeg. I know that many low-income families will benefit from the Bill we are discussing today.
I also believe that the time of year we are providing this prepayment is important. While the weather may not be the same in Vancouver, those who live on the Prairies, in Newfoundland and other parts of Canada and experience extreme winters know the cost of providing clothes for children, particularly when they are growing rapidly at certain stages in life.
Another fact in Manitoba that probably increased the use of tax discounters in the past is that the auto insurance payment comes due in February. That is approximately the time when tax discounters would be approached under the old system to see if a family could borrow money to pay for the insurance, if they owned a car. Again, the time of this prepayment is very important.
I believe the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) said that we should eliminate tax discounters. I can tell the Hon. Member that the changes in the tax discounters act has greatly affected the opportunity for people in that business to get access to this money from the child tax rebate system. We have changed that considerably so that a portion
October 16, 1986

of that money that would have gone to tax discounters will never be received by them. I compliment the Government for taking this approach in the Bill and for the timely manner in which it has done so.
1 have heard it said, particularly by the New Democratic Party, that we should give more hand-outs and provide more social services. Unfortunately, those Hon. Members do not have to try to balance the books. Whether or not they are aware of it, right now when we pay personal income tax federally, $80 out of every $100 collected goes to pay just interest on the outstanding debt. If we did everything the NDP would like us to do, I am sure that in no time 100 per cent of our tax dollars, not 80 per cent, would go to pay the interest on the national debt. I think Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party should be reminded that money does not grow on trees. Governments do not have their own money. Governments get their money from businesses, through sales tax and from the people.
I would like to comment on the approach we have taken for economic renewal. I have always believed that if one wants to reinforce the family unit, the best way to do it is to have the father and mother working and bringing money into the house. There is then pride in the mother and father and that pride grows, builds the family unit and keeps them together. I think the approach we have taken to try and create jobs and economic growth is as important as the provision of services about which we are talking today. I believe the heads of families feel much more proud to be out working and receiving benefits from these other programs than receiving social assistance. I hope this Bill will be passed without delay so we can get this money into the hands of the low-income families in order that they can benefit from it this coming winter at Christmastime.


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) would correct some information I gathered from the previous speaker who indicated the unemployment situation in the Hon. Member's riding and in Canada was getting worse. In my area unemployment has dropped from somewhere around 11 per cent in 1984 to around 5 per cent. Are things getting worse in the Winnipeg area? Are our programs not working in the Hon. Member's area?


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that Manitoba, not just my particular riding, is one of the lowest in terms of unemployment in Canada. I believe unemployment dropped by .6 per cent this last month. So I believe our economic programs to create jobs are working very well in Manitoba. I cannot be precise about certain parts of my riding, but I would presume, because it is a cosmopolitan kind of riding, that if unemployment has dropped within the province it would have dropped within my riding as well. I am encouraged that what we are doing in trying to create jobs and
Income Tax Act
pride, getting people to work with the tax incentives we have given small business, is working very well.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) for his excellent statistics. He is quite right in stating that the federal Government's job-creation plans for Manitoba have really paid off. They are worthwhile projects, not like the projects of the previous Government, paying people to learn karate in church basements and that sort of thing. I would like to point out that there are more jobs available in Canada today than there have ever been at any other time. One just has to look at any major newspaper to see pages and pages of help wanted advertisements. We know the Liberal Party when it was in government destroyed the work ethic in this country with the ridiculous unemployment insurance scheme it introduced in the early 1970s. We are taking positive action to deal with it. Our Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has introduced the increased interview activity plan. From the information I have to date, 75,000 unemployed have been called in so far to find out why they are not taking jobs which are available. We have found jobs for
25,000	of them already. I understand that many of the people who are called in for the interviews are not showing up because they know we are calling them to find them a job.
I have written to the Minister of Employment and Immigration today asking him to have his UIC officials go to these missions which have soup kitchens and are feeding the unemployed and discuss with these people the reasons they cannot find a job. Perhaps we can assist them in that regard. I am not saying this is the case in every part of Canada. However, it certainly is the case in Ontario. In British Columbia which has a 15 per cent unemployment rate, it was interesting that they could not find enough census takers to do the recent census. They were being offered $7.50 an hour.
There is another serious problem in this country. The head of the Labour Congress in the Province of Alberta has told the unemployed not to take the jobs, to stay on unemployment insurance benefits or welfare. Is that not a great attitude to take?
The Government is taking positive action to try to restore the work ethic which was destroyed by the Liberal Party. We have a pretty good record to date. We will be interviewing a million persons across Canada and I am sure we will find work for a lot more Canadians in the future.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to test your interpretation of the rule of relevance to discover what connection there is between the vicious verbal assaults on the unemployed we just heard and the terms of Bill C-ll.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) has the floor.


Clement George Minaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend and neighbour, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-

October 16, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), for his comments. I think what the Hon. Member was indicating is that there is work out there for the potential breadwinners of families which was not there before. The Hon. Member's comments link very closely to my remarks, that we must get the breadwinner working and bringing income in. If that income is not adequate, the Government and the taxpayers can help. If we can keep him or her working, we have a good thing going. I believe the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine was showing that there is potential for someone to go out and get a job as the breadwinner of the family.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for details on the official recognition of a national marketing board for incubated eggs.
I would like to bring forth additional information on that issue of major importance to Canadians in general and to people in my constituency in particular. I would like to remind the Minister how important it is that a decision be made soon by Cabinet, because what is involved is a very important proclamation, in view of the fact that the market is gradually desintegrating under the feet of our incubated egg producers. It must also be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, that producers of incubated eggs employ some 2,000 people here in Canada, either directly or indirectly.
This industry has a turnover of well over $100 million and, in addition, it provides the chick producers of Quebec with the eggs they require for their final production.
I feel I should also include details as to the status of that industry in Quebec, where some 30 per cent of all incubated eggs are produced.
Quebec producers get 80 per cent of their supplies from eggs incubated in Quebec. The industry is very seriously threatened by American competition, and I must stress that between 1983 and 1985 there have been alarming increases in the levels of American egg and chick imports. They have increased by 59 and 829 per cent respectively, going from 39.6 to 63.3 million eggs and from 2.1 to 19.8 million chicks. Those data, illustrating as they do the trend in our Canadian incubated egg production, is a very bad omen indeed, and it is urgent that we take steps to stop that trend. Our producers will find it increasingly hard to survive and hold their own on a competitive market where inequality and inadequate organization
would prove very costly to Canadian producers. Canadian producers do not expect preferential treatment from the Government, they are simply asking for a specific measure which is consistent with the existing law, namely that their marketing board be duly acknowledged. They do not advocate the expenditure of public funds. The producers are seeking a formal structure so that they will be able to exercise selfdiscipline and avail themselves of existing provisions in Canadian law. They did not spare any effort and were in regular contact with the office of the Minister of Agriculture who, last August 13, brought the issue of incubated eggs to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues. Their decision was to refer the matter to the trade relations departmental sub-committee for an assessment of the impact which the creation of a new board might have on the Canada-U.S. bilateral discussions on freer trade. The producers are worried about possible delays and they would like the Government and the Department of Agriculture to set a deadline in the near future just so they can be sure their marketing board will become operative. It is in that sense that I urge the Minister of Agriculture to intervene and establish the marketing board. I am asking this because it is important to Canadian producers, including those in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, first because it means a lot to most incubated egg producers in my riding, and a large number of industries are related to chicken farming, egg production, and so on. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will be able to provide an appropriate answer and I know that he will be well represented in this House by his new Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne), whom I wish to congratulate on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, which appointment he certainly owes to his active interest in the fields of agriculture and wheat transport in relation with the Crow rate. Today, the Hon. Member for Champlain has an opportunity to assert officially his desire to help Quebec producers.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that it is a pleasure to see our Quebec colleagues, such as the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), take an active interest in agriculture, particularly as concerns an issue which has been the subject of special attention these last few months and weeks.
First, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act allows for the establishment of an agency when there is a certainty that the majority of producers of a farm product or of each farm product in Canada are in favour of creating such an agency.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, in recent years, the Canadian Association of Egg Producers has worked to establish the provincial organizations required to create a national supply management agency.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to impress upon the Hon. Member for Levis is that in 1976, and to quote from the
October 16, 1986

answer given yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to the question raised by the Hon. Member in this House:
However, let me indicate to the Hon. Member that it has been the position of this Party since 1976, is the position of this Party today, and will remain its position, that the producers themselves will determine what system of marketing best suits their own needs.
I think the position of the Minister of Agriculture on that matter is direct, clear, and unequivocal. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, when reference is made to putting in place a system as imposing as the one now being proposed, it involves discussions and negotiations, and of course when the matter comes before Cabinet, the latter must consider some of the recommendations and look at the situation as it exists in that industry.
This is why I am telling all incubated egg producers in Quebec and Canada-and I referred to Quebec because my colleague for Levis raised the issue, knowing full well that the Vice President of the Canadian Incubated Egg Association comes from his constituency- what I would like to emphasize to the Hon. Member is that the matter is proceeding. And the matter is proceeding because it has come before Cabinet, and since a Cabinet decision is to be taken in the coming days or weeks, it is my view that the Hon. Member for Levis can tell his constituents that the matter is proceeding and going forward and that, as stated by the Minister of Agriculture, we will provide the majority of egg producers with the marketing boards, the systems of marketing they will want to have established.


EDUCATION-POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTER (B) FUNDING OF STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, October 10, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) what the Government is going to do about the appalling situation many young people are facing in getting post-secondary education. I called to his attention the fact that the Minister of Education for British Columbia had the audacity to advise young people that they should "reexamine their priorities and consider putting off their postsecondary education if they are unable to afford it".
I asked the Prime Minister what he will do about this tragic situation. Specifically, I asked if he would end the freeze on the level of student loans which, because of inflation, jeopardizes the future of students who do not come from wealthy families. The Prime Minister did not answer that question. In fact, I suggest he did not give the reply that it deserves. What he did volunteer was that his Government is committed to investing in the youth of our country, evidenced, he said, by the increase of some $25 billion directed to those areas over the next five years.
He knows, and I believe every Member of this House knows, that the $25 billion of which he speaks refers to federal
Adjournment Debate
transfer payments to the provinces, and will over five years only barely equalize inflation at 5 per cent, which is not a real increase at all. In fact, it amounts to a cut-back on the promises which the Prime Minister made to the people of Canada as to what the formula would be for the actual increases which are needed to maintain our educational system. All in all, he knows that in other areas of support for post-secondary education his Government is financially cutting back and strangling our colleges and universities, more particularly our students and faculty members.
One must ask why the Government has twice changed those individuals responsible for post-secondary education over the past two years. We now have our third Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and our third Deputy Minister in two years. Is it because they were all incompetent? Was it because those Ministers and Deputy Ministers were embarrassed by the Government's betrayal of our youth and our country's future and, in the face of this grave crisis, were humiliated by their impotence and had to be replaced?
The crisis in Canada grows daily more acute for our universities and colleges. University presidents in British Columbia resigned last year in sorrow and in protest. They knew they could not deliver, and they did not want to deceive anyone. Students have held rallies across the country. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada dared to comment, so grave is this crisis, and called upon the Governments of Canada to do something about it. Just today, universities and colleges in Toronto were closed down in protest by administrators, faculty members, and students alike.
Our national task force on post-secondary education, appointed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), is going across Canada for the next three weeks to pinpoint immediate steps the federal Government could take to rectify the grave crisis in the field of post-secondary education.
Does the Government have anything creative to offer to the more than one million students and teachers in our colleges and universities other than cuts to the transfer payments formula, 40 per cent cuts in community colleges seats for training, a freeze on the level of student loans, savaging the budget of the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) to a point where it is now nothing more than a ceremonial office, and proposing to call yet another conference to stall off federal action? I suggest that this reply by the Government of yet another conference, of calling people together, is not action in the face of a grave crisis which has been ongoing for two years.
I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will give a reply which indicates some kind of action. What does this Government, devoid of creativity or initiative, have to offer? It cannot act or in this case even react in time to save our postsecondary educational infrastructure.

October 16, 1986
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I wish also to congragulate you, because it is the first time I have risen in the House since our return for this second session of the 33rd Parliament as the new Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, as announced yesterday by the Prime Minister.
I want to congratulate you also for your good performance at the time the House elected its Speaker, as well as your appointment as Deputy Chairman of the Committees of the Whole House.
A few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and again tonight, the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) expressed his concerns about the ability for young Canadian men and women to have access to post-secondary education and wondered about the Government's intention concerning young people's access to college and university education, whatever their financial status.
The Prime Minister indicated then in the House the Government's intention in this area by emphasizing the principles indicated in the Speech from the Throne and mentioning the increased contribution of the Federal Government to this area.
If I may, I should like tonight to give the House some indications concerning the access to post-secondary education for young Canadians and remind the House of some very concrete steps the Government has taken.
I suggest it would be improper to try and make political gains on the future of our young people, because what we are doing for our young men and women is for the future of the country. There is a principle with which not only this Government, but all concerned parties and the Canadian society as a whole agree, namely, that all students with the necessary qualifications should have access to post-secondary education. It is in the light of this universally accepted principle that the Government is directing its efforts, taking into account the fact that education is a provincial area of competence.
When we refer to the education of young people, we are not thinking only of the rich, those whose parents can afford to pay, but all young people who have talents to develop and want to study, including those who are handicapped or are financially disadvantaged. That is why the Government is putting so much emphasis on this aspect of the question.
First, as concerns education and health, the Government will be making available to the provinces during the next five years an additional amount of over $25 billion to allow them to live up fully to their responsibilities. This represents an annual increase of about 5 per cent in the federal contribution.
The expenditures of the federal Government in relation with the student loans program will increase from $285.5 million in 1984-85 to $304.2 million this year, in 1986-87. Moreover, the number of students who benefit under this program has increased from 226,000 to 235,000 over the same period. More Canadian students benefit from this program than before.
Do I have to remind you that this program is meant to help, with the co-operation of the provinces, qualified but needy students undertake post-secondary studies.
It is a good thing to review periodically the aid given in that area. You are aware of the fact that the Council of Ministers of Education has recently agreed to set up a federal-provincial advisory committee whose task it will be to review some of the programs and to suggest means to strengthen the co-operation between both levels of Government.
As for the handicapped, I should like to remind this House that last year the Government set up a $16-million fund to improve the condition of handicapped people.
Beside this fund, there are particular programs that, unfortunately, I cannot review in detail. I wanted to give this information to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, because it shows that we are successful in our efforts to give young Canadian men and women, whether they are physically or financially handicapped, better access to post-secondary education.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 17, 1986