1986-01-20

Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the third time and passed.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this Bill before but we on this side still have to rise to continue putting the case that we have been putting. It seems, however, that the Government is unable or unwilling to listen. There was some suggestion last week from a Conservative to my left, whose riding escapes me for the moment, that we were not taking this matter entirely seriously. Let me put that to rest first of all. We take this issue very seriously indeed. I do, particularly, coming as I do from the Province of Newfoundland.
The basic argument against this Bill is that it hits those people in Canada who can least afford the added burden, namely, the low income people. You can make all the arguments you like about the family allowance Bill per se, but if you add it to the other measures that have been taken that impact on low income people in various parts of Canada, it is true that they are going to be hit very hard.
The family allowance will be deindexed from 1986 onward. The child tax credit, although it will be raised to $454 per child in 1986 and thereafter, will be deindexed from 1989 onward. The child tax exemption will be reduced from $710 per child in 1986.
We talked about the tax exemption last week, Mr. Speaker. The $50 federal tax deduction is being eliminated and some families will pay $100 more in federal tax. The federal sales tax is being increased. If you add it all together, there will be a net reduction for low income people. This coming year and thereafter low income people across the country will get less money net than before as a result of Bill C-70 and the other measures taken by the Government. That is an unacceptable situation, Mr. Speaker, because of the economic situation existing in Newfoundland and in provinces like Nova Scotia, particularly in the Cape Breton area. It seems that the Government has written off the Atlantic region completely.
Let me put that in context. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who is the Chairman of the Finance Committee, suggests that all of these measures have to be taken because the deficit has to be reduced and the fiscal house has to be put in order. He says that to take up the slack, we must put the private sector front and centre. That makes sense in theory, but not in reality.
In Newfoundland and in the Atlantic area the private sector is weaker than it is in other parts of the country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tells us continuously about the 300,000 or 400,000 jobs that his Government has created since coming to power, but that may or may not be true. That may or may not stand up in analysis. But the very studies to which the Prime Minister is referring that confirm, to him at least, that the Government has created 300,000 or 400,000 confirm also that only 8 per cent of those new jobs have occurred in the Atlantic area. The private sector in that area is weaker than in other parts of the country.
Our economy has depended upon Government intervention and government support systems of economic survival until now. The case I want to make is that we must not take away those programs, we must not cut those programs, and we must not tamper with the social security system, until such time as we have put something else in its place.


Ms. Mitchell:: What do you mean by "until such time"? Not at all.


Bill Rompkey: If the Government does that, there will be a double whammy in the Atlantic area. Not only are the new jobs not being created, but we are losing support in terms of Government programs, transfer payments and social security programs on which we have depended until now.
That is one of the main reasons my province came into Confederation. We are a new province in Confederation. 1 was not born in Canada. 1 was 13 years old, as I keep saying, when my people came to this country. That is true; 1 was 13 years old in 1949. One of the reasons we joined Canada was the kind of economic and social security which Canada could offer us. That is one of the reasons we are part of Confederation. Only 52 per cent of our people voted to join. The very issue on which Newfoundlanders voted to join Canada is being tampered with now and is being taken away as far as we can see. This is happening at a time when we have the highest cost of living and the highest unemployment rate anywhere in the country.
Statistics Canada will show that our unemployment rate is something like 20 per cent. I think it is more than that. If we add in the hidden unemployed, those people who have given up

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
looking, the unemployment rate is something like 40 per cent.
I would say that among young people it is more like 50 per cent. That is the situation which has to be addressed and put in context in this debate.
At the same time that we have that high unemployment rate and that high cost of living, what else is happening? People are being laid off in the Department of Fisheries. Hundreds of people will be laid off in that Department this year. Everyone knows how much we depend on the fisheries. Everyone knows how many public servants there are in our province in that Department. Transport is being cut. The latest cut about which we are hearing and we want confirmed, and I hope disavowed, is that there will be a complete and utter shut-down of Terra Transport, which is CN Rail in Newfoundland. It is the last remaining vestige of railway service in Newfoundland and it will be done away with by the Government. We have to add all these factors together.
It is not enough to say that we have signed the Atlantic Accord and that it will be the salvation of our people. It will not be, because those jobs will not come for years. When they do come, how much will we make out of the Atlantic Accord? Perhaps it will be $200 million per year, but the provincial deficit is something like $300 million per year. It will not be the salvation of our people.
I have put these points on the record to show that it is not only this Bill on family allowances. This Bill, along with other measures, will have a very serious impact on people in my province and on people in the Atlantic area. The Government has to recognize that. If it looks at nothing else, it should look at the polls and see the reaction of people to this particular issue. That kind of attitude must change. They cannot tamper with those programs. The Hon. Member to my left who said that they cannot be tampered with in any way is quite right. However, the point I am working is that at a time like this it is particularly unacceptable and unbrearable for people to be subjected to the kinds of cuts we are experiencing, not simply in Government programs upon which we have depended for a long time. The small craft harbours budget is something else which we use to create jobs. Even make-work programs have changed now so that people in rural areas are disadvantaged. Projects such as Canada Works are more difficult for people in rural areas to take advantage of because they involve training elements and that kind of thing. There seems to be a general, over-all thrust or drift to the right, which is having a completely unbearable impact in my particular area. This family allowance Bill is something which highlights it.
People have rights to fair and equal treatment. We cannot have blanket policies which fit everywhere in Canada. We know that. Joey Smallwood used to tell the story from time to time about Procrustes' bed. Procrustes was a Greek who operated what we would call a motel today. He had one bed, and every traveller who came to that inn had to fit that bed. If he was too long, he chopped him off; if he was too short, he extended him so that he would fit the bed. That cannot be done in Canada. Canada is a country of regions, and we must have a sensitivity to that reality. One of the things that is
absent, as I see it, in the present Government is a regional development policy. I have asked for it in the House before; I have asked for it to be enunciated. It has not been enunciated. What happened to DREE? What has been put in its place? Where is the regional development policy of the country? Not all areas of Canada are equal. If they come in with blanket programs saying that they will slash willy-nilly across the country, it will impact more heavily on those people who are already in an unequal position. That is the reality and that is the situation.
I return to my main point. The Government has not announced what its economic development policy will be for Newfoundland. I hope the Hon. Member for Mississauga South will address this issue because he is a proponent of free enterprise carrying the load. The thesis is: "You are going to be all right because we are going to put private enterprise front and centre and it will be the saviour of the country". I am saying that there is no evidence that that is happening in Newfoundland. There is evidence in the meantime that the public service programs and social security programs on which historically we have heavily depended all the while that we have been in Confederation are now being chopped and nothing is being put in their place. Not only is that wrong in principle, as my friend to my left said, but it is particularly wrong at this stage in our development because it will simply sink us economically altogether.
I want to see the reaction of the Premier of Newfoundland not only to those measures but to the measures which will impact upon us very soon-today, tomorrow or in the next few days-with the cut-backs in CN Rail and the complete wiping out of Terra Transport in Newfoundland. The only reaction can be to fight it with all our might. I hope there will be a consolidation or a firm coalition of all those who are interested in fighting that battle. It is a battle which has to be fought. This a bad Bill in and of itself. It will impact negatively on low-income people. If we add the family allowance changes, the child tax credit changes, the child tax exemption changes, the sales tax and the deindexation of the income tax, there is a net reduction to low-income people. Those people cannot bear that in principle and should not have to bear it in principle. They should not have to bear it at a time when their economic future is in grave doubt and grave uncertainty. That is the reality, that is what is happening. I do not know how often we have to point that out to the Government. It seems that any such plea is falling on deaf ears, come from where it may. The latest group to add its voice to those of others is the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops which has been very active in my province as well. Indeed the Pope, when he was in this country and spoke in Flat Rock, Newfoundland, addressed this very issue. Surely he is more eloquent than I am, but I have a responsibility today to stand in the House of Commons and echo what he said and what the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops said. They said: "We have noted the rationale for the restructuring of social programs, namely, deficit reduction". Whatever the merits of such a strategy, society must not succumb to an ideology of restraint that
January 20,1986

subordinates human dignity and human needs to abstract economic theories. That is the point. You cannot succumb to an ideology of restraint that subordinates human dignity and human needs to abstract economic theory.
Low-income people, no matter where they live, have a right to be served by the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada, and have a right to those services that they have historically enjoyed: They say: "It is our fear that the social and human impact of the proposed changes to the family allowance will only add to the already widespread suffering of our families, particularly families headed by women".
According to the recent report on poverty by the National Council on Welfare, the number of families living below the poverty line has increased for the fourth year in a row. The most vulnerable groups include one-parent families headed by women, unattached young people and the elderly. That is the constituency that this Party has historically tried to defend by bringing in those social security systems and regional development policies and by making sure that people who did not have were helped in some way. There has to be that Government intervention in areas of this kind. I am speaking particularly on behalf of my own province.
This Bill is wrong in principle because it hits, along with other measures, particularly at low-income people who should not have and cannot afford to bear that burden. It is particularly wrong at this particular time when the economic situation is so fragile and in such great difficulty, and in the absence of any regional development policies to show the regions of the country that are have-not regions that you have some way of securing their economic future. That is the reality of this Bill. That is why we should defeat it if we can, and that is why we have to do whatever we can, use every vehicle or mechanism at our disposal, to point out to the Government the error of its ways and to hope, in the final analysis, in the eleventh hour, that it will change its mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions and comments?


Mr. Kilgour:: Let me say to the Member who just spoke that I understand that the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone), a member of his own Party, indicated on Thursday that under this Bill low-income families would be better off until 1991. We believe that that is the case as well. I would simply ask the Member why it is that he is opposing a Bill that will help the low-income families of Canada, including those in his own province. Why is he opposing this Bill?


Bill Rompkey: It may be true that for a while there is going to be some sort of net benefit, but the long-term prospects are for a net reduction, and those figures are incontrovertible whichever way you look at them. The reality is that over the long term-and the long term is not going to be very long in coming-there is going to be a net reduction to low-income people. I think that is unacceptable. If you add up the various budget measures, the changes in family allowances, the
Family Allowances Act, 1973
changes in the child tax credit, the changes in the child tax exemption, the deindexation of personal income tax exemption and the sales tax, if you add all those together, you get a net reduction in the amount coming in to low-income families. That is what I am saying is uncceptable, not simply in principle but unacceptable at a time and in areas where you have a very fragile economy that has historically been dependent on Government services that are now disappearing and where you have nothing else to put in its place. That is the real tragedy, Mr. Speaker.


David Kilgour: I direct my question to the Hon. Member. Does he accept, speaking at least under 1991, that if this Bill is passed by the House, low-income families in Newfoundland, as is the case elsewhere across the country, will be better of because of this Bill than they would be under the situation that exists today?


Bill Rompkey: You could take a trip for a week, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to feed you very well in the first couple of days, but we are going to starve you for the rest of the week. 1 do not think anybody would accept a proposition like that. If I am going on a trip, I want to make sure that I am fed for the whole trip. If I were going north with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and he said, "You could come with me for a week and we are going to have turkey for the first few days, following which we are going to have to go on water", I could not accept such a proposition, and neither will my people accept that.


Mr. Edwards:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the partial concession that my friend, the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), has made to my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona, and I would further ask him this question, since he is a man of intellectual integrity. When he was alluding to the joining of Canada in Confederation by Newfoundland in 1949 I think I heard him say that part of the deal was the indexation of family allowances. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member can inform me what specific indexation existed in 1949.


Bill Rompkey: I appreciate the question, Mr. Speaker, and the Member that it is coming from. The issue in 1949 obviously was not indexation, because indexation occurred later. We did not really have inflation in 1949, but we encountered inflation thereafter. As a result of that inflation it was decided to index family allowances, and indeed other measures, so that low-income people could keep up with costs that they were confronted with. There was no indexation obviously at the time of Confederation.
The point that I was making was that we negotiated the terms of union, a contract with Canada in 1949. One of the strong selling points made by Mr. St. Laurent and his Government at that time, and by the Parliament of Canada, was that Newfoundland would be eligible for social security payments such as family allowances. If you had to take in Newfoundland one symbol of the support for and the importance of Confed-

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
eration to us, it would be family allowances. Certainly that was a high priority. There were other things that we encountered too, such as funds for economic development, and later on programs for economic development. At the time of Confederation in 1949 when that contract was made between the two sovereign countries, one of the outstanding issues that sold Confederation, only to 52 per cent, but it did sell, was the issue of family allowances. I am saying now that our people are looking at this issue and thinking back about how important this and other Government programs have been to them. They will be judging in a historical context the doing away with what was very important to them and one of the fundamental and essential points on which they agreed to come into this country.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad that the Hon. Member has given us a historical perspective, and I am wondering if he can inform us which Party first altered the indexation of family allowances and when it was done, and which Party imposed a 5 per cent limit on those allowances when inflation was well into the double digits?


Mr. Broadbent:: Good question.


Bill Rompkey: It may be a good question. What we are here discussing is an issue that is happening here and now. The fundamental point that I am making is that measures are being imposed on low-income families who can least afford to bear that burden. One of these days you may get a chance to govern-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: -in the meantime you have to stick to the issues. What is happening here and now is that there is a net loss to low-income families, regardless of what we did or did not do. 1 will tell you something we did not do, and that is, was we did not cut Government programs in places that depended on us. This Party has a record in the Atlantic provinces, and I think the indication of that record is the fact that we have seven Members from there. What is happening here and now is that there is a net loss to low-income families. Whatever it was we did, something we did not do was to cut-


Mr. Heap:: You know what you didn't do.


Bill Rompkey: I am telling you what we did not do. We did not cut Government programs in places that depended on them.


Mr. Benjamin:: You didn't do a lot of things. That's why you're sitting over here.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: You cut family allowances.


Bill Rompkey: This Party has a record in the Atlantic provinces and I think an indication of that record is that we have seven Members here in the House of Commons from Atlantic Canada while the Party whose Members are screaming on my left does not have one and is not likely to get one.
The people know our record in the Atlantic provinces. It is that, over the years, we stood up for those people. We stood up for those people in have-not areas and those people with low incomes who have not had the same kinds of economic opportunities as those whom my friends from the left represent who live in the wealthy economic areas like downtown Toronto and elsewhere. That is the record of this Party in the House of Commons, and the people from the Atlantic area know that. They are going to judge us on that and they are going to judge the Party opposite on what it does. The measure we are discussing strikes at the fundamental rights and abilities of people to survive and to have a future in this country. That is completely unacceptable.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke represents a very important province, the Province of Newfoundland. I was most interested in his comments about the commitment regarding family allowances that people from Newfoundland felt when they entered confederation.
Following up on the last point that was made, does the Hon. Member realize that if family allowances had been fully indexed from the time they were brought in by the Liberal Party at the insistence of social policy groups, not the least of which was the CCF, way back in the 1940s, the women of Newfoundland would now be receiving over $50 per month rather than $32 per month? While he is up, will he tell us what the women of Newfoundland think about this?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I know what the women of Newfoundland think about family allowances, something which has been quite rightly identified with this Party. I know what the women of Newfoundland think about the child tax credit, which quite rightly is identified with this Party. I know what the women of Newfoundland think about other measures this Party has brought in over the years. If "ifs" and "and's" were pots and pans, there would be no work for tinkers.
One may have all kinds of ideas, but one may or may not have the ability to put them into effect. The fact is that we did have ideas and we put them into effect. Over the years, the people have known that this Party stands for family allowance and child tax credit. The people have known that this Party stands for a regional development policy that supports and helps low-income and have-not areas of the country. That is the record of the Liberal Party in Canada, and Newfoundland and the women and men of Newfoundland know that that is so.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the House will forgive me a slight digression at the outset of my speech. I would like to respond very briefly to the exchange we just heard between a Conservative Member and a former Liberal Minister who is now on this side of the House.
Coming from the Conservative side of the House, we heard what is now the classic rationale for Conservative policy. This rationale began not very many days ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was asked both in and out of the House why he shut down a refinery in Montreal. He indicated
January 20, 1986

that he was simply trying to catch up with the Liberal Party which had shut down three refineries while he had shut down one. If it was all right for the Liberals to do it, the Prime Minister said, then that was a coherent, cogent reason for a Conservative Government to do the same thing.
We are now hearing the same thing about family allowances. A Member from the Conservative side of the House asked a former Minister if he would admit that the Liberal Party cut back on family allowance indexing when it was in power. To understate it considerably, that does not persuade me that it is right for the Conservative Party to do today what was wrong for the Liberal Party to do a decade ago.
On the other hand, we heard the former Minister of the Crown make a backhanded compliment to members of my Party by saying that one day we may govern, and we certainly believe that that is true. If I understood him correctly, he added that in the meantime, we have to deal with issues. The implication was that the Liberals deal with issues between elections but when they get elected they forget them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will excuse a somewhat partial person if he says that that sort of sums up this little debate and my views of these two old Parties.
I do wish to turn to the substance of the issue and not simply deal with some of the arguments that have been made, although it seems to me that those arguments are pretty germane to what is going on right now. In my judgment, today is really a sad day for Canada, Canada's families, Canada's children, Canada's parents and particularly Canada's mothers.
As far as my Party is concerned, the central issue involved in the debate is the question of fairness. Later on today, the Conservative majority will rise unanimously to demonstrate by its vote its concern, not for fairness but for unfairness. That will dramatically illustrate that the Government is not only insensitive to the claims of fairness but is also insensitive in the face of opposition to this particular measure on the part of a wide range of groups that represent every part of our country.
Many very good points have been made about family allowances in this debate. However, for me there are two crucial aspects to the history of family allowance in Canada. First, when family allowances came into being, our society recognized by state action the value of children by earmarking a very specific sum of money to be directed to children in society. That was an important action. Normally, in most of our transactions, a good part of which is totally justified in a market economy, people have the freedom to choose how they dispose of their incomes. That is part of what freedom is all about. However, my Party has long held the view that the allocation of financial resources in society ought never to be exclusively determined by market considerations.
Historically, the fundamental reason we came into being was that we favoured the view that society itself, through its elected men and women, ought to interfere with the marketplace constructively, positively and without embarrassment to
Family Allowances Act, 1973
decide that there are certain collective goals for the community as a whole that ought to be met by spending income. When we decided many years ago on family allowances, we were saying as a society that children and families are important and that the state is earmarking a particular sum of money to go to the children of our society. That is important and has become part of our social history.
The second important aspect of family allowances is something which, though not intended as such, was immediately perceived and has remained, and that is, what it has meant for many women in Canadian society. The point that has now been recognized by members of all Parties but is not made today is that the only cheques many women in Canadian society receive in their own names are the family allowance cheques, and that is a very important consideration. I am sure Members on all sides of the House have run into women in rural Canada, urban Canada, the Atlantic provinces, the West, downtown Toronto and downtown Montreal who have said that the family allowance cheques, though perhaps they are not an awful lot in dollar value except for low-income families, are important to them because the cheques come in their names. These two points are very important. I would suggest that a Government sensitive to these elements of social justice in our past would not be changing them now for the future.
Some 40 years ago family allowances were introduced. I would argue that they have an important place in the shared set of social values which most Canadians support. Without going into all the details of the history from that point in time onward, I do wish to mention a few crucial points.
We heard from a former Liberal Minister who gave what I would call a selective view of the history of family allowances. He failed to mention that in 1971, after they had been introduced, members of the Liberal Party, with a majority Government, attempted to abolish family allowances entirely. They did not attempt simply to reduce them or curtail their increments but, in 1971, the Liberal Party tried to abolish them entirely. They did not get away with it. They backed down after a prolonged debate in the House of Commons.
Then, in the early 1970s-and I say so with some pride and without trying to be sanctimonious-in the early days of minority Government, which held office from 1972 to 1974, a whole range of social programs were indexed. At that time I was proud to be chairman of my caucus. 1 took part in the discussions. We made the case that social programs, most of which but by no means all-which is important in terms of their effects-must go out to people who need the money. We made the case that when the economy is inflating, those social programs should be indexed to reflect the change in the cost of living. I wish to say to our Liberal colleagues in the House that they did not automatically respond by saying "Isn't that a good idea. Let's do it". There was something to do with power and its maintenance involved. We put it to them bluntly that if they wanted to remain in office one of the things they had

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
better do is to index not only family allowances but pensions and other social programs. We won an important battle. We want to preserve those benefits.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister responsible for this Bill, and I know he has had this referred to him a number of times, that when he was on this side of the House and when he spoke on the subject on September 6, 1973, he joined in support of the indexation principle. Following that debate the Minister moved to the other side of the House and he has shifted his argument. However, I want to be as fair as I possibly can to the Minister. He responded to one of my colleagues earlier in this debate in defending his current position. He admitted that when he was on this side of the House he took the position that full indexation was to be supported. Now that he is on the other side of the House, he says that we need a change because of the deficit. That is what he said in the House recently. He said that the deficit has increased significantly as a proportion of our GNP.
I wish to say to the Minister two things in this respect. First, in a document which he prepared as a forerunner for a discussion of pensions he said that there would not be any change in terms of cutting back on social programs, in this case pensions. He said that money from those programs would not be allocated away from them to deal with the deficit. This year, when the economy was inflated and when the debt was just about as real, he made a commitment that there would be no change in social programs in order to use that money for the deficit. However, he is now doing just that.
Second, I want to say to the Minister that it is our view that if you are taking revenue to deal with any economic problem faced by a Government-a Government which will take money from pensioners or recipients of family allowances-it should never do so except in the final result. By God, it should certainly never do it when it is giving a $500,000 capital gains tax gift to the rich in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister that the argument simply does not wash. As Leader of a social democratic Party I would be prepared to say that at certain times absolutely everyone must pay his or her share. In wartime, or under certain other circumstances, I can understand that, and in this category I include pensioners and recipients of the family allowance. However, I say this should be done only if there is a real crisis. I am certainly not saying that we have that type of situation in Canada today. 1 do not accept that, when we continue to have one of the most unfair tax systems in the world and this Government keeps that unfair tax system in place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I also want to say that although indexation was brought in by a minority Government, after the Liberals regained a majority they began the process of cutting back on
family allowance increases which were to be related to cost of living increases. Members of the Liberal Party reduced the amount through their six and Five program, which was a decision they made in the early 1980s, and before that, in 1978, there was another reduction.
If we look at the history of the Liberal Party simply on this issue we see that their members sound like great social democrats now that they are on this side of the House. However, if we look at the history in recent years and compare the results of what family allowances would have been if they had been left alone with what they are actually now, as has already been pointed out by other members of my Party, we find that the family allowance would be at least one-third greater than it is today. 1 say to our Liberal colleagues that in criticizing the Conservatives just for once they should be a little more honest, a little more fair, and they should remember their own past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Government knows that single parents at the poverty level will be hit hardest by this Bill. The Government also knows that some 90 per cent of single-parent families happen to be headed by women, and that over 50 per cent in this category are living at the poverty level. Therefore, the Government knows that while it is taking needed money away from these Canadians, it is giving millions of unneeded dollars to the rich in the form of this special capital gains tax hand-out. When this measure was brought in I said, and I repeat it now, that instead of showing more compassion for the poor of Canada, or for the ordinary citizen, what we have is a Conservative Government which, quite literally, is taking from the needy to give to the greedy. That is what the Tories are doing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would now like to say a few words on this important issue in our other official language.

1 repeat, Mr. Speaker, poor and needy families will be the worst off. Wait until the economy is in better shape, says the Government or, more accurately, the Prime Minister. Everybody knows the Prime Minister's stock answer on economic indicators. I challenge the Prime Minister to put his money where his mouth is. I challenge the Prime Minister to listen to Canadians and withdraw Bill C-70 today.
The Prime Minister could start today by keeping his promise to maintain our social programs instead of increasing the financial burdens of those who already have trouble coping. The Government is giving Canadian families a long list of broken promises. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to use his latest excuse: the Liberals did too. As if two wrongs made a right. As I said before, it is an excuse we cannot accept.
In his consultation paper on "Child and Elderly Benefits", the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) stated that cuts in family allowances would not be used to reduce the
January 20, 1986

deficit. However, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was forced to admit that this money would in fact be used to reduce the deficit. And the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is here in the House today, made the same admission. I now want to ask the Minister: Who else is going to pay the bill? Certainly not the oil multinationals or the chartered banks or rich investors, individuals and groups which have already been given a lot of money by the Conservatives. Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are paying the bill, families across this country, families in rural areas and in our towns and villages. For many children, these cuts mean they will not have the running shoes they wanted, no school supplies, fewer healthy snacks. In its intransigence, this Government has ignored the voice of the poor, women and even the churches.
Day after day, New Democratic Party members have been tabling petitions in the House demanding that the Government fully index family allowances. Hundreds of thousands of signatures, even more than for old age security pensions.
This Government says it consults, but it does not listen. Before Christmas, the Government refused to meet with the Coalition des Quebecoises pour les allocations familiales, a group representing a host of community and women's organizations.
Last week, twenty major religious, family, native peoples, anti-poverty, labour and women's groups sent a telegram to the Prime Minister, asking him to withdraw Bill C-70. Today, Mr. Speaker, is the last day in this debate in which the Prime Minister can show he not only consults but listens.
Indeed, this may be the final day of debate on this Bill. It would be somewhat Utopian of me, I suspect, at this time to expect that the Prime Minister will hear the last minute appeal I have made or, more relevantly, respond to the appeals that have come from groups of men and women from all parts of the country. However, I want to assure the Prime Minister that while this might be the last day on which we can speak on this particular Bill, we in the New Democratic Party know that the Budget is coming up and in the weeks ahead we have an obligation to continue to push for fairness in tax matters and to promote fairness, particularly in terms of programs as they affect children. I give notice to the Government that this day it may, because of its numbers, have won the battle, but the war for justice will continue right up to the Budget.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I say through you to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), would the Hon. Member tell us if he accepts the fact that, with respect to a family of low income, under the reforms we are proposing, the mother will have more money in her purse for the next five years than she would have under the present legislation?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I willingly agree with what the Hon. Member has said. Indeed, we have stated in a
Family Allowances Act, 1973
number of speeches that if one looks at the specific changes the Government is making, there is that improvement. However, we have also added that we cannot look at that in isolation from all of the other tax measures and actions taken by the Government. Our calculation is that by 1990 there will be a net reduction in benefits precisely for those people about whom the Hon. Member is now asking.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter is even simpler: Is the Hon. Member prepared to admit that the Bill we have before the House today will put more money in the pockets of low-income mothers than is the case at the present time? Yes or no?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I find the question to be a variation of the one the Hon. Member just asked. I would be happy to send him our analysis of the other range of measures which have been brought in in order to show that the net effect for the people about whom he talks will be negative, not positive. The crucial point for us on social programs is-if the Hon. Member agrees with the two points I made early in my speech-first, that the family allowance is an important recognition by the state of the needs specifically of children and, second, that still, at this point in our history, it is the only cheque which comes into the home of many women, and if the Government is sensitive to the moral claims of these two categories, it simply should not alter them in any negative way in any manner whatsoever.


Mr. Desrosiers:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
He said earlier that family allowance cheques were addressed to the woman of the family. I wish he would explain, because I may have misunderstood, and I hope these allowances are not paid to women since they are supposed to be for the benefit of Canadian children. I hope you understand this.
I would like to know ... I wish you would explain what you meant when you said that the cheques were made out to the woman of the family.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, of course, I do not mean to imply in any sense one or two things the Hon. Member may be getting at, for example, that single parent fathers do not also receive cheques, because they obviously do. But compared numerically with women, the vast majority of the cheques go to mothers. Perhaps the Hon. Member was also implying- and I am not sure-that the moneys sent to whatever parent might be spent for a variety of family reasons or, alternatively, since there is no sort of state inspection or interference, and ought not to be, with respect to how the parents spend the money, they clearly can be spending the money in any way they deem appropriate. There is no doubt at all that the intention of the program is to put money into the pockets of

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
parents to be used for the bringing up of their children. I add immediately that I have not the slightest doubt that, in the vast majority of cases, that is still how that money is spent.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) that my family is the most important thing in my life as well. I also recognize that he is a very fair individual and is looking at this question from a realistic point of view. However, I would like to underline one fact and ask for a comment from him. The family allowance cheques will still be going to the mothers who have been receiving them, and those cheques, indeed, will have increased for the first month of 1986. In other words, the Government has merely tinkered with the system, we have maintained the concept of universality, and there has been an actual real increase in the cheques for this year. In the spirit of fairness, I think that direction should not be lost sight of.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, to pick up on the language used by the Hon. Member himself, there has not been a real increase at all. If the word "real" is used as it normally is in economics, it means to take into account increases in the cost of living. If I may turn it right around for the Hon. Member, this is what this debate is all about and, unlike the Conservatives, we want to provide the recipients of family allowances with real increases as opposed to bookkeeping entries. As the Hon. Member knows, there has been an increase all right, but it is all of 31 cents a month instead of about four times that amount.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and our Leader. Very often we have heard Government Members justify the cut-back in old age security and in the family allowance on the basis of the general notion that we are living beyond our means. Yet our expenditures on social programs are well below those of seven countries of the OECD. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that we in Canada are spending beyond our means. Would the Hon. Member comment on whether the cause of our deficit is not that we are living beyond our means, but that we have not been collecting the revenues we should have been collecting?


John Edward Broadbent: We have been living beyond our means in the sense that the vast majority of people are subsidizing a small minority of rich individuals and very large corporations who have been receiving a disproportionate share of the tax breaks paid for by the rest of Canadians.
Very quickly, on that entirely reasonable and fair-minded question, I would like to make two points. One is that if we took a harder look at our sources of revenue, namely that $30 billion-plus category of tax expenditures, which is to say money going to the corporations without a cost benefit analysis, we may, as the Auditor General has suggested a number of times, find not simply millions but billions of dollars in additional revenue. We would then not have to attack family
allowance recipients and pensioners and other people who need the money.
The second point is simply to say to Government Members that the Prime Minister of Japan was here recently and I hope our Prime Minister had a serious chat with him. Intermittently over the last decade the deficit in Japan has been larger than ours as a percentage of its Gross National Product, but the Japanese are not doing too badly. They have an unemployment rate of 2.5 per cent. It we could get unemployment down to about 7 per cent, set that as a goal, then instead of whacking away at social programs for needy people we would have enough revenue to wipe out the deficit. That should be the task of this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now over. We will continue debate with the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes).


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-70. I have listened with interest to some of the comments made today by members of the opposition Parties. I am pleased to note that both Parties have acknowledged that families are going to be in a much better financial position over the next few years than they would under the legislation presently in place. This Bill fulfils important commitments our Government made to Canadians upon taking office some 17 months ago. The first commitment was to bring federal social assistance to those who need it most, and at the same time, to reduce further our huge national deficit so that our children will not - I repeat, will not -have to bear that massive financial burden caused by past Government overspending.
Bill C-70 demonstrates to Canadians that this is a caring Government. We care about those in our society who are less fortunate than others, and we are doing something about it. The child tax credit, which benefits low-income Canadians, will be increased by $70 this year and $35 in each of the next two years. This is a significant benefit, and just this morning we had both opposition Parties acknowledge the fact that families are going to be in a better financial position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: The child tax exemption, which benefits primarily upper-income Canadians, will decrease in the years ahead.
Over the short period of time that this Government has been in office, it has presented some truly extensive social policy legislation. It is legislation that will help people. We care about people and we will truly help those people in need in communities right across this country. For example, we have extended the spouses' allowance. This is excellent legislation which is helping people, especially older women who are most in need. We broadened the definition of disability for income tax purposes. That was a truly caring policy. We increased pensions for veterans and introduced greater flexibility in the Canada Pension Plan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 20, 1986


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, members of our Party and Government have high ideals regarding strengthening family values. The legislation I have mentioned will truly help people.
Opposition Members have referred to certain things such as the report of the National Council on Welfare, and we talk about poverty in Canada. In my opinion the best way to reduce poverty is to make sure people have jobs. Families can be strengthened if family members have jobs. They have to have a job in order to eliminate poverty. This Government, over a short period of time, has created over 400,000 jobs right across the country. We can be truly proud of that fact because it means that a caring Government is helping people right across the country. Another very significant piece of legislation which will help families concerns the enforcement of maintenance orders resulting from marriage breakdown. When we talk of single-parent families we know this legislation will help. This Government cares about how Canadian tax dollars are spent. By redirecting social assistance to those who need it the most, we are using federal resources in an efficient and effective manner.
During the election, and since this Government took office, three important themes have formed the cornerstone of Progressive Conservative policy-making. The first was economic renewal. The second was national reconciliation. The third, which we have touched on today, is social justice. Surely the primary reason for social assistance is to help those in need. Therefore, it only makes sense to direct federal money to those people. Flow can we as Members of Parliament be content with social assistance programs which actually benefit upper-income Canadians more than they do lower-income Canadians? Yet, that is precisely the situation that we have had under the previous legislation. Bill C-70 and future legislation will bring sensibility to the situation by helping those in need by increasing the child tax credit and decreasing the child tax exemption.
My friends opposite disregard another important feature of Bill C-70, that is, the burden that previous legislation has put on the backs of our children and of future generations. I will quote from a very famous individual, Franco Modigliani, a Keynesian economist and the most recent winner of the Nobel prize for economics. He recently wrote: "In reaching levels unprecedented in peacetime, the deficit has become a serious threat to the wellbeing of younger and future generations of Americans". That quote was in reference to the American deficit which, on a per capita basis, is far less than our own.
Industrialized countries around the world are re-examining their social welfare systems in order to find better methods of assisting their underprivileged citizens. New Zealand's recently elected socialist Government has introduced proposals to realign social policies in redirecting moneys. Britain, the United States, and even that bastion of social democracy, Sweden, are all taking a second look at their state welfare programs to find more efficient ways of using scarce tax resources.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the same challenge. The Government is meeting that challenge with sensible, practical programs that will take care of Canadians in need without recklessly spending their money. In short, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-70 is a progressive piece of legislation that will be of benefit, not only to thousands of Canadians today, but to millions of children in the future.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member have any idea that over 150 organizations, including many expert social policy groups, women's groups, groups associated with children, and many other groups, unanimously opposed this legislation because it was regressive? How can she say it is progressive when it is reducing the indexation on family allowance? This means that the universal family allowance benefit, which I think most Canadian parents, and certainly most Canadian women, feel is a right of their children, is being eroded and will be eroded even more in future years.
The Member referred to the fact that the real way in which to deal with poverty in Canada is to have jobs. I wonder if she has recently talked to women in her riding who are on social assistance. There is no question that we need jobs. 1 would be the first to say that. We need better jobs, better paying jobs, and full-time jobs. However, that is not exactly what is happening for low-income women, for women who have not been in the labour market, or for many women who are in job ghettos earning pretty low rates of pay. Women are being pushed into part-time jobs and are not taking home a full or adequate pay cheque. Does the Member not agree that these very women particularly need, not only a fully indexed family allowance, but an increased family allowance? The Fiberals are the ones who eroded it in the beginning, otherwise it would be worth much more.
Does the Member not think that women who are not working in the workforce, but are certainly working hard at home raising, in many cases, large families, need a fully indexed family allowance? We certainly need jobs, we need better paying jobs, we need women in those better paying jobs, and we need full-time jobs. However, that in no way disputes the need for an adequate support program and fully indexed family allowance.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member brought a number of points to the attention of the House, and I would like to respond to them. I think it has been a very healthy exercise to have a discussion on this particular issue. I was pleased, as a Member of Parliament, as a mother, and as a grandmother, to meet a great number of mothers and grandmothers on Parliament Hill during this discussion. I think that is healthy because it means that mothers, grandmothers, and women across the country are becoming more involved in legislation.
The important thing about this legislation is that it in fact creates an increase in the family allowance. It is important to recognize that through this legislation there is an increase in the family allowance and a reduction in the escalation of that increase. The increase is $11.28 annually. In addition to that,

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
there is a S70 increase in the tax credit for the present year and an increase of $35 in the two subsequent years. That is an important item to recognize.
I firmly believe that the creation of jobs is the way to reduce poverty. 1 am very pleased to see further legislation in this House which addresses opportunities for women in the work force. I refer to the employment equity Bill which is in committee at the present time. That is the kind of legislation that will give women more opportunities in the workforce in order that they can become self-sufficient.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-70 is one piece of legislation that is helping people.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: How can you say it is helping anybody?


Pauline Browes: The Opposition Members in the Chamber this morning have both acknowledged that this legislation will put more money into the hands of the people who need it most. Families are going to be better off with this legislation. They have recognized and acknowledged that this morning. On top of that, we have other legislation that will assist people in getting jobs. We have created over 400,000 jobs already in the past few months. In addition to that, people will be given more opportunity across the country to get jobs. We have been eliminating poverty and helping families.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, as has previously been mentioned, this is the last day of debate on this important piece of legislation. It brings to mind a short story I read several years ago by Flaubert about the last class. It was about the last day of a class held in a French schoolhouse just before the First World War. People faced with the enormity of what they were all of sudden going to have to cope with in terms of that holocaust found themselves having to express, perhaps in more truthful terms, their own feelings, commitments, and attitudes with regard to what they had achieved and what they hoped to achieve. The conclusion of the short story was that at the end of the class the question was how many would remain and how many would come back after the war was over.
I think that has great symbolic value for Members on the Conservative side of the House. This debate symbolizes the question of how many really will come back after having entered into the kind of measures that they are now proposing to the House. Of course, we know what the answer is.
I was struck yesterday listening to news accounts that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), so typical of the man, blamed the Draconian drop in the support of his Government to the Press Gallery. Somehow the image machine is not working as efficiently as he had hoped. Never once did he question whether it might not be something that the Government is doing wrong. Never once did he ask himself that what the
Government was trying to propose was honestly and clearly being perceived by Canadians as being in the wrong direction. Never once did he really ask himself-and the last speaker might have had the honesty to ask herself-whether the Government cared about what Canadians thought about the Government or about issues. It is obvious he did not.
If the Government were more sensitive and responsive to Canadians, it would see that the measures that we are debating today, along with many others, are the real cause why the Government has frustrated the expectations of so many Canadians and as a result is being paid at this moment the most useful response, namely, withdrawal of support.
I cannot believe that any Prime Minister in the history of this country could somehow, with any form of integrity, greet with equanimity the latest poll result, which revealed that 50 per cent of Canadians believe he is doing a worse job than in the previous three months. That is half of the population.
There is a reason for that result. We see before us today in the legislation we are debating a fundamental dishonesty in the case being presented by Members opposite. They are trying to say that people will be better off as a consequence of this legislation.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That is absolutely right.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is what the Government is trying to convince Canadians of. But what the Tories do not take into account is that this legislation is part of a package. It is part of a total presentation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) which will end up in a net reduction of income for poor and middle income Canadians.
When the Tories talk about fairness, caring and sharing, why is it that by 1990 Canadians who make less than $10,000 will have $400 or $500 less income because of these tax measures and withdrawal benefits? How do the Tories explain that particular equation? What we have is a withdrawal of the child tax deduction in the income tax, increases in sales tax and in user costs in transportation. All the tax measures adding up to what economists call the family basket mean is that a family earning less than $10,000 will have $500 less income to purchase goods and services. A family making a modest income, between $15,000 and $25,000 a year, will have $1,000 withdrawn from that income package. Yet we see Members saying that we must sing hallelujah to this legislation because people will be better off.
People do not take one piece of legislation in isolation. People are pretty canny. They sit down and count how much is left in their pockets when it is all over. They know that the net result of this Government's actions based on the May Budget and subsequent legislation, including this Bill, will be a net drop in purchasing power. It will strike at Canadians least able and capable of carrying that burden. Even if you look at the tax burden itself, never mind the other kinds of eliminations and erosions, but again, if you take a family earning $10,000 a year, the net tax increase to that family will be 2 per cent. It
January 20, 1986

does not sound too bad, but for the person making over $80,000 a year the increase is only 1.6 per cent.
Is that the way fairness is now being defined in Canada? People see through this type of thing very clearly. All the attempts to gear up the image machine, to intimidate the Press Gallery and all the attempts in this Elouse to try to provide the big lie will not work because people are too smart for the Conservatives. They see through the camouflage and the smoke screen. They realize, when it comes down to the full and total picture, that Canadians will be poorer. Even more dramatic is the fact that those who are substantially well off in this community will not be touched in the same way.
I would recommend to Members opposite that they read the national poll commissioned by Maclean's magazine which was published in the year end issue. Decima Research, one of the polling outfits used extensively by the Conservative Party- presumably Conservatives trust its accuracy-asked for the mood and attitude of Canadians. The most frightening result of the poll is that Canadians increasingly see themselves in a class-divided society. Canadians see Canada divided between haves and have-nots. People see that the kind of disenfranchisement that is becoming so much a part of Margaret Thatcher's United Kingdom is now beginning to take hold here. That is not a poll done by Liberals, New Democrats or social agencies, but by Decima Research and printed in MacLean's magazine.
People see that a fracturing of society is on the increase. This perception on the part of Canadians across Canada runs counter to the principal objectives set by the Conservatives in the last election about national reconciliation. In other words, the goal is almost in reverse proportion to the result. We are not receiving or gaining more sense of a community, we are not bringing people closer together, rather, over the past year, people feel more divided than before.
Why does the Government, with its majority and its sensitivity which it claims, it has not respond to those facts instead of worrying about whether the Press Gallery is giving it a fair deal? It would seem to me that this is a far more serious issue to be faced.
I believe the flaw we see in the family allowance situation is due as much to the failed promise as to the specific items within it. I think many Canadians are prepared to support innovation in social security legislation. They see that is a need to come to grips with the problems of income security.
The family is changing in Canada. I am presently engaged in a major study in my own constituency on the contemporary kinds of families we have. We have social agencies and churches joining us in going door to door to find out what the new modern day family is like. It is an interesting examination, Mr. Speaker. People are saying that in many cases the supports on which people rely to give them assistance in dealing with their children and with each other are being withdrawn.
We are beginning to pay a terrible price for the constant erosion of social services over the last 10 years at the municipal, provincial, federal and even the voluntary level. There is
Family Allowances Act, 1973
not in any way the same reach of assistance. Sometimes it is counselling, sometimes support and sometimes listening. Many holes are beginning to appear in the social security network.
As Liberals we are not afraid of looking at new ideas and innovations. We were castigated by the Leader of the New Democratic Party in 1971 for suggesting a guaranteed annual income. We know New Democrats are in some ways the real reactionaries in society.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are right.


Lloyd Axworthy: New Democrats really do not want anything that was done to change. We recognize that the income security programs devised in the 1940s and 1950s, of great relevance and importance, should be re-examined under the new economic conditions of the 1970s and 1980s. I guess the New Democrats do not want to do that.
We need to have an open mind. We have to be prepared to ask: How do we best provide for families? The family structure is a different one at this time. There are many more single parents and there is a breakdown of the extended family. There is greater disparity among families because they live in different regions. There are different demands upon them because of changes in the workforce. Our security and social services systems should be responsive to those facts.
In this case the Government turned around the argument. One of the reasons it obtained a great deal of support in the 1984 election was that it promised Canadians that it would take a new look at things and that it would be innovative. One area was social policy. However, when it came down to changing the way in which the federal Government dealt with families, it listened to the accountants, not to social policy thinkers. The only changes which are being made are the ones which will allow the Minister of Finance to bring down the deficit. That is the reason the Government is changing family policy. It is not bringing in anything new. It is not taking a broader look at the family. It is not examining other kinds of family issues to see whether it can reallocate or redirect. If that were the case, we could have a very different debate in the House. We could be debating a new policy direction for families. Instead, we are debating a false and flawed premise that somehow families will be assisted by giving the Minister of Finance a piddling few dollars from their family allowance package.
That is why the Government is going wrong. It did not have the courage to launch into an honest and open debate about how Governments and the state can best assist and deal with family requirements and needs in the 1980s and 1990s. I am saddened by that. I looked forward to that kind of debate. It could have been an important debate in the House. Instead, we in the Opposition must try to defend what is there now. We see the wrong attitude when the Government begins to restructure or change the social programs. It is not doing that to improve the programs. It is not doing it to try to assist families more effectively. The Government is doing it because the mandarins

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
in the Department of Finance say that they have to get the deficit down and that they will take it from families, not from corporations. That is the fundamental flaw in what we are debating today. It is too bad the Conservatives are shaking their heads. I do not know whether they are shaking their heads in sorrow, as they should be doing, or because they find themselves faced with a harsh reality.


Mr. Jepson:: It is for you, my friend.


Lloyd Axworthy: They do not have to worry about me. I can look after myself; I have been doing it for a long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. I have also looked after Manitoba, which is more than the Minister of National Health and Welfare is doing. We certainly looked after our provinces. That is one reason the Tories will lose in Manitoba. The people of that province know who cares about them.
The fact of the matter is that this is a family allowance reduction. It can only be counted in those terms. It is drawing money away from families. I take with some amusement the last speaker saying that Canadians would be out in the streets clapping with wild applause when they get a 31-cent increase in their family allowance cheques this month. Will that send them rushing out to buy services? The problem with attacking family allowances-and in some way it is an easier target-is that the benefits are oftentimes invisible or hidden. Many of the families who receive family allowance often cannot get their problems or issues out of the forefront.
I have conducted an examination of families in my riding and have found out that the family allowance is absolutely essential for many mothers to buy services for their children which are otherwise not available to them. It may provide some better medical help or some decent counselling. It may simply provide bus money or transportation money to allow them to visit or go somewhere else, something which allows them to round out their lives.
One cannot simply apply calculus and say that it is of more benefit to one family than to another. There is an entitlement involved. If we return to the Marsh report of 1943, we see that it contained a basic principle which we are trying to defend, that is, that the opportunity to have a family-and it is a rare opportunity-also carries certain costs which cannot be pigeon-holed in the Department of National Health and Welfare or in the Department of Finance. Those are costs which every family has in terms of its own unique arrangements and needs, so we put some small amount of discretionary income into their hands so they can apply it where they feel the most pressure. Sometimes it may concern schooling or purchasing a certain consultative service in the health field. Nevertheless, it gives each family a certain entitlement or trust provided by the collective society to help them make their choices. If we erode that entitlement and do not replace it with anything else, we reduce their level of choice and their ability and capacity to help their families and children seek out the support services they need. This is why the debate in the House is such an
important one. It should encompass the full range of options and choices.
I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare has left momentarily. I was very saddened after the debate on deindexation affecting senior citizens. He was heard to utter a statement that the Government was withdrawing from the field of social policy innovation and reform, that it would no longer engage in it because it was burnt badly. Now it will simply draw into a fetal crouch, not use its mind and imagination to seek out the different alternatives. That is a serious mistake; it is a fundamental error. Instead, the Government is nickle and diming Canadians to death. It is picking away at the income base of low and modest income Canadians. That should not be the action of a federal Government which says that it cares, a federal Government which was elected on fond promises of giving families more hope and aspirations. Families cannot be given more hope and aspiration if $1,000 per year is to be taken out of their pockets by 1990. There is no way any Tory can justify doing that. That does not even take into account the hidden costs which are being brought in every day. We see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) adding a few dollars to air transportation, licensing and certificates. We see other costs related to farmers. The total basket of costs is rising and income is going down. Yet, we heard the last speaker saying that they cared. It is very difficult to rationalize caring when we look at the facts.
Obviously we oppose this legislation, not only on the grounds of what it is doing in the context of family income but also because it represents the wrong direction or approach to dealing with the issues of family life. We must encourage the Government to open and broaden its approach and not to base its revenues upon some kind of restrictive, punitive equation put forward by the Minister of Finance. We should look at the revenues available and see how they can be applied in a more flexible, varied and sensitive way to families. Then we will have a healthier country and a healthier economy. The Government's proposition is a self-defeating one.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I sat here and watched that particular Hon. Member when he was a Minister of the previous Government for quite a lengthy period of time. 1 find some of his remarks to be absolutely incredible. He said that taking $1,000 per year out of the pockets of families was abhorrent. It is a correct statement; to take $1,000 might indeed be abhorrent, but he participated in a Government which took thousands of dollars per year out of the pockets of families through regressive taxation such as the taxes on fuel to heat homes. There were thousands of dollars in indirect taxation in the last four years of that Government. The taxes which affect children and families almost tripled. That was a Government that gave money out, borrowed money, increased indirect taxation and put the burden on those same children for the future through the deficit. That is what kind of a Government he is supporting. That is his idea of social policy.
January 20, 1986

I have talked to the people in my riding, poor families who said to me, "We need more money". Rich families say to me, "We need less money and we know that the poor need more." This Government and this Minister have brought in a policy related to family allowance, which says that the rich shall get less through the universal family allowance program, slightly less because of the deindexing, but the poor shall get more through the credits. The Liberals frequently talk out of either side of their mouths, but I think the previous Minister who just spoke speaks out of two mouths. I want to straighten out those two mouths.
Who is the Hon. Member speaking for today? Does he disagree with the assertion that the poor tell us they need more money, and that is what the Government is doing is giving the poor more money than they were going to get under the other system, or is he speaking on behalf of the rich and trying to tell us that the rich in this country do not want to donate that money to the poor? When 1 move throughout my riding 1 hear people say this is a good policy. It takes money away from the rich and it gives money to the poor. Who is he speaking for, the rich who want to protect their pockets or is he trying to convince this House that the poor do not need more money? Which is it? Speak with one mouth. Tell us who it is you are representing.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the Member with the big mouth, never mind two mouths. The fact of the matter is that this Party speaks for all Canadians. We do not, as you do, try to divide between rich and poor. We believe that our mandate has been to ensure that every Canadian, regardless of class or treatment, is given fair opportunity to speak.
The Hon. Member spoke about the income that will be received by the poor. The fact of the matter is, I say to the Member from Calgary, that if he goes back and looks at the net income of a family under $10,000, he will find that by 1990 they will be receiving in the range of $400 to $500 less under the present system of programs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: What about this year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a Bill that deals over a four-year period. Why does he not deal with the terms in his own Bill? He is asking the question, I am giving him the answer. They will receive less. That is the flaw. Furthermore, the other element of the specific child program is the reduction of the threshold from $26,000 to $23,000, which in today's dollars is taking it down to $20,000, which would reduce the eligibility of families for the child tax credit, so that fewer families will be eligible to receive it as a result of this legislation.
What this Government is doing is redefining those who are poor now. We could eliminate poverty if we followed the Conservative example of redefining how poverty is measured- we could bring it down to nothing. We could say there is no poverty because anyone who makes less than $1,000 is rich.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
That is what you are trying to do, you are redefining the limits and the levels by reducing the threshold. By introducing the other forms of tax withdrawal you are increasing the tax draw from poor income families. The Government is also putting a heavier burden on modest income families, those who are making $15,000 or $20,000. We are talking at that time about close to $1,000 of additional taxes for them. If you add up the combination of taxes and benefits they are going to be $1,000 poorer net in their disposable income.
I would ask the Member the question in return: does it not bother him that in fact the poor people in his riding, or the modest-income people in his riding, are going to be receiving less money to purchase the goods and services that their families need?


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) a question, it is a simple one. I want to preface it first of all by saying that 1 was in the New Democratic Party, a member of this caucus in the House, in 1972, and there was a minority Government situation and the Liberal Party was tenuously holding on to power. One of the things that we forced that Party to accept so that we could support them in that minority period was the indexation of programs, old age pensions, family allowances and tax exemptions. In 1982, or thereabouts, the Liberal Party's Government started the process of deindexing those programs. It brought in the six and five. The question 1 want to ask the Member is this, how can he stand so boldly in this House and castigate the Government for its part in the deindexing of family allowances, when in fact it is exactly the same path that his Government put us on?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question. The Hon. Member was not in the House of Commons during that period. He is an astute student of public affairs and I am sure he was reading the daily press so he knows that we were at that time faced with an acute rate of inflation. In order to bring some economic stability into the country we had to find a way of reducing it. The six and five program was introduced as a major measure. We brought in six and five on the principle that, first, it was temporary, and, second, it was geared to the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation did come down. This Government now is benefiting in large part in terms of an economic renewal based upon those programs. It happens to be the case that we now have a 5 per cent inflation. The fact of the matter is that we introduced that as a means of arresting inflation. Within the next year the rate of inflation came to 6 per cent within one year because of that program, and they are now living on the benefits of that rate of inflation and indexation. That is the reason it happened. Now you are not honest enough or you are not forthright enough to give the credit where it is due. We brought inflation down in this country, that was the reason for that program, and you should be thankful for that.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, the only ones who believe the statement that we have just heard from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) are the Canadians who
9932

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
voted for the Liberal Party in the last election. They are the only ones that are convinced by that argument. Nobody else in Canada is. Look at their numbers. What I heard today reminds me very much of what I heard yesterday from his Leader when he talked about the Liberal policy on freer trade. It is going to be bilateral, unilateral. I tell you it was really a class act out of the campaign of 1984. Boy, Chick was really chic yesterday.
Let me just give this Member once more the figures of the record of that Government. Let us go back to 1976. The family allowance was frozen at S22.08. Under full indexing it would have been $24.55, that is a difference of $2.47 a child per month. That was in 1976. Did we hear any cries of anguish from the Liberal Party at that time? Did we hear any cries of anguish from Canadians at that time? Canadians were so used to being hammered by that Government that they did not know the difference.
In 1979, when the child tax credit was introduced, the family allowance was reduced from $25.68 to $20. Under full indexing, it would have been $27.97. That is a difference of $7.97 per child per month. However, Liberal Members would never mention that.
In 1983 and 1984, when the family allowance was subjected to six and five, under full indexing family allowance would have been $29.82 in 1983 and $31.93 in 1984. Under six and five, it was reduced to $28.52 in 1983 and $29.95 in 1984. That is a difference in 1983 of $1.40 per child per month and in 1984 of $1.98 per child per month. Let the record speak for itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again I welcome the opportunity to comment on this question because the Hon. Member has introduced a number of new elements to the issue. First he talked about the definition-


Some Hon. Members:: New elements?


Mr. Stewart:: It's called the truth. You didn't recognize it.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is obviously lunchtime. You can tell because the beasts are going wild in their cages again. They have not yet had their full dose of pablum from their national leader. Let us talk about the definition of trade for a moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: The Prime Minister has said many times: "What do I believe in? I'm not sure. I want fuller trade and I want freer trade". This is the Party that does not know where it is going on the trade policy. Thank God there is one Party that had the courage to put forward its position on free trade, and that is what we did yesterday. I would be glad to send that document to Ministers opposite. It will probably be the most intelligent thing they will have read so far regarding the trade
policy, because they have certainly not read anything like that from their own Cabinet.
Let us talk about the one change the Hon. Member mentioned. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) said that he wants to be honest about this. The difference is that when we brought in that change, we brought in the child tax credit and we said very clearly to the Canadian people that we wanted to help pay for poorer Canadians. The net result was that poorer Canadians received substantially more income. That was a result of that action and that was the change that took place. We had proper social reform. We brought in a child tax credit and said that we would limit the family allowance in order to pay for it so that poorer families would receive more money. Under the new Government's measure, they will receive less money. Now answer that question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this caucus feel that this is a pretty dark day for Canada's children as well as for the women of Canada and for families generally. The family allowance is a very important contract that we as a country have with Canadian families.
We have now come to the final day of debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-70, the Government for the second time having imposed closure on this debate. We are very disappointed that the Government at no time has really reconsidered this Bill based upon the very massive protests of many Canadian groups regarding the deindexation of family allowances.
There have been consultations, advice, appeals and protests made by well over 100 organizations, all of which I could list if I had the time. These organizations appeared last spring when we debated the reform of the family benefits and when the Government invited them to get involved in consultation. Many of them gave expert opinions at that time, opinions which were disregarded. Despite feelings that this consultation had been a farce, these organizations returned to the legislative committee which dealt with Bill C-70 to give their opinions.
I am referring to groups from every walk of life. Women representatives of poor people's groups told us from firsthand experience what it means to be trying to budget for a family with lower welfare rates and how important the family allowance, and a fully indexed family allowance, is to them because when they go to the grocery stores, they have to pay the full price of the food and other items they need for their families.
We heard from community groups from all provinces. We heard from many women's groups. I would say that there has been a massive stimulation of the women's movement across Canada as a result of this Bill. We heard from women's groups from practically every province of Canada and particularly from the Province of Quebec where over 50 or 60 organizations formed a new coalition to protest this Bill and present their views on it to committee. Of course, these are views that very dramatically and militantly oppose Bill C-70.

January 20, 1986

We heard from many churches. We heard from the United Church, from the Canadian Council of Bishops and from the Anglican Church, all of which oppose Bill C-70. We heard from many different labour groups. We heard from child care groups across Canada. We in our Party heard from native groups. We did not hear from them in committee because the committee did not agree to hear from native women's associations. However, we received letters and have spoken with them directly and we know that many native women's groups object to this Bill.
We heard from parent-teachers' associations right across Canada, associations which represent a huge network of parents with school-age children. They oppose this Bill very strongly. We heard from social work experts and from social policy groups including the CCSD, the National Council on Welfare, NAPO and many other associations including the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, a very strong opponent of the Bill.
The Government has paid no attention to these representations. It spoke of consultation, yet these groups were unanimous in their opposition to this Bill. The organizations presented fact after fact to support the very negative, retrogressive, cumulative effects of this Bill as well as the effect it will have by symbolizing what the Government is doing to Canadian families.
For months now, petitions have been flowing in from ordinary Canadians right across Canada. It has been very difficult for mothers with young children to involve themselves physically in this protest by going to meetings and organizing in the way the old age pensioners did last spring. However, there is no question that this has been the largest mass petition campaign that we have ever seen in the House of Commons. As an example of that, my office just sent over the petitions that came this weekend. I suppose there are another 500 separate petitions here which came in only two or three days. The petitions are flooding in from all parts of Canada. Yet the Government has been ignoring them.
1 know the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) received all kinds of petitions directly but he has not mentioned this to the House. There have been telegrams and letters sent to the Government. The people have tried everything they can think of to try to get the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Prime Minister to change their position on this matter.
This is the Government that talked about consultation and about listening to people. I know from talking to people that the people are very disillusioned at this point. Over 100,000 people have signed petitions opposing Bill C-70. That is the largest petition campaign ever launched, and the petitions are continuing to flow in. I would say that the Government ignores these petitions at its peril.
There is no question that there has been a wave of disillusionment and lack of confidence in this Government. There is the feeling that most of the promises the Government made have now been ignored.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you will agree, I will call it one o'clock and resume later.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Armed Forces personnel and other groups of Public Service employees are furious at the Government because of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. As of January 5 those people are no longer eligible to collect UIC benefits because of pension incomes and severance pay. That is unfair, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell you why.
Many Armed Forces employees are forced to retire as young as 40 years of age. That is a condition of their employment. Naturally, they want to embark upon a second career. While they look for that second job, they should be eligible for UIC benefits. The changes say that they cannot collect UIC benefits while they look for work. If other Canadians can collect while on a job hunt, why can't these people? Their pension incomes will not pay the bills, which is why they go back to work.
These people are not milking the systems; they are in between jobs after they retire. They deserve those benefits. After all, they paid into the UIC fund for years. However, when they need it, the Government takes it away.
My office has been flooded with calls from people who are worried about the effect of these changes. They are worried about grocery and utility bills. The Government must take off its blinkers, open its eyes, and look at how its policies are hurting Canadians. I call upon the Government to reverse this decision immediately.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, logging begins again today on South Moresby in the

January 20, 1986
Queen Charlotte Islands. The logging industry has, of course, accepted licences in good faith from the provincial Government to log parts of the island. My concern, shared by my Party, is that indiscriminate logging will destroy this priceless heritage forever.
Despite the efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and two federal Ministers, and the protests of thousands of concerned individuals across Canada-indeed, from around the world-the British Columbia Government has abdicated its responsibility to find a solution. At stake is an environmental treasure, unique plant, fish, and wildlife, and the most magnificent primeval rain forest on the face of the globe with trees over 1,000 years old. Also threatened is the traditional homeland of the Haida people. For 10,000 years they have built a culture and tradition unique in the world.
Environmentalists, not just in Canada, but everywhere around the world, are watching how our country responds to this growing crisis. It is totally unacceptable that we have not been able to work out a solution. I cannot believe that this country will throw it away.
Given the resignation last week of the B.C. Forestry Minister, given the conflict of interest involved in his case and in the case of another Minister, given the B.C. Government's refusal to discuss native claims, and given that the federal Government agrees with me that all or part of South Moresby ought to be converted into a national park or a park reserve, I once again urge the Prime Minister and the federal Government to take action, to talk to the people of British Columbia and their Government in order to prevent the irreversible loss of a priceless national treasure.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to show contempt for Parliament and the people of Canada by withholding information. For example, we learned this morning that the Cruise missile will once again be tested over Canada tomorrow. The Government obviously knows the schedule of these tests, but it refuses to tell Canadians in order to prevent demonstrations against an unwise and unpopular policy.
Similarly, we have just learned that the Government has kept secret a number of agreements with the United States on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It knows that such agreements would be controversial so it denies them, even to a committee composed largely of its own members which this House has asked to examine Canada's defence co-operation with the United States. That information leaks out through journalists or American citizens, but not before the Government has undermined its credibility and shown that it really has no respect for this House or the people it represents.
I am sure the Government will face a storm of criticism over these matters. I am just as sure that it will blame its problems
on a conspiracy of the Opposition and the media. However, the Government's problem is not that its message cannot get out; the problem is that the Government is sending out one message loud and clear-it cannot be trusted to tell the truth to the people of Canada or to the Members of this House.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mr. McLean) made a presentation to members of the Conservative Caucus. He outlined some of the shortcomings in his Government's pledge to achieve social justice and economic equality for women. He then left copies of his presentation in the New Democrats' caucus room.
It is deplorable that this Minister has so little clout among his cabinet colleagues he has to go to his Party's backbenchers to ask them to pressure Ministers to live up to the campaign promises made to Canadian women. The Minister shows the lack of progress in improving the situation of the elderly poor. His own figures point out that 71 per cent of Canada's elderly poor are women, and 80 per cent of the unattached elderly poor are women.
The Conservative Government congratulates itself on the extension of the Spouse's Allowance last year. But that change discriminates against 80,000 single and divorced people between the ages of 60 and 65 who are living in poverty. The majority of these people are women. When will the Government address that injustice?
The Minister says "Canadian women are still being shortchanged", and calls for further Government action. When will the Government listen? When will the Government introduce measures implementing the promises it made to Canadian women during the election campaign?



VOCABULARY USED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey to the House of Commons of Canada my deep concern about the quality of the vocabulary used by some Members of the House, highly questionable in terms of semantics and not at all in keeping with the dignity of this institution.
Canadians expect a much better performance from those they elect to represent the various parts of the country here in Ottawa.
January 20, 1986

This undignified and vulgar vocabulary is used mostly by a few Quebec Liberal Members in their attacks against Quebec's Conservative Ministers and, in certain cases, even against the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney). The expressions heard are so vulgar that our interpreters are sometimes at a loss for words, and their full meaning in both languages is difficult to grasp, Mr. Speaker.
The Members of this House, and more particularly the few marginal Liberal Members from Quebec, should have the decency to use words which at least can be found in the dictionary.
If they have no respect for their colleagues in the House, they should at least mind their languages for the sake of Quebecers and other Canadians.
Finally, unless he enjoys such vulgarities and if he still has any authority left, their leader should call those few marginal Members to order.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, 1 join with millions of Canadians in applauding the proposed changes to the Young Offenders Act announced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) last week. Many aspects of the current Young Offenders Act have left Canadians disenchanted with the application of law and justice in our society. How, they ask, can a young boy in Scarborough murder three people and receive only three years in punishment? How can a group of young people in Toronto savagely beat a young man and also receive minimal sentencing?
The proposed changes come as welcome relief because they address such critical issues as arrest and detention, the publication of information to assist police in apprehending those who escape custody, improved record keeping and counselling, and provisions to allow for longer sentences.
While the spirit and principles contained in the initial Act are commendable, the application of it has left many people wondering where the justice in their legal system has gone. We need to put proper enforcement into this law so that people can feel safe in their neighbourhoods and communities.
I thank the Solicitor General for the proposed changes and urge the Government to continue to improve the Young Offenders Act in order to rebuild the confidence Canadians


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.



S O. 22 FISHERIES SUCCESS OF SALMONID ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the Salmonid Enhancement Program in British Columbia has been an incredible success story. SEP, as it is known, was initiated in 1977. It was designed to increase the population of the Sockeye, Coho, Chinook, Chum and Pink salmon, and the Steelhead.
Results to date indicate SEP production has become an important part of the West Coast fishing industry. In 1984 alone, 20 per cent of the value of the salmon catch in commercial, sport and food fisheries was a direct result of enhancement facilities. For those who are into cost-benefit ratio factors, the SEP ratio was about 1.6 to one. As well, the Salmonid Enhancement Program contributes substantially to job creation in remote communities such as those on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
We are now in a transition phase. SEP I is over and SEP II will soon begin. It is important that our commitment to salmon enhancement be maintained and expanded. Acknowledging that it is no longer 1977, and that our public debt has grown substantially since then, we must ensure that we utilize whatever means are available to fund fully this worth-while program.
Those who benefit from salmon enhancement must join the Canadian Government in a partnership which ensures a growing commitment to grow fish. When the production of salmon is brought back to historical levels of abundance this nation will benefit for generations. In other words, salmon enhancement enhances the future of Canada.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Fernand Ladouceur (Labelle):: Last December 19, Mr. Speaker, our Government announced that it would earmark $210 million to create youth employment next summer under the Challenge 86 program.
We on the Government side can only be pleased about this announcement, if only because of the tremendous success of Challenge 85 which enabled us to create 101,000 summer jobs for students. Mr. Speaker, that sums up our approach and our determination to restore confidence in our economy and seek long-range solutions aimed at achieving full employment.
Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the residents of the beautiful riding of Labelle are quite enthusiastic about our Government's constructive and long-term strategy with respect to employment planning and job creation. Instead of being based on a near-sighted approach to the real

January 20, 1986
needs of the people, our strategy takes into consideration the full development and use of a huge pool of human resources readily available for future investment.
Youth employment has improved since the September 1984 election. The unemployment rate among young Canadians aged 15 to 24 has dropped from 18.3 to 16.2 per cent in November 1985, a decline of 2.1 per cent. Mr. Speaker, such has been our performance on behalf of the people-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, today inaugurates a new national holiday in the United States which honours the life of Martin Luther King. It is a commemoration which many Canadians will want to share as Martin Luther King embodied a spirit which was universal in its meaning and impact. There is a tendency nowadays to look back at the 1960s as a time of disruption and disorder. In reality it was a time when men and women of all races and backgrounds sought to find a way to be free. They sought to break the tradition of years of discrimination and inequality. For some of us who lived, worked, and studied in the U.S. during the time of the civil rights movement, it was a profound experience to observe this human struggle which was so pure and divine in its attempt to achieve change for mankind.
All Canadians can honestly say that we share with the Americans their memory of the meaning of this man and the cause he represented so well. We commit ourselves to the ongoing struggle for equality which he represents. As Robert Kennedy said when he learned of the assassination of Martin Luther King, "Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: To tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have finally reached a decision about their stand on enhanced trade but they appear to be as confused as ever. I would like to clarify a few important points for them. First, when will they get it through their heads that the term "free trade" is their own fiction? Our Government is seeking to secure trade with the U.S. in light of the quantity of protectionist Bills before the U.S. Congress. We are seeking an enhanced market for
Canadian firms which wish to export their products south of the border. We are not seeking to open the borders between the two countries as the Opposition would have Canadians believe. It makes sense to secure and enhance access to the rapidly growing U.S. market which in 1984 alone purchased 75 per cent of our exports and generated 2 million Canadian jobs.
To set straight a second Liberal misconception, our Government is actively seeking to expand world trading markets. The Japanese Prime Minister said during his visit that he is impressed by our growing interest in Pacific Rim Trade. Our Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) has just returned from meetings in the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand, and is about to embark on a two-week trade tour of Asian countries. We have also offered to host the next GATT meeting in Montreal. The national trade strategy document tabled at the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax stresses our Government's commitment to international trade. I hope I have set the Liberals straight on this very vital issue so that they will stop misleading Canadians.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NOVA SCOTIA MINISTER OF LANDS AND FORESTS

Mr. Speaker:: May I indicate the presence in our gallery today of the Minister of Lands and Forests of the Province of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Ken Streatch.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that logging has resumed today on Lyell Island and South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands. The federal Government, particularly through the intervention of the Prime Minister, seems not to have convinced the Premier of British Columbia. Therefore, will he report to the House on the conversations between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of British Columbia on the status of logging on South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can assist.
January 20, 1986

The matter, of course, continues in the Province of British Columbia. The communication between the Prime Minister and the Premier involved a number of questions which the Prime Minister, the Department of Justice, and others are still considering. As the responsible Minister I kept in constant touch with the parties involved over the Christmas break and as recently as last night. I would like to assure the right hon. gentleman and the House that matters are delicate and difficult but, I think, sensible. We are trying to achieve a process through which we can satisfy all parties. Those discussions are on-going.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we appreciated the visit of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to British Columbia on this very serious environmental and native claims matter. Would he advise the House whether the Prime Minister has protested, to the Premier of British Columbia, about the resumption of logging on the Queen Charlotte Islands prior to the filing of the report of the B.C. Wilderness Committee?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago the Prime Minister asked me to undertake, on behalf of the Government, our positions, and also to make sure that we invoke, evoke, or provoke, but certainly establish a process to allow the contending interests to be accommodated. He has made that clear to everyone, including the Premier of the Province of British Columbia. The letter from the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to the Prime Minister reflects that fact.


HAIDA LAND CLAIM
John Napier Turner: Would the Minister prevail upon his Prime Minister to protest, in strenuous terms, the resumption of logging? Since we seem to have no resolution of the logging or environmental matters, could the Minister give us a brief status report on the Haida land claim?


David Edward Crombie: Yes, indeed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the matters are quite related. Some of the questions raised by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia and by other people in that province I think will be dealt with, at least in part, by the recommendations contained in the review of land claims which I commissioned last July. I have now received that report. It is being translated, edited, and printed. By the beginning of February I am hoping that there will be some recommendations before the Cabinet and for public discussion which will assist us in that regard.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last September 10 in this House I asked the Minister about plans to shut down the Newfoundland Railway. At that time the Minister accused me of spreading rumours. In the interim the Minister himself, the Premier of Newfoundland, and CN have all confirmed that plans are under way to axe the Newfoundland Railway and the 800 jobs involved.
Will the Minister come clean with Newfoundlanders and assure us in the House today that he will put an end to back room secret negotiations, consult the railway employees involved who, to this point, have not been consulted, and consult the Newfoundland business community before any decision is taken to axe that railway?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member is referring to an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail this morning which is, unfortunately, grossly inaccurate, indeed potentially damaging and, to a great extent, alarmist.
To deal precisely with the point which the Hon. Member has raised with respect to the Newfoundland Railway, CN's five-year plan does not propose the abandonment of the Newfoundland Railway. If it is to be maintained as an imposed public duty, CN should be compensated for any losses that are derived therefrom.
I can assure the Hon. Member that if there is any decision to be made with respect to the future of the Newfoundland Railway, particularly regarding his allegation that it might be discontinued, full discussions and consultations will be carried out with the Government of Newfoundland and all affected parties.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET EMPLOYEES AND UNIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the operative word in the Minister's answer is "if" it is to be maintained. That is precisely the point. Negotiations and discussions are now ongoing. They have been ongoing for months. The employees affected have been told nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No preambles please, just a question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I ask the Minister again if he will do the proper thing-I know he agrees with me-go to Newfoundland, convene a meeting with the employees affected, the unions and their representatives, lay the cards on the table and come clean with the people of Newfoundland about the future of that railway, instead of dealing in the backroom with Brian Peckford?

January 20, 1986
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Hon. Member does not stick around his riding once in a while, or at least in his own province. He would find out that there have been discussions, ongoing discussions, with the unions. I know that he would like to see the Newfoundland Railway scrapped so he could have a political issue. We are not going to fall for that trap, I can assure him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Given the obvious desire of the Government to sell off Crown corporations at no matter what price, and given the recent unfortunate, to put it euphemistically, experience we have had in the case of the de Havilland sale, will the Minister now give the House his unequivocal assurance before any decision is reached in the selling of Canadair that all the details of such a decision will be brought before Parliament before it is finalized?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What is unfortunate is your conduct.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Oshawa who has repeated once again a question that has been raised several times in this House-


John Edward Broadbent: And not answered.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -I have indicated what we must first obtain in relation to Canadair is a willing buyer. To date we do not have a willing buyer for Canadair. How can I answer such a hypothetical question?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY IF GOVERNMENT WILL PRESENT ALL DETAILS CONCERNING POSSIBLE SALE OF CANADAIR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is not hypothetical in the least. On December 10, the Government said in the House that it intended to sell Canadair. That is a decision. My question concerns the procedure. Can the Minister give the House the assurance that the Government will submit all details regarding the sale of Canadair prior to this report?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again, if I may reply to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, he must know that in the case of de Havilland we solicited interest in the sense of would-be buyers from 135 different individuals or corporations, both within Canada and without. That is the process we are going through in relation to Canadair. We are attempting to identify who might be interested in making an offer to purchase Canadair. To date we do not have such a buyer who has indicated that he would come with a proposal cash in hand.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try again. The Minister has said it is not a hypothesis but a reality that the Government will sell Canadair. He said that on December 10. Given the fact that the President of Canadair said publicly it will be sold-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: -will the Minister commit himself now, in terms of the process of selling off the Crown corporation, that details will be presented to Parliament so Canadians can make a judgment before the decision is reached?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have tried three questions. That has been answered.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, how many times do I have to answer the same question?


John Edward Broadbent: You have not answered it once.


Some Hon. Members:: Just answer it once.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We do not have the makings of a deal with respect to Canadair at the present time. How can I answer in hypothetical terms?


DISARMAMENT
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week the Soviet Union made what is potentially the most significant proposal since the beginning of the Cold War to end the disastrous nuclear arms race. This proposal deserves the most comprehensive and detailed review, not only by the U.S. but also by all members of the Western Alliance. Will the Minister request an urgent and special meeting of all NATO Foreign Ministers to review the new Soviet peace proposal, which is very vital not only to the United States but to the western world and to the world in general? Will the
January 20, 1986

Minister call a special meeting of the NATO Foreign Ministers?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I, and I am sure all Hon. Members of the House, share the view of the hon. spokesman for the Liberal Party the importance of Mr. Gorbachev's most recent proposal and, indeed, the importance of the process. I intend to be making a statement in the House later this week with regard to arms control matters generally. I will naturally ensure that the Hon. Member and the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam receive copies of that statement in time to permit them to reply on behalf of their Parties.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER COMMUNICATED WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has indicated that he intends to make a statement in the House on this very important subject, I would like to ask him whether he has been in touch with the President of the United States to inform him of Canada's interest in having this new proposal examined as soon as possible and perhaps also to ask him whether it would be convenient to have a meeting of the External Affairs Ministers concerned as soon as possible.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing dialogue between the Canadian Government and the Government of the United States, and also between the Canadian Government and the Soviet Union, more specifically regarding the proposals made by Mr. Gorbachev.
I think that for the time being, it will not be necessary to have an emergency meeting of External Affairs Ministers of NATO or other countries, but should anything happen to make such a meeting necessary, the Canadian Government will always be ready to propose such a meeting.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I think all Hon. Members of the House know how complicated is the issue of logging on South Moresby. The Minister is aware that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans suggested that charges be laid against Western Forest Products and Frank Beban Logging some time ago for their logging practices on Lyell Island. It has been before the Department of Justice for some time. Could the Minister advise the House today, in light of the resumption of logging on Lyell Island, whether or not a decision has now been made by the Government of Canada on whether to
Oral Questions
prosecute those two forest companies for their logging practices in the South Moresby area?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, that is not a question for the Government of Canada to decide. It is a question for the Attorney General of Canada to decide in his capacity as Attorney General.


Mr. Deans:: Did you ask him?


Mr. Crosbie:: It is not the custom to discuss in public whether or not charges may or may not be laid in any particular situation. If charges are laid, 1 will be glad to confirm them at the time.


PROSECUTION RECOMMENDATION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in light of the controversy which has surrounded the particular logging practices on Lyell Island and the fact that these particular charges relate to logging which occurred over four years ago, and the fact that a logging stream-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is becoming a preamble. May I just have a question, please?


James Ross Fulton: What advice has the Minister been given by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans! It is my understanding that it has recommended prosecution. 1 wonder whether the Department of Justice has agreed with that view.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is a repetition of the first question. It is not the practice-and certainly it would not be a good practice-for there to be discussion in the House about whether charges should or should not be laid against anybody in any particular situation. If charges are laid, then the effect will become known.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last December the Minister gave us a commitment in the House that he would keep the members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence fully informed about the Canada-United States defence agreements. Over the weekend we have learned that other agreements have come up about which he has not told us. 1 have a list of the titles in my hand. Did the Minister know about the existence of these agreements prior to this weekend? If he did, why were they withheld from parliamentarians after his commitment in December to keep the standing parliamentary committee fully informed?

January 20, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I recall very clearly the exchange last December 4 and December 5 in respect of the Hon. Member's question. He knows that the committee chairman requested a list of all unclassified agreements and that the committee has received this. He also knows that the committee has made no request for classified information. He also knows that I offered, last December, in camera briefings if I were to receive a request from the committee. I have not received such a request.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. He will know that he made a commitment to keep the committee members informed about all titles of defence agreements between the United States and Canada. The question is simple. Why did the Minister not inform the committee of the existence of these documents, instead of trying to weasel out of it now?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the committee requested and received the information it sought. It has not requested classified information, a request which I told the Hon. Member last December I would consider if it were made. Indeed, I reminded him that I was appearing before the committee the very next week, after he put his question, so that he could question me fully on these matters, and he failed to ask a single question in respect thereto when I did appear.


TORPEDO TEST RANGE AGREEMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and it is on the same matter. At least one of the agreements we learned about over the weekend which had been denied to us before is unclassified. The Minister may not be aware of that. It is the exchange of notes to provide for the continued operation and maintenance of the torpedo test range in the Strait of Georgia. In view of the fact that that is unclassified and was left out of every list the committee was provided, is it not the case that the Minister and the Government wanted to deny the committee and the people of Canada knowledge of any agreements having to do with nuclear co-operation, nuclear deployment on Canadian soil?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is a very mischievous question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You have a mighty short memory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member knows that that arrangement has been in the public domain for many, many, many years.


Pauline Jewett: Why wasn't it on the list?


Erik Nielsen: How she has been so lax in bringing herself up to date in respect of that knowledge I cannot explain, but it certainly has been in the public domain long enough for even her to have learned about it.


Pauline Jewett: If I may say so, that was a really feeble answer. This was not given to the committee, and the Minister knows it.


NUCLEAR WEAPONS INQUIRY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in relation to this dozen or more than a dozen documents of which we are now aware, could the Minister tell us whether No. 1811 A, the one concerning the placement of U.S. airborne nuclear ASW weapons at bases in Canada, probably Comox and Greenwood, is the agreement concerning which his predecessor denied exactly a year ago that there was any intention in Canada to allow the United States to place nuclear depth charges at those two bases?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, again it would appear- perhaps I am not being fair with the Hon. Member-that she is trying to re-arouse fears that I thought had been put to rest by the very lucid answers of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on many occasions in the House, that there are no nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. We do not intend to have any nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. Why can she not believe it?


Pauline Jewett: What about this agreement?


Erik Nielsen: With regard to what she calls an agreement, if the Hon. Member wishes to have any information before that committee, she should ask for it. I have received no request whatsoever in respect of classified information. The unclassified information has all been made available.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last December the Minister counselled patience regarding the confrontation between the British Columbia Government and the Haida people over the logging on Lyell Island. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is prepared today to use his good offices on behalf of the Government and all fair minded Canadians, to ask the Gov-
January 20, 1986

ernment of British Columbia to reimpose the moratorium on logging on Lyell Island, and to keep that moratorium in effect until there has been a just and satisfactory settlement of the Haida claim.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, one of the ways 1 think which we have been able to allow a beginning of a process by which the confrontation goes, and sensitive and sensible negotiation discussion begins, has been to make sure that I, on behalf of the Government, would not go around telling other people what 1 thought they ought to do. What I have tried to do at each and every turn of the road, and I intend to continue it, is to explain to people that all Canadians want a resolution that respects the interests of all parties, and they want it in a peaceable and sensible manner. That is the approach of the Government, that is the approach I intend to take.


EXISTENCE OF ABORIGINAL TITLE
B. Keith Penner: The Minister should not be shy about telling the British Columbia Government what to do because he is the trustee of the Indian people in this country. The B.C. Government has asked for a clarification of the Government's native claims policy. On the basis of the report now received by the Minister, is he prepared to tell B.C. that aboriginal title does exist in that province, and that he is prepared to get negotiations under way and settle the Haida claim and the other outstanding claims as well?


David Edward Crombie: I am seldom shy in these matters, and I would like to take the opportunity to tell him with respect to the Haida claim, and indeed all of the claims of British Columbia, in my judgment people should approach them in an understanding that this is probably one of the most crucial events that is going to affect that province in a long, long time. Therefore, it ought not to be used in a political or partisan way. That is why I have attempted in my discussions with the Haida people, and indeed all Indian people in British Columbia, to make sure that they have the fullest possible opportunity to make their views known.
I commissioned a report as a consequence of a review of land claims, and that includes British Columbia. That will be before all Canadians for public discussion in the early part of February.
Finally, let me say, with respect to the very important questions affecting relations between the Indian people in Canada and British Columbia, and of the relations between Canada and British Columbia, those are contained in the correspondence which Minister Smith in British Columbia put out. Those are questions which I have, and also the Justice Department has, because they are matters that go to the root of an extremely important issue. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that all Members of this House will give it sufficient time so
Oral Questions
that we will have a solution that is going to be to the benefit of all and not just of some.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct some questions to the Minister of Transport. He and I agreed a number of years ago that Newfoundland has never been fully in Confederation when it comes to transportation. We have had nothing but deterioration of rail, trucking, and ferry services ever since 1949. Will the Minister guarantee to the House that he will require Canadian National to provide, as an imposed public duty, equitable and efficient transportation services to the Province of Newfoundland, including the upgrading of the railway line by changing it to standard gauge track, and the improvement of the ferry services?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that this Government is committed to providing Newfoundland with the best transportation service possible, including the utilization of all modes, and that is the sort of discussion that is going on at the present time with the provincial Government, the unions, and all interested parties.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, just so we do not have another de Havilland operation, will the Minister assure the House that he will make it possible for the Standing Committee on Transport and for Parliament to investigate fully the transportation services in the Atlantic provinces and particularly in Newfoundland before any decision is made to sell the CN trucking services or to close down the CN Terra Transport rail operations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I rely upon the advice of the Transport Committee on various issues and will certainly invite its interest and comments with regard to any transportation initiatives that are taken anywhere in the country.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Further to the tabling of the report by the Textile

January 20, 1986
Oral Questions
and Clothing Board submitted at the end of last December, which says that unless special protective measures are taken, between 40,000 and 60,000 jobs will disappear in the near future, does the Minister intend to implement many of the Board's recommendations, especially to restrict imports of these products, to adopt a program of duty free imports and also to adopt a new national textile policy?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member whom I commend for the interest that he has taken in the textile and clothing industry in Canada, we of course have noted many of the recommendations in the report and specifically now have discussions ongoing among the various Departments to try to work out a satisfactory arrangement that will ensure that there will be a viable textile and clothing industry in Canada.


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Now that the Minister has met the Ontario Minister responsible for insurance and understands that insurance falls within the jurisdiction of the federal Government, can the Minister tell the House of Canadians what she is going to do to help the thousands of small businesses that are at the risk of losing everything they have worked for because they have no liability insurance?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have always understood what my responsibilities are and I do not need any lectures from Liberal Members on that. 1 met in a very positive way with-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: You win more with smiles.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I met with the industry this morning. We have agreed on a number of things that we can do. I had already been working, as I have told the House, on a longer term policy that will prevent this kind of boom and bust cycle in the future, or at least help dampen it. In the short term, as problems are brought to us, we are resolving them with the industry in a very hard-headed way.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, that translates into nothing.
[ Translation]


SOLVENCY GUIDELINES FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES
Alfonso Gagliano: The Superintendent of Insurance Canada establishes solvency guidelines for insurance companies. I wonder if the Minister could confirm whether guidelines are being observed and whether he could table these guidelines for the information of the House.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have told the Hon. Member many times that I will be bringing forward policies dealing with solvency and with the capital base which is part of this boom and bust cycle. We are dealing with this problem in a very realistic way and are helping people so that this situation does not reach this stage in the future again.
 * *


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last Thursday and Friday in the House, the Prime Minister said that he would look into the matter of investigating a possible violation by Ultramar of Section 32 of the Combines Investigations Act, because Ultramar set a pre-condition prohibiting the sale of the refinery to a possible competitor on the Quebec market.
Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows. Could the Minister inform the House today whether he has asked the Director responsible for combines investigations to start an investigation immediately of this important matter?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, the question is entirely hypothetical. We will deal with the matter as soon as a transaction takes place and we are aware of the terms.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In that case, how can the Minister say he defends the interests of consumers when he refuses to order immediately an investigation of a question that the Prime Minister referred to in the House last week as an important matter?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think we were answering these questions over and over all last week. I would like to remind my hon. colleague that we have made sure, I and my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and
January 20, 1986

Resources, that security of supply of petroleum products in Quebec is not in jeopardy and that there is no reason for Quebec consumers to be concerned.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I am concerned about today's media reports with respect to the alleged financial difficulties of CN. In fact the word "insolvency" has been thrown around. Can the Minister reassure the House about the financial stability of CN?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can indeed provide the House with that assurance. As I said earlier, the article that appeared in today's Globe and Mail was not only grossly inaccurate and irresponsible but was alarmist and potentially damaging.
I can assure the Hon. Member that CN is certainly facing challenges in coping with the traffic decline and the shift in traffic patterns, but those challenges are not unique to CN. I can assure the Hon. Member as well that CN is not insolvent. As a matter of fact its five-year plan would indicate a reduction in the corporate debt. Having regard to the fact that CN has enjoyed a very high credit rating in the international bond market, it has every reason-


John Edward Broadbent: Socialist!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -it has every reason to foresee that continuing in the future.


TERRA TRANSPORT-MORATORIUM ON RATE INCREASES
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport and deals with Terra Transport. The Minister knows that the CTC imposed massive rate increases on Terra Transport. He also knows that the Cabinet imposed a moratorium on those increases because, if they were allowed to go ahead, it would spell the virtual death of the Newfoundland Railway. I want to know that the Minister is not going to allow to happen through the back door that which might otherwise happen through the front door, and that is the increase in those rates. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the moratorium is in place and will he tell us whether or not it will continue?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the final report, but I think the Hon Member knows that one has an obligation to fulfil the legislative requirement that transportation rates must be compensatory. It is in that context that the whole issue has been
Oral Questions
examined. 1 am awaiting the final recommendation of the CTC in this regard.


MINISTER'S DISCUSSIONS WITH UNIONS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary question 1 wish to raise with the Minister has been raised already. He has said that there have been consultations and that he has talked to unions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Question.


Bill Rompkey: Will he say specifically which unions, either nationally or provincially, he has discussed the Terra Transport situation with? We want an assurance that the Minister is fighting for the 800 jobs that are at stake here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have not only talked with the unions but I have talked with the Hon. Minister of Justice who is highly regarded by the union movement in St. John's and throughout Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Who?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can assure the Hon. Member that-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can assure the Hon. Member that the unions appreciate the work that the Minister of Justice and 1 are doing. They feel quite secure that they will receive a fair deal.


INCREASES IN GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On March 28, 1985, on the date we debated the Western Accord, as reported at page 3473 of Hansard the Minister said in the House:
If the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is right that by creating a market environment prices will continue to decline, obviously that provides the environment for gasoline prices to decline. They certainly are not going to increase in a declining market.
Aside from tax increases, why are gasoline prices increasing in a declining market? What does the Minister intend to do about it in order to protect the Canadian consumer?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the Hon. Member is addressing an issue of great concern to consumers. I wish to point out that the increases in gasoline prices about which consum-

January 20, 1986
Oral Questions
ers are concerned, of course, are the federal, municipal, and provincial tax loads which have been imposed on gasoline prices. May I remind the Hon. Member that those taxes go to pay for the social services which Canadians desire.


CONSUMER PROTESTS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, in fact it is the wholesale prices which have gone up the most. My colleagues have received over 500 of these protest coupons today-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why is the Minister ignoring these protests and just saying to hell with them?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why is she ignoring them? Why does she not stand up for the Canadian consumer instead of the oil companies?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, given the presentation of the question, it was not possible to hear it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It took the whole weekend caucus to figure that one out.


Ian Deans: Watch the news.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The strongest defence against terrorism in the West is stable peace in the Middle East based on recognition of Israel and the justice needed for Palestinians. What initiatives can Canada take to seek that type of peace, in view of Yassir Arafat's recent proposal for an international conference on the rights of Palestinians?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House would agree that the recent cycle of terrorism in the Middle East has added even more instability to a situation that is already difficult. It makes it imperative, in the view of this Government, that an answer be found, a response, to the terrorism which is growing in the world. Canada intends to be part of that response to terrorism.
With regard to the more basic and continuing problems in the Middle East, Canada intends to continue the constructive approach which has been followed by Canadian Governments of both Parties.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of a very alarming newspaper report which states that everything east of Montreal is a disaster, and the recommendation to close Terra Transport, would this not spell an end to the Moncton shops? Will the Minister stand in his place today and reject and dismiss this recommendation so as to save the shops in Moncton?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the statement to which the Hon. Member refers I have described as grossly inaccurate and irresponsible. As well, I think I can say that the President and Chief Executive Officer of CN will be issuing a statement rejecting out of hand the contents of this morning's article. I hope that will clarify the issue once and for all.


REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF JOBS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has often expressed his concern for the 1,200 jobs in Moncton. However, rumours still persist. Will the Minister commit himself right now to protecting these 1,200 jobs in Moncton? They mean a lot to the City of Moncton. Will he commit himself in this respect?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has no monopoly on concern.


Mr. Caccia:: It's in his riding.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Of course I am concerned, as is the management of CN, which is assessing the maintenance requirements right across the country, recognizing that there has been a drastic decline in traffic and recognizing the fact that there has been a shift in the traffic pattern. All of these factors are taken into consideration. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want me to superimpose my authority on the Board of Directors and the legitimate managers of CN.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Yes, we do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
January 20, 1986


INSURANCE
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. I was interested in her earlier answer today in the House with respect to her responsibility. Does her responsibility go so far as to guarantee Canadians, whether they be operators of day care centres, municipalities, or small businesses, that they will be able to afford insurance at rates and levels which they need in order to continue to operate? Will she provide such a guarantee?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, life does not include any guarantees.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Only for uninsured depositors.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We have told people who are having problems with insurance that we are prepared to help them work out their problems on availability. We will also take a look at problems having to do with affordability. Speaking of jurisdiction, let me remind the Hon. Member that premium structure falls under provincial jurisdiction.


MINISTERIAL REVIEW
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm the statement made by the insurance industry's spokesperson this morning to the effect that the Minister and her predecessors have been reviewing the situation in the insurance industry for the past four years? If that statement is correct, then why has it taken a crisis in the country before the Government is prepared to act?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that question is better directed to the Leader of the Opposition.


PETRO-CANADA INCREASED PRICE OF GASOLINE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister promised consumers would benefit from deregulated rates. Even though gasoline prices are going down everywhere else in the world, they are going up in Canada. These price increases are being led by Petro-Canada. Why does the Minister allow this? After having raised its prices after a tax increase put forward by the Government, why has Petro-Canada twice increased its price in the last few months, further gouging the Canadian energy consumer?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any particular price increases imposed by Petro-Canada.
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: You should be.


Pat Carney: But 1 would like to hope that Petro-Canada will be able to generate-


John Edward Broadbent: Where do you buy your gas?


An Hon. Member:: Drive your own car for a change.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If you don't watch out we will nationalize Petro-Canada.


Mr. Blaikie:: It would be a good idea.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Riis:: Go buy some gas, Pat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pat Carney: As I was saying before I was interrupted, I think the Hon. Member would agree with me that we want Petro-Canada to have sufficient revenues to develop Venture in his constituency.


SHARE ISSUE INQUIRY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister admit that the reason Petro-Canada is increasing its prices is to create a better profit picture so that it can better present its dossier to the private sector and so that it can issue shares to the public, forcing Canadians to pay yet again for their own Crown corporation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, no.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena, one question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. 1 am sure he is aware that George Shultz has appointed Mr. Derwinski as the U.S. negotiator on boundaries between British Columbia and the United States.


John Carnell Crosbie: He's been up before.


James Ross Fulton: Since the Minister's own Department has already-


John Carnell Crosbie: Who do you think you are, Martin Luther?

January 20, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the House. I had forgotten the Hon. Member had already been up today. Excuse me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Come back tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am apologizing to the House and to the Hon. Member. I had forgotten he had already been up today. With one minute left, I should have-


John Edward Broadbent: You recognized him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Because other Hon. Members were rising at the same time-


John Edward Broadbent: He had the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Oshawa could wait to hear what I have to say before he comments. There were other Hon. Members rising and I should have gone to someone else at the time. I would have simply corrected that fact at that moment if there was time left. The time having expired, rather than go to someone else, I think it simply makes sense to end Question Period at that moment, although I should have recognized someone other than the Hon. Member for Skeena at the time.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, January 17, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I am also in a position to give a response to a question of order raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Last December 20, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) drew my attention to the fact that he wanted to obtain complete photocopies of certain petitions and that he had been advised that, according to our practice, he could not have a photocopy of the signatures but could indeed have a look at those petitions.
I checked the precedents and I must confirm to him that the practice of the House of Commons has been that petitions presented by Hon. Members may be consulted upon request, but there has been hesitation in the past about providing copies of the signatures on the petitions. There are many reasons for
this, but the fact remains that petitions presented in the House are public documents and that, in my opinion, any petitioner signing such a document knows full well that a third party may consult the document and obtain the name of petitioners. The petitioner may or may not give his or her address, for that does not change anything to the petition and is not contrary to our Standing Orders.
I must say to the House that I would be reluctant to order that petitions be photocopied at the request of the public at large, but the question to be determined is whether a Member has the right if not the privilege to obtain a copy of one or more petitions presented in the House. It seems quite logical to me that, if a Member may present a petition in the House, the same Member or another Member may also obtain a copy, including the signatures. If a petition comes to the House through an Hon. Member, it seems to me that a copy may be taken out by a Member and, as in many other cases, Hon. Members are responsible for what they do with it.
Therefore I have asked the Clerk of Petitions to send a complete copy of a petition to a Member who will ask for one.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a number of petitions with hundreds of names from Kamloops, Inver-mere, Terrace, Cranbrook, Prince George, Courtenay, West Vancouver, Surrey, Delta, Coquitlam and Vancouver. I could go on and on but they have been signed by the citizens in virtually every town in British Columbia. The petitioners suggest that the massive cut-backs to child tax benefits are really an unfair attack on women and families with children and are especially unfair to single parent mothers. They ask that the Government reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and rescind a number of the regressive tax increases in the last Budget.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I also have a petition which was actually incorrectly submitted. I will not submit all of the loose papers, but there is an appropriate petition which makes the same point. The petitioners are concerned about the increasing federal taxes on gasoline. It is priced at a rate per litre which some people are finding extremely excessive.


January 20, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member may have a point to make but I think he knows he is presenting petitions and not making speeches.
Is the Hon. Member finished with his presentation of that petition? All right.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions signed by residents of Winnipeg, mostly from my own constituency, who believe that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that the poorest families will be worse off by 1990 as they fall further and further behind. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions, two of them on the same subject. One petition is from the city of Regina and one from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake area of Saskatchewan. These more than 200 petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the full indexing of the family allowance program and to rescind all the unfair tax increases in the Budget.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a further petition which is something of a phenomenon in that its over 4,000 signatures were gathered in the period of one month. The over 4,000 petitioners in Regina humbly pray that this Parliament sees to it that the Canada Post maintain sub-Post Office No. 26 in the Golden Mile Plaza in Regina.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions I would like to table, since today is the last day of debate on Bill C-70. These petitions ask the Government to change its position, to drop its opposition to full indexation and reinstate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.
My first petition is from the riding of Ottawa-Vanier. Another petition is from Saint-Henri-Westmount in the province of Quebec. Another petition on the same matter is from Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, Quebec. Another petition is from the federal riding of Saint-Jean and another from the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere, Quebec. Another petition is from the federal riding of Saint-Maurice. Another from the federal riding of Champlain in Quebec. From the city of Toronto, we have a number of constituents in that city asking the Government to allow full indexation of family
Petitions
allowances. Another petition from Toronto. Another from Vancouver-East, British Columbia. And another from Kam-loops-Shuswap, British Columbia. And lastly, a petition from Red Deer, Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, that is a total of 45 to 50 petitions in only a few days, which is quite a lot.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I too, have several petitions. The first petition is from residents of Kayuga, Burford and Brantford, Ontario. The operative clause reads that the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
In addition, I have another petition from several citizens of the City of Cambridge, Ontario, who also petition the House of the same purpose.
I also have a petition for several centres in British Columbia wherein the petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.
I have another petition from various suburbs of the City of Toronto which has the same operative clause.
I have another petition from Nova Scotia with many names of residents of many different communities in that province who petition the House for the same purpose.
Another petition is from Cambridge, St. Catharines, Kingston, Pickering and many other centres in Ontario for the same purpose.
I have another petition from Milton, Listowel, Niagara Falls, Kitchener and Toronto, Ontario, for the same purpose.
Finally I have a petition from Hamilton, Port Dover, London, Toronto, Sarnia and other places in Ontario with the same operative clause.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition signed by a number of constituents of the federal ridings of Moncton, Westmorland-Kent and Fundy Royal. The petitioners express their concern regarding the assessment being conducted by CN of its maintenance capacity in Canada. They ask the Parliament of Canada to take into consideration their concerns and make sure that in no way will the efforts undertaken by CN downgrade their facilities in Moncton.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and responsibility to present several petitions from Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. They petition Parliament on the grounds that deindexation of universal

January 20, 1986
Petitions
family allowances and massive cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single-parent mothers. Moreover, they call upon Parliament to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to bring to the attention of the House today. The first is from the Delta, Burnaby, Richmond and Vancouver areas of British Columbia. The petitioners are very concerned that deindexation of universal family allowances and cut-backs in the public commitment to child benefits are an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single-parent mothers. They call upon this House to do whatever it can to reinstate full indexation.
The second group of petitions is from all over Ontario and they bear a large number of signatures. The petitioners are concerned about budget hand-outs such as the $500,000 in tax-free capital gains, RRSP deductions and billions of dollars going to the banks while at the same time the universal family allowance is being cut back. I am pleased to provide these to you today, Mr. Speaker.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have quite a number of petitions from British Columbia and the Maritime provinces. The petitioners ask for reinstatement of full indexation to family allowances. The petitions from British Columbia include the communities of Surrey, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Vancouver, North Vancouver, South Canbrook, Kimberley, Invermere, Haney, Richmond, White Rock, Burnaby, Port Alberni, Dawson Creek, Saltspring Island, Surrey and many from the City of Vancouver. There are also petitions from Delta, Nelson, Castlegar, Ganges on Saltspring Island, Port Moody, Fruitvale, Port Hardy, Lac-la-Hache, Richmond, Sechelt, Salmon Arm, Kitimat-


Mr. Frith:: Sounds like a bus schedule.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It does sound like a bus schedule but they say that people all over British Columbia are concerned.
The second group of petitions are from Lunenburg and Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. There are petitions from Dover, Riverview and St. John's, Newfoundland. There are also quite a number from a number of different communities in Nova Scotia. They all protest Bill C-70.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a number of petitions which ask the Government to reverse itself on the plan to deindex family allowances. The petitioners reside in Labrador and Quebec. TThere are petitions from the ridings of Sudbury, Gander-Twillingate, Nickel Belt, and Victoria, as well as from the Okanagan and Esquimalt areas of British Columbia.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House petitions from Fraser
Valley East churches, including the Chilliwack Alliance Church, the St. Paul Lutheran church, the Chilliwack Seventh Day Adventist Church, and the Gillanders Road Neighbourhood Group. These petitioners urge the federal Government to establish clear obscenity legislation and enforce stricter control over pornography. They are truly concerned about maintaining community standards of decency.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I would like to table, and it is a large one. It contains the signatures of 700 people from the Montreal area, and these signatures were collected by the Organisation d'aide aux assistes sociaux de la rue Delisle, in Montreal.
Petitioners believe that society as a whole should share responsibility for children, and that the principle of universality should be maintained.
They humbly ask the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) to immediately withdraw Bill C-70 which proposes to de-index family allowances.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a number of petitions from a number of communities in Nova Scotia, including Halifax, Dartmouth, Sackville, Pugwash, Wentworth, Truto and Springhill. The petitioners ask this House to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases from the last Budget.
I also have the honour to present a petition from my own riding, specifically Norway House, where a number of native people have again expressed their concern over the Government's intention to destroy universal family allowances absolutely by partial deindexation of that very necessary source of income to the people of that community.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the duty and privilege to present a number of petitions. Many of them are signed by residents of my own constituency. Others are signed by residents of the Cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Guelph, Ontario. The petitioners state that deindexation of universal family allowances is an unfair attack on women and families. They further state that this attack will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that other tax increases in the May Budget will place an unfair burden on low and middle-income earners.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present on behalf of about 450 residents of Moncton
January 20, 1986

and surrounding areas a petition protesting the downsizing or closure of the CN shops in Moncton. Twelve hundred jobs are being threatened and already 225 lay-off notices have been sent to the workers. They ask the Government to try and stop that very depressing situation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from various communities in British Columbia. Unlike some Conservative Members, including one Minister, from British Columbia, I am going to read them out instead of tabling them secretly with the Clerk.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member just do that as opposed to giving us a preamble?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No more preambles, Mr. Speaker. 1 have petitions from Gibson's Landing, Maple Ridge in the Fraser Valley, and Vancouver, including my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. Numerous people have protested this Bill and they call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a series of petitions from Halifax and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I have another series of petitions from Vancouver and Burnaby, British Columbia. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions with regard to the family allowance from Halifax and some from the Province of Saskatchewan, in partiuclar, from the City of Regina. I also have petitions with regard to family allowance from my own riding of Winnipeg North Centre. These petitioners point out that the deindexation of the family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families, and particularly on single parent mothers, and that these cut-backs in family allowance are inequitable in light of the hand-outs to banks and oil companies.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the people of the riding of Spadina are still sending in petitions against the Government's proposal of partially deindex the family allowance. They call it an unfair attack on women and families with children. They petition this House to reinstate full indexation universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to table in the House a petition
Petitions
signed by about 400 people from Moncton, Salisbury, Sussex and Petitcodiac, in which petitioners describe the situation at the CN shops in Moncton and ask the Government to take steps to protect these jobs.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present petitions, not only from my own riding, but from all across Canada. I have petitions from the communities of Campbellton, Tide Head, and Dundee in New Brunswick. I have petitions from Toronto, Thunder Bay, and Manitoba. All of these petitions call upon the Government of Canada to continue to index the family allowance at a full rate so that the children of the country can get the food and clothing that they need.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of labour leaders from Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario who are calling on the Government to change its approach on the use of pension income as it relates to unemployment insurance. The petitioners call upon the Government to reverse its decision which came into effect as of January 1 of this year.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to present petitions from various areas of Canada dealing with family allowance. These petitioners protest the decision to deindex the family allowance, point out the consequences for even the poorest families, and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation. Some of the petitioners are from the Vancouver area and various areas of the lower mainland including Surrey, Delta, and Burnaby. There is a petition from the City of Kamloops in British Columbia as well. 1 also have petitions from persons living in Ottawa and various parts of the City of Toronto. 1 have petitions, as well, from persons living in various communities in Nova Scotia, including Sackville, Dartmouth, and various parts of Cape Breton. All of these, of course, call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present petitions today from all corners of the Province of Ontario calling upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases. I have a similar petition signed by residents of Campbellton and Dalhousie in New Brunswick also calling upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I also have the privilege of tabling a petition signed by residents of Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Rosemont, Outremont, Laurier and Vaudreuil-Soulanges in the province of

January 20, 1986
Order Paper Questions
Quebec, who are asking the Government to withdraw Bill C-70 which proposes to deindex family allowances.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 401, 402, 404 and 405.


Mr. Cassidy: Since 1952 by year, what percentage of the combined total of pension plan interest earnings, and employer-employee pension plan contributions and other payments made to finance pension plan benefits and their indexing for (a) public servants (b) members of the Canadian Armed Forces (c) members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were provided by (i) pension plan interest earnings (ii) employer pension contributions and other employer payments (iii) employee pension contributions?


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: (a) Public Service Pension Plan
Percentage of Combined Interest Earnings Employer-Employee Pension Plan Contributions and other Payments to finance Pension Plan Benefits and Indexing
Year	Employee Contributions (Percentage of Total)	Employer Contributions and other payments to finance pension benefits and indexing (Percentage of Total)	Plan Interest Earnings (Percentage of Total)1952-53	22	51	271953-54	33	48	191954-55	33	39	281955-56	34	34	321956-57	25	51	241957-58	25	50	251958-59	33	32	351959-60	32	32	361960-61	34	30	361961-62	33	30	371962-63	33	30	371963-64	32	30	38
-65	10	77	131965-66	27	36	371966-67	21	43	361967-68	23	41	361968-69	22	44	341969-70	22	41	37[DOT]
-71	21	38	411971-72	22	36	421972-73	22	35	431973-74	22	33	451974-75	20	38	421975-76	21	37	421976-77	22	35	431977-78	23	34	431978-79	21	34	451979-80	21	31	481980-81	19	31	501981-82	17	35	481982-83	18	29	531983-84	17	28	551984-85	16	27	57
In this year all outstanding deferred charges for actuarial deficiency credits were charged to budgetary expenditures. Commencing in 1964-65, actuarial deficiency credits were paid off over five years in equal instalments.
[DOT][DOT]Indexing Benefits established effective April 1, 1970.
(b) Canadian Forces Pension Plan
Percentage of Combined Interest Earnings, Employer-Employee Pension Plan Contributions and other Payments to finance Pension Plan Benefits and Indexing
Employer Contributions and other payments to
Employee	finance pension
Contributions	benefits and indexing Plan Interest Earnings
Year	(Percentage of Total) (Percentage of Total) (Percentage of Total)
1952-53	33	58	91953-54	31	58	111954-55	33	54	131955-56	31	53	161956-57	30	53	171957-58	30	51	191958-59	27	44	291959-60	25	43	321960-61	28	35	371961-62	24	41	351962-63	24	40	36
-64	5	86	91964-65	19	40	411965-66	18	39	431966-67	11	50	391967-68	12	49	391968-69	11	53	361969-70	11	45	44[DOT]
-71	11	42	471971-72	11	37	521972-73	10	38	521973-74	9	42	491974-75	8	42	501975-76	8	42	501976-77	8	39	531977-78	8	36	561978-79	9	28	631979-80	9	23	681980-81	8	23	691981-82	9	30	611982-83	8	23	691983-84	8	23	691984-85	7	23	70In this year all outstanding deferred charges for actuarial deficiency credits were charged	to budgetary expenditures. Commencing in 1964-65, actuarial deficiency credits were paid off over five years in equal instalments. [DOT][DOT]Indexing Benefits established effective April 1, 1970.	(c) Royal Canadian Mounted Police Pension Plan	Percentage of Combined Interest Earnings, Employer-Employee Pension Plan Contributions and other Payments to finance Pension Plan Benefits and Indexing Employer Contributions and other payments to Employee finance pension Contributions benefits and indexing Plan Interest Earnings	Year	(Percentage of Total)	(Percentage of Total)	(Percentage of Total)1952-53	38	47	151953-54	33	54	131954-55	36	48	161955-56	32	50	181956-57	25	61	141957-58	28	55	171958-59	29	52	191959-60	31	47	221960-61	26	58	161961-62	34	45	211962-63	30	46	24
-64	14	74	121964-65	26	51	231965-66	24	51	251966-67	17	61	221967-68	17	60	231968-69	15	65	201969-70	15	61	24[DOT]
-71	16	58	26
January 20, 1986

Year	Employee Contributions (Percentage of Total)	Employer Contributions and other payments to finance pension benefits and indexing (Percentage of Total)	Plan Interest Earnings (Percentage of Total)1971-72	18	51	311972-73	18	50	321973-74	19	46	351974-75	19	45	361975-76	18	45	371976-77	17	45	381977-78	17	43	401978-79	15	47	381979-80	15	40	451980-81	16	35	491981-82	16	31	531982-83	15	29	561983-84	14	28	581984-85	13	26	61
*ln this year all outstanding deferred charges for actuarial deficiency credits were charged to bubgetary expenditures. Commencing in 1964-65, actuarial deficiency credits were paid off over five years in equal instalments.
[DOT][DOT]Indexing Benefits established effective April 1, 1970.


Mr. Cassidy: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 4,485 of the 1st Session of the 32nd Parliament, how much of the $2,438 million decrease in liabilities that was experienced by the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) for past service by the decision that was taken to carry out an actuarial valuation of the RCMPSA under a 3 per cent annua] inflation scenario, arose because inflationary interest earnings on CFSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries were committed to reducing past service employer pension costs in respect of current employees?
2.	How much of the decrease in employer pension costs from 19.0 per cent to 10.8 per cent of contributory payroll for future service that was experienced by the CFSA resulting from the decision that was taken to carry out an actuarial valuation of the CFSA under a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario, arose because inflationary interest earnings on CFSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries were committed to reducing future service employer pension costs in respect of current employees?
3.	Were representatives of CFS pensioners consulted on the action taken to commit inflationary interest earnings on CFSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries towards reducing past and future service employer pension costs in respect of current employees and, if not, for what reason?


Paul Wyatt Dick: 1 and 2. Before 1975, the actuarial valuations of the CFSA were based on a 4 per cent interest assumption. Rates of future salary increases and inflation were not projected.
In the 1975 valuation, the rate of interest was assumed to be
6.5	per cent per annum. Salary increases were assumed to be
5.5	per cent annually. These rates included an implicit assumption of 3 per cent inflation.
If no implicit assumptions for inflation had been used, the other economic assumptions could be regarded as being 3.5 per cent for real interest rates and 2.5 per cent for real salary increases. The effect of using an implicit inflation assumption of 3 per cent and therefore interest and salary increase assumptions of 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent, respectively, instead of 3.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent was to:
(a) decrease the CFSA actuarial liabilities by $2,438 million. Of this amount approximately $2,090 million could be
Order Paper Questions
attributed to using a discount rate of 6.5 per cent during the plan members' retirement years, instead of 3.5 per cent; and
(b) reduce the full employer annual current service cost that would have been required from 19 per cent to 10.8 per cent of contributory payroll. Of the 8.2 per cent of pay decrease, about 6.2 per cent of pay is attributable to using a discount rate of 6.5 per cent interest rather than 3.5 per cent during the retirement period of plan members.
3. Representatives of Canadian Forces pensioners were not consulted about the change in economic assumptions used to value the CFS Account. The benefits of pensioners were not affected by the change in these assumptions. The assumptions were changed to enable realistic cost comparisons with private sector plans.
Also, pensions are not negotiable with plan members.


Mr. Cassidy: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,487 of the 1st Session of the 32nd Parliament, how much of the $3,648 million decrease in liabilities that was experienced by the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) for past service by the decision that was taken to carry out an actuarial valuation of the PSSA under a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario, arose because inflationary interest earnings on PSSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries were committed to reducing past service employer pension costs in respect of current employees?
2.	How much of the decrease in employer pension costs from 11.6 per cent to
6.5	per cent of contributory payroll for future service that was experienced by the PSSA resulting from the decision that was taken to carry out an actuarial valuation of the PSSA under a 3 per cent annual inflation scenario, arose because inflationary interest earnings on PSSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries were committed to reducing future service employer pension costs in respect of current employees?
3.	Were representatives of PSSA pensioners consulted on the action taken to commit inflationary interest earnings on PSSA assets in respect of pensioners and other beneficiaries towards reducing past and future service employer pension costs in respect of current employees and, if not, for what reason?


Paul Wyatt Dick: 1 and 2. Before 1977, the actuarial valuations of the PSSA were based on a 4 per cent interest assumption. Rates of future salary increases and inflation were not projected.
In the 1977 valuation, the rate of interest was assumed to be
6.5	per cent per annum. Salary increases were assumed to be
5.5	per cent annually. These rates included an implicit assumption of 3 per cent inflation.
If not implicit assumptions for inflation had been used, the other economic assumptions could be regarded as being 3.5 per cent for real interest rates and 2.5 per cent for real salary increases. The effect of using an implicit inflation assumption of 3 per cent, and therefore interest and salary increase assumptions of 6.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent, respectively, instead of 3.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent was to:
(a)	decrease PSSA liabilities by $3648 million, which included a decrease in pensioner liabilities of about $2850; and
(b)	reduce the full employer annual current service cost that would have been required from 11.6 per cent to 6.5 percent of contributory payroll. Of the 5.1 per cent of pay decrease, about 3.6 per cent of pay is attributable to using a discount

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
rate of 6.5 per cent interest rather than 3.5 per cent during the retirement period of plan members.
3. Representatives of PSSA pensioners were not consulted about the change in economic assumptions used to value the PSS Account. The benefits of pensioners were not affected by the change in these assumptions. The assumptions were changed to enable realistic cost comparisons with private sector plans.
Also, pensions are not negotiable with plan members.


Mr. Cassidy: As of December 31, 1984, what was the estimated loss in accumulated interest and principal that the Public Service Superannuation Account, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account have experienced from the time these accounts were First established as a result of employer contributions being credited to these accounts one Fiscal year in arrears instead of being credited currently on a monthly basis to coincide with the current contributions made by employees from their pay cheques?


Paul Wyatt Dick: In accordance with legislation, employer contributions are credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account one fiscal year in arrears, and to the Canadian Forces and RCMP Superannuation Accounts one quarter in arrears. If these employer contributions had been credited to these accounts at the same time as employee contributions, the estimated difference in interest earnings would be as follows:
Public Service Superannuation Account	$ 385 million
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account	$	90 millionRCMP Superannuation Account	$	15 million
[Translation\


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973 be read the the third time and passed.
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I understand that 1 have 13 minutes left, not enough time to tell how strongly we oppose Bill C-70. We are joined by over 100 organizations that have appeared on Parliament Hill and by many more than 100,000 petitioners who oppose the deindexation of the family allowance so very strongly.
Why is the NDP and all these groups and citizens protesting so very strongly? It is for the same reason that we opposed the Liberal's six and five deindexing and the earlier cuts made by the Liberals to the family allowance. First of all, Bill C-70, as we have said many times, is an attack on families. The family allowance cheque is the only family benefit that goes to all families that are rearing children. It recognizes the costs and responsibilities that parents take on when they raise children. It is the way in which taxpayers, who do not have children, contribute to the rearing of the next generation. It recognizes the value of children and of parenting. It shows that we are a caring society. It is also a very important means of subsidizing the heavy costs of larger families, a point that the Federation of Labour from P.E.I. pointed out was not stressed enough in committee.
By refusing to index the family allowance to the full cost of living the Government is not only taking money from children in real terms but is denying all the principles of this very important universal social program that 1 just mentioned. It is really denying the fact that this program is a social right to Canadian parents. It is a social contract between their Government, their children, and themselves. It is this contract that is being eroded.
This gives very bad signals to parents. It tells them that kids will have to pay for the deficit, that parenting is not important to the Government, that the Government is willing to allow family allowance to be eroded over the years-and that is where the significant decrease comes-and that children and families are not a priority of the Government. Those are the signals that people are getting, and the Government should realize that. The Ministers and Members sitting in the House should realize that this is a very serious and very negative matter from a political point of view.
Bill C-70 is an attack on women. We heard from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, from the Canadian Advisory Council, and from many, many women's groups across Canada. This has aroused the anger of women so much that in Quebec a very strong and very determined new coalition of 60 or more organizations was formed which will continue to protest to the Government. They have lost all confidence in the Government and its actions.
As my Leader said this morning, women are concerned because they need that cheque for their kids, they deserve it, it is their right, and it should be fully indexed. They are also concerned because, in most cases, the cheque comes to women in their own name. I do not think that many men, who have always been in the workforce, realize what it means to a woman who has been raising kids in the home, who has been working very hard and gets no financial recognition, benefits, or adequate pension as do people in the workforce. The one
January 20,1986

thing she does get is a family allowance cheque which is hers. 1 am sure that in most cases she uses it for the children, but it is she who gives it to her children.
In the case of low income women, as they told us, this is money that the mother uses to buy food, especially toward the end of the month when the welfare cheque has been used up. To Canadian women the Government's decision to deindex means a reduction in the value of the family allowance cheque, and they feel that this is insulting, degrading and humiliating. It makes women very angry. They will not forget that anger, I can assure Hon. Members in this House.
The family allowance is little enough as it is. If the Liberals had retained full indexation and done what they should have done as a social commitment and a human right, we would have had family allowance cheques over $50 a month today, and that is the least they should be.
It is incredible that the Government would try to fool women and play around with this important program. The Minister put out a press release before Christmas saying that cheques would not be reduced but increased in January. He even put the cheques out ahead of this debate with an increase of one cent per day per child. The amount should have been four times that to cover the real costs of living.
We have heard from many people that Bill C-70 will be hardest on small families. It will be hard on large families who have a fair income because the cost of raising several children is very great. This Bill will be particularly hard on single parent families, 90 per cent of whom are headed by women who are poor.
The Minister can mouth his platitudes saying that he wants to help those in greatest need. Members who spoke this morning repeated that message but the facts show that that is not true. The family benefit programs and the steps taken in the Budget will hurt poor families badly. I will give some facts to substantiate that statement.
We heard from many mothers on low income and many social policy groups that deindexation is hardest on the poor. I know women in my riding who after using up their welfare cheques use their family allowance cheques. By the end of the month they are out on the streets. I can tell Hon. Members that because of Bill C-49 these women are out on the streets getting picked up and are subject to criminal charges. How do you think women and mothers feel, Mr. Speaker, when they know their Government cares so little for them that it is cutting the cost of living increases?
Bill C-70 is regressive social policy. We heard this repeatedly from social policy groups. One woman parliamentarian-I was really disappointed to hear her-said it is progressive. That is ridiculous. Combined with other Budget measures, it favours the rich and hurts the poor.
The National Council on Welfare and the Canadian Council on Social Development have this documented. The National Council on Welfare said that over the next five years a single
Family Allowances Act, 1973
mother with two children earning $15,000 annually will lose nearly $2,000 under the Government's Budget. On the other hand, a one-earner couple at the $80,000 a year level will gain nearly $6,000. It is incredible, isn't it, Mr. Speaker? The child tax credit is also being deindexed after three years. We sometimes forget about the child tax exemption, which will be reduced by deindexing. Higher income people will get a reduction for capital gains exemptions and a much higher ceiling on non-taxable RRSPs. Although the poorest families will have an increase in the child tax credit-I hope Members are listening because they keep giving out myths-the increase in the child tax credit does not come until 1987. In the meantime, in 1986 sales taxes imposed on the poorest families will be much higher than the increase in the child tax credit.
How can the Conservatives argue that the Budget helps the poorest families? They are either uninformed or unintelligent-I do not think that is true-but they must be deluded and certainly very cynical if they continue to repeat that argument.
The savings from the reduction on the indexation on family allowances also takes money from the lower income families according to the Canadian Council on Social Development. Their research shows that as a result of 3 per cent deindexation the Government will retrieve $49 million in 1986 alone. Of these savings, $33 million will come from families whose incomes are under $50,000. Average and poor families are being hit by Bill C-70, the families raising children.
The cumulative effect of deindexing the family allowance is another thing we must remember. It is only a little bit of money, a quart of milk a month, starting this new year. On the other hand if we look at what happens over the years with deindexation, the Canadian Council analysis shows that if inflation continues at 3 per cent, in 20 years time the family allowance will be only with $18 a month instead of $32, a loss of $168 a year. The child tax credit-get this-will be reduced to $326 from $384 today even though during part of that period there is an increase in the child tax credit.
The other thing we do not realize is that the turning point for income eligibility for the child tax credit is also affected. The CLC says that in 20 years time only those earning $14,000 a year, extremely poor families, will be eligible for the child tax credit. People up to the $26,500 income range are eligible today. This plan is insidious. As the years go by the family allowance wil be eroded, proving that the Government is attacking a universal program.
Bill C-70 also contains a section giving the Minister power to declare missing children as presumed dead. Child finder groups and parents with missing children are very concerned about this section. We think it should have been withdrawn. Native women have a special plea but were refused being heard. The Bill has a tremendous impact on their families and communities.
Bill C-70 represents a final betrayal by the Government which will come back to haunt it. The Government promised consultation. That promise has been a complete farce. Very qualified groups who were heard at committee twice unani-

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
mously opposed deindexing. Their consultation has been ignored. They will not ignore the Government, I know. The Government promised to protect universal social programs. Remember universality was sacred. I have already shown how universality has been attacked by Bill C-70.
Remember the Leaders debate, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said he was going to be very sensitive to women's concerns, that women would have equal participation in society and that he was going to focus on women. He is focusing on women, all right. He is attacking women and their children. Women have told us over and over again that they have lost confidence in him. Even the Government advisory group has said how strongly it opposes this Bill.
The Conservatives said and the Minister who is sitting in the House says repeatedly that they want to help those in greatest need. The facts show that Bill C-70 and the other Budget measures are hurting families in greatest need. That is more rhetoric and another promise down the drain. The Government said it would recommend cuts to social programs when the economy improved. The Government now says the economy has improved, that there are more jobs, yet the Government is not willing to reconsider its stand.
We urge the Government to put a sunset clause in Bill C-70. We tried for amendments in committee and here at report stage so we could look at the Bill in a year if the Government would not do away with the Bill. We were ignored which shows that the Government either lied to the people about its intentions or it is lying now when it says the economy has improved.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I want to say that by refusing to reconsider Bill C-70 which will hurt women, children and families and, in fact, this country, despite the unanimous recommendations of all expert witnesses who appeared and despite a massive country-wide protest as seen in petitions, by reneging again and again on promises, the Government, while trying to distort the facts has permanently alienated Canadians. Canadians have lost confidence in the credibility and in the humanity of the Government.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). The Hon. Member repeatedly mentioned throughout her speech terms like "progressive". Also she mentioned helping poor people with lower incomes. Does she accept, as 1 believe her Leader did this morning, that Bill C-70 will help lower-income mothers and their children for the next five years and will take away funds from high-income mothers and their children? As I understand the word "progressive"-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You do not understand it.


David Kilgour: -one hits harder people with higher incomes and one helps people with lower incomes. Could the Hon.
Member tell the House what is her understanding in respect of low-income families and this particular Bill?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it must be a very strange definition of progressive legislation.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: It is the definition of Progressive Conservative.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, there is a different definition of "progressive" when we talk about Progressive Conservatives. I mean, what can one answer?


David Kilgour: Answer my question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I have documented throughout my speech that they are reducing the indexation on family allowances for poor people and of course it will hurt them. Meanwhile, the costs of their food, clothing and so on are rising. Of course it is hurting them. As the Minister himself said, we cannot really take this Bill in isolation from some of the other budget measures as well. I gave the facts in the documentation from CCSD and from the National Council of Welfare which proved beyond a doubt that they are hurting most the lost income families. They are hurting families at the expense of other taxpayers as well.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, with respect, we have to be honest with each other in the House. The Hon. Member just said that we must not take this Bill in isolation, that we must look at other Bills. We have only one Bill before us. Does the Hon. Member know about the tax credit and the fact that low-income families, mothers and children, will have more in their family purse under this Bill for the next five years than they have right now? If she wants to rise, would she please speak to the Bill before the House, not to 17 other Bills or 17 other issues? My question relates to Bill C-70 only, and I submit that that is the lurking fallacy in everything the Hon. Member has been saying.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, how can a mother have more money in her purse as a result of this Bill, when the cost of living is rising by 4 per cent and the Minister is only giving 1 per cent in the way of any kind of adjustment for the cost of living? How can she have more money in her purse if she has to pay out that extra money?


David Kilgour: It is called a tax credit.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Let us talk about the real world. Let us talk about the real value of money and what that mother has to pay when she goes to the grocery store. It is ridiculous to try to give the impression to families across the country that the Minister is being generous by giving a cent per child per month when he should be giving four times that much for indexation to the real cost of living. It is inconceivable that he can pursue this point.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) has accused Government Members of lying about their intentions and of being deluded.
January 20, 1986


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Polluted.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Deluded, Mr. Speaker. I have heard the New Democratic Party respond to some six to eight Budgets in my time here. It has a standard line; before that Party even sees the Budget, it says: "It favours the rich and hurts the poor".


Cyril Keeper: That is the fact in this Budget. Do you want the truth?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: "That is the fact in this Budget", hollers some dishonourable Member from across the floor.


Cyril Keeper: The Budget hurts the poor and favours the rich. That is the truth.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In December, 1979, in this Chamber, on a motion from that Party a Budget was turfed out, the Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). The National Council of Welfare, which the Hon. Member for Vancouver East is so fond of quoting, stated unequivocally at that time that it was the fairest Budget to the poor people of the nation in the decade of the seventies, and they threw it out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Why didn't you keep it?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They sit in the Chamber and do not talk about the reality that a poor mother in Canada today, as of January 20, 1986, will have more money in her pocket for her children because of the family benefits policy of the Government than they were to have before my Party came into office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Let us talk about the mothers today who need to buy food and skates for their children to participate in hockey.


Cyril Keeper: What about the excise tax?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They are to get more money as a consequence of the family benefits policy than they were to get before.


Cyril Keeper: What about the excise tax?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about the highest income tax in Canada?


Cyril Keeper: You raised that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could we listen to the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) put his question or comment, please?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very simple one. It strikes at the heart of the delusions of the New Democratic Party and the Hon. Member who just spoke. I believe that that Party has deluded itself into believing that a penny a day slower growth in family allowance benefits is the most important part of the policy of the Government. I would like to be clear on its belief. Does that Party believe that that is more
Family Allowances Act, 1973
important than 500,000 more Canadians working, 1,000 more each and every day since the Budget was brought in? Does that Party think that a penny a day is more important than the over-all policy thrust which is to take from the rich and give to the poor where they need it and to stimulate the economy so that the really poor without jobs can have jobs? We were elected on jobs, jobs, jobs; reconciliation and justice. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is justice; reconciliation is working with the economy-


Cyril Keeper: But you give to the rich.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -and jobs come out the other end of that process. One thousand more people per day are working in the country since the Budget was brought down. Is that not more important than a penny a day?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is enjoying his rhetoric. I appeal to him as a rational person and as a person who has been involved in social work as I have myself. I am sure he really knows the social situation of people. Over a hundred groups, most of which were very well qualified social policy groups with lots of data, unanimously disagreed with the Bill and said that it was harmful. How can he, as a person who taught in a school of social work in Alberta, not believe what they are saying?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: He is stubborn.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is very difficult to understand. As I answered this morning on the question of jobs, of course we are all for jobs. I wish there were many more full-time jobs at decent rates of pay for the very mothers about whom we are talking. They are lucky if they get part-time jobs. Many of them are being phased out of work into part-time jobs. He knows as well as I do that it is the children about whom we are talking. When a worker with no children gets x dollars and a parent, a mother or father, gets the same x dollars and has to support several children, surely it makes sense that the Government recognize those children. Surely it makes sense that they are recognized adequately. It is an insult and it goes against an appreciatiaon of family values and children to say that that amount will be deindexed. They cannot tell me that the Government could not find $50,000 or a little less than that to cover full indexation for this year. 1 do not want to use rhetoric again, but the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that they did not hesitate to find over $1 billion for the banks, to get new uniforms for the Armed Forces or to give all kinds of bonuses to the oil companies. Surely the children, the next generation, are just as important. Why be so miserly, so inhumane as to reduce the indexation on family allowances? I am very disappointed in the Member.


Mr. Speaker:: Question and comment period is over. We will resume debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand).

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words at the third reading stage of Bill C-70.
The Bill was debated at length during second reading. It was studied in great detail in committee, and whatever could be said against or in favour of the Bill has already been said. In fact, today is the twenty-ninth day of debate on this piece of legislation.
During the next three years, this Bill and the amendments to the Income Tax Act concerning child benefits will gradually replace the present system with a fairer and a more sensible substitute, while maintaining the basic principle that families with children are entitled to certain benefits that are not available to families without children.
The proposed set of reforms guarantees that the highest after-tax benefits will go to families with the lowest incomes and that payments will be reduced progressively as a family's income increases. That is not the case at the present time, when a family with an income of over $30,000 receives higher after-tax benefits than a family with an income of $10,000.
I get the impression that the Opposition, especially the Liberal Opposition, tends to forget that between 1974 and 1984, it supported measures that made a fifty per cent cut in social programs. In 1976, the same Opposition reduced family allowances from $25 to $20 per month, reduced and finally eliminated the fifty-dollar child tax deduction in effect at the time, reduced the exemption for children from 16 to 17 years old, and finally, in 1982, the same Opposition capped indexation of family allowances at six and five per cent.
In fact, considering only what happened in 1976, if family allowances had been fully indexed to the consumer price index without interruption from 1974 onward, monthly family allowance payments would have been $51.83 per child this year, instead of $31.00 as is now the case.
Now, to the Members of the other Opposition Party who are such staunch defenders of the underprivileged. Did you tell those people about whom you are so concerned-and I am sorry to see the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) leaving the House now-did you tell those people the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Did you explain to them that the purpose of this Bill is indeed to give more money to the poorest among them? Would the Hon. Member for Vancouver East tell me whether she is prepared to go back to her riding this weekend and explain to the head of a single-parent family who earns $10,000 that, thanks to our new legislation, within five years this parent will have $250 more to raise his or her family?
Will the Hon. Member for Vancouver East be able to tell the parent that, because he or she will have $250 more, she will vote against the Bill this evening?
How does one explain this situation?
We have realigned our social policies under other amendments, particularly with respect to the child tax credit. Will Members of the Opposition tell families earning $10,000 a year that their child tax credit will be $734 in 1985, $768 in 1986, $908 in 1987, $1,048 in 1989? Did you tell that to your constituents?
If we examine the measures announced by our Government to help families we find that, generally speaking, the child benefit system will be changed somewhat over the next few years, but always to the benefit of poorer Canadians.
I said earlier that our family policy is an employment policy as well. If the father, the mother or the children in that family find work within the coming weeks or months, it will certainly compensate for the missing 94 cents on their monthly allowance cheque. In my opinion, that is more important to a family. Quebec's economy has been steadily recovering. Ever since the election, we have created, in Quebec alone, 136,000 jobs, that is an average of 9,067 jobs per month, compared with a total of 37,000 jobs created by the Liberal administration in 55 months.
It is clear that requests will continue to be made for still more money to help the poor in our society, to improve their living conditions, something we can understand. We fully support this concern for social justice.
The situation of families with children changes constantly. The federal programs designed to help these families cannot always automatically adapt to changing conditions. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to reorient these programs, and that is the purpose of Bill C-70. We believe that we have adopted a realistic and equitable approach and we intend to continue to work in this direction.
Last December 5, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) announced the creation of a parliamentary task force on child care in Canada, to deal with the future orientation of policies in view of the changing needs of Canadian families. In our development policy, we are offering women, as an example, a labour market promotion and integration program to help them acquire the professional qualifications they need to meet the requirements, for some jobs as well as a practical knowledge of the labour market. In the health caucus, we have been studying for the past few weeks all aspects of poverty. We are concerned about these families and children who are living in poverty in Canada. We have heard experts deal with the subject: Mr. Ken Battle, Executive Director of the National Council on Welfare, Mrs. Sylvia Gold, of the Council on the Status of Women, Senator Brenda Robertson, who is familiar with this issue since she is a former Minister of Health from New Brunswick, the former Minister of Development, and in the coming days, we shall be hearing Mr. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute in Vancouver. This is what we have been doing to help those who need it the most. In addition, we shall develop other social policies as our economy improves in the future.
January 20, 1986

Bill C-70 is a controversial piece of legislation. The Opposition parties and a number of groups and individuals have denounced it. Their arguments have not convinced me, but I respect the sincerity and the beliefs of most of them.
Like I was saying earlier, as our economy improves, the Government and the Department of National Health and Welfare hope to do even more for those really need it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments; the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).


Mr. Rossi:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) referred to the amounts the mothers would be receiving in 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989. I therefore ask her, what would they have received had the family allowances not been deindexed?
Give me the amounts-you cannot answer by yourself.


Gabrielle Bertrand: I always abide by my Minister's wise advice.
You are asking me what would have been the amounts. I told you earlier what they would have been, if you and your Government, had not put a stop to that de-indexing. Instead of the $31 now received by families, it would have been $51. And 1 gave you tables, I have other tables but let me say it might be exhaustive at times to give figures. I gave you figures, I gave you tables, how much more families would be getting for the income tax credit, and this is what counts, because this is not taxable.


Carlo Rossi: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the question once again. She answered what it would have been. I am asking what it would be if you were not deindexing and that is the question.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Then it is $11.28 less a year for family allowances, but $70 more in the first year as far as the tax credit is concerned, $35 more in the second year, and still $35 more in the third year for the tax credit.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to address the last stage of this Bill in a very general way by outlining the concerns of the Liberal Party and myself as the Health and Welfare critic regarding Bill C-70 which will deindex family allowances. However, after hearing some of the very technical arguments placed before us today, I feel almost compelled, and I will do so, to refute some fo the technical arguments made about this Bill so that we may draw our own conclusions at the end of the debate.
It seems to me that there are two basic arguments that Conservative Members have been using this afternoon. The first is that the total package of child benefits including the family allowance, the child tax credit and the child tax exemption will compensate for the reduction in family allowance.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
That was inherent in the questions that were put to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) by the Hon. Member from Edmonton and the Hon. Member from Calgary. I think a few moments will be required to carefully consider the technicalities involved here.
That argument does not take into account the timing of the increases and deductions that are part of this program. Let me therefore begin with that premise and hope that Hon. Members opposite will understand exactly what it is they will be doing to low-income families. Indeed, Conservative Members have created the perception that the proposed changes to the total package of child benefits will compensate for the reduction of income to families following the deindexation of the family allowances. The other perception that is being created is that the end result will be a fairer distribution of benefits; that is to say, a greater proportion of benefits will go to families with lowest incomes. Unfortunately, neither of these highly desirable outcomes will occur. The reason for that is that the practical, negative effects of the proposed changes are not being recognized.
The single major problem with examining the three programs from a fiscal perspective is that the timing of the increases in the deductions are not being placed in the context in which they are going to occur. As an example, the reduction in the family allowances is to begin in January 1986, as soon as this Bill has passed. As a matter of fact, as I indicated in the House in December in debate and during Question Period, the Government did not even wait until the Bill was passed by Parliament before it presumed to change the figures that were to be placed on the family allowance cheques.
The deindexation will begin in January 1986. I hear from Members opposite that the child tax credit is being increased by $70. What the Government does not make clear is the fact that the $70 increase in the child tax credit will not be received by families until April 1987, some 14 months from now, because the child tax credit will not fully impact on families until another year goes by as it is only given out at income tax time. Quite simply, a family will lose the benefit of indexation for 14 months while awaiting the reported compensating adjustment. The Hon. Member from Edmonton and the Hon. Member from Calgary indicated that this was supposed to compensate, but they are going to have to be forced to admit that it will take 14 months before anyone, regardless of family income, will receive one benefit from the child tax credit.
In addition, there will be a second reduction for some families because this Bill lowers the turning point or the point at which one receives partial reduction of the child tax credit from $26,330 per year to $23,500. We lost the argument regarding that point in committee. As a matter of fact, the committee recommended that the turning point be much higher than that which is indicated in this Bill. We recommended that the turning point should be Statistics Canada's definition of family middle income which is $34,000 to $35,000 per year. Through this Bill, the Conservative Government has indicated that it feels that a family that earns $23,000 per year is sufficiently well off and does not require

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the full benefit of a child tax credit. Hence, families are going to begin to lose benefits under the child tax credit at that income level.
I will now deal with the import of these changes and I hope Hon. Members will listen carefully. The result of these changes is that between January 1986 and April 1987, all families in the country, regardless of income, will have their family allowances reduced by approximately $30. This shortterm loss will be significant in and of itself but it will not begin to compare with the combined over-all effects of the proposed changes.
The Government will choose to proceed with its changes despite opposition from individual families. We have heard of the petition campaign that was launched by the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. As well, I must admit that there have been some back-bench Conservative MPs who have had the courage to present petitions from their own constituents outlining opposition to the family allowance deindexation. Despite all of that, despite individual families showing displeasure at the Government's intentions and despite the professional service groups that are opposed to this Bill, a net gain will only occur to those families with incomes of less than $10,000 per year. The cumulative total gain after four years for those families will be $76. More important, all families with incomes of more than $10,000 will experience a net loss of income. That is because Conservative back-bench MPs are not taking into account when the family allowance will be deindexed and when the child tax credit will impact on families. I will not even deal with the child tax exemptions which, I believe, properly belong in Bill C-84.
Another argument has been running through the minds of Conservative Members in this debate. They claim that the result of the changes will be a fairer distribution of benefits or that a greater proportion of benefits will go to families with the lowest incomes. If that had been the intent of the Bill and if that had been the intent of the Government when this debate was launched some 15 to 16 months ago, the Government could have brought forward a Bill that would have had the agreement of all three political Parties. Instead, we ended up with the worst of both worlds.
I believe there has been a betrayal by the Government of the trust placed in it by the electorate on September 4, 1984. The people evidently trusted the Conservative Party during the election campaign of 1984 and the few months following the election. They believed the Government when it said that universality was a sacred trust not to be tampered with. They believed the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) when he indicated in the social policy review that any savings which would be found in these programs would be redirected to those families who need it the most as opposed to committing it to deficit reduction. In the Bill before us we see the full truth of the Conservative social policy. In effect, what we have is a social policy which is Robin Hood in reverse, and 1 have used that phrase before in this debate.
In a very technical way let me speak to Conservative Members of Parliament who have used that second point in their speeches, that is to say that there will be a fair distribution of benefits. Statistics Canada states that some 78 per cent of Canadians live in urban centres. In its annual review of poverty published in May of 1985-just 10 months ago-the National Council on Welfare indicated that a family of four living in a moderate to large urban centre with a family income of less than $19,000 a year would be living in poverty. 1 ask Hon. Members to bear that in mind because the argument here is that this Bill will aid those families who need it the most. The net effect of the proposed changes on families with incomes of less than $20,000 is that they will experience a loss of child benefits and, subsequently, a loss in their capacity to provide an adequate level of food, clothing and shelter for their children. Futher, it is generally accepted that the major beneficiary of the child benefit programs are well-to-do families. The effect of deindexation will have the most negative effect on lower income families. As a result of this Bill's passage, and I have no doubt that it will be passed, in excess of $16 million will be withheld from families living below the poverty line. I think that is a shocking indictment of a Conservative Government's social policy. What is more shocking is the temerity of the back-bench MPs who stand in their place in the House and foster they myth that the social legislation which is before Parliament and the Canadian public is actually going to help those families who need help the most.
The average family income in 1984 was $35,853. The proposed deindexation will have the effect of saving an estimated $49.5 million in 1986. In other words, that is contrary to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) promised at the beginning of the debate on universality some 15 months ago. It is also contrary to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated at that time. More damning is the fact that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare assumed the mantle of his office he did so to represent not only his own constituents but those in our society who need help the most. The Hon. Member opposite from Edmonton laughs. If politicians are to be believed in this world, then they should at least live up the campaign promises that they make. That is why the Canadian public no longer trusts the Government. The Government continually breaks its promises.


David Kilgour: Get on with your speech.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The Hon. Member does not want to hear the truth. He raised a technical question with the Hon. Member for Vancouver East and now that he has had the benefit of a technical response he wants to lapse back into some general philosophical discussion.
The point is that the Minister of Health promised the Canadian public 15 months ago that any moneys found-any savings as a result of the review of the child benefits program-would never be used to reduce the size of the federal deficit. Yet, that is exactly what occurred six months later, when, on May 23, the Minister of Finance introduced a
January 20, 1986

Budget which will widen the gap between the rich and the poor in our society. The Minister of Health now has the gall to defend the measures in Bill C-70 while being conspicuously silent on the even more damaging effects Bill C-84 will have on family incomes in the country.
Having said that, I would like to end my remarks on some of the general formalities. At the very beginning of this debate I indicated to Members of the House that the intent of the Government was laudatory. When the child benefits package was referred to committe, members of the committee were asked to consult as widely as possible with various groups across the country and make recommendations to the federal Government suggesting ways and means by which the family allowance, the child tax credit and the child tax exemption could be altered to ensure that more money could be put into the hands of those families who need it the most. That was the original laudatory intent at the beginning of the debate on the child benefits package.
I have indicated to Hon. Members before that when we received that mandate from the federal Government the committee spent, if I am not mistaken, some nine or ten weeks listening to various groups from across the country. The groups and individuals who appeared before the committee did so in the belief that if they gave proper advice, and if we were able to wade through the various testimony, that the three political parties could come up with a better package to recommend to the Minister of Health in order to change the child benefits package. We did so.
With respect to the child tax credit, we recommended that the Government significantly improve the package because we happen to believe it is a socially progressive way by which we can put more money into the hands of poor families. We also recommended that the Government look seriously at eliminating the child tax exemption so that any savings which would result to either the federal Government or the provincial Governments would be funneled into lower income groups. Those were the recommendations of the committee to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Frankly, it seems that we wasted our time in that committee because not one of the general directional recommendations which we made was accepted by the Minister, or the committee on planning and priorities when it considered proposals not only to deindex personal exemptions but, worse still, to deindex the family allowances and old age pensions. Largely because of the senior citizens in the country who were so outraged by the thought of having their pensions deindexed, we were able to mount such a successful campaign that the Government had no choice but to back off with its plans. I take it what the Government decided to do was to hang tough, so to speak, with respect to the equally negative effects that this Bill will have on family benefits.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech this afternoon, despite the fact that the petition campaign which was launched was the most successful in Canada's history, in which we received between approximately 100,000 and 150,000 signatures, the Government's plan to deindex family allowances
Family Allowances Act, 1973
stands. This Government remains committed to the direction it established fiscally on the night of May 23.
What 1 think is most disturbing about the debate is the following. The blank cheque which Canadians gave to the Conservative Party on September 4, 1984, to institute fundamental change in order that Canadians who are not as well versed in the problems facing social programs in the country said, in essence, to the Conservative Party: "We are giving you authorization for change to these systems".
I had hoped when we began the debate on the review of family and seniors' benefits that all three political parties could have recommended a much better system. I believe we could have recommended a system such as the one referred to by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. She indicated to the House, and I reiterate, that time and time again professional groups in Canada have come before the Government, not only this one but others, to put forward proposals which would achieve the goals and objectives which were originally established when the debate on child benefits began. That was, namely, to put more into the hands of those who need it the most. It seems to me that if the objective of the exercise is to fundamentally alter the social policy of this country, then the time is right for that kind of debate.
The Budget which was tabled on the night of May 23, 1985, gives us the following lesson. If we are going to create the fundamental will to change the social benefit structures, then fundamental to the success of that objective must be the political support of middle-income Canadians. In order to achieve that political support, the perception and reality must be widely held by middle-income Canadians that the burden of deficit reduction will be shared equally by the corporate sector and by personal income. That, in essence, is where the Conservative Government failed. It failed because it misunderstood the feelings of middle-income Canadians who recognized that in order to deal with the problem of deficit reduction there would have to be some altering of the social programs. What they are asking is if the Government intends middle-income Canadians to expect to have changes in those programs, then the Government must be equally committed to a reform of the Income Tax system so that the corporate sector takes on its fair share of the burden. Until the day occurs on which a Minister of Finance rises in the House of Commons and indicates that the corporate sector of this country will have to assume its fair share of the burden of tax, I feel the Government is going to have a difficult time creating the political will to undertake the necessary reforms to our social benefits structure.
I say that in a particular sense. What I have gathered from my travels across the country is that what so incensed middle-income Canadians is that a Budget which was introduced at a time when we were just beginning an economic renewal and growth, would have deindexed the senior citizens, family allowances and personal tax exemptions while at the same time allowing $500,000 worth of capital gains exemption for

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
individuals. The Government did not once question the loss of tax revenues as a result of tax decisions made by Revenue Canada. It did not question the amount the corporate sector paid toward tax revenues and so it created a system in which the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is no way to generate the political will to undertake the national debate we so badly need. It is not the fault of the Opposition Party. It is the fault of the governing Party for having failed to properly put into perspective the necessary tools so that that debate could have occurred. I can think of no other shame than the failure of the Conservative Government to bring into the House of Commons a social security package which would benefit those lower income groups and achieve the necessary political will in this country. The Government has now lost the opportunity.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation)

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Medical care (a) Funding of cancer treatment centres, (b) Medical research; the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)-Insurance- Municipalities' difficulties in obtaining liability coverage; the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo)-Agriculture (a) United States and European Community wheat trading practices, (b) United States farm commodity subsidies.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973 be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments on the speech of the Hon. Member?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I find it very, very painful to sit here and listen to this Liberal hypocrisy. We heard this morning from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who tried to justify the six and five
program as not having any impact on the Family Allowance. He said it was introduced to lower inflation. Well, it lowered inflation from 11 per cent to 7 per cent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Oh, no. To 4 per cent. Be honest. Don't be a hypocrite. Get your facts straight.


John Napier Turner: But unemployment went from 7 per cent to 11 per cent, which reminds me of the 711 stores which went bankrupt in just the way the former Government was taking us down the fiscal path to bankruptcy.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is nonsense.


John Napier Turner: We have talked of fairness during this debate and I want to ask the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) if he thinks it is fair that the Liberals destroyed the family allowance base by seriously eroding it in 1976 and 1979?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You cannot be serious.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the assumption that the Government's introduction of the six and five program led to a decrease in over-all benefits has to be taken into context. When we introduced the six and five legislation, inflation in this country was running in the double digits. Within 11 months of the introduction of the six and five program, inflation had fallen to below 4 per cent. The net effect in terms of purchasing power from the six and five program was zero or minimum.
I would like to suggest one other thing, Mr. Speaker. This is where one finds out the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. At least, under the six and five program we had the intelligence and compassion to double index the poor in our society in order to make sure that none of the poor suffered as a result of that program. That is more than 1 can say for this Conservative Government. When it introduced the Budget on the night of May 23, it was going to deindex every senior citizen without any care for those senior citizens who already lived below the poverty line. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) would care to respond to that.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and 1 guess it could be construed as a question. I am really quite shocked that the Conservatives somehow feel it is sufficient when they receive criticism from us, and from the Liberals, about what they are doing to Family Allowances, to simply say there is nothing wrong with what they are doing because the Liberals did it when they were in office. What a defence.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: And we paid the price.


Cyril Keeper: And as my colleague said: "We paid the price", and the Liberals did pay the price for doing what the Tories are doing now. The Tories are now beginning to pay the price as is evident by the Gallup polls.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I could not fail to reply to that leading question. I just fed the line to the Hon. Member for
January 20, 1986

Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) and it is correct. We did pay the price for some of those things, and I am going to suggest to the Conservative Members opposite that at the rate they are going, they will pay the same price. I am astounded every day in Question Period that the favourite trick of the Government in response to questions put by the Opposition is to blame the media because the message is not getting through. Have you ever considered, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the message did get through and the public does not like it? That is also a possibility.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Kill the messenger.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The point is that 17 months ago the Conservatives assumed office, the Canadian public gave them the mandate to undertake some fundamental change and they flubbed it. That is the honest to goodness truth and I am awaiting the question to be put by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour). I would be delighted to answer it.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) that he need not worry, we will get back when the next election is called, I can guarantee him of that.


Carlo Rossi: That's what you think.


David Kilgour: I will quote the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) at page 9859 of Hansard:
From 1987 to 1990, as the child tax credit increases, the family receives more benefits. There will be a gain in 1987 of $64, in 1988 of $75, in 1989 of $96 and in 1990 of $44. That does not sound bad at all but the forecast changes.
I would put to the Hon. Member-and I ask him to honestly answer this question-where does he disagree with the figures of his own colleague who presumably got them from the same research department from which the Hon. Member is getting his figures?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I have a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker, but it is quite technical. Let me put it to the Hon. Member so he will understand it. It is because at that time our research bureau did not take into consideration the timing of the increase and the deductions and place them in the context in which they were going to occur. In other words, no one in this debate has addressed themselves to the issue that the deindexation is going to occur beginning January 1, 1986, yet not one cent of the changes to the child tax credit can be in the hands of the consumer until the income tax year of April, 1987. As a result, for the next 14 months, every family in this country, regardless of income levels, will lose under Bill C-70.


Mr. Halliday:: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. I enjoyed listening to the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) and I must say I enjoyed working with him on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. He is a co-operative member. I particularly liked his reference today to the need for reform of the tax system. I agree with him and I have spoken about that in the House a number of times. Indeed, we
Family Allowances Act, 1973
have to look at a system which taxes profits as not being a sensible system. But, unfortunately, the Liberal Party, back in 1971, chose to bring in a system which did not essentially change the philosophy behind our tax system. I am not going to go into this in detail. I agree with the Hon. Member that we need a system which will tax corporations effectively so that you and 1 as individual citizens have more disposable income available for investment.
Having said that, the Hon. Member mentioned in reply to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper), I guess it is-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Ottawa-Carleton.


Bruce Halliday: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). He said that the net effect of six and five on purchasing power was about zero. If that were true, surely the net effect of our partial deindexation of 3 per cent would also be zero.
The Hon. Member also made reference to the fact that our present policy will increase the gap between the rich and poor. How does he explain that all during the years of Liberal reign, when presumably they were doing such wonderful things in the way of social policy, the gap widened? 1 am surprised he is so upset about a slight change now when it obviously got worse during his Government's term in office.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, those are two very important questions. Research will show that from 1971 until 1981 we narrowed the gap between the haves have have-nots in our society. That was confirmed recently by the National Council on Welfare. It was during the recession of 1981-83 that the gap widened. The report I referred to, as an example, indicated significant improvement in narrowing that gap among our seniors as a result of targeting our resources to those who needed help the most. What is critical here is that the fundamental social policy direction of his Government is to purposely widen the gap through taxation. That is at the root of the problem we on this side have. The gap between rich and poor is going to widen as a result of a deliberate tax policy.
As to the difference between the way we approach six and five and the way his Government is doing it is this. Under six and five we did not touch the base, we attacked the capping. As a result there was no loss of purchasing power. For example, when inflation was 11 per cent and we brought in the six and five program, had we not been successful in getting the inflation rate down quickly the people affected would have lost purchasing power. However, inflation came down so quickly that they in fact gained under that program. The Hon. Member's Government is not going to index the first 3 per cent of inflation and that will widen the gap. That is what we have been saying in debate.
In conclusion I will say this. One of the advantages of being in Opposition is that you do not carry the responsibility of Government in the sense that every time we approach policy

January 20, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
review it is assumed to be Government policy. The mistake the Conservatives made is that during the 13 years they spent in Opposition, with the exception of the time of the Clark Government, they did not take the time to fundamentally come to grips with what they wanted to do with social policy and, the other side of that coin, fiscal or tax policy. As a result we get the kind of budget we saw on the night of May 23. I can promise you this: During the run-up to the next general election the Liberal Party will have in place alternatives for the Canadian public on social policy and tax reform which will clearly differentiate from that of the neanderthal Conservative Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to deliver these remarks on behalf of the Minister who, for procedural reasons, is not able to speak at this time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He refused to make a speech and you know it.


Carlo Rossi: Tell the truth.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My colleagues are a little agitated. As I understand it, had they a little more generosity or were a little more forthcoming the Minister could have delivered the speech himself.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just to make sure the record is clear, the Minister made a speech this morning when he moved the motion on third reading. He did not say a darn thing and that is usual for him. That was his fault, not ours.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That certainly does not sound like the Minister I know, who is the soul of generosity and co-operation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We call him tricky Epp.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In any event, it is a pleasure for me to deliver these remarks on his behalf. As the House knows, this will be the last day of debate on Bill C-70. The Bill has been before the House and its committees since September 13, 1985. It was debated for seven days at second reading, considered for 13 sitting days in a legislative committee, before the House for eight sitting days at report stage, and we are considering it today at third reading. It seems to me that this was a pretty fair opportunity for my colleagues to have discussed it. We heard many times in these debates charges by Members of the Opposition that the Bill was being railroaded through the House without proper or adequate time for debate and representations. Allow me, on behalf of the Minister, to put these charges in some perspective.
In 1982 and 1983, when the Family Allowances Act was last amended to limit indexation of family allowances in 1983 and 1984 under the six and five program, there were three days of debate at second reading, three sitting days in committee and four days of debate at report stage and third reading. To sum
up, compared to that legislation, this Bill has been considered over twice as long at second reading, four times as long in committee, and over twice as long at report stage and third reading. This Bill has been before the House and in committee for 29 sitting days, while the so-called six and five Bill on family allowances was before the House and in committee for a total of 10 sitting days. That is almost a three-to-one ratio. I believe any responsible person in this House would have to conclude that, compared to similar Bills in the past, there has been ample opportunity to debate the provisions of this Bill and to hear representations on it.
Perhaps because of the length of this debate and because it has been a controversial Bill,there is in some Members' opinion little new to say about it. However, I think it would be useful at this stage to briefly review how this legislation forms part of an over-all reform of the child benefit system, and correct some of the inaccurate statements which have been made concerning the Bill by Members of the Opposition. Between now and 1989 this Bill and the amendments to the Income Tax Act now before the House dealing with the child tax credit and the child tax exemption will gradually replace the current child benefit system with one which is both more rational and more equitable. While maintaining the principle that all families with children should receive after-tax benefits from the federal Government not available to families without dependent children at the same income level, the new system will ensure that the largest benefits go to those families with children who have the lowest income and that benefits are reduced gradually as family incomes rise. That does not happen under the current system which pays larger after-tax benefits to a family with children and an income over $30,000 than it does to a family with children and an income under $10,000. Moreover, as at least one Member of the Opposition has had the frankness and honesty to recognize, families with two children and incomes at the $10,000 level will get more child tax benefits next year and the following three years under this system than they would have if the current system had remained in place. To quote from the speech of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) last Thursday, for a family with $10,000 income there will be a gain in 1987 of $64, in 1988 of $75, in 1989 of $96, and in 1990 of $44. That does not sound bad at all. Actually, the figures she cited for 1988, 1989 and 1990 are a few dollars below the gains which the Government has projected. However, let us accept for the sake of argument that the Hon. Member was using correct figures. What concerns that Hon. Member and a number of witnesses from groups who were sincerely interested in the situation of low-income families with children is, therefore, not what will happen under this package of reforms between now and 1990 or 1991, but what will happen in 1992 and after if no further changes are made to the proposed legislation governing the child tax credit.
This is a legitimate concern and the Minister has asked me to say, on his behalf, as he said in committee, before that time arises, and as the fiscal and economic situation of Canada
January 20, 1986

improves, he will be asking Cabinet to approve measures to enrich the support provided to lower income families with children, and to better protect that enriched level of support from inflation.
Another concern that has been raised about this package of reforms, Mr. Speaker, is that while more money is total will go to the lowest income families with children than under the current system, there will be a reduction in the purchasing power of the monthly family allowance cheque, and that this will be a difficult adjustment, particularly for low-income parents who find themselves too often with too much month left at the end of the money. Again that is a valid concern so far as it goes, but it needs to be placed in perspective.
The fact is that while in theory the family allowance has been fully indexed to inflation since 1974, in fact the degree of inflation protection has been significantly less than that. In 1976, 1979, 1983, and 1984 under the previous Government, inflation protection was either reduced or eliminated in times of high inflation. In 1979 the family allowance was even reduced $5.68 per child per month from its 1978 level as part of a more general reform of the child benefits system. The result, Mr. Speaker, is that if what is proposed in this Bill had been in place uninterrupted since 1974, that is, indexing above 3 per cent increases in the CPI, family allowances would have been $6.88 per child per month higher in 1985 than they were in fact under theoretical full indexing.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that the Minister recognizes the importance of the monthly family allowance cheque in the day-to-day budgeting of low-income parents. He is prepared to examine a more periodic payment of the child tax credit to such families to deal with that concern, although Members should be aware that many low-income parents prefer to receive the child tax credit, as they do at present, in a lump sum so that they can use it for large purchases such as clothing or appliances.
Let me repeat to those who have raised concerns in the House and elsewhere that the gains for low-income families with children under this package of reforms are less substantial than they ought to be, and less insulated from inflation than they ought to be after 1991. The Minister shares their concern and the Government hopes to bring forward an effective response well before 1991.
Those who have called attention to the importance of the purchasing power of the monthly family allowance cheque for low-income parents have raised the legitimate point that something less than full indexing for all parents may be a more effective solution for those people. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some Members of the Opposition have been content with expresing legitimate, or even arguable concerns about this Bill. Whether out of ignorance or malice, or some combination of the two, they have seized upon a relatively minor clause in this Bill designed to deal with a very limited number of tragic situations, a clause which has been for some time in other income security legislation, and used it to sow unnecessary apprehension and even distress among the parents of missing children in the country.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
I refer, of course, to Clause 5 of this Bill which allows the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), upon being satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of a child on whose behalf family allowance is being received has occurred, to determine a date, for the purposes of this Act, of the dealth of the child without waiting for or being bound by death certificates issued by other authorities.
When the Bill came before the House for second reading the first Member to raise objection to this clause was the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Her line was taken up in that debate and later in committee by many other Opposition Members, notably the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). The latter took his opposition to the point of exploiting the case of a particular parent of a missing child by misrepresenting to the mother the motive and effect of this proposed clause, and by continuing in these misrepresentations in statements to the press after he had ample opportunity in committee and in conversations with officials of the Department to educate himself as to the real purpose and effect of this clause.
Those of us who have been in the House for some years, Mr. Speaker, know that when Members see something in a Bill which they do not understand, or which appears ambiguous, there is a proper code conduct to follow. You phone or approach the Minister of the Minister's staff. You ask for an explanation or clarification. If it is satisfactory, the matter ends there. If not, you raise it publicly.
I understand that the time allocated has now expired.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 4.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Order made on Tuesday, January 14, 1986, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House.

The question is the following one. Mr. Epp (Provencher), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
9964

Family Allowances Act, 1973 And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.
++YEAS
Andre
Beatty
Belsher
Bernier
Bertrand
Blais
Blenkarn
Bourgault
Brightwell
Brisco
Browcs
Cardiff
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clinch
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Cooper
Corbett
Cossilt
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Dick Domm Duguay Edwards Ellis
Members
Gray
(Bonaventure-lles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
Hawkes
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Horner
James
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
Ladouceur
Landry
La Salle
Layton
Lesick
Lewis
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Mailly
Mantha
Marin
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Plamondon Plourde Porter Price Ravis Redway Reid Ricard St. Germain Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Sparrow Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Suluk Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Turner
Epp	Martin	Vankoughnet(Provencher)	Mayer	VezinaFennell	Mazankowski	VincentFontaine	McCain	WeinerForrestall	McDermid	WenmanFraleigh	Mclnnes	WilsonFretz	McKinnon	(Swift CurriGagnon	McKnight	Maple CrGass	McMillan	WinegardGervais	Merrithew	WiseGirard	Minaker	Witer-131.Gormley	Mitges
NAYS Members	Althouse	Fulton	MurphyAngus	Gagliano	NicholsonAxworthy	Gauthier	(Trinity)Benjamin	Gray	NunziataBerger	(Windsor West)	NystromBlackburn	Guilbault	Orlikow(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	ParryBlaikie	Heap	PennerBoudria	Henderson	Prud'hommeBroadbcnt	Hopkins	RiisCaccia	Hovdebo	RobichaudCassidy	Jewett	RobinsonCopps	Kaplan	RodriguezDeans	Keeper	Rompkeyde Jong	MacLellan	RossiEpp	McDonald	Tobin(Thunder Bay-Nipigon)	(Broadview-Greenwood)	WaddellFinestone Frith	Mitchell	Young-49.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING ABORTION PROCEDURES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 12, 1985, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gormley that Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Jusstice and Legal Affairs.
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). The Bill that is before us today proposes to remove from the Criminal Code the endangerment of health of the mother as a ground for abortion.
The Hon. Member deserves a great deal of credit for his commitment to the protection of the unborn. 1 respect his views and I share those views in many ways. Like him, 1 realize the vital importance of this issue for all Canadians. 1 must say, however, that I do not think that Private Members' hour is the only place to be considering an amendment to the Criminal Code on such a significant clause and issue. We can have our discussion and we can acquaint Members with issues involved. It is essential, however, that we ensure that any decision to amend the Criminal Code as proposed will be taken only after a full examination of all the issues and with the full understanding by all Members.
Recently the Minister of State announced new immigration objectives of the Government of Canada. There are those in my constituency who have written to me in protest and they are saying flatly, no more immigration or more sharply reduced below the numbers that we have announced. They say that without knowing that Canada, in 1965, was the youngest nation in the world in terms of our population and age. Now, in 1986, we are the oldest in terms of the average age for a population. We are sustaining a net loss in our population. For whatever reasons young Canadian couples are either not having any children or are having one or two children. Diminishing population is not in its own right a valid reason to change current law in the Criminal Code pertaining to abortion, but I am still moved to ask why so many foetuses are destroyed, and where it would be difficult to medically demonstrate a valid and serious health risk to the mother in each case.

January 20, 1986

Too frequently we find the risk itself is minimal and that those who use this particular route use it as a form of birth control. The sadness is that there are in Canada today many childless couples who yearn for that great gift, that great fulfilment of life, a child of their own or a child by adoption. This points out the fact that as a society we have not reached that desirable level of social development to fully respond to those needs. That is one of my greatest concerns. If society were well equipped to handle this very situation, if there could be a greater measure of care and understanding of the end results of existing laws, if we could respond to that great need out there among so many people to have that blessing and that opportunity for fulfilment in their lives, it is my view that this would be a better country as a result.
I think it is important as well to briefly review the law of abortion. Until 1969 the law in Canada relating to abortion had changed little since 1892. It generally provided that it was an indictable offence for which one could be sentenced to imprisonment for life to procure the miscarriage of any woman. I can remember as a young man scarcely understanding all these facts of life, as they are frequently referred to, the stories of the back-room butcher shop, the back-room operations, and the horrors that resulted from those operations, scarcely realizing at that time the enormous consequences to the mother and inevitably the destruction of the foetus.
In 1969 the Criminal Code was amended to provide an exception to the offence of procuring an abortion. It was not an offence if the abortion had been approved by a therapeutic abortion committee of an approved or accredited hospital. The grounds for approving an abortion was that the continuation of the pregnancy would likely endanger the life and health of the mother. That provision in 1969 we hoped would help to resolve some of the problems associated with this entire issue, an issue that affects so many people and in so many ways, but which unto itself divides the country in terms of perception and view. One of the agonies of those who support this Bill, or the concept behind this Bill is that there are so many differing standards from province to province, from city to city.
1 would like to reflect on the attitude of a given community as opposed to the attitude of another community in the same province or in some different province where standards may vary, where economic circumstance may vary, where a variety of conditions may vary. On the one hand you find that the statistics for abortion are very low, and on the other hand, in another community, very high. It is perhaps difficult to put your finger on what causes that variation of perception of fact and of viewpoint.
The abortion amendments have not had the effect of placating any of the individuals or groups who have an abiding interest in the matter of abortion and whose views range from one extreme in which all abortions are considered to be murder to the opposite extreme in which abortion on demand is advocated. In that context, the remarks of Mr. Justice Black-
Criminal Code
mun of the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade are equally applicable to the Canadian situation. He said:
We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experience, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes towards life and family and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.
It is obvious that the 1969 amendment has left many people dissatisfied. The issue of what our abortion law should be and what sort of protection should be given to the unborn is one of the most emotional debates in the country. A great many Canadians are concerned about the issue and the ramifications of the continuance of the debate on what the law should be.
Some have resorted to the courts to clarify the law, particularly since the advent of the Charter. In at least two cases, Borowski and Morgentaler, the courts in Saskatchewan and Ontario have upheld the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code. In the Borowski case, the plaintiff alleged that a foetus was a person and therefore the term "everyone" in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided protection for the unborn. In short, the court was asked to determine whether or not the foetus was, from the time of conception, or shortly thereafter, a legal person for all purposes. Of course, this was one of the issues as well before the United States Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade.
I must say that Mr. Justice Blackmun has a great sense of perception and feel for the case. I personally find that I have never had the opportunity to meet him in person but I have great difficulty relating to Morgentaler when 1 see him on television. I have great difficulty relating to that man. As well, possibly because of my very nature which is somewhat reserved-although at times in the House that could be questioned-I have difficulty relating to Mr. Borowski, not because of the issue, not because of his dedication but perhaps because of his stridency and the sometimes extreme measures to which he seems to go. Nevertheless, my position on this issue has always been clear.
Again, I believe Mr. Justice Blackmun has probably identified the problem from his heart, mind and soul to a greater extent than anyone else whose opinions I have read. In Roe v. Wade, Mr. Justice Blackmun noted:
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any concensus, the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
I can imagine to what depths this learned judge must have gone in his own conscience to provide that very brief decision, a decision which says so very much.
I believe that the question of protection for the unborn should be decided by Parliament. What other direction exists? The issues involved are extremely complicated and involve questions which are essentially religious and moral in nature. The court is not the proper place, in my view, to resolve this controversy.

January 20, 1986
Criminal Code
One need only look to the United States to see the problems which a court-imposed solution created. In the 12 years since the U.S. Supreme Court gave a virtual green light to abortion on demand in its landmark decision Roe v. Wade, an estimated 15 million legal abortions have been performed in the United States. More than one-quarter of all pregnancies now end in abortion at a rate of roughly 4,000 per day. In some areas such as New York State, the number of abortions every year nearly equals the number of live births. At the same time, the vocal minority that never accepted the original court ruling has grown in size, sophistication and frustration and has taken its fight to the streets. The debate has now turned violent in the United States with doctors and nurses who perform abortions being harassed and with clinics being bombed. That debate is on the wrong track. Surely there is in that land as in this land a Congress that can provide more appropriate direction than the court room.
An important question to ask is what are the ramifications of preventing access to a therapeutic abortion when a woman's health is at risk. I must ask what that constitutes. As I said earlier, the perception of when a woman's health is at risk and the degree to which it is at risk varies from physician to physician, province to province and hospital to hospital.
Another question to be asked is would today's amendment be an unacceptable intrusion into the field of medicine. The present law recognizes the fact that medical practitioners may find circumstances under which pregnancy is likely to endanger a woman's health. It is in keeping with medical practice generally that danger to health be treated when such indications are present as, in the opinion of medical practitioners, would endanger the health of the patient.
The present abortion law makes no attempt to interfere with the practice of medicine, a matter within provincial jurisdiction. It does not attempt to tell physicians which factors may or may not be included in their medical determination of what constitutes a danger to life or health even when not all physicians agree on the weight to be given the various factors in particular circumstances.
One of my concerns is that very weight that is applied in paticular circumstances. One must consider so many different things. One must consider not only the convictions of the physician himself, not only the health risk to the mother but in medical and scientific terms, what other avenues are available to the physician regarding the risk to the life of the patient. Do we have available to us all the expertise that exists at the Ottawa General Hospital regarding complications developing as a result of pregnancies or abortions or do we have available to us information from a small, under-funded, under-staffed and under-equipped country hospital which must face the same kinds of consequences? I would like to add that the report of the committee on the operation of the abortion law submitted in 1977 found that there was no consensus for major changes to the abortion law. These findings have been confirmed in a number of studies and surveys conducted in recent years.
The committee also found that most Canadians were neither in favour of removing abortion from the Criminal Code nor of refusing therapeutic abortions under all circumstances. There is no indication that there has been a major shift in public opinion. I say that the only way in which we can make that major shift is by providing the medium, the social and economic opportunity, for the mother to make a decision to save the life of the foetus. In that context, it is my hope that as a private Member I can address myself with dedication to the provision and improvement of our own social structure so that so many of these unborn will have the chance to reach a life of fulfilment and be able to enrich the lives of their natural or adoptive parents.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-226. I would like to begin my remarks by indicating that 1 am speaking as an individual Member of Parliament. I am not speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada with respect to its position on abortion. I think that my Party's position with respect to the subject is clear. The official position is that it supports the existing legislation. I would like to say that 1 do not support my Party's position. I have indicated that on a number of occasions, including one occasion last November here in the House of Commons. At that time I commented on the acquittal in Ontario of Dr. Henry Morgentaler. I indicated that in my view the abortion law must be changed and that greater protection must be afforded the innocent unborn. I said that 1 would do what I could to ensure that the legislation was changed.
I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) for taking the initiative and for having the courage to present to the House a Bill to amend the Criminal Code of Canada. He has taken a tremendous step in the right direction. 1 think he proposes a good amendment. It is specific, straightforward, and deals squarely with the issue.
The issue today is not whether or not we should change the abortion law. The issue today is whether or not a particular Member of Parliament, in this case the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, will have the opportunity to have his Bill discussed at the committee stage. We all have views with respect to abortion. However, we all know the process which we are going through here today. This is Private Members' Hour. A Bill has been introduced by a Private Member, a Conservative Member. One hour has been allotted to discuss this Bill. The Bill was before the House once before in September. On that occasion a number of Members of Parliament spoke to it. It was decided by the Government at that time that the Bill would be talked out. According to the process which is in place, if the Government does not support a particular motion or Bill, or for that matter if members of the Opposition Parties do not support a Private Member's motion or Bill, all they need do is talk it out.
January 20, 1986

I guarantee Hon. Members that the Bill which is before us today will be talked out. We will see Conservative Members of Parliament talk until the hour has elapsed. Therefore, the Private Member will be denied the opportunity of having his proposed legislation discussed at the committee stage. I call upon members of the Conservative Party, those Members who will make the decision with respect to whether or not this Bill will go forward, to allow it to go to committee. In this way we can have a good debate on the subject matter.


Mr. Gormley:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: In this way, all Members of Parliament will be able to appear before the committee and express their views. Canadians who are interested in the subject will also be able to come before the committee and express their points of view on this important issue.
We all recognize that the issue is a divisive one. There are those who are for abortion and there are those who are against it. We recognize that it is nearly impossible to reconcile these two polarized positions with respect to abortion. However, I submit we must have the opportunity to debate the subject. We have a duty to those who are interested and concerned about the issue to hold a national debate, not just during Private Members' Hour, but at the committee state. In this way Canadians can come forward and express their points of view with respect to the issue of abortion. However, the Government will not allow that. I suggest that by not allowing a national debate the Government pays a disservice not only to the issue but to the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Mead-ow Lake who brought forward this piece of legislation. It also pays a disservice to the democratic system of Government.
The Government has spoken about enhancing the role of the back-bencher. We know that a committee known as the McGrath Committee recommended ways of enhancing the role of the back-bencher, since it was recognized that backbenchers play a very small role in the policy-making function. We do not legislate when we sit in the back rows. Those who make a difference are those who sit in the front benches on the government side-the Ministers. They are the ones who formulate policy and decide when legislation should go forward.
Thus, it was recognized, and applauded by many, that there was a need to enhance the role of the back-bencher and, therefore, measures should be brought in. If the Government is serious about enhancing the role of the back-bencher and ensuring that back-benchers have a say in bringing forward legislation, then why not allow Bill C-226 to go to committee for debate? Not only is it necessary but it is incumbent upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to allow this. I say this because during the election campaign in the summer of 1984 the Prime Minister went on record, and I have a copy of a letter which he sent to a concerned individual, in this regard. He stated that if his Government were elected he would allow a free vote on the subject of abortion. That was the position of the Prime Minister at that time. Talking out this piece of legislation could lead one to seriously question the integrity and honesty of the Prime Minister of Canada.
Criminal Code
During the election campaign he promised to have a vote in the House of Commons on the issue of abortion. We are now some 17 months into the Conservative mandate and we all know that the Government has frittered that mandate which it received on September 4. Nonetheless, the promises are still there. One of those promises was that there would be a debate, a discussion, on abortion in the House of Commons and that each and every Member of Parliament would be given the opportunity to vote according to his or her own conscience. That is what the Prime Minister said in his letter. I challenge the Government to allow that to come about by allowing this Bill to go forward.
I can speak on the merits of this Bill today. I can give the reasons why I am opposed to abortion and why 1 believe changes are necessary. However, I am not going to convince anyone at this point to change their mind because everyone who is sitting here in the Chamber, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, know that this Bill is going nowhere. It is an effort on behalf of a private Member but because of the Government of the day, the Bill is going nowhere.
It looks good as far as the Government is concerned to allow private Members to bring forward legislation but when it comes time to refer this Bill to committee, I will bet my mortgage-


Mr. Speyer:: You don't have one.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member says I don't have a mortgage but what is it to bet one's mortgage? A mortgage is a liability. The Government is a liability to the people of Canada. It has mortgaged the people of Canada.
The Government will not allow this Bill to go forward and I say once again that that is a disservice not only to the Hon. Member but to the people of Canada. It would also lead one to ask about the integrity and honesty of the Government. It is just another example of promises made and broken.
If Hon. Members here in the House today truly believe in enhancing the role of the back-bencher, if they really want to have a say in the policy formulation of the nation's business, then they should allow this Hon. Member the opportunity to have this issue discussed at committee. We are not asking anyone to pass a law here today to change the Criminal Code of Canada. That would be unreasonable without a national debate. What is necessary is the opportunity to at least discuss this matter. All the Hon. Member is asking for is just the opportunity to have this matter discussed. If, at the end of it all the law is not changed because the majority of Hon. Members of this House decide that the existing legislation is the best possible compromise, then so be it, democracy has worked its course, Parliament has spoken. Members of this House of Commons have indicated where they stand on that particular issue and one cannot complain. That is the beauty of democracy. However, to deny debate, to deny the opportunity of discussion, is to do a very serious disservice to our democrat-

January 20, 1986
Criminal Code
ic process and to the whole idea of enhancing the role of the private Member.
I simply urge, in closing, that Conservative Government Members who intend to speak out this Bill refer the subject matter to a special committee in order to hear all Hon. Members of Parliament and all interested Canadians so at least democracy will be better served.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really say that I welcome the opportunity to enter into this debate, but it is an important subject and serves to be addressed. Abortion is obviously a matter which is very controversial and raises the feelings of people to very high levels. Therefore, it is important to approach this debate in a calm and reasonable fashion. The Private Members' Bill before us in effect seeks to eliminate abortions except where the life of the mother is directly threatened. We know from studies that countries which have laws outlawing abortions do not eliminate abortions. So, even if this Private Members' Bill were to go to committee and were to be passed, in the final analysis it would not achieve its stated objective, which is to do away with abortions.
Very restrictive abortion laws would simply return us to the days before the present law on abortion in which desperate women would be forced to induce the abortion themselves or to approach a back-room abortionist. Those would be very unsafe abortions and we could have women die in these desperate circumstances. The one virtue of the present situation is that if a woman is to have an abortion we can at least guarantee that the abortion is a safe procedure.
I am a Catholic and a father, so I do not approach the subject of abortions lightly. It is a very serious matter and I am sure that any woman who finds herself in a situation in which she has to make a decision about whether or not to have an abortion does not approach this decision lightly, either. It is important in those situations to take whatever advice one can from one's family spiritual leader but in the final analysis, what it needed is the kind of law which is enunciated in the policy of my Party, that is, simply, that the issue of abortion does not belong in the Criminal Code, it is a medical procedure, and a woman should have the right to choose to use that medical procedure in consultation with her doctor. That is the way the choice should be made rather than having the woman go before a bureaucratic committee or be under some restrictive laws which purport to eliminate abortions and which in fact simply drive them underground where the procedure would then become unsafe.
The medical profession has examined this question very carefully. The Canadian Medical Association has come to the conclusion that whether or not a woman has an abortion should be a matter for the woman in consultation with her doctor. The people who have to undertake the procedure carefully studied the matter and have come to that conclusion. Not only have medical doctors looked at the question of abortion but the United Church as well. It has studied the issue very carefully and in depth. It has come to a similar conclusion. It believes that it is a matter of conscience and that
the individual person should make the decision, guided by her own moral values. The question of abortion has no easy solution. That is why we, in the final analysis, have come to the conclusion that the decision must be left to the woman and to her doctor. This does not mean that we promote or favour abortions because we certainly do not. If we really want to achieve what this Bill purports to seek, that is, to eliminate abortions or to reduce the number of abortions, then we have to look for effective ways of doing that. This Bill would not achieve that end. If we really want to reduce the number of abortions, then we must make sure that the means for preventing contraception are available. Rather than the Government cutting funding for planned parenthood, it should be making sure that people in general have access to the means to prevent a pregnancy. In that way they will not have to face the difficult decision of whether or not to have an abortion.
We also need good education in human relations. We have to educate our children about what love is and about what male and female relationships are all about so that they do not enter this domain in ignorance to then be taken advantage of. We need good education in order that young people can make wise decisions. We also need to augment our assistance to single parents. There are many young single parents in this country and we have to make sure they have adequate financial assistance. We have to make sure that the doors of opportunity in the form of employment are open to them. That is no easy task. We need to have extensive affirmative action programs which will ensure that someone who has the responsibility for a child can at the same time continue their education and acquire the skills which will allow them to earn a decent living.
There are a lot of things which could be done in an effort to reduce the number of abortions which take place. This, of course, does not make the question any easier to deal with but we do know from studies in those countries which combine access to abortion along with adequate preventive measures that the number of abortions are less than in those countries which seek to eliminate abortions by way of very harsh laws. While the question is difficult, it is important to keep a balanced perspective. We must understand that so long as abortions go on, they should be done in a safe environment and the appropriate person should make the decision about whether an abortion should take place or not. That, in the final analysis, is the woman. At the same time that Governments ensure equitable access to abortions they should also ensure that preventive measures are in place to reduce abortions.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I just want to share some of my thoughts on this subject. I come from a family of fifteen children. If my parents had known the system we have today, you would not have had the great privilege of seeing me in the House this afternoon.
January 20, 1986

I must tell you I am against abortion. I am against these criminal acts, and I entirely disagree with the Member for the New Democratic Party who claimed this should not be considered a crime. I disagree. Anyone who kills a child is a criminal.
I am for the right to life. I think every member of this House should realize that destroying a child in its mother's womb is a criminal act.


George Albert Proud: Are you against capital punishment too?


Édouard Desrosiers: I beg your pardon?


George Albert Proud: Are you against capital punishment?


Édouard Desrosiers: We will get back to that later. We are now talking about Bill C-226.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that I support this Bill and that if I were in a position to have it adopted today, 1 would be even happier. Unfortunately, we all know the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and the rules we must follow.
I wanted to say openly that I am against abortion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) left the Chamber. He also left some unfortunate views on the table which need some kind of explanation. I do not know whether he did that deliberately or whether he really lacks an understanding of how this House of Commons works although that does seem a little incredible given his 16 months in this Chamber.
However, what we have before us today in the form of Bill C-226 is, of course, a Bill. If we were to cease talking about that Bill at this very moment, Mr. Speaker would put the question, the bells would ring, Members would come in and vote on the principle of the Bill. If the majority were in agreement with that principle, then the Bill would go to committee. Therefore, it is not a question of passing the subject matter of this Bill to committee. If the Hon. Member was familiar with this Chamber and the notion of parliamentary reform, he would know that standing committees of the House of Commons can inquire into a subject matter of their own choosing provided it falls under the mandate of the particular committee. If the Hon. Member serves on a committee which does not have the mandate to discuss this subject matter, he can go to his Whip and ask to be put on the committee which does have that mandate. It is that simple. The subject matter could be discussed in committee provided the majority of Members want to discuss it. However, what the Hon. Member was asking this House to do was to move to the voting stage where you either accept or reject a principle affecting human life. It affects the woman more than the man, the unborn child more than the living child. He asked us to pronounce on that principle after less than two hours of public debate.
Adjournment Debate
That request comes from a Member who supported days of filibustering over a penny a day in connection with family allowances, as well as a whole host of other issues. These were not life-and-death issues, but he is now asking Members of this Chamber to pronounce on a life-and-death issue after less than two hours of debate. That should run against the grain of responsibility which all Members of this Chamber should have. I find the notion simply unacceptable.
The Hon. Member was also asking the Government to respect the notion of parliamentary review and reform and the independence of Members by telling us what to do. If there is an illogical fallacy anywhere in this Chamber it is to say to Members of this Chamber that we should all be in favour of reform and independence, and then ask the Government to tell us what to do. Let me assert in the clearest possible terms that no member of the Government has ever told me what 1 had to say or the way I had to behave concerning Private Members' Hour. If any Member of the Government tries to tell me at any point in the future about the way I have to behave or what I have to say, then they are asking for trouble. This is Private Members' Hour where we reach private decisions about what we would like to do.
I believe I have some 20 minutes to speak to this Bill and I have considerably more than 10 minutes left to address myself to its substance. It being six o'clock I wonder if I might be guaranteed the floor as the first speaker when this debate resumes because it deserves careful thought, consideration and debate and I would like to continue that debate when this Bill next comes before the House.


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on January 13, I put questions to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) which were prompted by reports from Toronto, Winnipeg, and now from Ottawa, about the inadequacies of facilities for the treatment of people suffering from cancer in those and other cities in Canada. We have an aging population and, because cancer so often affects people as they get older, we have an ever-increasing number of people who suffer from cancer. They are, as reported in the stories of

January 20, 1986
Adjournment Debate
some days ago, and as I tried to indicate in my questions on January 13, finding it increasingly difficult to get the treatment which they need and deserve, and which would be available if the facilities were what they ought to be.
1 raise the question for two reasons. First, I am very concerned about the needs of cancer patients which are not being met. I also raise it because the needs and shortages which are apparent are symbolic of a deeper crisis, that of the shortage of funds for some of the most important programs which provide needed services to the people of Canada.
What are the problems, Mr. Speaker? We have had the decision of the Government to reduce funding for the Established Programs Financing which are funded in part by the federal Government and in part by the provincial Governments. The programs fund our medicare system, our hospital system, and our post-secondary education system. Similarly, the Government has decided that by 1990 it will reduce by $6 billion the funding which would have gone to the provinces to help finance these programs.
I make it clear that I am not talking about cuts in programs. 1 am talking about reductions in funding by the federal Government which would have been in place had the Government not unilaterally changed the agreements which it had with the provinces. By the year 1990 the federal Government will reduce funding to these programs by $2 billion a year; by 1990 the reduction in funding for these programs will amount to $6 billion.
The federal Government obviously has plans to reduce funding for the research councils, in social sciences and humanities, natural sciences and engineering, and the medical sciences. We are seeing progressive cuts, not only for Established Programs Financing but in funding for the Social Science Humanities Research Council such that a $20 million addition is needed to get the operation back to the 1971 level.
There was a budget cut of $29 million in 1985-86 in the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funding so that equipment purchases and support of joint university and company research are not possible. We see a chronic under-funding of the Medical Research Council's budget despite a promise in the last election that this would be rectified. It would require a $30 million funding increase to meet the minimum requests by the Medical Research Council revised five-year plan. There has been an over-all reduction in research spending in all departments and agencies of $140 million set out in the budgetary statement a year ago last November. These have continued to accelerate throughout the past year.
I remind Members of the House that when they were in the Opposition, and during the election campaign, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pointed out very clearly how poorly the research efforts in Canada compared with the research efforts in virtually all of the other western industrialized countries. The Conservative Party promised to increase the percentage of gross national product devoted to scientific
research and development from the present 1.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent, an amount which is spent or exceeded by virtually all of the other countries. The Tories have broken their promises about what they would do if the people of Canada elected them to govern. The Tory Government is ignoring one of the most fundamental needs of any country in the world in this decade and the next, that is, to provide the education and scientific research efforts which are required if Canada is to play its role and meet the needs of the 1980s and 1990s.
I call on the Government to rescind the actions it has taken and to provide the funding required for these programs.
[ Translation]


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to provide some clarification regarding what was incorrectly referred to by some members as cuts in transfer payments to the provinces for health care and postsecondary education.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), has stated on a number of occasions that federal transfer payments for health care and post-secondary education will continue to increase from year to year. In fact, the Minister said that federal transfer payments should increase at the same rate, at least, as expenditures for all other federal programs. It will guarantee that total outlays for transfer payments to other Government levels will not decrease.
One thing for sure is that our Government is firmly commit-ed to health care. With respect to the general question of federal transfer payments for health care programs over the next five years, the total amount to be paid to the provinces under established programs financing will be $66 billion, or about $19 billion more than all such transfer payments to the provinces in the last five years. There is no way such an increase can be described as a cut-back.
Along with increases in other transfer payments, including equalization payments to have-not provinces, those higher health care transfer payments guarantee that all provinces will be in a position to maintain health care programs which compare favourably with those of other countries. That is what Canadians expect and appreciate. The health of Canadians will not be jeopardized by this Government.
Some Members of the Opposition would have us believe, among other things, that cash shortages in Ontario cancer treatment centres are the direct result of federal under-funding of health care programs under established programs financing. Let me set the record straight.
Pursuant to the provisions governing such financing, the provinces are free to allocate health program funds as they see fit. The Government believes it would be acting quite inappropriately and even unconstitutionally if it were to tell the provinces just how much they ought to set aside for health programs, thus unduly affecting their priorities.

January 20, 1986
I am pleased to see that the Premier of Ontario has acknowledged the serious problem which the Elon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has raised in the House, but nevertheless I believe it is up to the provinces to come to grips with it.
Finally, even if the federal transfer payments growth rate were to be reduced, the payments themselves will continue to increase, at least at the same rate as inflation. 1 hope the provinces will still be able to control their health care costs and yet meet the needs of their citizens. The Minister has assured his provincial colleagues that the federal Government, ever respectful of provincial jurisdictions, will continue to work with them to meet the challenges we must face with respect to health care system.


INSURANCE-MUNICIPALITIES' DIFFICULTIES IN OBTAINING LIABILITY COVERAGE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, we have a gigantic problem with liability insurance. It is so great in fact that a Montreal economist, whom you know very well, Mr. Speaker, Dian Cohen, referred to it as a national disaster.
I suppose the problem started a few months ago and showed up in the trucking industry when it was having difficulty obtaining liability insurance. Since that time there have been increasing problems in this whole area. In fact, around the Christmas season we found an increasing number of activities which were having a great deal of difficulty getting any form of liability insurance; either they could not get it at all or they had to pay an exorbitant premium to get some form of liability insurance.
The most pressing area at the moment is the municipalities across the country. In my own municipality we are having enormous problems with the whole area of obtaining liability insurance. In fact, in Metropolitan Toronto, five of the seven separate municipalities-that is, the six area municipalities and the Regional Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto-are without any form of liability insurance at the present time and have been without liability insurance since January 1. The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Toronto, the City of Etobicoke, the City of York and my own home municipality, the Borough of East York, are without any liability insurance and have been since January 1. Fortunately, the other two area municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, North York and Scarborough, have liability insurance, but they have had to pay a very substantially increased premium over what they had been paying.
I hear reports that this is not just a local Metropolitan Toronto problem; in fact, it stretches right across the country. There were reports in local newspapers over the weekend that neither the City of Vancouver nor the City of Victoria have any liability insurance whatsoever. Apparently the City of Calgary has insurance, but the price of the premium is up substantially even though it has had to cut the amount of
Adjournment Debate
liability coverage. The City of Regina also has had some difficulty getting liability insurance. It has it but at a higher price. This is a problem right across Canada. I believe Montreal Nord has the same problem. This indicates that it is a national problem, not a local problem in any way, shape or form.
Also, it is quite clear that the difficulty faces not only municipalities. School boards as well have this problem. For instance, in Ontario they are required to have liability insurance or they are not supposed to open their doors. What is happening, because they cannot obtain any legitimate form of liability insurance, is that they are paying a premium to get $1 million worth of coverage but the coverage also provides a $ 1 million deductible. Many school boards in the Toronto area are paying something like $25,000 for an insurance policy with $1 million coverage but with a $1 million deductible. It means that they have absolutely no insurance. Day-care centres are also having this problem. In my own municipality the family day care service apparently as of February 28 is not going to have any liability insurance coverage at all, and the Cradleship Creche, another organization with substantial day care centres, also is not going to have any liability insurance at all and faces the prospect of closing down altogether. School bus companies have the same problem. So it is truly, in the words of Dian Cohen, a national disaster.
What is the problem? It has been variously described in a number of ways. First of all, it has been suggested that the problem lies with some of the very substantial court judgements that have been handed down recently. For instance, there is the case that has been pointed to time and time again in the City of Brampton outside Metropolitan Toronto of the rider of a trail bike who was injured and the courts awarded that person some $6.3 million, against the City of Brampton. That is the classic case held out as an example of why liability insurance companies are no longer prepared to provide this form of insurance. Is that the real answer?
I saw a report in the weekend paper of a United States court decision as well where a young boy attempting to break into a public building fell through a skylight in that building and was awarded damages by the court, even though he was in the act of breaking and entering. So that is the sort of thing that we are faced with in the courts.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) indicated that part of the problem lies in the undercapitalization of these companies. Another Member suggested that maybe we need a new reinsurance scheme and that the federal Government should be participating in that reinsurance scheme. A number of suggestions that have been made. It has been suggested that we should be putting a limit on liability. In a case like the one in the States with the break and enter and the boy being awarded damages in that situation, it seems to me to make some sense that we should be considering some sort of limitation on liability. Another suggestion of the Minister was to improve the capitalization of the insurance compa-

January 20, 1986
Adjournment Debate
nies, and that surely has to come and come quickly. A third suggestion was to sit down and talk with the provinces and try to come up with some answer. A fourth suggestion was that the federal Government get involved in a reinsurance company to help the whole reinsurance aspect.
There have been other suggestions; that perhaps the insurance companies are conspiring together to stop any liability insurance. Generally, you and I know that if there is a need the private sector will get in there and fill it. It may be costly, but they will get in there and fill it. Something, however, has to be done because this is a crisis. There have been four, five, or six different suggestions of what we should do. Something does have to be done and quickly.
In my view the federal Government should be taking a leadership role. We should be talking to the provinces and the insurance companies. We should be considering some of these other alternative proposals and getting back to the Canadian people and reporting to them as to what has happened. I hope tonight we will hear some news from the Parliamentary Secretary of a positive nature, that the Government is going to be taking some action, and going to be reporting to the people of Canada what that action is.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The Government is aware and of course concerned about the problems currently being faced by municipalities, school boards, companies and certain other organizations, including sports clubs, in obtaining adequate liability coverage at a price they consider reasonable.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) have each met with a number of representatives of the organizations that have been experiencing these difficulties. The Government has also been seeking industry assistance in solving these problems.
While the Ministers have considerable sympathy for the organizations encountering difficulties, they also have some understanding for the reasons why the industry is cutting back on coverage and increasing premiums. The current situation is caused by poor operating results, fear on the part of the industry about the uncertainty of the magnitude of future liability awards, and by a significant tightening of reinsurance markets. Of course, all these factors are interrelated and the situation they cause is not confined to Canada. I am informed that the situation in the United States faced by organizations needing liability insurance coverage is even more severe.
The Flon. Member asks whether legislation will be introduced to limit or cap what appears to be the principal reason for the tightening of the liability insurance market and the large premium increases, namely, the claims the insurance companies have to pay. In answering the specific question asked by the Hon. Member, I must tell him that a reform of the law of tort falls within provincial jurisdiction and is thus outside the competence of the Parliament of Canada. Similarly, the relationships between policyholders and companies are subject to provincial jurisdiction and, therefore, the question of
premium or rate control falls outside the jurisdiction of Parliament.
Because of the particularly serious situation in Ontario and because a number of the matters that have been suggested as possible solutions to the current difficulties fall under provincial jurisdiction, the Government of Ontario announced that it is establishing a task force. The mandate of the task force is to develop a report on solutions for cost and capacity problems in the property and casualty industry in Ontario. The terms of reference of this task force are far ranging; the task force is to report in three months. The Minister of State for Finance indicated that she is ready to assist the task force in any way she can, and said that she can be particularly helpful in the area of solvency standards, a subject over which the federal Government has some jurisdiction. A considerable amount of work has already been done in this area at the federal level.
The Government will also press ahead with legislation designed to strengthen solvency standards and regulatory requirements for insurance companies. The objective here is to promote financial stability which, in turn, should encourage new capital and better availability of reinsurance, something that would ease capacity problems.


AGRICULTURE (A) UNITED STATES AND EUROPEAN COMMUNITY WHEAT TRADING PRACTICES. (B) UNITED STATES FARM COMMODITY SUBSIDIES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked two questions in the House on the position of the United States in the export grain market. I asked those questions in order to register the alarm and concern of producers who know that the United States can affect our markets more quickly and to a greater extent than any other country in the world. Unfortunately, the Minister replied by making excuses for the United States and registered no particular concern for the Canadian producers.
Last May the United States Government introduced the bonus incentive commodity export program to reduce its stock level of grains which existed as a result of a program of basic loans. A great deal of grain was accumulated under the auspices of the Government. The effect of this program was to reduce the price of U.S. wheat on the world market. In fact it resulted in allowing a buyer to receive a free bushel of grain for every two or three bushels he purchased. The subsidy was anywhere from $22 to $66 per tonne and this was paid when the wheat was sold, as in the particular cases which I have documented, to Egypt and Algeria. The EEC has a similar program.
The Minister gave no indication of any action the Government intends to take to counter this unfair practice.
Again, during the last month, the United States passed its new agricultural Bill. That Bill is expected to pour $52 billion in subsidies into the U.S. agricultural market in the next three years. Again, the Minister indicated that he had no action
January 20, 1986

planned and used this time to again make excuses for the U.S. Government. He said: "I think we should at least applaud the U.S. direction rather than what the EEC is trying to do".
Those billions of dollars in subsidies will help to collapse the international commodity market. The prices of many agricultural commodities are already too low. Our greatest concern here is that the Government which is proposing to put this $52 billion into subsidies is the Government of the country we are now wooing for a free trade agreement.
The Minister would not comment upon the effect cheap grain would have on our market. I hope that he will investigate the effect a $1.30 bushel of grain available on the open market will have coming into Canada. I hope he will consider the effect a $1.92 bushel of corn will have coming into the feed markets of Canada. If we have an open border, and if those grains can come in at those prices, then we cannot compete with those grains.
1 hope the Minister will look at this matter before he opens up a free access agreement with the United States. American officials admit that we will be competing with their Treasury and not with their agricultural producers. Those subsidies will keep those producers producing. What I am saying is that the Minister should quit excusing the United States and put in place a plan which will protect our producers from these unfair marketing practices.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member has pointed out everything which is happening with the U.S. market. While speaking about some Bills which are before the U.S. Government, he did not speak about the Bill which plans to reduce the U.S. deficit to zero by the year 1990. With
Adjournment Debate
respect to the matter he raises, I think it is important to have a good relationship with the United States.
The 1985 U.S. Farm Bill, recently signed into law by President Reagan, gives the Government great concern regarding the state of the international grain markets and future grain prices. The 1985 Farm Bill provisions present the potential for grain prices to decline in the short term. However, many other market factors will also have a major bearing on the level of future grain prices. Commodity prices in 1986 will be very sensitive to planted acreage changes and weather patterns in the United States. The U.S. farm program for wheat for 1986 requires particiating U.S. farmers to reduce wheat-base acreage by 25 per cent.
Also, the 1985 Farm Bill puts into place a conservation program which will remove a substantial amount of marginal farm land from production. Although there may be downward pressure on commodity prices, as a result of the U.S. program the potential this year is for U.S. grain supplies to come into a better balance with demand. As this adjustment occurs over time grain prices should strengthen.
[Translation
In spite of the fact that the American Government is injecting $2 billion in its export sales program, we believe that it will continue to be careful and to limit as much as possible the application of this assistance program. We are going to monitor very closely this program and make our representations to the Government in due course.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, January 21, 1986