1986-01-16

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 16, 1985, consideration of report stage of Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4 and 6 (Ms. Mitchell), Motions Nos. 5 and 7 (Mr. Malepart) (p. 9391), and Motion No. 9 (Mr. Redway) (p. 9392).
Mr. Speaker:: I have had the opportunity to review the procedural comments made by the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on Monday, December 16, 1985, relating to the report stage motions in amendment to Bill C-70.

And on December 11,1 stated my position on Motions Nos. 1 and 3.
The comments made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) have confirmed my position, and I have no hesitation in declaring Motions Nos. 1 and 3 out of order.
I would refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citation 773, (5) and (7). [English]
Motion No. 2 has given the Chair some concern from the outset. On December 11,1 said I was disposed to give the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) the benefit of the doubt. I must say the procedural issues raised by all sides in respect to this amendment are strong. At first blush, the amendment does appear to reinstate the parent Act after one year and does appear to contradict the principle of the Bill as adopted at second reading. On the other hand, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain claimed the amendment is a sunset clause, and that if the Bill is to become law for one year this amendment, therefore, cannot be a true negative of the Bill.
1 am prepared to Find that the amendment is not a true negative, but I cannot agree that the amendment qualifies as a
true sunset clause. It appears to be a sunset clause to which future provisions are attached.
That being said, and having expressed my reservations, 1 am, nevertheless, disposed to give the Member the benefit of a debate and to allow the House to decide on the merits of such an amendment. Motion No. 2 will, therefore, be debated and voted on separately.

The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) have made representations to the Chair on grouping Motions Nos. 4 to 5 for debate.
1 can assure them I listened very carefully to their comments, and 1 agree that Motion No. 4 does not affect the same provision as Motions Nos. 5 to 9.

All these amendments are, from a thematic point of view, however, closely related. That is why they are grouped for debate, but in terms of where they are offered in the Bill, they must be voted on separately. Hon. Members have offered comments as to the contents of the amendments, but 1 have not been convinced that, for procedural reasons, separate debate should be allowed. Therefore, the grouping as announced on December 11, 1985, will stand.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I expect everyone remembers Bill C-70, which arises from one of the Budget proposals of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). When this legislation was introduced in the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for the purpose of de-indexing family allowances, it also included amendments concerning what is referred to as "presumption of death".
Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition, women's groups, family organizations, the clergy and the entire population have organized a vast movement against this Bill, not only against de-indexation of family allowances but also against the concept that the Minister would have the authority, after a child had disappeared for a certain time, to send a certificate to the parents, to presume the child dead and to close the department's File, strictly for administrative purposes, and not, contrary to what some people would have us believe, to help families settle their insurance claims.

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Mr. Speaker, strong opposition from most Canadians was instrumental in blocking the adoption of this measure before the Christmas recess. Quite appropriately they expected the Government not to change anything in the family allowances program without their consent and the approval of the House of Commons. Unfortunately it did not turn out that way. Worse still, Canadians who happened to watch television before the festive season were able to witness the Prime Minister's outright refusal to meet with the Canadian coalition made up of family organizations, women's representatives, the clergy and many other interest groups.
It is with sadness that we are resuming the debate today on an issue about which the Government has shown utter indifference towards a Canadian family policy. Contrary to what had been advocated in the Speech from the Throne, contrary to what had been promised during the election campaign, for the umpteenth time, Mr. Speaker-and we have given up counting-the Prime Minister of Canada misled the people and the House, in the sense that the Speech from the Throne, a statement of the Government's official position, made it quite clear that the Government was indeed prepared to open the debate on a family policy.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to go over past events so that Canadians and all Conservative Members might recall that the Government had tabled another document urging all citizens to express their views on the outcome of consultations held by a parliamentary committee. Bearing the official signature of a Government representative, namely the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), this document stated clearly that amendments and discussions related to the income support program for families with children would not have anything to do with deficit reduction. Every group, every witness and every Canadian had absolutely no reason to question the intellectual honesty of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. All Members of the Opposition and, I am sure, even the Progressive Conservative Members who sat on that committee took the Prime Minister's word. Unfortunately all of them soon came to realize they were mistaken about the Prime Minister's intellectual integrity when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled his Budget containing provisions which were quite different from the Government's avowed commitments.
As a result of the debate and the many questions directed to the Government in the House of Commons, we have managed to force the Minister of Finance to admit that the purpose of his amendments to the Family Allowance Program was to reduce his deficit, and as is the case concerning several other issues, whether the Old Age Security Pension or the tragedy which 1 experience now with the job losses in Montreal East, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and all the other members of this party are making contradictory statements.
Mr. Speaker, today I doubt very much that we could make members of the Conservative party aware of the situation, not to mention the Ministers and the Prime Minister himself who did not have the guts at least to meet the representatives of the coalition against the Family Allowance de-indexation.
As to the presumption of death which is dealt with in this bill, I sent for a Montreal mother who is suffering the tragedy of the disappearance of her child. Had it not been for the objection raised by the Official Opposition to this clause, the Minister of National Health and Welfare would have sent this mother a presumption of death certificate. Mr. Speaker, 1 asked that that mother, Mrs. Metivier, be heard in committee. In order not to delay the debate on this Bill, I even offered to give up ten minutes of my time to allow this mother who has personal knowledge of such a situation to advise us as to the personal impact of such a decision; by a nominal vote, however, P.C. members refused.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians will remember these members, and especially the Prime Minister. It is not too late. Although I still have some hope, I do not keep my fingers crossed, because unfortunately P.C. members much too often have disappointed the Canadian people. There remains a possibility-


An Hon. Member:: That is not true!


Jean-Claude Malépart: -I would like the Hon. Member who says that this is not true to have the courage to rise and say clearly that he agrees with the decision of his Government to provide only a 31 cents a month increase to mothers while this same Government is pushing through legislation which will provide a $500,000 capital gains exemption for the rich.
Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member who has just spoken and the name of whose constituency I do not recall, but whom I could name has the courage to rise and admit publicly that he wants to defend the rich and not the poor, that is his problem. However, if he really wants to get involved in this debate or to help Canadian families, I shall not ask him to speak publicly, but ask him instead to do his job as a Government Member and raise this issue in caucus during the weekend. When the Conservatives have their caucus meeting during the weekend, they have an opportunity to put pressure on the Prime Minister and Cabinet so that, if they do not want their Prime Minister to lose face, they could perhaps not necessarily withdraw this measure immediately, but ask that the Government reestablish full indexation of allowances in the next budget. [English]


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am asking that the Government withdraw Bill C-70, a Bill to partially deindex family allowances and cut family allowances by 3 per cent per year regardless of how much higher the cost of living goes. 1 am asking the Government to withdraw this Bill for four reasons.
First, this Bill picks on defenceless kids. The Government tried a trick like this last year on the senior citizens. The senior
January 16, 1986

citizens fought back so hard that the Government ran away and did not even place the legislation before us that it had announced. Now the Government has decided that kids cannot defend themselves so well, so the Government is going after the kids. A good many senior citizens in Spadina are among the hundreds and hundreds who have signed petitions on this point. I know them by their names and addresses. They perhaps feel that the kids deserve defence. They may also feel that if the Government gets away with attacking the kids this year, it might go after the senior citizens' pensions again.
Second, the Government should withdraw the Bill because it reflects a loss of faith in Canada. In Canada, Mr. Speaker, we are losing faith in providing for children. While parents individually will give all they can and endure all they can for their children, the country is cutting back the money for health, for education and for social housing.
The same Party that governs in Ottawa now in the decades when it governed in Ontario encouraged adult only apartments, apartments where children are forbidden, outlawed. The Conservative Government of Ontario repeatedly refused to address that injustice with human rights legislation.
A country that says we are too poor to provide for our children clearly has no faith in its future. Therefore, this Bill should be withdrawn.
The Bill should be withdrawn also because it is hypocritical and unjust. This same Government has increased hand-outs to the rich, rich corporations and rich individuals, with billions of dollars of tax giveaways and grants, while trying to squeeze money out of the children of the country.
This Government preaches user-pay, but it does not want to pay for the things that it uses. Right here on the Hill, secretaries, assistants, waitresses and other staff, who are underpaid by any general standard, are charged $395 a month if they want to bring a child to the day care centre on the Hill.


Mr. Malone:: What about our Hansard reporters? Look after them too.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Government says that a mother who wants to work for the Government must pay $395 to the Government to look after her child, yet the Government does not want to pay her a salary that would cover the cost. The Government wants the poor to pay the expenses of the rich. That is hypocritical-


An Hon. Member:: That is you.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -and the hypocrisy is reflected in this legislation.
Finally, I am asking the Government to withdraw this Bill because it is pushing it through with indecent haste.
1 come to Clause 15(1) which will give the Minister the power to declare a missing child dead. The Minister does not know what he is talking about, of course, and is not required
Family Allowances Act, 1973
by law to know what he is talking about. The Minister decides to save $31.50 a month-


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: No. That is what you pay.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -for the deficit by telling parents: "Forget it. Your child is dead", and by ordering the insurance company to stop searching, to stop funding a search for a child, to pay the claim instead and to send a death certificate, probably after three months. It is not clear from the unclear wording of the Act just what exactly is intended, but it gives the Minister wide discretion to tell parents, "Forget your child. Stop looking for him. He is dead. I am not going to pay family allowance anymore for your telephone calls and letters you have to pay for to search for your child". That point has not been dealt with in consultation with the parents concerned or by the child find group. It is simply an arbitrary decision. It is such a mean one, Mr. Speaker. It is mean to pick not only on the children but on the parents who are shocked and damaged by the fact that their child is missing, and then to give them a further blow by saying: "Forget it. Your child is dead. We are ending our payments".


Mr. Thacker:: Your abortion policy is not very kind.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is a sole decision of the Government to attack the living in the name of the dead, the dead being the money that is owed to the banks by the Government. That money is not live stuff. It is not live people. It is dead stuff. At best it is the result of the past work of this country. This Government is willing to attack the parents and perhaps even the still surviving child by an act of ultimate meanness that makes pre-Christmas Scrooge look like Santa Claus. The Government is going to cut $31.50 a month from the family that is struggling to find its missing child. That is not just mean, that is sick. A Government that will do that is sick.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You have forgotten about the child tax credit.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: A Government and its back-benchers, who like to prate and preach against abortion but will attack the living children in that way, are sick or worse than sick.
I plead with the Government to withdraw the whole Bill, but at least if the Government does not have the good conscience to withdraw the whole Bill, then let it withdraw Clause 15(1). That is the section empowering the Minister to tell parents of children who are missing when the Minister does not know the facts that their child is dead and that there will be no more search and no more money to pay for telephone calls. 1 plead with the Government to withdraw the whole Bill, but if not, then let it at least withdraw Clause 15(1).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for very long. I have decided to speak on Clause 2 to repeat what has already been discussed concerning Clauses 4 to 9. I do so because practically every-

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
thing the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) said was wrong, dead wrong.


Mr. Orlikow:: You are the only person who thinks so.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I simply cannot leave the matter on the record and allow the debate to continue on points made by the Member that are wrong.
First, he said that the Government was withdrawing $31.50 a month from the family allowance. That is wrong. That is the payment, first, on a monthly basis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I must have unanimous consent to allow the Minister to speak again because I notice he spoke on December 11. Is there unanimous consent for the Minister to speak?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ms. Mitchell:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Minister cannot continue. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would have loved to have heard the rest of the Minister's speech. I had a feeling that his next statement was going to be that he wanted to withdraw the Bill. If he can give us an assurance that that is what he was going to do next, I am sure I could get our colleague who disagreed to reconsider her decision and so give the Minister the opportunity to withdraw this hideous piece of legislation before us today. However, we should not hold our breath.
Here we are again giving a last kick at the can on Bill C-70, a last attempt by members of this House to convince the Government either to withdraw its Bill, to amend it, or to improve it.


An Hon. Member:: No way.


Don Boudria: A Tory Member across the way has said not to count on that. This is the same group of Members who in the past were speaking in favour of the Bill to deindex senior citizens pensions when the Government was in the process of withdrawing that particular measure. I warn the Hon. Member across the way who says that the Government will not withdraw this legislation that if he and others were a little more dedicated to working in the interests of their constituents, instead of supporting the Government on positions not even knowing whether the Government will pursue them in the future, his interests and those of the electors whom he purports to represent would be far better served.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you of the representations received by the House of Commons on Bill C-70. I want to point out that, on September 25, 1985, the Reseau d'action
et d'information pour les femmes wrote a special delivery letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to inform him that the Bill to de-index family allowances was "a disaster".
Mr. Speaker, on November 4, 1985, the Confederation des organismes familiaux du Quebec presented a submission to the Parliamentary Committee also expressing the view that Bill C-70 should be withdrawn.
On October 23, 1985, the Federation des unions de families incorporee made similar comments.
On October 21, the Federation des femmes canadiennes frangaises, section Sacre-Cceur of Ottawa, also expressed the same views.

The National Action Committee on the Status of Women also expressed disagreement with this budgetary measure. [Translation]
The Federation of Quebec Women, in October 1985, also presented a similar brief. In October 1985, the Federation of Quebec Associations of Single-Parent Families opposed the measure.
Another group, AFEAS, also stated in a brief on October 30, 1985, that the legislation should either be withdrawn or amended.
The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has also objected to Bill C-70.

Also we received a submission from the Deputy Minister and the Minister of Community and Social Services of the Government of Manitoba concerning this Bill. As well, the Calgary Coalition for the Support of Persons on Welfare sent a brief expressing disapproval of this budgetary initiative. We have received briefs from countless organizations across the country.
The Government claims to be one that consults with Canadians. We have heard that in the past. The Tories have said in the House and elsewhere that they were not a Government of confrontation, I guess that is the word they used. They have indicated that they want to consult and truly represent the people of Canada. Today is the last chance they have to prove that in the case of Bill C-70 they in fact consult the people, listen, participate fully in the consultative process and come out of it, not only having heard the briefs but having listened to them. That is the part that is important. This is the last chance that the Government has to prove that it listens to the people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in October 1985, a group of Liberal Members of Parliament chaired by myself had several Canadians, several groups submitting briefs to them on the Budget. One group of Canadians who submitted a brief to the Liberal Forum in August 1985 was the Prescott and Russell union of social assistance recipients, in my constituency. And without reading
January 16, 1986

the whole brief, because time does not allow, let me however quote from it, especially the conclusion which reads as follows:
In conclusion, we can therefore state that the Budget brought down by Minister Wilson extorts still more money from our members and causes concern to our group, the Prescott and Russell union of social assistance recipients, for the years after 1988. Our members and the small wage earners should be made aware of that and told about the Government's current position.
Mr. Speaker, in other words, this group of low-income people from my constituency wanted at that time to rally people to protest against Bill C-70 and other parts of the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). And this has been done, Mr. Speaker. From then on, we kept receiving day after day large numbers of petitions, and as we know, before Christmas, as you certainly remember, Mr. Speaker, entire days were spent in this Flouse presenting petitions signed by Canadians from across the country who were expressing their disagreement on the Bill providing for partial de-indexation of family allowances.

In summary, let us look at the impact of the Budget on families with children. The Government of Canada, through abolishing family allowances, will gain $15 million in the year 1985-86; in 1986-87, $80 million; and in 1987-88, $140 million. If saving money is a justifiable excuse-and 1 am not prepared to concede that it is on this particular measure-let us look at what it is doing. There are other measures in the Budget which will reduce revenues for 1986-87 by $75 million, for 1987-88 by $205 million, and for 1988-89 by $300 million. They are not saving money. They are merely taking away from those people who can least afford it and they are redistributing those funds, but not to the people who need them. They are taking away from the poor and giving to those who have more. The people who will benefit from capital gains exemptions are not the ones who have no money. Those people have no gain on which to capitalize, so how can they receive benefit from a capital gains exemption? It will make the poor poorer and the rich richer.
In conclusion, I tell the Minister that this is his last chance to withdraw this budgetary measure.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal briefly with the amendment which we are now discussing. Before doing so, I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to an article which appeared in today's edition of The Toronto Star. It is headlined: "Groups send PM Petition to stop Baby Bonus Bill" and it indicates the following:
Twenty major church, native, labour and women's organizations-speaking for millions of Canadians-want the federal Government to drop plans to deindex family allowances.
The groups telexed a petition to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney late yesterday in an attempt to stop the Conservative Government from passing amendments to the Family Allowances Act.
It continues:
Yesterday, three more MPs, including Tory MP Moe Mantha (Nipissing) delivered petitions from constituents strongly opposed to the changes.
Thousands of petitions have been presented. I have a dozen or more to present today. However, the story continues:
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Among organizations included on the telex are: the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, National Farmers Union, Native Women's Association of Canada, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, Canadian Labour Congress, National AntiPoverty Organization, Yukon Status of Women Council, Quebec Native Women's Association, Quebec Federation of Women, Metro Family Services Association, Metro Social Planning Council, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the United Church of Canada, Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped, Citizens Against Child Poverty and the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, when there has been such broad opposition, if ever, to any proposal brought forward by any Government. This is a Government that has prided itself on the idea that it is going to consult. Well, the consultations have taken place and the evidence is very clear that the broad mass of Canadian people do not want this Bill, they want it to be withdrawn.
Let me, Mr. Speaker, deal for a few moments with the particular amendment which we are now dealing with, and that has to do with the presumption of death. We believe that the presumption of death, and therefore the issuance of a certificate, has been the prerogative of the provincial or territorial jurisdiction within which the death occurred. We suspect, even going beyond that, in the case of deaths which had occurred or were presumed to have occurred in jurisdictions outside of Canada, that it would be necessary to obtain the death certificate from that jurisdiction before a decision could be made to discontinue the payment of family allowance. We believe it would be improper for us to give to the Minister in legislative form the power to make a presumption and issue a certificate, inasmuch as we would come into conflict with a very serious constitutional question.
I would ask the Minister that he not proceed with that as he already has the power now to discontinue the payments for any child who it can be proven is not in the custody of the person to whom the payment is normally made. With that power the Minister is able to achieve all that is required of him at this moment. We submit that that being the case, this section of the Bill is not necessary. We say to the Minister we would much prefer that he operate with the power he now has, that he recognize the potential for constitutional dispute. Not only is there the Constitution within Canada, but there is also a serious question of jurisdictional dispute between the Government of Canada issuing a certificate of death, on the one hand, and the jurisdiction outside of Canada which would have the authority and the requirement to investigate the facts surrounding the death of any person and clearly establish for all time who it was that died before any action taken bv the federal Government could be considered legal and therefore proper.
Mr. Speaker, the other reason I have for proposing this clause in the Bill is that it is opposed by all the child find groups. The child find groups in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta have sent telegrams to the Minister asking him to withdraw this section until proper consultation has taken place with them. They, I understand, have sent a special delivery letter to the Minister

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
outlining their concerns about this section. Their concerns are as follows, if 1 can summarize them. One, that they were never consulted; two, that insurance companies will be compelled to pay out claims instead of the current practice of hiring private investigators to try to find a missing child; three, that it is simply not necessary to give the Minister such God-like powers of discretion; four, that the whole clause is so poorly worded that no one has a clear idea when the Minister would invoke these powers; and, five, that their experience is that family allowance has been cut off after the child has been missing after three months as opposed, according to our information, to an average of six months.
Given the constitutional problem and the concerns of the organizations most directly concerned, that is, the child find organizations, I cannot understand why the Minister is so insistent on proceeding with this section when, first, he has not consulted sufficiently with the organizations representing missing children, who are the most concerned about this problem and who have the most information about what really happens, and what should be done; and second, when the constitutional problems and the jurisdictional differences between the federal Government and the provinces have not been solved. As I said, we believe that under the other provisions of this Bill the Minister has all the power he needs to deal with this question, and therefore we intend to oppose this clause of the Bill. That is why we are supporting this amendment.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this particular amendment with some hesitation, and really some chagrin. What is more important, I wish to correct some of the misimpressions, and I guess 1 have to say distortions, that have been created in the House of Commons, particularly during the past half hour, especially by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).
1 speak to this because 1 think Members will accept that I have had considerable involvement in past years with regard to missing children. 1 want to underscore the fact that no Party, no Member, has exclusive jurisdiction over compassion. All of us have a concern about missing children. All of us have a concern about the anguish that faces parents when they are worried about where their children are, and perhaps the torture that their missing children have experienced or are experiencing. Therefore, I am not a little bit upset that some Members want to make this an argument about who has more compassion over missing children, the Opposition or the Government. There is no exclusivity about this.
I challenge the Opposition Members-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Which Party is deindexing the family allowances?


Benno Friesen: I challenge the Members. I worked for six years on one Criminal Code amendment so that we might find abducted children. The Opposition may give three weeks to debate on this and collect a few petitions. I challenge them to work six years for missing children.
So I come here with some feeling on this subject and some objection to some of the things that the Opposition Members have been saying about this and trying to make it look as though the Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), in particular, are looking for opportunities to cut off funds to those parents who have missing children. That is false, and that Party over there that wants to pride itself on being so interested in human rights ought to correct its misstatements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: It should stand for the truth rather than for distortion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: How can they, on the one hand, talk about justice and at the same time promote injustice on this particular subject? I want to tell those Members who are objecting so much to Clause 5 that there is a good and a proper reason for which the Minister needs this particular clause, and it is this; under the present Act the Family Allowances Act calls upon the Minister and his Department to cut off family allowances one month after the child is found to be missing. Now, it so happens that the Department has been carrying on payments for six months in contravention of the Act as a way to help people who are experiencing this anguish, so much so that the Auditor General, with his good accountant's mind who sees only numbers and the strict provisions of the Act rather than the anguish that people face, is objecting to the fact that the Minister of Health is not following the strict provisions of the Act and is overpaying parents who have missing children. If the Act reads as it does, how can the Minister obey the Act and still be compassionate? Therefore, he is looking for authority to carry on payments after a child is missing without compounding the anguish parents already face.
[DOT] (U50)
Second, what happens when a child is missing, the parents have been receiving payments for two or three years and the child is then found dead? A certificate of death is then produced to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to deal with the legalities of this deplorable case. By law, the Minister must collect from those parents three years of overpayments. How would you like to do that, Mr. Speaker? How would you like to tell those parents who have been grieving and mourning for three years that they owe the Government three years' worth of family allowance back payments because they have now filed a certificate of death?
For a change, I would like Opposition Members to be honest about their own feelings, about the nature of this case, about the leadership shown by, and the motives of, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Please do not play around with the hurt and the feelings of parents across Cananda.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 16, 1986


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this amendment, especially after what I just heard. I heard one of my colleagues on the Government side inform the House that the Opposition Parties were distorting the provisions of this Bill and that we were playing on people's sentiments with our comments on the disappearance of children.
I do not think it is purely a partisan position, because if you look at the coalition of women's groups that made a joint representation on this question-and I will mention just those from Quebec-we have the Association feminine d'education d'action sociale, the Comite d'action sur le statut de la femme, the Comite de la condition feminine, Action Travail Femmes. There are quite a few. There are also parents who come to testify and asked to have these allowances maintained.
My hon. friend said earlier: What do you think the Government should do when a family has been receiving family allowances for three years and the child is found dead? I simply want to comment that the loss or disappearance of a child is followed by a period of mourning. When someone dies, there is a period of mourning that may last from one to three years. When a child disappears, the situation is quite different, because there has been no death to confirm the child is dead.
And that is why families whose children have disappeared cannot say after three or six months: My child is dead and the file is closed. So when we are talking about playing on the sentiments and feelings of families, I think my Government colleague has his sentiments mixed up and does not know what he is talking about.
It is also true that the families receiving these family allowances are spending the money wisely. Families where a child has disappeared have told us that the small amount they receive is used to pay companies and individuals to trace the child, and there are also lawyers' fees, and so forth.
So I am very sorry but I don't think it is up to the Government to decide that when a child has disappeared, the period of mourning ends after six months. I don't think the Government can legislate this. In fact, I think we should listen to the groups that came here to submit briefs and who also supported the steps taken by Mrs. Metivier.
There is also the Association of Quebec of Human Rights Committees, the Association pour la defense des droits sociaux du Quebec metropolitain, the Centre communautaire sud-asiatique, the Centre d'education d'action des femmes, the Centre des femmes de Laval, and I could go on. When we are talking about emotional honesty, I think and I don't want to be biased or be accused of partisanship but I think that we are now legislating something that does not have to be legislated, and I think anyone who knows the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and recognizes the qualities of the Minister as mentioned by my hon. colleague would agree
Family Allowance Act, 1973
he could reconsider the legislation and meet the request for maintaining family allowance payments. I have not spent six years studying this kind of legislation, but I have worked long enough with families, especially needy families, to realize that the Government can act with a measure of compassion, and I don't think anyone would blame the Government for doing so. Therefore, I do not agree and cannot support this motion.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words and set the debate in its proper context. My colleague who has just resumed her seat referred to missing children and the anxiety of families whose children have died or simply vanished. The Bill does not deal with such cases. Here is how Clause 5 of the Bill reads:
-under circumstances that, in the opinion of the Minister, raise beyond a reasonable doubt a presumption that the child is dead-
Not that he is missing, but that he is dead.
-the Minister may issue a certificate declaring that the child is presumed to be dead-
It has nothing whatsoever to do with missing children whose whereabouts are unknown. The downed Air India aircraft has often been given as an example since in fact, beyond any reasonable doubt, all children aboard the aircraft were presumed to be dead. This is where the Bill applies, not in cases where children have simply disappeared.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of the previous speakers from the Government side have attempted to suggest that members of the Opposition are using a political approach to this particular clause. If there was some evidence to show that the Government was being compassionate across the board, we might accept the fact that this particular clause was put in place for compassionate reasons. However, we have no evidence of that. The very Bill attacks the entire area of support for families. Therefore, there is no reason for us to believe that one particular clause is compassionate while the Bill itself is anything but compassionate.
The Government would have us believe that Clause 5 is there for the benefit of parents of missing children. That is obviously not the reason for this particular clause. It is supposed to eliminate the need for the Government to collect possible overpayments, as was suggested by a previous speaker, in a case where the actual death of a child occurred while the payments were being made. However, although I was not there that particular day, the committee was told by officials from the Department of National Health and Welfare that the present, unamended Act allows the Minister not to collect in such cases. Therefore, for that reason, this particular clause is not at all necessary.

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
If one were to look at the committee report one would find that an official from the Department of National Health and Welfare made a statement which suggests that the unamended Act allows the Government to remit the overpayment. If that is the case, then why does this clause give the Minister the power to issue a death certificate? Why does he need the power to issue such a certificate when he already has the power of compassion which exists in the present legislation?
It just does not make too much sense to suggest that the reason for having this provision is to help missing children. The reason is that it is obviously a bookkeeping measure which ignores the feelings and the hurt of the parents of missing children. It does not recognize the fact that they are spending a great deal of money to try to find their children. Until the child has been actually found they will continue their search.
As the President of the Child Find organization expressed to the committee, parents never stop looking for their missing children. Even in hopeless cases they never stop looking. They never stop spending money in their search. I refer to long distance telephone calls, advertisements, and so on. As the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) suggests, the removal of the sum of approximately $31 from the parents of missing children means that they do not have that little extra amount to spend which would make them feel as if they were actually doing all they could in order to find their missing child. The Government is saying that we cannot afford that little bit extra which helps parents to search for their missing children. The claim that the Government is doing this for compassion's sake does not make sense. It is withdrawing $31 from parents, thus reducing their ability to go out and search for a child who has disappeared. The type of expenses which parents expend in search of missing children, such as expenses for printing thousands of copies of pictures, expenses for long distance telephone calls, legal advice and private investigators, are all expenses which parents must face if they are to continue their search for their missing child. Apart from that, imagine the impact upon yourself, Mr. Speaker, if your child were missing and the Minister suddenly issued a death certificate.
The family allowance was originally created in recognition of the parenting role. The money was paid out to families to allow parents to do the best job possible in raising their children. However, if the payment is stopped when a child has gone missing for some reason, then the help which is part of parenting is withdrawn. If a child walks down the street and disappears for a couple of hours, the parents of that child are worried. They go out and use their best resources to find their child. If their child disappears for a couple of years, they continue to use their resources to find the missing child. Consequently, the family allowance pays for the continued responsibility of parenting which these people with missing children have.
Our suggestion is that we look at the whole clause and bring in something which recognizes either the present legal death requirement, which is seven years, or the fact that death should not be assumed until the missing child reaches the age
of majority. Let us not suddenly withdraw from parents the type of support which they need and then say that what we are doing is approaching compassionately the whole area of concern. We suggest putting this clause in place so that parents do not have to repay the money which they have received during the period in which their child has been missing in the event the child is eventually found dead.
I believe that every Member of the House has been approached by parents not only with respect to this particular clause but with respect to the entire Act. If the Government truly feels compassion for children, then it should recognize that there is a large group of parents in the country who need this $30 and the increase each year. I refer to the increase attributable to inflation. The Government should recognize that these funds should not be cut off, or the real dollar value reduced each year, until somewhere down the road, perhaps in ten years' time, the value of the family allowance will be so small that it will not have any real affect upon the assistance given to a parent who is attempting to take good care of his or her children.
Before me I have a number of telegrams which deal with this very point. They are critical not only of the clause to which I refer but of many clauses. In fact, they are critical with respect to the whole approach taken by the Government in terms of the family allowance. I wish to refer in particular to one of the telegrams which was received. The original of the telegram was sent to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). It is from members of a home and school association. It states that the individual family unit does not have a special type of organized lobby group and, thus, they feel concern with respect to many family issues. As members of a home and school group they feel the responsibility to take issue with these proposed changes, since parents groups are not organized in the same way in which senior citizens groups are organized. I have a series of telegrams from home and school associations from across the country who feel that not only is this clause incorrect but that the Government should withdraw the whole Bill.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased and proud to take part in the debate on Bill C-70.
Earlier today a Government Member said that no one has exclusive jurisdiction over compassion, that he and his colleagues feel the same kind of compassion and sympathy as Opposition Members do with respect to families and parents that have lost a child. In my judgment one only needs to read the clause to realize that compassion does not even come into play. The clause itself proves beyond any doubt that the people who drafted it do not even know the meaning of the word compassion. I know that a lot of viewers who follow House debates on television may have some difficulty understanding the purpose of this amendment.
January 16, 1986

For their information, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to read, if I may, Clause 15 of the Bill:
Where a child has, either before or after the coming into force of this section, disappeared under circumstances that, in the opinion of the Minister-
God the Father.
-raise beyond a reasonable doubt a presumption that the child is dead, the Minister may issue a certificate declaring that the child is presumed to be dead and stating the date on which the child's death is presumed to have occurred, and thereupon the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date so stated in the certificate.
The Minister behaves like God the Father and decides unilaterally, in his wisdom, that a child died on such and such a date.
In the following subclause, His Lordship the Minister keeps for himself a right or privilege, to wit:
If. after issuing a certificate under subsection (1), the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the date of death is different from that stated in the certificate, the Minister may revoke the certificate and issue a new certificate stating a different date, in which case the child named in the certificate shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date so stated in the new certificate.
Under this Bill which he would like us to adopt, the Minister wants to have the right to decide, following the report of some official, that a child is dead. Depending on how he feels, the Minister can decide that a child is dead one day and alive the next.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that only a person who has no children or who ignores the feelings of parents towards their children could think of such provisions. 1 think it is altogether odious and scandalous for them to write such provisions in the Bill when we know the tragedy parents have to go through when one of their children disappears. Surely those who drafted these provisions never came close to meeting these people or discussing this issue with them. It is a fact that compassion may not be a feeling exclusive to the Opposition, but I think that the Government and its spokesmen apparently have no notion of the word "compassion".
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising to find such a provision in this Bill, because the Bill as a whole is itself altogether unacceptable. This is my third term as a Member of Parliament, and my riding has had to face a great many problems and difficulties, but since I was elected for the first time seven years ago, never has a Bill raised such a spontaneous reaction in my riding. Never has my office received so many petitions and letters from mothers living in all parts of my riding who write: we cannot be heard. The only way for us to be heard is through you, and we ask you to present these petitions on our behalf. What the Opposition has done and is doing in this fight, Mr. Speaker, does not just concern the Opposition; it is not just talking for the sake of talking, or objecting for the sake of objecting. It is a matter of performing in this House as millions of Canadian men and women are expecting us to do.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition in this fight is not merely conveying, voicing the very numerous statements that have poured into our constituency offices. In my constituency, for instance, I have received hundreds of petitions, and on that issue, that one legislation alone. I have received more petitions concerning Bill C-70 than on any other issue since I came into politics.
This shows without the shadow of a doubt, without any question, that mothers, parents, are squarely in disagreement with this Bill.
This piece of legislation also is an excellent demonstration, an excellent illustration, which very clearly depicts this Government's kind of administration. Families are being ridiculed, drained, abused, especially children, for the sake of getting a few million dollars under the pretence that public finances must be put back into order.
On the other hand, those few million dollars being snatched from the pockets of the poor, of the have-nots, of the singleparent families, of all those men and women who have every difficulty making ends meet, those few million scooped in that way are literally wasted in other areas, or handed out to large multinational corporations, or given away to the very affluent as capital gains exemptions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Government is depriving the most in need, those who definitely are not in a position to face tough living conditions, and redistributing that money to people who in these circumstances could contribute a lot more to putting public finances back into order.
Mr. Speaker, I have before me a table that shows quite clearly what the Government will be getting, what it will be scooping.
For 1985-86, there are to be $15 million. For 1986-87, the figure is $80 million. For 1987-88, the figure is $140 million, and for 1988-89, $200 million. That money will be scraped, will be taken from families with children. That is the kind of money that will be snatched from the pockets of those families for whom family allowances in many cases are simply vitally needed.
Mr. Speaker, what is just as important in my view is that during the last election campaign, those people were peddling around pious promises: the program of universality would not be tampered with; social programs would not be tampered with; the have-nots would be looked after.
But hardly eighteen months later, they are savagely attacking families, they are savagely attacking children after having tried to do the same thing to senior citizens.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) is extremely worthwhile in the circumstances, in view of the fact that the clause in its present form, as it is now worded, is not just unacceptable, but quite simply odious,

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
shameful, an insult to a very, very, very human problem. It is my hope that in the coming weeks, the Government will wake up and bring in the corrections needed to that famous clause so that it will be a little more humane.
Mir. Michel Champagne (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) has left the House. However, I would like to go over his concluding remarks. It is odious, shocking, revolting and even blasphemous, and I am not talking about what our Government is doing, but about what he and his party are saying about family allowances. How can they say that we are cutting back on programs for low-income families, how can they say that we are not taking care of the most disadvantaged families in the country, how can they say that we, as a Government, having inherited a terrible situation, with debts of $200 billion, a situation where, for 20 years and even longer, the Liberals did not make the rich pay any taxes and did not take their responsibilities-
Then, people like the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) tell us what we should be doing. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot accept that. When they talk about honesty and impartiality, they should perhaps look at what Bill C-70 says. What this Bill says, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be a child tax credit. If the Hon. Member does not understand what this means, I can tell him that it means that people will receive a payment.If we provide a payment, Mr. Speaker, we do so for those who do not pay taxes. When the Liberals were in power, Mr. Speaker, those who did not pay taxes were the wealthy. Under our Government, it will be the poor. The poor will receive the tax credit that will amount to $70 the first year. This is much more than the 31 cents mentioned by the Hon.Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. Much more. Mr. Speaker, it is more than the average rate of inflation. Why do the Liberals not say so? Why do the New Democrats not recognize it? This means $70 this year, $35 next year and $35 the year after that, and this is a tax credit.
I would like the Hon. Member and his colleagues on the other side to keep this in mind. If we want to be honest, Mr. Speaker, we have to speak about it. We have to tell the facts as they are. I am not certain that the Opposition has done so. I am not sure that they have, Mr. Speaker, because they would not have received so many petitions if they had told Canadian families that we are really going to work for the most disadvantaged. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian families, mothers and womens' groups in all Canadian provinces including Quebec would have signed the petitions of the Members opposite if they had been told that there would be a tax credit for the most disadvantaged and that the universality principle is not being attacked as suggested by the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe.
Mr. Speaker, the universality principle does not mean that rich and poor should be treated the same. It means that, as a responsible Government, we are going to give the advantage to the poor and make the system equitable.
I said so yesterday. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member did not understand. If I take my own case as an example, it is not normal for me and my family to receive the same family allowances as a single parent family on welfare with the same number of children. That family deserves more, because of its disastrous economic situation. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Government will help me when 1 need it. That is the objective of the Bill before us.
It is only natural, Mr. Speaker, that we should have to limit the cost of governing this country. It is natural because, when we took over in 1984, the deficit was $200 billions. During the 20 years that the Liberals spent on this side of the House, they claimed they were working for Canadians. Well, they must have worked hard, because they put them deeply in debt. During those 20 years when they formed the Government, they were telling us that they were managing the public purse. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Where was the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe when his Government limited the indexation of family allowance to 6 and 5 per cent, at a time when inflation ran at 11 and 12 per cent? Where was he, Mr. Speaker? I asked him today, but he did not answer.
Since we are talking about honesty and integrity in this House, Mr. Speaker, we should stand up and say precisely what matters in this Bill. We should emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to help those families which are the most in need, while making the wealthiest pay. It should be said, Mr. Speaker, that social justice has more than one meaning, it is not merely the Liberal philosophy, a philosophy for the wealthy. Today, they are telling us that, as a Government, because of the tax exemption, because of the capital gain exemption, we are giving only to the rich. That is false, Mr. Speaker, absolutely false. I know farmers in my riding who are now going to be able to sell their farms at a lower price to their sons, who will now be in a position to take over. I know homeowners, Mr. Speaker, who will be able to sell their houses and not be indexed or affected by this legislation, who will realize capital gains after having worked all their lives in factories, for low wages. Members of the Opposition think of them as rich people; they want to deny them that opportunity and have them penalized, but I can say this: Liberals are hiding the facts. There are certain words I cannot use because they would be unparliamentary, but they are the ones I sincerely mean. If ever Opposition Members want to act as honest Members of Parliament and not engage in demagogy, then 1 am sure all Members on our side of the House will be willing to work with them. Building a country does not mean forever sitting across the aisle and reacting negatively to each and every legislative proposal. Building a country means co-operating, working together in solidarity.
January 16, 1986


Alain Tardif: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) on a point of order.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, the time allowed the Hon. Member is running out and I realize he has not yet said anything about the amendment before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time is not up, and that is not a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You're not the Speaker.
[ Translation]


Mr. Champagne:: Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how the Liberals proceed. They try to cut our speaking time. I was speaking to the same subject he was speaking to-


Alain Tardif: The amendment!


Michel Champagne: -and he rose to say 1 did not speak to the amendment. And what was he speaking to?


Alain Tardif: The amendment.


Michel Champagne: No, he did not speak to the amendment. He said he travelled around Quebec and across Canada, and that families had signed petitions. That is what he talked about. Mr. Speaker, he forgot to tell the truth, just like the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie who travelled across Quebec and forgot to say that the child tax credit would be refundable-


Jean-Claude Malépart: It has always been refundable.


Michel Champagne: The rich will not get a cent. It is all going to the poor. And it is refundable and it is more than the average indexation. And I am saying this again for the benefit of the Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. To avoid misleading the public, Mr. Speaker, the tax credit has always been refundable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I hope that this time they will at least allow me to complete my remarks.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the tax credit has always been refundable, but what he failed to say is that it was increased by $70 this year, that it will be increased by $35 next year and again $35 the following year. His party has failed to tell that to Canadian and Quebec families, and then they claim that we are concerned only with the rich. Who is going to benefit from the tax credit, Mr. Speaker? It's the poor and disadvantaged families, something the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has failed to say, although he rises in the House every day to talk about honesty. He rises in the House every day to talk about co-operation.


Alain Tardif: That is what you should do.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and most of his colleagues should be honest and responsible and recognize that the Minister has done a very good job and introduced a Bill with a tax credit which will benefit the poorer families and re-establish the equity that has always characterized the Liberal system, that is, the rich will stay rich and the poor will get richer-


Jean-Claude Malépart: No, poorer!


Michel Champagne: Richer, Mr. Speaker, because in those days they themselves did not make any difference, they never did, they always thought a family was a family, they never bothered about the income. But now we realize what has happened, and it is my honest and definite view that Members opposite might find it useful to read what we bring forward in terms of legislation rather than getting carried away on matters which they did not dare defend when they had their turn, when they were the Government. We hear today, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, we hear other Members crying out in this House, and there is one thing I want to tell the Canadian people: Be careful for they have piled up a $200 billion debt on your shoulders. Be careful for they have destroyed jobs. Be careful for they have failed to defend you when it was time to do so.


An Hon. Member:: They are no longer in power, they have gone.


Michel Champagne: They have gone, there is not one left in this House-


An Hon. Member:: Yes, there is one left.


Michel Champagne: Yes, there is one left, 1 am sorry. Be careful, and I am telling this to the Canadian people, be careful, beware! Look at the facts with unbiased eyes and you will find that this Government is working in the interests of the majority of our people, and especially in the interests of the most in need.

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the five amendments to Bill C-70 with which we are dealing are generally linked together because they deal with the administrative and legal problems that arise when we try to make changes, as the Minister has attempted to do, in the manner in which we deal with the question of missing children. In order to establish whether a child is presumed missing or dead, the Minister has proposed an amendment which would apparently give him the power to presume that the child is dead and, therefore, enable him to stop the family allowance payment.
There has been much discussion in the House about compassion and honesty, but in the few minutes I have to speak on this set of motions I simply want to point out that laws like this do not come up for review very often. The House has much business before it and, therefore, the chances of this particular Bill being reconsidered in the near future are very remote. Therefore, rather than considering the effects of this new legislation one year hence, as seems to be suggested by the Hon. Member who just spoke, we should do so five or six years hence.
I remind the House that the economic effects in 1990, which is only five years hence, have been spelled out quite clearly. They are not particularly good for poor people. The fact is that the losses from the proposed deindexation will be more than the proposed offsetting child tax credit increase which will only be in effect for a year or two. In short, poor families will be worse off in four or five years than they are under the current system.
Furthermore, this Bill also proposes changes to the child benefits on our income tax forms which will have the effect of cutting back child benefits by $600 million each year by 1990. That is a tremendous difference in the amount of aid going to child benefits. I want to put those facts on the record to illustrate the economic effect that these proposals will have on families, particularly poor families.
The common denominator of the amendments before us is an attempt to deal with the question of missing children. That is why Your Honour has deemed that they should be discussed as a unit.
1 believe there are two thrusts to these amendments. The first is administrative and based on legal interpretations in an attempt to deal with the legal aspects of this question. The House is aware that the traditional legal presumption of death has been when a person-child or adult-has been missing for seven years. One could also assume that the family allowance payment would stop for a missing teenager once he or she reached the age when those payments would stop even though the seven years had not expired.
I believe that the Minister's proposals present constitutional problems. As we know, according to the Constitution, the responsibility of the provinces to look after vital statistics in this country is provincial. The provinces keep track of when we
are born and when we die and, therefore, the provinces decide when a death certificate should be issued.
The proposal in Bill C-70 would attempt to change that and effectively give the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) the right to declare a child dead and issue a death certificate because the child had been missing for a period of time deemed adequate by the Minister. According to available information during the committee stage of this Bill, it appears that that period of time would be from three to six months. There is conflicting testimony between some officials of the Department who say that this presumption of death does not occur until after six months and the child find groups, who represent parents of missing children throughout the country, who indicate that it is a three month period.
A number of concerns have been raised since the committee stage which I believe indicate that the Government should withdraw this particular amendment. There are various individuals and groups involved in this issue who were not consulted. They wish to be consulted, and we believe it would make sense for more consultation to take place with the provinces whose constitutional powers are being usurped by this proposal. Since we believe that proper consultation has not taken place on this issue, the propsoal should be dropped and the ad hoc arrangements that have been in existence should continue without becoming a law that is of questionable constitutionality.
This is not simply a point of view held by Opposition Members because the motions we are dealing with today include amendments by government Members who have also attempted to approach the administrative and constitutional problems that have arisen. It is my understanding that these amendments will be voted en bloc. The discussion will take place now-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The ruling was not that the vote be taken en bloc but that we vote on each motion separately if we so desire.
It is then that we will see whether the Minister decides to instruct his Members to vote for the back-bench motions before us, Motions Nos. 8 and 9.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have already put it on the record that we will vote for it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Minister says that he is definitely going to vote for it. We will find out later in the day. The relevant points have already been made in this debate.
Let me simply reiterate before I take my seat that in the debate, while it was very emotional and involved because it is a political issue, we have had a lot of discussion about compassion and honesty. We might have believed that this was a compassionate move if a compensating proposal had been made by the Government to increase funds and resources used to search for missing children. As it is, the Government is left
January 16, 1986

with the unhappy circumstance of appearing to be cutting funding not only to poor families over the long term, the five or six year period for which 1 quoted statistics, but is also leaving the appearance of pulling the very small amount of money for the child allowance from families who have a missing child, apparently providing no compensating assistance through legal or search means to help those families who are already under great stress, both emotionally and financially. 1 regret that the Government has not seen fit to provide some recognition of the need for funds and resources in that regard.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: I rise to speak again on Bill C-70. This Bill provides for the deindexing of family allowances. 1 was interested in the lecture which the House just received a short time ago from the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on truth and honesty, two very important subjects. 1 have here in my hand a Tory ad from 1980 which has been quoted. I think it deserves repeating at this time in light of the Hon. Member's comments. This Tory ad spoke about deindexing as follows:
-deindexing is a form of taxation that would have staggering consequences for every Canadian taxpayer, especially the low-income earner-deindexing is a scheme to guarantee that you'll pay higher federal income taxes year after year.
We also have the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on record saying he would not pay off the deficit by attacking social programs. What are we doing here today, Mr. Speaker? We have a deindexing Bill on family allowances. It is a social policy and this legislation is providing for the deindexing of family allowances.
The main thrust of the Tory Budget of May 23 was that of a classical Conservative document. It aimed at widening the disparity between the rich and the poor. The Tory Government has broken many of its promises with this Budget. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), whom I am glad to see in the House at the present time, promised to maintain over-all social spending by not using social program funds to reduce the deficit and maintain the universality of programs for seniors and families. However, what do we have? We have an erosion of the family benefits package, which means less benefits by 1990 to low and middle-income families. This is not a short-term measure by any means.
We have had increased consumer and gasoline taxes. I remember in the last Parliament and in previous Parliaments that every time fuel prices went up we would hear those screaming speeches from the Tory opposition benches. Now the Tories increase taxes on gasoline and other fuels without even batting an eyelash. 1 wonder where all their self-righteousness has disappeared to. I give you this, Sir, in the light of the speech made by the Member from Champlain on truth and honesty. The people of this nation have come to realize where the Government stands when it comes to keeping promises and being honest with them.
It is interesting to note in this debate, Mr. Speaker, that several Conservative back-benchers have stood in this House and read off petitions from their constituents asking that the
Family Allowances Act, 1973
family allowances not be deindexed. These Tories are doing their duty as Members of Parliament for their constituents, but how are they going to vote when the final decision comes? Will they vote against their constituents on whose behalf they have stood to read petitions? It will be a very interesting moment, Mr. Speaker.
The Government is famous in passing costs back to the provinces. This has been done with transfer payments, by cutting grants and by putting the onus on individual taxpayers, by throwing Department of Transport facility costs back to local municipalities, and by increasing taxes at the individual homeowner level where it affects all families directly. The Government says it is doing it in the interests of the deficit. 1 suppose that is a very honourable aim.
We have seen the Tory Government bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank to the tune of S875 million through a special Bill to pay back depositors in those banks whose money was not guaranteed. That does not include all the depositors who had $60,000 or less in the banks, who have to be paid off too. That was a billion dollar bill. How does the Government pick up that money? By deindexing family allowances and, in the long haul, deindexing child tax credits; by cutting Government services; by pushing expenses back onto the provinces and the municipalities; and by letting civil servants go, although I understand the Government has slowed up considerably in that regard because it found that that was not very practical. The Government has also meddled with the unemployment insurance policies by taking severance pay which people earned during working days and classifying it as income to stop payments of unemployment insurance. Then we have the Armed Forces. People are required to retire while children are still in school. That severance pay is counted as income, and the individual cannot collect unemployment insurance, insurance that has been paid for ever since it was first introduced into the Armed Forces. That is not fair.
We come now to the hatchet man himself, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen). As we know, he is the chairman of the review committee of Cabinet. A better title would be; "chairman of the chopping block". He is the one who is going through all Crown corporations and Government departments to find out where he can cut next. What has he found on his travels? On many military bases across the country we have schools for the families of military personnel. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence, the man in charge of chopping, has an ongoing review of these Department of National Defence schools. What is the aim of this review? The aim is to slough off the children of DND personnel onto the local county or regional administration, to get rid of the schools. He is not interested in the children of those families who have to move from posting to posting, sometimes as many as six or seven times during their first eight years in school. He is going to throw them into a standard county system where the other children attend school day in and day out for several years at a time. These students will have to find their own way in that crowd. With schools on military bases, the teachers are familiar with the problems, and the school-

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
board are DND personnel and dependants. They understand the problems faced by children who change from school to school all the time. This does not strike the Deputy Prime Minister. If anyone should rise in defence of the families of military personnel, it should be the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence. He should not be meandering into his committee meetings trying to find out where he can save a couple of million dollars here and there at a time when the Government is being blamed for not controlling the deficit. Analysts are giving that as the reason for the value of the Canadian dollar. The Tories are meddling around with little things, making huge promises which they know they cannot keep and in the end are taking it out on low-income families.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak on the amendments to Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. Unlike the previous speaker, I will confine my remarks to the subject at hand, that is, the issue of missing children and the presumption of death.
We object most strenuously to the whole Bill. It is oriented to deindexing the family allowance. It shows great insensitivity to the needs of families across the country. Every family will be affected. However, the amendments with which we are dealing now affect only a very small number of people. The amendments which the Government has put forward are wrong, and we have an alternative which we think is very much better.
While the Government consulted the community about the family allowance and the whole child benefits support package, it ignored the advice it was given. In the case of missing children and the presumption of death, there was not even a consultation. What happened was that the Government stuck in a few clauses in the Bill on family allowances deindexing. We are faced with having to deal with quite a different subject, the jurisdictional problems and the lack of consultation problems that arise.
Let me begin with the failure of the Government to consult on the whole issue of presumption of death. Only one group was allowed to present a brief before the legislative committee. It was Child Find Quebec. It certainly provided some information, but many other groups would have liked to have been consulted. There was not an opportunity for the groups which work on these issues to get together and come up with a united front. The clause was sprung upon the groups on very short notice. They had to respond without adequate opportunity for their own consultations. When suggestions were made that there should be additional consultations, these were turned down, although the Government admitted that consultation had been inadequate and that the groups might have something practical to offer at committee stage. It admitted that, but did not in fact follow its own advice, as it were, to listen to that information.
Rather than take the opportunity to consult, the Government has taken a very simplistic approach, that is, to give the
Minister unwarranted powers. This is not simply an administrative matter of who will decide about presumption of death. I want to note some objections to that and the fact that there are some real consequences. Families will be hurt if this amendment as it is currently framed goes through. The parents of missing children will have their family allowances cut off. This is at a time when they may well be very energetically continuing the search for their missing children. Sometimes the family allowance can be cut off sometimes after three months and sometimes after six months of the child being missing. In any event, many families may search for their children for a greater period of time than that. They are faced with costs. They are making long-distance telephone calls, consulting lawyers, hiring private investigators and placing ads in newspapers. They are using money to pursue the search for their own children. At a time when they need support, the Government will take away from them the very modest amount of support which is presently being given through the family allowance.
Death should not be presumed by the Minister on the basis of any kind of arbitrary criteria. The laws of the country very clearly indicate that the presumption of death, as other matters of vital statistics, comes under the purview of the provinces. There has been a long tradition of that, and legislation very clearly indicates it. This is an example, for the administrative convenience of the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), of an invasion of a traditional provincial field. There is no reason for it; there are alternative ways to deal with the matter.
Our proposal contains four parts. It begins:
Where a child has, either before or after the coming into force of this section, disappeared under circumstances that raise a presumption that the child is dead, the Minister may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction in the province or territory where the child usually resides for an order declaring, according to the law of the province or territory, that the child shall be presumed to be dead; thereupon the chitd shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date stated in the court order.
If we did this, we would have full respect for provincial jurisdiction in this area and in a way which is entirely practical. It continues:
If, after obtaining a court order under subsection (1), the Minister receives new information or evidence that the date of death is different from that stated in the court order, the Minister may, with leave of the court, apply to the court for an order to vary, amend or revoke the order previously made, in which case the child named in the court order shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date so stated in the new court order.
That is perfectly self-explanatory. It continues:
If, after obtaining a court order under this section, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child named in the court order is alive, the Minister shall forthwith cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child if the order had not been made.
Again that is quite self-evident. Finally, it continues:
Subject to subsection (3), the Minister is bound by the law of the province where the child normally resides in respect of the issuance and revocation of death certificates and the making, variance and revocation of orders of presumption of death.
January 16, 1986

This makes clear that there is no reason in the case of a federal matter such as family allowances to invade the jurisdiction of the provinces.
In my remaining minute I should like to point out that we are continuing to obtain new information from groups which want to be heard on this subject. Groups are bringing forward their difficulties on child searches and the presumption of death. As a result, we would suggest that either our proposal be adopted or that the entire section be dropped. It would be far better not to have any section on it than to proceed with the present proposal of the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before calling it one o'clock, I should like to indicate that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) will have three minutes remaining in her speech when orders of the day are called.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House a grave injustice which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Government have inflicted on B.C. fruit growers. This is an association of some 1,800 producers in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia who have been facing very tough times this last couple of years due to depressed fruit prices, high input costs, and falling land values. Indeed the financial distress in this group of producers is even worse than the national farm debt figures as reported by the Farm Credit Corporation.
They applied for assistance under the Agricultural Stabilization Act for the 1983 apple crop and would have qualified for this if the regular criteria of 90 per cent had been applied. The Minister of Agriculture applied a factor of 80 per cent, thus effectively shutting these hard pressed producers out of $2 million worth of stabilization payments, payments that were desperately needed and are needed right now.
Many of these producers, especially some of the younger ones who bought their orchards in the late 1970s, are facing foreclosure this very winter. I call on the Government to
reverse this decision which is unprecedented, unfair, and outright banditry by the Government of Canada of a benefit which is due and payable to these B.C. fruit growers.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) have some explaining to do to the people of Canada. It was announced yesterday that Denison Mines, half owner of Quintette Coal Ltd. in northeast British Columbia, is writing off its entire $240 million investment in that project. Mr. Speaker, this could hardly be considered a major surprise. The northeast coal project has been bad news from the beginning. It was only a matter of time before investors acknowledged what independent mining analysts have said all along. Even the most diehard Tory and Socred should have realized something was wrong when a provincial Socred cabinet Minister in British Columbia admitted that the hole was in the wrong place.
Still the Conservative Government pressed on, and the federal Government aided and abetted its kissing cousin in B.C. It has imposed a monstrous fraud on the citizens of British Columbia.
When I raised the question of the federal Government's half a billion dollar investment in infrastructure for that boondoggle last May, the Minister of State for Mines referred to it as, and I quote, "growing pains only related to startup conditions". Growing pains, Mr. Speaker! Death throes would be a more accurate description. Not only have the federal and provincial Governments wasted billions of dollars of taxpayers' money but they have also been responsible for devastating the economy of southeastern British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, isn't it time the Government acknowledges this project is a fiasco? If they are honest with the people of Canada, these two Ministers, especially the Minister from British Columbia, will admit to this the House that their ideological soulmates in British Columbia couldn't run a peanut stand.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as the world focuses on the resumption of the Geneva talks, we must all continue in our efforts to encourage the peace process. However, on the periphery of those talks, conflicts around the world continue to warrant our attention.

January 16, 1986
One such conflict is the war in Afghanistan. On December 27, 1985, the war entered its seventh year. This has been a seemingly endless conflict between the Soviets and the Afghans. The cruel facts about the war remain. One million Afghans have perished from violence and famine. Four million have been driven from their homes to developed countries. Three million are in refugee camps in Pakistan, and one million more in Iran. A total of nine million are dead or displaced.
While some people focus on the war between Iran and Iraq, or the conflict in Central America, the war in Afghanistan is clearly the more tragic in terms of humanity and human cost.
We should not let this issue fade in our consciousness. It is a continuing tragedy of Soviet interference and aggression. When we talk of a durable peace between the superpowers, we should not weaken our resolve that basic human rights should be defended. This means telling the Soviets to get out of Afghanistan.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, the most recent economic indicators tell us that the Quebec economy continues to show sustained growth. Since the election, 136,000 jobs have been created in Quebec, an average of 9,067 jobs a month, as opposed to the total 37,000 jobs created by the Liberal Government in 55 months, an average of 673 jobs a month.
The unemployment rate has declined from 12.8 per cent in September 1984 to 11.7 per cent in December 1985.
Over the first ten months of 1985, the value of building permits has reached $819 million, a 29.9 per cent increase over the same period in 1984.
According to a recent survey made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen, 37 per cent of SMBs intent to increase their capital expenditures between now and the year-end.
Retail sales have increased 12 per cent over 1984.
During the first eleven months of 1985, bankruptcies have declined by 12 per cent over the same period in 1984.
Those figures show once again that our economic performance has significantly improved since the election of a Progressive Conservative Government in September 1984. For the business world, this party's coming to power is a genuine cause for optimism.


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



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Forty-two years ago tomorrow, a young Swedish diplomat named Raoul Wallenberg who was in Hungary on a mission to save Jews from the Nazi holocaust was arrested by the Soviet Union shortly after it captured Budapest. Theoretically the Soviet Union was our ally, and the ally of those who fought the Nazis. However, the Soviets made Wallenberg a prisoner, and to this day no charges have been laid and he has not been given a trial. Despite the claims of the Soviet Union that Wallenberg died of a heart attack in the Soviet prison in 1947, he has been seen alive on many occasions by many witnesses ever since.
Wallenberg is a hero of humanity because he risked his life to save tens of thousands of Jews condemned to the Nazi gas chambers of Auschwitz. For this reason our Parliament proclaimed Raoul Wallenberg as the first person ever to be made an honorary citizen of Canada, on Human Rights Day, December 10, 1985, just a few weeks ago. In view of this, it is now incumbent upon the Government of Canada to look after the interests and safety of one of our own citizens.
In 1979 and in 1981, before Wallenberg was a citizen of Canada, our Government made representations to the Soviet Union. Now we are in a very sound legal position to make much stronger efforts on his behalf and, as I had provided in my Private Member's Bill of last April, I again call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to take all possible steps to find out the whereabouts of Raoul Wallenberg and to secure his return to freedom.


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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, is it neat to be dead? The CBC seems to think so. I have always been a strong supporter of the CBC and particularly of its radio programming. However, as a concerned parent I was throughly appalled to listen to a segment of Frantic Times which was broadcast nationally on Saturday, December 14, at the noon hour, a time when children and young teenagers would be listening.
January 16, 1986

This is a brief excerpt from the song about death, a tape of which I have in my office:
Then they take you downtown and drain out all your blood,
Then fill you up with alcohol and all this other crud.
It is neat!
Neat!
It is really neat!
What a joke. It's fun to croak. It is ever neat!
The song finishes with the following:
It is neat!
Neat!
It is super super neat! Oh boy it's cool, it sure beats school! It is ever neat!
Neat!
During the 120-second clip, the phrase "neat to be dead" in one form or another is mentioned 21 times. This is irresponsible broadcasting. Given that 281 young children and teenagers committed suicide in Canada in 1984, this is a serious problem and not a laughing matter. To suggest on prime time radio, or for that matter at any time, that death is neat and a joke is appalling. The CBC should act responsibly by carrying an apology and a retraction on Frantic Times indicating that death is not neat nor is it a joke.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONCENTRATION OF TELEVISION STATIONS' OWNERSHIP IN SASKATCHEWAN

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has recently seen a dramatic concentration in private television ownership with the acquisition by the John Bassett interests of Toronto of four out of five private television stations. This has been accomplished without any public protest from the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mr. Cote), or from Conservative Members who have been able to count on Mr. Bassett as an enduring and loyal friend. However, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission stated in a 1978 ruling that, to the extent that concentration of ownership and control increases, diversity of opinion and information to Canadians are potentially reduced. It is this very real threat, that John Bassett will be presiding over an homogenized private broadcasting system in Saskatchewan, that has many people concerned.
Saskatchewan is only one step from being the media conglomerate that New Brunswick already is and which the Kent Royal Commission on Newspapers attacked for not having "diverse voices, correcting and balancing one another".
The Kent Commission also recommended that Armadale divest itself of one of its two daily newspapers in Regina or Saskatoon. This should also apply to television stations in Regina and Saskatoon, which are among the most profitable in the country, with profit margins of 40 per cent.
It is an abuse of dominant market position when stations this wealthy contribute so little in terms of local production, public affairs, and news coverage. I predict the Government's competition law will not disturb the profits of John Bassett, and the CRTC-


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

[ Translation]



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, we were delighted to hear that the United States had decided not to develop a nuclear waste dump site near the Canadian border and across from my riding of Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, in the province of Quebec.
The people of the whole region are pleased with this decision which, otherwise, could have had a very negative impact on the environment and economy of the Eastern Townships as a whole.
1 wish to emphasize the major public awareness campaign led by the Standstead Journal, the CAN DU environmental groups, the Lake Memphremagog and Lake Megantic protection associations, as well as the information media generally. The Members of Parliament representing the Eastern Townships had agreed to work together in this endeavour and we are satisfied with the job done.
Also, we are glad that the United States have accepted to include the international aspect in their selection criteria for, by ruling out the proposed dump sites situated in their country but requiring that geological research be done in Canada, they have demonstrated their respect for Canadian sovereignty and autonomy.
Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a great victory.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: For the past 20 years, Mr. Speaker, the Gaspe-Lower St. Lawrence area has been spending millions of dollars together with the governments to develop its forest industry, train the necessary manpower and update its sawmills. As you know, for the past few years, the people involved in this industry have been trying to set up a
9836

January 16, 1986
papermill which could be the final achievement of this infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, they have set their hearts on this project which would make possible for people in the area to earn a decent living and would consolidate a few thousand jobs. We know that this project is now being discussed by the Quebec Government, private investors and sometimes the federal Government.
But the Government of Canada apparently has been dragging its feet. People from the area are presently in Ottawa to sensitize all Members of Parliament to the importance of this project for the Gaspe-Lower St. Lawrence area.
M. Speaker, 1 dare hope that they will return home with the commitment that the project will become a reality with the co-operation of both levels of government. That is why I ask all Hon. Members to make representations to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, to make sure that this very important project for the economic development of the Gaspe area is supported by the Government and that the Matane area gets its papermill.



INSURANCE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, there is a crisis in the property and casualty insurance industry making it virtually impossible for Canadian business, municipalities, boards of education, hospitals, truckers, and others, to obtain liability insurance at realistic cost.
Liability insurance is essential to the smooth running of our society. The problem is that the property and casualty insurance industry in Canada is fragmented. There are literally hundreds of companies, some with minimal capitalization, and the reinsurance industry, with very few exceptions, is almost totally foreign. Because of the poor financial performance of the property and casualty industry caused by outrageously low premiums and a bad claims record, the international reinsurance industry refuses to stand behind the needs of Canadian property and casualty insurance companies.
France faced this problem, and the French organized a reinsurance company to provide the reinsurance required. We can do the same thing.
I call upon the Government to get together immediately with leading insurance companies to set up a new reinsurance facility in Canada and that, at the outset, the Government, if necessary, and then only for a short time, take a piece of the responsibility so that reinsurance will be available and so that the distress, caused by the lack of ability to find liability coverage, will be alleviated.
The matter is urgent. Trade is affected. Municipalities are hampered. School boards are damaged. Indeed, our way of life is threatened.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would care to enlighten the House, and the country, on the reason for the extra security at major Canadian international airports. And would he be in a position to give some assurance to those planning air travel?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there was stepped up security at some Canadian airports after the RCMP received a threat-so far unsubstantiated-that there was a security threat against an aircraft at the Ottawa International Airport and the travelling public. A joint RCMP-Ottawa Police investigation, in co-operation with other police forces, continues, and the increased airport security will continue until that investigation is complete. Further comment right now could jeopardize the investigation and I would not want to interfere with the work of the police, nor would I want to arouse public anxiety unduly.


INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS INQUIRY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, without trespassing upon the last words of the Deputy Prime Minister, would he be in a position to advise the House whether there are any international implications?


Erik Nielsen: I am in no position to make such a confirmation, Mr. Speaker.


GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE OFSECURITY THREAT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the Deputy Prime Minister favour the House with the information as to how long the Government has known about this particular threat and how long he anticipates the additional security might last?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a response specifically to that question might be harmful to the investigation itself and might arouse that anxiety which I hope could be
January 16, 1986

avoided. The security will last as long as is necessary to ensure the safety of the travelling public.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
Yesterday and today it was reported that Lavalin Inc. is making offers to buy the Montreal East Gulf refinery, and we learned this morning that Ultramar appears to be reluctant.
Could the Prime Minister make it clear whether the offer made by Lavalin Inc. to Ultramar is aimed at maintaining the 450 jobs in Montreal East?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: As far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, Lavalin's offer on behalf of other interests as well applies to the purchase of the facilities located in Montreal East, as much as possible with a view to keeping them as a going concern, in the legal sense of the word. Similar operations are involved.


REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF PETROCHEMICAL AND REFINING INDUSTRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Considering the news we heard this morning, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister be prepared to make personal representations to Ultramar management urging them to accept the offer made by Lavalin Inc. and the other groups he mentioned so as to ensure that both the petrochemical and the gas and heating oil refining industries will be protected?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is referring to news he heard this morning concerning the private sector. Indeed, but for weeks now we have been trying to get something going to help Montreal East.
We hope that, within days or weeks, the private sector will be able to come up with a constructive solution in this important case.
As to the other question concerning the Montreal petrochemical industry, Mr. Speaker, it is because we feel that the economic future of Greater Montreal is at stake that we reversed the decision of the previous Government to close Petromont because of lack of funds. We made a $69 million capital injection to save that basic industry in Montreal East.
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. A few minutes ago, the Bank of Canada announced an increase in interest rates. The Minister indicated yesterday that the economic crisis was temporary. If so, why did the Minister accept this new increase in interest rates?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada rate is set once a week, every Thursday, as the Member well knows. The Treasury Bill rates came up immediately after last week's tender and have been quite stable this week at the 10.13 to 10.15 level. In fact the rate is somewhat lower at the tender than it was indicated earlier in the week.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance also knows very well that since the first of this year the prime rate has gone up a full percentage point. The banks are now likely to proceed with another increase. However, even up to now, according to the calculations of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion when he was on this side of the House, Canada will lose some 25,000 jobs because of that 1 per cent increase in the interest rate.
Given all the negative consequences that come to Canada from this persistent increase in interest rates, will the Minister not acknowledge that his refusal to intervene amounts to refusal to accept Government responsibility for interest rate policy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy with the increase in interest rates, but this is a result of international influences over which we do not have as much control as the Hon. Member would like.
1 would like to set straight one thing which he said in the preamble to his question. The increase in the Treasury Bill rate today is unlikely to result in an increase in the prime rate.


John Edward Broadbent: You may regret that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The key point that 1 think the Member should recall is that, if we are able to get our fundamentals right-and one of those fundamentals is getting control of the budgetary policy of the Government of Canada-we will see some reduction in the rates, as we have seen since September 4. As I said yesterday in the House, mortgage rates are down between 2.5 and 3 percentage points from September 4, 1984.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Minister of Finance that my second question was, almost word for word, a question asked a couple of years ago by the then Leader of the

January 16, 1986
Presence in Gallery
Opposition, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware of the negative consequences for jobs and mortgages and, indeed, for the deficit, as he pointed out when he was in Opposition. If he is really concerned that an increase in interest rates will in fact lead to an increase in the deficit, which is what he said when he was on this side of the House, why is he pursuing such an inconsistent policy by talking about deficit reduction on the one hand, and permitting interest rates to go up on the other?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I took the Hon. Member aside and into my confidence yesterday and explained to him the background to the policy. I indicated to him the difficulty-


John Napier Turner: Real cosy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will take the Leader of the Opposition aside too and teach him something, because he has an awful lot to learn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McDermid:: That's too big a task.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The point that Hon. Members must recall is that during the course of the last 16 months interest rates have come down-


John Edward Broadbent: They are going up now, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and we have created
450,000	jobs. Investment intentions are up by 11 percentage points and housing starts are up by 30 per cent. That is the true nature of the policy of the Government, and that policy will continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Speaker:: May I advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Premier of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. James Lee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Speaker:: May I also advise Members of the presence of the Secretary of Agriculture for the United States of America, Mr. John Block.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Raymond  Gameau@Laval-des-Rapides: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On Monday in the House I asked the Minister of Finance if it was the Government's policy to let interest rates to go up to defend the dollar. The Minister of Finance responded that: "The simple answer to the question is no". Well, 25 minutes ago the Bank of Canada raised its bank rate by 17 basis points to reach 10.38 per cent in order to defend the dollar.
Will the Minister of Finance retract his words from Monday and tell the House if he fully supports this action of the Governor of the Bank of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition I indicated to the House that I fully support the policy of the Bank of Canada. As I have said in the House on a number of occasions, that policy is that the Bank of Canada will moderate the movements in the market-place, both in interest rates and exchange rates, upwards and downwards. That is the policy that has proven to be successful in the past 18 months, and that will continue.


INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Raymond  Gameau@Laval-des-Rapides: Mr. Speaker, last October, there was a difference of about 150 base points between American and Canadian interest rates. This difference has now reached 300 base points. How can the Minister of Finance say that it is not the policy of his Government to let interest rates go up?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a former banker. He should understand the movements of interest rates and the pressures in the international markets.
It is not possible for the Governor of the Bank of Canada or the Minister of Finance, as 1 said yesterday, to wave a magic wand and say this is what will happen to interest rates-


Mr. Benjamin:: Try it.
January 16, 1986


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Member from Saskatoon-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: No, no!


An Hon. Member:: Regina.


John Edward Broadbent: You just don't understand the West, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The property values in Saskatoon nearly went down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The international influences on both the exchange market and on interest rates are much bigger than the ability of the Bank of Canada to influence in a lasting way. We moderate them on a short-term basis and will continue to do so. That is the policy of the Bank of Canada.


EFFECT ON DEFICIT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will remember when he was sitting on this side of the House in opposition as the Finance spokesperson for the Official Opposition that he said higher interest rates mean larger deficits and more debt for the country.
Considering that interest rates have gone up 1 per cent since January 1, to what extent will this add to the country's debt, and to what extent will it add to the country's deficit?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not made a calculation of what effect that short-term change in interest rates will make on the size of the deficit. At this point it will not be meaningful one way or the other. However, on a long-term basis the best way that we can lower the deficit, the debt of the country and interest rates, is to continue to work at bringing the size of the deficit under control.
As I said yesterday-


John Edward Broadbent: Talk about a circular answer. I will take you aside after, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will take you aside too, Ed. The best way to meet the objectives that he and I want, which is lower interest rates and a healthy economy, is to lower the deficit. I look forward to his support when we bring down the Budget.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance saying, after standing in the House time after time and virtually being traumatized by the deficit and debt facing the country, that he or his Department has not
Oral Questions
made any calculations to determine what a 1 per cent increase in the interest rate means to a deficit increase in this country? Is he actually admitting that he does not know that figure?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is what you said.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member will look in the budget papers of last year, he will see exactly what the amount will do-


John Edward Broadbent: Tell us what it is.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -over a one year basis.
The question which the Hon. Member put to me just a minute ago was what would the 1 per cent increase in interest rates that we have seen in the last two weeks do to the deficit. That is over a two-week period. No, I have not done that calculation because I do not think it is a lasting change.


INDUSTRY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will be aware that, for about 20 years, there have been major investments by the people of the Matane region in Gaspe for forestry development, manpower training and sawmill modernization.
As the Prime Minister knows, a project submitted to himself and his Government proposes that the long-awaited regional Matane papermill finally go forward.
I know that the Quebec Government has given its approval-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the third statement in the preamble. Could we have a question please?


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister: What is the position of the Federal Government now that the Quebec Government has given its approval and that the private sector is interested?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right when he speaks about the people of the Gaspe region who have been in favour of a regional papermill for 20 years and who have been coming to Ottawa to plead their case before the Liberal Government only to have their requests refused. The answer of the Liberal

January 16, 1986
Oral Questions
Government in Ottawa was no for 20 years. Thanks to the intervention of the Hon. Member for Matane and other Members of the region and thanks to the co-operation of the Provincial Government, we can hope that something will finally happen for the first time in 20 years.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
The first reply that those involved received from this Government was a no in the case of the advance ruling, and the Prime Minister knows it. This is the answer that he gave them.
The people want to know whether the Prime Ministr can rise today and honestly say: Yes, this will go forward! It is not a case of shilly-shallying and of saying "maybe". This is what you have been saying for months. Yes or no, will you be going forward with the Matane papermill? The people are fed up and want some answers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, progress will be made in the Lower St. Lawrence region like elsewhere in Quebec. I can tell you this: With a Conservative Government, Quebecers will not have to wait for 20 years before benefiting from a new prosperity in Canada.


FUTURE OF G.M. PLANT AT SAINTE-THERESE, P.Q.
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday, at the opening of the Salon de 1'automobile in Montreal, Mr. Gary Henson, manager of the General Motors plant in Sainte-Therese, declared at a press conference that GM had no plans for its Sainte-Therese plant beyond 1987.
Could the Prime Minister promise the House today to meet with Mr. Henson as soon as possible to discuss this question and provide some reassurance for the workers at the Sainte-Therese plant?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his excellent question which concerns a matter that is very important for Quebec.
We are of course working with this industry that is so vital to the well-being of Quebec and Ontario. In fact, Southwestern Ontario plays a very important role in the economic life of this province.
For us in Quebec, the Sainte-Therese plant was the only one we could count on. And until quite recently ... in fact the Conservative Government was the first government in twenty-five years to do something about getting automobile manufacturers to build new plants in Quebec. But that is a new development.
I think that answers the concerns of my hon. friend, and 1 can assure him we intend to co-operate very closely with management at GM and other companies to ensure this sector will not only be present but flourishing within Quebec's economy.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET MANUFACTURERS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will engage immediately in meetings with those who represent all of the automobile manufacturers in Canada, including the more recent import manufacturers, to set up a plan that puts all automobile manufacturers on the same basis, so that suppliers of traditional plants will be protected, while at the same time the new plants will be operating on the same fundamental basis as those against whom they are competing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member should have stayed with French. He was doing well, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I met with all of the automobile manufacturers in Canada four weeks ago, and I dealt precisely with those problems.


Ian Deans: What happened? What did they say? [Translation]


G.M. PLANT AT SAINTE-THERESE-INVESTMENT PROJECT-REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On November 7, 1984, that is more than a year ago, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister-


Mr. Masse:: Which one?


Jacques Guilbault: -to meet with General Motors which had just announced it was going to cancel its plan to invest $700 million in the Sainte-Therese plant.
The Prime Minister answered, and I quote:
The Leader of the Opposition has every reason to be concerned over that question, and the Minister and 1 will take this up with the management of that corporation-
I want to ask the Prime Minister what kind of discussions he has had with General Motors and why that corporation is now talking about closing its plant instead of investing $700 million?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the Hon. Member's question, I have not only had one but several meetings with
January 16, 1986

Jack Smith of General Motors of Canada. During those meetings we have, of course, discussed the Ste.-Therese plant. I can assure the Hon. Member that we have discussed the longer range planning for Ste. Therese referred to yesterday.
Oral Questions
My question is this, Mr. Speaker: In light of that information, I would ask whether the Prime Minister finds that this kind of behaviour on the part of a foreign company in Canada is acceptable?
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILLING TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO G.M.
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I was asking the Prime Minister to report to the House on his meetings. I am concerned, because the meetings the Minister had with General Motors have not lead to an investment of $700 million but to the company's planning to close down the plant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member was reasonably long the first time.


Jacques Guilbault: I would like to know whether the Prime Minister is prepared to take this up personally with GM in order to protect these jobs, as he promised the Leader of the Opposition on November 7, 1984.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all this was done ages ago. We have-


Jean-C. Lapierre: And look at the results!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, as the Hon. Member for Shefford says, look at the results. And we have results, Mr. Speaker. They are there for all to see, and I want my hon. friend to correct me if I am wrong. He probably will, but the fact is that in fifteen months we have created 137,000 new jobs in Quebec, while the Liberals only managed to create 37,000 in fifty-five months.
Mr. Speaker, 1 never claimed we were perfect-


Ms. Copps:: It doesn't look good in Quebec!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not aware of the existence of such a condition.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, given such a condition as reported in this morning's newspapers-I hope the Prime Minister reads Canadian newspapers-competition will be restricted.
As a supplementary question, is the Prime Minister prepared, once he has been fully briefed, to launch an investigation pursuant to the provisions of Section 32 of the Canadian Combines Investigation Act? This is an important matter to Quebecers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter to Quebecers. Not only are we considering the issue raised by my colleague, but perhaps more important still in certain fields, the hard fact is that over the past three years, from 1982 to 1984, three major Montreal East refineries closed their doors, and the Liberals tried to close Petromont and kill one of our leading companies. We are doing our best to revive them all, including the Gulf refinery.
I think our efforts deserve not only the encouragement of the Hon. Member but also the official support-which we are seeking-of all Liberal Members of the House of Commons, hopefully so that for once they will stand up and defend the interests of Quebecers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -but the fact is that we are creating jobs thirteen times as fast as the former Liberal Government was able to do.


SALE OF GULF REFINERY-ALLEGED BEHAVIOUR OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Prime Minister.
According to Gaz metropolitain, Ultramar management imposed a precondition yesterday so as to prevent the sale of their Montreal East refinery to any prospective competitor on the Quebec market.


MAJOR OIL FIND IN BEAUFORT SEA
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister I will direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the Government confirm and describe what is apparently a major new oil find in the Amauligak structure of the Beaufort Sea? Will production from this field be speedily encouraged?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, needless to say we were ecstatic when we heard about the discovery of a delineation well in the Beaufort Sea. The production results show that there will be delivery of some 35,000 barrels of oil

January 16, 1986
Oral Questions
per day in the Beaufort Sea. We are looking forward to production. We recognize that there has to be further delineation wells, but we are hopeful that production from the Beaufort will not take too long. I might add that, when these discoveries are made, of course it encourages oil companies to continue exploration in our frontier areas.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INSURANCE
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance and concerns the insurance crisis. So that the Minister can understand the importance of this crisis, I will give an example of the terrible tragedy. The General Hospital of Toronto had to pay an increase of some 700 per cent this year over last year for liability insurance. Does the Minister believe that the insurance industry is doing something wrong? Will she support today the demand for an investigation made by 10 Members of Parliament asking Director O'Farrel to investigate the insurance crisis?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I should explain to the Hon. Member that several times in the House I have expressed my concern for this issue. 1 have tried to explain to the House the importance between our area of responsibility and that of the provinces. The provinces have taken some appropriate action to deal with what is indeed a very real problem and one about which we care a great deal. Our policy concerns have to do with solvency and the capital base. Those are the kinds of issues which we will be bringing to the House in the process of our entire examination of the financial services industry.
Yes, I do care a great deal, and we are in touch with the industry on this basis. However, it is important not to leap into someone else's area of responsibility every time there is a problem.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE ON BROAD BASIS
Alfonso Gagliano: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport has said here and elsewhere, and as recently as this morning on television on the program Canada AM, that he would take action to help the Canadian Ski Team. Why could the Minister not do the same for the municipalities, hospitals, school boards, businesses and individuals faced with these insurance problems?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this question has been answered in the House several times over the past few days. It concerns the fact that there is a very difficult situation in a number of areas affected by insurance. We are dealing within our area of responsibility, and we will continue to do so.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is he not aware that the Gaz Metropolitain company announced yesterday that it had to withdraw its purchasing offer because it could not obtain a guaranteed external market for all its sales as required by Ultramar? Will the Prime Minister put pressure on Ultramar so that Quebecers will not be paying excessive prices because of the monopoly this company wants to establish?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think that my honourable friend is wrong. Ultramar has been associated with the economic development of Quebec for many years. As concerns job creation, they have made a commitment to the Quebec Government and ourselves for another capital investment of $150 million, I believe, to create more jobs in Quebec. We in Quebec therefore consider Ultramar a good corporate citizen. However, what we want first of all is more job creation and reasonable prices for the consumers. We are going to meet both objectives by favouring Quebecers and economic recovery in Quebec.


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely!


REQUEST FOR COMBINES INVESTIGATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that all the evidence which has surfaced so far indicates that Ultramar has a precondition on the sale of its refinery that any purchaser cannot sell into the Quebec market, is the Prime Minister prepared to initiate, under Section 32 of the Combines Investigation Act, an investigation to ensure that the consumers of Quebec are not held to ransom by an oil monopoly?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty understanding the question, but 1 think that I have heard it now and that I can fully assure my friend that the Federal Government, led by a Quebecer and
January 16, 1986

with a very strong and impressive Quebec representation, will protect the interests of Quebecers in all areas, including the price of gasoline in Quebec.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday he announced plans for a major overhaul of the Young Offenders Act. While 1 applaud his swift action in preparing these draft proposals, I would remind him that time is of the essence to remedy the problems society is facing because of the many flaws in the Act. How soon will the Minister bring the required legislation into Parliament?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have now had a chance to meet with those people who have to work with the Young Offenders Act. 1 have listened to them. It is apparent to me that the Act is in need of reform. I intend to introduce legislation in Parliament as soon as possible after I have met with my provincial colleagues. Having done that, I will be seeking the co-operation of members of the Opposition to have this legislation passed before the summer recess.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the 12,000 veal calves which were injected with the illegal anabolic steroid, trembolone acetate. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture did not explain why the animals were allowed to be injected with this illegal drug or why 2,000 carcasses of adulterated meat were allowed to be sold. Could the Minister explain why his Department allowed this illegal drug to be imported into Canada in such large quantities?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member-and with his background I think he will know this-that Health and Welfare did not approve the importation of TA, nor did the Department of Agriculture approve its importation. It is an illegal drug in Canada, and it is for that reason that it came under the Food and Drug Act and is being investigated by the Department and the appropriate authorities.


LEGALIZATION INQUIRY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very large volume of animals injected with this drug, has the
Oral Questions
Minister received any representation from his cabinet colleagues to legalize the drug retroactively?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is not the manner in which caucus has approached these questions. Rather, the drug is illegal and that is why the Minister of Agriculture took action. That is why we are taking action. That is why we are using whatever authority we have. The point is that there has not been any of that representation, and I hope his question is not of the same nature.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. It concerns the 33 per cent acquisition of Cineplex Odeon on the part of MCA in the United States. Would the Minister agree that this shows that there is a serious loophole in the regulations, when this 33 per cent makes the operation a majority shareholder and is de facto control? Does he plan to do anything about it?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we in Investment Canada have of course noted the proposed acquisition to which the Hon. Member has referred. Our staff have had certain discussions with the legal representatives of the company concerned. I can only tell you at the present time that no application has been made to Investment Canada. There has been no ruling sought as to whether this is a reviewable item, and we will be asking the company to give us more detail of what their plans are.


FILM INDUSTRY-TASK FORCE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Lynn McDonald: My supplementary on the same issue is directed to the Minister of Communications. I wonder if he would tell us what he plans to do about this, if he sees that this is a contradiction-assuming the acquisition goes through-of the Canadianization policy in the film distribution industry, and if this might light a fire under him to do something about the recommendations of the report of the task force on the film industry.


Marcel Masse: As
indicated by the Minister responsible for Investment Canada, Mr. Speaker, we will have first to look into this aspect of the issue and then decide together whether it is necessary to deal with the second part of the question.

January 16, 1986
Oral Questions


LOTTERIES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Finance. Each year in Canada millions and millions of dollars are paid out in lottery jackpots. In the United States jackpot winnings are taxable. Will the Minister of Finance consider introducing a tax on Canadian lottery winnings in the forthcoming Budget as part of his efforts to reduce the deficit?


Some Hon. Members:: No, no, no.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, obviously there are a lot of lottery buyers in the House today. 1 will take the Hon. Member's question as a representation. At this point he knows I am not able to comment one way or the other on such representations.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. Today we learned in reports that the U.S. Congress is moving very significantly on three fronts to address the wrongs that were perpetrated against Japanese Americans during the Second World War. By contrast this Conservative Government has dealt with the situation in an embarrassing and certainly morally dishonest fashion.
Rather than continuing to circumvent the National Association of Japanese Canadians, and proposing yet another unilateral proposal that would be doomed to failure, I would like to ask the Minister if he does not agree that it is high time to sit at the negotiating table with the National Association of Japanese Canadians and once and for all reach a settlement that is going to be honourable and fair to all concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is totally and absolutely misinformed, and I do not accept the premise of his question whatsoever. He should know, as I have indicated through my actions, that I have been in constant contact not only with the National Association of Japanese Canadians but with other Canadian Japanese organizations as well as other groups and individuals who are interested in this very serious matter.
The reason for delay, if the Hon. Member thinks there is a delay, is because the National Association of Japanese Canadians is having a study done by Price, Waterhouse and they want to have the results of the study before the Government acts. If he doesn't believe that, he can ask the president of that association.
Finally, if I may conclude, Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Member and the rest of this House, and all Canadians, should be congratulating this Government because this is the first Government in 43 years which has taken any action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, this Minister is misleading this House if he thinks the national association is in concert with this Government, because based on the-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member did not mean that to be unparliamentary. Just a supplementary question, please.


Sergio Marchi: The Minister of State says he is consulting with Canadians. Can he guarantee this House and the national association that once he has completed all his consultations with all Canadians he will return with his findings to the negotiation table, that he will negotiate with the national association representing the national constituency of the community that this Government is attempting to address?


Mr. Speaker:: This is very long.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I can assure this House and all Canadians that the commitment that this Government has made is going to be kept after total and absolute consultations with a broad range of Canadians. I also want to remind the Hon. Member that during the last previous administration, in the last question in this House of Commons the Right Hon. Prime Minister of today, when he was Leader of the Opposition, asked former Prime Minister Trudeau about this and he said there would be no compensation, there would be discussion, and the Liberal Party was not going to do anything for Japanese Canadians.


FISHERIES
Raymond John Skelly: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It pertains to the huge unanticipated surplus returns of salmon to the West Coast fisheries last year that the Department refused to be allowed to be caught. Losses to the industry show figures of $30 million to $50 million. Would the Minister undertake to launch a full public inquiry into the development and implementation of that fatally flawed fishing plan last year?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as with all annual fishing plans the West Coast salmon fishing plan is the product of consultation between
January 16, 1986

departmental officials and the various advisory groups, and in the case of the 1985 salmon fishery there was indeed a surplus in the return to many of the rivers. This is not a loss to the industry, but 1 think, Mr. Speaker, a recognition of the tremendous benefits of the Salmonid Enhancement Program. I will be discussing that and the next year's fishing plan with my advisory committee in Vancouver on Monday.


DATA AVAILABLE TO DEPARTMENT
Raymond John Skelly: Would the Minister admit that the data on which that plan is based, on which the consultation takes place, is hopelessly inadequate, and that the cut of 200 staff members from his Department, and the erosion of $65 million out of its budget are going to make an even worse fishing plan next year, with again very large multimillion dollar losses to the industry?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the scientific resources of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are second to none anywhere in the world, and that in any restructuring and improvements to the efficiency of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans there is no question but what those scientific resources will be enhanced, not diminished.


FILM INDUSTRY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday an American conglomerate became the largest single shareholder of Canada's most important distributor and exhibitor of movies, Cineplex. My question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Since this flies in the face of the many concerns expressed by his task force on the film industry, could the Minister tell this House what he is going to do about this increased concentration and control by American interests?


Marcel Masse: Following this transaction, Mr. Speaker, the Americans will become minority shareholders in Cineplex, and not majority shareholders.
What really matters at this time, as reflected in the reply made by the Minister responsible for Regional Economic Expansion, is the Investment Canada aspect of the question, and the Minister is in contact with his officials and the company first of all, to clear up the legal aspects of the issue.
Business of the House


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, this Minister has been leading the charge in defence of cultural sovereignty while the Minister of "Divestment Canada"-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: The Minister of "Divestment Canada" has allowed American concentration in the film industry. I want to know when is enough enough. Is the Minister prepared to stop the infiltration of the Americans into this field?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the question is not really a question but an attack against a system. What we have here is a problem with Investment Canada and it is with this in mind that my colleague will look into this issue.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions with the exception of four presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, January 15, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The petitions presented by the Hon. Members for York West (Mr. Marchi), Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis), and Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented and tabled with the Clerk of Petitions by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government House Leader what business he will call for the coming week?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the business for the next week will be as follows: today we are going to complete report stage of Bill C-70, the Bill with respect to family allowances. Tomorrow we will commence consideration of third reading of Bill C-84, a Bill to amend the Income Tax Act and other legislation. I would like Monday to be the final day for third reading consideration of

January 16, 1986
Petitions
Bill C-70, and Tuesday will be the fourth and final day for consideration of Bill C-84, the income tax Bill.
The House Leaders will be meeting after Question Period to discuss other items of legislation. I hope then to have an opportunity to discuss the business for the rest of the week at that time. However, we have already had some discussions and there may be a consensus with respect to the Bills with which we will deal. However, I will confirm that today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the seventeenth report of the Striking Committee in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present a petition from residents of my own constituency who state that the deindexation of the universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families, and further state that this attach 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.
While I have the floor, I have a similar petition to present from residents of the Province of Nova Scotia who also state that the deindexation of the universal family allowance is an unfair attack on women and families. They also 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.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions to present protesting Bill C-70 and the partial deindexation of family allowance. The first two petitions are from my riding of Vancouver East where many, many people have protested that this measure will create considerable hardship for families. They call on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance.
The next petition is from the interior of British Columbia including Kelowna, Peachland and Penticton, all areas represented by Conservative Members, unfortunately. These petitioners are calling for the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of family allowances.
Moving along eastward to Nova Scotia, there have been a great many petitions from that province recently. This particular one I am presenting is signed by residents of Dartmouth, Sackville and Halifax who also say that the family allowance Bill is very unfair to families and will create considerable hardship and there should be full indexation of the universal family allowance.
I also have a petition to present from a group called Women Against the Federal Budget, and most of these women live in Burnaby, British Columbia. They are stating that children are everyone's responsibility and they strongly oppose the budget proposals to reduce the cost-of-living protection of family allowance and demand that this proposal be withdrawn as soon as possible.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have here a petition signed by people who are asking me to present in this House a request that the Government of Canada reinstate full indexation of the family allowances and the child tax credit. The petition comes from Sault Ste. Marie. I have another one from the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe. [English]
I have a petition here from Toronto asking that the Government restore full indexation to family allowances.

A petition from the constituency of Ottawa-Vanier, another one from the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton, another one from the constituency of Gaspe with several signatures, another one from the constituency of Gaspe again, asking the Government to reinstate full indexation of pensions and the child tax credit.

I have a petition from Kamloops-Shuswap and one from Macdiarmid, Ontario.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a petition from Kamloops-Shuswap but I do have one from Vancouver containing 34 signatures. The petition is asking the Government to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and asking the Government to rescind a number of unfair tax increases in the last Budget.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by over 100 people from Winnipeg, most of whom are parents who have children in day care centres. They say that in the opinion of the petitioners, the deindexation of universal family allowance is a massive cut-back in the public commitment to child benefits, is an unfair attack on women and families with children and especially single-parent mothers, and they therefore humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexa-
January 16, 1986

tion of universal family allowance and rescind the unfair tax increases.
I have another set of petitions signed by members of the Royal Canadian Legion in Winnipeg who say that the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in line with the historic right to petition which has existed, I believe, since Runnymede, we now have more names on petitions regarding family allowances than we had on petitions regarding the old age pensions, something which the Crown ignores at its peril. I would like to present a petition signed by a number of people from the City of Regina. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate and maintain the full indexation of family allowances and to rescind unfair tax increases, something for which they and I humbly pray.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present on another subject. Residents of the Atlantic provinces and particularly Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia petition and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to restore the ferry schedule between Borden and Cape Tormentine, the ferry service between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and to consult with the local citizens as to the requirements of their ferry services.
\Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present petitions on behalf of families who are severely affected by the de-indexation of family allowances. These petitions are signed by people, first, from the constituency of Manicouagan, second, from the constituency of Hamil-ton-Wentworth, and then by people from Moncton and Thunder Bay-Nipigon. This one is signed by people from London East and London West. I have another one here I received from the City of Toronto. Another one comes from the federal constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap, and the last one comes from the federal constituency or area of Saint-Hyacinthe.
Your petitioners, Mr. Speaker, pray that the Government re-instate full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on another matter, and it also concerns the CN shops in Moncton. The people of Grande-Digue in the
Petitions
Moncton area, in my riding, are very concerned about the situation at the CN, and they are asking the Minister to take a stand and protect jobs in this area.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition from the Cercle des fermieres du Quebec who are asking the Prime Minister of Canada to maintain full indexation of family allowances and the child tax credit.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I also have a number of petitions in which all petitioners want to see family allowances and the child tax credit maintained. They claim, and rightly so, that these payments are indispensable to families with children.
The same petitioners, Mr. Speaker, want to see reinstatement of full indexation, and their petitions are from the federal riding of Ottawa-Carleton.
I have another petition from Toronto, Ontario; one from the federal riding of Gaspe in Quebec, and another one, also from the federal riding of Gaspe, Quebec.
1 have another one here, Mr. Speaker, from the federal riding of Capilano in British Columbia; another petition from Hamilton, Ontario; another one from a federal riding in Quebec, this time from Saint-Maurice, and my last one is from the federal riding of Rimouski.
All petitioners are urgently asking for full indexation of family allowances, a form of assistance that is very important to single-parent families.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, first, I have a petition with respect to pension benefits which are essential for the maintenance of family incomes. The deduction of pension benefits from unemployment insurance benefits would seriously interfere with the efforts of employees and the community to create employment. Accordingly, the petitioners, who are from Corner Brook, Newfoundland, ask Parliament to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


Lynn McDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition on behalf of a great many petitioners from Montreal, Laval, Dorval, Saint-Hubert, Saint-Lambert, Longueuil and other Quebec areas.

January 16, 1986
Order Paper Questions
The undersigned claim that the attack against Canadian families is altogether intolerable in view of such budget gifts as the elimination of the capital gains tax and the RRSP deductions for high income bracket people.
The Government is giving away billions of dollars to the oil industry and has put together a rescue package for the Commercial Bank of Canada worth a billion dollars.
The petitioners are asking the Government to re-establish the full indexation of family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

As well, I have a number of similar petitions with respect to the family allowance. 1 would like to note their origins. They are from a number of ridings in Ontario, British Columbia, in particular, Vancouver, and Prince Edward Island. I have a somewhat different petition, Mr. Speaker, from a group called Women Against the Federal Budget and signed, in particular, by a number of persons from Toronto. The petitioners state that children are everyone's responsibility and that parents should receive Government assistance which value is at least as high or higher than the present family allowance levels. They oppose the budget proposals to reduce the cost of living protection of the family allowance and demand of Parliament that this proposal be withdrawn as soon as possible.
Finally, 1 have a great number of petitions with respect to the family allowance from petitioners from my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood.
I also have several petitions demanding the full indexation of the family allowance. They are from Thunder Bay, Ottawa and from the Kingston area.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a series of petitions from my riding of Prince Albert. The petitioners pray and call upon the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition from a number of residents from the liberated riding of Spadina, and some from other non-liberated ridings adjoining Spadina, in which the petitioners point out that this 3 per cent deindexation of family allowance, plus the other reduction in child benefits, plus increased income taxes on low income people, and the $1 billion hand-out to oil companies and banks, place a great burden on low income families and their children. Therefore, they call upon the House to rescind Bill C-70 and the other unfair tax changes.


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, Question No. 466 will be answered today.


Mr. Allmand: 1.	What is the regional breakdown of the funding allocation under the Canada Jobs Strategy to the (a) job entry option (6) skill investment option (c) skill shortages option (d) job development option (e) innovations option (/) community futures option?
2.	When is the community futures option of the Canada Jobs Strategy expected to begin?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. The regional breakdown of the funds allocated under the Canadian Jobs Strategy is provided on the table below. It is important to note that these figures include all programs which are part of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The former job creation and training programs, except for institutional training, were replaced by the Canadian Jobs Strategy programs in September, 1985. As part of this period of transition from old programming to new programs, consultation is under way with the provinces and the level of expenditures for 1985-86 is in part dependent on agreements being signed with the provinces.
2. The community futures program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy is expected to begin, at least in part, by the end of the 1985 calendar year.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 427 and 465 could be made Orders for Return, the returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 427 and 465 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cassidy: 1.	Was Mr. Gerard Mallet's fishing boat, the Serge M, detained by Department of Transport personnel on August 26, 1980 in the Gaspe region of Quebec and, if so (a) for what reason (b) under what legal authority?
2.	Did the detention order refer to the article of legislation or regulation and, if not, for what reason?

Order Paper Questions
Job entry	Nfld.	P.E.I.-Challenge'85 (1) Other dept's Challenge '85	5,564	1,093-other job entry	5,505	1,765Job Development -other departments (3)	32,253	5,095Skill investment	1,119	320Skill shortages Community futures &	919	499adjustment	5,476	2,178Innovations (2) Reserve	2,010	447CJS sub-total	52,846	11,397Institutional training	23,100	5,445Section 38	2,091	446Skills growth fund Emp. creation grants &	3,108	contributions	-	-Related sub-total	28,299	5,891Operations and maintenance Other departments operations	-	-and maintenance	-	-Grand total	81,145	17,288EIC total	81,145	17,288
Planned Funding 1985-86 (OOO's)
N.S.	N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.6,188	5,120	47,456	44.451	6,0045,939	6,181	28,177	27.719	10,28723,497	18,729	154,610	97,863	24,1752.524	1,149	9,707	14,059	3,7321,381	1,025	15.442	31,705	2,6625,471	5,512	34,567	16,027	4,1273,138	2,543	24,384	33,260	3,76948,138	40,259	314,343	265,084	54,75625,924	22,195	173,727	214,262	31,2351,762	2,044	11,863	8,563	1,1906,420	23	26,000	9,907	603653	3,050	25.251	7,012	73034,759	27,312	236,841	239,744	33,75882,897	67,571	551,184	504,828	88,51482,897	67,571	551,184	504,828	88,514Sask.	Alla-NWT	BC-Yukon	Unallocated	Total4,935	14,258	21,020	238	156.32723,525	23,5259,313	8,496	19.760	2.524	125.66616,397	33,540	64.707	21.466	492.33260.000	60.0003,209	3,869	3.895	2	43.5852,651	6.862	8.454	-	71.60033,749	33.7493,394	4.663	13.869	-	95.2843,519	8.360	10.590	-	92.0208.064	8.06443.418	80.048	142.295	149.568	1.202.15228,801	70.915	76,019	1.150	672.7731,037	4.355	7,001	-	56,573978	9,355	179	-	40.352675	92	1,237	1.000	39.70031.491	84.717	84,436	2.150	809.398-	-	-	163,837	163.837-	-	-	4.300	4.30074,909	164,765	226.731	319.855	2,179.68774,909	164,765	226,731	232,030	2.091.862
(1) Regional allocation includes SEED, WOW and Student Entrepreneurs only (2) Notional allocation (3) DN D S60
3.	Is it an offence not to have a valid certificate of inspection for a boat or vessel and, if so, under what (a) article of which regulations (b) conditions, if any, is this requirement not in effect?
4.	Did the Department refuse to explain for what reason it alleged the boat was illegal and therefore not eligible for a certificate and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Did the boat have excessive tonnage and was Mr. Mallet provided with an opportunity to have the vessel cut down or reconstructed in order to bring it within the permissible ceiling of allowed tonnage and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Has the Department permitted other fishing boats to be similarly reconstructed or cut down in order to bring them under the maximum permissible tonnage?
7.	Is the maximum permissible tonnage considered to be gross or registered tonnage, and under what provision of which law or regulation is this specified?
8.	Was insurance granted for the Serge M by the Regime d'Assurance des Bateaux de pecheurs and was this an agency of the Department of Fisheries in 1979?
9.	Did the federal Government believe that the Serge M did not have a valid certificate of inspection and was not eligible for such a certificate due to its tonnage and, if so, for what reason?
10.	Did the Federal Business Development Bank advance a $45,000 loan on the vessel and did the Department believe that the vessel could not qualify for certification and therefore could and should not be used for a fishing business and, if so, for what reason was the loan advanced?
11.	Did the Government provide a $42,000 subsidy for the construction of the vessel and was it alleged by the Department that the vessel could not meet its standards in order to be certified as a fishing boat and, if so, for what reason was the subsidy granted?
12.	What were the circumstances surrounding the Federal Business Development Bank's sale of the vessel in the fall of 1981?
13.	What was the FBDB's evaluation of the boat and was this less than the $142,000 construction cost and, if so, what accounted for this drop in value when the vessel had only been used as a fishing vessel for one season?
14.	Did the FBDB receive any offers to purchase the vessel and, if so, in what amounts?
15.	Was an offer of $55,000 received for the vessel and was it refused and. if so, for what reason?
16.	Were other offers received and were they refused and, if so, for what reason?
17.	Was the vessel insured for $100,000 and did the FBDB sell the vessel for $15,000 and, if so, for what reason?
18.	Was the Department's decision to detain the Serge M provoked by complaints or information provided by the builders of the vessel and, if so, is it normal for the Department to act on such information when there has been a legal dispute resulting in court action between Lepage Craft and the owner of the vessel?
19.	Was the detention order served in the Province of Quebec by the Department upon a fisherman whose mother tongue is French, filled out only in English and, if so (a) for what reason (6) is this normal practice (c) is this practice now being changed?
Return tabled.


Mr. Skelly: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans contract with (a) Beothuk Data Resources to hire observers as guardians for streams (b) Sea Watch to hire observers for the offshore fleet and, if so, who are the principles involved in the signing of these contracts?
2.	Will the Minister provide a list of all contracts made with these two companies and the Department, including the cost of such contracts since 1980?
3.	Since 1980 (a) how many persons have been employed on these contracts (b) in what positions (c) how many weeks were they employed and what were they paid?
4.	Will the Minister supply job descriptions for the jobs that were contracted with the above mentioned companies?
Return tabled.

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of report stage of Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4 and 6 (Ms. Mitchell), Motions Nos. 5 and 7 (Mr. Malepart) (p. 9391), and Motion No. 9 (Mr. Redway) (p. 9392).
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate women's groups, those especially from the province of Quebec, who have participated in this action against the de-indexation of family allowances. I notice that some representatives of these groups are sitting today in the galleries of the House.

The matter before us today is the more narrow subject matter of the clauses which the Government is trying to bring in with regard to the presumption of death of missing children. Fortunately, this measure affects a very small number of people. It is not like the issue of family allowances which affects every family in the country. However, I do not think that this is any reason for us to be happier about these provisions. These are families which are suffering the loss of missing children who may yet be found while the search goes on. This is an area in which we would hope to see a great deal of sympathy and understanding given to those families by the Government, instead of seeing this rather heavy-handed approach which would give the Minister the power to cut off benefits with some rather arbitrary measures and ones which are constitutionally quite dicey.
The Government would have us believe that Clause 5 is for the benefit of the parents of missing children, that is that it will eliminate the need for the Government to collect possible overpayments in instances where the family allowance is paid out beyond the actual date of a child's death. Of course, if this were all there was to it, we would have fewer objections, although one would still want to raise jurisdictional questions.
The excuse for his heavy handed legislation does not stand up to any real examination because it is simply not needed. There is already a power to remit overpayment and, obviously, in cases of compassion, we would expect it to be exercised, and so there is no need for legislation to provide for additional powers in that kind of instance. In fact, as the Department of National Health and Welfare itself points out, the numbers are really very small indeed. We are not talking about budgetary savings of great consequence. There is not a great deal of money at stake and I think the feelings of the families concerned must count a great deal more.
The groups which have not been consulted, particularly the child find groups, which are doing excellent work in supporting parents and assisting them in the search for missing children, are beginning to make their views known even though they have not had the chance to meet with the committee. As we know, groups were cut off. We had all kinds of proposals for groups to come before committee, but they were not permitted to do so because the Conservatives insisted on pushing through the legislation quickly. However, these groups are now telling us that it is simply not necessary to give the Minister such God-like powers of discretion for the discernment of time of death and that the whole clause is so poorly worded that no one has any clear idea at all of when the Minister would invoke these powers. I think we should take the advice of groups which are, after all, the ones who are working on this subject. They are the ones in touch with the families, the ones who have experience with the current situation and who know what the difficulties are with the administration of family allowance in these kinds of cases.
To conclude I would simply like to point out, Mr. Speaker, the arrogance and shortsightedness of the Government in its failure to consult I say it should withdraw the clause in question. If it is reluctant to withdraw the clause, then it should look very seriously at an alternative proposal, such as the proposal put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), which is a much more sensible way of dealing with the question and which would as well retain the respect for provincial jurisdiction in this area.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, as we enter into the last two days of debate on Bill C-70, the Bill to deindex the family allowance and the amendments thereto, I believe it is incumbent upon us as Members of Parliament to review the process whereby we arrive at this stage of the Bill today.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as will the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), that, in essence, the commencement of this debate began in November of 1984, some two months after the Conservative Government assumed office. The Government promised in the Economic Statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) that Canadians from all walks of life would have the opportunity to enter into a debate and a review of family benefits, and the Government talked as well about the need for a review of elderly benefits.
From mid-November, 1984 to the end of January, 1985, there was considerable debate on the floor of the House of Commons about the actual intentions of the Government with respect to the two papers which would have been tabled with the Economic Statement of November, 1984. I recall very well some of the promises made at that time not only by the Minister of National Health and Welfare but by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance. They gave us the reasons and the rationale for the kind of debate they wanted to have concerning both those papers. I can recall very well the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicating that the purpose of the review was simply to ensure that the benefits would flow to those targeted groups in our
January 16, 1986

society who need more help than others and that under no circumstances would any savings as a result of the review of child benefits be targeted for deficit reduction. That was one promise made by the Government.
In addition, I recall at the beginning of this debate that the Prime Minister, in his own words, questioned the rationale behind a bank president receiving family allowance benefits. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the heated debate on the floor of the House of Commons and the Opposition's defence of the universality of those two programs, the Government retreated. That led to the tabling of the position paper of the Government, the white paper on family benefits, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in January of 1985. The whole matter was then referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. We in turn, for several months, had many, many groups appear before the committee to give us some suggestions as to how better to structure family benefits programs, and all three political Parties agreed with the necessity of better targeting the resources to those in our society who needed help the most. I can recall that we did have an all-Party agreement when we returned to the House of Commons from committee for the report stage with a set of suggestions which would improve the delivery of the family benefits system. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare will recall that we indicated to him that we favoured the removal of the child exemptions and the improvement of the child tax credit. In addition, we also recommended that the cross-over point, the point at which the child tax credit value begins to diminish, should be increased because we felt that under the proposal made by the Government at the time, a $23,00 a year family income was far too low a level for the cross-over to occur. We recommended it should be higher than $23,000. We also suggested that the StatsCan definition of middle income families should be the cross-over point at which the Government should look at improving the system for family benefits.
I feel that, realistically, had the Government taken the advice of the committee, and had the improvements to the family benefit packages which were announced on May 23 been taken into account, we could have had an improvement in the delivery of family benefits which would have resulted in better targeting to those in our society who need more help.
Unfortunately, the Government chose to ignore the recommendations of the standing committee, and if one takes a look at the minute details which are inherent in Bill C-70, one can see that not only did the Government reject the majority of the advice given by that committee but it in effect, in my view, proceeded in a retroactive way in creating a family benefit system for this country which is going to worsen the lot of those in our society who need help the most, namely the lower-income families.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, we indicated in debates previous to this part of third reading, that we have a great deal of concern about the plans to deindex the child tax credit beginning in the year 1989 and beyond. Here we have a Government that could have improved the situation had it left
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the indexation on the child tax credit in place. It did take some of our advice in increasing the child tax credit but then it chose to deindex it from 1989 and beyond. As a result of that one measure alone, even the families who have an income of only $9,000 a year will begin to lose benefits. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that flies in the face of the promises made by the Conservative Government in the fall of 1984, at which time it indicated it wished to target the resources of this country to those who needed help the most. Consequently, we have had a great deal of debate on this issue, which has led to various social groups in our society, which represent the interests of families, coming before committee this fall to outline their concerns about the proposals in Bill C-70.
I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare received a telex today from groups of citizens who represent somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000 families outlining their concern about the plans to deindex. They are asking the Government to take heed of all the opposition to this proposal and, before we have final reading on Bill C-70, to stop the proposal to deindex the family allowance.
I suspect that it is going to fall on deaf ears. I have been around the House of Commons long enough to know that when a Bill reaches this stage, after all the discussions that we have had in committee, the odds are very small that the Government is going to reverse itself. I think that Canadians deserve to know, in the final days of debate on Bill C-70, that the Government has broken promises. It has been intellectually dishonest with the Canadian public and has delivered a Bill that it indicated would never reach the floor of the House of Commons.
You know that for several weeks, Mr. Speaker, at 3.15 every day. Members of Parliament of all three political Parties have presented petitions signed by their constituents outlining their opposition to the Government's plan of action under Bill C-70. I believe that this has been one of the most widespread petition campaigns to ever have seen the light of day on the floor of the House of Commons. At the latest count, 120,000 Canadians have taken the time to sign petitions to indicate their concern about the way in which the Conservative Government is going to impact on the benefits to families and family incomes. I will not get into a discussion of the other plan to deindex personal exemptions in the income tax system. I have outlined several times before the very perverse social policy direction that the Government has indicated as a result of the tabling of all of the tax measures, including the deindexation of the family allowances, on the night of May 23.
I believe that the majority of Canadians have made their best effort to input into the political process. It is through no fault of the efforts of the Opposition Parties that we find ourselves, in the final two days of debate, facing a Government that has no intention of listening. The Government was elected in September of 1984 with the promise of consultation. The key phrase that the Conservative Party used in the campaign in the summer of 1984 was that it would consult widely with

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Canadians and that never would legislation be introduced that had not been vetted through a consultative process with the majority of Canadians. That is a second broken promise, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated to you that not one social policy group that represents the mothers and families of the country has indicated support for this Bill.
As a last word, I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will recall the broken promises at the next election. I think the people of Canada will remember this day and the days ahead with regard to the Government's program on family allowances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know that we want to get on to some of the other crucial amendments. However, 1 do want to speak specifically on the amendment dealing with the presumption of death. At stake is the fundamental principle of justice for children, the principle that children should be treated equal to all other Canadians. Unfortunately, this particular clause in the Act discriminates against children by applying different rules to them than are applied to any other Canadians.
Specifically, by Clause 15.1 (1), (2) and (3), the Minister is giving himself the power to presume a child dead if and when that child has not been located for a certain period of time. To add insult to injury, not only is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) giving himself the power to presume a child dead, he is, further, giving himself the power to determine that the child has been revived if he finds out at some point in the future that the child is not dead. Therefore, he can issue a presumption of death certificate, and then empower himself to revoke the presumption of death certificate if evidence shows that in fact the child has not died.
We could argue that this may touch only a few children in Canada, but we know that there are literally thousands of children who go missing every year in the country, sometimes as a result of family custody disputes, and sometimes as a result of foul play. To empower the Minister of National Health and Welfare to say to a family that its child is now presumed dead and that we will issue a presumption of death certificate goes above and beyond the power that should be accorded to any single Minister.
That is why the amendment before the House, which calls upon the Minister to apply to the courts for such a presumption of death to be made, is a good, valid, and supportable amendment. No Minister gives himself or herself the power to declare an adult in Canada dead. The presumption of death has a legal process. The person must have disappeared for a certain number of years and there must be a court application. Surely if we learned one thing from the Charter of Rights, it was that all Canadians, regardless of age, gender, marital status or economic circumstances, should be treated equally. That includes the children of the country. Through this clause the Minister is giving himself the power to presume children
dead, which power he would not have if they were over the age of 16, 17, or 18, depending upon the province.
Organizations such as Justice for Children were not permitted to come before the committee to explain their concerns in relation to this bootlegged amendment which has very little to do with the decision to cut back on increases in family allowances. It is a bootlegged amendment and has no place in this Bill. The Minister should not put himself above the law by suggesting that there should be one law for children and another for adults.
1 personally have known families who have spent tens of thousands of dollars looking for lost children. To suggest that, above and beyond that particular expense which they incur, they must now face a potential presumption of death certificate which would result in the cessation of all benefits for the child, is wrong. I think it is wrong for all people, Mr. Speaker. I, therefore, urge support for the amendment which would make the law of the land apply to children in the same way as it now applies to adults.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at some of the statements of members of the Opposition who say they are speaking for a majority of Canadians. Their petitions do not represent even 1 per cent of the population of Canada. Many of those petitions have been signed under false pretences and misunderstandings. Some of the arguments that we have heard in the House today are completely unfair, many are untrue, and many contain innuendoes that are untrue. If those arguments are being presented to people, I can understand why they would sign petitions. However, they should have all the facts. I want to deal with some of the items that we have been hearing. I think that this Bill is supported by the vast majority of people in Canada because it is fair and sensible. It attacks the existing problems rather than creating problems.
The Hon. Member who just spoke, and a number of others before her, mentioned that you cannot presume somebody to be dead. That is not new, Mr. Speaker. During the war hundreds of people were presumed dead. When a particular length of time had passed without them being located, they were presumed dead. However, that did not mean that they were dead. As a matter of fact, a very close friend of mine was presumed dead at about the time I was going overseas. I was sad about it, but there was always a hope that maybe he was not dead, even though all the circumstances indicated that he was. His mother told me that she did not have much hope, but that she still hoped a little. I told her to keep on hoping because there were many things that could have happened that might have kept Bill alive.
One day I was walking down the streets of London and who did I run into but my friend Bill. The Dutch underground had taken care of him for two and a half years. They finally
January 16, 1986

returned him to England and his mother was delighted. Obviously the mother was afraid that he might be dead but the fact that he had been presumed dead did not make her sad.
I am somewhat amazed by the arguments from some members of the New Democratic Party. They say that a boy or girl should not be presumed dead even though they have disappeared and all the circumstances indicate they may be dead. They say that the registrar in the provinces of territories, rather than the Minister, should sign the death certificate declaring a child dead. I suggest that they are adding fuel to the fire because they want the child declared officially dead for all intents and purposes. The Minsiter is simply attempting to assume the child dead for the purposes of this Act only. The New Democratic Party wants the child declared officially dead with a death certificate from the registrar.
I suspect that Hon. Members opposite really support this Bill because their amendments are futile. They simply change small words here and there and argue against the Minister being given authority to sign a death certificate. They want the registrar to do so in order that the child will be declared dead for all intents and purposes.
Liberal Members want the courts to decide when a child is dead. How ridiculous can their arguments get? The purpose of the Act is to help the child and the parents. We do not want to presume a child dead for all purposes. We do not want the child dead at all. However, it is better to deal with it in this way.
The Bill stipulates that if a child is found alive all of those payments which have been withheld will go back to the parents. The purpose of this Bill is not to save money but to save the child and help the parents. The Minister is showing compassion by introducing this Bill.
It is the position of the New Democratic Party that the registrar should declare a child dead. However, this means the child would be dead for the purpose of a will and insurance. We are simply saying that a child would be presumed dead for the convenience of this Bill. At the same time we can keep searching and hoping that the child is alive. That is the purpose of this Bill.
It is nonsense to say that we will stop searching for the child. We will accentutate the search if necessary because we want to find children alive. However, we are faced with a situation in the country today where children are abused and killed. In my opinion, the only fitting punishment for murderers of children is the hangman. There are too many bleeding hearts today who say we should feel sorry for the man who rapes a six year old girl perhaps three or four times and then kills her. That indeed happens today. We intend to continue searching for the child in the hopes of finding him or her alive. Any money that has been withheld from the parents will be paid once the child is found alive.
I suggest the Liberals' amendment would put the parents in a terrible position. They want the payments to continue to the parents for five years even though the child is dead.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No.
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Gordon Edward Taylor: After making such a payment for five years the Liberals would come to the House and accuse the Minister of sending cheques to the parents of a deceased boy or girl. I believe the public is becoming well aware of the Opposition's tricks to foil and destroy good legislation. Let me make another point concerning the Liberal amendment. According to their amendment, the Minister would have to continue payments for as long as five years. However, the purpose of family allowance is to enable parents to look after their children. Therefore, what becomes of those payments if the child is not with the family?
The presumption of death does not have any effect on whether the child is dead or alive. It simply sets out a mechanism in the Act to deal with certain cases. The child is still presumed alive according to all other Acts so that the rights of the child are not affected in other ways. We have assured the parents that we will search for the child and, if found, any payments owing will be made.
The Hon. Member said that 120,000 people signed that petition. How many would have signed if they were aware of these facts? The statement by some Members that we will stop searching for children when they are presumed dead is nonsense. You are indicating that I am almost out of time, Mr. Speaker. I have many other points I would like to bring to the attention of Canadians so that I could correct some of the innuendoes contained in the speeches of the New Democrat and Liberal opposition in the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973
The next question is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint Marie (Mr. Male-part). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(2), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(2), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Therefore, we will come back to Motion No. 2.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
January 16, 1986


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: This is the last day of debate on some of these detailed amendments that have been before us. This is the last chance to put across to the Conservatives here in this Chamber and to the people of Canada the sense of deep concern and outrage that exists in many parts of the country about what is taking place with regard to family allowances.
We have an economic crisis according to the Government. Yet the first victims of that economic crisis are not the banks. The banks get bail-outs. The victims are not the large corporations. The large corporations get extra tax advantages. The victims are not the speculative business people. Those people get a new bonus of $500,000 through changes in the capital gains tax. The victims in the original plan were, first, to be pensioners then the children. The pensioners rose up. Thousands, hundreds of thousands signed petitions which forced the Government to see reason. The Government having listened to pensioners and having recognized that it had made a mistake then moved on to its next victim, the children of the country. Across the country people tried to mobilize to protect those children.
As the Member for Essex-Windsor, I have personally handed in thousands of petitions from the Essex County-Windsor area protesting the heartlessness of making children the victims of our economic problems. Yet the Conservatives have refused to listen. They have refused to listen despite the sense that any civilized society has that children are a common concern, a common responsibility and a responsibility which all of us in society have to defend. Yet these children are the ones facing the deindexation of family allowances which support them.
Any society deserves to give such children full respect. Yet in this society, the Government makes them the victims.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this debate deal with justice. It is a debate on a just society, a debate to see whether an economic crisis should victimize Canadian children and for this political party and all the people who signed these petitions, the message is clear. This message is: No, it is not fair, it is not something that we want to see in our society. We want a society where the children are the pride of their country.

With this amendment, Mr. Speaker, we give the Conservative Party a last chance. I hope that my Conservative colleagues who are here today recognize the sense of charity out of which we offer this last chance to them. It is not because we love them, it is because we want to give them that good Christian chance to repent. We want to give them that last possibility before the voters utterly and totally condemn them. Since the Conservatives launched this attempt to take money out of the mouths of babes, their public opinion standing has fallen so far that it is even below the Liberal Party's now. With that sense of hell and damnation facing them, we offer a chance of repentance. We offer them a last chance to escape that terrible fate.
Adjournment Motion


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Repent brothers.


Steven W. Langdon: We offer it with a sense of charity, charity which is ill-deserved, but charity that says we will give you this chance. Vote for our amendment. It will give you a year's operation to this Bill, but let us put in a sunset clause. I know that every good Conservative in this House believes in sunset clauses. They want sunset clauses on every Government initiative that can be brought to bear. Why not a sunset clause in this case that takes their promise seriously?
After all, the Conservatives promised us that a year from now the economy would be in superb shape and that they would have set right the problems of the past. For the purposes of this amendment, we are prepared to take them seriously. We charitably say to them that at then end of the year they should withdraw this deindexation, return to fairness for children, return to justice for the country and return to a full meeting of the 3 per cent increases in the cost of living which they are doing away with for this year. We ask them to think of their own future, and we do so charitably and with a sense that we respond to the hundreds of thousands of people who petitioned the House to think again. We ask them to think again in a year and to give the people of the country-the children and the women who receive the family allowance- the improved economy which they promised. They should take away this nasty, brutish measure and return to a full system of justice for children and fairness for families.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 London East (Mr. Jepson)-Young Offenders Act-Legislation's philosophy; the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)-Government administration (a) Effect of budget cut-backs (b) Government policy; the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse)- Bankruptcy Act (a) Provisions affecting farmers and fishermen (b) Role of Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Family Allowances Act, 1973



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of report stage of Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, and of motion No. 2 of Ms. Mitchell (p. 9854).
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this amendment is an opportunity for Conservative Members to correct their mistake and compensate for their incompetence, their poor judgment and their lack of social justice.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, his Cabinet colleagues and all Conservative back-benchers keep saying that our economy is doing very well. They say they are going to solve all our problems and that our economic prospects are very encouraging. If they have so much confidence in their Prime Minister, if they are so sure that we have a promising future, why would they not adopt this amendment so that the provisions of Bill C-70, which is designed to de-index and reduce family allowances, would remain in force for only one year? Conservative Members ought to give it a thought if they are motivated by compassion rather than mere financial considerations. They should adopt this amendment and restore full indexation of family allowances.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) showed his lack of experience for the second time. The first time was when he made a letter public to rake his colleagues over the coals, but this morning he proved that he was both inexperienced and incompetent. The Members from Quebec will no longer be able to get away with their lack of experience, they will have to deliver the goods.
The Bill now before us is the one designed to slash into family allowances. But there is another one dealing with the child tax credit. Here again, after granting three yearly increases in a row, for the first time in Canada's history the Government is not allowing full indexation of the child tax credit that caters to families most in need. Not only with respect to the whole family support program, this Government decides to reduce the funds available for middle-income families, for families with children, and this will have repercussions, I am sure, for Conservative Members .. . That may not involve huge amounts, but for poor families, single-parent families, sometimes the extra dollar per month means milk for the children, school supplies, clothing for the children.
Mr. Speaker, the increase allowed by this Government in Canada is 31 cents a month for family allowances, but in Quebec, for those with only one child it is about 19 cents. And you can see those same individuals, those same people supporting all in the same breath a Bill allowing the most affluent as much as $500,000 in capital gain exemption, and forcing this House to use the taxpayers' money to help depositors who had $60,000 or more stashed in the banks that went bankrupt in Western Canada.
For the first time a Government has changed the whole income support envelope for families with children. Everyone knows that there is the family allowance program, the tax exemption for dependent children and the tax credit in support of middle- and low-income families. It is true that the Liberal Party had already de-indexed or restricted the increase in family allowances under the 6 and 5 program. But if Conservative Members want to check with the Department, they will see that whenever funds were taken from one item they were transferred to another item, to help families most in need, contrary to what this Government is doing. Its first gesture in 1985-86 is essentially an attack against the universal program called the family allowance program and a move to deprive Canadian families of $15 million while concerning the tax exemption, a measure favouring the most affluent, the Government is only waiting until 1986-87. This little example, this illustration alone shows well the philosophy of the people in the Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare ... I repeat once again, this is the first time in Canada that a Minister, who normally should sit in Cabinet to defend the interests of the men and women who are the least organized in our society, those who have the least occasion to defend themselves, the senior citizens, the sick, the families with children, that this Minister has completely deserted those three groups in our society in order to support the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who is helping the most affluent.
The Clark Cabinet never would have accepted that. The Conservatives led by Mr. Diefenbaker never would have accepted that. And still less, Ministers like Miss Begin, who at all times had the courage to stand up and fight in Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, NDP Members refer to the 6 and 5 per cent, and I see my friend for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) smiling. But they will remember what I said in my opening remarks, that when the 6 and 5 program was established, funds were transferred to the tax credit. When Old Age Security pensions were limited to 6 and 5 per cent, there was double indexation for the most in need amongst senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, the 10 per cent tax on drugs was another downright scandal that took place in the House of Commons.
Nevertheless, I think that the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) may have a chance to make up for his mistakes, as do all Conservative Members, since they have their caucus this coming week-end. During the week-end they will for once get a chance to voice the requests and stand up for the concerns expressed by the people of their constituencies who signed the petitions.
January 16, 1986

People have done that nationwide, in all constituencies; the Family Allowance file did not specifically concern Quebec or Ontario, it was a matter about which people everywhere, in every constituency in Canada, signed petitions urging the Government and the Prime Minister to withdraw that Bill.
Mr. Speaker, we agree that the elderly people of Canada succeeded in curbing the Prime Minister's will in the matter of Old Age Security pensions despite the fact that a number of Elon. Members who are present in this House were insisting at the time that the Government was doing the right thing in cutting Old Age Security pensions.
With the help of the Opposition, associations like the Canadian Diabetes Association or the one for heart diseases managed to reverse the Prime Minister's position on the 10 per cent tax affecting those people.
Mr. Speaker, once again it was in spite of the Conservative members' attitude that the Prime Minister had to admit that we were right.
Mr. Speaker, I shall now conclude for my time has expired; may I suggest that for once Conservative Members have an opportunity to defend the interests of their constituents and to adopt this amendment that would enable us to restore the full indexation by next year.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is customary on rising to speak in this chamber to express the pleasure that one takes in doing so. I must say that it is with some regret that I rise to address this amendment. The logical thing to happen in a reasonable society would be for one of the Government Members to rise and tell us why this amendment would be unacceptable. That has not been done, Mr. Speaker, and it stands to reproach the Government and its back-benchers that none of them are willing to address this amendment.
The single glaring omission in this whole debate about family allowances is that the Government has at no time given any indication to this House, the country or the recipients of family allowances as to when it will consider taking off the deindexing provision which it now proposes to impose.
That means that we could calculate to any year the cumulative effect of that deindexation because the Government has not said the extent to which families would be losing in 1990, 1995 or the year 2000. This is the sort of uncertainty that the Government would protest if the positions were changed around. It is the sort of open ended horizon that in another incarnation in the Province of Ontario they said they would not go for. They said they would have sunset clauses. That is why our Party is offering a sunset clause. I would certainly echo the sentiments of the previous two speakers that it is a chance that the Government should not pass up.
Unfortunately, I cannot state with any degree of confidence in the rationality of the Government processes that it might
Family Allowances Act, 1973
pick up this amendment and accept it. Nevertheless, it has the opportunity to do so and 1 commend it to its attention.
The Government has only given us vague platitudes and generalities about foreseen future improvements in the economic situation and how that might affect deindexing. The fact is, as it stands today, this deindexing would go on for as long as family allowances were paid. It would mean that the role of parenthood, the significance of children, the value to which parenting was ascribed in our society would gradually depreciate.
If any Government Members did have the courage to stand up and address the amendment they would undoubtedly instance the increases in the child tax credit. I feel that the Opposition has also addressed this responsibility. We have not said that the Government is sticking up the parents or the children of this country from day one. What we are pointing out is that there comes a point in time at which child benefits will deteriorate, and a point in time at which the Government will be downgrading the role of parenthood in our society. It appears this is part of the whole ideological scheme of this Government. On the one hand we have the deindexing of tax brackets, the deindexing of family allowances and the attempted deindexing of the old age security pension, from which it did, incredibly, have the common sense to retreat. On the other hand, as has been mentioned by many others in this chamber, we have the Government's attitude toward its corporate friends. Twenty organizations can send a telex to this Government and get no reply or response, yet one corporation can come in and ask for a billion dollars by way of a tax break and walk away with everything it ever asked for or wanted.
1 would like to just put on the record of the House the names of some of the organizations that have stated publicly their opposition to this Government's plan to deindex family allowances. It is a range of organizations that represents many interests in this country, many groups that have the good of this country, and particularly the good of the poor people at heart. I refer, for example, to the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Farmers Union, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Yukon Status of Women Council, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Quebec Native Women's Association, the Metro Family Services Association, la Federation nationale des femmes du Quebec, the Metro Social Planning Council, the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the United Church of Canada, COPO, the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped Citizens Against Child Poverty and the Federation of Women Teachers' Association of Ontario.
That is a group which represents a very wide range of interests in our society. It is a group that is offering its collective wisdom to this Government, a group that this Government is gratuitously and wilfully ignoring in deindexing family allowances in this country.
We know what comes behind this apparently minor measure, this apparently minor reduction. We know that the pas-

Family Allowances Act, 1973
sage of years makes it into a very major reduction rather than simply a minor one. We know the ideological baggage and the scheme of society that comes behind it, waiting in the wings to see how this one flies, and then it will determine what will be done next.
We know that there was considerable rumbling in the Conservative Party as to the whole question of universality. We know that it was largely considerations of practical pragmatic politics, a Machiavellian calculation as to the reaction of the people of this country rather than any commitment that led the Government to draw back on some of the measures that perhaps some of its Members would have advocated.
We know that universality in such things as the family allowance is really the only guarantee of a fair equal system that is designed to serve all. Even though we realize that through a progressive taxation system it is not funded equally, it is funded according to ability to pay. We know that those systems which rely on selective measures, which rely on identifying those in the "most need", are fraught with red tape. We know that they are bureaucratic playthings. We know that the regulations that are created are increasingly complex. We know that the way in which the regulations are interpreted is often unfair and we know that the way such regulations are applied is often demeaning to the people who are intended to be served.
1 believe it would behoove the Government to take to heart the meaning of the word "service" when dealing with the family benefit system. That system should be something that serves parents and recognizes the value of child-rearing work. Frankly, it should be a system that facilitates child rearing and assists families rather than singling out some for different treatment than others and in some cases reducing benefits in circumstances in which benefits should not be reduced at all.
The effect of this measure, and I am sure members of the Government will say that this is either unintended or does not exist, is to divide the "haves" and the "have nots" in society more clearly than they have been divided before. In proposing to deindex the family allowance, the Government is furthering that process and that is a process that we in this Party would not like to see furthered. It is a process that we think characterizes not the wealthier and more caring societies in the world but the societies which are less caring and on average poorer. This is why we have offered the Government this amendment for its consideration and this is why I commend it to the Government for serious deliberation.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address Bill C-70 and the question of the deindexing of family allowances. If one looks at the Bill by itself, its provisions do not seem to be of serious consequence. It is only when the components of Bill C-70 are brought together with the child benefits program and the changes to the personal income tax system and the sneaky sales tax increases contained in the May, 1985, Budget that it becomes evident that social support
for Canadian families is rapidly declining under this Government.
The erosion of our social programs began last spring when the Conservative Government announced its plans to deindex family allowances and old age pensions. We all remember the clear public response to those two issues. We had many consultations on those issues and then "Grey Power", enabled by Members of the House, brought the Tory Government to its knees. The Government had to back down. Old age pensions were not deindexed.
The Government does not seem to learn by its mistakes. It simply regroups and tries to pull the same insensitive thing off in another way. That is why the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), is trying to help the Government meet its own rhetoric of promises. The Hon. Member, in her presentation, recommended a sunset clause. If it is true that the Government needs the money gained by deindexing family allowances for the reduction of the deficit, that is fine. However, the Government is now saying that everything is so rosy. Let the Government at least incorporate the sunset clause so that this measure would be terminated at the end of this year.
The Government said it was a Government of consultation, that it was open and that it would listen. I sat on many of the committee meetings. Many groups spoke before that committee. Certainly Liberal opposition Members were listening. The amendments put forward indicate that a great many more opposition Members were listening than government Members. After all the petitions that we have presented and all the groups to which we listened, perhaps government Members could speak to their caucus and bring some sense back into what is absolutely unacceptable nonsense.
I bring to the attention of the House a bulletin issued by NAC, a coalition of many women's groups. The NAC observes-

-this new attack against universal benefits contradicts all Conservative promises made last year to women and families.
Quebec women reacted swiftly, beginning with a core of six groups of women, including the NAC. They set up a coalition of women in favor of family allowances which now includes over 60 groups.
Elsewhere, a demonstration was held on Parliament Hill here in Ottawa, and a door-to-door petition campaign was organized from Newfoundland to British Columbia.

We certainly saw the results of those particular petitions and actions put forward by a coalition of concerned women. This concern was manifested not only by women but by men across this land.
A Budget is an interesting reflection of the social and political philosophies of a Government. We learn a great deal about a Government and what it stands for through a Budget because a Budget is not simply a balance sheet. This past year,
January 16, 1986

the Government returned to the 19th century. Its philosophy is based upon old political and social Darwinism. The Government takes away from the poor and powerless and gives to the rich and strong. There are so many items in the May Budget to indicate that that I will not even enumerate them. 1 simply think that when speaking of survival of the fittest, one is speaking of social Darwinism. That is why the Government is taking us back to the 19th century, and I think it is shameful.
While the first concern here is the deindexation of the family allowance benefits, the issue cannot be looked at without looking at the wider issue of the entire child benefit system including the family allowances, the child tax credit and the child tax exemption and the changes to the system that were proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the May,
1985	Budget. Together they serve quite a blow to lower-income families.
The Budget has brought about changes which will give even greater benefits to the rich and wealthy and a loss to the low and middle-income families. The ones who can least afford it are the ones who are really having a hard time making ends meet.
The National Council on Welfare has shown in its publication entitled Giving and Taking: The May 1985 Budget and the Poor, a publication which I suggest all Hon. Members read, that the large majority of Canadian families including many below the low-income line will lose child benefits from
1986	on as a result of the poorly conceived social policy direction reflected in the May Budget changes to both child benefits and the personal income tax system. Between 1986 and 1990, a five-year period, a family with two children earning a combined income of $15,000 per year will lose $1,879. A family earning $35,000 per year will lose $3,452, and believe me that can be ill afforded. It is pretty hard to raise children in today's society even with an income of $35,000 per year. A family earning $80,000 per year will lose $1,125. This means that the low-income family will lose $745 more than the affluent family while the middle-income family will lose more than three times as much as the affluent family. That is social justice Conservative style.
According to Statistics Canada, in 1981, 22.7 per cent of families in which the household head was less than 25 years of age were in poverty. By 1983, the poverty rate for that group had jumped to 35.9 per cent. That increase of 13.2 percentage points represents a jump of 58 per cent in two years in the number of poor families.
Turning to family allowances, the picture is just as bleak. For example, a couple with two children earning a net combined income of $9,000 per year or less will receive family allowance and the child tax credit. However, the income of that family is too low to benefit from the child tax exemption. In 1986, this family will receive $22 less in family allowance payments as a result of partial deindexation. 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. This is the sneaky part of
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the deal which goes on forever and ever. The kind of dirty tricks the Government is becoming famous for is shown by this example. By 1991, this same family will lose $8, another $63 in 1992 and another $119 in 1993. This loss will continue to increase each year as the value of family allowances and the child tax credit falls further below inflation. The family allowance cheque will mean less and less each month.
Increases in family allowances based on the rising cost of living have always been and still are an absolute necessity for most Canadians who are trying to raise a family on an income which is equivalent to or often less than what Government agencies consider to be the minimum living wage.
The de-indexation of family allowances geared to the first 3 per cent increase in the cost of living will again lower the living standards of Canadians, and an ever increasing number of them will end up living under the threshold of poverty.
Like the other restrictive measures contained in the Budget tabled by the Government, this Bill will do nothing at all to reduce the deficit, solve the economic crisis, and fight unemployment in Canada. On the contrary, if this Bill is adopted, the lower purchasing power of Canadian families will only lead to more lost jobs, worsening economic conditions and a larger deficit.

Some argue that the family allowance is so small that it does not mean anything. That is not the case at all. I suggest that it is very meaningful. The family allowance confirms the value of child rearing to society at large. It is the sole, consistent economic recognition of the contribution of all mothers in our society. It avoids the social stigma involved in receiving benefits based on one's financial position. In many cases, it is the only independent source of income for women working fulltime in the home.
The Government seems completely unable to act in any consistent fashion. We are told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that this country is bankrupt, that Government spending must be reduced, transfer payments to the provinces must be cut back and that the federal deficit must decline. We agree with a great deal of that, but not in this way. However, the Prime Minister can find $1 billion to save the depositors who have already received $60,000 as a result of the western bank disaster. He found another $600 million to assist in the purchase of Gulf Canada and some $56 million to change the colour of our soldiers' uniforms.
For a nation which has prided itself on equality of opportunity and which believes that children are its life-blood, the presently envisioned measures seem sadly out of line with Canada's philosophy and with this Government's electoral promises. I hope that there will be some change and that we will adopt this recommendation.

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Minister rising on a point of order?


Mr.   La Salle@: No, on debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. I have recognized the Hon. Member for Regina West on debate. I will recognize the Minister after his intervention.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall try to shorten my remarks in order that the Minister may have a few minutes in which to speak.
1 wish to start my comments by saying to my friend, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), that I listened to his remarks on this amendment with great care when he made them earlier today. He said something about the petitions which have been presented under false pretences. I am sure the hon. gentleman did not mean that. 1 am sure all Hon. Members of the House have listened to the Hon. Member for Bow River present petitions on many occasions without ever questioning the sincerity of those who have signed them. Invariably, they are presented in this way under the inherent right of the British parliamentary system of democracy. At no time should anyone call into question the sincerity of those who petition Parliament and Her Majesty.
I hope that the Government will realize that the number of names now on petitions equals or exceeds the number of names on petitions filed with respect to the deindexing of the Old Age Security. In fact, far more signatures have been presented in this respect. Any government of any political stripe which ignores this petitioning by hundreds of thousands of Canadians does so at its peril.
The question is: For whom is this country being run? Is it being run for the people? Is it being run for families who are entitled to the family allowance? Or is it being run for banks, money-changers, corporations and speculators? For whom is it being run?
The whole principle of indexing pensions across the board came into existence in this country as a result of a minority Government in the years from 1972 to 1974. I wish that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) were in the House right now to listen to my remarks.


An Hon. Member:: He was here before.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If he is out in the lobby, then I hope he will come in. After the 1972 election the New Democratic Party said to both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Stanfield: "It is immaterial to us which one of you governs. In order that we do not defeat you, you must bring in full indexing of Public Service pensions, Armed Forces pensions, RCMP pensions, the Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan, as well as the family
allowance". Conservative after Conservative Member supported us on that occasion, including the Hon. Member for Pro-vencher. Where is he now that we need him? Is he having trouble with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)? If he is, then we will support him in the maintenance of the full indexation of the family allowance.
Members of the Conservative Party have short and convenient memories. That applies to my colleagues in the Liberal Party who brought forwad the six and five program and the three and four program which not only deindexed wages and salaries but deindexed pensions as well. Perhaps they have been converted. I wish they would have the courtesy to admit when they are wrong and say that they have changed their minds. I think that was a big step. It was very manly and very womanly. It was a sign of political integrity when the Conservative Government changed its mind with respect to the deindexing of old age pension. I wish to give members of the Government full credit for that move. I suspect there were as many, if not more, Conservative back-benchers as there were Members of the Opposition who objected to that measure as well. Thus, Conservative Members of Parliament can take credit for what was a change in mind and a change of heart. Surely, the same thing should apply in the instance of family allowances.
In effect, what this amendment says to the Government is: "To a starving man a half a loaf of bread is better than none at all". If the Government insists on going ahead with this proposal then let it do so for a period of one year. The small amount of money which it will save does not amount to very much. There are many other options by which the Government could raise more dollars in order to increase revenues. There are also many options which could be implemented to decrease expenditures other than by picking on those who cannot defend themselves.
Have Hon. Members ever seen petitions presented in the House on behalf of bankers, money-changers, the boys in the stock exchanges or those who run multinational corporations? I have not seen any. The only avenue open to those who cannot defend and protect themselves is through their Members of Parliament and through their right to petition Parliament. We do not see petitions presented here by bankers' associations. However, we see petitions presented by the parents of the children and old age pensioners. We see petitions presented by those who are not organized and who do not have the money, the power or the influence to fight their way behind the scenes in Government.
I warn the Government that if it ignores this proposal then it does so at its peril. We will haunt them for years to come if they go ahead with this measure. We will do this because the Conservative Party joined with us in that minority Government to put this indexing measure in place in the First instance. In fact, the man who originally proposed this measure in recent decades was the Hon. Bob Stanfield. He did so to his everlasting credit. As Leader of the Opposition he led the
January 16, 1986

Conservative Party in supporting the full indexing of all those programs, in particular, the family allowance.
1 wish the Hon. Member for Provencher would read the speeches he made between 1972 and 1974 in support of full indexing. He sat in this House with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), when he was the Leader of the Conservative Opposition, in support of indexing. I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, and since the Hon. Member is now in the House, I will repeat it, if he is having problems with the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board, we will support him if he withdraws this provision to deindex family allowances. It is a small, cheap, chiselling on the children of this country when the Government can slap a 10 per cent surcharge tax on deferred corporation taxes for the coming year and pick up $3.5 billion. If the Government did not allow corporations to defer taxes for 1985, it could not only keep full indexing for family allowances but it could double the family allowance, reduce the deficit by that amount and still retain full indexing of the family allowances. There are a dozen other ways to reduce expenditures or increase revenues without hurting those who cannot defend themselves. If the Government is worried about the well-to-do who collect family allowances, those who earn $50,000 or $100,000 a year, a few small amendments to the Income Tax Act will allow the Government to recover the whole darn thing. It would be administratively efficient, it would maintain the principle of universality and those who need it would receive it. There would be no need to chisel them for the sake of saving a few dollars which will amount to nothing in terms of reducing the deficit.
I urge the Government, if nothing else, to accept this amendment. Perhaps if the Government reviews it a year from now it may have some second thoughts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in the last minutes remaining on report stage, I want to make one or two points regarding the debate. First, the Hon. Member who just finished speaking is one who has been in this House for a long time but in his speech he has made only half the argument. If he would go back to 1972 and 1974, the period to which he refers, and take a look for example at the amount of money which the national treasury needed to pay for the national debt of Canada, he would find it was a very different circumstance than that which is facing the Canadian people today. That is the first point which has to be made. If the Hon. Member goes back to 1968, he will find that the accumulated debt for the first 100 years of the Canadian Government was $17 billion. He has to recognize that today the cost of the debt is $26 billion annually. The Hon. Member does not say that. He constantly tries to make the point that there is this magical wand, as he likes to call it, and which he mentioned the other day in Question Period, which can be waved and somehow these issues will go away, that somehow reality can be pushed aside. But it cannot. The Hon. Member from Vancouver has made the point that this is an attack on children. In fact, the opposite is true. The greatest attack on
Family Allowances Act, 1973
children, and on this country's social programs, is the debt. That is the greatest attack on those children.
We will not have to pay that debt for as long a time as will those children. They will have to pay that debt as well as the children who are yet unborn. Hon. Members opposite constantly forget that point. They somehow believe that that is not reality, but it is.
The family allowance went up in January, 1986. It did not go down. Hon. Members opposite have constantly said that family allowances are being cut, but family allowances went up on January 1, 1986. What those Hon. Members are talking about is the reduced escalation. Family allownces went up, universality was maintained, and everyone who received family allowance in 1985 is receiving it in January, 1986, if eligible, and they will receive it after the Bill is passed. The points Hon. Members opposite make will just not bear the scrutiny they should be given.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, January 14, 1986, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


An Hon. Member:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 81(2), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not hear anyone say "yea" and we all heard the "nays", so I take it the motion is not passed, there being no one in favour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that I did hear a "yea". Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Ms. Mitchell), which was
negatived on the following division:

January 16, 1986
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
(Provencher)
Family Allowances Act, 1973 {Division No. 173)
Althouse	Gauthier	MurphyBenjamin	Gray	NicholsonBerger	(Windsor West)	(Trinity)Blackburn	Fleap	Nunziata(Brant)	Henderson	OrlikowBoudria	Hopkins	OuelletBroadbent	Hovdebo	ParryCaccia	Kaplan	PennerCassidy	Keeper	PepinCopps	Langdon	Prud'hommeDeans	MacLellan	Robichaudde Corneille	Malepart	RobinsonDingwall	Marchi	RompkeyFinestone	McCurdy	RossiFoster	McDonald	TobinFrith	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Young-46.Garneau	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Attewell	Gray	NicholsonBeatty	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	(Niagara FalBelsher	la-Madeleine)	NickersonBernier	Grise	NielsenBertrand	Gurbin	OberleBlais	Gustafson	O'NeilBlenkarn	Halliday	Pa proskiBlouin	Hardey	PennockBourgault	Hawkes	PetersonBrightwell	Hicks	PlamondonBrisco	Hnatyshyn	PriceBrowes	Holtmann	RavisCadieux	Horner	ReidCardiff	Howie	ReimerClark	James	Ricard(Brandon-Souris)	Jardine	St. GermainComeau	Jepson	SchellenbergCorbett	Johnson	(Nanaimo-AICote	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Schellenberger


Ian Deans: Which could be done in the reverse.


Mr. Speaker:: Do 1 take it that the recorded division on Motion No. 4 shall be taken in exactly the same way? The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Gerin) wishes to be recorded as voting in the negative on Motion No. 4.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Ms. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Deans, moves:
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 4
(a)	by striking out lines 39 and 40 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"person or institution is entitled and where that person or institution has not been convicted of an offence under section 20 in connection with the obtaining of the allowance, the Minister shall remit all of the allowance or amount in excess of the allowance in any case where these result from a calculation based on a new certificate issued pursuant to subsection 15.1(2); in any other case, the Minister may remit all or any portion of the amount or excess of the allowance where the Minister is satisfied that"
(b)	by striking out lines 10 to 16 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"Act."


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.				Brisco Browes	Edwards Elzinga	Grise Gurbin	- -


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Howie
James
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity-Conceplion) Kcmpling Landry La Salle Layton Leblanc Lesick Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) Malone Manlha Marin Martin Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDcrmid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon
Members
McKnight McLean McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Nielsen Oberle O'Neil Paproski Pennock Peterson Plamondon Price Ravis Reid Rcimer Ricard St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-AIbcrni)
Schellenbcrger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Speyer Stackhouse Stewart Suluk Taylor Thacker Towers Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Valcourt
Vincent
Weiner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard-124.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 5 should have the same vote recorded to it as Motion No. 4. Mr. Malepart, seconded by Mr. Baker, moves: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 14 to 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 8 at page 4.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. On Motion No. 6 the same vote is applied as that applied to Motion Nos. 4 and 5. Ms. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Deans moves:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-70 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 20 to 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 8 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"15.1 (1) Where a child has, either before or after the coming into force of this section, disappeared under circumstances that raise a presumption that the child is dead, the Minister may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction in the province or territory where the child usually resides for an order declaring, according to the law of the province or territory, that the child shall be presumed to be dead; thereupon the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date stated in the court order.
(2)	If, after obtaining a court order under subsection (I), the Minister receives new information or evidence that the date of death is different from that stated in the court order, the Minister may, with leave of the court, apply to the court for an order to vary, amend or revoke the order previously made, in which case the child named in the court order shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date so stated in the new court order.
(3)	If, after obtaining a court order under this section, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child named in the court order is alive, the Minister shall forthwith cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child if the order had not been made.
(4)	Subject to subsection (3), the Minister is bound by the law of the province where the child normally resides in respect of the issuance and revocation of death certificates and the making, variance and revocation of orders of presumption of death."
The House divided on the motion (Ms. Mitchell) which was
negatived on the following division:

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973 (Division No. 176)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Gauthier	MitchellBenjamin	Gray	MurphyBerger	(Windsor West)	NicholsonBlackburn	Heap	(Trinity)(Brant)	Henderson	NunziataBoudria	Hopkins	OrlikowBroadbent	Hovdebo	OuelletCaccia	Kaplan	ParryCassidy	Keeper	PennerCopps	Langdon	PepinDeans	MacLellan	Prud'hommede Corneille	Malepart	RobichaudDingwall	Marchi	RobinsonFinestone	McCurdy	RompkeyFoster	McDonald	RossiFrith	(Broadview-Greenwood)	TobinGarneau	NAYS Members	Young-46.Attewell	Gray _	NicnolsonBeatty	(Bonavcnture-iles-dc-	(Niagara Falls)Belsher	la-Madeleine)	NickersonBernier	Grise	NielsenBertrand	Gurbin	OberleBlais	Gustafson	O'NeilBlenkarn	Halliday	PaproskiBlouin	Hardey	PennockBourgault	Hawkes	PetersonBrightwell	Hicks	PlamondonBrisco	Hnatyshyn	PriceBrowes	Holtmann	RavisCadieux	Horner	ReidCardiff	Howie	ReimerClark	James	Ricard(Brandon-Souris)	Jardine	St. GermainComeau	Jepson	SchellenbergCorbett	Johnson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cote	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Schellenberger(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)Crofton	Kempling	ScottDarling	Landry	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Daubney	La Salle	Scowende Cotret	Layton	SiddonDella Noce	Leblanc	SparrowDesjardins	Lesick	SpeyerDick	Lewis	StackhouseDomm	MacDonald	StewartDor in	(Kingston and	SulukDuplessis	the Islands)	TaylorEdwards	Malone	ThackerElzinga	Mantha	TowersEpp	Marin	Tremblay(Provencher)	Martin	(Lotbiniere)Fennell	Mazankowski	TupperFerland	McCain	TurnerFontaine	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fraleigh	McDermid	ValcourtFretz	McDougall	VincentFriesen	(St. Paul's)	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGass	McKnight	WhiteGerin	McLean	WilsonGervais	McMillan	(Swift Current-Gormley	Merrithew	Maple Creek)Gottselig	Minaker	WilsonGraham	Mitges	(Etobicoke Centre)Moore	Winegard-124.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 7. I take it that the vote should be applied in the same way. Mr. Malepart, seconded by Mr. Baker moves:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 26 to 47 at page 3 and lines 1 to 8 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Minister may, five years after the disappearance of the child, issue a certificate declaring that the child is presumed to be dead and thereupon the
child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on the date the certificate is issued.
(2)	If, after issuing a certificate under this section, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child named in the certificate is alive, the Minister shall forthwith revoke the certificate and cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child if the certificate had not been issued.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the Minister is not bound by the issuance or revocation of a death certificate by any other authority."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is there a disposition to apply the vote in reverse?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Redway, seconded by Mr. Cardiff moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-70, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 26 to 47 at page 3 and lines I to 4 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Minister may determine the date for the purposes of this Act on which the child's death is presumed to have occurred, and thereupon the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on that date.
(2)	If, after having determined such a date, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the date of death is different from that previously determined, the Minister may determine a different date, in which case the child shall be deemed for all purposes of this Act to have died on that different date.
(3)	If, after having determined such a date, the Minister is satisfied from new information or evidence that the child is alive, the Minister shall forthwith cause to be paid any allowance that would have been payable in respect of the child had such determination not been made."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall we apply the same vote as we have just applied on Motion No. 9?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Epp, Provencher)
which was agreed to on the following division:

January 16, 1986
Family Allowances Act, 1973 (Division No. 179)
++YEAS
Members
Attewell	Gray	NicholsonBeatty	(Bonaventure-lles-de-	(Niagara Falls)Belsher	la-Madeleine)	NickersonBernier	Grise	NielsenBertrand	Gurbin	OberleBlais	Gustafson	O'NeilBlenkarn	Halliday	PaproskiBlouin	Hardey	PennockBourgault	Hawkes	PetersonBrightwell	Hicks	PlamondonBrisco	Hnatyshyn	PriceBrowes	Holtmann	RavisCadieux	Horner	ReidCardiff	Howie	ReimerClark	James	Ricard(Brandon-Souris)	Jardine	St. GermainComeau	Jepson	SchellenbergCorbett	Johnson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cote	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Schellenberger(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Conception)	(Wetaskiwin)Crofton	Kempling	ScottDarling	Landry	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Daubney	La Salle	Scowende Cotret	Layton	SiddonDella Noce	Leblanc	SparrowDesjardins	Lesick	SpeyerDick	Lewis	StackhouseDomm	MacDonald	StewartDorin	(Kingston and	SulukDuplessis	the Islands)	TaylorEdwards	Malone	ThackerElzinga	Mantha	TowersEpp	Marin	Tremblay(Provencher)	Martin	(Lotbiniere)Fennell	Mazankowski	TupperFerland	McCain	TurnerFontaine	McCrossan	(Ottawa-Carleton)Fraleigh	McDermid	ValcourtFretz	McDougall	VincentFriesen	(St. Paul's)	WeinerGagnon	McKinnon	WenmanGass	McKnight	WhiteGerin	McLean	WilsonGervais	McMillan	(Swift Current-Gormley	Merrithew	Maple Creek)Gottselig	Minaker	WilsonGraham	Mitges	(Etobicoke Centre)Moore
NAYS Members	Winegard-124.Althouse	Gauthier	MitchellBenjamin	Gray	MurphyBerger	(Windsor West)	NicholsonBlackburn	Heap	(Trinity)(Brant)	Henderson	NunziataBoudria	Hopkins	OrlikowBroadbent	Hovdebo	OuelletCaccia	Kaplan	ParryCassidy	Keeper	PennerCopps	Langdon	PepinDeans	MacLellan	Prud'hommede Corneille	Malepart	RobichaudDingwall	Marchi	RobinsonFinestone	McCurdy	RompkeyFoster	McDonald	RossiFrith	(Broadview-Greenwood)	TobinGarneau	Young-46.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


Some Hon. Members:: Never.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after five o'clock p.m. this House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a national office for volunteer action under the responsibility of the Secretary of State of Canada and:
1.	that the Office be managed by a board of directors consisting of twenty (20) members serving without pay;
2.	that the Office be the sole organization empowered to determine the official status of volunteer and charitable organizations;
3.	that the Office maintain a central registry of volunteer organizations and deliver certificates of official accreditation to the said organizations, and certificates of accreditation of practical work done by volunteers, acknowledging the experience thus gained; and
4.	that the Office submit to the Secretary of State of Canada an annual report on its activities.
She said: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this second opportunity to present in the House a motion aimed at providing for official recognition of the volunteer sector in our society. On September 19, 1985, I presented a motion seeking authority for the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to study and report on the volunteer sector.
Mr. Speaker, for many years 1 have witnessed the invaluable contribution made by the volunteer sector to society, and I must say that since I have had the honour of representing the men and women of Argenteuil-Papineau in this honourable House, I now realize how important the volunteer sector is to my riding and that if we did not have volunteers and volunteer organizations, the riding would be in very poor shape indeed.
Mr. Speaker, you may recall that during the special debate on parliamentary reform, I told you I was very stubborn. 1 once asked you to show me the place where you keep private members' motions and bills, and what you do with them. I think it would be interesting to have a look. It is practically a second Parliamentary Library because it contains some very interesting documents and bills initiated by private members. At the time, during the special debate on parliamentary reform, I said I was very stubborn and that as long as I was a Member of this House, 1 would keep on presenting motions until some day they were accepted either by my own Government or other governments, and that is what I propose to do.
January 16, 1986

Actually, the Members of this House are especially aware of the importance of volunteers, because I am sure no one here among my colleagues would be sitting in his or her seat if we had not had our volunteers, those political volunteers who work without remuneration to get us elected. This is one aspect of the volunteer sector that every one of us has experienced during our election campaigns and one we will certainly be depending on in future campaigns. However, this is only one aspect of volunteer work.
Just think of our senior citizens. Consider the number of senior citizens who can stay at home thanks to these volunteers. Consider also how much it would cost the Government if there were no volunteers to look after our senior citizens at home, if the Government had to pay to send them to special homes for the aged. Certainly a lot of money. There are residents of foster homes who are visited and helped by volunteers. That is another extremely important dimension and we know just how much the people who reside in these homes appreciate the volunteers who spend some time with them or go out to do some shopping for them because they are either too handicapped or too old.
There are also our young people. You must be aware that if there were no volunteer committees of leisure in our municipalities today, our young people could not take part in any sport. There are also the sport, social and cultural aspects. Our parishes are kept alive thanks to the activities of volunteers. Without them, I can assure you that our churches and church councils would have problems.
In different communities, there is a fantastic group of volunteers called Parents Secours to look after abandoned and abused children and who look after them in their difficult situation. The Parents Secours volunteers look after these children.
Mr. Speaker, the blind, the physically and mentally handicapped could not survive in our society without the volunteers who are looking after them and taking care of them.
I should like to add that in our smaller municipalities, several aldermen are involved in volunteer action; if we consider the salary they are paid and the time they spend on the job, we can say that our mayors too are involved in some sort of volunteer work.
But there are a great many others ... There are for instance the Canadian housewives, our wives, your wife maybe, Mr. Speaker, because she is not paid to look after the house and care for the children. If I were to go through all the parts a housewife plays in the home, I would spend the 20 minutes allotted to me doing so, and it is so important that this should be recognized.
Our cultural associations safeguard our cultural identity. And our economic activities, Mr. Speaker. As you may know, in my constituency there are also major activities. In Argen-teuil-Papineau for instance, there is an event, the race across
Voluntary Organizations
Lake Simon which draws millions of people every year. It is a tremendously important economic contribution to the Papi-neau area. Were it not for volunteers who look after that swimming event, there would be no swim across Lake Simon, it is as simple as that. Area businesses which depend on the tourist trade would be in a tough spot, because the crossing year after year draws an unbelievably large clientele.
Events such as Expo-Air in Mirabel, for instance which draws thousands of people each year, are managed by volunteers. It is unbelievable the volume of goodwill this creates. Our grocery stores, our small businesses, our restaurants are busy throughout that period, and volunteers are looking after that.
To name a third one, simply to point out there are various economic activities, I will mention that we have an annual agricultural fair in Lachute which is almost nationally famous and which I am very proud of. Volunteers manage that fair which draws millions and millions of people each year.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is of course no need to pay these great Canadian men and women. They do not want to be paid because theirs is volunteer work, done as volunteers because they want to contribute something to their communities. Gratitude is what they earn and this has given me the idea of establishing a National Office for Volunteer Work.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, voluntary work is such an important aspect of Canadian life because, in addition to providing an opportunity for personal development and community benefits and for achieving a degree of social justice, voluntary organizations, their permanent staff and all those who finance them produce about $5 billion of economic activity in Canada, which represents 2 per cent of the Gross National Product. It is time for the Government to give more attention to this sector than it has until now, even though I am aware that our Government has provided greater incentives for voluntary work.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, the salary value corresponding to yearly voluntary work would amount to $2 billion. The social and economic impact of voluntary work will tend to increase in the next few years because of the aging of the population, of economic upheavals and of a decrease in the role of the Government.
Canadians are now aware of the need to protect and maintain an acceptable standard of living for all their fellow citizens. To do so, we find it essential to establish a national policy for volunteer action and to develop a national strategy to promote, support, emphasize volunteer action and give it a greater value.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first objective of my motion today. In our opinion, such a policy should include the following components: Recognition of volunteer action as a major economic sector:
9868

January 16, 1986
Voluntary Organizations
-Volunteer action must no longer be viewed as a disparate group of agencies and organizations independent from the state and the private sector;
-Volunteer action must be recognized as a major economic activity, since, in addition to creating jobs, it produces a series of available and universal services which raise the standard of living of our communities.
-The voluntary sector should be measured and examined by Statistics Canada and be recognized as a component of our Gross National Product.
However, Mr. Speaker, voluntary organizations would like a more concrete and incitative recognition to develop and renew community work. Indeed, these organizations complain that their members are getting tired, mainly because of a shortage of new members, the economic crisis and the fact that volunteer action is not recognized by society as a means of selfactualization.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Government should take action or provide tax incentives for charitable donations and volunteer workers themselves. We believe that a tax credit to reduce payable income tax modelled after the credit now provided for political donations would be quite justified. These tax changes would help to curtail a decrease in charitable donations; they would provide equal tax benefits to all donors, not only the wealthy; they would allow the organizations to rely less on Government subsidies, which is what we want; they would increase the capacity of voluntary organizations to reimburse current expensess related to volunteer work, such as the costs of baby-sitting, gasoline, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of women in my riding would like to do volunteer work, but they can't afford to. They can't afford to pay a baby-sitter or buy twenty dollars worth of gas so they can go and help someone who is worse off than they are.
This way, volunteers would be able to claim various expenses connected with volunteer work directly on their income tax returns, while people who are less well off would be in a better position to offer their expertise and help on a volunteer basis. And finally, it would be a way to increase and renew the membership of volunteer organizations.
Mr. Speaker, before formulating a policy on volunteer work,
I believe it is essential to know numbers, objectives, trends and special interests if we are to consult with volunteer workers and establish with them the parameters they would like to see in Government measures that concern them.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I believe creating a national office for volunteer action is of primary importance to establish a registry of volunteer organizations working in Canada.
The National Office for Volunteer Action, or NOVA, under the responsibility of the Secretary of State of Canada or another agency, would be primarily responsible for preparing an exhaustive list of organizations, through compulsory registration for obtaining subsidies and/or permits. It would
define the concept or concepts of "charitable organizations- volunteer organizations-volunteer sector"; issue certificates of official accreditation to these organizations; recognize and validate volunteer work as practical job experience; and protect volunteer organizations and the public in general against fraud, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, the Office would not be asked to regulate the work done by these organizations. That is not the purpose of this motion. On the contrary, the Office would protect volunteer organization against harmful abuse that, in time, tarnishes the image of volunteer work. Volunteer organizations themselves would like the Government to define and recognize in precise terms exactly what an organization of a charitable, religious, political or other nature is, so that they can operate more effectively in dealing with beneficiaries, donours and volunteer workers.
Mr. Speaker, the Government must take the initiative so we can be ready when the time comes to consult volunteer organizations on measures or policies affecting their operations, sources of financing, and fields of action and interests.
Establishing a national office for volunteer action would not, as some people would believe, involve great expense, because the size of this agency and its oprations would be kept to a minimum.
The national office for volunteer action would fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Secretary of State, which is an existing Government agency; administered by an unpaid 20-member board of directors, the office would be supported by a small operational and permanent team.
To finance the expenditures of the office, we suggest that the necessary funds be recouped from savings made through better rationalization or integration of volunteer agencies and organizations, and by improving Government programs, grants and services.
Or again, Mr. Speaker, we might call upon such national organizations as the Red Cross, the United Way and others to lend the services of their staff to set up a permanent team. The office would thus rely on the expert assistance of people who are thoroughly familiar with the management of volunteer organizations.
Mr. Speaker, the office would thus be able to promote more regular and meaningful consultations between the Public Service and volunteer organizations. They would define Government measures and requirements concerning grants and financing, pinpoint their needs, advocate legislative action and Bills.
The office could also promote the training of volunteers and sponsor volunteer organizations with the private sector. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that volunteer action and the various organizations be socially recognized as such, and that is why the Government must draft a national volunteer action policy.
January 16, 1986

This means it has to know them better, and so, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a national office for volunteer action, which would come under the Secretary of State.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues are aware of the fact that they were elected with the help of volunteers. I can still remember some of them saying to me: Mrs. Bour-gault, how is it that the Government, your Government, does not acknowledge that I have taken part in the election campaign and did accomplish something? That is how it started and this question kept coming up more and more often. I met a charming lady who has been doing volunteer work at the Argenteuil Hospital for 20 years. She sees patients who are alone or who have no family and she told me how important her work is for these people who, after days of solitude, suddenly see some light come into their life because this woman brings them news, newspapers or small gifts which she buys herself.
Mr. Speaker, volunteer action is very important for our society, but I am not saying that my motion today could not be improved, far from it. I am well aware that my colleagues will talk out this motion today as it is the practice in this House, and I accept this because I am now more familiar with parliamentary procedure.
However, I simply hope that, in the coming months, we can study more closely the role the voluntary sector, and if my first motion, which was debated on September 19, could be brought forward once more so that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs could do an in depth examination of voluntary sector, everyone in this House would perhaps be better aware of the role of voluntary workers in their own constituencies, and even in the house next door because people often do not know that their neighbours are voluntary workers. That is all I want, Mr. Speaker, and if the Government could introduce a bill recognizing the voluntary sector in the near future, I would have achieved my purpose.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, as the critic for the Secretary of State for the Official Opposition and as a Liberal, I listened with great interest to the proposed resolution presented by the Conservative Member of Parliament for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault). I also read her resolution and her speech of September 19 last year on the same subject and found it very interesting. In both cases 1 have felt that the spirit of her resolutions are well meaning. Her intention obviously is to encourage the voluntary sector of our community, which is of course very laudable.
In her desire to encourage volunteerism in her speech in September, she was advocating that the Government consider giving financial compensation to volunteers, which seems somewhat paradoxical. In the resolution we are considering today this Conservative Member from the Government benches is suggesting a new special office be set up to deal
Voluntary Organizations
with the voluntary sector. This office would be empowered to decide on the status of voluntary organizations and give them certificates of accreditation. This office would also give certificates to volunteers of practical work done by them.
I am sure the motive behind them is laudable. These suggestions give me reasons for concern because in the attempt to harness the resources of volunteers and charitable organizations, she seems to suggest a considerable involvement by government and of government bureaucracy in the arena, at least, of the voluntary sector. Indeed, it seems to me that volunteers generally prefer donating their time and their talents to charitable organizations free from structures and motives of private enterprises which are motivated by profit, and also free from the encumbrances of Government bureaucracy.
It seems to me that the voluntary sector sees itself in partnership with Government and in partnership with private enterprise, but not in any way as a servant of Government or to be organized by it, or the servant of private enterprise. I agree that sometimes people are deterred, as the Member has pointed out, from being a volunteer because they cannot afford a babysitter, or the cost of transportation to go to various activities and return. If the organizations in the voluntary sector could only improve their financial base they would be better able to encourage broader participation of volunteers by themselves subsidizing those out-of-pocket expenses that can inhibit people from performing their voluntary services.
When we are talking about voluntary or charitable organizations I take it that what we are all talking about is the same thing. These are organizations dealing with assistance to a disadvantaged person or a group, advancement of religion, advancement of education, advancement of health, conservation of the natural environment and other purposes beneficial to the community, including cultural or social development or improvement of the physical and mental well-being of the community. This is the definition of voluntary organizations recommended by the National Voluntary Organization, which is an umbrella organization which tries to represent the interests of some 52,000 voluntary organizations across this country. I would like to tell the Conservative Member from Argenteuil-Papineau that such recommendations as she has made last September, and again today, have possible for reaching implications.
I am therefore surprised to learn from the National Voluntary Organization that until at least as of yesterday it has no record of being consulted about her proposals, nor apparently have any of the major bodies in the voluntary and charitable sectors that would be affected by her resolutions. I wonder why in an alleged year of consultation the Hon. Member has not first discussed the impact of the resolution with these organizations so that she could then report them to the House in the course of her presentation. Because she has not done so makes it indeed rather difficult, if not impossible, for us in the Official Opposition at this time to consider giving support to her resolution, at least until such time as an opportunity is

January 16, 1986
Voluntary Organizations
given to organizations such as the NVO to reflect upon them and reflect their concerns and interests.
I agree with the idea that greater Government co-ordination of its goals and activities is badly needed. After all, since charitable organizations play such a vital role in our civilization, and since they cover a very wide area of activities, it is important that the Government should designate some Minister of the Crown as the lead Minister who will take the time and the effort needed to enter into ongoing dialogue with the voluntary sector, and to co-ordinate the activities of the Government in its various Departments.
I hope that the Government will give consideration to the suggestion to make it possible for the voluntary sector to be better served by having a lead Minister who is and accepts the responsibility to deal with the voluntary sector. What is even more important, Mr. Speaker, and on this there is considerable agreement in the voluntary sector, is that what is needed is Government action to encourage the voluntary sector to be able to attract increased financial donations from individuals and corporations.
1 have spoken on this matter on a number of occasions in the House, indeed others from both sides of the House have done so as well. The matter is one that needs urgent consideration. Over the years the percentage of people and companies contributing to charities is declining, as is the size and percentage of their gifts, in terms of income. The National Voluntary Organization has for years been advocating new incentives in income tax to increase charitable giving. More specifically, it has advocated the so-called give and take program, which would provide a 50 per cent tax credit for charitable contributions. Indeed, this is what the present Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean) promised before the Government was elected in 1984. When in Opposition, he made the give-and-take proposal his pet crusade. Let us look at a few of the promises he made. I can hardly do justice to all of them, but when in Opposition, the Minister of State for Immigration who was the previous Secretary of State said the following:
We are committed to a fundamental realignment of the tax treatment for charitable giving-the principle of a charitable tax credit-which will offer equitable incentives to all taxpayers to support their charities.
In other words, he said that he was entirely in favour of the give-and-take proposal. He also said that the voluntary sector was the largest employer of lower and middle-class Canadians and he was right when he pointed out its importance. In addressing the voluntary sector, the Minister of State for Immigration said the following:
You (the Voluntary Sector) offer many less advantaged Canadians a bridge to employment. Canada's Voluntary Sector is an untapped resource that not only can reduce Government spending but can actually create jobs in the process.
This is why we are committed to a principle of a charitable tax credit, to a tax environment which will offer equitable incentives. Give and take is on the agenda.
He said that give and take was on the agenda and the other statements I cited so far in a speech addressed to the National Voluntary Organization convention. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to the National Voluntary Organization and the 52,000 voluntary organizations the following just before the last election:
We are committed to implementing a Tax Credit equal to a percentage of donations made to registered charities.
Unless something is done to increase the level of charitable donations by widening the potential number of contributors and the size of their gifts, the voluntary sector will be less and less able to assume responsibilities for social work and the serving of social needs. This means either increased Government programs which will cost the taxpayers money or less adequate, deteriorating services for the community.
The flame of volunteerism must be kept burning brightly. The willingness to give of oneself and of one's time and talents freely as a gift of love is vital to a healthy moral society. Therefore, it is important that contributions to charities increase. However, they are decreasing. The promises of the Government in this regard were unfortunately not kept in the last Budget. It is to be hoped that for whatever reason, this urgent matter not be set aside again. It takes years to educate the public to recognize the incentives a tax credit would provide and the time to act is now.
If such incentives as tax credits are to be provided, obviously another important matter that must be settled is the definition of a charitable organization. 1 have already described the definition recommended by the National Voluntary Organization. In fact, in December 1983, the Government of the day announced its intention to establish a joint committee of the House and the Senate to deal with matters concerning the voluntary sector and took steps to establish such a committee in April 1984 in consultation with the present Minister of State for Immigration. The Government then changed, as we all know, but the need still exists nearly two years later.
An acceptable legal definition of what constitutes a charitable organization is still needed. Urgent action is required to reverse the regressive negative spiral in financial contributions to voluntary agencies. It is this Government which promised it would act and the voluntary sector will watch to see what the next Budget brings.
If the Government is shortsighted and is so preoccupied with allegedly cutting the deficit that it cannot see that it can over a few years relieve itself from spending responsibilities by encouraging contributions to the voluntary sector, then it will be making a grave mistake. The voluntary sector, by its activities, can prevent escalating costs in social health and cultural programs. We neglect the voluntary sector at our peril.
In one area, the Government has made some progress by defining and clarifiying to what extent a charitable organization may participate in approaching Governments to try to influence political decisions. I believe that in the main, the Government's solution has been found to be acceptable and so far seems to be serving quite satisfactorily. While this is progress, let us hope that the Government will bite the bullet with regard to the real issues at stake, the issues that are fundamental to the survival and good health of the voluntary
January 16, 1986

sector. Let us hope that the Government will not deal with peripheral matters in the belief that the voluntary sector will see that as being sufficient in dealing with their basic concerns. Let us hope that the Government will deal with a legal definition of a charitable organization and above all with providing the incentives to contribute to charitable causes.
I hope that the Hon. Member who presented this motion will not feel that I have in any way been negative about the thrust of her concern. 1 applaud her interests, concern and involvement and respect them very much. I hope that she will continue to challenge us in the courageous way that she had in the House today.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to support our colleague who introduced this motion again as she did earlier last year.
In my opening remarks, I would like to say that from what I sensed when this matter was raised before, there certainly seems to be sympathy from all Parties for the principle of the Hon. Member's motion. I believe this is not a partisan question but one of community involvement and of how people can help each other to work for a better world. 1 think we would all fully support that.
It is regarding procedures and processes that I would like to raise a few questions. I commend my colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke at length about the National Voluntary Organization as well. I had considerable material on that organization for my remarks but perhaps 1 will not dwell on it to the same degree in the interests of time.
When I was thinking about the recommendation in the motion, it occurred to me that we need to have much more time to dig into this matter in a thoughtful way within a committee through consultation with the voluntary sector itself. 1 do not think that that consultation should be only with the National Voluntary Organization, an organization which in many ways is not only comprised of volunteers but of paid staff and is a fairly large organization. The consultation should also involve community groups and I would like to concentrate some of my remarks on the concept of volunteerism as a self-help movement.
When we talk about volunteerism in a formal way through the National Voluntary Organization and organizations like that, we are talking about agencies and organizations that have considerably large budgets in some cases and need professional staff members. We often forget about neighbourhood issues which need to be dealt with. Before offering our support, I wonder what will be the other purposes of the proposed organization. That is something about which we would like to know.
The Hon. Member who presented the motion implied that this would be an organization which would fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State and which would provide co-ordination and information sharing. I assume that there would be some type of networking between volunteers and
Voluntary Organizations
volunteer organizations. In some small ways 1 suppose this is being done now under the auspicies of the Secretary of State.
I am sure the Hon. Member who introduced the motion and who appears to have a great deal of experience in communities will agree with me when I say that the real need is for small self-help organizations in local communities and how they can survive. During the 1960s and the 1970s some of us were involved in community development. We were working in the communities. We were helping to activate and organize many different types of citizen action and self-help groups in low income communities. There was a great wave of movement in this direction back then. All the people involved initially were certainly involved as volunteers. What we find now is that this has moved on to the point where some structures are needed to maintain this movement. I know that in communities in Vancouver, and I am sure in many other communities, there was a network of information centres which were established. These were usually small store-front operations where people could meet in order to share information. They would trade their talents and skills in order to help one another. The store-fronts provided a raft of information which would lead to other information and referrals to agency-type services. These were not costly voluntary services; they were very economical services. However, they required some funding. Normally, a place was required, which meant rent, a telephone, and so on. A co-ordinator was usually required. In most organizations which are solely volunteer a paid co-ordinator is still needed in order to keep everything together.
What has happened since the 1970s is that the funding which was available for these types of operations is no longer available. As I have said before, there was not a great deal of funding involved. In fact, some of the funds came under the Canada Assistance Plan shared funding, which has now disappeared. Therefore we have seen very healthy volunteer centres close down. When there is not a support service and someone to recruit, train and help develop volunteers the volunteer effort sometimes goes by the wayside.
I can think of other types of services which evolved during that same period of time. I am reminded of family centres which provided a very important service to the community. 1 hope the task force on child care will look into this type of organization in which mothers, particularly single mothers, can get together with other single mothers. Often, there was a friendly older person, or persons, from the community who were almost like community grandmother figures. The people involved in these types of organizations said: "Look, we have to have a place where we can get together in order to help one another". Again, in my community, there were several family centres which were opened. They were inexpensive operations. Some of them were in store-fronts with one or two staff members. This was necessary because tiiey looked after children. The mothers, and sometimes the fathers, came in to these centres where there was a wonderful type of mutual support and where learning about parenting and so on went on.
I am also reminded of poverty groups which need some funds in order to operate. There are also women's centres

January 16, 1986
Voluntary Organizations
across the country which are closing down because they just do not have the funds to keep their doors open. And they are operated primarily by volunteers.
What I am trying to say is that I would be much more enthusiastic about this measure if, in the terms of reference of such a proposed organization, we knew that one of the functions would be to assist self-help groups and front line volunteer action groups find ways to obtain funds in order to keep their doors open and in order to pay a co-ordinator. Perhaps there would be enough funds for an occasional newsletter, which is very much needed.
1 think we need to see a much clearer definition of what we mean by volunteering and volunteer organizations. The Hon. Member who introduced this motion talked about helping the elderly in homes and hospitals through sports and so on. That is an entire area of concern. We also have the traditional voluntary agency sector which my Liberal colleague mentioned. Primarily, these are agencies which are assisted by organazations such as the United Way and the National Voluntary Organizations. As 1 mentioned earlier, these types of organizations tend to see themselves as charitable organizations. However, they do have professional staff, although many use volunteers as well.
If we are to put in place such an organization as the one proposed then 1 think we should get away from the charity concept. To me, that is the concept of us doing something for someone who is not as good as us. It makes poor people feel as if they are second class citizens. We need community services; but we need so much for people in order to learn and to have a small amount of funding to do things for themselves on their own behalf and to help each other as equals. I would like to see more stress placed on this area.
When we talk about volunteerism we must be sure that we are clear on what should and should not be provided through volunteer services. When times are tough and when governments make restraint a main objective, there is a tendency to turn over services which are the responsibility of governments to volunteers. This has happened in British Columbia. These are legislated services which should be in place to provide welfare services or protection to battered children and which help with all types of serious social and health problems. These types of services cannot be replaced by volunteer organizations. There are certain services which are the responsibility of governments and which should remain in the public sector. We believe very strongly in this.
I would also like to point out that when we talk about volunteers we should not talk about volunteers who will replace people in union jobs or jobs which should be union jobs. We should not use volunteers to undermine those in paid jobs. I am thinking of municipal services in particular.
Professionals are needed in certain roles. In this respect I refer to private agencies in the social services field. Sometimes I think we use too many professionals. I think there is a real place for para-professionals and for volunteers but perhaps professionals should be used in a more consultative and training role. They should certainly be used in serious situations for
counselling and so on. We also need skilled professionals in the direct service area.
Since my time has almost expired I would like to mention that we are concerned about the lack of consultation which has taken place. For that reason we really do not feel that we can support this motion at this time. That does not mean that we are opposed to the principles presented. However, in preparation for this debate my office phoned around as much as time allowed to quite a number of organizations across the country. Someone in my office called the United Way office in the Lower Mainland and spoke to someone who felt this was a good idea but who also wanted to know more about it. There has been no consultation. The United Way of Canada expressed some real concerns about this proposal. One of the concerns was who would select the board of directors and how representative and independent the organization would be. A number of people we consulted felt that the organization should not fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. They felt that if there were on organization it should be independent of government. Of course, there was reference to the People in Action Report, a report from the 1970s, which should be studied. We feel that the submissions put forward by the National Voluntary Organizations should be considered. I would like to refer to the pre-budget submission of that organization to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) which contains some excellent suggestions. In fact, one thing which is stressed is that the economic contribution of the voluntary sector is to create jobs. Some 200,000 Canadians are employed by Canadian charities. That is sort of the other side of the coin.
I know that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. In closing, I suggest that there should be more consultation with all these organizations, including self-help neighbourhood community development groups.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, in December 1 rose in the House with a question for the Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), on the subject of the Young Offenders Act. There has been an ample supply of groups and individuals, including Parliamentarians, police force representatives, judges and social agencies, who have criticized the weaknesses of the legislation passed by the previous Government in addressing the needs of young people. But the legislation has also been praised for its
January 16, 1986

emphasis in making young offenders responsible for their actions, while at the same time holding out every hope and opportunity to bring about meaningful rehabilitation. It is my hope that these two views can be reconciled by action in Parliament on the recommendations of the Solicitor General.
There are many generally recognized problems with this legislation. For instance, children under 12 who commit serious crimes cannot be brought to justice under this Act. On the one hand, some of these children are not being made to answer for what might be a well developed sense of criminal responsibility. On the other hand, there is nothing in this Act which directs these young people to the right kind of counselling or social work.
Another problem with this Act results from the rules governing the publication of names. Clearly, this outright ban does not provide any flexibility which would allow officials to balance the best interests of the young offender with that of the community. The situation of an escaped and dangerous inmate of a training school, for example, is one which is not adequately addressed by this Act.
The destruction of court records is another part of the Act which seriously impairs the ability of the court to act with discretion in the best interests of the offender and of society. When trying to deal with dangerous offenders, what you do not know can hurt you.
The last problem pertaining to this Act which I would like to mention is the effect it seems to have, generally, on our legal system. There is an increased emphasis on rights and legal procedures. This is the result of the emphasis the Act places on the assumption of responsibility on the part of young offenders. I support this in principle, but I think it has had some negative effects.
A London police officer who has been working with young offenders asked: "What does a youth learn when he knows he has committed an offence and his lawyer says, 'We will plead not guilty and get you off "? The role of the court should be, according to Judge Bennett of Provincial Court, to involve parents, probation and child welfare authorities under scrutiny of the court instead of creating an adversarial climate in the courtroom.
A Vancouver prosecutor said: "Everyone loses sight of whether a child did it or not and they get lost in the technicalities of this Act". Delay, obstruction and confusion serve neither the needs of the offender nor those of the community. Young people must be held accountable for their actions but this must be done in a way that recognizes that they are far from set in their ways. The emphasis should be less on confrontation and more on the focus of responsible attitudes and behaviour.
Youth courts perform most effectively when all parties co-operate in halting the development of a criminal and providing the offender with the guidance which will underline his obligations to society and the value that society sees in him or her. So often both of these ideas are ignored.
Adjournment Debate
Obviously, there are some problems with the Young Offenders Act. The Minister describes these as "teething problems" and cautions Parliament against throwing out the baby with the bath water. Parliament must address the question of whether the details can be ironed out without losing any of the progressive aspects of this legislation.
I congratulate the Solicitor General for the progress report he gave yesterday on his consultations with respect to the Young Offenders Act. The Minister has provided excellent adjustments to some of the Act's major problems. Provision for the retention of records in some cases, the identification of dangerous youths at large, more sentencing flexibility, and more effective prosecution of people involving children in criminal acts, will provide provincial authorities with much more workable legislation. These changes will build on the many improvements that have already been provided through the Act. To name only one, policemen have, for example, been enabled to take fingerprints and photos for their records, which has greatly facilitated their job.
The primary goal of criminal law must be to protect society. The issues 1 have mentioned today are matters that have to be addressed because of the many injustices that the public is suffering as a consequence of previous legislation. It seems to me that we see a dangerous trend today toward the rights of the criminal rather than the rights of the victims and society as a whole. It is important in this day and age that we show a sensitivity to justice being served to all concerned, but it is imperative that the public be protected and that the rights and protection of victims be given a top priority.
I congratulate the Solicitor General because it appears that his work on this difficult problem is aimed at serving the special needs for which the Young Offenders Act was designed. I look forward to the opportunity we shall have in the House to consider concrete amendments when they are brought forth.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 recognize the concerns of the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) with respect to the adequacy of the Young Offenders Act to deal with young offenders. The Young Offenders Act has significantly altered the orientation of Canada's juvenile justice system. The old Juvenile Delinquents Act was based on a philosophy that emphasized the need to treat delinquents as children in need of care and assistance rather than as criminals. The specific provisions of that legislation reflected this principle in many ways that were increasingly inconsistent with contemporary values and laws.
For example, the Juvenile Delinquents Act intended that juvenile court proceedings be private and closed to the public and that information about those proceedings be treated as confidential. Similarly, because delinquents were not to be treated as criminals, police were generally not permitted to take fingerprints, and it was not clear whether juvenile records

January 16, 1986
Adjournment Debate
could be used in adult court when a young person continued his criminal behaviour into adulthood.
The emphasis of the old Act on the needs of the offender was particularly evident in its dispositional or sentencing provisions. When the juvenile court found that sanctions such as probation were not sufficient to deal with an individual, the Act provided for the case to be tranferred to the care of child welfare authorities, rather than ordering a specific sentence which would be served under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system.
By way of contrast, the Young Offenders Act has clearly acknowledged that young people are responsible for their illegal behaviour and that society has a fundamental right to protection. The new legislation has not abandoned the principle that young people have special needs that demand the attention of the juvenile justice system and society as a whole, but it places this issue in perspective. The principle that the protection of society must be a primary concern is reflected in the legislation.
For example, the Act authorizes police to take fingerprints, just as they do when investigating adult offenders, as was mentioned by the Hon. Member. Criminal records are now clearly available to the criminal justice system, including the adult court, unless they are subject to destruction following a specified period of crime-free behaviour by the young person. Under the new legislation young offenders are subject to incarceration in correctional facilities and remain under the jurisdiction of the youth court throughout their sentences. As a result, a young person must serve the entire sentence in custody unless the youth court authorizes early release.
For the most serious of cases, the act permits a youth court to transfer a serious charge to adult court. Where such a transfer is ordered, the youth will be subject to all the penalties that an adult would face, up to and including life imprisonment.
It is fully appreciated that in implementing such important changes in the orientation of juvenille justice, difficulties will be encountered and some of these require legislative change. The Solicitor General has held consultations in Vancouver, Toronto, Regina, Montreal, and Moncton to discuss the Act with representatives of police departments, youth courts, private sector agencies dealing with young offenders, and other groups involved in youth justice in Canada, including his counterparts in the provinces and territories.
In summary, 1 would like to assure the Hon. Member that the Minister is well apprised of the concerns with the Young Offenders Act and is prepared to respond fairly and effectively to those areas which clearly require change.


BANKRUPTCY ACT-PROVISIONS AFFECTING FARMERS AND FISHERMEN. (B) ROLE OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue this afternoon a question I addressed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on Monday.
Farmers across the country were encouraged early last month when the Minister of Agriculture promised to address the serious farm debt crisis in Canada. They thought that finally the Government was beginning to take charge. "I plan", said the Minister in his speech on December 2, "to bring to Cabinet before the end of this year new financial measures through the Farm Credit Corporation to address the serious financial needs of Canada's farmers".
That sounded like a commitment, even to members of the public used to empty promises. However, the Minister of Agriculture went even further in December and said:
I want to give these producers legislation with teeth-legislation that will bring farmers and creditors together to work out reasonable solutions. And where solutions can't be agreed on, farmers will have the option of appealing to the courts.
Finally, the Minister claimed, and again these are his words:
This is an urgent priority and you can count on action before Christmas.
That sounds an awful lot like a promise. Yet on Monday of this week the Minister modified his position and said that action before Christmas had only been his "hope" and perhaps his "wish". The economic future of agriculture does not rely on the "hopes" and "wishes" of the Minister. It relies upon action. Why has the Minister of Agriculture changed his tune? That was the question I was asking. Is it because the Minister, in spite of what he says in the House and throughout the country, accepts the position of the major banks? They are saying that things are not that bad in the farm sector. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? If so, does he also suggest, as the major bankers do, that a debt write-down and a debt moratorium on loans held by bankers would be "ill-considered"? In short, is the Minister now siding with the banks against the farmers? Is that why we saw no action before Christmas? Surely the Minister knows the agriculture sector better than that.
The second alternative would be that the Minister could not get any action on such policy through the Cabinet. Perhaps the Cabinet does not recognize the importance of this matter even though the Minister does.
There are some Conservative ideologues in the Cabinet who argued publicly, before becoming Cabinet Ministers, that it is everyone's economic right to fail and that the free enterprise system cannot prove it is working unless there are a lot of failures, showing that it is doing its job of weeding out some people. Unfortunately, people who are being weeded out in the farm sector right now are some of the most productive and youngest entrants to that sector of our economy. The Minister seems to have a lot of convincing to do, and I think it is time that he stood up to the Cabinet and let it know that this is an important matter and that agriculture does matter in this country. If he fails to convince Cabinet on the basis of farm financing, what can farmers expect to get out of free trade negotiations into which the Government is leading us?
In light of the confusion that has been raised in the minds of farmers by the vacillation of the Minister, I think it is time today that the Minister clarify the position of the Government and let farmers know just what he is proposing to do and
January 16, 1986

whether or not the Bankruptcy Act will be amended as was agreed to by all three parties in 1984. The drafting should not even be a problem because the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has capsulized that agreement and reissued it in the House as a private Member's motion. Therefore, the drafting exists and it carries the spirit and, in fact, most of the words of that original agreement back in June of 1984.
The Minister has failed to extend to banks the moratorium which he has declared on land seizures for Farm Credit Corporation. The current moratorium on Farm Credit Corporation only applies to the seizure of land. For the moment, land cannot be seized by the Farm Credit Corporation, but many other secondary lenders are seizing property from these farmers in the form of machinery, livestock and grain. Some of the provinces, such as my own Province of Saskatchewan, have a moratorium against seizures, but that is only effective against land. While the land cannot be seized, the interest keeps mounting. This winter there is a great deal of activity on the part of lending institutions seizing grain, livestock and machinery from those types of farms. Therefore, when the moratorium does end, these farmers will have nothing with which to farm.
These seizures are frequently presided over by the RCMP. In some instances they may be called upon to maintain order. In one instance that 1 had drawn to my attention, and which I drew to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), the so-called receiver did not even have a court order. He had no legal right to go on the property. He had succeeded in getting the RCMP to accompany him onto the property, ostensibly to take goods off that property in the form of grain, livestock or machinery even though he had no legal right to do so. The farmer seeing his property threatened in this way has, on a number of occasions, attempted to phone the RCMP for protection while they were in his yard helping to perpetrate what was in that instance a crime since there was no court order giving them the right to be there. This was the matter 1 was raising with the Minister and the Solicitor General.
The problem is quite clear across the country. Farmers thought they had a clear answer in December. They would like a clear answer now. When will the Government act? What is it proposing to do? How soon will the Government act to stop these bankruptcies and give farmers the same kind of opportunity in a bankruptcy as the banks have?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) as they pertain to the financial difficulties experienced by the farm community today, 1 am pleased to be able to take the time given on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) to deal with the issue of revisions to the Bankruptcy Act.
Let me assure the House that the Government is well aware of the acute problems facing farmers and of the urgency of the situation.
Adjournment Debate
During the highly inflationary period of the late 1970s and early 1980s farmers borrowed heavily to finance investment in farmland and equipment. Falling prices for farm products, coupled with rising farm input costs and continuing very high interest rates, have put many farmers in a position where they are having great difficulty in carrying the heavy debt loads. The Government fully realizes that farmers need some protection in order to weather the continuing recession in the farm sector and is taking steps to provide it.
In the First place I would remind Members of the House that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs appointed a special advisory committee last March to examine possible amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. It is a high priority on the agenda of legislation that is imminent.
The advisory committee has examined a wide range of bankruptcy issues, including the question of farm insolvencies and how to deal with them fairly. The committee has considered several possible options which would help shield farmers from bankruptcy. Some of these options would allow arrangements to be worked out between farmers and their creditors which would enable farmers to keep their farms, or would provide for examination of individual cases and for mediation by panels of experts including, what has been suggested by all Parties in this House, other farmers from the debtor-farmer's community.
These are only two of the possible options that the advisory committee has looked at to date. 1 might point out to the House that the committee has also looked at the procedures put forward in May, 1984, by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the previous Government which are, 1 presume, what the Hon. Member was referring to in his question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on January 13.
1 can tell Members that the advisory committee's report will be released within the next two weeks and that the Government will begin broad consultations immediately thereafter, including immediate discussions with farm representatives as to the recommendations of this report.
The advisory committee process 1 have just outlined will result in longer term solutions to a number of problems with the Bankruptcy Act, including the problem of farm bankruptcies. Not to be negative but to be constructive, 1 again assure the Hon. Member that the report will be tabled, action will be taken and the concerns of farmers and of every Member of the House will be dealt with in due course.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 6.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, January 17, 1986