1988-09-15

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-247 standing in my name. I have consulted with the other Parties on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to withdraw a motion standing in my name, namely, M-162.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Caccia) withdrawn.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-5290 to 332-5293 inclusive, 332-5300 and 332-5301.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry entitled The Argument for Integrated Forest and Wildlife Management in Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests a comprehensive response.
The committee convened a day of stimulating public hearings, bringing together representatives of the wildlife conservation movement, the forestry sector, native groups, the federal Government, and academia, to address the urgent issues of harmonizing the objectives of forestry management and wildlife conservation.
It is the opinion of the committee that the time to take action has come. Goals consistent with sustainable development must be developed in order to achieve a rational use ethic for forest resources that would preserve both forests and wildlife.
The committee also recommends that federal-provincial forest resource development agreements include integrated wildlife and forestry objectives which would ensure achievement of those goals.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1971 MEASURE TO AMEND

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (for the Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-158, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
September 15, 1988
Petitions


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an Act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, (provincial costs).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to this proposed Private Member's Bill. It is on a subject related to the Canada Assistance Plan which has been a concern of groups across the country for some time, and it concerns access to information. The purpose of this Bill is to require the provinces to provide the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) with a statement of the amounts that they contributed in providing assistance and welfare services. These amounts would then be published in the annual report laid before Parliament pursuant to the Canada Assistance Plan.
It is almost impossible to find out from provinces how much they are spending in total on welfare services which are cost shared with the federal Government. Many advocacy groups, consumer groups, social policy groups, and others have tried to do this. We know that there has been dramatic underspending of the amount that has been allocated. Certainly, the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare and the child care committee have talked about this matter. It means that with the high incidence of poverty low income families, particularly those with children, are not getting the kind of services to which they are entitled under the Canada Assistance Plan.
We would like the provinces to be required to publish what they are spending so that groups can in turn ask for the kinds of services and expenditures to which they are entitled under this Act. Of course those are cost shared by the federal Government.


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


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-327, an Act to amend the Bank Act (fair banking practices).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the reason I have introduced this Bill-and the Bill is entitled an Act to ensure consumer protection and financial services-is that the Canadian chartered banks have proven themselves incapable of voluntarily complying with the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. The fact that the Government accepted the banks' breast beating that they will voluntarily comply is a sham. My Bill will in fact force the banks, by legislation, to provide basic accounts with no charges for those accounts and no charges for deposits and withdrawals.
More important, this Bill will extend to small businesses across Canada all the protections which the McCrossan Bill had provided to consumers. Moreover, my Bill will also immediately impose a one-year freeze on all service charges and fines from $25,000 to $250,000 for any infractions.


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

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present two petitions, one on behalf of a number of constituents who believe that the Child Care Act proposed by the Government contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements to ensure that families have access to high quality child care. They believe that the Act is not in the best interest of young children, women, or families in Canada.
Therefore, they are asking the Government of Canada to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The second petition is on a different topic. A number of constituents are very concerned that the proposed trade deal between Canada and the United States threatens our country's sovereignty. They actually believe, and I support it, that the Government does not have a mandate even to negotiate this deal with the United States. They also believe that the result will be that it will reduce our country's ability to plan our economic, social and cultural future.
Therefore, they are asking that Parliament now ensure that a national debate takes place on this issue and that this debate results in a national general election.
September 15, 1988


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on child care. It is basically signed by people from Manitoba. I am sure the Minister responsible for the Child Care Act will be interested in what the people from his province say.
They claim that the Canada Child Care Act as proposed by the Government contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care. They believe that it is in the best interest of young children, women, and families in Canada for Parliament to withdraw the Canada Child Care Act forthwith.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility to table a petition signed by Canadians in Ottawa, Peterborough, Oshawa, Brantford, Waubaushene, Cookstown, Whitby, and Thunder Bay, Ontario.
These Canadians point out that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, affordable child care services. They further point out that the Child Care Act proposed by the Government of Canada contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care.
They further conclude that the proposed Child Care Act is not in the best interest of young children, women, or families in Canada. They call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act immediately.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition on the same subject from citizens who live in Ottawa, Etobicoke, Windsor, and Toronto. They are joining with many other people across Canada to stress that Canada needs high quality, available, affordable child care services, that this has been repeatedly recommended by groups across Canada, and that there should be national objectives and funding mechanisms to develop a comprehensive non-profit child care system which is accessible to all families across Canada.
The petitioners feel that the Child Care Act proposed by the Government contains neither objectives nor necessary funding arrangements to achieve this goal. Therefore they propose and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith.


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to present a petition signed by some 298 residents in the communities of Eskimo Point and Baker Lake in the Northwest Territories, who are extremely concerned with the abortion issue.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus
Canada Child Care Act
to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide remedy, whereas recognizing the infinite value and dignity of the unborn human person regardless of its stage of development or maturity.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of this petition you will find the petition in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of the Speaker of the House of Commons to allow discussion and referral to a committee at the earliest possible time, in order that the use of abortion be eliminated except in circumstances where the life of the mother is endangered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are 40 motions and amendments set down on the Notice Paper in relation to Bill C-144, an Act to authorize payments by Canada toward the provision of child care services, and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof.

At this point I am prepared to hand down a preliminary ruling in order to let the debate proceed.
I will try to address the House as soon as possible to hand down a more exhaustive ruling.

September 15, 1988
Canada Child Care Act

Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is in order. It will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motion No. 15, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is in order. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and Motions Nos. 21 and 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Outremont are in order. They will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 27, 33, 34 and 40, standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and Motion No. 38, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) are in order. They will be debated and voted on separately.

Consequently, I shall put Motion No. 3 to the House.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 2 be amended in the French version
(a)	by striking out line 5 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "services de garde Les services dispenses aux"
(b)	by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"services de garde fournis en milieu familial sous 1'autorite directe".


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, your ruling deals with amendments that have been presented and ruled in order for debate in the House at this time. Are we to assume that all motions not mentioned in your ruling this morning have been ruled out of order? Furtheremore, in your note, you say: I will try to address the House as soon as possible to hand down a more exhaustive ruling. I wonder what that is actually supposed to mean? Do you intend to bring in further rulings on other amendments that were proposed or are we to assume that the amendments ruled in order this morning are those that will be called for debate, while the remaining amendments are not in order?


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention. In the interests of clarity I would want to make it very clear to the Hon. Member, and to all Members of the House, that I will be returning soon with further comment. That does not mean that motions that have not been mentioned at the moment are necessarily out of order.
What we have been trying to do recently, and Hon. Members will have noticed this, is I have tried to come in and get the debate going on the motions which are easiest, from my point of view, which means that we are doing some serious thinking about the other ones now. I will come in front of the House as soon as I can.
On debate, the Hon. Minister.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am going to withhold any remarks regarding the work of the committee at this stage and just directly refer to Motion No. 3.
Members of the committee who are present in the House will recall that there were a number of areas where the French and the English needed clarification in terms of usage of words. Members will find, if I am in order, Mr. Speaker, that the new amendments that we have come forward with, in addition to the amendments that were proposed at the legislative committee, are what I guess we will call euphemistically around here "clean-up motions", that is, to clean up the language between the two official languages.
Motion No. 3 standing in my name is for the purposes of clarification of the French word "soin" to be replaced by "services" in keeping with common usage, and it is the common usage of terms that Motion No. 3 takes care of.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the amendment proposed by the Minister, because it is true that the French text refers to "soins" instead of "services", and since in Quebec, the Office des services de garde uses the word "services", it will make it easier all round. I fully support this amendment.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also concur of course with this motion and rely on the judgment of my friend, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin).
I would like to say, however, that because of the extreme pressure that was put on the legislative committee with only two days to consider these amendments-really only one day to consider the amendments and only two days to hear from witnesses-that it made the work of the committee almost impossible. Certainly, the translations at that time for many of the amendments were not available. That is very unfortunate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister has pointed out exactly what the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is now alluding to. The fact is that we have never seen a committee of this House forced into
September 15, 1988

such quick study of such a major item. The Government is promoting its child care legislation. The Opposition and many groups across the country have found fault with that legislation, but those groups were only entitled to two days of hearings in front of a House of Commons committee. That is almost unheard of.
The Government has said that this Bill will cost billions of dollars. This is an election promise that was made in 1984. It took the Government four years-almost four years to the day-to introduce this legislation into the House of Commons. Yet there are people from my riding, people from western Canada, who were not given the opportunity to come before the committee.
I am not surprised that the Government at this stage is still cleaning up its technical amendments because it never gave people a chance to come in front of that committee. It never gave that committee a chance to travel. It never allowed people from the North, from the West, from the East, to come in front of that committee. I think that was completely unfair and is indicative of the way this Government has run roughshod over the people who are concerned about child care-mothers, families, and grandparents. It is indicative of the arrogance of this Government and it is one of the reasons it will not be reelected.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East is in order and will be debated and voted on separately.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 2
at page 4 the following:
"(3) Upon execution of agreements, amendment to that agreement or renewal of an agreement, a notice shall be published, in relation thereof, in the Canada Gazette. These agreements will be available upon request from the Department of National Health and Welfare."
She said: Mr. Speaker, in a way, this motion is very similar to the Private Member's Bill to which I referred earlier. It contains the same principle, the principle of access to information.
It is quite often difficult for organizations, the public at large, and clients of the welfare system to get general information about matters that affect their lives and their tax dollars. In our experience, it has been difficult to obtain regulations of the Canada Health Act and information about the Act. Similarly, it is difficult to obtain information about what the provinces are spending or not spending under the Canada Assistance Plan. We wanted to ensure that there be a way of publishing information relating to child care and that this be compulsory so that the public will have access to this information.
Canada Child Care Act
We are proposing therefore that when agreements are made between the federal Government and individual provinces, agreements that will likely be different in each case, or when there are amendments to or renewals of the agreements, something which we would like to see every five years, incidentally, this must be made public. We are suggesting that that information be published in The Canada Gazette.
Furthermore, since The Canada Gazette would contain only very general references, and many Canadians do not know about The Canada Gazette, we feel that these agreements should be public information available upon request from the Department of National Health and Welfare. We believe that this is quite important.
In committee, the Minister did agree to publication of the notice of these agreements and renewal or amendment of the agreements being published in The Canada Gazette and that they would be available from the Department of National Health and Welfare. Therefore, we expect that there will be unanimous consent for this amendment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, there is not unanimous consent for the amendment. The argument put forward by the Hon. Member in her last comments has already covered this area, and I will tell Hon. Members why in a moment.
I fully agree that the public should have full access to notification of any agreements or any amendments to agreements or any curtailment of agreements. There is no problem with that, and in fact the amendment in legislative committee which was accepted unanimously by all Members does just that.
Second, through gazetting any changes to agreements or any new agreements entered into by the Government or any provinces, as is the case under the Canada Assistance Plan, people are given the opportunity to study the agreements. Quite frankly, there is a logistical problem in terms of publication of all the agreements. There is obviously a cost factor involved as well.
Additionally, there is a problem with the technical form of the amendment. The Department of National Health and Welfare need not be responsible for the distribution of these government documents. As well, the changes in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons must be taken into consideration when dealing with this amendment.
Hon. Members should be reminded of the new Standing Orders of the House, although we are working under interim Standing Orders, but they could of course become permanent. As you well know from your vast experience, Mr. Speaker, things around here that are temporary temporarily become permanent.
Under the Standing Orders, all these reports are immediately the subject and the property of the respective parliamentary committee. Therefore, the debate in the legislative committee

September 15, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
covered all these bases, and it is for those reasons that I would reject this amendment.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I agree with this resolution. The reasons are quite simple. Most people who appeared before us are very concerned about service quality and about standards. It seems that this law will set a precedent whereby the provinces are given the right to determine their own quality standards. In the Bill, the federal Government still has a say in the number of places and the quality of staff. But nevertheless, given that these services are as important as health care services in Canada, I think the changes should be published. Obviously, the Minister brings in the cost argument. But I do not think that it would cost a fortune and that that argument alone justifies not publishing changes to the new Act. So I support this amendment because I feel it is important and in the public interest for everyone to know what is happening in child care services in Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). After hearing the Minister's remarks, I think it is important for us to look at what the amendment actually says. It says that upon execution of these agreements, amendments to the agreements or renewal of the agreements, notices shall be published in relation thereto in The Canada Gazette and that these agreements will be available upon request from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I do not understand why the Government is so afraid of letting people know what agreements it has signed with the provinces. We are talking about child care here, a program which exists for the public. Since the agreements will be gazetted in any event, as the Minister has said, why then is he reluctant to have in legislation a clause indicating that the agreements will be available to the public upon request?
We are not dealing with a massive mail-out. We are saying that those interested Canadians who would like information about the agreements affecting child care in their provinces or territories would be able to phone or write the Department of National Health and Welfare to ask for copies of the agreements. We are talking about the rights of concerned citizens to have access to information.
As I said in my earlier intervention, the Government seems to want to do a big public relations job on child care, but when it came down to letting the people speak before the parliamentary committee, they were denied that opportunity, even though there were requests from people from the Minister's own province in western Canada. Now, after the Government will negotiate agreements with the various provinces, it will not be willing to make copies of the agreements available to the public.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not true.


Rodney Edward Murphy: If it is not true, why did the Minister say that he would not put this amendment into legislation? Why would he not say that the public has a right to obtain those agreements from the Department?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not true.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Minister says it is not true. Perhaps he or someone on his behalf could explain why he opposes this amendment. All it does is guarantee the right of access. However, in his intervention he seemed to indicate that there is a massive problem with it when obviously there is not.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to express my disagreement with the motion now before us. I believe that this amendment should be defeated, and I will tell you why. Information on the signed agreements on the amendments will already be in the official Gazette-it will be on record. However, it is uncertain whether responsibility for distributing these documents will belong to the Department of National Health and Welfare. So it is already possible to do so. Who will distribute them? It is not certain that it will be the Department of National Health and Welfare. So I think that since the Bill is now before us and notice for obtaining copies has already been in the Gazette, there is no need for further changes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to say a few words in response to both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and his Parliamentary Secretary. We have heard on a number of occasions that the Government is concerned about the distribution of these documents.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If that is the concern, we ought to submit an amendment to this motion. All we are saying is that since the taxpayers of Canada at either the provincial or federal level are providing the funds for this service, they ought to have access to the documents. I become very suspicious of a Government which says that it does not want to tell the people what it is doing. It does not want to let the people in on the agreement it is signing with the provinces.
What we are saying is that upon execution of agreements between the federal and provincial Governments, or the amendment or renewal of an existing agreement, a notice shall be published in The Canada Gazette. Surely there is no problem with that. I cannot imagine that people would be concerned about that, so let us assume we all agree that is either being done or will be done and therefore there should be no hesitation to include it.
September 15, 1988

Then the motion goes on to say that these agreements will be available upon request to the Department of National Health and Welfare. We are not suggesting that the Department ought to go to a major expense to distribute copies of these technical agreements to people. I suppose you could make a case for that, but it would enable all sorts of groups to become more informed about just what the agreement is between the federal Government and their particular province. However, set that aside and say that it is not necessary. Then all we are saying is that if an agency, organization, advocacy group, individual, or whatever decided to find out more about the nature of the agreement signed between the federal and provincial Governments, those agreements would be available if a request were made of the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his Department. Surely to goodness there ought to be no hesitation over that. Therefore, based on that, I would like to move a subamendment, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy):
That the motion be amended by removing the period after the word
"welfare" and adding the words:
"Or some other federal government Department or agency".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will accept the amendment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his Parliamentary Secretary have indicated a concern that their Department may not be the appropriate government Department to provide that information. I think we have to respect that point of view. The Minister's officials have obviously made it clear that that would be the case. Perhaps this amendment, which is essentially a friendly amendment, would indicate that we are not concerned that it be the Department of National Health and Welfare. It could be any appropriate government Department, whatever it might be. Presumably the Minister would be in a position to determine just what that Department would be.
I emphasize again that we are talking about agreements between the federal and provincial Governments involving substantial amounts of taxpayers' money. Surely to goodness the people who are footing the Bill for these agreements and the services they provide ought to have the right to find out the details of the agreements. It is not impossible to get those agreements now. All we are saying is: let us facilitate and encourage this openness. Let us not hide or cover up. Quite frankly, let us facilitate getting this information into the hands of interested individuals or organizations.
1 think the amendment provides flexibility and a variety of options from which the Minister may choose. Therefore, I think it not only meets our concern as reflected in the motion, but in a sense it also meets the concerns that the Minister brought to our attention with respect to his Department.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think we are making some progress. I would like to ask the indulgence of the House because I could see the latter part of the amendment moved by
Canada Child Care Act
the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) as acceptable. My problem is, and possibly the House can come to some agreement, if Members look at subclause (3) at the top of page 4 of the amended Bill, the Government moved an amendment which was unanimously accepted. By my reading of that amended version of the Bill, it calls for the same thing as the first sentence of the motion of the Hon. Member. I will come to the second sentence in a minute.
It appears to me that the first sentence of the amendment moved by the Hon. Member is virtually the same as the amended version of the Bill, namely, that notice of the agreements in various forms must be gazetted, to which the committee and the Government agreed.
The second sentence of the amendment to the amendment by the NDP House Leader, namely that it could be done by the Department of Health or some other Department, takes care of the problem I have in terms of deliverability of the agreements if requested. I fully appreciate the need for publication. That is why we had the amendment in the first place.
Possibly I could get a ruling from the Table. I can accept the second part. If we accept the first part are we in fact not accepting again what we have already amended? That is my problem. Perhaps we can handle that. We must have some solution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we should just vote on each one. I think that would resolve the problem.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: With respect, I do not think that solves the problem. Maybe I was not clear. The amended version of the Bill and the first sentence of the amendment of the Member is, I believe, the same thing, word for word virtually. It is the second sentence which I think is at issue. I am willing to accept the second sentence as amended by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I just do not know, in a technical sense, how I can accept an amendment that has already been accepted and written in the Bill. If somebody at the table can help me with that, I think we can have a solution.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We can dispose of the amendment, continue to debate, and then look at it from then on with further amendment if possible.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we certainly would have no objection to the procedure the Minister is suggesting which would be to amend his amendment which I originally presented in committee and to which he agreed, as I recall, to have this information on child care agreements between the federal Government and the provinces published in The Canada Gazette. Our concern was that it should be made available. It is not enough just to have notification in The Canada Gazette. We would be agreeable to his suggestion to amend Clause 3 by adding "or some other federal department or agency".

September 15, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
I would just like to say, though, that I do not quite understand the Minister's logic. I recall that in committee he said the agreements would be available upon request from Health and Welfare, and there seemed to be no problem with that at the time. I do not understand why he suddenly found a problem. It seems to me that this is a function of that Department.
However, since he raised the issue we are willing to make it broader. If there is another information service which is more appropriate in another Department, we would agree. However, we do think it is very important that this information be available to groups that want to find out what is happening to their tax dollars.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker I am following this very interesting debate. Indeed it becomes academic because the Minister is completely right that in the amended version of the Bill distributed by the House dated September 10, 1988, page 4, subparagraph 3 of Clause 3 is indeed word for word what is in the amendment before us today, except that the second sentence does say, and supposedly admits, that the Canada Gazette is not the best read publication in this country. Why they would say that, I do not know, but it may be a fact of life that The Canada Gazette is not read by very many people.
Therefore, a notice will be put in The Canada Gazette telling those Canadians who are interested in what is going on that indeed there has been an agreement reached between the federal Government and the provinces, and that if they want a copy of the agreement they can call upon National Health and Welfare for such a copy. I take it that is what the Minister is telling us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I might be able to find a solution to this. I think the best thing for us to do at this stage is to stand Motion No. 15, draw up the proper amendment and bring it back to the House so that we can have a proper debate on it. I think that would resolve this problem and we can carry on with debate in the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I think your advice is sound but I do not know if it is necessary. I think there is an agreement already that we would just take out the first sentence, because it is already in the amended Bill, and attach the second sentence as amended by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I think that is agreed to by all three Parties.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, from the
Government's point of view, I am asking for the first sentence to be withdrawn because it is already in the Bill. I want to make the point that the Government was going to make the information available because I cannot leave that on the record. If the second sentence as amended is accepted by unanimous consent the Government is willing to accept it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know you have all agreed to it. I would like to get a properly worded copy of it. As soon as I get that copy I will put the motion.
Motion No. 15 (Ms. Mitchell) stood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, in order to carry on properly, I will go to Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Motions Nos. 21 and 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Outremont are in order and will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 11 to 15 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) stipulate that in respect of contributions under this Act, the province commits itself to according special priority to meeting the needs of children from low and modest income families;''.


Lucie Pépin: Motion No. 21
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 4 the following:
"(h) indicate the means by which the province will encourage the development of childcare spaces in the workplace;''.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line 38 at page 4 the following:
"(h) indicate the means by which the province will encourage the development of childcare spaces in after school setting to meet the needs of children between the ages of 6 and 13;''.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, referring to Clause 4(l)(b), Members of the House will note that an amendment was moved and adopted in the committee respecting targeting of the program. I simply read from the Bill as follows: "with special priority to meet the needs of children from low and modest-income families". Motion No. 18, moved by the Government, is one of the cleanup motions in order to correct the grammar in both official languages. That is the reason we are moving it.
You are asking me, as well, to comment on motions relating to subclauses 4(l)(c) and 4(l)(d). I take it that this will be dealt with later according to your grouping. Therefore I will keep my remarks restricted to Motion No. 18.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, of course I support the recommendation or rather the amendment moved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), since it concerns the amendment we or rather I presented in the legislative committee, to the effect that children from low and middle-income families be targeted by the provinces when
September 15, 1988

spaces are allocated, because the Bill as drafted did not set any priorities or do anything special for these children.
We know that many children in Canada come from low and middle-income families, and we also know that many if not most of these children are from low-income families with little education, and so if the children have access to day-care, they will be motivated, they won't grow up to be school dropouts and they will become outstanding citizens.
We also know there is a very high proportion of singleparent families headed by women and that most of these families are living under the poverty line and that it was important to have a special place for these children.
We also know that many people, many women look for parttime work because they need that second salary, so they also need subsidies if they are to be able to afford day-care.
I think it is also very important to oblige the provinces to make these families a priority. We also had a number of groups testifying before the Committee that expressed their concern about the fact that the CAP program which focused on children from low-income families had been withdrawn. Since the program will no longer exist, the legislation must indicate that we are to provide spaces for these children.
Mr. Speaker, the trouble with a bill as important as this one is that we run the risk of creating two classes of citizens, which is what happened, quite by accident to senior citizens.
For instance, senior citizens who have an income can afford senior citizens' homes that are quite comfortable, unlike senior citizens on meager incomes who often find themselves in situations that are intolerable for someone of their age and in their condition.
I support this recommendation which was initially proposed by Liberal Members.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we will not oppose this amendment. However, let me state very clearly that it is not nearly strong enough. We heard from witnesses in the committee over and over again that there was not enough funding in this Bill to meet all the needs for child care in Canada. There is not nearly enough now or in the future.
When this program is grandfathered in seven years there will not be any flexibility to continue to increase the number of spaces. The provision of 200,000 spaces over seven years is fewer than would have been created if we retained the Canada Assistance Plan.
The Canada Assistance Plan deals primarily with children with special needs, low income children, and those families likely to be in need. It is much more comprehensive than this legislation as far as low income families are concerned. Furthermore, it is not capped at the end of seven years. The amount of money that can be spent is not capped.
Canada Child Care Act
Let me point out to the House and particularly to the Minister that when this program goes to the provinces it is quite possible that there will not be enough money to meet all the demands. For example, one province has been giving grants for commercial child care centres. It will want a refund of 50 per cent of the money it has been putting into those kinds of subsidies. It will be difficult for the province to target low income groups, and it has not been doing enough for low income groups now because it has mostly commercial child care. The number of poor children that would be eligible for a child care program in this particular province would be very limited.
A number of groups almost pleaded with us to retain the Canada Assistance Plan until such time as the fees in regular day care are reduced. According to the Government's program it will be a long time before enough money is injected into child care to reduce the fees and make it affordable.
Ideally, we would like to see comprehensive child care that is available regardless of income. It is very important that we remove the welfare stigma from child care and that it be made available to any family that needs and wants to use it. We hope it will be good quality, non-profit child care because studies show that that is the best kind of child care.
If the Canada Assistance Plan which now protects low income families is removed, regardless of whether the provincial Governments have good intentions, there will simply not be enough money in this program to guarantee that low income families will be protected.
We believe the Canada Assistance Plan should be retained and the new program phased in. It should cost more because there should be more money to meet greater needs, but it could be budgeted under the same amount of money.
We wanted to propose amendments that would have allowed greater flexibility in meeting the needs of low income families. We will not object to this motion, but we do not believe it is strong enough or that it protects low income families, families in need, as well as disabled children.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my disagreement with Motions 21 and 22 now under consideration.
Motion 21 seeks to add a qualification:
"(h) indicate the means by which the province will encourage the development of childcare spaces in the workplace;".
Motion 22 would also add a qualification:
"(h) indicate the means by which the province will encourage the development of childcare spaces in after school setting to meet the needs of children between the ages of 6 and 13;".
Mr. Speaker, both of these motions are contrary to the principle that the provinces set their own priorities. We all know that child care is under provincial jurisdiction. We also

September 15, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
know that it is extremely important to respect their jurisdiction.
As for setting the priorities for child care development, I think that is up to each province, depending on its state of development.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind my colleague who just completed her presentation that the FTQ (Quebec Federation of Labour) submitted a brief to the Legislative Committee recommending that standards not be important (in the Bill), since they come under provincial jurisdiction. This is an extremely sensitive and important subject, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I oppose Motions 21 and 22.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to motions numbered 21 and 22, and I wish to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that I think her negative comments on these proposals are unfortunate.
In fact, I will have trouble saying everything I want to say within the ten minutes I am allowed. However, I will assume that people understand we are talking about two quite different things here. First, we have day-care in the work place, which I think is an interesting proposal and should be part of a general policy encouraging employers to provide daycare for children in the work place.
The other amendment, No. 22, deals with the child between the ages of 6 and 13 who goes to elementary school, whose parents work and who should have access to day-care after school so his parents can be sure their child is in a safe environment, busy with his studies.
The Parliamentary Secretary said earlier that it was up to the provinces to set their priorities for day-care, and I agree that constitutionally, and both education and day-care are involved, this is strictly provincial jurisdiction. However, the Bill seems to make the problem more complex by saying that if a province provides day-care, it is excluded. At least that is what it says in the interpretation we have of Bill C-144.
I would like to get back to that because it is the definition section which excludes child care services related wholly or partially to education. If the Minister tells me that this interpretation of Bill C-144 does not exclude child care services related wholly or partially to education, then of course my argument is going to be quite different. But my understanding up to now is that, indeed, Bill C-144 excludes wholly or partially related day care associated with education.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The last part, yes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister is indicating the last part in education, which I guess is the point I am trying to make.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It's the sticker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is the sticker, as he said. I spent 11 years on school boards in my previous incarnation as a public servant. I know for a fact that we established lighthouse programs in New Edinburgh, for example, and that at other schools programs were offered to parents to look after their children after the normal day school session was over, so we made sure that the kids were looked after and their educational process was pursued. If the Minister is telling me that a province is not able to draw from Bill C-144 the proper support to fund these programs on school sites in the educational system at the time, with the people, then I am right, there is an exclusion here in this Bill which does not allow for that.
I find that regrettable but the Minister will address that point and perhaps he can convince me that I am wrong.

My first point was day-care in the work place. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of statistics and a survey made in my riding that I would like to share with Hon. Members.
As you know, Ottawa-Vanier is a National Capital riding which depends a lot on the federal Government because it happens to be the major employer. Now then, if the employer-the federal Government-wants to set an example, as we do here in the House of Commons, for instance, where we have excellent and first class day care facilities for our staff, the federal Government being the employer has to provide day care centres for its employees.
In a poll I conducted recently most respondents-59 per cent-agreed that the employer should set up day care facilities at the workplace. That seems quite reasonable to me.

The facts are that the first experiment with child care in the workplace in Ontario was in 1970. The experiment failed mainly because it was full of red tape and it was very hard to operate and difficult to maintain. I think that a good program can be established, the costs to be shared by the employee and employer. I think we should have some consideration for those workers who are on night shift, for example, and it does happen in the Ottawa-Vanier area that people do have night shift employment and they would require some child care during the day or after school. I think there is a good point being made by my constituents when they bring that to my attention. I would like to say that in the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, the most recent statistics I have based on the 1986 census ...

... indicate that there are 19,265 families in my riding, including 8,180 with children at home. There are 3,635 singleparent families, mostly women who have children and work to earn a living. The total number of children at home is 18,500, including 4,325 aged 6 or under. Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who need day care, and perhaps I should conclude my remarks on that note.
September 15, 1988

It is imperative that we come up with a new approach in connection with day care services. Let us think in terms of a comprehensive overall plan and programs related to the issue of employment equity. The parliamentary task force which reviewed parental leave did emphasize the importance of the issue. The Government claims it is offering a variety of options to parents, but in fact there are only two: a tax deduction which can best be described as regressive, and a very small tax credit of $200. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, several alternatives should be offered by day care services, including guaranteed day care facilities at the workplace. I will not belabour the point because I have no time, but I sincerely believe we need a good day care program, at least an option with respect to day care facilities at work.
Mr. Speaker, this is particularly important if, as I said earlier, a comprehensive program is put into place. The Liberal Party would allow a 100 per cent tax write-off on employer-sponsored programs as an incentive to set up child care facilities on the job. Mr. Speaker, we said so and we will do so because I am convinced that Canadians fully appreciate that it is fair, equitable and urgent to have reliable child care services at work.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this grouping before, therefore I do not believe I am entitled to speak on it again. 1 can answer the question of the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Minister have unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank Members. With regard to child care based in schools, the Hon. Member puts forward a long-standing position or discussion point that has been going on in various provinces and school authorities. I do not have any school board experience. The Hon. Member has 11 years experience on a school board, and I have 11 years experience in teaching, so perhaps there is some comparison.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good employee-employer relations.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We always had good employee-employer relations. Until I left there was neither conciliation nor arbitration, so I have some pride in that type of relationship.
The Hon. Member put forward two caveats with respect to the Bill, and I wish to address them. One is acceptable, and the other is not. That is why there needs to be some explanation. In respect to the location of the provision of service, school based, there is not a problem, particularly if one goes to the Province of Quebec.
Canada Child Care Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thirty thousand spaces.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Exactly, and we want to preserve those spaces. In our negotiations with Quebec we believe that the Bill covers that authority. Also from my discussions with the Quebec Minister, I believe that that is understood. There is a difficulty, and I am going to get technical, just as the Hon. Member had to. He is well aware of Section 93 of the Constitution.
Education was not only considered as a very specific provincial right in constitutional form, it received a special constitutional clause. Canada has a long history, and we do not have to regale ourselves with our knowledge of that clause. If it is a service provided by a school authority, to wit, a school board as the Hon. Member was a member of, then the Bill is exclusionary. Therefore, it depends on which is the social service provider of the child care service. That becomes the critical point in the ability of the federal Government to flow money. I believe we have worked out an arrangement, not only with Quebec, but also with other provinces. I have no authority to extend the Bill into the service provider beyond the social services. That is where our disagreement would in fact come.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) clarified that last point. It is something that we have been encouraging for some time, that different organizations have the ability to provide services, particularly those that are non-profit services. I want to comment on all three motions that are grouped for debate, Motion Nos. 18, 21, and 22.
In terms of targeting funds to provide an effort to meet the needs of children from low and modest income families, what has been so painfully clear by listening to the witnesses is that this will not accomplish that. The needs in our society are so great when it comes to meeting the needs of child care across the country that this approach will fall short.
I will not read it into the record, but I have a long list of all the organizations whose representatives appeared as witnesses at the committee. Every single one opposed the Bill. In the history of Parliament it is rather unique that every witness who appeared before the committee stated that the Government was wrong, that it should stop and not proceed. We are proceeding. I do not know why we go through this charade, if we are not going to listen to those who are expert in the field. That is why we welcome them in as witnesses to the committee hearings, in order that they can provide expert advice. When every expert in the country states that this is wrong, we should keep that in mind. However, I realize that this is not the time to do so, so I will set it aside for the moment and return to it later.
The Minister indicates that we want to provide child care for low and modest income families. Of course we do, Mr. Speaker, but this Bill will not accomplish it. It might make a dent into it, but it will not accomplish that.

September 15, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
I wish to move to the motion before us which indicates that we want to "encourage the development of childcare spaces in the workplace". I get a little frustrated with the word "encourage". I think it is time that we become a little tougher, and say that we are beyond the encourage, urging, and talking into type of approach. As a federal Parliament of Canada we should be saying that it is time that we start providing child care spaces in the workplace. The place to start is right here in the jurisdiction of the federal Government. When facilities are built across the country, the first thing that the architect should be encouraged to do is build in the appropriate child care facility in the new building.
A case in point would be the federal building in Edmonton. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, since it is your home town, this huge federal building in downtown Edmonton has hundreds of rooms, seminar rooms, office rooms, and bureaucrats by the dozens, but they forgot to build a child care space.
I feel quite honoured and proud to be speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Our spokesperson on this issue, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), stood up in the House in 1979, days after she was elected, and stated that we should be leading the way on Parliament Hill for all employees. There should be a first-class day care facility. Led by the initiative of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East and others, there is now a first-class child care facility on Parliament Hill. I congratulate not only the Hon. Member for Vancouver East but others who encouraged it and saw it through to fruition.
Much more should be done than this symbolic gesture. There should be child care facilities in all federal public buildings, as an example, and then we can go to the private sector and say: "When you build a new plant or a huge office complex, for goodness' sake have appropriate child care facilities constructed as part of the building plan". This will encourage the provinces to develop child care spaces in the workplace.
I suppose we have to say that this is a minute step in the right direction to encourage the provincial Governments. As a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, thinking that we have to talk Premier Vander Zalm into creating child care spaces, I do not hold out much hope, I am afraid. I hate to say it, but it is almost a hopeless case. Hopefully in other provinces where there are more progressive premiers and more progressive provincial Governments-although there are not many- we will be able to move in the right direction.
I wish to focus my comments on Motion No. 22. The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) is indicating that we again want to "encourage the development of childcare spaces in after school setting to meet the needs of children between the ages of 6 and 13". Again, the word "encourage" I believe is a little light, but at least we are encouraging. My concern here focuses on two or three items. We recognize the very acute need for providing child care services for latchkey children. Some children leave school at 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.
and unfortunately, because their parents are working and do not come home until 5.30 p.m. or 6 p.m., there is a period of time when they must go home and be on their own. We want to take immediate steps to ensure that proper facilities are available for those children who have to go to empty homes with no parents during those critical hours. What is left out of this is infant care for young people under the age of three, the toddlers. In many instances there is a very acute need in terms of appropriate child care, to say nothing of summer child care.
We will support those three amendments, because they do move us in areas that we want to move. However, they do fall short and there is still an awful lot more to do. We are pleased with the gains that we see here, but again it is time that we got beyond encouraging the development of child care spaces, or encouraging the development of child care spaces in the workplace, and got on with actually doing it, providing the funds, and creating those spaces. The first place to start, and I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare, would be in federal buildings across the country so that every major federal building would have child care facilities put in place to show the leadership that this legislation ought to have shown.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to comment on the Hon. Member's speech. I appreciate him commenting on the fact that we do have a very nice federal building in our area, but I wish that he would not get the Chair into an argument about whether I would want to have child care spaces in that particular area. He knows my feeling about something like that. I do not want to get into an argument.
The Chair cannot get into an argument or debate with regard to whether we should or should not have child care spaces in that wonderful building in Edmonton. The Hon. Member knows that I would want it if I had an opportunity to debate. The Hon. Member for Outremont.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support motions Nos. 21 and 22. The first one deals with the development of child care spaces in the workplace. We know that a much more comprehensive plan should have been presented along with Bill C-144 which we have before us, that the bill should have been linked to an employment equity program, to parental leave and child care services in the workplace. The Minister has been saying ever since he introduced the bill that it would give parents a choice. Parents cannot opt for child care in the workplace, because no such option exists in the legislation.
Forty five per cent of couples with children would be under the poverty level if both parents did not work. Therefore they need child care. If there were child care services in the workplace, I think, first of all, that-as several studies have shown-absenteeism would be considerably reduced and also that both parents would have equal opportunity in terms of taking the children to a centre.
September 15, 1988

We know that in some provinces,-and without naming any,
I am thinking for instance of the Atlantic region-is highly seasonal, particularly in fishing. Both parents work so many months, mostly in summer, at which time the children are left to themselves. We were even told in committee that children ten or twelve years old take care of their brothers and sisters because there are no child care services and a sitter at home is to expensive. I think child care services in the workplace would solve this problem.
As my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) indicated earlier, our party suggests that businessmen should be encouraged to set up daycare facilities in the workplace through tax rebates. One of my NPD friends was right when he said that the federal Government should definitely set the tone. Actually, an employee who had a baby last May called me to say: Listen, I cannot afford to pay $7,000 a year for daycare services and I cannot get a space as an employee in the daycare facilities we have here. I suggest therefore that the federal Governement should set up daycare facilities first in all the buildings on Parliament Hill, and then in all the federal buildings throughout Canada. I think this is a good suggestion that the government should consider implementing.
I should like to deal also with Motion 22 which I feel is one of the most important ones because it seeks to develop childcare spaces in after school setting to meet the needs of children between the ages of 6 and 14. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister rose in the House to deal with daycare services. He insisted on the need to create programs to fight drug abuse and to protect our teenagers. One of the most effective preventive measures would be to develop after school settings to meet the needs of children between the ages of 6 and 14.
Mr. Speaker, we know that 57 per cent of all children throughout Canada are left by themselves. As recently as last week, some witnesses stated that they had received 12,000 phone calls for the city of Toronto alone. They call them "warn calls" for they have open lines which children who are by themselves can call to be reassured. There were even teachers who came to say: We teach our children how to lie. We teach them how to answer the phone when they are by themselves at home, because we know that there are grownups who get their kicks out of abusing these children, especially when they know that they are alone at home. They complained that they had to teach children to lie as a mean to protect them.
On the other hand, we know that we have to pay $44,000 a year to take care of each and everyone of our young offenders. By developing childcare spaces in after school settings, we might save a lot of money and make solid and long term investments in the future. I heard the Minister refer earlier to such services as social services.
Child care is not just a social service. Child care should be considered part of education. And that is why we are very
Canada Child Care Act
concerned when we see the clause that services in any way connected with education will not be covered, because services provided to children of 6 to 14 cannot be considered social services. I think it is as important as education.
We know what percentage of teenagers commit suicide. I think that very often, if we dig a little deeper, if we do some research, we see that at some point, these children felt that there was no one to look after them-nobody cares!
And 1 think that it would be a good foundation for them and it would definitely show vision for Canada if the Government took care of our children and provided them with what they need so that later, they can do what is asked of them. We know that we have problems with our adolescents and youth. Many are homeless. But if we do some research into this, we find that these young people tell us that nobody cares. No one wanted to look after them! But if we did this as a society and not as a social service, I think that we would have a goal and later on, good citizens.

I would like to say that it might also help to remedy the perception of every child care group and parent in this country that the Government is just giving away the candy store with this Bill.

It is very important that something be done for children and in Quebec, let me emphasize this for the Minister, they are very concerned with this amendment whereby amounts intended mainly for educational services will be withdrawn, because we have 30,000 spaces for these children, and although we are told the Bill meets this demand, the Government of Quebec is very worried now that it will not have the money available.
So I urge the Minister to accept this amendment and also the amendment concerning childcare in the workplace. I think that if we want to have children and want to help the family, this is a most import piece of legislation and we must provide support services such as the two that we just mentioned.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the indulgence of Members of the House to allow me to speak briefly.
When I spoke earlier, it was my understanding that you were calling for debate on Motion No. 18. At that time I did not realize that you were including Motion Nos. 21 and 22. If Members are agreeable, I would appreciate saying a few words on those two motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.

September 15, 1988
Canada Child Care Act


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you very much. I do appreciate it. Regarding Motion No. 21 which calls for amendments to the Act to ask the province to indicate the means by which it will encourage the development of child care spaces in the workplace, as my hon. colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap said earlier, we believe that because of the nature of this Act, with the very limited funding, it is necessary to be more specific about the kinds of child care that are available.
Later, Mr. Speaker, you will hopefully hear our amendment about objectives, where we talk about a child care program that must be comprehensive. To be comprehensive, that means that working parents who have children under three years old, infants and toddlers, should have good quality, licenced care available. Similarly, if the children are over five, in kindergarten and in elementary school, they also should have child care available. As it is now there is not really enough child care for three-year olds to five-year olds, although it seems to be a little more available with limited hours. We feel that to work for a comprehensive child care program we must have a wider range of ages included. I am referring here specifically to Motion No. 22.
I have asked my colleague to consider an amendment to the motion which would include infant care and toddler care as well. I agree with the Hon. Member for Outremont that there is great concern not so much with the wording but with the method of funding, which is very limited, as is the number of new subsidized spaces to be created. We think that many provinces will use the available funds only to subsidize what they already have in place. If that is done then there would be little flexibility to create the new types of services which are very much needed. It is a good idea to make this specific in the Bill.
Returning to Motion No. 21, I would like to say again that we in this Party have always supported workplace child care. We feel that any child care program should adapt to the sites where it is necessary for parents to have care as part of being accessible to their workplace. I recall that when the special committee on child care held hearings there were workers from Nova Scotia, I believe, who appeared before the committee. They were workers in fish plants. During the very brief season when husbands often went out in the fish boats, the mother and all other adult members of the family were working in the fish plants. They were working night and day and there really was not very much in the way of space at all. We need flexibility in hours, but we also need accessibility to the work site. I am not sure that a fish plant is an ideal place for a child care centre anyway. However, there are many other places where this would be very suited, particularly in federal buildings.
We also support Motion No. 21. As you will see later, Mr. Speaker, we have referred to these matters in our over-all objectives when we considered comprehensive child care. The Minister should have written objectives in. Even if provinces
cannot afford to do everything all at once, at least we should have the goal of comprehensive child care.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to support the suggestions proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). Any of us who live in and represent urban constituencies have some idea of the tremendous increase in the number of married women, with very young children, who are working. To a larger extent they are working because in this day and age, particularly in cities such as Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, and to a lesser extent in my City of Winnipeg, it is necessary for both husband and wife to work if they are to be able to meet their monthly mortgage payments. Thus mothers with quite young children of a year old and sometimes even less than a year old are finding it necessary to work. They need a system of child care which will assure them that their very young children are able to be placed in a child care facility which will give them the kind of care they need.
Therefore I move the following amendment:
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 4 by adding immediately after line
38 at page 4:
"indicate the means by which the provinces will encourage the development of child care spaces to meet the needs of infants and toddlers under three years of age".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have just looked at the motion. It is not in the proper form. I would appreciate having more time in order for the Table to consult with the Hon. Member so that it can be put in the proper form.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable to us. I wonder if, while Your Honour is considering that, the House could move back to Motion No. 15 at this time in order to clarify it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is agreed that this grouping will stand and we will go back to Motion No. 15.
Motions Nos. 18, 21 and 22 stood.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier we tried to present Motion No. 15 and a subamendment to it. I would now ask the permission of the House to withdraw Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) and the subamendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and replacing it with a new motion, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East:
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 6
at page 4 the following:
"The agreements will be available upon request from the Department of National Health and Welfare or some other federal government department
or agency."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 15 has
been withdrawn, by unanimous consent.
Motion No. 15 (Ms. Mitchell) withdrawn.
September 15, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the motion moved in its place carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is acceptable to the Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I am glad that we could find a reasonable solution to the problem. Indeed, we will support this amendment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I think you would find, Mr. Speaker, that the New Democratic Party will support its own amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Then, the motion is agreed to.
Motion No. 15 (Mr. Murphy) agreed to.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments left to me I wish to deal with another aspect of the problem which I do not think-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the ruling of the Chair was that this grouping would stand and we would move to another grouping.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is fine. Then shall we call it one o'clock?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will move to the next grouping. The next grouping will be Motions Nos. 27, 33, 34, and 40 standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and Motion No. 38 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. These are all in order. They will be debated and voted upon separately.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For clarification purposes, I have a copy of your ruling, and I take it that contrary to what is usually done, Motion Nos. 27, 33, 34, 40, and 38 will not be grouped for debate but will be debated individually and separately and put to the House separately also. You are calling Motion No. 27 right now, are you?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is exactly right. I agree with the Hon. Member. They will be debated and voted upon separately.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 5 in the French version
(a)	by striking out lines 37 to 39 at page 7 and substituting the following
therefor:
Canada Child Care Act
"cout des services de garde comprend l'indemnite de depreciation des immobilisations prevue par reglement et etablie en"
(b)	by striking out lines 44 and 45 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"et (2), le ministre procede, de la maniere reglementaire, a l'estimation des depenses".
He said: Mr. Speaker, again, the explanation for Motion No. 27 is to clean up the language in both official languages.


Lucie Pépin: Of course I support this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because we did find a number of translation problems, and since it went on so fast.. . Frenchspeaking witnesses were particularly concerned as they wondered to what extent they had missed some of the subtleties of the legislation.
So 1 endorse all amendments designed to correct the French version or make it more precise.

Motion No. 27 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 8 in the French version
(a)	by striking out line 10 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor: "la fa?on de determiner, d'une part, dans quelle mesure"
(b)	by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"et, d'autre part, 1'annee ou le cout est repute avoir ete entraTne;"
(c)	by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"preciser ses conditions d'attribution;"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the explanation for the previous motion applies to this one as well.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion for the same reasons. The Government proceeded with undue haste and the French was faulty.
Therefore I agree that the legislation be amended so the the French will be correct and precise.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can I just seek some information from the Minister. I just wanted to know, there seem to be several amendments that make some amendments to the French text. Can the Minister tell me if the drafting of this Bill was done in parallel or if it was a translation problem that occurred when Bill C-144 was drafted?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hon. Member. I cannot answer that, but I know what he is referring to, and it is my understanding that in the drafting of legislation, both languages have equal status and that they are to be

September 15, 1988
done separately. I believe that was done by the Department of Justice, but I cannot confirm that.
Motion No. 33 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-144 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out lines 14 to 17 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Where an agreement is entered into before regulations have been made under subsection (1), subsection (2) does not apply in respect of the agreement until after the first such regulations have been made."
He said: The same explanation applies again.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, we agree. Motion No. 34 (Mr. Epp (Provencher)) agreed to.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 38
That Bill C-144 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty with the inclusion of this amendment without reference. This was a consequential amendment dependent on one of the previous amendments which was asking that services for disabled children or children with special needs be covered.
I wonder if I could ask permission to call it one o'clock so that we could consult with the Table about this motion because it was really presented as a consequential amendment and was very much related to the previous amendment that we wanted to make which is not included at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate the Hon. Member bringing this to our attention now. I am sure that during the lunch hour we would be able to have some explanation as far as her request is concerned. Therefore, I-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to be difficult; I am not trying to be. I accept the explanation of the Hon. Member that a little more time is needed, but I think, if the House would be so disposed, that we could move to Motion No. 40 so that we could do the technical language amendments and then return to the uncompleted work. I would suggest we do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Fine. We will stand this motion, by unanimous consent, and go to Motion No. 40.
Motion No. 38 (Ms. Mitchell) stood.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Motion No. 40
That Bill C-144 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 11 and 12 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"AND WHEREAS the Parliament of Canada, having regard to the cultural and linguistic diversity of the Canadian population, wishes to encourage the development".
He said: The explanation for this motion is the same as the explanation for the previous motions.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I agree.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Agreed.
Motion No. 40 (Mr. Epp, Provencher) agreed to.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, according to statistics, older workers tend to become more discouraged than younger people in the search for employment and simply drop out of the labour force.
In 1986 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced the Government was letting the Liberal government program expire in favour of a new system that would be expanded to include almost all workers who face trouble finding a new job after being laid off. Costs were to be shared by provincial Governments. So far, the Government has failed to get the provinces to agree to the new program which was supposed to expand the number of people receiving benefits and save Ottawa money at the same time.
Why blame the provinces for refusing to do the federal Government's job? Has the Meech Lake virus already infected the federal Government's will so much as to paralyze its ability to implement a national program of such social significance and urgency? What a sham!
September 15, 1988



1994 COMMONWEALTH GAMES-CHOICE OF VICTORIA AS SITE


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members of the House were pleased to hear this morning that Canada, Victoria in particular, has been chosen as the site for the Commonwealth Games in 1994. This success has been achieved because of two factors: an incredible amount of work and effort put forward by volunteers, and, second, the co-operation of every level of government.
A volunteer committee self-started in Victoria, chaired by Mr. David Black and assisted by Rodger Banister and many others. They masterminded a brisk competition to be Canada's nominee for the Games site, and when Victoria was chosen the effort was doubled to win the second contest which finished this morning.
The Victoria committee sent representatives to all the voting countries of the Commonwealth and they were pleasantly surprised at the high regard in which Canada is held in those countries.
On behalf of Victoria I would like to thank all levels of government for their support, beginning with the municipalities neighbouring Victoria; the City Council and Mayor of Victoria; the Capital Region District; the Government of British Columbia; and the federal Government, in particular, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I am sure they had the support of all sides of the House in their actions, for a project such as this to be successful requires the support and co-operation of everyone.
Thanks again, and welcome to Victoria in 1994!


Mr. Speaker:: I know all Hon. Members will agree with me that, given the substantive nature of the intervention by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), it was appropriate to let him go on, and on, and on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, there is something desperately wrong with a government policy that permits what happened recently to the employees of Transport Route Canada, formerly CN Route. There is something desperately wrong with a privatization policy that
could put the employees of this company, which was privatized by permission of the Government, in a position where they have not only lost their jobs but their pensions are at risk, and there is a great deal of uncertainty with respect to their supplementary care benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, and union dues.
The independent trucking operators risk losing their rigs, some 75 of them in Winnipeg, I am told, because the company has no intention of paying them what it owes them. They will not be able to make their payments and they will go out of business for no other reason than the fact the Government decided to privatize something and to do it in such a way that sufficient guarantees were not built into the sale so that working men and women and their families were adequately protected.
I think this is shameful. We have been raising this in the House and we will be doing it again because this is a form of legalized theft. There is no other adequate description. More attention should be paid to it. It shows the moral bankruptcy of the Government because it has not even bothered to do anything about it.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON WESTERN CANADA

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement, when passed, will give western Canada an opportunity to be a full partner in Confederation.
Excessive rail freight rates to central Canada, which reach their apex in Alberta, have prevented our growth. The vast market to the nearby south will enable us to compete in new manufacturing industries that will bring employment and investment opportunities, and the competition may well reduce the excessive freight rates, something we have never been able to achieve to date.
In addition, our farmers, who have the capacity to produce vast quantities of foods, will find brand new markets that may well stabilize this important segment of our economy. And very important, our poor and aged will get the foods we buy from the U.S. cheaper and then they, too, will be able to enjoy the early vegetables and fruits which today they cannot afford.
We will lose no sovereignty and the buoyancy will bring even better social programs.
Let us pass the trade agreement and make Canada a greater country.

September 15, 1988
19282______________________________



RIGHT TO LIFE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, September 17, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., the National Rally For Life 1988 will be held here on Parliament Hill. Some 50,000 Canadians are expected to attend this ceremony at which they will demonstrate to all our fellow citizens that we want the protection of human life and we want legislation to protect human life.
As you know, Mother Teresa of Calcutta will be here to speak to Canadians that day. It is my hope that many Canadians will join me and other Members of Parliament, and the 50,000 Canadians who will be there, to listen to Mother Teresa and others who will speak to us of the importance of protecting human life from conception.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will welcome the Government's initiative in establishing the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. In view of the countless and recurring incidents of human rights violations, the Government of Canada has, after extensive consultations, introduced Bill C-147 proposing such a centre.
This initiative will help ensure that recipients of Canadian aid are held accountable for their observance of human rights. I would direct the attention of the House to an article entitled "Foreign Aid And Human Rights" appearing in the latest edition of International Perspectives which contains sensible suggestions as to how this might be accomplished.



TRANSPORT


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to place before the House just a few of the problems and questions which are frightening the former workers of Transport Route Canada. Since the bankruptcy of this privatized firm, we heard about the disastrous effects on the pension rights of up to 2,500 workers. Here are the other questions that are worrying them. Will they get unpaid wages?
Will they get the vacation pay owed them? Will they get the severance pay they are entitled to under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code? Will the independent truck owner-operators be paid for work they have done for Transport Route Canada? Some of them are owed up to $20,000.
The Government says CN would have folded the company anyway, blithely ignoring the fact it was the Government which introduced transport deregulation and which sets the terms under which CN operates.
The Government and CN management are not without responsibility to these employees. Their unions want to meet the Government and CN to ensure that their benefits are not lost and that the assets of this company are not simply plundered by buccaneers who took advantage of woolly and wasteful privatization policies.
If the Government believes these policies are defensible, then it should have no objection to a full inquiry into a situation which has permitted the assets of this company to be stripped by management and left the workforce on the street with no benefits and no work.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I have read with great care the New Brunswick Government's discussion paper on adequate highways for the province. The document states that a total of almost $2 billion is required to upgrade our highways over the next 15 years. It is interesting to note that over 87 per cent of the total amount is being earmarked for the TransCanada Highway. They want to add extra lanes when highways in northern New Brunswick are still in desperate need of repair and even completion.
Highway 11 and Highway 17 are essential to the economic future of northern New Brunswick, and by the province's own estimation some $34 million, or 1.7 per cent of the total projected expenditure, is all that is required to complete these routes.
Before the federal Government commits another penny to New Brunswick highway development the provincial Government should make a priority commitment to the completion of Routes 17 and 11. This is a provincial responsibility.
Come on, let's talk about completing highways before adding lanes to the ones that are already there!
September 15, 1988



HUMAN RIGHTS


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning in San Salvador, the army once again ignored the rights and freedoms of the citizens of that country. The army surrounded the building where the farmers' association, the UNTE was meeting, and prevented anyone from getting in or out. Subsequently, students staged protest demonstrations in the towns of San Miguel, Santa Ana and San Salvador. One hundred students were injured and more than 300 were arrested and taken away by the army. Where are they being detained? When will they be released? And why did the army take this action?
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Canadian Government to act quickly to find out what is happening in this country and especially to get specific information on what happened yesterday. We must help these people in distress, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, in July, 1984, at Prince Albert the P.C. Party promised that western Canadian economic policies and strategies would be developed by and for western Canadians in the belief that regional strengths and prosperity ultimately benefit all Canadians.
Since then the Government has abolished the oppressive National Energy Policy, established a lifetime capital gains exemption for farmers and small business, stood solidly behind prairie farmers against unfair foreign export subsidies, developed a western procurement initiative to increase federal government purchasing in the West, established the $1.2 billion Western Diversification Program to assist in western Canadian economic growth, participated in oil upgraders at Regina and Lloydminster to enable further processing on the Prairies, and established the National Agricultural Biotechnology Initiative in Saskatoon to support the commercialization of ag-biotech products.
All of this, Mr. Speaker, by a Government that listens to western Canadians, that consults with western Canadians, and co-operates with western Canadians in order to respond to the needs, aspirations, and wishes of westerners.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women yesterday announced the 1988 recipients of the Persons Awards. Five outstanding Canadian women will be honoured for their contributions toward improving the status of women in Canada.

The Person Case was won on October 18, 1929, by a group of suffragettes known as "The Famous Five". This group of women from Alberta, headed by Judge Emily Murphy, the first female magistrate in the British Empire, included Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung, Irene Parlby and Henrietta Muir Edwards. Together they fought to have women legally defined as persons, and they succeeded.

This year's recipients are Nellie Carlson, Jean Carson, Jacqueline Collette, Margaret Hyndman and Marion Powell. They have all been long-time advocates of women's rights, working on native, health, economic, and legal issues which affect women. I hope all Canadians share the pride of our Party in the contributions these women have made to our society.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, today marks another historic step in the growing, warm relationship between Canada and the People's Republic of China, a relationship which began in the days of the Progressive Conservative Government of John Diefenbaker.
An official delegation of senior leaders of the China YMCA is with us in the House today and will soon be visiting Canadian YMCAs in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, as well as here in Ottawa. During their visit to Canada they will announce the establishment of the China-Canada YMCA Bethune Scholarship Program.
This visit is an historic occasion for the YMCA in Canada and for all Canadians. On our behalf I wish to welcome the delegation and to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for hosting a luncheon today for the China YMCA delegation.

September 15, 1988
Oral Questions AIRPORTS



PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-AIRCRAFT NOISE

Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my constituency of York Centre is one of those which surround Pearson International Airport. The noise of aircraft taking off and landing is becoming an increasing problem. It reaches an unbearable level. Beginning on May 7 a new system was introduced which makes it worse because take-offs and landings now occur simultaneously.
There is a measure which could make a difference, that is, the vigilant enforcement of noise envelopes which require pilots to take off and land within certain areas. This is very loosely enforced by authorities at the airport.
The purpose of my intervention is to urge that the Government get serious about these envelopes and enforce them on the pilots taking off and landing. Although the change of May 7 has made it worse, there could at least be some balancing and some improvement of the lot of people who live close to the airport.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, here are the clean facts: Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, Transboundary Emergencies (Hazardous Wastes and Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes), ratification of the Vienna Convention to protect the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, new co-operation on meteorological programs, Fraser River Estuary Management Program, clean-up of Hamilton Harbour's Windermere Basin, clean-up of the Sydney Tar Ponds, accord on environmental cooperation with the provinces, initiation and passage of C-74, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, with input from opposition Parties, an Act for the preservation of Canadian water resources, stricter standards for the permitted levels of PCBs, and the elimination of lead from gas by 1992.
There is more. Why is the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) trying to grandstand at this point on the environment? Will it improve his polluted quagmire of popularity which now stands at 11 per cent?



CHILD CARE


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when the Government sent its child care proposal to committee
for study and brought expert witnesses before the committee, something unprecedented happened. Every single witness opposed this government initiative.
These witnesses included the following: The Canadian Daycare Association, The Early Childhood Educators of British Columbia, the B.C. Daycare Action Coalition, the National Advisory Council's Childcare Committee, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the Canadian Jewish Council, the Sunflower Co-op Preschool, the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the Canadian Teachers Federation, the Ottawa-Carleton Daycare Association, the Metro Toronto Child Services, the National Federation of Nurses Unions, the Metro Daycare Coalition, the Ontario Coalition for Better Daycare, the Inuit Women's Association of Canada, the Kids First Organization, the Assembly of First Nations, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Canada Anti-Poverty Group, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Manitoba Federation of Labour, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Letter Carriers Union of Canada, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and the National Union of Public Employees. The list goes on and on. Every single witness opposed this government initiative.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday representatives of 21 countries met here in Ottawa and accepted a report of international scientists that a 50 per cent cut must take place in fishing off the East Coast of Canada just outside the 200-mile zone. Today and tomorrow they will be deciding which stocks and which quotas will be reduced.
Japan, Bulgaria, Cuba, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, Germany, Norway, Poland, the Soviet Union, Romania, Canada, and the EEC unanimously agreed yesterday that the fishery was being destroyed by overfishing off the East Coast of Canada and that a 50 per cent reduction in catching effort must take place immediately.
My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Does the Government not feel a sense of guilt now that it was so weak as to allow this drastic overfishing in the past four years by these foreign countries? The EEC, with a quota of 17,000 metric tonnes, took 109,000 metric tonnes just outside our 200-mile zone.
September 15, 1988

Does the Government not realize that by its weak-kneed, love-love-me-do attitude, Canada is now faced with having to reduce its catching effort by 50 per cent off the East Coast of Canada, costing thousands of jobs, 4,000 in Newfoundland alone?
We know the Minister got tough with them in an after dinner speech the other day in Ottawa, but when will the Government get tough with them where it counts, on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem with respect to deterioration of the NAFO managed stocks in the seas off eastern Canada beyond the 200-mile economic zone. Of course, NAFO was set up following the 1977 Law of the Sea decision when countries such as Canada were given an economic zone of 200 miles within which to operate.
NAFO is supposed to manage the fishing effort in areas outside the 200-mile economic zone, which includes the nose and tail of the banks.
One of the problems with respect to NAFO is that its members, according to Article 12 of the NAFO Convention, can refuse to be bound by decisions taken by majority votes. Certain members of NAFO, such as the European Community, have refused to be bound by majority votes, have ignored their NAFO quotas and taken considerably in excess of the NAFO quotas. That is a problem that hopefully they are now considering.
With respect to the suggestion that the quotas are to be reduced, the meetings do not end until Friday. At that time we will know exactly what are the recommendations of NAFO with respect to these straddling stocks and Canada will be able to decide its position then. I believe that the alarm the hon. gentleman is trying to raise with respect to the effect on the Canadian interest is greatly exaggerated.


CANADA-FRANCE DISPUTE-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, one notable NAFO country does not accept even the scientific report. That country is France. France has overfished its quota inside the Canadian zone by some six times. Furthermore, it has broken off talks with Canada on the so-called disputed zone.
Will the Government of Canada now get up on its hind legs and take the initiative, invite France to the International Court to settle this question once and for all? In the meantime, will the Government do what it should have done a long time ago and give St. Pierre and Miquelon the fish they need, but arrest the first French vessel from metropolitan France that sets foot over our 200-mile zone?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman becomes more and more bellicose as he is further and further from power. The situation is that we have a long negotiation with France under way. It is a difficult one because of the circumstances from the past when other parties that were in power in Canada made certain decisions that do not help us now.
The position is that the Government of France does not wish to continue negotiations. As a matter of fact, fishery negotiations in the broad sense have not taken place since last October. France has now said that it does not wish to continue with the negotiations. It wants us to go back to the suggestion of several months ago that a mediator be appointed to see if the two parties can reach agreement. The Government of Canada is now considering this suggestion in view of the French actions and their statements, and will make a decision in due course. In the meantime, we have been pursuing France, asking it to refer the matter of the territorial boundary between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Canada to an international court for several years. The problem is that they refuse to do so until the question of quotas in the interim period is settled. That is the difficulty.


GRAND BANKS-FISHING BY UNITED STATES VESSELS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland are the spawning ground for all fish in eastern Canada. Canada and the 21 countries meeting in Ottawa today respect that it is the spawning ground.
However, there is one country in the world that does not respect that fact. Does the Government not realize that that one country in the world not only will not respect the fact that it is a spawning ground-a Canadian vessel would be arrested by Canadian boats if it went on the nose of the Grand Banks- that one country refuses to belong to NAFO and refuses to respect any quotas? That one country is none other than that great friend of the Government, the United States of America.
When will the Government do more than just send diplomatic notes of protest to Washington? Does free trade mean a free rein on our resources?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we can only all be very pleased that we soon will not have to listen to Question Period every day for at least a period of 50 days.


Some Hon. Members:: When?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister will not confide in me.
The United States is entitled to fish outside the 200-mile economic limit of Canada, just as other countries of NAFO are entitled to fish there. We do not approve of the kind of fishing practices they have adopted out there, as shown by the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this year took certain steps to indicate our displeasure there. We do regard

September 15, 1988
Oral Questions
the United States just as the Leader of the Official Opposition does, as a good friend of this country. But we will continue to protest to them and remonstrate when we do not agree with their fishing methods, their catches, or where they attempt to catch fish.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who is responding on behalf of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. WCN, a California-owned company, received a grant from Enterprise Cape Breton for $379,000 to do a feasibility study. Thereafter, it was awarded a $4.1 million loan and $2.3 million in tax credits to employ 160 people.
This American-owned company now confirms that it cannot do what it said it could. Today, six months after the loan, it only employs four people but the grant and loan remain intact. Oddly, the information indicating the amount of loan and tax credit does not appear in the annual report of Enterprise Cape Breton. Why does it not appear in the annual report?
Second, will he explain to the House whether or not investigations have been made of the former and present management team of WCN players because they have been involved in bankruptcies associated in the United States, as well as some real scams that have taken place in Saskatchewan, particularly the former president, with a company called Technigen in Saskatchewan, costing millions of dollars? Will the Minister explain that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking a specific question about a particular loan to a particular company, without giving any notice that he was going to ask the question. In my view it is hardly a suitable question for Question Period.
All I can say is that Enterprise Cape Breton in the period it has been operating since May, 1985, has processed 1,077 applications, made and accepted 359 offers for projects having a total value of $298 million, to which the federal contribution was $159 million, creating 2,556 jobs while helping maintain existing jobs totalling 1,278.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: All the hon. gentleman does to help the process is bring up individual cases and attack the odd individual case that might be a success. I would be ashamed to be him if I were representing that area.


UNIVERSAL METAL COMPANY GRANT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The numbers that he quotes are a scam, like the company I have reported here concerning the 160 jobs. The Minister knows that.
I will leave that scam for a moment and ask the Minister about another great company that has received money from Enterprise Cape Breton. It is Universal Metals. It received a grant of $669,000, tax incentives, tax credits and wage subsidies to employ upwards from 50 to 100 people. Today it employs eight people. I ask this Minister with his bogus figures with respect to job creation in Cape Breton to explain to those workers where that money has gone. What guarantees does he have for the protection of workers in that particular community?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. gentleman is against tax credits in Cape Breton and grants in Cape Breton.


David Charles Dingwall: I'm against scams and Tory hacks.


John Carnell Crosbie: Apparently he is against the effort launched by this Government to resuscitate Cape Breton economically.


Ms. Copps:: Oh, sit down!


John Carnell Crosbie: With respect to the $669,000 support to the Universal Sheet Metal Company, that went towards the capital cost of a crane. The hon. gentleman himself said that at the moment there are eight people employed, that is eight who would not have been employed were it not for this Government's help. Apparently he is against those eight people being employed. The company has had a peak workforce of 55 persons. At the moment we are hoping and expecting it will be rehiring towards the end of September when a ship arrives to take away $1 million worth of scrap from the Universal yard. So don't give up. Don't be gloating in this House too soon!


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Bank of Canada has just announced an increase of 0.25 per cent in the bank rate. This is the sixth consecutive increase. The bank's policy is an extremely negative one for farm producers, small business people and families who have to renew their mortgages. My question to the Prime Minister or the Minister is
September 15, 1988

simply this: Why is the Canadian Government pursuing a policy that is disastrous for Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if I might respond to that question, I think the Hon. Member is aware of the vast growth we have had in the Canadian economy over the past year and a half. It has been reflected in very good performance and job creation. We have seen during the course of this period an increasing pressure on inflation in the country. It is because of this increasing pressure on inflation that the Bank of Canada has moved to put on some offsetting pressure to avoid the problems we ran into in the 1970s and early 1980s when Governments of the day swept the problem under the rug.
If the Hon. Member wants to reflect back to 1981 when people were saying at that time: "We're probably going to see double-digit inflation for the rest of the 1980s", this is the sort of despair, the sort of frustration we want to avoid by dealing with the problem now. What I would say to the Hon. Member is that if you wait to act on inflation until you know you have a serious inflation problem, you have lost the battle. Inflationary expectations are embedded at that time and that is what we want to avoid.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that the recent inflation figures show inflation going down in virtually every city from St. John's in the east to Vancouver in the west. There is still some pressure in the city of Toronto that everyone understands, even if, from the last figures, inflation dropped in the city of Toronto.
Instead of dealing directly with the major source of inflation in the city of Toronto, which is housing, instead of increasing radically the supply of housing in Toronto, why is the Government of Canada imposing a high interest rate policy on Canada as a whole? Why is it not dealing directly with the inflationary problem of housing in the city of Toronto?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is showing a very narrow understanding of the inflationary problems of this country if he says the sole source of inflation is housing in Toronto.


Mr. de Jong:: You are the inflationary problem with your sales tax.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Housing does represent an important part of the economy and we have seen over a two-year period now some very important increases in the housing industry which have represented tremendous growth, tremendous opportunities, and a demonstration of economic success, not just in Toronto but right across the country.
Oral Questions
I want to observe to the Hon. Member that in a recent report of the IMF, its 1988 annual report, it made some very positive observations about Canada. It went on to say:
The authorities recognize that the best way for monetary policy to contribute to sustained economic growth is to continue to aim at price stability. Their actions in 1987 to curb monetary expansion in response to a rapid rise in the degree of resource use and certain signs that inflation might begin to accelerate were appropriate and contributed to a further strengthening of market confidence in the Canadian dollar.
That is the International Monetary Fund annual report of this year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I tell the Minister of Finance that if he tries to talk that way to most workers in most parts of Canada outside of the centre of Toronto, he will not be well regarded. I want to put my question this way. Considering the Prime Minister himself, a man to whom the Minister of Finance listens with considerable care, I suspect, said:
Every percentage of interest costs the farmers, say $100 million out of their pockets.
They are the words of the Prime Minister of Canada. And considering on the Prairies alone in the past year we have had 24,000 jobs in the farming sector disappear, and one-tenth of farmers in Canada as a whole are on the verge of bankruptcy, why does the Minister of Finance not have an interest rate policy that is good for all of Canada, for the farmers, and not just for one region?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I want to tell the Hon. Member, and it is the way I spoke to farmers in Saskatchewan last week, not to pull punches, to say this is the reason for the policy we are following as a Government. It is a policy when, taken in the broadest sense of what we have done over the last four years, shows we have created 1,000 jobs a day, day in and day out, for that whole period, 1,275,000 jobs!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The other thing I said to the farmers I met with on two occasions in Saskatchewan was that it is important to recall the problems they ran into in 1981 and 1982 when they saw interest rates going up very, very quickly and a lot of them had their farms devastated and their livelihoods devastated as a result of it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: You were calling for lower interest rates then.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I told them that we were acting in a responsible, prudent manner to avoid that problem that they knew so well in 1981 and 1982.


Simon Leendert de Jong: You are quoting Marc Lalonde now.

September 15, 1988
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a good understanding among them, and among other Canadians, that there is a very close link between inflation and interest rates. If you let inflation get out of control, then interest rates go right through the roof, and that-


John Edward Broadbent: Inflation has been going down, Michael. Not up, down.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member does not want to listen to the answer.


Simon Leendert de Jong: We heard it in 1982 and we heard it in 1983.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VICE-PRESIDENT OF DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Vice-President of the Dominican Republic, Carlos Morales.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATIONS MADE BY FORMER POLITICAL ORGANIZER-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Government's code of public ethics.
Yesterday, a prominent Conservative, Mr. Glen Kealey, a former Conservative organizer in the riding of Hull-Aylmer, again stated on TVA television that he had been asked to pay a bribe in return for a Government contract. He also made allegations about the presence of organized crime within the Government.
Considering the fact that such allegations are very serious, is the Prime Minister prepared to indicate what measures he intends to take?

Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that there is certainly no basis for an inquiry. I would encourage the Member, if he has any proof of these allegations, to bring it forward to the appropriate people.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Stand up and say that's true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A Tory said it. He didn't say it. One of yours said it, Wilson.


Mr. McDermid:: You guys are going to end up in third
place.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS-REQUEST FOR COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, presently there is an RCMP investigation into the allegations made by Mr. Glen Kealey, the Conservative organizer. So it is not a question of having an RCMP inquiry, it is already in progress. He has been subjected to a polygraph test which he has passed, by the way.
Given that Mr. Kealey has now joined the Hon. Member for Rosemont in calling for a public inquiry into the contracting practices of the Government, and he has done that in letter form to the Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister now prepared to call for a public commission of inquiry into the contracting practices of the Government, as a Conservative organizer, Mr. Kealey, has asked for, as the Member for Rosemont has asked for, and as I have been requesting for the last two years? Will he do that now, and if not, why not?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has stated there has been an RCMP investigation. We on this side of the House have all kinds of confidence in the RCMP. The investigation has not found that there should be an inquiry of this nature.
If the Hon. Member has anything to bring forward, he should do it now.


Don Boudria: Why don't you ask Glen Kealey?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Table the interview.


Don Boudria: Can I table the interview?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Don Boudria: It's a television interview transcript. I can table it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.
September 15, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ADVERTISEMENTS OPPOSING DEAL
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, today a coalition of farmers and food processing firms from across the country challenged the Government with advertisements that state the trade deal "is a disaster for the agri-food industry in Canada", and "will make the Canadian farmer pay an unacceptable penalty".
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade why did the Government, as this advertisement makes clear, not listen to Canadian farmers and food companies? Why was the Government so unfair to 750,000 Canadians?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we listened, not only to the Canadian agricultural community, but to every sector of the business, industrial, and farming economy of Canada through an elaborate system of SAGITs and the International Trade Advisory Council. They have been listened to and their advice often carried out, where it was possible to be carried out.
The advertisement to which the Hon. Member refers is by a certain number of personages. We notice food processors such as McCain's that have been expressing opposition to the free trade agreement because they are opposed to the supply management system that we have in our agriculture here in Canada, and which we protected in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It is fully protected.
Of course the food processing companies like McCain's are annoyed that this might keep up the costs of the farm inputs that they buy and make them less able to compete. That is their basic complaint. Their complaint is not with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement; their complaint is that we are protecting the farmers of this country too well.


PROTECTION OF FARMERS-MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is a totally misleading statement. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the UPA in Quebec both signed and paid for this advertising as well.

I want to ask the Minister what he is going to do now to protect those Canadian farmers against that which according to the UPA will have a negative impact in this sector with free trade. What does the Minister intend to do?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the hon. gentleman again that there is a long list of agricultural organizations that are supporting the free trade agreement, for example, the Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the Canadian Meat
Oral Questions
Council, the Canadian Pork Producers, the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, and the United Grain Growers. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker.
In addition, studies conducted by impartial bodies such as the Economic Council of Canada have found both primary agriculture and the food and beverage industry will be better off as a result of the FTA. Better off-b-e-t-t-e-r!


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. Mr. Gillies, the Intermodal Vice-President of Canadian National, has indicated that, because of renewed coal production in Pictou County, CN will soon be closing the rail line between North Sydney and Truro. This would be devastating for eastern Nova Scotia, an area that already is badly in need of regional development and suffers one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
Why is the Government working with CN to close this very important rail link in eastern Nova Scotia?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the comments of the Vice-President of CNR. I am very much aware of the efforts of the Government of Canada to work with the Government of Nova Scotia to bring about new economic opportunities in the mining area, and in other areas, in Pictou County, Central Nova, and in other constituencies throughout Nova Scotia.
1 will be happy to look at my hon. friend's observation. I am sure that he would have no objection whatsoever to the initiatives of the Government to bring about a rebirth of mining in Central Nova.


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT TO RETENTION OF LINE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the concern is the closure of the rail line, as I am sure the Prime Minister knows. CN has already met with the Cape Breton Development Corporation and asked it if it would take over the portion of the rail line on Cape Breton Island.
Will the Prime Minister right now give his commitment to the people of eastern Nova Scotia that, in the indefinite future, the rail line between North Sydney and Truro will remain open in eastern Nova Scotia, and that it will not be closed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, that I will be happy, on behalf of the Government, to take a serious look at my hon. friend's comments.

September 15, 1988
Oral Questions
I know that he is not drawing any tie-in whatsoever between initiatives designed to revitalize the economy of Pictou County and other areas of Nova Scotia with the alleged statement of the Vice-President of the CNR.
We have been making a very special effort to help Cape Breton, as has been indicated in other responses, by tax changes. We have been making special efforts to help Pictou Country and other areas of Atlantic Canada, and we will continue to do so, because these initiatives can be sustained without any damage being inflicted upon any other areas of Canada, and I know that my hon. friend supports that view.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it concerns his high interest rate policy which is hurting farmers across Canada.
In light of the fact that one year ago the Prime Minister stated that every time the interest rate in this country moves 1 per cent the farmers lose $100 million out of their pockets, in light of the fact that in the last year we have lost some 24,000 farm-related jobs on the Prairies, I want to know from the Minister of Finance, since farmers have suffered already from the drought, and from low international grain prices, does he not realize that farmers have suffered enough? Why does this Minister have a high interest rate policy for farmers which is killing the farm economy? Why that high interest rate policy?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to think back to the period 197274. That was a period when there was a minority Liberal Government supported by the NDP.
During that period of time the Government of the day, supported by the NDP, ignored the inflationary pressures that were very clear at that time. It kept interest rates down at that time-


John Edward Broadbent: What about 1876?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the NDP said what has it to do with 1974.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not what I said.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will tell the Hon. Member what it has to do with it. That is when the problems got started. That is when the problems that led to the interest-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Leader of the New
Democratic Party is demonstrating complete ignorance of the pressures that arose in the 1970s which led so clearly to the 20 per cent to 25 per cent interest rates which devastated the farmers that the person sitting next to him is so concerned about today.
We in this Government take our responsibilities seriously. We are going to conduct an economic policy to avoid the problem that we ran into as a country when that problem was ignored and led to 20 per cent to 25 per cent interest rates in 1982.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, why does this Minister not care about 24,000 jobs lost on the Prairies?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In light of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada said in March of 1984-and I have the quotes right here-that we can have a made-in-Canada interest rate policy, and that interest rates at that time with a 10 per cent prime were too high-and they are higher now-why can we not have a made-in-Canada interest rate policy at this time? The Premiers of Canada want the interest rates down. The farmers want them down. Home owners want them down. Why do we have a high interest rate policy that is killing the farmers of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not going to accept what the Hon. Member has just read into the record. I tell him that if he feels so strongly about it to table the policy so we can see the whole statement which he attributes to the Prime Minister at that time.
I would also say to the Hon. Member that we cannot have a regional monetary policy. We cannot have a regional interest rate policy. If we did, and if we had interest rates higher in Ontario than in Saskatchewan, his province, then money would flow from Saskatchewan to Toronto and the farmers of Saskatchewan would be starved for money.
What we in this Government have done is we have responded clearly to the needs of the farmers in Saskatchewan, as well as in other parts of the country. We have brought out policies that address drought and the problems of international grain subsidy wars-two policies which have resulted in billions of dollars of additional money going into the economy of Saskatchewan. This is how the Government demonstrated clearly its sensitivity to the plight of the farmers in his province of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 15, 1988


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Only a few days ago we heard the Prime Minister at his unctuous best promising that the number one concern of Canadians in this election would be the environment. How could the Prime Minister have made that promise with a straight face when he must have known that three months before his own Deputy Prime Minister, in cahoots with the Minister of the Environment and the political Minister for Manitoba, cooked up a deal which put the environment of the whole Province of Manitoba at risk by approving the Rafferty Dam project simply to satisfy the Prime Minister's wish list and Saskatchewan's demands?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the allegations of the Hon. Member are just as erroneous today on this question as they have been demonstrated over the last four years while she has been in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Environment said very clearly yesterday, as well as the day before, there were very stringent conditions. He mentioned 13 areas whereby if the conditions were not met he was authorized as the Minister of the Environment to withdraw the permit for the project.
Obviously, and I think we have to be straight on this matter, the provinces and the federal Government want to protect the environment. For the Hon. Member to come forward with the type of questions that she does come forward with is simply in keeping with how she has always handled herself in this House. She simply wants to make political points. She could not care less about the environment or even her own integrity at this stage.


WATER QUALITY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing, I would not sell out the people of my province for a political deal in the same way as the political Minister for Manitoba has done on this dam.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put her question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put it on the record. Yesterday the Minister of the Environment stated an absolute mistruth in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: His top hydrologist has contradicted him. His chief environmental policy analyst has contradicted him.
Oral Questions
Why does the Government continue to claim that this deal will protect the water quality of Manitoba when in fact the top hydrologist involved in looking at this deal says that it will not? The Minister's own assistant, his chief environmental assistant, quit her job because she said that this was a political sell-out and had nothing to do with the environment. How can the Minister stand for Manitoba and say he is protecting Manitobans, and allow this deal to go through?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that she would not sell out. She has nothing to sell, something which has been evident for four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I repeat what the Minister of the Environment has said. The conditions have been very clearly laid out. They have been agreed to by both levels of government. That stands on the record.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A Tory deal.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are making arrangements for Canada not only for progress on water quality in Saskatchewan, not only for farmers in western Canada, not only for industrialization in Canada, and not only for social policy. What the Hon. Member does not like is the record because she knows she has to run against it and she cannot win.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Every fisherman in Canada, and certainly every fisherman in Newfoundland, knows the effects of foreign overfishing on the incomes of fishing families in Canada. Although the Minister for International Trade refuses to recognize it, many Newfoundland fishermen, inshore fishermen in particular, have had poor catches this year, some making as little as $10 per week.
Why is the Government so ineffective on this issue? No progress has been made with France on 3PS where overfishing is devastating fishing incomes on the south coast. No progress has been made to control overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, or the Flemish Cap. Why does the Government not take action to protect Canada's interests?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a question from the hon. gentleman. There was a story in the St. John's The Evening

September 15, 1988
Oral Questions
Telegram recently with the headline: "Councillors Wonder if MP Harris is Still Alive".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Your Tory buddies.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am glad to be able to report to the Evening Telegram that the Hon. Member appears to be alive.
With respect to the question, the Government has done more in four years to enforce its surveillance in the 200-mile economic limit off the East Coast of Newfoundland. For example, we have armed the crewmen on patrol vessels. We have hired additional resources for surveillance, using not only defence aircraft but other chartered aircraft with the most modern radar capability, which has been very effective in apprehending people who violate our rules and regulations with respect to fishing. There has been more done to see that quotas and TACs are observed in the East Coast 200-mile zone in the last four years than in the previous 10.
With respect to the nose and tail of the Banks, those areas, unfortunately, are outside the jurisdiction of this country. Therefore they come under the arrangements of NAFO. We have put it strongly to NAFO this week that certain of the NAFO members who are refusing to observe their own quotas and who have refused to observe the majority rules of NAFO are seriously endangering fish stocks that straddle the 200-mile limit. We feel that NAFO must take steps to become more effective.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how much the Minister for International Trade and his Government are prepared to spend this time to try to beat me. He will find out how alive I am.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CANADIAN JURISDICTION
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister says that action is being taken to talk to NAFO members about how concerned they are about the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We are all aware of the effect of this over-fishing on Canada's national interest. When will the Government start moving to extend the jurisdiction of Canada so that we can protect those fish stocks that are not being protected by these countries to the detriment of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that it was not I who wondered if the Hon. Member was alive, it was the Conception Bay South Council that was concerned about his health. The council agreed to write him a letter to find out how he is and "if he is still alive". I hope the Hon. Member is not offended by my bringing that up.
With reference to the question of the 200-mile limit, neither Canada nor any other country can unilaterally extend its jurisdiction over the fishery beyond the 200 miles that were agreed to in the Law of the Sea Treaty of 1977. The United States has not done it but there may be one or two South American countries that have said that they will do it.
I do not think that Canada can unilaterally take the law into its own hands and extend our limits that way. Certainly we would be willing to see, if the other countries of the world would agree, the boundaries extended out to cover the whole continental shelf, something which I think we should do, but if they refuse to recognize our wishes in that regard I am afraid we cannot force the world to do what Canada thinks is the right thing to do.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In 1983, Amway Corporation pleaded guilty before the Supreme Court of Ontario to a complicated scheme which involved defrauding Canadian taxpayers of millions of dollars in taxes and duties. Today, nearly five years later, those amounts have not been paid. Can the Minister confirm that the total involved is over $100 million?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's interest in this high-profile case. It is true that it has been, as they say, dragging on for a long time. It is presently before the Supreme Court of Canada, and I think the Hon. Member will understand that I cannot divulge much information publicly about it other than what is available in court records. I would be pleased to explore what information I could properly give her, but I think she will understand that at the present time it is still before the courts.


AMOUNT OWED
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is still before the courts, but the Minister should be prepared to divulge the amount involved because that must have been arrived at long before the court case started. I think ordinary Canadians who are being harassed for arrears of $100 may find it bothersome that people who owe $100 million are apparently able to escape.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague that, while it is true that there appears to be a substantial amount of money owed, the judicial process must be observed. We are not in a position to do anything arbitrary until the Supreme Court of Canada authorizes the proper verdict.
September 15, 1988



1994 COMMONWEALTH GAMES-GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR VICTORIA FACILITIES


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimau-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the City of Victoria and Canada have been successful in their bid to host the 1994 Commonwealth Games, can the Government confirm its commitment to financial support toward the facilities?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is proud to have supported the City of Victoria and the committee in their efforts to win the hosting privileges for the 1994 Commonwealth Games. I am sure all Hon. Members of the House would celebrate with Victoria this great success today in Seoul.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I should also mention that our colleague, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, was in Seoul to add additional support to the application.
I also want to indicate to the Hon. Member and to his constituents and the good burghers of Victoria that, not only did the Canadian Government commit money for the bid itself, but as well, the commitment that if Canada were awarded the Commonwealth Games, up to $50 million would be in place, is repeated as being firm today.


Mr. Speaker:: One single question from the Hon. Member for Churchill and that will close Question Period.


TRANSPORT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that it is a single question because it is a very serious matter. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Does he not find it obscene that the people who bought Route Canada after the Government decided to privatize it are keeping their Jaguars and their Lear jets, while at the same time the workers have lost their dental plan and their health plans, their pensions are in jeopardy, they have lost their jobs, and independent contractors are in danger of losing their trucks? Is that not obscene?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can draw conclusions as he wishes. He perhaps has all the facts associated with this issue. However, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of State for Transport, the Minister of
Business of the House
Labour and the Minister of State for Finance have all responded to questions like that.
I can assure the Hon. Member by simply reinforcing the fact that as a Government we are very, very concerned about the welfare of the employees. We are attempting to-


Mr. Benjamin:: Look what privatization got you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are attempting to ascertain all the facts surrounding this particular issue, and the assurance of the Government is that all efforts will be taken to ensure that the welfare of the employees will be considered-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's a rip-off.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member says that it is a rip-off. There were bankruptcies long before privatization initiatives or deregulation came into effect-


Rodney Edward Murphy: It was your policy. You didn't protect them, you didn't try to protect them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Government-if he does not want to listen to the answer, then there is not much point in proceeding.


POINT OF ORDER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period members of the Government requested that I table or make public some documents in relation to the allegations made by Mr. Glen Kealey. I have in hand a copy of a TVA transcript of September 14 which I would like to table, and with the unanimous consent of the House, I would be willing to append it to Hansard.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The document can be tabled but it would require unanimous consent of the House. I do not think there is such unanimous consent.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Government House Leader. I would like to ask him if he would give us a statement of the business the Government intends to call over the next several days.

September 15, 1988
Message from the Senate


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with report stage of Bill C-144, the child care Bill, which I understand may be completed by six o'clock this evening. If there are recorded divisions requested, they would be deferred until 6 p.m. Monday.
Tomorrow, Friday, September 16, we will continue with report stage of Bill C-136, the broadcasting Bill. I understand that it may be possible for this stage of debate to be completed by two o'clock tomorrow afternoon. If there are any recorded divisions requested, they would be deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday.
On Monday, September 19, we would call the Bill introduced this morning respecting variable entrants' requirements for unemployment insurance. If that is completed, we would then propose to call Bill C-128, the Bill to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology. If there is any time, we might perhaps proceed with Bill C-157, the Bill dealing with public servants' political rights.
Pending what happens to report stages of Bill C-144 and Bill C-136, on Tuesday, September 20, we would commence third reading of Bill C-144, the child care Bill, followed by third reading of Bill C-136.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, since Allan Gregg is not allowing the Conservatives to call an election this weekend, can the Minister indicate if he is willing to move forward on our proposals regarding a definition of election expenses? The Deputy Prime Minister received our letter before the break indicating that we were willing to move quickly. We have been told by Elections Canada that they believe the amendments we have proposed can be put in place quickly and they look at them with a certain amount of favour. We are still waiting for a response to that letter we sent to the Deputy Prime Minister over two weeks ago.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know that due to the filibuster by the NDP we were unable to proceed with Bill C-79 which involved a great deal of amendments to the Elections Act. I know my friend wants to proceed with the election expenses business. Members on our side want to pin down exactly what happens to campaign contributions so they are no longer used by the NDP to fund municipal elections.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing with the Government's right to introduce whatever type of legislation it wants. The point is that it has not made any attempt whatsoever to introduce legislation. Again, we have made a specific proposal with respect to a unanimous report of a committee of the House of Commons which said that election expenses must be clearly defined before the next election. That was the report of a majority Conservative committee which investigated the affairs of the Hon. Member for Frontenac (Mr. Masse).
Do you not think that after that report and the passage of six months the Government could move and provide a decent definition of election expenses before we go into the next election?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this new-found effort toward cooperation on the question of election expenses is a complete surprise to me and my Party. We outlined the work for next week. If we have complete co-operation on Bill C-79, we can look at it.
I reiterate that members of my Party are very disturbed about federal contributions being used for municipal elections, as they are by the NDP. Any change in the Act would have to take that into account.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-21, an Act to revive Grenville Aggregate Specialties Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.