1988-09-16

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 15, 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; and the amendments of Ms. Mitchell:
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-144 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-144 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Mr. Speaker:: Continuing debate with the Hon. Member for Churchill.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, again it is an honour to get up in the House and speak on child care which we believe is a national priority for all Canadians. In my riding I think one of the things that we have to be concerned about is making sure that we increase the availability of child care for people in remote communities.
One of the concerns that we have with the legislation that is in front of us is that because it lacks national standards, national objectives, that will be followed through, we are not sure if we will have these day care centres and available spaces in the communities that need them. I would like to spend a few minutes in talking about why that is essential.
In native populations we have high unemployment. Among native women we have higher unemployment. It is essential that we increase not only the job opportunities for those women but also the opportunities for those women to get training. One of the ways that that can happen is if we are in a situation in which those women and those families are guaranteed adequate child care. That is not difficult, but it is not that hard either if the Government has the political will to make it happen.
We would like to see within the legislation that we have before us some means of increasing funding for child care to increase the spaces that are available. I noticed yesterday that
the Minister tried to ridicule the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell). That is not surprising, since the Minister has ridiculed everybody who has an opinion different from his own on this issue. He does not have to listen just to my learned colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. He could have listened to the various groups that have made presentations to the House of Commons committee. They were concerned with the same issue that my colleague was concerned about. It is interesting to note that all 40 groups that came forward at the committee hearings spoke against the Government's project.
There would have been more people speaking against the Government's project if government Members on that committee had not limited the hearings to two days of investigation. It was two days on a child care program that is supposed to be national in scope, an issue which is so controversial, so important. This Government says two days is enough to study it, two days is enough for groups across Canada to make their presentations.
1 always considered it a problem with this Government that when something is controversial it does not want it studied. When something is important, whether it is trade, child care, or tax reform, it wants to limit public input.
It reminds me of that leaked government document a couple of years ago where they wanted to low profile the trade issue. They did not want it to become a public issue. We know why. We see with the recent polls that the more Canadians know about this Prime Minister's trade deal with the American President the more they dislike it.
The same situation would exist with child care. The Minister, his officials, his cabinet colleagues, and backbenchers, those who were not promoted to Cabinet yesterday, have all gone out and said what a wonderful program it is, how it provides the money for stay home mothers-80 cents a day, I understand-and how that is really helping our young children across this nation. As those kinds of facts become public more and more people will know that we are getting another flim-flam from this Government.
Four years after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that we would have child care legislation, they finally come up with this package. They want to rush it through the House of Commons, not because they believe it is a priority

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
but because there might be an election in the next couple of weeks. They want to keep one or two promises in the whole area of social policies even if it is a flim-flam, even if it is done at the last possible moment, and even if it is not meeting the concerns of people across Canada including the people in the remote communities that I mentioned in opening my remarks.
Specifically on the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, we believe that the amendment put forward is the type of thing that we need to improve this legislation.
Yesterday the Government accepted a motion that would finally make it possible for concerned groups to have access to the arrangements made with each of the provinces and what would be in those arrangements. We had an amendment put forward and eventually accepted by this House that would ensure the public access to those agreements and to any amended version of those agreements. That was important.
More important, we must make sure that there is adequate funding. The intent of this amendment by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East and of the other amendments she has put forward in the same area is to increase funding for child care spaces and to make sure that the Government's legislation does not actually limit the number of spaces which will be created over the next number of years.
1 indicated earlier that a number of groups have spoken specifically on that point. In their presentations to the House of Commons committee they indicated that they would support that type of amendment. I will just read from three of the briefs that were presented to this committee. I am taking a cross-section because, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver East has indicated, approximately 40 groups spoke against this legislation in committee. Many of them spoke on this specific aspect of the legislation. I will start by taking the presentation of one union group, the National Union of Provincial Government Employees, which said:
I'm sure all of you here tonight remember what constituted a "subsidized space" in childcare-funding-parlance in the days before the National Childcare Strategy. BNCS we had CAP, and in CAP language a "subsidized" space meant a space which was available for the child of a low-income family at a subsidized fee.
In fact, when the National Childcare Strategy was unveiled in late 1987, and the Minister and departmental officials talked glowingly of 200,000 new childcare spaces, "most of which would be subsidized", even those of us who have been keenly involved in the childcare policy debate long enough to consider ourselves veterans failed at first to grasp that the federal government had written a new dictionary of childcare language.
We continued to think that a subsidized space was a subsidized space, and we had great difficulty figuring out how the Government could claim to be funding 200,000 new subsidized spaces on the allocations of direct funding outlined in the National Strategy.
Now, of course, we've been re-educated on the subject of what the government means when it talks about a "subsidized space". In the era after the National Strategy on Childcare, a subsidized space is merely a space for which a province, having received money from the federal government, provides a "meaningful subsidy". "Meaningful subsidy", in the new federal childcare dictionary is currently defined as $2/space/day. At $2/space/day, the new subsidized space is much cheaper for governments than the old CAP definition of a subsidized space, which might range as high as $27 for a space filled by a toddler from a low-income family.
After looking at the legislation, at what the Government was doing, one group realized that it would indeed limit the contributions of the federal Government in this area. It was not the only group that made presentations, as I mentioned earlier.
We also have the brief of the the National Anti-Poverty Organization which, in part said: "Under existing cost-sharing agreements, child care has been funded as part of the Canada Assistance Plan. One of its components is social services that are eligible for cost-sharing if they serve those in need or those likely to be in need without the service. This objective is indeed clear. While the money has been removed from this program to provide funds for the Canada Child Care Act, its objectives have neither been replicated nor replaced in this Bill". It went on to say: "Removing the funds for cost-sharing child care from the Canada Assistance Plan to the Canada Child Care Act accomplished several federal Government goals", but not necessarily doing what it should do to help low-income Canadians. That is why the National Anti-Poverty Organization has spoken out against this legislation.
Further, the Government's own Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, people appointed by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, has also come out in its brief against what the Government is doing. In this specific area of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East, it said that the Government had actually moved backward.
To read part of its brief in the few minutes that I have remaining, it said:
In 1973, 15 years ago, the Council pointed out the "evident inability of the federal-provincial governments to come to grips with the problem of child care services so urgently needed in Canada." In 1986, we reiterated our belief that "child care ... is an essential service which should be universally accessible."
The Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) was one solution; Bill C-144 is another. However, neither of them acknowledge that child care, for low-income and middle-class families alike, will become part of the Canadian landscape; that families cannot bear this burden without considerable help; and that that help must intelligently, in good faith, and with the most intense political will, come from a government that has the foresight to understand that the labour force requires the participation of women and men, and that responsible fiscal planning for the future requires a great commitment for the care of our children.
What I am trying to point out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will let the Hon. Member wind up.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the extra few seconds, and I certainly will not abuse it. What I am trying to point out from the briefs that I have scanned in terms of what I have said this morning is that it is not only our amendment that we are speaking to in the House of Commons. What we are speaking to is a belief widely held by groups across this country that this child care legislation is not doing what it should be.
September 16, 1988

Again through the use of flimflammery the Government has actually restricted the ability to provide the child care services that are needed across this country. It is not just our belief, and the Minister may not like our amendments, it is what people across this country have been saying in front of the committee in the two brief days that the Government would allow the public to make presentations.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this very important amendment. I am very concerned about the fact that the so-called child care strategy brought to the House is one that eliminates people who normally would be able to have some access to child care.
I must say the people, certainly the children, and the families of Canada, are very fortunate that they have had a Member of Parliament such as the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) who really understands child care. I am very concerned about a Government that will bring forward a Bill that states that this is a child care strategy. What it is really doing is demeaning the ability to deliver child care in our country.
Anyone who has children would start to understand that, first of all, we are looking at children in need and we are looking at children of low-income families who, if the provinces use this Bill, will be cut off in the Canada Assistance Plan. That is really important. We have looked at the statistics and the analysis. We recognize that if the Canada Assistance Plan was left in place at least these people would have access to the kind of quality care that is available to them at the moment.
Second, what we have done with this is said to people who already have spaces, regardless of what kind of spaces they have, that they will be able to get tax exemptions. That is not what we are looking for. We are looking at two million children out there in need of care. Certainly the New Democratic Party has recognized for a long time that to make sure families are secure and have a basis of choice they must have the services that are there. Suggesting that this is something that we cannot afford in Canada is saying that we cannot afford to give stability and caring to families and children. That is not the position of New Democratic Party.
In the Minister's comments yesterday he stated that he was not going to implement the Meech Lake principles. This Government said that it was at last going to be able to establish national standards, but he did not want to do this for children. Again it is this flop-flop that the Government is using. Children are not important to the Government. It is about time that it recognized that the people of Canada do care about their children.
We are looking at a program that will cut off the Canada Assistance Plan that now is at least addressing the needs of low-income people. That plan will be cut off if they kick into this type of Act. That is unacceptable, it is unfair, and it certainly does not serve the children of Canada well.
Canada Child Care Act
There are many research institutions in this country and a lot of research has been done on child development. We have the information, and we know what is needed. We know that those first eight years are the most crucial years in any person's developmental stages, yet the Government is again saying that it is not going to worry about it. Every research institute that looked at child care has said "eliminate the welfare system network for child care and put it into a national child care strategy so all children will be seen as equals, at least for those first eight years". No matter what they have to face in life later on, at least they will be given that base.
What the Government has done in putting this Act in place is discriminating against the low-income people and the people who normally would be able to be part of that welfare assistance plan. The research institutes and the New Democratic Party have stated that if we are going to put a national strategy in place, get that national strategy in place. In the meantime there has to be a phasing in so that the low-income people and the children in real need have the ability to use that Canada Assistance Plan.
This Government has turned down two amendments that would have helped to be put that in place. We have an amendment in front of us this morning that is really saying "allow that to happen", Mr. Speaker, to assist the children who are homeless, the children who are of the working poor, and the families that are under pressure in their existence because of poverty.
It is all very well for the Government to brag about the kinds of programs it has put in place that have actually given assistance to those who already have money, who have places for their child care, and who are comfortable when they go to work knowing that their children are well looked after and that they can afford to pay for it. Is that the kind of society this Government wants to be part of, a society that builds two Canadas, a Canada for the children of those who have the ability to be able to pay for their child care, independent of any help from society, except extra tax exemptions? Rather, do we want to a build a society that says a child born in this country is a valuable treasure, a person that we understand has the potential of being a very productive and secure and creative individual in our country?
As a Party we know that investing in children is probably the most serious and important investment we can make in all times. As New Democrats we understand that if we are going to build a base of a secure society we must build that base in the first eight years of a child's life. If we want families to be able to operate with some security, with knowing that they can build their family unity together with a sense of security that their children will be well looked after and safe, then we need a child care program that does not discriminate against the children in need.

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Many, many briefs were put forward to the committee. They were briefs from people who were not necessarily seen as supporting the New Democratic Party, but they were briefs from people who had done an analysis of this Child Care Act. Every one of those briefs objected to the Bill that we have in front of us and said that it is bad, withdraw it, leave the status quo rather than put something in that will really threaten the quality of care that our children are presently getting.
We know there has been a crisis in Canada in child care. We know there have been people who have been on long waiting lists for years. We know that there are certain provinces where it is almost impossible to get any kind of quality care. Yet with all of that, these people who have studied the Act have said leave the status quo the way it is, rather than implement this, because it is increasing the discrimination against people of lower income and certainly the working poor. It is also saying that we have no guarantee of any quality care in this country.
They really are not going to put in any national objectives that say that whether one is in Newfoundland, in British Columbia, in the Yukon, or in the Northwest Territories, a child in Canada has a right to specific kinds of quality care. There is nothing in the Bill that addresses that, and the Minister is saying that he chose to ignore the fact that at least in Meech Lake we are allowed to start to put in national objectives. However, he wants to ignore that, and says quite blatantly that he has ignored the fact that national objectives are possible in Meech Lake. He does not intend to implement them. That is a fine way to be responsible about what child care is all about.
Every one of us here, men, women, and parents who understand what that basic need is for children, cannot in any conscience support this Bill and not support these amendments. Surely, we have to look at the implications for the children of the working poor and the low-income families in Canada. What we are doing is relegating them to an adult life of trauma, because this Parliament is not willing to use the resources of this very rich country to say that children are important, and because this Government has a majority it is being crassly ignorant of the needs of children.
Members opposite stand up and talk about this child care strategy. It is not a child care strategy at all. It is just making it easy for people running private child care centres to increase their profit. Obviously the Government thinks that children are there for profit. Instead of looking at non-profit cooperative kinds of service delivery and recognizing that our children are a major resource, the Government refuses to accept an important amendment which would, at least for a time, extend a safety net to low-income families and poor children. It would give some sense of hope to families that are under so much stress from living in a society where they see many people with lots of resources while they are eking out an existence from day to day.
I see you giving me a sign that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I will respect that, but I certainly hope the Government will review what it is doing to the future of this country and our families and children when it dares to bring in an Act such as this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, your French is getting better every day but the accent is still Edmonton!

I wanted to say a few words about the Child Care Act before the House today. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural riding in Saskatchewan with many different communities. It contains about 10,000 or 15,000 farmers. It has about 60 different villages and small towns and hamlets and a couple of very small cities. The Minister himself, coming from a very similar riding in Manitoba, should understand that there are some very particular needs and concerns, some special problems with respect to child care in rural Manitoba. However, I do not think this Bill addresses those needs.
We need more flexibility to provide funding to parents' groups, co-operatives, community associations, in order to provide decent child care in rural Canada. It must be a lot more flexible because we are dealing with small hamlets, villages, and towns. In addition, we have many farms scattered over many miles of rural Canada. There are parts of my riding where you can go for a mile or two from farm to farm, and then you get down to southern Saskatchewan or southern Alberta and you can go for five or ten miles from one farm to a ranch or another farm. The problem of child care is a different problem in rural Canada from what it is in urban Canada. I do not think this Bill takes into account the need for flexibility across rural Canada.
In rural Canada on the farm problems arise because of a given season. I am thinking of the harvest season which is just winding up in my area. That is a special problem. There are many farms that do not need or want child care on a full-time basis, but do need it on a part-time basis for the harvest season or during spring planting. It is then a necessity.
Neither is it just for the male farmer. The woman farmer is a 100 per cent participant in planting and harvesting crops. Therefore, I hope the Minister, being from rural Canada and representing a riding very similar to mine, would be more open to suggestions and amendments to make this legislation even better.

Mr. Speaker, I know I was not on the committee that examined this legislation, but I know that over 40 witnesses appeared before the Committee last week, and our Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was there.
September 16, 1988

Everybody present was opposed to the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Everybody was against it. Only two days were allowed to hear witnesses here in Ottawa and give them a chance to express their views and opinions on this Bill. If everybody was against the legislation, I wonder why the Government did not propose any amendments. This is a democracy, Mr. Speaker, and public opinion is very important in Canada. On the other hand, the Government spent $15 million last year on public opinion polls. A lot of money was spent because Allan Gregg and recently, a couple of Senators, wanted to sound out public opinion. I hope the Minister will be in the House very shortly. There were 40 witnesses, and after two days, everybody was opposed to this Bill. So why didn't the Minister propose any amendments to introduce changes in the Bill?

I really wonder why, after two days of hearings and over 40 witnesses against this legislation, there is not an amendment that will take into account what those witnesses want. Surely that is the democratic system. Surely that is the purpose of public hearings.
In the two or three minutes that remain I want to place on the record an example of what I am speaking about. Perhaps the Minister will respond. Over 40 witnesses appeared before the committee last week and I am told every one of them opposed the legislation. The Minister had a reputation as someone who would listen to the people of Canada. I wonder why he is now proposing amendments that go against the beliefs of those who appeared as witnesses. I have here, for example, a copy of the brief from the Canadian Jewish Congress presented to the legislative committee on September 8.
It says: "The concern with replacing the Canada Assistance Plan lies in the fact that while it was flawed in its child care funding mechanism, it at least afforded protection to low-income users". It goes on to say that this entitlement to subsidies for low-income earners is now negotiable in federal-provincial arrangements and may effectively disappear under the new system, hurting the people least able to afford good care. It also says that it is uncertain whether the provinces will be able to maintain the same level of low-income subsidization in addition to the new competing interests that are there. This may make it extremely difficult for a province to continue providing CAP style low and middle-income family subsidies while providing grants to a variety of meaningfully subsidized child care programs. This may be the case particularly after the seventh year of the program when matching operating cost funding is curtailed and capital cost funding ceases.
That is what the Congress says in its in its brief that goes on for eight or nine pages. It expresses, on behalf of the people it represents, concern about the Minister's legislation.
I also have a copy of the brief submitted by members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. They, too, are really concerned about the kind of amendment the Minister is
Canada Child Care Act
turning down. They say: "The Canadian Union of Public Employees sincerely and passionately believes that it was a sad day indeed for parents and children and child care providers when Bill C-144 was introduced into the House. To be blunt, we think the enactment of this legislation would represent a callous and backward act by an insensitive government".
Those are pretty tough words, "callous and insensitive government", but truer words have never been spoken. Over 40 witnesses came before the committee, and the Minister will sit there and not listen. What is democracy all about? What is the parliamentary system all about if the Minister will not respond to the wishes of the people? What are we all about if we do not respond? The Minister will not even bring in amendments to make sure there are national objectives in place despite the fact that this Parliament passed the Meech Lake Accord last year which says we can now have national objectives for programs like day care.
This is one of the first opportunities we have had to enact the spirit of Meech Lake, and the Minister himself was an eloquent critic. He was a good critic in the Opposition on the constitutional proposal back in 1981-82. If there is any Minister who understands that proposition, it is the Minister in charge of health and welfare. Yet he is not responding when he has a golden opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, since my 10 minutes are up, I want to say that it is time to act. It is time to do something for Canada's children and to do something concrete.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think not. I think the House is not yet ready for the question. We are ready to face the issue head on.
I have been spending the last couple weeks in my riding knocking on doors, talking to people, and I have found that Manitobans, the people in Winnipeg and the people in Winnipeg North Centre, are interested in issues, contrary to the mythology that people are only interested in personalities, in whether or not the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has a smile on his face. The people are not only interested in style, they are interested in issues.
Two issues are uppermost in the minds of the people. One is the trade deal and the other is day care. These are important and fundamental issues that people across Canada are concerned about. The people tell me that they need day care, that there is not enough day care to give appropriate and proper care to their children. They have to work in order to make ends meet.

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Increasing numbers of Canadians have to work at two jobs. It is no longer possible for a person to make a decent income on one salary; there has to be two salaries. When two parents are working out of necessity, the children must be taken care of properly and that creates a new demand for day care. This demand exists at the grass roots level. It must be responded to and it must be responded to in a substantive way.
I want to make a few comments about the Government's day care program. Having examined this program, I find it is more propaganda than substance. It is more sleight of hand than it is day care spaces. It is more flimsy than reality. This program fails in some fundamental ways. It fails to meet the needs of the women and the families in my riding and in all the ridings across Canada. It fails to add sufficiently and significantly to the number of spaces in Canada. What Canadian families need is day care spaces so that our children get appropriate care.
This is a propaganda program. It was a propaganda announcement that the Government made. In fact, it is not only a propaganda gesture, it is an inept one. I would have expected more of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).
What do I mean when I say that this is an inept propaganda gesture? The Tories made a big announcement of $6 billion, and they caught the headlines. Of course, when the people read below the headlines, when they read the full story of day care, they find out something which is often true. The headlines differ from the story.
With this new Conservative day care program, a ceiling is put on the amount of money going into day care. Up until now, under the Canada Assistance Plan, day care spaces were expanding at the rate of 15 per cent per year. Under this new program, day care spaces will be expanding at what rate? They will be expanding at the rate of 10 per cent per year. Ten per cent is less than 15 per cent and any person with a little arithmetic understands that.
This program is retarding the growth of day care. It is putting off the day when the needs of the ordinary Canadian family for the proper care of children will be met. That is the first way in which this program is a deception.
Another significant way it is a deception is that this program weakens the commitment to providing day care for the poor. 1 want to back up what I have said with the statements of some groups that have analysed this matter. The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association says the following in its brief:
Bill C-144 is silent on the definition of a "subsidized space". It is the federal Government's responsibility to see that all subsidized spaces-existing spaces as well as the "200,000" new spaces-are adequately funded in terms of individual family's financial needs. By that, we mean that existing spaces should continue to be funded at no less than their current level. It is common knowledge that the new definition, a "subsidized space" could be a space that receives as little as $2.00 a day of public funds. We find that unacceptable, because it would leave such spaces out of the reach of low and middle-income Canadians. The "space count" should not leave room for this kind of exclusion.
The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association is saying that this new program leaves out the poor. It is heartless and it
runs the danger of providing less day care for the poor in Canada. The Canadian Federation of Students said the following:
The fact that there are no guaranteed subsidies for low-income Canadians is of great concern to us. Student parents in need of child care are low-income Canadians. The subsidies that are in place under the Canada Assistance Plan should, at the very least, be guaranteed under the new Canada Child Care Act. As this is not the case, the Canada Assistance Plan represents a "safer" option for low-income Canadians. We would parenthetically add here that the income tax provisions under the national childcare strategy will not be of much use to students. Most students will not need the deductions and the additional child credits are too little, and too long after the refund would be of use.
Members of the Canadian Federation of Students indicate that the Canada Assistance Plan is a better plan for them than the new Tory plan. In the opinion of the Canadian Federation of Students, this is a step backward rather than a step forward.
The National Council of Women of Canada says the following:
Our first problem with this new bill is that it does not seem to ensure that the supply of these spaces will increase, indeed there seems even to be the danger that they might decrease, because while under the Canada Assistance Plan support for such spaces for low income families is open-ended to meet needs as identified, under the new Act, there will be a ceiling. A fixed cost-shared federal contribution will be available to provinces on a yearly basis, for a variety of purposes including capital funding, operating and grants etc. but without specific reference to subsidy needs. Our concern is that impoverished families may lose out.
The Government ought to be moving forward with care, with heart, trying to include all Canadians under its umbrella. What in fact the National Council of Women of Canada, the Canadian Federation of Students, and the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association have said is that this program puts in jeopardy the day care spaces that are available for the poor. That is a major indictment of this program. The program is a step backward rather than a step forward.
There are two points about the substance of this program that are fundamental. The Government's new plan reduces the increase in spaces and therefore is a step backward. It threatens the subsidies for the poor and is therefore a step backward.
I see you indicating that I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make this point. Over the last decade or two our society has changed significantly. No longer do the vast majority of women stay home and look after children. In today's society women who stay home and look after their children are in the minority. In my family that is the case, but my family is in the minority. The reality for the majority of families these days is that both parents have to work to make ends meet, both parents are in the market-place, and we have to ensure adequate care for the children.
If we are going to have a great nation in the future, if our children are going to be able to meet their responsibilities in the future, they need adequate care today. The Government was challenged to move in and meet that need, and it has
September 16, 1988

failed abysmally. It has the headlines, but when we read the story under the headlines we find a program that is a step backward rather than a step forward. That is why I say this program is more propaganda than substance. What ordinary Canadian families in my riding have been asking me for, as I have gone door to door to talk to them, is more day care spaces. They want a place in their neighbourhood at which their children can receive adequate care while they go to work.
I call upon the Government to rethink what it is doing. I call upon the Government to re-examine the critiques being made by this Party and the critiques of the National Council of Women, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Day Care Association, the Advocacy Association. The Government should rethink what it is doing, go back to the drawing board, and come up with a plan that will be a real step forward.
Mir. Jim Fulton (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak on Bill C-144, particularly on the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), which would retain the participation of CAP, the Canadian Assistance Plan, in child care and day care. I see the Minister is here. I know a little about this field, having been a probation and parole officer and having been involved in the field of child care most of my professional life. I have in fact set up and been the president of a day care society. I did that 13 years ago in a small northern community in British Columbia.
I recognized then the rapidly evolving need for day care because of the increasing number of families where either both parents worked or, in the case of single parent families, where the single parent is very often involved in the workforce. In all cases, at least at some point during each day or each week, the parent is away from the child. I know something of the problems associated with day care and child care. I also know what the outcome is for many children where proper care is not provided. That is why I point out to the Minister that having been a probation and parole officer I recognize the problems that many children get into. Often one can find the root causes in terms of the care provided to them in their earliest years. I do not think there is anyone in this House who would dispute that the early years in the life of a child are key to the development of that child's personality throughout his or her life.
I want to spend a moment on the needs of northern child care and of child care among first nations, among native families, because that is an area of real crisis. I do not think the Government has addressed this problem at all. There are no objectives in Bill C-144 which are directly related to the amendment put forward by my friend the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. She has brought forward not only this amendment for us today, but also amendments over the last few days related to the need for objectives.
I am surprised after all the talk from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other Ministers that the Meech Lake
Canada Child Care Act
Accord did not have any kind of viral implant in terms of the potential for national legislation to have objectives. The Government was always planning to bring forward national programs that would have objectives, yet the very first time it has an opportunity to bring something forward we find there was a back room virus, at least among Tories, in relation to the Meech Lake Accord.
Obviously, every two facilities across the country are not going to be the same no matter what kind of objectives there are, but there are certain things one has to have for a safe protected environment for children. I think particularly of the training for those who will be working in this field. Having worked in the field myself I know what kind of training is required. My children are young, aged four and six years. I have some kind of idea of what kind of situations they feel best in, what kind of people they get along with best, what kind of toys and what kind of environment they need. Why would the Government not put those kinds of objectives clearly into a piece of legislation for those who are the most important in our society and in every society around the world? I can only assume that the Government never really intended to bring forward a plan to reach those hundreds of thousands of children in need of care during the day.
We know there are over two million children in Canada whose parents, either one or both, work and they are involved in some kind of care situation. It might be with a grandmother, a neighbour, or a licensed day care facility. All kinds of situations have evolved because the need is there. What Governments are supposed to do in collecting taxes is to spend the money in the most effective, rational, and cost-effective way.
Bill C-144 does not meet any of those criteria. That is why all groups that appeared before the committee last week oppose the Bill. Not some of them, not half of them, not three-quarters of them; all groups that appeared oppose the Bill. One would assume that the Minister or perhaps some of his backbenchers might have been able to find a group somewhere in Canada they could invite who would say that this was the next best thing to sliced bread, that this was what they always wanted. However, it would not be those who are knowledgeable about the needs of children, what kinds of facilities are required, or what kinds of capital funding are required.
The Minister's Bill provides for an ending to capital funding after seven years. The Minister crows that there are 200,000 licensed subsidized spaces and that it is going to double, that there will be 400,000 spaces seven years from now. As many groups across the country have pointed out that many spaces would be developed without the Bill, without the Minister's proposal.
I think we have to ask ourselves: What is this Bill, really? It appears to be, and it may well be, a sop to those who are not crucially involved in day care. When Tories are out knocking on doors they can say they brought forward this child care Bill.

September 16, 1988
1 doubt there would be very many Tories during this campaign, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Prime Minister, going to licensed day care facilities and asking "do you like our Bill", with a reporter in tow. That is unlikely. They will be peddling this to those who will be worried about their nieces and nephews and grandchildren. The Tories will be able to say: "Well, we dealt with that. We have Bill C-144. We are spending billions of dollars". If they are going to spend billions of dollars, they have to identify the area of need and the training costs. They have to figure out how it can be cost shared among various jurisdictions. They have to make sure that the people who are working there are properly qualified, that the space is adequate, and that the needs of our children are being met.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Skeena will have two minutes remaining in his debate after Question Period.
It being 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Telesat Canada will launch a mobile communications satellite in 1992. This mobile satellite, MSAT, the first of its kind in the world, will provide mobile telephone communications over North America and 320 kilometres out from our coasts. Costs will be similar to current cellular telephone costs.
In June, 1987, the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, which I had the honour to chair, recommended that the Government make MSAT a priority. The federal Government has now done so with its lease arrangement with Telesat. The federal moneys will be an important source of seed money for the $250 million project.
The Department of Communications did all the basic research on this satellite. It is an all-Canadian project. Telesat will create more than 3,000 jobs directly or indirectly in the high-technology sector. It will also generate more than $2.4 billion in sales. Fishermen, truckers, resource industries, law enforcement officers, and others will benefit from the mobile communications system.
Finally, those of us in the national capital are indeed proud of that because the antennae and satellite navigation system will be built here in the nation's capital.
* *
*



FORESTRY


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, after reading the entire trade agreement, which is more than the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) seems to have done, former Family Court Judge, Marjorie Bowker, wrote a thoughtful analysis of the agreement.
Her conclusions are worth putting on the record. They are as follows:
There can be no equality where one partner is the most powerful nation on earth, the other a subordinate on the world stage; one with a population of 260 million, the other with only 26 million. Unlike the European Economic Community, a union of 12 relatively equal nations, this is an unequal union- much like that between a walrus and a frog, an elephant and a mouse. Such an union can have but one result-the smaller being swallowed by the larger. .. What Canadians can ponder in the little time that remains, is not so much what the free trade agreement will do to certain sections of our economy, but rather what it will do to Canada as a whole-
Clearly the vision of Judge Bowker and that of the Government are light years apart. Her vision is the one to which the majority of Canadians would subscribe.



APPOINTMENT OF FORESTRY MINISTER

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker yesterday, on September 15, 1988, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed a minister of forestry for Canada. Unfortunately, there is no national forest Act. In 1984 the Prime Minister promised that "a Progressive Conservative Government will recognize the vital importance of the industry by appointing a Minister of Forestry".
Recognition has meant a four-year wait. Vital importance has meant a 35 per cent export tax on shakes and shingles and 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber. Vital importance means that nine out of 10 federal-provincial forest renewal agreements are about to run out, and the Cabinet has refused to give a mandate even to negotiate extensions. The forest sector employs over one million Canadians, the largest industry in Canada and our largest source of a positive balance of trade.
The Tories, prior to 1984, roundly condemned the Trudeau Liberals for returning less than 10 cents out of every dollar taxed from the forest sector to that sector for reforestation, research, and marketing. It is still less than 10 cents out of every dollar. No other industry is so regularly milked and given so little in return.
September 16, 1988

In a 40-member Cabinet it took an election call to get a Minister. Canadians see the announcement for what it is, a Salmon Arm salute from the north end of a horse running south.



AEROSPACE INDUSTRY


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time, I rise in the House to demand the space agency for Montreal. For at least two years, we have been asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for this agency and telling him that it must go to Quebec, and more particularly to Montreal. I was the first person to demand the space agency for Montreal, Mr. Speaker. And we do not want just a shell, that is an agency located in Montreal that awards contracts elsewhere. Montreal has everything required, the space, qualified personnel and technology.
Furthermore, at the beginning of the year, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) promised to make an announcement about the agency and in June, the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Bouchard) said that he was for this agency going to Montreal.
So let the Prime Minister make up his mind and give us this agency that we have been demanding for Montreal for so long!



INCREASED MERCHANDISE TRADE SURPLUS

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation, and according to Statistics Canada we are getting better at it every day. Our merchandise trade surplus soared to a record $1.5 billion in July, and that despite a temporary decline in the automotive trade due to retooling. Higher commodity prices and a stable Canadian dollar have helped to improve our position.
The Government's policies have been successful in revitalizing trading opportunities. With the coming free trade agreement with the United States we can look forward to an even greater trade-based prosperity.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a serious problem faced by the Dakota Tipi Reservation in the Portage Interlake area of Manitoba.
In 1985 they were approached by Special ARDA to establish an economic project dealing with the growth of seedlings that would be supplying reforestation projects in Manitoba. Private consultants were hired by Special ARDA to manage the program and over the past two or three years, because of what is clearly a case of mismanagement, the program failed. At the same time the Dakota Tipi Reservation was required to put in $80,000 of its own band money which it has not been able to recover.
The reason I raise it in the House today is that the band is yet unable to get Special ARDA to come to the table to talk about the problem. They have not been able to find anybody to negotiate or deal with the issues to find some kind of solution that would not put this reserve in jeopardy of bankruptcy at the risk of all the other social and economic programs supplied by the reserve.
I rise to my feet on behalf of the reserve hoping that the Ministers and officials of Special ARDA will take account of this very serious problem, respond to the band request, and see if they can find a resolution to the very serious difficulties in which the band members now find themselves.




Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this moment also to complain about a lack of adequate funding from the federal Government for the native people in Manitoba. I refer particularly to child welfare agencies that the bands, through their tribal councils and other agencies, have taken over in the last couple of years.
Under the previous Liberal Government these bands tried to negotiate the power to run their own child welfare agencies. They were promised they would receive the same level of funding as comparable provincial agencies operating in the same field. Under the previous Government that did not happen and those agencies did not receive enough money to provide adequate training for their people.
The same problem exists today. The Awassis agency in northern Manitoba has been criticized by a government investigative group for not having an adequate training program. That is a result of the Government's own failure to provide the necessary funding. Mr. Speaker, the actions of the previous Government and this Government have resulted in a situation which hurts native people.

September 16, 1988
[ Translation]



ENTREPRENEURSHIP


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, September 14 was a memorable day for a company in my riding. Tecrad Inc. of Ancienne-Lorette received the silver trophy for invention at the fifth Canada awards ceremony for excellence in business. Bertrand Allard, President of Tecrad, is an outstanding example of success. His success is due to his tenacity, dynamism and love for a job well done.
Since Ancienne-Lorette is a new part of my riding, as a result of redistribution, I am proud that this municipality, made up of people with very great potential like Mr. Allard, has joined the wonderful constituency of Quebec-Est and will make a most worth-while contribution to it. Mr. Speaker, we have here another company that is doing well thanks to the economic policies put in place by the Progressive Conservative Party and its Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
federal taxes, the recent report of the Ontario Social Assistance Review Committee should be of great interest to all Canadians.
According to the report, fewer than 14 per cent of all those receiving social assistance are employable but unemployed working-age adults. The largest group of recipients are those with disabilities and sole support families. Thirty-seven per cent are children under 18.
The average employable recipient remains on welfare for only seven months. Forty per cent leave the system after just three months, and only 18 per cent of all recipients live in rent-geared-to-income accommodation. Clearly there is a lot of misunderstanding about people on welfare.



GUO)   MULTICULTURALISM APPOINTMENT OF MULTICULTURALISM MINISTER

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, after refusing for four years to establish a separate multiculturalism ministry the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on the eve of a national election campaign, has seen fit to do just that.
While the principle of a full ministry is welcome and one that I, as critic on behalf of our Party, have advocated for the last four years, the process by which it was developed is most offensive to all Canadians.
During the last four years any and every initiative of the Mulroney administration on the multiculturalism front have only come on the eve of a federal election campaign. Only in the last weeks have we seen a multiculturalism Bill. Only in the last weeks have we seen greater funding for third language advertising. Only in the last weeks have we seen the creation of a Heritage Language Institute. And now ...


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



WELFARE


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, since fifty cents out of every dollar paid to welfare recipients comes from



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, an inquiry is taking place in northwestern Ontario that is examining the delivery of health care services to northern native residents.
Unlike in most parts of Canada, health care in this region is the responsibility of the federal Government, where nearly
15,000	status Indian people of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation alone rely on the services provided by Health and Welfare Canada.
There is no question that providing quality care in the north is made difficult due to isolation. The staff, whether nurses, doctors, community health representatives, face these problems bravely, while native leaders are to be commended on the restraint that they show in the face of these difficulties.
However, there remains a critical need for more training of native nurses and doctors to provide care in their own communities.
Currently Health and Welfare Canada funds only two nursing entry programs in Canada and provides only $100,000 in bursary assistance to those who wish to become involved in the health care field. The native nursing entry program at Lakehead University is only guaranteed funding until March next year. Yet it boasts a 98 per cent retention rate for returning students and therefore deserves a stable funding base.
September 16, 1988



DISASTER


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, one must rise to praise the strong will and fighting spirit of the Jamaican people and the people of the Caribbean Diaspora, devastated by Hurricane Gilbert, one of nature's worst disasters.
What misfortune! In Jamaica alone we hear that 80 per cent of homes are damaged, roads flooded, electricity and water cut off, communications limited, 500,000 homeless, 150,000 in rescue shelters. Across the Caribbean these numbers unfortunately are multiplying.
Hope and help are needed. Canadians should take comfort knowing that every bit of help we send, however big or small, makes a difference.
Canadians are showing their humanitarian ways. In Montreal, the Jamaican Association is receiving truckloads of canned goods. The Red Cross is accepting cheques through most banks. In the name of all Canadians the Government is sending relief in the form of medical supplies, water, blankets, and electronic equipment.
The world is coming together to provide relief from Hurricane Gilbert. I encourage Canadians, moved by the pictures and chilled by the reports, to join the effort in support of our Caribbean friends and neighbours in this, their hour of need.



TREFOILS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, recent media reports have talked about the need for good luck in getting re-elected. That is partly true, but we, the Conservatives, have more than good luck. We have St. Patrick himself pouring down on us.
I am sure you have heard of a four-leaf clover bringing good luck to people. Three days ago our son Jason was in the field behind our house and, lo and behold, what did he find but a clover with five leaves, a five-leaf clover which I will table for public viewing.
This clover was blessed yesterday by my Leader (Mr. Mulroney), by my caucus, by my Party, and pretty soon it will be blessed by the people of my constituency.
Talk about bad luck and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). Nobody seems to want him. Let me say to my people in Ottawa South that I am the Tory Turner and I am not related to John.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, we were wondering why the Conservatives were delaying the election. Now we know why. They are relying on five-leaf clovers. They are pretty desperate.
The Olympic motto is Citius, Altius, Fortius, higher and stronger.
During the next two weeks in Seoul, Korea, the world's greatest athletes will pit themselves against one another in a bid to win Olympic gold. This year the Canadian team is led by individuals like Ben Johnson, Carolyn Waldo, Ian Millar, Allison Higson, Victor Davis, Lennox Lewis and Curtis Hibbert, to name just a few.
These men and women have demonstrated hard work, discipline, and dedication in the pursuit of Olympic excellence. We wish them and their Olympic team mates well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Olympics themselves have become a major security problem, with politics involved in every aspect of the games. I think we should look back to the spirit of the Olympics 2,000 years ago when the emphasis was on athletics and excellence. We wish our athletes in Seoul all the best for excellence.



COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Government is now in the process of developing and negotiating a plan with the United States, particularly with the Bonneville Power administration, to deal with the return of the downstream benefits under the Columbia River Treaty. Those benefits are estimated to be in the billions of dollars.
I urge that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans consider the mitigation required to restore the fishery on the Canadian side of the Columbia River Basin and then to ensure that British Columbia Hydro recognizes its financial responsibilities to Kootenay West and Kootenay East by establishing the same kind of fund as has been established by the Northwest Power Planning Commission of the United States, $750 million.

September 16, 1988

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Conference Board of Canada, a group that the Minister has often cited as being a reputable, independent minded forum for economic analysis, has put forward a study showing that Canadian taxpayers will be expected to carry an additional $4.6 billion debt, which will cause a substantial rise in the new sales tax being put forward by the federal Government. Mr. Gilles Rheaume, Director of Forecasting, said: "To cover the revenue shortfall due to the free trade agreement the rate of the sales tax will likely be higher than would otherwise have been the case".
I want to draw to the attention of the Minister and the House that the Minister of Finance has never been honest or forthcoming with the Canadian taxpayers about what the cost of the trade agreement would be. The Conference Board is saying that it would be an additional $4.6 billion per year and that that will cause a substantial rise in the sales tax.
When will the Minister be honest in the House and tell Canadians exactly what the real cost to them will be in additional raises in the sales tax to cover the cost of this misbegotten trade agreement?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think what I have said in the House on this issue and on other issues has been very direct, very forthcoming and, to use the Hon. Member's words, very honest in presenting the facts to the Canadian people about economic policy and the effects of economic policy.
I have read Mr. Rheaume's analysis. I have only seen it in the newspapers this morning. However, one thing that the Conference Board analysis has not covered, at least according to the newspaper article I have read, is the impact of the trade agreement on economic growth. Every credible economic study on the free trade agreement has said that there will be increased economic growth. That is the way we are going to pay for any loss of tariff revenues. People will be getting lower prices. Their purchasing power will be increasing. Investment activities will increase.
Let me draw the Hon. Member's attention to what is happening today as we see all around us investment activity, investment intentions at very high levels, in the order of 15 per cent to 20 per cent this year. It looks like it will continue into next year as well.


BENEFITS OF AGREEMENT-POSITION OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says to look around us and see what is happening today. I would simply point out to him that the
increase in the interest rates that occurred yesterday of a half a point has already wiped out whatever projection or forecast his Government or the Economic Council provided as a result of the trade agreement. You have already lost whatever growth you had in one day's rise in interest rates.
I want to return not only to the statement made by the Conference Board but to the document that was put forward by the Department of External Affairs which clearly said that all officials, in preparing studies and forecasts and analyses on behalf of the Government, should accentuate the positive and downgrade the negative. In other words, all the studies, all the forecasts and all the projections have been false and misleading. They have not told the Canadian people the truth.
When will the Government finally live up to its responsibilities to be honest with Canadians, disregard these instructions, and tell us what will be the real impact of the trade agreement on increased taxes, job losses, and the loss of Canadian sovereignty that we face?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have done this before but I think I will have to do it again. I ask the Hon. Member to think back to November of 1984 and May of 1985 when we had that same sort of rhetoric. It was: "What is the impact of this Budget going to be? What will the impact of these measures and the Economic Statement be?" The Hon. Member and all his colleagues were saying that this was going to cost Canada 200,000 jobs. We have seen time and time again how the performance of the economy does far, far better than the doomsday scenarios set out by the opposition Parties.
If the Hon. Member wants to check back he will see that in each Budget I have set out what the economic results were going to be and studies of each show the actual outcome as being better than the estimates that I put out at the time.
Also, if the Hon. Member wants to check back to the Conference Board he will see that the Conference Board will be further off track, further off base in its estimates of economic activity than the federal Government's approaches. It is usually on the pessimistic side.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is asking us to look at what is stated in the Budgets. I would remind him that in the last Budget he increased the tax by one cent on a litre of gasoline to make up a $500 million shortfall on the first four or five months of operation of the trade agreement. We now have the Conference Board saying that it is $4.6 billion when all the accounts are due. The Minister has already provided Canadians with the initial evidence that it is going to cost an awful lot of money in increased sales taxes in order to make up the deficit and the loss of revenues caused by the trade agreement.

September 16, 1988
When will the Minister provide Canadians with an honest, factual rendering of what they will be expected to pay in increased taxes because of this trade agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and the Conference Board have focused on one element of economic policy. I have said that one of the key elements of economic policy that they are ignoring is the fact that the free trade agreement is going to lead to economic growth in the country over and above what is the case today-


Lloyd Axworthy: One-quarter of one per cent per year-big deal!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This is a major step forward. We now have the Hon. Member for Fort Garry telling us that the free trade agreement is going to give us increased economic activity. I am glad to see that he has finally come on stream with the Canadian people.


Lloyd Axworthy: I did not say that. I said one-quarter of one per cent per year.


FISHERIES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this evening Canadians will be watching the happy spectacle of practically all countries of the world celebrating in harmony the opening of the Summer Olympics. No such harmony exists today between Canada and the 10 nations represented by the EEC. Yesterday and this morning the EEC rejected the best advice of top world scientists, has voted against and said that it will not respect every single recommendation of the NAFO meeting on quota cuts off the East Coast of Canada-cuts that Canada says it will make.
Is the Government aware that Fishery Products International has said: "-such a drastic reduction could force the closure of five . . . plants at Grand Bank, Fortune, Harbour Breton, Ramea and Catalina, putting 4,000 fish plant workers and about 125 trawlermen out of work." The provincial Government of Newfoundland has said that in consultation with FPI and the fishermen's union it favours a phasing in of these reductions.
Why are we making such a sacrifice while we continue to allow the United States of America and the 10 countries belonging to the EEC to plunder our resources?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member is a little
Oral Questions
late. Our colleague in this House, his colleague from Newfoundland, the Minister for International Trade, took the opportunity earlier this week to speak to representatives of NAFO, directing his remarks particularly to the practices of the European Community. Our position on their practices and on their view is very well known.


LAW OF THE SEA
George Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is very well known because this Government, this Minister, and the Minister for International Trade continue to say that we cannot do anything about what happens outside the 200-mile zone. Not only has that position contributed to the disastrous situation we are now facing off the East Coast of Canada but it is wrong.
Is the Government aware of what any reputable lawyer of international law would say, that is, these countries are violating Article 63 of the Law of the Sea which states:
Where the same stock or stocks of associated species occur... in an area beyond and adjacent to the zone, the coastal State and the States fishing for such stocks in the adjacent area shall... agree upon the measures necessary for the conservation of these stocks in the adjacent area.
The EEC and the United States are violating the very law that they signed five years ago. They should be treated just as Canadian fishermen are treated when they break the law- arrest them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the issue is very serious. It is too bad that it is treated in a jocular, trivializing way by the Hon. Member opposite. He was part of a Government which for years conducted fishery policies in ways that, among others, through an agreement with France created some of the problems that we are trying to resolve today. We are pursuing the resolution of those problems with France, and other problems with members of the Community, in a systematic and effective way.
The Hon. Member knows very well that there is no provision in international law for a coastal state to extend unilaterally fisheries jurisdiction beyond 200 miles. He knows that. He knows the facts. He is not interested in resolving the problem. He is trying to scare up another headline.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the day go by without asking a question of our new Minister of Agriculture.

September 16, 1988
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him on that post. Even though we all know that it is a temporary posting, we wish that it was not a part-time Ministry.
I want to give the new Minister an opportunity to do something substantial for the farmers. He is aware that yesterday in all the newspapers of the country there was a very big ad run by agri-business, processing companies, and many farm organizations and marketing boards stating that the trade deal would be a disaster for Canada and a disaster for our farmers. They are also saying that we will lose 150,000 jobs in the agri-business through this trade deal.
I want to know now from the new Minister whether or not he can confirm these figures from these very reputable business groups and farm organizations. Are we going to lose
150,000	jobs? Will he have the candor now as the new Minister to admit that that is the fact?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: First, I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer the question since it also gives me the opportunity to say how sad I am that the former Minister of Agriculture has indicated his decision to step down. I think that all Members of this House-indeed all Canadians-would agree-


Ms. Copps:: Anybody with any integrity would leave that Cabinet.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -that no one single individual in Canada has done more for Canadian agriculture than the Hon. Member for Elgin.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: With the exception of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, of course.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He left because he had integrity.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 could go further and say this. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Elgin will go down in history as the best Minister of Agriculture that Canada has ever had.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He couldn't stand the lies, that is why he had to leave.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: To top off 28 years of dedicated public service to Canada at the municipal and federal level is indeed an acknowledgement and an achievement that I think all of us in this House can look on with pride.
I note that the Hon. Member as reported in the press said that my appointment was an insult to the Canadian farm community.


Mr. Gauthier:: It is part-time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member for Windsor West, the House Leader of the Liberal Party, suggested the same thing. We will just have to wait and see.
What I intend to do is try to continue along the same record that was established by the former Minister of Agriculture, which gives me the opportunity to remind the Hon. Member that direct income support for the Canadian farm industry had risen by 629 per cent in 1987 over 1983-84. That is in response to the devastation and the resulting aid that the agricultural community has required. As always, we will continue to provide that support in the future.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we can now see why the farmers need a full-time Minister of Agriculture, and not an apologist for the Government.


FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR RENEGOTIATION BY GOVERNMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want an answer to my question. According to Agro Business and many farmers' organizations in Canada, 150,000 jobs would be lost in Canada's agricultural sector and the free trade agreement would be a disaster for Canada's farmers. Can the Minister confirm the figures indicating that workers in Canada's agricultural industry will lose 150,000 jobs, and is he now ready to renegotiate agriculture in the free trade agreement?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is acting like a cowboy who, for all his life, has never stepped in cow manure.
Quite frankly, those types of questions are clearly an insult to the farming community. Farmers know that the McCain food organization is not the best representative of the farming industry.
The Economic Council of Canada conducted a study and predicted that there would be a net increase of 2,100 to 6,400 jobs in the food processing sector as a result of the free trade agreement.
Yesterday the Minister for International Trade went through the list of agricultural organizations from coast to coast that support the trade initiative. Some of them are right in the Hon. Member's backyard.
September 16, 1988


NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister certainly seems to know a lot about cow dung, Mr. Speaker. I want an answer from this Minister on behalf of the farmers of Canada. This advertisement is sponsored not only by McCain Foods but by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Nova Scotia Chicken Marketing Board, the Union des Producteurs Agricoles du Quebec, and they are all reputable farm organizations.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit today that those people are accurate when they say that 150,000 jobs will be lost in the agri-business and farming industry because of the trade deal between Canada and the United States? Will the Deputy Prime Minister answer yes or no?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the question as a farmer. I talk to farmers, I live on a farm, and I farm. My neighbours are farmers. They realize that Canada produces some of the best quality agricultural products in the world. This deal will produce opportunities for us to sell.
The reason we will be able to sell, be successful, and produce additional jobs, is because we in Canada are good at what we do. We will be able to show, in the United States, that we are good at what we do when we are able to sell there under better rules.
The Canadian Canola Council has stated that it can see the possibility of an additional two million acres of Canola in western Canada which will be needed to supply the demand in the United States. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association accounts for 20 per cent of all the agricultural products produced in this country. They support this deal. The hog association supports it. We have a $2 billion hog industry that is in favour of free trade.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he talk to some farmers and find out what is really going on.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians would like to know whether the statement made by the Prime Minister last week on the environment is an electoral move, or a deeply felt conviction. For instance, mayors from across Canada have asked the Government to help municipalities with a federal share in meeting the cost of construction and repair of sewers, so far without success.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister in a position to commit the Government, in light of the general statement made by the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister on the environment, to pay the one-third share of the cost of rebuilding and reconstructing sewers on which depend the quality of our water, our health, and our beaches?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am interested to note that the Liberal Party has released a policy paper on the environmental issues of the day.
I wonder where it was 10 years ago, particularly the Hon. Member who was the Minister of the Environment just over four years ago. He seems to be an expert on it today, but he certainly did not know much about it then. The fact of the matter is that what we have here is the Liberal Party making policy on the run. Let us look at the record.
We have provided $150 million to assist in the clean-up of large emission sources; $42 million loan to Noranda; provided $25 million to assist companies with the development of new technologies; $90 million to a world-class acid rain research institution; reduction of allowable emissions; and the clean-up of the St. Lawrence. There have been a number of initiatives.
When we came into office there were no specific emission control plans. There was no financial assistance to develop needed pollution control technologies.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR SEWERS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister, who has been around here for several decades, will recall that in the 1960s and 1970s previous Liberal Governments spent over $2 billion on sewer reconstruction jointly with the provinces and the municipalities.
In addition, in 1986 the Leader of our Party committed himself to a federal share in building and repairing sewers across the nation.
My supplementary question is the following. To demonstrate the commitment of the Prime Minister to Canadians and to the environment, and more important, in order to be credible in the eyes of Canadians, will the Government, instead of allocating funds for submarines, allocate funds for sewers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we are demonstrating in a very clear manner that, where it is within our jurisdiction to take action with respect to environmental issues, we are.
I mentioned the Halifax Harbour clean-up, the St. Lawrence Seaway clean-up, the Great Lakes agreement, and the establishment of four new parks. There has also been the introduction of whildlife protection legislation. 1 could go on and on, but I see that Hon. Members opposite do not want to hear the record of achievement of this Government. They get bored by it. I invite them to read the record, check it, and then see what we have been doing with respect to the environment.

September 16, 1988
Oral Questions FORESTRY


APPOINTMENT OF FORESTRY MINISTER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister made what is clearly a deathbed repentance in appointing a Minister of State for Forestry. This comes despite the savaging of the shakes and shingles industry with a 35 per cent export tax, and the softwood lumber dispute which was bungled by the Trade Minister who had other fish to fry.
If the Prime Minister was really serious-and I ask the Deputy Prime Minister the following question in all seriousness-why during the four years of this Parliament, if the protection and the enhancement of Canada's largest industry were so important, has a National Forest Act never been produced, tabled, or debated in the House and brought forward as law in order that the Minister of Forests had a mandate under which to operate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we said that we would establish a full-fledged Department of Forestry. One of the first things that we did when we came into office was designate a Minister of State responsible for forestry. That is something that was never in place before.
We have continued working with the provinces in developing programs whether they be under ERDAs or under other specific programs. We have worked in co-operation with the provinces, because, as the Hon. Member knows, a large part of the jurisdiction remains in the hands of the provinces. It is a joint responsibility. However, the federal Government has taken leadership and is reaffirming that leadership by the designation of a full-fledged Department of Forestry.


NEGOTIATION OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, first, there is no National Forest Act and the Government has made no attempt to bring one forward. There has not been, and there still is not a Deputy Minister of Forests who can sit around the table and talk about cash. Canada's largest industry has received $609.9 million in forest renewal agreements during the tenure of the Government, which is the same amount received by the Reichmanns in the Tittle Egypt Bump from the Minister of Finance.
Why has the Government still not even given a mandate to negotiate, which I have confirmed in a letter from the junior Minister of Forestry, new forest development agreements with nine of the 10 provinces? It is a lot of bumf and you should know it, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say we would have liked to have
done more, and we will do more after the next mandate. There is no question about that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What we have had here, especially from the NDP, is filibustering and blockading to the extent we had to sit all summer to get our legislative program through. Now they are asking for more legislation.


HOUSING
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the newly appointed Minister of Housing I will address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
After four years of federal neglect of housing, after slashing and eliminating a variety of federal programs, and after ignoring the pleas to confront the crisis in affordable housing in Metropolitan Toronto and other urban centres, taxpayers expect the Government to do more than just engage in electoral cosmetics.
Rather than simply establishing another ministerial position on the eve of a national campaign, one which will not lessen the price of a home in Toronto by one nickel, why did the Government not respond by implementing real housing initiatives and programs for first-time home buyers in Toronto that would offer real solutions to the spiralling cost of homes which is rapidly making the dream of owning a home an impossible nightmare? When will the home buyers get the bacon rather than simply the sizzle?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the House by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, housing starts are at record levels, up over 40 per cent. There have been in excess of
200,000	housing starts per year. Payments by individual mortgage owners have come down as a result of the decline in interest rates.
Today the newly appointed Minister of State for Housing is announcing in Toronto that 50 hectares of land at Canadian Forces Base Downsview in the Metropolitan Toronto area are being released, and this will provide up to 5,000 new homes and living accommodation for 10,000 to 12,000 people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SURPLUS FEDERAL LANDS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not, as the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Deputy Prime Minister repeated today, housing starts. The crisis is in affordable housing. Toronto is becoming a playground for the rich and well-to-do. However, I welcome the fact that at the eleventh hour of the Government's life it has seen fit to release a number of hectares of land on the Downsview Air Force Base for affordable housing.
September 16, 1988

My question, though, is why has it taken four years, after repeated demands from Ontario and the Official Opposition, to release surplus lands for the construction of homes? Is this project simply an isolated case, or is the federal Government prepared to make a commitment that surplus federal lands in Metropolitan Toronto will be offered for housing projects on a priority basis to municipal and provincial Governments?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member prepared his question before listening to my answer. That is exactly what I said. Some 50 hectares of land have been released for 5,000 homes which will provide accommodation for 10,000 or 12,000 people.
The Hon. Member asked about a long-term commitment. The mere fact that we have appointed a Minister of State for Housing is a recognition of the difficulties in housing across the country, particularly in the Toronto region. That should be a clear signal of a clear commitment by the federal Government to take this issue seriously.
Of course, I remind the Hon. Member that there may be more announcements in the future, and he will be disappointed because the Official Opposition would rather we did not do anything so they would have something to criticize us about rather than giving us credit for what we are doing.


AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUERY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He talks about housing starts being up. That is fine for those making $80,000 a year or more. It does not help people at the low and middle-income level at all.
Over the last several years the Government has said no to every concrete proposal put forward to alleviate the housing crisis. Do the Minister and the Government think that simply appointing a Minister of Housing at this late date is going to convince Canadians anywhere that the Government is serious about providing affordable housing?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Hon. Member has been because the record of this Government speaks for itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is the problem.


Otto John Jelinek: This Government has spent on average $1.5 billion a year on social housing, $250 million in the Metropolitan Toronto area alone. The fact is that the effort and commitment of this Government are now confirmed and solidified by the appointment of a Minister of State for
Oral Questions
Housing. We are moving in the direction of providing additional social housing for senior citizens, the disabled, and affordable housing for young couples starting out.
The record of this Government speaks for itself and the solidification of that record will provide even greater opportunities for the needy in the housing area.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House and I have watched the Government slash funding for co-op housing, slash funding for social housing, and fail to follow through on commitments it made to all kinds of organizations for native housing, co-op housing, and social housing.
I ask whether or not this new Minister is going to carry through with the responsibility that any Government has to make housing a right rather than something that comes along on the eve of an election?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member basically repeated his question and 1 could repeat my answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Repeat it.


Otto John Jelinek: There has been an increase in social housing by this Government to the tune of $1.5 billion a year. That has provided some 50,000 additional social housing units per year across the country. I am surprised that the Hon. Member is not applauding the efforts of this Government which is committed to making cheaper housing available to all Canadians.


EMPLOYMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration I will direct my question to the Acting Minister.
As Canadians go to the polls, I think the single biggest blight on the Government's record has to be its treatment of those who cannot help themselves, such as older workers. The first thing the Government tried to do was cut back on seniors' pensions. The second thing it did was cut out any federal program for older workers. Older workers have been waiting two and a half years for the federal Government to reinstate some kind of program and plan to help them. I think it is a national disgrace that even though the recession ended years ago, older workers still have a higher rate of unemployment than they did before the recession ended.

September 16, 1988
Oral Questions
In the face of this absolute disdain for older workers, when there is one program which has been working, operating out of the Hamilton Help Centre, funded by an Innovations grant, why is the Government planning to cancel that program which has an 88 per cent success rate in returning older workers to work?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, one can notice that as the Opposition gets more desperate, the rhetoric from the Hon. Member, who we thought had reached the highest level of rhetoric, goes even beyond that. I want to tell her and other Members of the House that in the last four years the unemployment rate has gone down. About half a million people are out of poverty, and 1.2 million jobs have been created in four years. More than
700,000	of those jobs are for women. For example, the spouse's allowance was increased, the widow's allowance was increased, and veterans' allowances were increased.


Ms. Mitchell:: The lousy child care program.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Child care is coming. I thank the Hon. Member for that tip. One could go on and on.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may not be aware of this, but child care will not help those thousands of older workers who have been cut adrift by this Government.
I would like to ask the Minister a very specific question. He talks about rhetoric. I have an independent analysis here done by a company which showed that the Hamilton Help Centre had established a program which cost $3,511 for each client and had an 88 per cent success rate. It put the Firestone workers back on the job. The savings to the Canadian taxpayers, according to an independent assessment, amounted to $18,342.45 per client.
Why is the Government throwing away a program that at a cost of $3,500 is sending older workers back to work, throwing them a lifeline? People do not want to be on welfare. I have letters from people who want to work and who have been given absolutely no hope by the Government. Will the Government reinstitute the program at the Hamilton Help Centre and make it a model for the whole country?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has given such good credit to an innovative program that this Government introduced, and I am pleased that that has happened because that was the kind of innovation we wanted to see. I am reminded by her comments that the former Minister of Employment and Immigration and I were able to sign the SAR agreements. That was opposed, but that helped low-income groups, especially women. In respect to the specific program, that I will take back to the responsible Minister.
Second, in respect to older workers, the Hon. Member should know as well that our colleague, the Minister of Labour, has been negotiating in this area and if there is to be an announcement-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is a farce.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is not false, and I wish the Hon. Member-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I said farce.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: She might be a farce herself if she understands these words. It is about time she-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


SHIPBUILDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1985 the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced that a Polar 8 ice-breaker would be constructed to protect our Arctic sovereignty. Since then, British Columbia Members of Parliament and a number of cabinet Ministers repeatedly have promised that this ice-breaker would be built equally in Vancouver and Victoria, a measure which is desperately needed to save our shipbuilding industry. Since the Deputy Prime Minister has been actively interested in this, can he tell us when construction of the Polar 8 ice-breaker will begin as promised repeatedly over the last three years?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the Polar 8 is in its definition phase. There have been-and this is no news- some ownership problems with the company. The program and the plan is to continue to look forward to the Polar 8 icebreaker being built both in Vancouver and Victoria shipyards, and I believe that everything is going according to plan at this point in time.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I must say that that is not the understanding we have on the West Coast. First, I understand there are financial problems because the Government underfunded this.


Charles Joseph Clark: Start telling the truth, then, stop telling lies.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Second, we demand that this be built equally in Vancouver and Victoria. If there is a financial problem, why does the Government not increase the the subsidy? It really was underfunded, as I understand it.
September 16, 1988

Does the Minister not agree that a world-class ice-breaker which will do many practical things in our Arctic waters as well as deal with the sovereignty issue is far more important than wasting money on expensive nuclear subs? Let us have an election goody for Vancouver and Victoria.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, we do not need this Hon. Member to tell us that an ice-breaker is very important for our sovereignty. It is this Government which initiated that program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: I want to point out to the Hon. Member that I just returned from a tour of Vancouver as well, and I know what the situation is and what the facts are, and I just stated those facts in answer to her previous question.


CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Transport. The Northern Division of the Canadian Coast Guard does excellent work under the Director General, Carol Stephenson. For a long time the long-term plan has been to move the head office of Coast Guard Northern from Ottawa into northern Canada where it rightfully belongs. What progress has been made toward this end?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to receive my first question in this new portfolio from the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, a Member who works very hard for the growth and development of his area. I can tell the Hon. Member that one of the first things that I will do on Monday morning will be to discuss the movement of this office with the Department and be brought up to date, and I will make sure that he is kept informed of all the progress on the item.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. For at least another month, the qualifying period for unemployment insurance in Southern New Brunswick will be 16 weeks. Of course people in New Brunswick prefer to work all year round but they often have trouble finding even 10 weeks of employment. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has already indicated that she was looking into the problem, although it has already been given thorough consideration and she has all the information she needs to make a decision. My question to the Minister is this: How much longer will New Brunswick's workers have to wait for the Minister to make a decision to restore the 10-week qualifying period?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question and I assure him that the Minister has been working on this issue. It is an important issue and it is my understanding that legislation is ready to be introduced.


ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat reassuring that the Minister said that legislation is ready to be introduced. However, how can he explain to the people of New Brunswick that they have to wait before they get the same treatment other Canadians have been receiving for some time? If this goes on, if it takes too long, there are some families in New Brunswick that will be facing a long hard winter. Will the Minister give me some reassurance on this point and tell me when the legislation will be passed and when the people of New Brunswick will enjoy the same benefits as other Canadians?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again I want to reassure the Hon. Member that the legislation can, I think, be passed through the House very quickly if there is co-operation on both sides. I am sure cooperation could be found, and it is possible that how best to handle this could be be taken up after Question Period.

September 16, 1988
Oral Questions APARTHEID


SOUTH AFRICA-REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OFTOTAL ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Government has been engaged in a flurry of activity in its last few days trying to convince the people of Canada that it keeps its promises. Among those who are supposed to be pleased by the appointment of a Minister of Multiculturalism are a great many looking to another promise the Prime Minister made before the United Nations on October 23, 1985, with respect to the imposition of complete economic sanctions on South Africa.
My question to the Secretary of State is simply this: Will the Prime Minister, when he goes to the United Nations on September 29, fulfil the promise made three years ago that Canada will now impose complete economic sanctions upon South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has followed these questions carefully and seriously knows the position of the Government of Canada on that question. If other measures will not allow Canada to help us bring an end to an apartheid regime, then we are prepared to consider the absolute disruption of economic and diplomatic relations. We believe there is some-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You said that before!


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, we said that two years ago, if I may speak to the Member for Hamilton East who cannot contain herself. The policy change that was announced by this Government marked a dramatic change not only in policy but in commitment and in relevance from the position that had been followed by Liberal Governments for years. We intend to adhere to the position I have indicated in the House. We intend to adhere to the position of the Prime Minister as stated in the United Nations. We intend to look for ways in which we can contribute to the bringing to an end of the apartheid system.
I don't know if the Hon. Member is making a distinction in his question between an end to diplomatic relations and an end to economic relations. I thought the New Democratic Party had made a movement in that direction and I would not want to have the impression left that it was changing its position.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: For Heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, that ridiculous answer requires a supplementary question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH AT UNITED NATIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has the impertinence to suggest that the New Democratic Party has changed its position when in fact not only on October 23, 1985, but in Nassau in 1986, in London in August, 1986, and in Zambia, Senegal, Zimbabwe in 1987 and in October, 1987, the Prime Minister made the same promise.
Is the Prime Minister going to discredit this country and cause disillusionment among those who gave him a standing applause in the United Nations, and those people in Toronto and Montreal who represent a large portion of the population who are concerned about this? Is he going to disappoint them at the United Nations on September 29? Is he going to keep his promise now? Or are we going to hear more bs on the subject?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I didn't mean to excite quite that reaction.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The position of the New Democratic Party, as I understand it, is to want to bring an end to economic relations but to maintain, at least for the time being, some form of diplomatic relations. If that is not the case, I would like to have it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is the case. Now, answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the case. All right. I was not sure and I am pleased to have the assurance of the Hon. Member.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We want your assurance.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Prime Minister of Canada discredit Canada or disappoint those who fight apartheid when he goes to the United Nations? No, of course, he will not. Indeed, what this Prime Minister of Canada has done consistently on the question of South Africa does not only bring credit to Canadians, does not only excite pride among Canadians, but allows us to play a constructive role in trying to bring an end to a system that we all in this House regard as repugnant. He intends, and we intend, to continue on that course.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
September 16, 1988

Five months ago when she was appointed President of the Treasury Board, the Minister was approached by the unions to discuss the complaints and problems of federal public servants. The Minister has systematically refused to meet the leaders of the Public Service unions.
I wanted to ask the Minister, following letters sent by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and 1 am referring to what Mrs. Craig said, and I quote: " .. . the President of the Treasury Board be available so that we can at least discuss our concerns and so that she can consider our representations ..."
Since the Minister did not meet a single union leader and since today, 60 bargaining sessions are going on and 180,000 public servants are very concerned, could the Minister give me the assurance that the Minister will be here in the House next week so that we can ask some questions? She has been away since May! Will we see her in the House and be able to ask her some questions?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is categorically wrong. I personally met with Iris Craig when I was President of the Treasury Board.


AVAILABILITY OF MINISTER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, that is true, Mr. Speaker, but since he left, the Minister responsible has not, and that is the point I am trying to make. There are
180,000	public servants at this time represented by the Alliance, by PIPS and other associations which would love to meet the Minister and discuss the problems with her. Why has she not been available to these unions? Why is she not in the House? And why is it the Prime Minister lets two good Ministers go without a peep and won't let go of that one who has done nothing for us?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is a clear collective bargaining process in place. There is a clear process established and I know the Hon. Member understands that. I will certainly take his question as a representation but my understanding is that there has been progress and movement.
What the Hon. Member has to be reminded of is that there was an agreement in principle that was negotiated by the previous President of the Treasury Board, the Minister now in charge of Science and Technology and Industry. What is really happening here is the unions wanting to renegotiate an agreement which was put together in good faith. Quite frankly, that is part of the problem. I will certainly, as I said, take the Hon. Member's question as a representation and get back to him.
Points of Order


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to whomever may be answering for the Minister of the Environment. It involves the announcement of the Minister of the Environment yesterday in Toronto that the Government would provide some $10 million for a natural heritage park in the Rouge River Valley in Toronto.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Redway: Can the Minister advise the House if it is the Government's intention that that money be used to establish a national park, a provincial park, or a municipal park? And are there any conditions attached to that offer which would ensure that no part of the Rouge River Valley would be used as a garbage dump?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment I am pleased to respond. I am pleased this Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the sensitivity of the Minister of the Environment, was able to make a $10 million offer yesterday to protect the Rouge Valley in Toronto. It is one of the few wilderness areas in a major urban centre. I know the Hon. Member, not only in his present role as a Member of Parliament, but also as a mayor from that area, has been very concerned about this.
In terms of the $10 million, it is not to be used for a national park but rather as an offer by the federal Government in order that the area can be protected and can be used as a public space, the details of which will then be worked out between the various Governments involved.


POINTS OF ORDER
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, I was asked by the Hon. Member a question with respect to changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I do not want to mislead him or the House in any way. The legislation that has been tabled is legislation respecting the variable entrance rate. The variable entrance rate, obviously, is affected in terms of eligibility respecting economic regions-I am getting technical now-relating to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe the Hon. Member-and I have had a private discussion with him-thought 1 was responding to changes in economic regions rather than to the variable entrance requirement. I was responding to the variable entrance requirement and not the changes in economic regions in which there has not been any cabinet authority.

September 16, 1988
Tabling of Documents
I did not want to mislead the Member or the Elouse and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being able to make that correction. I know it will not be a satisfactory answer to the Member but at least it is the right answer.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I thank the Minister for correcting what he told me, because I was quite happy for the workers in my area. I hope that the Minister and the Government will look favourably on the problem that affects all working people in southern New Brunswick.


ALLEGED REMARKS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, during my question this afternoon in the Elouse, I thought I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) accuse me of lying. I believe that is a very unparliamentary word and I would ask him to withdraw. If he does not, I will check the "blues" and raise this as a question of privilege later.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the rule in this House relates to descriptions that might be made of conduct in this House. I believe what I said accurately describes what the Hon. Member and members of her Party are doing outside this House with respect to the Polar 8 contract. However, as is my custom, if what I said has contributed to any disorder in the House, I will certainly withdraw.



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 Petition Nos. 332-5302, 332-5304, 332-5305, 3325307, 332-5308, and 332-531 1.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from London, Ont., Toronto and Ottawa.

They state humbly that families throughout Canada need high quality available and affordable child care services. They say that it has been repeatedly recommended that to make these services available for families the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive, non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada.
The petitioners say 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, and that the proposed child care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women, and families in Canada. They therefore call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Act.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House from a number of petitioners from Vancouver, British Columbia. They are very concerned in British Columbia about the child care Act. They believe that services are very much needed across Canada with national objectives and appropriate methods of financing to develop a comprehensive, non-profit child care system which is accessible to all families throughout Canada.
The Government has not done this in its child care Act and will not ensure either national objectives or the necessary funding. The petitioners therefore call upon the Government to withdraw the child care Act forthwith.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadians who indicate that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, affordable child care services. They say that it has been repeatedly recommended that in order to make these services available for families the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive, non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada.
They say 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 day care. They say, therefore, that the proposed child care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families in Canada.
September 16, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Mis. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions from over 200 petitioners who call upon the Government to recognize the important transportation link for the territory, that is, the Alaska Highway which has been undermined seriously by floods and general poor condition owing to a lack of funds and a cut in funds by over 42 per cent in the last five years.
These petitioners call upon the Parliament of Canada to improve the condition of this international highway immediately and to take all measures necessary to ensure that this vital link to the territory of the Yukon remains usable and is recognized as the important link that it is in Canada.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the residents of Belcarra, British Columbia. The area of Belcarra Bay has been used for water-skiing for 20 years. Due to changes, which we think are linked to Expo '86, the harbour police have started to enforce the five-knot speed restriction so that residents and their kids cannot water-ski.
This is to the surprise of local residents. The people of Belcarra have been fighting since 1986 to have the by-law rescinded. They have the support of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Parks Department and the Belcarra City Council.
They pray that the Vancouver Port Corporation and the Department of Transport rescind this ridiculous by-law which is really just an example of bureaucratic ineptitude. It should be rescinded and there should be no speed limit in that particular part of the harbour.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and duty today to present three petitions to this honourable House, all certified in accordance with Standing Order 106.
The first petition is signed by residents of the Province of Ontario. These residents protest the Government's child care Act, Bill C-144. They believe that it is not in the best interests of the children, women, and young families of Canada. They call for the withdrawal of that child care Act and for its replacement with a Bill which would truly meet those needs.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is signed by residents of the communities of Keewatin, Kenora, and Dryden in my riding. These residents call upon the Government to extend the benefits of the northern residents tax allowance to all communities which
Order Paper Questions
lie within the vast expanses of those ridings designated under the House of Commons system as being tier 3.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the third petition I have concerns the Government's proposed child care Act and calls upon the Government to withdraw it forthwith.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of trying to count the number of names on this petition but they are innumerable.
I rise to speak on behalf of several hundred petitioners who bring to the attention of the House of Commons that the proposed child care Act is not in the interests of young children, women, or families in Canada, that it limits spending on child care, funds the commercial sector, includes no national objectives, sets no criteria for spending or service delivery, restricts the development of services, encourages the development of poor quality commercial care; and that it does nothing to make child care more affordable for parents.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Act forthwith. This petition is signed by citizens from across the country.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 394 and 406.


Mr. Riis: 1.	In 1987, was Principal Savings and Trust in serious financial difficulties and, if so, did the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC) become aware of this and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did Principal Savings and Trust sell real estate and mortgages worth $23,000,000 to First Investors Corporation (FIC) and Associated Investors of Canada (AIC) and, if so, were these assets substantially overvalued and, if so, was the CDIC aware of this?
3.	Were all of the mortgages involved either in default or foreclosed on and, if so, was the CDIC aware of this?
4.	Did Alberta's Superintendant of Insurance register a strong objection to the transaction and, if so, what was the approximate loss?
5.	Did the sale of these assets to FIC and AIC result in a net loss to either of these two corporations and, if so, what was the approximate loss?
6.	Was the sale of the assets to FIC and AIC carried out as a result of the influence of the CDIC on Principal Savings and Trust?
7.	Did the CDIC insist on establishing a contingent liability fund of $6,300,000 as part of the asset sale and, if so, for what reasons?

September 16, 1988
Speaker's Ruling
8.	Did Principal Savings and Trust improve its financial situation by removing any other assets from either FIC or AIC and, if so, what were the circumstances surrounding these transactions?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1. This matter is currently before the courts. In addition, release of such information is constrained by Section 40.2 of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
2.	For the reasons outlined above information regarding this question is not available.
3.	to 8. See No. 2 above.


Mr. Parry: Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development examine the additional travel and salary costs that Indian Bands must now bear as a result of centralizing district offices in centres farther away from Indian communities and, if so, are funds provided to Bands for such purposes?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification):: The distance between bands and departmental offices is not a criterion in current funding formulae, however compensation is made on the basis of the relative isolation of each band from regional business centres.
As bands develop increased capacity to manage their own affairs it is expected that their need to consult with departmental officials on a regular basis will decrease.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if questions 396 and 398 could be made Orders for Return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions 396 and 398 be deemed to have been made Orders for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Sparrow: For each fiscal year from 1980-81 to 1983-84, was there any business done in the constituency of Calgary South that arose out of government supply programs and, if so, what was the volume of this business?
Return tabled.


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, nongovernmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?
Return tabled.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



BROADCASTING ACT


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to Government Orders I thought it might be helpful to Hon. Members if I gave the ruling on the motions relating to Bill C-136. There are 91 Notices of Motions in amendment on the Order Paper for the report stage of Bill C-136, an Act respecting broadcasting and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto and in relation to radiocommunication. 1 am now ready to complete my ruling.

Motion Nos. 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 12 have been debated together with a division deferred on Motion numbered 1. The result of that division will be applied to the other motions in this group.

Motion Nos. 6, 10, 11, 11A, and 1 IB, standing in the names of the Hon. Members for York East, Mount Royal, Beaches, and Winnipeg North, attempt to insert substantive amendments by way of modifications to the interpretation clause. In this regard I will not select these motions as they are contrary to our practices as enunciated by Beauchesne's at paragraph 10 of Citation 773.
[ Translation]
Motion Nos. 7 and 8 have been debated separately and separate divisions have been deferred.
This next grouping has caused the Chair and certainly some Members considerable concern. After much deliberation and helpful assistance from the Hon. Members for Mount Royal and Vancouver-Kingsway, I have decided to group these many motions on Clause 3 as follows:
September 16, 1988

(1)	Motions Nos. 14, 15, 17 to 23, 48, 55, and 74 which concern general broadcast policy will be grouped for debate.
Motions Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 48, 55, and 74 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 19 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 22. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 19 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 20;
(2)	Motions Nos. 25, 27, 29, and 30 concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will be grouped for debate and will be voted on separately;
(3)	Motions Nos. 32 to 41 and 43 concerning alternative and other programming will be grouped for debate. There will be separate votes on Motions Nos. 32, 33, 35 to 39, 41, and 43. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 35 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 34. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 35 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 34.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 41 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 40. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 41 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 40.

Motions numbered 13, 24, 26, 62 and 78 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) were considered in the Legislative Committee. As a consequence they will not be selected, pursuant to paragraph 10 of Standing Order 114.
Motion numbered 15A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is similar to motion numbered 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and therefore Motion numbered 15A will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 16, 51, and 65 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway are similar to Motions Nos. 14, 50, and 64 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal. Thus, the motions of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway will not be selected.
Motion No. 28 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East is similar to Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and therefore Motion No. 28 will not be selected.

Motions numbered 31, 42, 72 and 77 were debated together. A division on Motion numbered 31 has been deferred. Motion numbered 42 carried and Motions numbered 72 and 77 were negatived on division.

Motion No. 31A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway is identical to Motion No. 31 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East and therefore Motion No. 31A will not be selected.
Speaker's Ruling

Motions numbered 44, 45, 46, 47 and 50 are acceptable and will be grouped for debate but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 49, 56, 67, and 68 are in order and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions numbered 49A and 57A will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motion No. 52 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East causes the Chair some procedural difficulty. The Hon. Member is attempting to change the scope of the clause substantially and possibly the Royal Recommendation when he proposes to alter the methods of procedure to be used by the Governor in Council set out in this clause. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Citation 773 of Beauchesne, I must rule Motion No. 52 out of order.

Motions numbered 53, 54, 58, 59, 60 and 69 are in order and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 57 and 61 are admissible and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motions numbered 54A, 63, 64 and 66 are in order and will be debated together and voted upon separately.
Motion numbered 70 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is similar to an amendment moved and debated in the Legislative Committee and therefore, the motion will not the selected.

Motions Nos. 71, 73, and 76 are acceptable and will be debated together but there will be a separate vote on Motion No. 71. The vote on Motion No. 73 will apply to Motion No. 76.

Motions numbered 72A and 73A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) cause some procedural difficulty in that they are attempting to change the roles of the Chairman and President of the CBC in a manner that is not consistent with the principle of the Bill as agreed to by the House at second reading. Thus, in accordance with Beauchesne's paragraph (1) of citation 773, I must rule these motions out of order.

Motion No. 75 is in order and will be debated and voted upon separately.

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act

Motions numbered 75A and 75B are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motion No. 79 is admissible and will be debated and voted upon separately.
I should comment that Hon. Members and the public watching will know that, again, there is great interest in the legislation that is in front of the Chamber and it has resulted, as one can expect, in a great many amendments.
I want to thank Hon. Members and members of the table staff for having worked long and diligently in order to assist me to make the rulings I have just read.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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; and the amendments of Ms. Mitchell (p. 19310).
The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: When I left the chair the Hon. Member for Skeena had two minutes remaining. Since he is not in the House, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this amendment because I believe it is one of the most useful amendments to this legislation. I want to use some examples to illustrate why I support the amendment very heartily since there must be a transition stage for the implementation of any new child care legislation.
Many of us believe that this particular legislation is so flawed that there is not much that can redeem it. However, I am pleased to speak to the proposed amendment that at least the Canada Assistance Plan be kept in effect during a transition period as we go into a new and hopefully improved child care Bill other than what is being proposed here.
The example that I think best illustrates why this is so necessary is the state today of child care services in the North, particularly for aboriginal people. Northern Canada is largely rural and therefore the child care services have been greatly underdeveloped. The problems in urban areas often relate to a lack of space, an extremely serious issue which this Bill does not address adequately. In rural areas there is simply no child care services available at all and virtually no resources in order to institute any child care.
What is needed in most of the rural areas is not just the funding that would be available under the Canada Assistance Plan or even under the proposed child care plan, but assistance to develop and institute child care services that are both
culturally appropriate and appropriate to the general lifestyles of the community.
The Inuit Women's Association, Pauktuutit, has given a very good submission to the committee. I think it underscores the problems that one sees in the North and in particular with aboriginal communities. The Inuit Women's Association points out quite well the need for culturally appropriate child care services. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the concern with child welfare services generally by aboriginal first nations has been one of very major paramountcy in discussions between the provinces and the territories and the federal Government, as well as within the communities themselves.
The history of child care services and child welfare services throughout Canada with first nations has proven to be an abysmally sad and abysmally ineffective one. Therefore we do not want to see that in instituting a national child care program those lessons from the past are not taken into account.
The Inuit Women's Association points out the need for culturally appropriate child care services. It is quite unclear whether in this proposed Bill there is enough flexibility to accommodate the kind of comprehensive community-based child care that would probably deviate from many of the southern models in order to meet the needs of those particular communities. This particular issue underscores the need for both a transition period through CAP and for rethinking of a number of the clauses of this Bill.
A second issue which very much underscores concerns with this Bill has been raised in particular by the Yukon Child Care Association. At the moment it is made up of a number of commercial operators. They have been adamant as an association that child care must not be a commercial venture, that it must be non-profit. As an association it supports this principle.
When looking at northern services or aboriginal services, the Inuit association again underscores the point that the profitmaking commercial centres to which much of the child care Bill is directed to support meet the needs in the North but will not meet the needs of aboriginal communities. Child care standards, trained staff, and so on are extremely difficult in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and I am sure in many of the northern parts of the provinces. If this is a problem in the South we certainly see that it is exemplified 10 times in the North.
This child care Bill which puts such a strong focus on commercial operations will not in our view in any way meet the needs of the North. Obviously, if commercial operations would have been viable they would be operating now in many of the remote and isolated communities. Clearly, that is not cost effective for them. However, the children in those spaces are no less important. They will run the communities in the future. They are just as important.
September 16, 1988

Another issue I would like to address in relation to this amendment concerns the question of training. This is a particular problem for us in the North. It is a particular problem in developing the kind of training programs which, as I said earlier, are culturally relevant and which meet some of the special needs of northern communities. I give as an example the fact that many aboriginal people whom I know in small communities throughout the territories are eager to seek retraining and upgrading of their skills. Very often the problem is that there is simply no child care available for them. There is no way for them to take the courses which may be available in order to provide a better standard of living for their families. Therefore they are forced to remain in the condition they are in even though they are being told by other Departments of the Government that these programs are available, that they want to see people upgrade their skills, that there are opportunities and jobs out there. At the same time they are being limited because there is simply no child care available and no provision for them to receive it.
Introducing a Bill such as this will have particularly serious repercussions for many of the rural communities across the country, in particular northern and more remote communities. This is why national standards are so important to those of us in the North. We know that with the small population base we are not often in a position to provide the numbers which count for commercial viability. Therefore non-profit centres and national standards which include provisions for well trained staff, both in terms of cultural relevancy as well as in terms of child care methods more appropriate to the dominant population, are things that we look to in a child care Bill to ensure that all the children in our North receive the care that we expect in southern Canada which will enable them to be the citizens of the North that we feel that they can and will be.
The Inuit Women's Association petition in many ways simply reflected many areas of concern that other groups have. It exemplifies the very basic rationale for the amendment which is before us now.
Therefore I strongly urge that this amendment be supported by all Members of the House. If we are to have a national child care Act which truly meets the objectives of caring for the children of the country, then it is important to ensure that nothing is lost in the interim through having the Canada Assistance Plan terminate before a full-fledged national program is in operation.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is important for the House and for our country that we correct some of the comments that have been placed on the record today and yesterday by members of the Opposition concerning this Bill. The Bill before us is a national child care Bill. It is aimed at doubling the number of subsidized day care spaces in the country over the next seven years. It has been implied and statements have been made many times that in some way, shape, or form this Bill will actually reduce the
Canada Child Care Act
number of potential day care spaces that will be provided in the country.
It is important that we bear in mind the distinction and the definitions of what we are talking about here. There is something in the day care industry called licensed day care spaces. As well, there is something called subsidized day care spaces. They are not exactly the same thing. There may be all sorts of children in day care and there may be all sorts of spaces for them as long as their families can afford to pay for the complete cost of that care. However, those spaces will be provided and there will be no subsidy provided for them, whether it be by the federal Government under the Canada Assistance Program or whether it be by the provincial Governments.
The spaces that we are really talking about here are the subsidized spaces. If we look to the situation in 1987, for instance, I am told that across the country there were some 243,545 licensed day care spaces. Of those about 180,000 were subsidized. Under the present provisions of the Canada Assistance Program there is no definition of what a subsidy is supposed to be, and therefore the subsidies could vary. Technically they could vary, I suppose, from a cent a day up to an enormous amount.
I am also advised that the subsidies vary substantially from province to province. Because there is no standard definition when we talk about 180,000 subsidized day care spaces in Canada at the present time, we are including in that figure spaces which are subsidized by provincial Governments in amounts as low as 38 cents a day, some as low as 50 cents a day, and some as low as $1 a day.
This Bill provides a standard definition for subsidized spaces that will require a subsidized space to provide at least a bear minimum subsidy of $2 a day. We are making a very significant change in the whole definition, in the whole concept of subsidized day care. I hear the Opposition talk about this business of not providing for those who are needy, for those who need assistance and help. In fact this legislation is doing just that; it is providing a much higher level of subsidization and guaranteeing a much higher level of subsidization for those people than is available now under the Canada Assistance Plan where this no minimum subsidization definition. That in itself is a very substantial step forward.
The other criticism I hear is of private day care centres or so-called commercial day care centres. There seems to be an impression that there is something sinister, vicious, and wrong with a private or a commercial day care centre. In fact, they have existed in Canada for a long, long time. Not only have they existed in Canada for a long, long time, they provide subsidized spaces. Many of the spaces in those commercial centres, in those private day care centres, are subsidized.

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Alan Redway: If the Hon. Member will listen to me for a minute, I will tell her that within my own block where I personally live in the City of Toronto there is a privately owned day care centre. There are subsidized spaces in it and it has been there for years. There are many, many more in my own neighbourhood.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Read the studies.


Alan Redway: Of the 243,545 licensed day care spaces in Canada in 1987, some 90,386 were in so-called commercial centres or private centres. Of those 90,386, 54,000 of them or 60 per cent were subsidized spaces. This is not something new that is suddenly coming on the scene. The Government is not creating some sort of sinister plot to destroy day care and to destroy the whole system or to change things in a cruel and vicious manner. This is just carrying on the system that has been there for years and years.
If we listen to the comments of the Opposition and what they are suggesting and take them to their logical conclusion that somehow or other we have to wipe out those 90,386 private spaces, wipe out the 54,000 subsidized spaces in those private centres, and start from scratch with non-profit ones, it does not make any sense at all. If what we are interested in is providing day care for families that need it, then there is no point in wiping out what is there and having to replace it with something else. We should all bear these points in mind when we are dealing with this Bill.
Finally, I think that we should bear in mind that there is no provision for capital funding whatsoever under the Canada Assistance Plan. There is in this Bill-and it is one of the big improvements provided by this Bill and by this national child care legislative package-capital funding to allow more day care centres to be built, to allow them to provide extra spaces than there are now, and to provide extra subsidized spaces than there are now. That is what we are talking about, in fact doubling those numbers of subsidized spaces. That is the important and significant. That is why this Bill is so important to our country, as far as I am concerned. It is important to Canadians.
Thousands and thousands of people need day care. They cannot afford to pay for the whole thing themselves. They need some assistance and help if they are going to be working. Many, many single mothers, single parents, if they are going to be working and off the welfare and social assistance rolls, need some sort of subsidized day care space to allow them to do that. I think it is in the national interest to make sure that everybody who wants to work and does not want to be on social assistance has that opportunity. This legislation is geared to that very thing.
Most definitely, the impression that the Opposition has been leaving is that it will not meet that need. In fact, in the next seven years this legislation will double the number of subsidized day care spaces in Canada, and that is something for which the Government and the Minister should be commended.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in addressing this amendment which seeks to prolong the assistance from the Canada Assistance Plan to Canada's day care consumers, I believe that I should start by paying tribute to the efforts of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), who has been our Party's chief spokesperson on the matter of day care.
I am glad to see that there is a minimal level of consensus in the House on the need for a national day care program for Canada. I, of course, must support my Party's program, which I see as being far better in addressing the real needs inherent in day care situations than the program that the Government has put before us.
The Government first became involved in day care through the operations of the Canada Assistance Plan, and I believe that it is inappropriate at this time for that involvement to be discontinued. That, of course, is by way of subsidies for the children of parents who were receiving social assistance to enable them to attend day care while their parents were seeking work or simply taking care of other major family responsibilities. That help for low-income parents enabled many children to have their start in day care in all parts of Canada, and I believe that it is significant that we now have an amendment to continue that participation.
If there is not a transition period for the continuation of Canada Assistance Plan funding, a risk exists that some children might not receive the day care services that they require and otherwise would receive.
We believe that day care has to be universally accessible without regard to the income levels of the parents, and this is one way in which that assurance could be given to those people who are receiving social assistance.
The present program as laid down by the Government in fact implicitly acknowledges that the demand for day care in Canada will continue to outstrip the supply and that indeed the gap between the demand for day care services and the availability of day care spaces will even widen, in terms of absolute numbers, if this amendment is not adopted and the Canada Assistance Plan funding continued.
For this country to fall behind the growth in demand for day care services, in spite of a child care Act and a supposed national program, would be an insult and a disservice to those parents who are seeking day care for their children in this day and age.
September 16, 1988

We in our Party believe that day care should be provided on a not for profit basis, notwithstanding the remarks of the previous speaker. Indeed, I would hearken back to the remarks of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Ms. McLaughlin), in instancing the wide support is even among commercial day care operators for a not for profit situation.
I was not personally at the hearing concerned, but I was struck by the submission that was made by the Assembly of First Nations to the committee on Bill C-144. The Assembly of First Nations has correctly identified a problem that is not simply a problem of jurisdiction but one that has very far-reaching implications for the first nations and for their Governments at the band level in Canada.
It would be a sad day for this country if in, instituting a national day care program, purportedly anyway, this Government did not make the appropriate adjustments to ensure that first nations have full control within the federal guidelines, and hopefully the national standards which we would like to see instituted, over the delivery of day care programs to their first nations' citizens in their first nations' communities.
To place apparently unthinkingly, or without adequate consideration, the first nations of this country under provincial jurisdiction in the matter of day care programs would run completely counter to the self-government trend, and the development of self-government which has been occurring in aboriginal communities across the country and which has been, ostensibly at least, supported by all three Parties represented in the House. Therefore, I would charge the Government to ensure that no such derogation from the rights of first nations' communities to determine the framework under which these services are delivered should be accomplished by this legislation.
Aboriginal communities are of course among those which would be most severely affected by the withdrawal of Canada Assistance Plan funding because of the slender income base of many of those communities. I think of the communities, for example, of Whitefish Bay and Shoal Lake in my own riding with successful day care programs in operation that are facing certain needs. Certain resources have to be provided if those programs are to continue to succeed. Where will they be if this withdrawal of Canada Assistance Plan funding goes through.
Another question brought before the committee, which I think is certainly worthy of consideration and requires careful attention in the addressing, is the matter of training for those who serve in day care centres. Child care has become a feminized profession, and unfortunately it has joined other feminized professions in exhibiting the characteristics of underpayment of the workers, the caregivers within the profession. That is something that I would have liked to have seen addressed in the legislation because it is a fundamental equity issue between persons of the female gender and persons of the male gender that has not been adequately addressed by the Government. We certainly would hope to see it addressed much more forcefully by the next Government.
Canada Child Care Act

Mr. Speaker, last night I had the privilege of taking part in a program on CHOT to discuss the issue of day care and its potential impact on the election campaign. Mr. Speaker, I assume that during the coming election campaign, all Parties will put before the Canadian public their respective programs for setting up day care centres and providing for child care services. Mr. Speaker, I suggest we let the election campaign be the forum for the debate on major issues, including child care services.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski) Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 38 has been moved and seconded. On Debate, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this is our last amendment that has been accepted for debate, although there are many others that we presented in a sincere attempt to find some way to improve this Bill since the Minister is determined to go ahead with it. Unfortunately, this Minister has refused almost all amendments except very minor ones.
This particular amendment relates to the Canada Assistance Plan. I would like to say that we have tried through three different amendments to deal with this problem. Through amendments we tried to get the Canada Assistance Plan retained for families in need, or those likely to be in need, for head start programs, and many of the services that are for low-income families now funded or those under the Canada Assistance Plan. We knew the Minister was balking at that, as is his want. We presented another amendment which would at least have kept children with special needs and disabled children under Canada Assistance Plan to ensure that those children have the type of spaces necessary, and that there is opportunity for them to have the subsidies needed to get into child care services.

Canada Child Care Act
It costs a lot for children who are disabled because there has to be special facilities. There should have been a top up per space that the Minister had in his funding formula to allow day care centres to have a certain number of spaces for disabled children in order that all centres would be accessible. This is a requirement under our Charter of Rights. The Minister has made no provision in this Bill to focus on and target the needs of disabled children. There should also have been money to pay so much extra per space for the extra costs for staff. Children with special needs need more attention, often one-on-one care. They should be integrated with other children in a day care centre.
When we had our special committee on child care we heard from witnesses that they did not want handicapped children to be isolated. It is very important that those children have a chance to develop normally. It is important for the other children to see there are members of our society who are disabled in one way or another. Many of us are disabled in other respects. We wanted to ensure that there was going to be a place for them in good quality child care services that their parents could afford in order that they could grow and develop in their pre-school years and have the socialization and stimulating intellectual experiences that would help to prepare them for school and to go on to make a success of their lives.
I am very sorry to say that this Minister refused to consider any mechanism within his funding policies and procedures to protect spaces for disabled children and for children with special needs. Many of the witnesses, in fact most, who appeared before the legislative committee said they wanted the Canada Assistance Plan operating here to be sure of protection for lower-income families and the programs and services parents and children need.
We talk about a child care Act. When the committee met we, including government Members, talked about families. We wanted child care programs to meet the needs of mothers and fathers as well as children. This Bill does not allow funding for programs like the Mom and Tot program which the YWCA sponsors. That is classified as a recreation program and this Bill excludes it. Yet those kinds of programs are very important for mothers at home so they can get out for some relief, some fun, to talk to other adults, and of course so their children can have a pre-school experience. A similar kind of service is needed for immigrant women and their children to orientate themselves to Canada, to practise the language and get out in the community as well as to provide good child care.
This motion, then, is very similar to the last one. It would amend the Act to allow CAP to be used by provinces and protect primarily low income families while the new Act is established. The new Act would then provide capital funding and should certainly provide operating costs directly to day care centres and other child care services. They could then pay decent wages to their staff and reduce their fees to make the service affordable. The Minister talks about affordability in his preamble even though he would not agree to state that as
September 16, 1988
an objective in the Act. Yet there is no way this Bill really will guarantee affordable child care. It just entrenches the present system of unaffordable child care and poor quality child care across the country.
By keeping CAP in place there will be protection for low income families because the funding is continuous. It is not capped at the end of seven years. It would allow the other spaces to be used for average families and any child that needs it, and there would not have to be a competition for spaces. We are afraid that in our provinces most of the available spaces- there are few of them and they are of poor quality-could be used just for kids with special needs if the funding was such as to allow it. Yet there are other children, of course, that should be covered under general funding to day care centres. The Minister is here today and we ask him to accept this amendment so that CAP funding will be available while there is a phase-in of the new Act.
I would also like to point out that there are certain programs that can be covered under CAP which are very important. We should have them in every community. I am talking about Head Start, for example. That program was initiated in the U.S. and research has shown that as a result of very intensive enrichment programs for children who are quite seriously disadvantaged, most of them poor, it is possible to help them prepare for school and give them the kind of language skills they need to obtain more cultural enrichment programs. They can get the kind of individual attention and growth they need in order to be prepared for kindergarten and so on. This is vital. If they do not get it, they will be the drop-outs, they will grow into illiterate adults, and we know what a serious concern that is today.
We heard from researchers who looked at Head Start programs. They found that children who had been through those programs had a much lower incidence of delinquency when they became adolescents. There were fewer teen-age pregnancies and a higher participation in school because of fewer drop-outs. The Minister is depriving communities of that by this plan and by not protecting funding for special programs for disadvantaged children.
Again, we have to really look at this Bill in the context of the needs of children across this country. We heard over and over again about children in every part of Canada who are in risky situations. The mother has to go to work and she does not have day care available in her community, or the fees are so high that she cannot afford it. All she can do is hope to heck she can find a baby-sitter, often someone she does not know, whom she can afford so she can go to work. Then she goes to work and worries about it all day long. This is not an unusual situation. It is particularly common for parents who have an infant child because there is no licensed, good quality care for under three-year-olds in almost every community, certainly not in my riding of Vancouver East. This is a constant complaint. It costs more for infant and toddler care, and it has to be good care.
September 16, 1988

We are also concerned about parents who have special needs. They want to be sure their children are cared for in a good centre. We are concerned also about the fathers who so often want to exercise their responsibility. Younger fathers are taking a greater share of the parenting and they want parental leave to do this. They will of course be just as worried as the mothers that their children are not in good care during the day simply because it is not available and not affordable.
I repeat, this Bill will not ensure accessible, affordable, quality child care in any one of our ridings across this country. It will not do that even though the Minister keeps trying to tell us that it will. This is not a national program. It has no objectives. It entrenches the present patchwork of low quality child care and commercial child care. There are too few spaces, only 200,000 for two million kids whose parents are working. Not all of them will need care, of course, but many of them will.
The program is very restrictive. It limits the expansion of child care to meet real needs. Capital funding will be finished after seven years. It will be grandfathered after seven years. I think the Minister should be grandfathered. He should be ashamed to be the Minister of National Health and Welfare with this kind of program. The women of Canada are not going to forget. They are aware of what is going on and we will make sure they are aware. The Minister has this last chance to improve the Bill by agreeing to this amendment, and I appeal to him again to do so.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion presented by the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party. We have said repeatedly during the last few days that more than one million children do not have access to day care. We know that one child out of five is poor in this country, that 45 per cent of couples with children both have to work because they would otherwise live under the poverty line, and we know that the majority of single-parent families headed by women live below that line. When we look at this picture, we realize that we are faced with a major social problem. When the Minister says that families have a choice, it is clear he is not looking at the situation in 1988 and 1990, because families do not have a choice. Most families live below the poverty line. In this Bill we see that children from low and middle-income families have very little protection except for one amendment we managed to get through. However, the Bill does not address this particular group, and it is clear that today, a Bill as important as this one on child care must provide spaces for the groups that need them most, the children from low and middle-income families.
Of course the CAP program used to protect these children. In fact, one of the reasons why we support the recommendation that this program should be continued under the new legislation as well, is that we now have a ceiling. The number
Canada Child Care Act
of spaces is set. If we add the CAP program, it would focus specifically on these children and it would be a way of getting more spaces in the program.
Of course when we take a closer look at Bill C-144, we see it falls short in many respects. And speaking of lower and middle-income families and poor children, there was a week-long series of articles in La Presse on a study of the declining birth rate in Quebec. It appears that one of the causes is of course the cost of living but also the fact that women work. In fact, our recommendations included family support programs, one of which would provide for parental leave, not just maternity leave but parental leave. The Government ignored every single recommendation. It did not even propose an amendment to extend maternity leave from 16 to 26 weeks. Sixteen weeks is just not enough. That recommendation was made by all Royal commissions and all parliamentary committees, starting with the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in the seventies. The Bill contains nothing in this respect.
This Government always says we must do everything to help families, and that during the past four years it has passed legislation that might boost the birthrate, but if we look at paternity and maternity leave, they are not mentioned in the Bill. We discussed day care centres, including day care in the work place. Here again, not a trace in the Bill. If parents are to have a choice, they should have day-care available in the work place as well. Consider the problem of absenteeism. And it would be so much easier to get fathers involved, because we all know that bringing up children, although there have been some changes in recent years, is mainly the mother's responsibility. Here, fathers could at least be involved by bringing the children and picking them up. Companies could be given incentives such as tax rebates to provide this service. However, nothing of the kind was suggested by the Government.
We talked about special leave. We recommended special leave for parents. I think it is important to have a certain number of days a year, for when the children are sick and someone has to stay home to look after them. There is no mention of that either. It is clear that in addition to helping families, if these recommendations had been followed up in the legislation, they would also have helped to boost the birth rate in this country. It is all very well to tell couples to have more children, but there is more involved than that.
Mr. Speaker, parents are not involved in day care, but they still have a role to play. We know that even private schools and colleges have a board made up of parents who participate, who want to know the kind of services offered, the kind of education their children are receiving. But now, in day care centres, the children do not have a say, they are too young and the parents will not be involved in the quality of services, the selection of those who look after their children. Parents are completely excluded. I think that we could have had private day care, but insisted that parents be involved in running it.

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
As for the number of spaces, there are 200,000! This only meets 15 per cent of the present demand in Canada and we know that we are leaving more than 70 per cent of the population without day care service.
So many improvements could have been made, but I still support this motion because, coming back to CAP, we know that children with little education and whose parents are not very wealthy have almost no place in our society and now, from the beginning, at birth, there will be a cleavage. We might easily find ourselves with two societies, one rich and one poor. We will then have two classes of children as we have two classes of citizens. It is unacceptable in a country like ours, Mr. Speaker!
Every child in Canada is entitled to a space in a day care facility, to quality child care. Now, I must admit that the Bill before us does not give them many possibilities.
Someone just said that the workers in day care centres were mostly women. The pay is so low that they do it out of a sense of vocation, because we know that in some places they earn between $10,000 and $13,000 a year. So if you have to look after a family-only women can continue to take care of a family on such a low salary, whereas for men, it is twice as difficult-
So let us say that I support this amendment because I think that it is important to give our children-especially since one in five of them is poor in Canada-another chance to have the same day care services, just as the same education services, to get them out of the bad situation in which they have lived. A society like ours, Canada with all its wealth, must give, and has a duty to give, every child what it needs to get ahead in life. Later, it would be easier to say that we want programs to deal with delinquency and drugs, but at least, when they are young, we will give them what they need.
Unfortunately, I find that this Bill does not help families much and does not meet the real needs.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I have some difficulty with this from a procedural point of view, even though I know that the Chair has accepted Motion No. 38 for debate. I thought that this motion was consequential on a number of motions, some of which had been ruled out of order. As well, Motion No. 36 was defeated on a voice vote just a few moments ago. I am somewhat surprised at the manner in which we are proceeding on Motion No. 38.
Additionally, in the committee proceedings, this motion was ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Are you questioning the Chair?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I thought under the rules that we now operate under-


Cyril Keeper: Point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 thought that would get your attention.


Cyril Keeper: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted some clarification here and maybe some assistance from the Chair. I am wondering if the Minister is speaking to the motion and the legislation or if he is raising a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. The point that I am trying to make is that voting against Clause 11 has the same effect as Motion No. 38.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will of course rely on your judgment, but I am surprised that such an experienced Member as the Hon. Minister is really questioning the judgment of the Chair in this matter. I think if he has complaints about whether or not this amendment was eligible to stand, they should have been discussed earlier with the Table or with the Speaker. To raise it now in the House seems to be really questioning the Chair and we, of course, would not agree to the Minister doing that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying, and I know the Minister is coming back to Motion No. 38.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is why I said yes to both questions. The reason I am putting it on the record is that later on when people take a look at the ruling of the committee and the ruling here, they will find they are in fact different rulings. 1 think it is important for the record that it be clarified.
With respect to Motion No. 38-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Vancouver East is going to say now. The Chair does not care what happens in committee.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Nor do they.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Can I make my point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was just going to clarify what the Hon. Minister just said, but I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver East on a point of order.
September 16, 1988


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I thought I heard the Member saying he was questioning, really, the ruling that was made. I would say this is quite inappropriate, in fact, quite insulting to the Chair, and I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the Minister, who has been around here for quite awhile, will probably do the proper thing and I would hope that debate can carry on.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason I want to make that clarification is quite straightforward. We have debated this before. We debated it under Motion No. 36. My comments on Motion No. 36 and my rejection of Motion No. 36 also applies to Motion No. 38. That is why the introduction. It was so I could make the point on Motion No. 38.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Bill C-144 again today, as I did yesterday, I must say that the more one looks at this Bill, the more one notes the deficiencies in the Bill and the lack of clarity and direction. This Bill is supposed to address children 14 years old and under, which is a very diversified group. At the same time, the Bill does not clarify how we handle these children, what kind of programs we have for these children. It does not address the issue of special need children.
Think about the number of children out in society. There are an additional 1.8 million places needed. We are serving two million children. Of those two million children who are supposedly in need of care, what numbers are over pre-school care? Within that over pre-school care, from age 6 to age 13 or 14 years, how many need latchkey service and what is the nature of the latchkey service we wish to provide for these children? Is it in the school? Is it out of the school? Is it an enrichment program? Is it to help reintegrate children who have problems? Is it to address single-parent families? What is the program targeting with respect to the kinds of services we want to give children who are 6 to 13 years of age?
With respect to under age five pre-school children, we have infants and young children two to four years who have different kinds of needs. I can recall many years ago, in another life in another place, I was president of a very wonderful agency, the Neighbourhood House Services of Canada. It was a reception and integration service for preschool children, among other services it offered.
The reason I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is because we started within that service some incredible programs, head start programs, which looked after aphasic children, Down's syndrome children and cerebral palsy children and we were able, through a demonstration program, to show that these children could be integrated into the normal pre-school programs. That enabled two things to happen. First, it sensitized children and parents to the reality that these children exist in our society and have the right to be helped to
Canada Child Care Act
be part of society to the best of their potential. They are not total handicaps. As I have said many times, if we could see them for the things they could bring to society instead of the handicaps they supposedly have, we would be far ahead.
As we prepared those children and sensitized their families, we also prepared society to adjust to the kinds of programs for the disabled which have become a very critical part of our society. Again, we must look at the abilities of those disabled instead of their disabilities only.
What are we doing in this Bill to address those children? What are we doing to enable their parents to have a sense of being supported in the school or pre-school system? Are we going to have great differences across Canada? I travelled with the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) through British Columbia and up through the Yukon for a week, as well as with other members of the child care committee. We heard of the importance to the interior of British Columbia of the kinds of services about which I am speaking. We heard about the need to have teachers who were trained, not just 18 year olds with good hearts and strong muscles.
There is a need for educational programs which teach how to handle these children, how to help them talk and walk. I met one of the youngsters in the aphasic program who had been tagged aphasic. He is a graduate of McGill University and a brilliant young architect today. If he had not had that special program, and if his parents had not had the support and help within the family structure of that agency, where would he be today?
The Down's syndrome children can perform. The cerebral palsy children may have what is a perceived difficulty, but that does not mean their intellectual capacity has been damaged. If we do not have in place the kinds of programs that are going to help these children and their families, it is a crying shame. This Bill is far short of its mark.
I would like to speak about the mathematics of the situation for a moment. Supposedly under CAP we have 200,000 spaces, 15 per cent of the need. Under this Bill, we will have 200,000 new spaces over seven years, another 15 per cent of the need. That leaves 1.4 million or 70 per cent of Canadian children with no option or choice. That is the point. Many parents choose to stay at home, but there are many who do not choose to stay at home for a variety of reasons which I enunciated yesterday.
What caught my eye-and I addressed the Minister yesterday on the difference between the preamble and content in a Bill-is that the amendment the Minister has brought to the preamble is kind of laughable. It is political chicanery, in my view. In the first paragraph he says there will be at least
200,000	new spaces over seven years. In the third paragraph it will not exceed $4 billion for the said program, some of which is recaptured from the CAP payments the Minister is not going to make. And there will be differences.

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Because there are no national standards, there will be good programs and bad programs. There will be good programs for rich kids and bad programs for poor kids, which will divide our society even more. That is very unhealthy for the future of Canada. The Minister has set at least 200,000 spaces, but not exceeding $4 billion, so he has already installed that incredible difference that can mark our society in the future. If we have good programs, it will take more dollars for those 200,000 spaces than if we have poor programs.
All in all, it seems to me that there will not be sufficient money if the 200,000 spaces are put in and we cannot spend more than $4 billion under this Bill, and we have to respect the way the Bill was drawn up. There is no reason then why we cannot keep the CAP process in place and supplement the kinds of things that fall, perhaps, under recreation or education, the kind of special programs that are fundamental to the well-being of this country such as head start programs.
I suggest that this amendment is a good directive to the Minister on how to put a decent program into place. We cannot go back to 20 years ago when I was a mother who chose to stay at home. That is not the reality of today's society. In many instances a family needs two working parents. In many instances in today's society families have one single parent, divorce being as prevalent as it is. The mother and the father or the divorced partners must get out and earn a living.
If the future is in the hands of our children, for goodness' sake take money away from the submarines or somewhere else and put it into good and proper child care, divided properly among pre-school, school, and after school.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the opportunity to put a few facts on the record in this debate because child care is one of the crucial areas of debate today and is an emergency need which must be met rapidly.
Before I comment specifically on the substance of the Government's program, I want to reflect a bit on what the Minister responsible for day care had to say about our home Province of Manitoba. I understood him to have left the impression that Manitoba was a laggard in day care, that the New Democratic Party in Manitoba had done less than one might expect from a New Democratic Party on day care. He did this in a couple of ways. He indicated that Manitoba has the lowest rate of growth of spaces. He also referred to the cost of spaces being higher.
This brings to mind the fact that when making a case, people often choose statistics on a selective basis. They do not throw light on the situation as much as presenting their point of view. I want to deal with the contention of the Minister that Manitoba has the lowest rate of growth in spaces.
The Minister did not tell us, for example, that Manitoba has a far greater number of spaces when compared to the neighbouring Province of Saskatchewan, which is being governed by a Conservative Party. If my memory serves me correctly, there
are something like 3,000 spaces in Saskatchewan and 7,000 in Manitoba. Therefore, it depends upon which statistics you quote.
The Minister referred to the cost of spaces being higher in Manitoba. If you are to have quality care, you have to pay for it. When it comes to children Canadians are willing to pay for quality care. They do not want to go on the cheap when it comes to day care. They want the job to be done properly.
I want to place a few statistics on the record of the New Democratic Party in Manitoba with respect to day care. From 1981-82 to the end of the New Democratic Party term, there was a 225 per cent growth rate in Manitoba in the number of child care spaces. The dollars rose from $8.5 million to $27.5 million in grants for spaces and subsidies to parents. Therefore, from 1981-82 until the last provincial election in Manitoba, there was an increase of 225 per cent in spaces and subsidies to parents. That record stands by itself.
When we last debated this issue, I pointed out a few facts about Manitoba. One was that the Manitoba Government increased funding for day care spaces to $11,200 from $6,500, a 72 per cent increase from the fiscal year 1981-82 to the fiscal year 1986-87. That is a very substantial increase.
To finish off with statistics, Manitoba, which has had an NDP Government over most of the last few years, has the highest per capita spending on day care. On a per capita basis we have the most child care spaces. On a per capita basis Manitoba spends the most and has the highest standards.
I hope that this puts to rest the notion that Manitoba, under the New Democratic Party in the last few years, was a laggard with regard to day care because the reality is that Manitoba was a leader in day care. That is not to say that more does not need to be done because more does need to be done. This brings me to the Government's program now before us.
I guess it is not surprising that I am not critical of the Government's program. I am a member of the Opposition and we do have the responsibility to critique that which the Government does. However, I want to point out on the basis of facts why a critical view of the Government's programs stands up to reason and not only to passion and Opposition posturing.
The first reason has to do with quality. When it comes to child care, we all want quality. In order to assure that quality, we need national objectives. We know that more and more children and more and more families are dependent upon day care. We know that children achieve their basic learning in the very early stages of their life. They learn how to relate to the world, how to value themselves, and what to expect from people. They learn the very basic strategies of how to deal with the world as young children. It is, therefore, very crucial what they learn in that period because that largely determines what happens to them throughout their life.
September 16, 1988

Therefore, quality is fundamental, yet this program has no national objectives. It does not set out a set of principles which the provinces will have to live up to in order to get federal money. It does not set out objectives which point out that we want our children well cared for, that we want to ensure that the quality of care they get is excellent, that we want to ensure that they are not shortchanged in any way. There is a vacuum in the area of national objectives.
Somehow the Government has forgotten that it is the Government for the nation and is responsible for providing leadership to the people of Canada. It has forgotten that it is not simply enough to hand out money to the provinces and tell them to set the objectives, design the program, and do what they want with Canadian children.
Ordinary Canadian families expect more of their federal politicians than for them simply to be a funnel for dollars to provincial Governments. They want them to provide leadership in the sense of providing for valid social needs, which day care is, and in identifying how those social needs will be met. The Government's program falls flat on its face with regard to the quality criteria because it has failed to set out any national objectives ensuring that we will have quality child care spaces.
Another aspect of the program is that the legislation before this House removes the reference to day care from the Canada Assistance Plan. The Canada Assistance Plan is a piece of legislation passed by the House of Commons, the objective of which it is to ameliorate the impacts of poverty, to give people a way out of poverty, and to help people who are living below the poverty line in this country.
If the Government is seeking to meet one social need, why does it take away from the other? Why, in its attempt to do something about day care, does it forget about poverty. That is the implication of this legislation. That is the implication of this.
Bill C-144 removes from the Canada Assistance Plan the reference to child care. It is stated in Clause 10 and reinforced in Clause 11. It states that the Canada Assistance Plan will no longer include the objective of alleviating poverty. By no longer making any reference to child care the Government is saying to heck with the poor.
In order to reduce poverty in this country and get people off welfare so they can make a contribution to society, they must have training. One of the social supports people need in order to get training is day care. That objective ought to remain in the Canada Assistance Plan. Day care for the poor ought to continue to be a priority because only then will they have the tools to climb out of the deep pit of poverty. This Government program fails when one considers it against the criteria of what it does for the poor.
Let us examine the Government's program from the perspective of day care spaces. People in my riding and people across Canada want day care spaces so their children will be well cared for. The Government's plan reduces the number of
Canada Child Care Act
day care spaces that otherwise would be available to Canadian families. The growth rate for day care under the Canada Assistance Plan was 15 per cent per year. According to our calculations, it will be 10 per cent per year under the Tory plan. That is a step back in terms of provision of day care spaces. The Government is turning a deaf ear to Canadian families who say they want day care.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, this amendment addresses the inability of the Government to listen to people who went to a lot of work to make sure they presented responsible briefs. The Government is unwilling to listen and allow amendments that these groups have recommended. We in the New Democratic Party believe these amendments would make the Bill much more palatable.
There are many misconceptions about what we mean when we talk about child care. It is an issue with which I have been involved for some 20 years. Child care programs are often delivered by three levels of government. They become very complex and people often do not understand them.
I thought there was a hidden agenda, especially when I saw the multitude of males in the House and provincial legislatures. I thought that they kept these programs as convoluted as possible so people would not be able to understand them. Fortunately, in the last 20 years in Canada many groups and communities have conducted research into the seriousness of the situation and how to address it.
When New Democrats talk about affordable and accessible child care, we are not talking about putting every child into institutional care. It is important that people understand this. We are talking about the models that are used in western Europe where in some cases fathers or mothers feel that a productive part of their life is looking after pre-schoolers before going back into the workforce. I think we should applaud those people for recognizing that they play an important role.
The kind of allocation the Government has given to those parents is unacceptable. It is an insult to think that a few hundred dollars a year is what child care is worth to a parent who is staying at home. One gets the impression that the Government believes it is dealing with a parent who wants to stay home because there is no work and that $500 or $600 will be adequate in order to stay at home and look after a child. We are talking about people who are very productive in society and have decided that their priority will be child care. It is something they can do well and be creative about.
New Democrats have believed for some time that this is a valuable and good role. They also recognize that there are some parents, no matter how much they love their children, who cannot deliver the quality care they would like to deliver. Let us dispel the myth that the best person at home with the child is the parent. That is not true. Parents themselves will recognize that sometimes it is better when the time they spend with their child is quality time. That is very important.

September 16, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
We are attempting to establish a program in which every child will feel the love and security that is so important in the early years. When we talk about accessible and affordable child care, we mean a choice for families because spaces are available for families who require care for their children for various reasons. It may be their own emotional stability or it may be economic conditions.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that there are very few Conservatives in the House. They do not care about this Bill. Therefore, I call for a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a quorum. Debate.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out for the record that in calling for the quorum, the Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) failed to state that there were two Members of the New Democratic Party in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will not take any more time trying to play bingo with numbers.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Tell her that.


John Barry Turner: Tell your friend from Vancouver.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has the floor.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about child care, it is important that people try to understand how complex an issue this is. Obviously there is a lack of interest, but the lack of interest among those Members is the same as it is with society. They do not understand that the delivery of this service is serious.
The Minister made an announcement about one month ago that he was putting more money into this program so that child care workers will be better paid. That is a complete sham. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill which guarantees any kind of increase in wages for child care workers. Furthermore, there is nothing in the national objectives that indicates a certain quality of care should be delivered to our children.
It is true that there has never been a child care strategy in this country. Lord only knows that it is something for which the people of Canada have been crying for a long time. Since we have never had any child care strategy, we thought the Government would act responsibly. The Hon. Member who spoke before me recognized that child care is one of the best delivered services in the Province of Manitoba under a New Democratic Party Government. I challenge anyone to deny that.
I have two wonderful grandchildren who have been the recipients of that service. I was very impressed with the quality of service that has been delivered in that province. That is the
type of service that should be delivered right across the board. We are not talking about the ability to have every child come under a government program or anything of the sort. What we are talking about is giving security and reinforcement to Canadian families so that children can be looked after in the best way possible.
To say that we do not have the money to do that is blasphemy. We do not have the right to be a government and to have the resources in the country that we have if we are not going to invest in our children. We only have to look at what is happening right now across the country in some of our food kitchens. Some 40 per cent of the clients in the City of Toronto are receiving their nourishment from food kitchens. That is a disgrace. The latchkey children in Hamilton Mountain who are members of families in which both parents are working to pay mortgages and to keep body and soul together find that at the same time there are no services for child care for them.
Do not, Mr. Speaker, get the impression that parents do not care about their children and that they do not love them. Many times these parents are under very extreme pressure because they know that they have to keep the economic factors together. At the same time they cannot meet those bills, buy that food and pay that mortgage if they have not got two incomes coming in. Many of the jobs that the Government bragged about creating have been jobs which pay $18,000 and less per year. I challenge anybody to try to keep a family going with that kind of income. It takes two incomes of that sort. We know what the average income is of single parent families. We know that if we take away the lowest salary from the family with two incomes, 64 per cent will have to live below the poverty line. The reality is that the two incomes must be there.
At the same time we recognize that we do not have the spaces in which children can be looked after. We have in front of us a Bill which says to us that the Government does not care about the quality of care. It is certainly not interested in what we are going to pay to the people who are to deliver child care. If we take a good look at what child care workers are getting, we see that we pay people who work in the zoo more than we do people who look after our children. That is a disgrace. It tells us that there is a double standard. Obviously, the Minister recognized that when he said that more money would be available to pay child care workers. But the Minister was not responsible enough to put into the Bill some objectives which stated that the children of Canada are precious and that the Government is not putting federal dollars into a program unless certain criteria are met. He did not have the backbone to stand up and say: "Children are important to this Government and we are going to put in the kind of Act that really makes that count". If he was not willing to do that, he should not be the Minister bringing forward a Bill such as this.
September 16, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 gave the Elon. Member an extra 30 seconds because of the quorum call. She has been well looked after. I say that just in case she was worried about her time.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, you are a very generous man. We all appreciate that. It is the big western heart.
I want to say a few words on this Bill before the House today. I am glad that the Minister is now back in the House. Perhaps he can respond to some of our concerns.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Being very conscious of the clock, and it looks like the Hon. Member who now has the floor might be the last Member on the opposition side to speak, there would be no difficulty on this side of the House not to see the clock at two o'clock. If the Hon. Member wanted to speak for his full 10 minutes, we could delay Private Members' hour slightly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would need unanimous consent for such a proposal. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And you called quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have had some great speeches today, great debate. We still have a few minutes left before we get into Private Members' hour. I would ask Hon. Members to listen to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would love to make a long speech, but the Minister of Health, who is in very serious trouble in his riding, has to get back to Winnipeg to do some campaigning. Out of courtesy 1 think that we had better let him go. He is generally a pretty good guy, a pretty compassionate man. I cannot understand why he would not listen to all the witnesses who came before the committee. Perhaps he could even use some of my time, if he wants, in order to respond.
Over 40 witnesses appeared before the committee. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said that all of them-every single one of them-are opposed to the Bill.

Everyone is opposing the legislation. Despite that fact, the Minister has not come up with any positive amendment to
Canada Child Care Act
make the Bill more palatable to Canadians. And I am convinced the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) is amazed at this, because he is a democratic, a very democratic Member.

If democracy means anything, the Government should call witnesses to appear before the committee, listen to them and seek guidance from them. Then it should try to amend the Bill to reflect what the people of Canada want. That is what the old Conservative Party used to say when it was in Opposition.
I remember the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) saying, when he was the constitutional critic, that the people of Canada should be listened to, that the Government should respond to the people and introduce amendments. He said that if he were ever Minister he would do that. He said that he would listen to the people. That was his main point of criticism of the old Liberal Government of Pierre Trudeau. He did not listen to the witnesses who appeared before the committee. He introduced amendments, but they are his own amendments from government bureaucrats-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the Hon. Member wants to get back to Yorkton to build up his fortunes. However, I want to tell him that there were five amendments accepted. If there had been better ones from his Party, we could have accepted even more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hamelin) have a question or a point of order?


Mr. Hamelin:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the Hon. Member referred to my amazement I was indeed very much amazed, because the Minister indeed just indicated we accepted five amendments. Therefore your whole description is totally inaccurate and inconsistent with the facts. That is the source of my amazement, not the comments you made, which were totally stupid and that beat by far-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments this afternoon. The Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville has 30 seconds.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I knew that the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) was astonished because even at this distance I could hear his head shaking, he was so surprised and so shocked.

September 16, 1988
Business of the House


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We never hear your head shaking because there is nothing in it to make a noise.

And after the next election the poor Member for Charlevoix will have no constituency for himself because the Prime Minister will be a candidate in his constituency. The poor Member for Charlevoix! However, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Before my friend begins his Private Member's Bill, I missed the House Business for Monday. I wonder if the Government is in a position to indicate what we are doing on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary may be able to answer that question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, subject to the usual possibilities, that the Government retains its options, I think that Members of the House can expect that the Order Paper will indeed list the child care Bill. If we could have stayed 10 minutes longer this afternoon, I think we could have finished report stage. We will then move on to the Broadcasting Act, the Bill to establish the new Department of Science and Technology, and then political rights, if we still have time left on that day. At this point that is the Government's intention.
I understand that at least one of the two Parties opposite has asked us to delay the variable entrance requirements Bill on UIC until Tuesday for the convenience of critics. We are pleased to be able to go along with that, and that is our intention.
Finishing child care, then broadcasting, science and technology, and political rights will be the line-up for Monday, as I understand it.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   STANDING ORDERS REQUIREMENT THAT ALL DOCUMENTS TABLED OR DISTRIBUTED BE IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: That the Standing Orders of the House be amended by inserting therein the requirement that all official documents tabled or distributed in the House be in both official languages; and
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print a revised edition of Standing Orders of the House incorporating the said amendment, renumbering as may be deemed necessary and making such technical and consequential changes as may be required.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on the motion, because it is topical and because it follows the decision taken by this House some time ago, when adopting a new Official Languages Act, in which Section 8 provides that any document tabled in this House by a federal institution, whether the Canadian Government or an agency, shall be tabled in both official languages at the same time.
That section of Bill C-72 reads as follows: Any document made by or under the authority of a federal institution that is tabled in the Senate or the House of Commons by the Government of Canada shall be tabled in both official languages.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the point is that the House of Commons is responsible for its own Standing Orders and they must be amended by the House. It does not matter how many Bills we pass, the House has to make a decision and a provision such as the one suggested today must be added to the Standing Orders. This is why the second paragraph states that the Clerk of the House be authorized to print a revised edition of the Standing Orders incorporating the said amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my motion is quite simple. Hon. Members will recall that the 1969 legislation had a provision which was the source of some difficulties. Here is the text of section 2 of the Bill adopted in 1969, Chapter 0-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada: "The English and French languages are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada, and possess and enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all the institutions of the Parliament and Government of Canada." That is clear enough: English and French are the official languages of Canada for all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada.
Up until 1987-88 my personal experience has been that the Government always tabled official documents in both official languages. As a rule, parliamentary institutions and government agencies did follow this instruction and documents were tabled in both official languages.
September 16, 1988

Occasionally the Government is too fast off the mark and is obliged-let's be nice-to table documents in one official language only. I am thinking more specifically of the free trade Bill which was tabled in English only, to my mind a major breach of a policy that is supposed to respect both official languages. What I want to do is have the House make a joint decision to amend its Standing Orders and bring them into line with the new Act and the spirit of the new Act, so that from now on, the Government and federal institutions are obliged to table all documents in both official languages, so that neither language group is put at a disadvantage in its work here in the House of Commons. Now is that so hard? I may remind the House that this suggestion has been discussed at length and interpreted quite generously, I believe, but sometimes the spirit of the Act has been ignored, and that is why I want to ensure that the House officially assumes these statutory or quasi-statutory obligations.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will recall that although the 1969 legislation contains in Section 2, which I read earlier, a provision that says Parliament should respect both official languages, the courts, on many occasions, and I could quote a number, starting with the Les gens de I'air and up to quite recently in New Brunswick-The court ruled that the Official Languages Act, 1969, was declaratory rather than executory, and Hon. Members will recall Judge Deschenes' judgment, and since it was declaratory, it was merely a statement of intent which means it had no "teeth". That is why the Official Languages Committee and the Legislative committee considering Bill C-72, in its wisdom, accepted and why the Government endorsed-In the final instance, the amendment 1 presented in committee was taken up by the Government and adopted here in the House only a few months ago as part of Bill C-72, so that now, any document tabled in the House must be tabled in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to stress another important point, which I hope will convince Hon. Members of the importance of adopting this motion today. Bill C-72 was passed by the House of Commons and by the Senate or the other place, as I should say, and everything is in place.
Royal Assent has been given, and the Bill only has to be proclaimed to become law. This proclamation has yet to take place, and I understand the problems that may be involved. However, I may recall Section 111 of Bill C-72, passed on July 7 here in the House, and I believe, at the end of July here in the Senate, and Section 111 says, and I quote:
Coming into force 111. Subject to subsection 94(2),...
which deals with the administration of justice in the provinces
... this Act or any provision thereof shall come into force on a day or days
to be fixed by proclamation.
So there may be one or more proclamation dates.
The Bill contains fourteen parts, so the Government could proclaim certain parts of the Bill now and proclaim other parts tomorrow or a month later or a year later or God knows when! It is to avoid too much hesitation and keeping the House waiting for further directives from the Government that I am
Standing Orders
proposing today that the House should adopt this motion which, as was said earlier, is quite clear and to the point, namely that from now on, all documents tabled by federal institutions will be in both official languages.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a very complex issue. I hope Hon. Members will be able to pass this motion quickly, and I want to thank them for their co-operation.


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague tabled a motion that I think, at first glance anyway, is somewhat redundant. Indeed, section 8 of Bill C-72, which has now been passed, clearly says, "Any document made by or under the authority of a federal institution that is tabled in the Senate or the House of Commons by the Government of Canada shall be tabled in both official languages."
Perhaps it is because of his experience with this language issue, which has always been difficult in Canada, that my colleague has fears that, in some cases, have been justified. And maybe he neglected to do so, but he could have quoted Talleyrand, who said, "If it goes without saying, it would be better to say it!"
And the very purpose of his motion is to state once again that indeed "any document tabled in the House of Commons be in both official languages."
Nevertheless, I would like to remind my colleague, even though on this side of the House, I think, we will enthusiastically endorse this proposal, which is perhaps somewhat redundant, but which no doubt, in view of past experience, is useful and appropriate. So, for myself, Mr. Speaker, I will endorse this motion presented by my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier.
However, I would like to remind him that he should not use his prerogative as he did before when he was quite hard on the Speaker of the House after his own Party and the Opposition Parties had tabled nearly 130 amendments in only one of the two languages very late in the evening. They demanded the next morning that everything be ready, translated and tabled in both official languages .. .
You were quite hard on the Speaker of the House and, given the situation now at the end of the session when our clerks, translators and Hansard officials have an awful workload, it is impossible for them to deliver the goods on time. And I hope that my colleague will no doubt in future show a little more consideration for these servants of the State who do outstanding work.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our clerks, our translators and all those who work on producing the official record of our debates and do a tremendous job. The next morning, we see the amazing quality of what they do. How many times have I seen these workers, men and women who are professionals, come to see some Hon. Member and ask him to clarify what he meant, to make the necessary changes, to do a good job on our speeches, our debates and to do a good job too for the Canadian people who, from time to time, read what we say and listen to us!

September 16, 1988
Standing Orders
I would also like the Speaker of the House, who is responsible for this service, to look a little more closely into the working conditions of these professionals. Theirs is a painstaking job, like the work of the Benedictine monks. But I often feel that these latter-day Benedictines are less well treated that their predecessors in the middle ages were, because they have so much work to do, it is so demanding, so time-consuming, and especially at the end of a session. I do not know if any of my colleagues have had the opportunity to see where these people work. I feel that we could set up much more spacious and modern premises and give them better working conditions. Of course, someone will now mention the new technology that will help them, but technology does not replace professionalism and intelligence nor does it take the place of those who use the new equipment. And these people do an outstanding job! I do not know anybody else who would be able to produce work of such quality.
So the motion introduced by my colleague will mean additional work for those people who are at our service and at the service of all Canadians. Of course I would expect all Parties to co-operate. Perhaps it might be advisable and appropriate if they were to produce documents in both official languages before presenting them to the Speaker of the House. They ought to make every effort to assist the Speaker of the House and especially all those who are responsible for drafting legislation and amendments so as to speed up the debates and show respect for the spirit and letter of Bill C-72, and show respect as well for this country's linguistic duality which certainly ought to be most apparent in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) because it will indeed make it even more mandatory to implement the basic provisions of section 8 of Bill C-72. And again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give serious consideration to improving the working conditions of the outstanding team which serves Parliamentarians, Parliament and Canada so well.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise today. During the House time spent on Bill C-72 the opportunity to make a few comments did not arise. I appreciate the Private Member's Motion giving me the opportunity to make a few comments. 1 would like to pay tribute to the two Members who have spoken in the Chamber today.
The Whip of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who proposed the motion, was a hard working member of the committee. I hope that he feels very positive today, because government Members unanimously are prepared to support his motion. It brings into effect in our Standing Orders what Bill C-72 as a piece of
legislation directs us to do. I would like to advise the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that I am pleased that he finally found a Government that agreed with him.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Score.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He would be welcome to negotiate with us, if he is so inclined. We do see the world similarly on many occasions, certainly when it comes to the importance of language policy.
My region is heavily dominated by people of non-francophone background. It is dominantly English, but there are Eastern Europeans, Asians, and people from all around the world. Lately, we are receiving more and more people from South America. Sometimes it is difficult for people raised in such a region to comprehend the reality that this has always been a bilingual nation. It has always been a nation with two languages spoken in the home that young children learn, and right from the beginning those two languages have been French and English.
Geographically that is spread around the country. In Newfoundland, the dominant language is English, and I believe that is clear. For most parts of Quebec, and some parts of northern New Brunswick, the dominant language is French. For the most part in western Canada the dominant language is English. If one is born into a dominant language region, sometimes it is difficult to understand why the country needs two languages. Sometimes I say to people in my riding that it does not; it is possible to separate it. It is possible to have two or more countries, one with an official language French, and one with an official language English. We could have that. There are people in political life who argue for that persuasion.
There is a political Party in the Province of Quebec that has formed a Government whose origin, in large part, was owed to the reality that it was difficult to be a Canadian. It felt difficult to be a Canadian if that person came from a region where the dominant language was French. It was not a comfortable feeling. I say to the people of my riding that if someone in the City of Calgary came along and said that all of our courts, all of our policemen, all of our businesses, all of our schools will force you to be French, the people would rebel. It would be easy to create a political Party that said we should separate and become a country with this official language we call English. That is a realistic political option, but for members of my Party it is a very undesirable option and, I suggest, it is so for the vast majority of Canadians.
We love this country called Canada. We do not want to see separation. If we are to prosper and stay united we have to recognize in legislative form and in our practices the reality of the duality of language in this country.
September 16, 1988

To come to the Member's motion, people in my riding will say why should any official document coming to the House of Commons have to be in both official languages? The answer is that if it comes to the table of the House of Commons and is distributed to me in this Chamber as your representative and it is in French, because I worked hard at the language I will understand it generally but I will not be able to understand it precisely. If it comes to me in English I can understand it precisely. If it comes to me in English but does not go to my colleague from Charlevois in French, then he will have trouble understanding it precisely. It is imprecision in understanding that lies at the heart of a lot of human quarrels. That is true of our own families in fights with our children or our spouses. They come about many times because we do not precisely understand each other.
When we come to the affairs of a nation, we have to work as hard as we can to make sure that we understand each other precisely. To do that we must have all of our official documents presented to us in the two languages. Those of us who learned French in our homes can understand the document in French, and those of us who learned English in our homes can understand the document in English. That is the importance and significance of that provision.
Bill C-72 provides us with that kind of fairness in our courts, in government services generally, in our workplace, and in our
Standing Orders
democratic processes. It is a magnificent advance on what we have had for the last 20 years. It is very consistent with statements made in this chamber on behalf of my Party by the Hon. Robert Stanfield on May 16, 1969, a 20-year commitment. It was a real pleasure in 1984 to finally get a majority that gave us the opportunity to implement the commitments made by Mr. Stanfield on behalf of all of us in the Conservative Party some 20 years ago.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, September 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers