1988-08-23

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, persuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the two petitions numbered as follows: 332-5112 and 332-5153.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Secretary of State of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-152, intituled An Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT


Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-153, an Act to amend the National Capital Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (severance pay).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this Bill is to provide some protection, especially for middle-aged and older workers who find themselves increasingly vulnerable to plant closures.
The provisions of this Bill would be that anyone who has worked 20 years or more for an employer with 50 employees or more would receive at least six months' severance in the case of a plant closure. I do not assume that this would mean the worker concerned would be without suffering at all, but at least this would provide some protection in the face of circumstances that he or she cannot control, and provide some opportunity for re-adjusting himself or herself to new circumstances and new challenges.
I hope that this Bill can be considered by the House before long and that it can be given the approval that so many middle-aged and older workers seek.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
August 23, 1988
Petitions

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege this morning to rise in my place under Standing Order 106 to present a petition signed by several constituents urging the Government to call an election on the free trade deal, in that they feel that the people of Canada should be the ultimate judge and jury on this matter.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions signed by residents of the city of Winnipeg in which the petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The petitioners believe that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the United States market, which was a key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people from Toronto which states that whereas families throughout Canada need high quality, available, and affordable child care, the Government has repeatedly recommended that it would make services available; and whereas the child care Act has neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care, the child care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Act forthwith.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present to you these petitions from some of my constituents, in particular residents of the communities of Acadieville, Saint-Ignace, Richibouctou and Saint-Louis.
The petitioners deplore Employment and Immigration's decision to increase the period of eligibility for unemployment insurance from 10 to 16 weeks. This decision fails to take into account the high rate of unemployment in the rural regions of my riding. The petitioners request that Parliament take corrective action and reinstate the 10- week eligibility period.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present this morning. The first petition is from residents of the city of Thunder Bay, and some other communities, who note that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada affecting approximately 1 per cent of the population. It causes severe mental anguish and suffering to the patients and to their relatives. It costs Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and in other support costs. The petitioners note research findings about the biochemical nature of this disorder, and the hope for a cure. The petitioners note that there is limited support for this research.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in the future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay

Nipigon): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the cities of Toronto, Oshawa, and some other primarily southern Ontario communities. The petitioners note that Canadian families need high quality, available, and affordable child care services. It has been repeatedly recommended that in order to make these services available to 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. The child care Act proposed by the Government contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements. Consequently, it is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families in Canada. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the proposed child care Act forthwith.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from residents of the city of Thunder Bay who note that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. In the course of the bilateral trade negotiations the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. However, the petitioners assert that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Given this attack on Canadian policy freedom in the free
trade agreement, the petitioners call upon Parliament to
August 23, 1988

dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the supposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have one petition from a number of Canadians. The petitioners indicate that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, and affordable child care services. To make those 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 which is accessible to all families throughout Canada. The child care Act proposed by the Government of Canada contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements. It will not ensure that families have access to high quality day care. The proposed child care Act is not in the best interests of young Canadians or children.
The undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the proposed child care Act forthwith.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on the issue of child care. The undersigned petition that Parliament withdraw the proposed child care Act forthwith. The petitioners feel that the proposed child care Act contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements, and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care. The petition is signed by some 30 Canadians, a number of whom reside in my constituency.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 386 will be answered today.

GRANTS AND/OR LOANS IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO AREA


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Canada Development Investment 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?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Canada Development Investment Corporation has not provided any grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto since September 4, 1984.
Order Paper Questions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 361 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 361 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN THUNDER BAY AREA Question No. 361 [DOT]-Mr. Angus:
For each of the two years immediately prior to September 4, 1984, did any government departments or agencies spend money in the (a) constituency of Thunder Bay-Atikokan (b) community of Thunder Bay, Ontario (c) community of Atikokan, Ontario (d) area made up of the constituencies of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Kenora-Rainy River and, if so, by which departments or agencies and, in each case (i) in what amounts (ii) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that I have stood in my place on a number of occasions regarding a question on the Order Paper standing in my name which has been there since March 15, 1988. It is a question which is designated for a 45-day response. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that means that the Government has no choice but to give the answer within the period of 45 days.
As I indicated previously, I put that question on the Order Paper on March 15. Today is August 23. I understand that it is a complicated question, however, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could advise if the Government is making some headway toward answering this question concerning the funds received from the Government of Canada by an individual named Jean Sirois.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member raised this only a few days ago.


Don Boudria: No, approximately two weeks ago.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: At that point I undertook to look into the
matter. Members will remember that this is a question which
is asked of all Departments, agencies, and Crown corporations.

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
I previously advised the House that questions that are in series rather than a single question require the Government to respond from every single Department, agency, and Crown corporation. The Hon. Member could receive answers much more quickly to a large part of this issue with a somewhat simpler question. The inquiries I have made indicate that there is at least one, and perhaps a couple more Departments or agencies that have not responded. We have the answer to 99 per cent of the question, but until we have a 100 per cent answer it is not appropriate for me to bring it to the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to make the usual preliminary ruling on some of the amendments that have been submitted. There are 17 motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper in relation to Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Acts, 1977 and certain related Acts.

I am now ready to make a preliminary ruling on some of the motions that are admissible. I will return later today to make a complete and final ruling on the remaining motions.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 7, 14, 15, and 17 are in order and each of them will be debated and voted upon separately.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Would you repeat that, Mr. Speaker, please?


Mr. Speaker:: I will go slowly. I am sorry.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Just the numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On your final judgment, it is not to be anticipated that you will rule in order any of the other motions that are on the Order Paper, is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that it is appropriate to necessarily get into what I am going to come back to the Chamber on, but there is no problem with these.


Michael Morris Cassidy: All right. Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may have had some constructive discussion with the Table. If the Hon. Member would like to speak with the Chair after-


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is not a problem, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What I am going to do now is proceed with these motions when debate will commence.
[ Translation]


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides) moved:: Motion No 1
That Bill C-139 be amended in clause 6
(a)	by striking out line 37 at page 11 and substituting the following
therefor:
"a taxpayer in excess of $20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if any)
or such"
(b)	by striking out line 41 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"passenger vehicle exceeds $20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if
any) or"
(c)	by striking out line 45 at page 15 and substituting the following
therefor:
"$20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if any) or that other
prescribed"
(d)	by striking out line 9 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iii) $20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if any) or such amount
as".


M. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Motion No. 1 because I understand that each motion ruled admissible by the Chair will be debated and voted upon separately. Consequently, on the basis of my understanding of the Speaker's ruling, I would like to speak on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, tax reform has given rise to all kinds of amendments, and I would say that the entire issue of whether or not to tax the automobile expenses of people who use their vehicules for business purposes has created an incredible amount of confusion.
The House of Commons Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has received a number of representations from various associations and accountant groups, and as a Committee we have made recommendations to this House to the effect that the reform proposed by the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) regarding taxation of the automobile expenses of entrepreneurs, small businesses and others who use their own vehicles for business purposes made no sense.
August 23, 1988

1 could quote all the evidence received by the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee. First, the Conservative government's proposal was astonishingly complex; on the other hand, it went against one of the objectives we on this side of the House have-and I imagine that is true of the other side as well-to encourage entrepreneurship and assist small and medium-sized business.
In achieving this objective, we must try to simplify our tax laws as much as possible, so that taxation, the many reports and all the complications, do not make it still more difficult for a man or a woman to get started in business, to be an entrepreneur, to open a small business, et cetera.
I don't need to tell you that the way the government is proposing to tax cars as well-and it intends to tax personal cars used for business purposes-will create complications and nightmares for independent workers. I am thinking, for example, of insurance agents and real-estate agents, who have to use their car to get around, of accountants who have to go and see their clients, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, by making recommendations, by exerting pressure, we have I believe partially succeeded in getting the Minister of Finance to accept certain changes. He has dropped most of the complications that he had introduced, keeping only two major changes. One of those is a limit of $20,000 per car, that is to say, if a taxpayer using his car for business purposes pays more than $20,000 for that car, he can claim capital cost allowance (CCA) on only the first $20,000 of the cost. Even if his car cost him $25,000 or $30,000, he will not be able to use a CCA rate applicable to an amount higher than $20,000.
We have no difficulty with this approach. There have of course been all sorts of representations made. At the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee we have looked at those representations, and we have analysed the average costs of cars normally purchased by companies. It seems fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that when the car in question is a company car, purchased for the use of salaried representatives, the problem isn't particularly serious.
It becomes serious, I believe, for agents, for independent workers, who don't have two cars. Most have only one; their family car is their business car, and now they are limited to a maximum of $20,000 for purposes of depreciation. I'm thinking of lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, sales reps, real-estate agents. Those people will certainly be penalized because of this maximum.
Furthermore I don't quite see the logic, because this same agent or lawyer could have a very luxurious office, which might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he could depreciate from his income the value of that law office, that accounting office, even if the walls are made of gold and the doorknobs of silver. But when it comes to his automobile, he is told, "You can't buy yourself a car that costs more than $20,000. If you do, you won't be able to claim a CCA of more than $20,000."
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
Mr. Speaker, obviously, given the limitations on the receivable amendments at this stage of our debate-and the Standing Orders set strict limits-we can't move all sorts of amendments, and what we would like to do is try to make the Minister's proposal at least mean the same all across the country, because obviouly if you buy a $20,000 car you're going to pay $20,000 plus provincial sales tax. In some provinces there is no sales tax. In others, the sales tax is 8 per cent, 10 per cent, perhaps 12 per cent, so that the same car purchased by a taxpayer in Newfoundland, Quebec or Alberta would lead to different tax exemptions in each case because of the level of the provincial sales tax.
And the objective that Motion No. 1 aims at achieving is respect for the $20,000 limit that minister has set as the depreciable maximum on a car for which expenses are being claimed for tax purposes. We are suggesting that this ceiling be modified by adding to it the provincial sales tax, so that the same amount would be depreciable for all taxpayers, whether they be Albertans, Quebecers or Newfoundlanders.
I hope, Mr Speaker, that this measure, designed to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly, will be acceptable to the Government and that this House will approve the amendment, which is perhaps more technical than anything else but which would bring put Canadian taxpayers on a somewhat more equal footing, whichever province they live in.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. friend. His motion is premised on two arguments and I want to make sure I have them accurately. The first is that provincial sales tax should be included in the limit because provincial sales taxes vary from region to region in Canada.
The second part of his argument is more interesting. He seems to be kicking against the whole notion of a limit or a limit set at $20,000.
Let me deal first with the second point. The Liberals are often called Limousine Liberals and I think I understand why. What the Member wants here is to have cars that cost over $20,000 to be fully deductible with the taxpayer footing the bill. What about a Chevrolet Corvette Coupe at $41,000, Mr. Speaker? Here I see a BMW 528E at $40,400, a Lincoln Mark VII at $36,000 and on and on it goes. The public, the taxpayer, should not have to foot the bill for those kinds of cars.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Thomas Hockin: This is crazy. A Cadillac Sedan de Ville I see here in December, 1987, cost $32,950. These prices all include federal sales tax. And we have a Toyota Camry LE wagon. All these are wonderful and very expensive cars, but why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for them?

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Most of them are junk.


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) knows cars well and I am sure he would agree that the taxpayer should not be carrying the bill.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: I want the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) to understand that a Dodge Charger, a Ford Tempo, a Hyundai Stellar are inexpensive cars, but there are other more expensive cars that still cost less than $20,000. For example, a Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport and my car, a Chevrolet Caprice Classic four-door, is $17,500. What about a Buick Somerset and a Volkswagen Golf? These are fine cars and cost under $20,000.


Don Boudria: Why don't you drive one?


Thomas Hockin: There is no need to change the limit, Mr. Speaker. You can find a very fine car for less than $20,000. Why does the Liberal Party want us to move to the Liberal approach to things and have all cars, no matter how expensive they are, deductible? That is not our position. We believe in fairness. Our notion of fairness is to stop at $20,000.
I am very proud of the stand of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on this position because he has taken a basic position of fairness. The Liberal Party would rub that out, erase the distinction and we would find that every taxpayer-I do not think the NDP would like this either-paying for BMWs, Cadillacs and so on. It just does not make sense.
The second point is to add the provincial sales tax into the limit. For example, if provincial sales tax is 7 per cent in one province then that amount should be added to the $20,000 and the whole thing considered as the limitation on the cost of an automobile to be deducted for tax purposes. It is quite true in this country that different provinces have different sales taxes. There are many different factors that go into the price of a car from region to region, not just provincial sales tax. For instance, transportation costs are a major cost of a car in different regions of Canada. We all know that.


Don Boudria: They have equalized the cost of them now.


Thomas Hockin: I suppose if you could buy a car in Oshawa or in St. Thomas beside Talbotville where Fords are made, or in Oakville, they would be somewhat cheaper than buying cars in Newfoundland or in the Yukon. Transportation is a major part of the differential in costs.


Don Boudria: No. They have equalized them.


Thomas Hockin: We also have different retail margins in different parts of the country. Those retail margins have to do not just with volume but with real estate taxes, how expensive it is to have a property in some parts of Canada compared to others. All of these factors mean that it would be silly for the
Government to identify one particular factor, namely, the provincial sales tax and add that to the $20,000 limit.
Let us keep the limit at $20,000. It is clear for everybody. You can get a very fine car for that amount of money and I ask the House to defeat the motion and stay with the sanity and the fairness that is inherent in the tax reform proposal.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of taking part over the course of the past year in the deliberations of the Finance Committee on tax reform. On the side of the New Democratic Party, we were in a somewhat unusual and at times difficult position because we disagreed fundamentally with the tax reform because of the lack of fairness, the rates, and that the Conservatives had chosen to continue to allow special privileges for people and corporations of wealth for capital gains, et cetera, et cetera. At the same time we had to deal with a lot more specific concerns from people who have to work with the tax system on a day-to-day basis.
One of the most difficult issues was the question of automobile expenses. We heard many submissions. Perhaps it is because so many people can get their teeth around auto expenses. That was an issue which provoked probably more comment and contributions than any other single issue. It is partly because people who use their automobiles for business and have to do so felt that they should not be singled out when the Government of Canada moved-and I believe legitimately-to try to prevent the taxpayer from having to subsidize BMWs, Jaguars and the Lincoln the Minister used to drive before he became a Minister. He traded down, I think that is what he said.


Thomas Hockin: I have always had a Chevrolet.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I have just been reading about the Minister, who was allegedly one of the brighter lights hired for the founding of York University. In 1961 only Ed Broadbent emerged as the next Prime Minister of Canada according to Judy Steed's book.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: However, that is not relevant. Let me come back to the question at issue.


An Hon. Member:: Is Broadbent irrelevant?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: For the record, the Minister still has the car that Ed told him to buy. I hope it is a sporty model because everyone knows not to drive with the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) if he is at the wheel. It is a very scary experience, not for reasons of ideology but for other reasons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
August 23, 1988


Michael Morris Cassidy: And they are now giving an award to John Crosbie. That is very scary to me.
We will support this amendment. This issue came up in the committee on a number of occasions. As the Minister and the Government know, the committee in the end decided to take away the double pro-rationing of the capital cost, depreciation cost, of having an automobile because we felt it was so complicated that it should just be taken away. We tried to put other means in and we recognized in so doing that it is not an easy issue to handle.
The issue here is one of regional fairness. While it is not possible perhaps to compute exactly what the shipping costs are of a motor car to Newfoundland or to British Columbia if it is produced in central Canada-


Don Boudria: They are equalized.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) says they are equalized.


Don Boudria: Yes. They have been for three years.


Michael Morris Cassidy: But someone who purchases an automobile in Newfoundland may get an automobile which is shipped indirectly by sea from Europe or Japan and will not have to pay shipping costs in the way that person would have to pay shipping costs if that car were shipped from California or Oshawa. However, the sales tax that is paid differs from province to province. The result of the Government's action is that a certain minor privilege, but a privilege nonetheless, is given to individuals or companies that purchase cares for business use in Alberta while individuals or companies that purchase cars in New Brunswick or Newfoundland will not have that privilege.
In Alberta, there is no provincial sales tax. Therefore, if the capital cost that is entered into the depreciation schedules for the automobile is $20,000, that is the total purchase price of the car. In Newfoundland where there is an 11 per cent or 12 per cent sales tax, that has to be taken off the top. As a consequence, the maximum value of the motor car that can be allowed for depreciation purposes is about $18,000, or $2,000 less. That is what is really unfair.
Effectively, the Government is saying that those in Alberta and provinces with low sales taxes will get luxury models, and those in eastern Canada where the sales taxes tend to be quite high will have to do with standard models, without automatic transmissions or without air conditioning or some of the other extras that make a business automobile more comfortable to travel in for someone who is constantly in his car on business. This is not a major issue, but it is an amendment that is appropriate to bring before the House.
In this case, we should listen to what the people were telling us, particularly those from down east, when they said that it was unfair and that this unfairness was something that could
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
be fixed. The cost of fixing it is very modest to the treasury, and of course, if people feel that the system they are being asked to conform to is not particularly fair, then voluntary compliance will weaken. The Government will therefore lose on voluntary compliance what it might gain in additional revenues through the unfairness enshrined in this clause which the amendment seeks to change.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion offered to the House by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). I just heard a new expression coming from a Tory. The Minister said that they believe in fairness. That is profound, and it is certainly a brand new concept for the Conservatives to believe in fairness.
We are glad to see this new initiative. I hope that initiative is applied when the Conservative Party chooses candidates, that it will apply when qualifying or disqualifying candidates in the riding of York-Peel, for instance, not to name anyone.
In his response, the Minister said that he was not willing to entertain the proposal offered to us by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. He said that the provincial sales taxes were not the only major expenditures involved in buying a car which differs from one part of the country to the other. He used as an example transportation costs for North American automobiles which are different in one part of the country than they are in another. I would suggest that the Minister ask his officials to prepare better briefing notes.

The report on tax reform by the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee, Mr. Speaker, says on page 59, and I would like to draw to the Minister's attention the second paragraph, where it says,
The average "non-fleet price" for the ...
. .. Canadian Automobile Leasing Association ...
... was $21,157,...
So we see that first of all the amount is too low, because ...
The average ... price [is in fact] $21,157 ...
... at the time we are speaking. And I would ask the Minister to listen carefully to the sentence that follows:
... a price that included freight, pre-delivery inspection, dealer mark-up,
sales tax and licence fee.
Good! A little further along we find the following sentence:
The issue of freight is not considered a problem, however, given the
equalization policy followed by most automobile manufacturers in Canada.
About three years ago, Mr. Speaker, North American automobile manufacturers equalized freight charges throughout the continent.

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts

If a person buys a North American car, whether in Newfoundland, in Toronto or in Hawkesbury in the great constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the transport fees are the same. I bring this to the attention of the Minister. The defence that he utilized only moments ago is completely groundless and ill informed.
I want to bring something else to the attention of the Minister as well. The committee, in its report, recommended the following:-

That the $20,000 limit on the cost of a passenger vehicle for claiming capital cost allowance or lease costs be increased by the amount of the relevant provincial sales tax on a $20,000 vehicle and that there be regular review of the limit.
So, Mr. Speaker, we see that it was a recommendation by a Parliamentary Committee, that the Minister's defence had no validity because he was using a comparision with freight costs. And freight costs are the same everywhere in Canada.
What my colleague from Laval-des-rapides (Mr. Garneau) wants is to have provincial sales taxes in effect equalized, to some extent-not completely, because the tax will always be higher is some provinces than in others, unfortunately, but it could be taken into account nonetheless, and the cost of that tax could at least be deductible.
My honourable colleague for Westmorland-Kent (Mr Robichaud) pointed out to me just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial sales tax in his province is 11 per cent. That means that if someone buys a $20, 000 car in Alberta, for example, he would be able to buy $2,200 worth of options on his car before ha lost the deduction, whereas someone in Westmorland-Kent, in Moncton, let's say, or that region, a constituent of my colleague the Honourable Member for Westmorland-Kent, would have to pay $2,200 in sales tax and would not be able to deduct that part of the cost of operating a car.

The Minister said he believed in fairness. If that is so, how is it fair for the corporate president of a large manufacturing company to be allowed to deduct the cost of having oak panelling on the walls of his office, a golden doorknob, fancy sinks and a padded toilet seat while the vacuum cleaner salesman working for the same company is not able to deduct the cost of the air-conditioner in his or her station wagon? What is fair about that?
The Minister said he is in favour of fairness. If he is in favour of fairness, he should do two things. First, I would suggest that he increase the amount that is made available for the purchase of new cars. I do not want people to be driving Saabs and to be able to deduct the full cost of those cars or any of the other expensive cars worth $75,000 or whatever. However, a person who buys a station wagon with airconditioning cannot buy it for $20,000. Why does the Minister
not at least make the amount reasonable so that people can afford reasonable cars.
Second, why is he in favour of a totally discriminatory policy whereby the provincial tax is not deductible? He is basing this policy on the fact that there are other discriminatory features such as uneven costs of transportation. He should know, or his officials should have told him that that is not true. A number of years ago, the North American automobile manufacturers moved to equalize those costs because they had a hard time competing, particularly on the west coast, with the manufacturers of Japanese vehicles. Given that the manufacturers did that in order to make the system fairer, why can the Minister not do the same with his own policies? There is nothing wrong with the employee of a company being able to deduct the cost of an automobile which is reasonable.
I suggest to him that for a Ford Taurus station wagon, which I certainly consider to be an ordinary full-size car, with air-conditioning, you should be able to deduct the full cost. If the Minister says he does not need the air-conditioning, then I say he should not make air-conditioners deductible for corporate bosses in their high office towers either. What is good for an employee on the road selling Electrolux vacuum cleaners should be good for the President of Electrolux. If he wants to make it fair, that is what he should be doing. To be telling sales people, people who work for a living travelling around this country, that they cannot deduct automobile expenses because the Minister has decided the salesman has to have a car that is a foot shorter instead of a foot longer, or has decided he cannot have a radio, is easy for him to say. If he wants to do that, he should apply the same kinds of rules to the big corporate bosses. Until such time as he is willing to do that, I suggest that he make the deductions reasonable, and make provisions whereby the provincial sales tax is not counted in the arbitrary measure he wants to impose today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member opposite for making the case for free trade.


Don Boudria: What?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: For making the case for free trade.


Don Boudria: Are you out of your mind?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Am I out of my mind?


David Orlikow: We know you are.


Don Boudria: I retract that. I already know the answer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Having listened to them, we know Members opposite often do not read the briefing notes prepared by their researchers before they stand in the House. He very carefully explained why the cost of automobiles was roughly equal
August 23, 1988

across the country all of a sudden. It is because of the competition from imports on the west coast. All of a sudden we in Alberta and British Columbia and so on are paying roughly the same. In the old days we got zonked on cars and trucks because we did not have competition. He made the case eloquently that costs for Canadians will go down because of the trade arrangement. That is the message we have been trying to give people, and he stands up in the House and supports it and we thank him for it.


Don Boudria: Point of order. The Consumer's Association of Canada said the average family of four would save $32 with free trade because of lower tariffs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He helps us even more because he just admitted there will be a saving. We have made progress. People are going to save money because of free trade and he just admitted it. If only he could go one step further and admit that people buying a home are going to save $8,000, then we would really make progress.
Then we come to the motion which he defends so eloquently. That is an example of the Liberals, historically speaking. They say let us not treat all Canadians the same. That is what this motion says. Let us have advantages for people from some provinces which do not exist for people in other provinces. This motion applies to people who live in some provinces but not in others. It is time Members opposite learn something about the Province of Alberta. How does this motion help someone in the Province of Alberta? Why should we have a tax system which is not equitable for all taxpayers everywhere?


Don Boudria: That is exactly what we want.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Under the National Energy Program we had a resource grab from the taxpayers of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It ruined our industry, threw people out of work, created wife beating, child beating and suicides, all kinds of social chaos. Why? Because the Liberal Party of Canada, supported by the NDP, said there shall be special taxes on some Canadians but they will not apply to all Canadians. That is what the NEP was about. Here we are debating a tax reform Bill and the very first motion proposed by the Liberals involves lack of equity for all Canadians, a tax break which applies to people in Ontario but not to people in Alberta. That is the Liberal view of Canada but it is not this Party's view. We reject it.
Taxation policy should be equitable for all Canadians wherever they come from, whatever province. We have worked hard for four years to restore to this country a sense of equity. We should all be first class Canadians whether we live in the Yukon, in Calgary, Baie Comeau, Toronto, Atlantic Canada or Newfoundland. We should all be treated the same by the Canadian Government that taxes us.
If those two Parties vote for this motion, they are voting for what they voted for before with respect to the NEP. They are
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
voting to provide an advantage to some taxpayers in some provinces but not in other provinces, and that is wrong. I urge Members of this House to defeat the motion.


Cyril Keeper: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Hon. Member does not want to mislead the House. He just said that the two Opposition Parties, including the NDP, voted for the NEP. That is a complete falsehood and I hope he stands up and corrects it immediately.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we have had two examples of Conservatives talking about fairness. First the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and then the Parliamentary Secretary. Let me deal for a moment with the Parliamentary Secretary. He says in voting for this amendment we are displaying again our refusal to treat all Canadians fairly. I remind the Hon. Member that his Province of Alberta has no sales tax. The Province of Newfoundland has a 12 per cent sales tax. It is for that kind of reason that this amendment is moved.


Don Boudria: The committee approved it unanimously.


David Orlikow: Yes, and he wants us to vote against it. He accused some Members on the opposition side of not reading their briefing notes. He should read his because he cannot possibly have had briefing notes which led him to make the comments he did.
I want to raise a point regarding the unfairness of the deduction for automobile expenses with the Minister, since he talked about his belief in fairness. This matter has been raised with me for a number of years by some of my constituents, particularly those in the construction industry, and it has been raised in an official way in a presentation made to the Government by the President of the Canadian Federation of Labour, a federation of labour unions which do not, at least publicly, support the NDP. Lawyers, doctors, self-employed businessmen are permitted, under the provisions of our Income Tax Act, to deduct a certain percentage of the expenses they incur in operating their car.
I do not disagree with that right because in doing some of their work they are required to use their cars. I do not object to that. However, I point out to the Minister that there are construction workers in Winnipeg, for example, who, in order to work, have spent months and sometimes years on construction of a big power project or a mine. For example, there is one now being built in the constituency of the Premier of Saskatchewan. These workers have gone to that construction project in Saskatchewan in order to earn a living for themselves and their families.
They have driven hundreds of miles from Winnipeg to the job site. Because they want to maintain a family life, because they want to avoid a breakdown of their marriage, and because they want to avoid a possible divorce, every two or three weeks on the weekend they make that drive back from the project

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
near Weyburn, Saskatchewan, to Winnipeg and then a few days later they go back to the job site. They are not permitted under our law to deduct a five cent piece from their income tax for the expenses they have incurred in order to keep their job.
I also point out to the Minister that while the living expenses for their families in Winnipeg continue, these workers have to pay for room and board on the job site, and they are not permitted to deduct anything from their income tax for that expense.
If the Minister believes in fairness, it is time to listen to the request made by the President of the Canadian Federation of Labour on this question, the same request that has been made by myself, and I am sure many other Members of Parliament from all Parties on behalf of constituents over the years. I urge the Minister, if he cannot do it now, to keep it in mind. If he is still the Minister the next time the Budget is brought down, which I doubt, I hope he, or whoever is Minister of Finance, will take this proposal, which is made not just by myself but by the President of the Canadian Federation of Labour, James McCambly, into consideration. If the Minister believes in fairness, as he says he does, I cannot think of any change to the Income Tax Act which would move more people to feel they are being dealt with fairly.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who stood in his place and went into great elaboration about how unfair the Government was, I really wondered what he was talking about when he referred to increasing the limitation costs of an automobile. He never mentioned what or how much his Party would want, but he thought the limitation should go up from $20,000.
I have in front of me the Canadian Car Price Guide which sets prices for a good number of automobiles in Canada. These prices are for new 1987 models and I do not know if there have been any increases since then. I do not know what the Member is so worried about because if one includes a 7 per cent provincial sales tax in some of the prices of these automobiles such as a Chevrolet Camaro, it still runs at $19,000. That is with the typical options.
How about a Chevrolet Caprice Classic for $17,000? This is a pretty nice car with a lot of options, and it is under $20,000.


Don Boudria: What options?


Felix Holtmann: There are $3,500 worth of options. That is not a bad buy. This is the total final price. What is wrong with a car like that? How about a Pontiac Fiero or a Buick LeSabre, all under $20,000? Has the Member a problem with cars like this? Perhaps he does not like the cars listed here, but that is his problem. How about a Ford Bronco? These cars are driven by Members of Parliament.


Don Boudria: You drive a Lincoln Continental.


Felix Holtmann: And an old Lincoln Continental like mine. So one really has to wonder what the Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell is so concerned about. He talked about air-conditioners in his office that can be deducted.


Don Boudria: That's right.


Felix Holtmann: But does anybody use the office for pleasure in the House? He cannot answer that. He is not sure. Members cannot use their offices for pleasure if they write the expenses off. Where is the fairness? The Member is suggesting that everyone should be allowed to put an air-conditioner in their car and write it off. Where is the fairness? One can buy a car for under $20,000. What does the Member want the threshold to be?
The Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and his Party must have been studying this Bill and had some real options they wanted to present, but for some reason what they want to do is increase the threshold. That is pretty vague. What does he mean by that? I am not certain if he knows what he is talking about.
The Member talks about fairness. He does not realize that different provinces have a different sales tax. Some provinces have sales tax and some do not. The idea is to have it included. I have a lot of difficulties with the statements made by the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the motion. In fact, they have an option, withdraw this silly motion.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support my colleague's motion, which reflects the Committee's recommendation, "That the $20,000 limit on the cost of a passenger vehicle for claiming capital cost allowance or lease costs be increased by the amount of the relevant provincial sales tax on a $20,000 vehicle, and that there be a regular review of the limit."
Mr. Speaker, it always astounds me when I hear the Conservative MPs talk, especially when they talk about justice and fairness, and that's what the Minister was saying. He said he wanted this Bill to contain just and equitable measures for all Canadians.
The Honourable Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) got up and said the same thing, that he too wanted justice and fairness for all Canadians, and when you speak of all Canadians, it means Canadians from one end of the country to the other.
When you look at the sales tax rates in the various provinces, it is obvious there are differences: they go from zero to 12 percent. Now if we want to be just and fair to all Canadians, shouldn't we allow for these tax differences from one province to another?


Don Boudria: Of course!


Fernand Robichaud: Then how do we explain to the people of
New Brunswick that if they pay 11 per cent they do so at their
August 23, 1988

own expense, while the people of Alberta, where there is no sales tax, scoop the pot? But I see more and more clearly when I listen to Government Members and Ministers, because they always talk about justice and about being fair and equitable.


Don Boudria: Fair for the rich!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the changes made in the unemployment insurance qualifying period. In some parts of New Brunswick, the qualifying period has been increased from 10 to 16 weeks, and then we are told that all Canadians are to be treated fairly. We have seen that this Government has made changes applying to a particular region of Canada, the Capital region, Hull-Gatineau, because the unemployment rate for the city of Hull did not give an accurate picture of the situation in the rural parts of the region. The problem is exactly the same in New Brunswick. The cities are in a different situation from the rural areas. They talk about fairness and equity. They made the change for this region, yet while wanting to be fair and equitable, they are taking their time reviewing the changes for the people of New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the Ministers and Members of the Conservative Party speak, the better I understand the meaning of the words they use. I understand that the words fairness and equity mean something different when applied to people in outlying regions.
For that reason, I wish to support my colleague's motion. I urge all Government Members to support this motion if they are really sincere when they say they want a little fairness and equity for all Canadians, no matter where they live.
I should also say, Mr. Speaker, that when one lives in an outlying region, it costs more to do business, for the simple reason that the distances to cover are greater and taxes are higher in some areas-in New Brunswick, for example, the sales tax is 11 per cent. It costs more to do business in New Brunswick than in other provinces.
The motion made by my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides would take these disparities into account. That is why I support it and 1 call on all Members in this House to do likewise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Income Tax Act and Related Acts


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately. [English]


Raymond Garneau: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-139 be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out line 7 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor: "any property is 2/3 of his capital gain"
(b)	by striking out line 12 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor: "of any property is 2/3 of his capital loss"
(c)	by striking out line 17 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor: "the disposition of any property is 2/3 of'
(d)	by striking out lines 21 to 43 at page 70 and lines 1 to 28 at page 71 and substituting the following therefor:
"years and fiscal periods ending after 1987."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of Motion No. 2 is to limit to two-thirds the rate of inclusion of the capital gain to the personal income tax schedule.
[ Translation]
The object of this motion is to limit the capital gains inclusion rate to two thirds of the taxpayer's taxable income.

The reason is that with the rate of inclusion of three-quarters, as suggested by the Minister, the capital gain would be taxed by the federal Government at a higher rate than the dividend.
That is completely unfair and totally out of order because those people who invest in the long term take a risk and expect to have a capital gain or maybe a capital loss. If they take the risk they should be taxed at the lower rate than the people who get the dividend.
Furthermore, this approach by the Tory Government will mean that corporations will have more benefit in paying dividends than in accumulating capital in the corporation for future expansion.

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts

Mr. Speaker, the approach taken by the Minister of Finance seems to me to be completely at odds with the Government's objective of ensuring that we have a fairer, more equitable tax system, as well as a tax system designed to assist those who take investment risks and thus create businesses and enhance job creation.
Mr. Speaker, during that review, we received a lengthy study prepared by the ITouse of Commons Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, which had spent weeks listening to the testimony of various experts, groups and associations that had carried out in-depth analyses of the Finance Minister's proposals. We had a number of recommendations, as well as some technical analyses.
For example, the accounting firm Clarkson Gordon submitted a table showing the dividend and capital gains taxation rates that would result from the Finance Minister's recommendations, which are included in the bill we have before us. In 1988 in Ontario, dividends would be taxed at a rate of 30.26 per cent, while capital gains would eventually, when tax reform was implemented and the three quarters of the gains that were included in the taxpayer's income were taxed, which would be in 1990, be 33.60 per cent. That is, the capital gains taxation rate will be 3 per cent higher than the dividend taxation rate.
That goes against capital formation. It goes against economic growth. It is contrary to the idea that has always prevailed until this bill was introduced-that people who take investment risks, who may make capital gains, but who also may suffer capital losses, that that risk should be recognized in the tax system and should at least not be taxed at a higher rate. The opposite was proper. I think it was the rule. Before this, the capital gains taxation rate was lower than the dividend taxation rate.
In Ontario, for example, before tax reform, dividends were taxed at a rate of 35.7 per cent and capital gains at a rate of 26.7 per cent.
In Quebec, the difference was even greater. In 1987, the dividend taxation rate was 41 per cent, compared with 28 per cent for capital gains, the idea being to give Canadian men and women who are willing to take investment risks some degree of compensation. The policy proposed by the Minister of Finance, by raising the inclusion rate to three quarters, defeats the objective that was always pursued and was, in my view, economically sound. That is, the policy is now reversed and dividends will be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.
In British Columbia, there will be a difference-dividends will be taxed at a rate of 30.6 per cent and capital gains at 33.6 per cent. In British Columbia, 31.2 per cent for dividends and 34 per cent for capital gains. In Saskatchewan, 33 per cent for dividends and 35 per cent for capital gains. And so on for all provinces where dividends will be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.
Mr. Speaker, the motion I have put before this House is intended to limit the inclusion rate to two-thirds, which we feel will restore equity, since dividends will be taxed at the same rate as capital gains. The document drawn up by the firm of Clarkson Gordon and tabled to the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee gives this interpretation, since in Ontario, when phase one of the inclusion rate is fully implemented, dividends would be taxed at 30 per cent and capital gains at 29.8 per cent. In Quebec, the rate would be 38 per cent for dividends and 34 per cent for capital gains, while in British Columbia, it would be about 30 per cent for both, and so forth.
We believe this would ensure greater equity. At least, those who risk investing in businesses would not be penalized by the Finance Minister's proposal.
I am surprised to see a government act in such an unfair, economically unsound manner. Such behaviour, goes against the very interests of workers whose jobs were often created as a result of the business risks taken by men and women.
Mr. Speaker, also as a result of this legislation, businesses will be urged by their shareholders to pay dividends rather than to accumulate capital with which to upgrade their business and invest in research and technology. Shareholders will prefer to receive dividends which are paid immediately, because they are taxed at a lower rate than if they were to wait three, four or five years and sell their shares, since this will result in capital gains in view of the accumulation of business capital. They would then be penalized, from a tax standpoint.
I appeal to the members of this House, and in particular to those who believe that an investment risk is a risk worthy of recognition. At the very least, the inclusion rate should be limited to two-thirds, so that those incurring these risks are not penalized. I would have preferred to see a different tax structure for businesses. Business and corporations must, of course, pay their fair share. We could do away with certain exemptions or increase the rate of taxation. However, to tax capital gains at a higher rate than dividends is illogical, Mr. Speaker, and goes against everything this Government has said.
Obviously I am concerned about fairness and it is for the sake of fairness that I propose this amendment. I do, however, have a question for the Conservatives who always jump the the defence of risk takers, entrepreneurs and the like. Have the Conservatives fallen asleep at the switch as the saying goes? It makes no sense. Is the Government prepared to give serious consideration to this amendment?
The members of the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee have draw a certain number of unanimous conclusions. They recommended "that as an interim measure only, the proportion of a capital gain or capital loss required to be included in computing an individual's taxable capital gain or allowable capital loss be increased from one-half to two-thirds for gains and losses realized in 1988 and 1989."
That is what we recommended to the Finance and Economic
Affairs Committee, Mr. Speaker. This recommendation was
August 23, 1988

unanimously endorsed by the Conservatives Member on the Committee as well as by the NDP and Liberal committee Member. The three parties that examined this issue made a unanimous recommendation. The Minister of Finance should, in my opinion, at least acknowledge this unanimous position.
We also recommended "that in 1990, following a review of the subject of indexation of capital gains, the full amount of capital gains be included in income and the full amount of capital losses be deductible, provided such gains and losses are adjusted for inflation from the latter of the date of ownership or January 1
Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here-and this is another unanimous recommendation-is that we should go ahead with the two-thirds inclusion rate. At least it will mean that individuals share the tax burden equally, whether they are taxed on capital gains or on dividends. We should continue to look into this subject and do as certain other countries have done, that is opt for the total inclusion of capital gains and take into account depreciation for inflation. If a person invested $100 in 1980 and then decides to sell off his investment in 1995, inflation will have eaten up a portion of his capital gains.
If we want to tax capital gains, we should tax the real gains, not the imaginary ones. It would likely be fairer that way. Great Britain proceeds in this manner, and the United States have moved to include 100 per cent of capital gains. I have no objection to following their lead. We would have to find a way to take inflation into account. However, the motion I am introducing ties in with a unanimous recommendation made by the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee, one that calls for limiting the inclusion rate to two thirds for the time being and for examining the situation at greater length before proceeding any further. The proposal as it now stands is totally unjust and unfair.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely interesting that the Liberal Party is proposing to reduce taxes on capital gains as it is going into an election campaign in which members of that Party intend to present themselves as the friends of average Canadians and ask for support against a Conservative Government which has been too much allied with big business and too much allied with wealthy Canadians. But that is precisely what is happening here.
The Liberal amendment is designed to reduce the rate of capital gains by reducing the amount of gains that will be brought into income. As tax reform stands, and tax reform is flawed, the Government is proposing that three-quarters of capital gains be brought into income. The Liberals say that that should be limited to two-thirds of capital gains being brought into income.
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
The Conservatives have proposed to allow $100,000 of capital gains to be tax-free. But, after that, they are moving to this three-quarter taxation of remaining capital gains. The Liberals have not spoken about that particular question. They have not indicated that they want to do away with the $100,000 exemption, as New Democrats have said. What they are saying quite specifically is that Liberal policy in the past to give special treatment to income from property and income from capital gains should be allowed to continue. Therefore they are saying that no more than two-thirds of capital gains should be taxed.
I have calculated that according to the Government's figures this means that the Liberal Party wants to give something in the order of $110 million per year to corporations and to wealthy Canadians by reducing the amount of tax that they will have to pay on capital gains.


Thomas Hockin: It is $200 million.


Michael Morris Cassidy: According to the Minister of State it is probably $200 million. It is a very substantial amount. I ask myself what the devil is going on.

The Liberal Party finance critic states that dividends would be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains and that companies would thus be discouraged from reinvesting their profits into their business. What he did not say, however, was that if the capital gains tax is higher than the tax on dividends, perhaps the tax on dividends should be adjusted then to ensure greater equity with respect to the capital gains tax. What he failed to state was that it is impossible to accept that about 14 per cent of the population still lives below the poverty line. Tax reform is supposed to lower the taxes of low-income earners. Here we have the Liberal Party that wants to lower the taxes of those realizing capital gains . . . and who is going to pay? In the final analysis the ordinary taxpayer is going to pay.
Mr. Speaker, I see that only 1 per cent of the Canadian population realized 38 per cent of all capital gains in 1983. Who are these individuals? They are people who earn in excess of $100,000 a year. The mesure proposed by the Liberal Party finance critic would also affect large corporations. Instead of ensuring that corporations will pay their fair share of taxes, the Liberal Party wants the capital gains tax to be even lower than that proposed by the Conservative Party. The New Democratic Party believes that the other two parties are wrong. The Liberals are wrong in wanting to favour individuals and corporations realizing capital gains. The Conservatives are also wrong in trying to retain certain privileges for the wealthy and for corporations, in so far as capital gains are concerned.
I do not understand what the devil is going on. However, I
noticed that, according to Statistics Canada, the poverty line

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
in 1988 for a family of four in a major Canadian city is approximately $23,400. The Conservative tax reform will tax that family when its income exceeds $18,500, or $5,000 below the poverty line. The Conservative tax reform gives tax cuts of over $4,000 to the largest number of people with incomes of over $100,000 a year. It is essentially unfair because it taxes people in poverty and gives big returns and big reductions in tax to people with high incomes.
What did the Liberals do about it? Did they try to ensure that the tax not be paid by people living below the poverty line? No. Did they try to ensure that tax be paid at least at current levels by people earning big incomes? No. What the Liberals tried to do is bring down the tax even further on wealthy Canadians, and bring down the tax even further on wealthy corporations, and not do a thing for ordinary taxpayers living below the poverty line.
As things presently stand under the outgoing tax system, the maximum rate for an individual of tax on capital gains is 17 per cent. At two-thirds inclusion under the new system it will be raised to 19 per cent. That is pretty dramatic, and a really substantial tax reform. The Liberals are saying that capital gains are so acceptable that they should continue to be privileged and only have a tax rate of 2 per cent more than was being paid under the old system, while at the same time a technician working for Bell Canada will pay a tax rate only two or three points below the tax rate paid by Jean de Grand-pre who has a million dollar income as a CEO and President of Bell Canada. There is something wrong with that.
A wealthy Canadian will pay 19 per cent of the value of his or her capital gains, according to the Liberal amendment, whereas the average Canadian, who is struggling to pay a mortgage, struggling to pay high interest rates, and struggling to support his or her family, will wind up paying 8 per cent more in tax on a marginal income of over $27,000 a year.
I cannot accept that type of Liberal tax reform. It reminds me that over the last year while the finance committee has been working on this particular issue, we have been trying to clean up problems and loopholes in the tax system which were put there first by the Liberals, particularly when the present Leader of the Liberal Party was the Minister of Finance, and also by the Progressive Conservatives in the rare periods of time when they had a chance to put loopholes into the tax system. If a certain company wanted a privilege, of course that was available; if wealthy Canadians wanted capital gains to be treated differently, of course it was available. That was the Liberal policy, and that was the Conservative policy.
Canadian voters who look at the two Parties in the forthcoming election campaign should remember precisely that. The Liberals take their marching orders from wealthy Canadians and corporations, just as the Progressive Conservatives take their marching orders from the same sources. If the Royal Bank gives $50,000 to the Conservatives, it gives $50,000 to the Liberals. Who will benefit from the new treatment of capital gains? The Royal Bank will be one of the
beneficiaries. If Alcan Aluminum wants to go for years without paying any tax at all, then it supports the Liberal Party. Alcan was allowed to go for years paying no tax at all. Now its favours turn over to the Progressive Conservatives, because who failed to put a minimum tax on corporations? Why, the Progressive Conservatives. Under the Reagan tax reform in the United States a minimum tax exists. It cannot be that progressive a measure if it was brought in by the Reaga-nites in Washington. However, the Tories did not bring that in here. The Liberals allowed Alcan, and many other companies, to go without paying tax at all.
Now on the side of capital gains, the Liberals are standing up to be counted. When you stand up to be counted on this issue, Mr. Speaker, you stand with ordinary Canadians, or you stand with corporations and wealthy Canadians.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) stands with wealthy Canadians and corporations because his Party is going to continue to treat capital gains favourably. Right at the side of the Minister of State for Finance stands the finance critic for the Liberal Party, and all of his Party. That Party is attempting to outdo the Conservatives in seeking support from the corporate sector by saying: "Look, we are not going to tax your capital gains the way those nasty Conservatives were going to do it. We are going to tax them less".
It reminds me of the marketing battles between Steinberg's and Loblaw's. Those stores kept having to reduce their prices in order to bring customers into the stores. We all know that the Liberals have been having trouble raising corporate donations over the last three or four years, and that is why that Party is $5 million in debt. It seems to me that what the Liberals are saying is: "Here is a bargain sale. Can you afford not to support us? We will do what you want us to do for you, just make sure that you do what we want you to do for us". The Liberals are saying: "If you support the Liberals, if a corporation makes donations to the Liberal Party, then the Liberal Party will return the favour by ensuring that the days of loopholes and tax exemptions will be here again if the Liberals get a chance to get back in power".
On behalf of my Party, I stand with ordinary Canadians who say that we need a fair tax system which does away with privileges to wealthy Canadians and to corporations.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the House must not allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to get away with what he has been saying in the last seven or eight minutes. The purpose of tax reform, and indeed the very purpose of the provision in tax reform to which this motion refers, is the exact opposite of what the Hon. Member claims is going on.
First, under tax reform, we now have a $100,000 capital gain exemption for everybody in the country.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Shame.
August 23, 1988


Thomas Hockin: We also have a $500,000 capital gain exemption for small businesses and farmers. The Hon. Member states that he is against capital gains. Is the Hon. Member against this capital gains exemption for farmers?


Michael Morris Cassidy: No.


Thomas Hockin: Is the Hon. Member against this capital gains exemption for small business?


Michael Morris Cassidy: No.


Thomas Hockin: What is the difference? I hope anyone who is watching the debate has not missed the Hon. Member's contradiction. The Hon. Member is for capital gains sometimes, and not for it at other times.
The Government has democratized capital gains. It has brought it in in order that it is available to everyone. It has been done in such a way that it renders quite unnecessary the motion of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
The motion of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides is, quite frankly, reminiscent of the Liberal Government's national energy policy for two reasons. First, it is highly unfair. Second, it is retroactive. First, let me speak to the retroactivity. The motion itself is to change the inclusion rate, and it is to apply to years and fiscal periods ending after 1987. This means that a corporation with a fiscal year that ended January 31, 1988, would find that capital gains would apply for most of 1987, and it would apply retroactively.
That is what the members of the Liberal Party did in the national energy policy, and this is what they would do as a government. We certainly are not going to do that today. The Hon. Member wants to increase the inclusion rate for 1987 with this motion. If the Hon. Member misdrafted the motion, which I hope is true, because this is an incredible mistake-


Raymond Garneau: That is not what it says.


Thomas Hockin: -then perhaps he can respond to me. However, more profound is the long-term implication of the motion of the Hon. Member which is to take the inclusion rate from three-quarters to two-thirds and leave it at two-thirds. For the average Canadian that would do nothing. For fairness in Canada that would do nothing. In fact, it would set it back. Who would take advantage of capital gains at a two-thirds rate instead of a three-quarters rate? The same large corporations that take advantage of capital gains today.
We want to encourage risk-taking, that is why we have a capital gains tax at a lower rate than the ordinary income tax. However, this motion overdoes it. It would include real estate companies, banks, insurance companies, and people and companies with appreciating assets. They are the ones that would be the winners, and the Hon. Member knows it. It would not be the average or the ordinary Canadian, it would be the big corporations.
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is quite accurate when he points out that this is an argument for the more privileged corporations to move the inclusion rate to two-thirds from three-quarters. We are attempting to make it fairer and more democratic.
Let us not forget that the Government of Canada, in bringing forth tax reform, has brought forth this very important $100,000 capital gain exemption for all Canadians. There is a $500,000 capital gains exemption for farmers and small businesses. This is our contribution to encouraging the real risk-takers, not the big corporations. The big corporations have enough of an incentive. He read the incentive himself. It is effectively a 30 per cent rate. We do not have to go where he wants to go in order to encourage risk-taking by large corporations.
I am very, very proud of this particular facet of tax reform, because it encourages risk-taking but does not overdo it; it encourages people to take chances-the ordinary Canadian- not just the large corporations.
Finally, I must say that the mistake in his motion to apply to the 1987 year would in effect move the capital gain rate, which is now 50 per cent, to two-thirds for a large part of 1987, if I read his motion clearly. So it is a badly drafted motion, or, if it is not badly drafted, it is retroactive.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides on a point of order.


Raymond Garneau: On a point of order, the Minister should have read the motion correctly. It applies for the fiscal period ending after 1987. It is not before, as he has just said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not sure that they are points of order, but the Hon. Minister of State for Finance.


Thomas Hockin: I do not want to debate it. I wanted clarification on a point of order. If you had a fiscal year that ended, for example, on January 31, 1988, then 11 months of 1987 would be caught by his motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, the Member for Laval-des-Rapides may answer for one minute.


Raymond Garneau: That is exactly what he is going to do for the three-quarters of the regular inclusion of the capital gain. What I did here is exactly the same as the piece of legislation, except it excluded the three-quarters. If he is correct in what he just said, he should immediately contact his official and change the law. Otherwise, it will have exactly the effect that he just explained for every taxpayer. I think that he should be more accurate when he is talking about the corporate capital gain. He should talk about the personal capital gain, because this is where they are hidden. The rate of taxation will be higher for capital gains than for a dividend. I do not understand the NDP. They voted for that in committee and now

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
they are trying to change their minds. It is not the first time that the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) will have changed his mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First, on a point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would just point out to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) that in the minority report submitted by the New Democratic Party we advocated full taxation of capital gains. We made our disagreement with that part of the committee's report entirely clear and obvious and certainly at no time would we have supported his proposal, which is to reduce the rate of taxation of capital gains back down to two-thirds, and give that kind of special privilege to corporations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the position taken by my colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), in opposition to this amendment. One of the most important studies made of the tax system in Canada was done by the Royal Commission appointed by Prime Minister Diefenbaker when he was the Leader of the Conservative Party. That commission was chaired by a very distinguished member of the chartered accountant profession in Canada. It made a very important recommendation. It was put before the people and the Government and the Parliament of Canada, Kenneth Carter. It was a very important principle which they believed should be adopted, and that was that a dollar of income is a dollar regardless of how the income is obtained, and every dollar of income should be taxed in the same way, whether it was earned by somebody working for wages or salary, whether it was earned by somebody who was clipping coupons from the bonds or the stocks which he or she earned, or whether it was earned in the form of rents on property which people or corporations owned.
Liberal and Conservative Governments from that day on have ignored and hidden from the public that recommendation made by the Royal Commission headed by Mr. Carter. Let me put on the record what we have seen in the last 35 or more years. In 1954, the federal Government collected in income tax from individuals $1.17 billion. That is eleven thousand million dollars. It got just under that, $1 billion from corporations. That is, it got almost equal amounts of revenue from individual taxpayers and from corporations.
If you look down the road, in 1982 the Liberals had been in office for almost two-thirds of the time from 1952, which I used as a starting point, to 1982. In 1982, the federal Government collected $26 billion in personal income tax and only $8 billion in corporate income tax. We have heard a great deal from the Liberal and Conservative Parties about their desire to move to a fairer tax system. We have heard the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) talking today about what the
Conservatives have accomplished in the way of a fairer tax system, tax reform in reality. What kind of tax reform have we had? The fact is that the average family is now paying somewhere between $1,000 and $1,200 more in taxes. If you include income tax, sales tax, excise tax and certain other taxes, they are paying $1,000 to $1,200 more in 1988 than they paid in 1984 when the Conservative Government was elected.
We talked about corporation taxes. My colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre, has already pointed out that an employee of Bell Canada earning between $20,000 and $30,000 a year will pay income tax at a rate only a few percentage points lower than the rate paid by the head of Bell Canada, Mr. de Grandpre, whose salary is over $1 million a year. That is how this Government looks at the tax system. That is what this Government means when it talks about its tax reform bases.
Let us just look at what has happened to corporation taxes. We know that small businesses-most of them individually owned-are paying a pretty healthy amount in the form of corporation taxes. When we look at the record for the last fiscal year for which we have information supplied to us by Revenue Canada, we see that in the year 1986 some of the most profitable, largest corporations in Canada somehow paid no tax at all.
Alcan Aluminum, whose pre-tax income was over $306 million, paid not one cent in corporation tax. Brascan had profits of $186 million and paid no tax at all. Power Financial which had profits of $131 million paid no tax at all. Hees International had profits of $117 million and paid not one penny in tax. Xerox Canada had $115 million in profits and paid not one cent in income tax. Cadillac Fairview, one of the most successful real estate developers in this country, had profits of $95 million in 1986 and paid not one cent in tax. Bramalea, another real estate developer, had profits of over $50 million and paid not one cent in taxes.
We have to ask ourselves from where is this Government coming? What has happened to its promises about tax reform? What has happened to the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the debates held just before the election that he agreed individuals and corporations should pay a minimum tax? As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre pointed out a few moments ago, the United States with the most conservative President, the most conservative right-wing administration it has had in the last 50 or more years has imposed a minimum tax on corporations. But this Conservative Government of Canada which talks about tax reform and fairness has not in four years tightened up the tax system so that every corporation, particularly the larger corporations, will be required to pay taxes.
They are only following the example set for them by
previous Liberal governments. There was no one more
August 23, 1988

generous to corporations and wealthy individuals in the Liberal government years than the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was its Minister of Finance. In his first budget he gave a 9 per cent corporate tax reduction to manufacturing and processing companies. Lie also allowed these companies overly generous depreciation tax deductions on their equipment.
We will oppose this motion. Although we have become accustomed to the Liberals becoming quite progressive when in opposition and being very conservative when in government, here is a case where the Liberals are being very conservative and generous to their big business friends even while in the opposition. Lord only knows what they will do if they ever have a chance to form the government again. They would continue the process this Government has followed of giving more and more concessions to those individuals and corporations which have the most.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to try to throw a little light onto this debate by reminding those viewing and listening to what we have to say in Parliament of the measure that is before us. What we have under the rubric of tax reform is a Liberal amendment designed to reduce the rate of tax on capital gains.


Don Boudria: It was supported in committee by the New Democratic Party.


Cyril Keeper: That is the amendment and the concrete proposal we are dealing with here. What may cause some confusion as people examine the proposal is the rhetoric of each of the parties. Let us examine it. The Liberals and their spokesmen talked about equity and taxation. The Conservative spokesperson talked about democracy in taxation. Our Party is concerned about fairness in the taxation for the ordinary Canadian family.
I want to look behind the rhetoric to see whether or not the actions of each of these Parties stand up to their rhetorical flourishes. Let me begin by looking at the Liberals. When they talk about equity in taxation and we examine their amendment before us today, what are they saying? Equity to me means one person or one group will be treated with equal fairness as another group of people. When it comes to equity, the Liberal definition of equity is pretty narrow. Their spokesman was concerned about whether those who receive income from stocks and bonds, other investments, and dividends be treated equally with those who receive capital gains. That was the narrow definition of equity. At no time when they spoke for equity did they raise the concerns of the ordinary Canadian family.
For those who earn their income from the sweat on their brow, at no time did the Liberals say that person who gets a pay cheque ought to be treated with equity. They said: "We want to take care of those who have stocks, bonds and get dividends and see that they are treated the same as those who have capital gains." I did not hear that spokesperson say we
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
have to be concerned that taxes on the ordinary family have gone up by $1,500 under the Tory Government in the last three or four years and there ought to be some equity for the ordinary Canadian family and for the person who earns his or her income from a salary. While the Liberal Party is calling for taxation on capital gains to be reduced from three-quarters of that gain to two-thirds, the Liberals did not say that the ordinary family, except for a few small deductions, has to pay taxes on the vast majority of its income.


Michael Morris Cassidy: 100 per cent.


Cyril Keeper: Yes, 100 per cent. The Liberals did not call for a reduction in that area. Why did the amendment not call for that? That is the Liberal definition of equity. It is narrow, limited and shows no concern for the ordinary Canadian family.
What about the Conservative definition of democracy in taxation? The Conservatives say that to forgive taxes on capital gains is okay. It is okay to say that if your capital goes up in value by $100,000 you do not have to pay any taxes on it because that privilege is available to every single Canadian. There are very few taxpayers in my riding who have capital gains of that order. Who are the Conservatives talking for when they speak of democracy and capital gains and taxation? They are talking about giving a loaf to the wealthy while asking the ordinary middle-class Canadian to be satisfied with a few crumbs that fall off the table. In other words, if middle-class Canadians benefit in some small measure from capital gains exemption, they should not be concerned that others gain handsomely from it.
What about fairness for the ordinary Canadian family in the taxation system? How can you possibly give tax relief to the ordinary Canadian family if you are going to allow the very wealthy to get away with paying no tax on capital gains? Why is the Liberal Party asking for the measure to go even further than the Conservative Party is presently moving? This is not fair. This is not equity. This is not democracy.


Don Boudria: Why did the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) support that in committee?


Cyril Keeper: We need to take into account the financial situation of the ordinary Canadian family. If the Canadian family has dollars in its pockets to spend, the economy will be strong. If Canadian families are not overburdened by taxes, they can buy the products of the companies of this land and we will have a strong economy.
I think I see an indication from you that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point. Let me make it once more. It is shocking that when the Liberals talk about equity, they are only talking about dividends and the very wealthy. They have forgotten the ordinary Canadian family.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now
leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.

August 23, 1988


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, since 1967 Canada has issued free permits for the live capture of beluga whales in Hudson Bay for display by aquariums in North America, Germany and Japan. A survey conducted by the Winnipeg Free Press shows that of the 59 whales captured, 20 have died.
The U.S. Navy took six belugas to a research centre in San Diego where three died. The Sea World chain has taken 18 or 19 of the belugas. Only 10 are still alive, including four that were taken one month ago.
Dan Goodman, federal adviser for marine mammals, says there is little the Government can do to ensure the safety of the whales once out of the country. Consequently, Canada should get out of the beluga business, be it for entertainment or for military purposes.
We urge the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to stop issuing live capture permits. Lately, whale watching has grown in popularity on both coasts of Canada. That is the way to go: to view such magnificent mammals in their habitat.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, August 23, commemorating the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty of 1939, is celebrated as Black Ribbon Day in many communities across Canada including my own constituency of Kitchener. On August 23, 1939, Hitler and Stalin divided eastern Europe between themselves with the final outcome being that some 300 million Europeans became enslaved by communism.
I call upon all Hon. Members to wear a Black Ribbon Day ribbon or button proudly to demonstrate that the millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain are not forgotten. I call upon the Government of Canada to make strong representations to the Soviet Union welcoming the new attitudes behind the words glasnost and perestroika, and to prove that these words are not mere rhetoric.
I call upon Mr. Gorbachev to admit the Soviet guilt at Katyn Forest, to return Eastern Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to their rightful self-determination, and to honour the Soviet Union's undertaking at Yalta 44 years ago to allow free, democratic and unfettered elections in all of Soviet occupied Europe.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-HYDRO DISCOUNTS

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, what New Democrats have been saying for months has now been confirmed by the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the MP for Prince George Peace River (Mr. Oberle). Some mines and northern industries may never open and some may shut down if the Mulroney-Reagan deal on trade is implemented.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology confirmed last week that the trade deal would outlaw energy agreements such as B.C. Hydro discounts that have re-opened mines such as Endako and Granisle, and attracted operations like the hydrogen peroxide plant to Prince George. The Minister told the City Council of Prince George that such subsidies are "not permissible" under the pact. These are the same Conservatives who cut a deal with Alcan on Nechako River water-flows on the promise of new aluminum expansion in B.C and new industry for the Bulkley Valley or Vanderhoof, developments now promised for Quebec, not B.C. These are the Conservatives who promised a full Minister of Forests in 1984 and we still do not have one in 1988.
What you hear from the Tories is not what you get. Prior to the election the Prime Minister said, in opposing free trade, "it affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it". Northern workers, industry and small business have had four years of the largest Tory majority in history and want no more of it.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, today Canadians in 14 cities across the country and over 30 cities around the world will gather together to commemorate International Black Ribbon Day. International Black Ribbon Day symbolizes the quest for peace with freedom. The Black Ribbon is worn to show mourning for those who lost their lives in the defence of freedom and sorrow for those who still suffer.
August 23, 1988

The significance of the date on which Black Ribbon Day is commemorated is a reminder of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact which linked the Nazis and Soviets as partners in terror, genocide, and enslavement. The Nazis were defeated and brought to justice at Nuremberg, but the Soviets continue their reign of tyranny to this day.
The new Soviet policy of glasnost has proposed certain reforms, and in the spirit of that policy I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Government of Canada to press the Soviet Government to honour its pledge of free and fair elections in the Soviet and all countries under its sphere of influence.



THUNDER BAY-EFFECT OF REDUCED GRAIN EXPORTS

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Port of Thunder Bay faces a very bleak future in the year ahead due to the Government's approach to the shipment of grain through this port. Already 700 grain workers, railway workers and sailors have been laid off in the port. A confidential report indicates that by this time next year, over 1,150 will be laid off as well as those in the Great Lakes ports in the Lower St. Lawrence.
Four of the 13 elevators are shut down. Twenty of the 64 grain ships are idle. Of course, if they are idle for over a year many of them will move out of the Great Lakes system. Projections show as low as four million tonnes being shipped from the port in this crop year, whereas in the past year over 14 million tonnes were shipped. The viability of the port is in question when shipments go below seven million tonnes.
The Government has refused to give any commitment to maintain a reasonable share of shipments through this port. Yet only two months ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a commitment of $164 million for one constituency during the Saint-Jean by-election. I call on the Government to take action to maintain the viability of the Port of Thunder Bay which is an essential and important port in the Great Lakes system.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on The National last night we saw a bold escape from East Berlin. Four people swam across the River Spree to freedom in West Berlin expecting to be shot at any moment. These brave individuals were helped on shore by some equally brave West
Berliners while an East German patrol boat was rapidly approaching.
I have been to Berlin, both Berlins, East and West. The difference between them is like the difference between night and day. The feeling in the air in East Berlin is a cold feeling of oppression. The feeling in West Berlin is one we all know well. That feeling is freedom.
This is the feeling that those four brave people will enjoy today and from now on. They were prepared to die for their freedom, a freedom we as Canadians take for granted.



NATIONAL CITIZENS COALITION


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the National Citizens Coalition has awarded $10,000 to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). This is the best example I have seen of birds of a feather flocking together.
The National Citizens Coalition claims to stand for freedom yet is a big business instrument to attack the freedom of trade unions to exercise their rights. The Minister for International Trade shows the same lack of consistency. In October of 1980 he called government advertising a very dangerous practice meant to obscure the issues and a Liberal piece of hypocrisy. Now, while in government, he continues to run his free trade ad campaign with the latest advertisement appearing in today's Globe and Mail.
These two birds deserve each other, but our country deserves neither of them.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when farmers are going through a difficult period brought on by severe drought and international trade wars, the federal and Saskatchewan Governments are responding by laying the foundation for a stable future in Saskatchewan. This week, Ag-West Bio-Tech Inc. received $306,000 under the Canada-Saskatchewan Advanced Technology Agreement to further develop agricultural biotechnology in Saskatchewan.
By aiding both short and long-term research projects which will diversify the agricultural industry, this newly created institute will improve the competitive ability of Saskatchewan farmers. As a not-for-profit institute, Ag-West will focus on and support biotechnology research and development. This will

lead to the commercialization of products necessary for the diversification of the Saskatchewan economy. This will allow Saskatchewan to meet the continuing challenges of a highly competitive international market-place.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were reminded by my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), of the courageous struggle for freedom that was crushed in Czechoslovakia 20 years ago. Today we continue to be appalled that in neighbouring country, Poland, free trade unions must still be threatened with the spectre of military force for representing the legitimate demands of Polish workers. My NDP colleagues and I call on the Polish Government to recognize Solidarity and to get on with the task of building a freer Poland.
Today is also a day known to many as Internationa] Black Ribbon Day, marking the anniversary of August 23, 1939, the beginning of so much of the oppression that is still being suffered by the peoples of eastern Europe and the Baltic. The signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty, a treaty between Hitler and Stalin, on that date proved to be a dark day for all the world, not just for eastern Europe, in so far as it helped set the stage for World War II.
One of the true tests of glasnost and perestroika will be whether the new winds of freedom are allowed to blow in countries which for too long have been under Soviet domination. It has been suggested that Chairman Gorbachev show good faith by allowing free and open elections at the municipal level throughout Soviet occupied Europe as a first step. We in the NDP urge that this be done.



ABORTION


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I congratulate the Canadian Medical Association and the thousands of physicians it represents on the courageous and sensible guidelines it adopted on abortion during its annual meeting in Vancouver recently. Physicians know, perhaps as well or better than most, the trauma and tragedy often associated with situations which lead women to seek an abortion. Yet they realize that such a decision is a medical one, best made by the woman and her physician.
August 23, 1988
The CMA's guidelines also provide that abortions could be performed in provincially approved facilities other than hospitals. They emphasize the importance of counselling for women facing such a decision, and the provision of proper family planning and contraceptive services. They also establish 20 weeks as the limit for abortion except in exceptional circumstances.
These are all reasonable guidelines which I believe are consistent with the views of the majority of Canadians who, while they may not approve of abortion or consider it for themselves, recognize that women along with their physicians should have the freedom to make their own decisions and accept the responsibility for them.



HOUSING


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in response to my request yesterday that the Minister responsible for housing involve himself and his Government in easing the affordable housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, he was quoted today in the Toronto Star as saying: "We are going to let the free market forces dictate". That Tory answer is simply not good enough. These market forces are the same market forces which have pushed up the average price of a home in Metropolitan Toronto to over $230,000.
Young couples starting out with the dream of owning a home cannot do realize their dream. Couples who want to move perhaps from a semi-detached to a bungalow and then to a split level cannot do so. Senior citizens are having a hard time trying to maintain their homes on their pensions. It is time that the federal Government etched out a partnership with both the municipal and provincial Governments to the benefit of the housing crisis in Toronto.
The RHOSP program was cut. We have a Government which is not giving over 15 acres to the new $1.2 billion St. Lawrence housing project for 12,000 Canadians. We have no programs for first time home buyers. Therefore, I urge the Government to assume its leadership role and help the municipal and provincial Governments bring housing prices back to reality in the city of Toronto.



ELECTIONS EXPENSES


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of
their annual regional meeting, the Quebec Conservative caucus
August 23, 1988

decided to implement public financing. We accept political contributions only from individuals. The Liberals and PQ have been doing so successfully in Quebec since 1976. Will the socialists do the same? Will they continue to use the major unions as their base of operations? Will they continue to use the premises of the Quebec teachers' union and telephones and stamps provided by unions? Will they still use union employees and supplies and money from the big unions? Will they illegally continue to use union dues for political purposes?
I challenge the socialist leader to comply with Quebec's standard of political morality, which we Conservatives share with the PQ and the provincial Liberals.
I say to the socialist leader, "Show yourself distinctly to Quebecers!" That is what we expect.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is about time small business people got a fair deal. Almost two months ago the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) huffed and puffed about "objectionable" service charges and negotiated with the banks a deal which would eliminate some service charges for consumers. However, small businesses continue to get dinged by the banks without notice, and continue to pay NSF charge-back fees which have been eliminated for consumers. While the pussycat Minister fiddles, small business people get burned.
Just yesterday the Royal Bank announced its intention to raise some of its service charges, including a 12 per cent increase for NSF cheques. While that fee is offset by the elimination of the charge-back to consumers, small business people pay both the increased fee for writing NSF cheques and a charge for cashing NSF cheques. This is unfair.
It is time the Minister paid attention to the concerns of small businesses which are often at the mercy of the big banks and are in no position to change banks. He found some charges "objectionable" for consumers and removed them. He should now do the same for small business.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on August 23, 1939, 49 years ago today, a few days before the start of World War II, Stalin and Hitler signed a pact which divided
Oral Questions
Eastern Europe between them. As a result, 300 million Europeans became enslaved by Soviet communism. The International Black Ribbon Day Committee marks this day to push for fundamental freedoms behind the Iron Curtain.
The ABN credo is freedom for nations, freedom for individuals. It is dedicated to the restoration of liberty, justice and independence for Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovania, Turkestan, Ukraine, Vietnam, and all other subjugated nations throughout the world. World peace can come only when all the people are set free.



ABORTION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the policy statement by the Canadian Medical Association which was released yesterday. The CMA said on abortion:
The decision to perform an abortion is a medical one, made privately between the patient and her physician-
For one thing, medical doctors should know better. They should know when you are talking about abortion and the patient and her physician, you are forgetting at least one person.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, as the person responsible for administering the Government's code of ethics. Last week, three Conservative Members, the Hon. Member for Rosemont, the Hon. Member for Duvernay and, more recently, the Hon. Member for LaSalle, said there was a kickback system in the Government.
Mr. Speaker, this morning at a press conference, the Hon. Member for Rosemont repeated her statement, and I quote from her press release, in which she said the following in referring to kickbacks and contracts: "I am convinced that this exists on an organized level, and that it can be brought to light. However, I am also sure that a criminal investigation, considering the methods that are customary in such instances

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions
and the kind of evidence that is required, would not be able to expose the existence of such a network. I think the best instrument, in this case, would be royal commission of inquiry".
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Considering the fact that the Hon. Member for Rosemont, a Conservative Member and a former Member of Cabinet, repeated her charges about the existence of a kickback system within our federal public administration, and that she is asking for a royal commission of inquiry, could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House today whether he agrees with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and whether he will accede to her request for a royal commission of inquiry to substantiate the allegations she has made with respect to her Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member for Rosemont has alleged is a very serious violation of the Criminal Code. She has not been able to substantiate it. The responsibility for enforcing the Criminal Code lies with the police and the justice system. That process has been followed. An interview was undertaken by the RCMP. No specific evidence was forthcoming. So what we have here is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing without any evidence whatsoever. I do not know what a Royal commission would undertake to do when there is no basis in fact for the allegations.


ACCUSATIONS CONCERNING EXISTENCE OF KICK-BACK SYSTEM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has just arrived, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister as the person responsible for the code of ethics.
The Hon. Member for Rosemont indicated in her press release this morning that patronage and kickbacks are nothing new and should not be considered a taboo subject in this day and age. In fact, the subject was brought up several times at the Quebec Members' Caucus, even in the presence of the Prime Minister himself. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the allegations of the Hon. Member for Rosemont regarding the existence of a kickback system were mentioned several times in his presence at the Quebec Caucus. If that was the case, it would indicate that a number of Members were concerned about these allegations. I want to ask the Prime Minister what he has done about the allegations with respect to the existence of a kickback system that were mentioned at the Conservative Caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a problem with the question because discussions among Members in Caucus are not really a matter of Government administration.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to draw the attention of the Hon. Member to two other statements made today by the Member in question, and I quote: "I did not bring this information to the attention of the RCMP because I was not personally a witness to what happened, so that if I were asked to testify, my testimony would have no legal value."


COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBER-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to venture on the kind of slippery terrain the Prime Minister is walking on and accuse his former colleague of lying to Canadians. In fact, I would now like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and perhaps to the Prime Minister himself.
Last Friday, around 11.30 a.m., during Oral Question Period, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, asked the Deputy Prime Minister, and I quote:
... when he contacted the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and if he has not done so, will he do so today? And if not, why not? After all, it's his responsibility!
And the Deputy Prime Minister's answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I considered that course of action. However, having considered the allegations as being of such a serious nature, I thought it would be improper for me to intervene, given the fact that we had been advised that the RCMP were going to conduct an interview with her, as the Solicitor General has indicated. I did not want to be seen as intervening in the process.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard the Hon. Member for Rosemont said it would be unworthy or against the code of ethics for the Deputy Prime Minister to intervene, as it was for the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who at 8.45 this very morning, contacted the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and as she said in her press release, asked her to retract or say her statements had been misquoted. This the Hon. Member refused to do.
I want to ask the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister why it was improper for the Deputy Prime Minister to communicate with the Hon. Member for Rosemont and why it was perfectly proper for the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Mr. Peter White, to put pressure on the Hon. Member and threaten her with expulsion from the Caucus if she did not retract.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Rosemont said, and I quote: "I know personally that patronage exists, that it continues to grow and that there is a kickback system for contracts", and she said this to La Presse on August 18. It is perfectly proper for a senior member of my staff to call the Hon. Member to find out if she intends to substantiate her claims and whether she intends to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister and her caucus colleagues. The fact remains that the same day, and I quote from an English text:
August 23, 1988



"An RCMP spokesman reading from a prepared statement issued late yesterday afternoon in Ottawa said: 'She had no details of any activity that would justify an RCMP investigation'
What we have here is a Member of Parliament who has made charges that would have the effect of tarnishing the reputation of all members of a Party and, by implication, the charge was made in respect to previous Governments. I felt that blanket charge was unfair and any evidence that she had should be brought forward. That has been my position. I invited her to come forward to the caucus and explain her point of view. As it happened, the RCMP visited with her and she told the RCMP that she had no information at all. That to me is a very sad and irresponsible situation for a Member of Parliament to place herself in.


QUERY CONCERNING SPOKESPERSON FOR GOVERNMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
I would like him to explain the contradiction for me. The Prime Minister has just told the House that it was quite normal to intervene politically to get information from the Hon. Member for Rosemont. However, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is seated next to him, says that it would be ill-advised to intervene.
I would like to know who speaks on behalf of the Government. Is it the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister? The Prime Minister says that it is quite normal and the Deputy Prime Minister said on Friday, "However, having considered the allegations as being of such a serious nature, I thought it would be improper for me to intervene, given the fact that we had been advised that the RCMP were going to conduct an interview with her, as the Solicitor General has indicated."
Is that right or wrong? Is it improper or quite normal? What is the answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite normal that if an allegation is made in a general way, for example, if someone made a general statement about all the Liberal Members in the House, it would seem quite normal to me that the Liberal Members would immediately demand further information, some evidence, or that the accusations be withdrawn.
It seems quite normal to me that my chief of staff asked one of our Members to follow such a logical procedure. If the Hon. Member is offended, too bad for him. It seems quite normal to me to proceed in that way when people's reputations are involved, whether they are Members of the New Democratic Party, Liberals or Progressive Conservatives; everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and to be treated fairly.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR RETRACTION FROM MEMBER FOR ROSEMONT- PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that everyone is entitled to fair treatment, but his chief of staff did not ask the Hon. Member for Rosemont for information politely. He threatened to throw her out of the Conservative Caucus. There is quite a difference between asking for information and blackmail and arm-twisting!
I ask the Prime Minister whether it is quite normal to ask a Member to retract, even to say the opposite of what is true; is it quite normal to say, "If you don't retract, you'll be thrown out of the Conservative Caucus"?


Mr. Speaker:: I will let the Right Hon. Prime Minister answer, but I am a little concerned about a preamble that gets awfully close to an allegation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there was no threat.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Oh, no!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member says, "Oh, no!" The same person who said that there were threats said on August 18:
I personally know that patronage exists and has continued to grow, that there is a contract kickback system.
Today, the same person says, "I did not bring this information to the RCMP because I personally was not a witness to these situations. If I were called as a witness, my contribution would have no legal value."
The same person who said that she had no evidence for the accusations made against people's reputations has no evidence for such a statement.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-HYDRO DISCOUNTS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed the Minister for International Trade. He may be aware that last Monday, in an appearance before the City Council in Prince George, British Columbia, the Minister of State for Science and Technology stated that the trade deal with the United States would prohibit hydro discounts that have re-opened mines all across the Province of British Columbia and other parts of Canada.
The Minister was asked if the trade deal would allow
subsidized energy rates that have allowed mines like those at

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions
Endako and Granisle to reopen. The Minister replied very precisely: "No, it is not possible".
The Minister knows how important subsidized energy rates have been to allow mines and plants across Canada to re-open. The Minister of State for Science and Technology has said that under the trade deal this kind of discounted rate, if you like, would not be permissible. Who is telling the truth? On a number of occasions the Minister has indicated that communities would not be placed at risk. The Minister of State for Science and Technology said whole numbers of single industry towns would now be placed at risk. Who is it that we are to believe?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I believe my hon. colleague said no such thing as the hon. gentleman is quoting him as saying. Second, we can subsidize whatever we like. We can subsidize whatever we wish in this country.
There is no international agreement that prevents us from subsidizing whatever goods we want to subsidize or whatever services we want to subsidize. However, if we do subsidize, if it is a trade related subsidy, we have to consider whether or not, if we export that product, another country might challenge it as being subsidized in an objectionable way so that it is no longer free trade or fair trade, and may attempt to bring an action against it.
That has always been the case. That is the case this year. That was the case five years ago. That will be the case in the future. There is nothing in the U.S.-Canada agreement that prevents us from subsidizing hydro rates if we wish, or anything else we wish to subsidize.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, both in the newspaper and on radio tape, the Minister of State for Science and Technology has said that under the trade deal any effort to provide subsidized energy rates that have allowed mines like Endako and Granisle to re-open would not be permissible.
Who is that we are to believe? The Minister of State says that this kind of subsidized energy, if you like, would not be allowed under the trade deal. The Minister for International Trade says that it would be allowed under the trade deal. I am not sure what the Prime Minister has said. He closed down Schefferville, so we will stick with the two Ministers.


Mr. Masse:: Cheap shot.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister spends millions of dollars on propaganda for this deal.


Mr. Andre:: Cheap shot Riis.


Nelson Andrew Riis: His colleague, who I assume has read the deal, says to his constituents and to single industry towns across the country that that kind of subsidized energy will not be permissible. Who is it that we are to believe?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the people of Canada will believe those who constantly cry wolf, those who constantly make false statements about the effects of the U.S.-Canada trade arrangement, such as the hon. gentleman opposite.
Schefferville voted 85 per cent for the Prime Minister, so they must have understood what the Prime Minister was attempting to do. They understood that for years jobs had been created in Schefferville, that the resources had been developed, and that the hon. gentleman opposite has never created a job, or developed anything in his life. All he has done is mal-mouth in the House of Commons.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, if he is looking for wolves, there is a wolf in his Cabinet.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade will well know that from Newfoundland to British Columbia there are hundreds of communities that exist because a mine, a plant, or a mill was receiving subsidized low energy feedstocks. That was one of the reasons why those plants, those mines and those mills were created in those communities.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology has stated on tape, and is quoted in the newspapers as saying that this kind of subsidy would not be permitted in the future. I think that is serious. Who is that the people of Canada are to believe? Whom do we trust? Do we trust the Minister of State for Science and Technology or the Minister for International Trade?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as anyone who follows trade matters will realize, many countries in the world subsidize services or subsidize products, or help in the establishment of industries. Every country has this kind of program, and other countries to which they export challenge the subsidies if they think that they are trade related and unfair subsidies causing them to compete unfairly with domestic industries. That happens in the United States vis-a-vis Canada, and the United States vis-a-vis other countries. Here in Canada we challenge the exports of other countries to Canada on the same basis.
That is why, under the free trade agreement, we will work out with the Americans over the next five years an agreed definition of what is a trade related subsidy that could properly invite countervailing duties.
In the meantime, the U.S.-Canada agreement does not rule
out subsidies in any way, shape or form. The position on
subsidies is completely unchanged, except we will have a better
August 23, 1988

chance to challenge U.S. action because we will have a dispute settlement method to which we can revert.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Prime Minister and challenge his suggestion that in cases like this it is good enough simply to call in the RCMP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Who would you call in? The CIA? You never called anyone in, that is for sure.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We set up Royal commissions.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that the Hon. Member for York Centre use his experience and perhaps some of the help that was intended for him yesterday in the exchange between myself and himself, and be very careful to keep within the rules.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Government to establish a Royal commission. I think that is in order.
I want to ask it to establish a Royal commission in light of the fact that there has already been a conviction for kickbacks during the life of this Government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Where?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is a case under investigation-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Withdraw.


Don Boudria: Have you forgotten already? Hypocrites.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I do not know where the Hon. Member is leading. I am moving on to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


KICK-BACK ALLEGATIONS-PMO OFFICIAL'S CONTACT WITH MEMBER FOR ROSEMONT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the allegations which the Hon. Member for Rosemont has made with respect to kick-backs. Last Friday, August 19, in the House, one of the opposition Members asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question as to whether the Deputy Prime Minister would speak to the Hon. Member for Rosemont and, if he had not done so, would he do so "today". The Deputy Prime Minister replied, as reported at page 18565 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I considered that course of action. However, having considered the allegations as being of such a serious nature, I thought it would be improper for me to intervene, given the fact that we had been advised that the RCMP were going to conduct an interview with her...
Oral Questions
Today, the Member for Rosemont said that on Friday Mr. Peter White, chief of staff of the Prime Minister's Office, contacted her and told her to withdraw the remarks or run the risk of being kicked out of the Tory Caucus. Why is it that what is improper for the Deputy Prime Minister to do becomes proper for the Prime Minister's henchman to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member quoted exactly precisely what I stated. That occurred at about 11.30. My understanding at the time that we were made aware, as the Solicitor General indicated, was that in fact the RCMP were going to interview the Hon. Member for Rosemont. That was one of the considerations.
My understanding, and I may be wrong in this, is that the Prime Minister's chief of staff contacted her in the morning seeking clarification and reminding her of her obligation that if she had evidence she should produce that evidence and report to the police. My understanding is that was, essentially, the thrust of the conversation.


NOMINATION PAPERS OF MEMBER FOR YORK-PEEL
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Prime Minister.
In light of the fact that the Hon. Member for Rosemont has now been put out of the Tory caucus as of last weekend, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he intends to refuse to sign the nomination papers for the Hon. Member for York- Peel who broke the conflict of interest guidelines not once, not twice, but 14 times?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a Party matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am having great difficulty in accepting that that is a question that has to do with the administration of government. Perhaps the Hon. Member could rephrase his question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the conflict of interest guidelines are indeed the administration of justice-indeed, they are the handiwork of the Prime Minister himself-and in view of the fact that a member of his caucus, of his Government, was found to have breached those guidelines 14 times, and in light of the fact that he has kicked out one Member, the Hon. Member for Rosemont-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


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

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions


NATIONAL CITIZENS COALITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. It concerns a totally different subject, that of the 510,000 prize that the Minister for International Trade has been awarded and has accepted, according to the media, from the National Citizens Coalition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I hope that the record will show that Conservative Members were applauding.
Given that the National Citizens Coalition is in favour of apartheid, pro-capital punishment, anti-bilingualism, against medicare, against immigration, and against social programs, will the Prime Minister order his colleague to refuse to accept the prize?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is very scary.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this comes within my Department or not. However, I can see the hon. gentleman is displaying a tremendous amount of jealousy at the news that I have received this award. Perhaps I could be induced to share the proceeds with him-


Don Boudria: I want no part of dirty money.


John Carnell Crosbie: -if his hurt feelings continue.
As to the National Citizens Coalition itself, I only know from what I see in the paper. It is an organized group with a conservative philosophy. I may agree with some of its views and policies and not with others, just the same as the hon. gentlemen across may agree with some of the views of the CLC and not with others, or perhaps they may agree with them all totally.
In any event, I am glad to be recognized as having made a contribution to the cause of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.


COALITION'S POSITION ON APARTHEID
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want no part of the Minister's blood money.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I want to ask him a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is asked of the Minister for International Trade who is also at the present time the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In its newsletter "Consensus" of February, 1987, the National Citizens Coalition said about the Government's
policy on South Africa: "Expediency, not principle; pragmatism, not morality. These are the models for Canada's foreign policy." How can the Minister accept this reward and remain in Cabinet?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I suppose, has never received an award before in his life.


Mr. Axworthy:: Don't laugh it off, John, it's a serious issue.


John Carnell Crosbie: He therefore believes that the recipient of any reward from any group must agree with every statement of the group that gives the award. Is this true of the Oscars? Is it true of the Nobel Peace Prize? If one accepts the Nobel Peace Prize does that mean that one agrees with using dynamite to blow up one's opponents or enemies? How ridiculous this is getting.


Lloyd Axworthy: You don't have a bit of integrity. What a dishonourable man.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tory blood money.


John Carnell Crosbie: If this is what you are down to it is pretty bad.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. A special committee of the Canadian Bar Association has recommended a parallel justice system for Canada's first citizens. The report reveals that in Saskatchewan a treaty Indian woman is 131 times more likely to end up in jail than a white woman, and that 60 per cent of prison admissions are native, while only 6 per cent of Saskatchewan's population is native.
Would the Minister confirm that across Canada 10 per cent of federal inmates are native even though they make up only 2 per cent of the population, and that this Parliament and this Government have the authority and the responsibility to implement a parallel justice system for Canada's first citizens?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very serious question. I am pleased to try to address it in a serious way.
The Hon. Member will know that this is a preliminary
report to the Canadian Bar Association. I have instructed my
August 23, 1988

officials to examine thoroughly and analyse the report and the statements and recommendations made therein.
I should say that we have tried as a Government, and I think with some success, to move forward in an examination of some of the difficulties faced by aboriginal populations in our country in the justice system. As a matter of fact at the present time my Department is undertaking a very extensive review of a number of initiatives. I think this report will be very closely examined. I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter in the House.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. Since Canada clearly has the constitutional authority to implement aboriginal courts and correctional systems, and since Section 35 of the Constitution Act is a full box of rights, including selfgovernment, will the Minister commit the Government to immediate action based on the CBA report, because many native Canadians are being prosecuted and incarcerated for practising their constitutional rights, making them, dare we say it here on the floor of the House of Commons, political prisoners in their own land, a situation which can no longer be allowed to continue?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we want to look at the question in a very serious and comprehensive way as a Government.
I can only say to the Hon. Member that the report itself and the Canadian Bar Association appreciate that there is no easy or facile solution to the problem. It is one that will require a number of initiatives.
I can tell the Hon. Member, and I hope he will accept my commitment on behalf of the Government, that we regard this as a very serious question. Tomorrow I will have the opportunity to address the Canadian Bar Association. It just so happens that one of the aspects I will be dealing with is the whole question of sentencing vis-a-vis our native population. We are in fact, and have been, considering this matter. We will continue to do that. I will welcome any suggestions made by Members of Parliament and the Parties in this House.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the same Minister, the Minister of Justice. It is with regard to the report from the Canadian Bar Association.
The report strongly supports what aboriginal leaders have been telling the country for a very long while now, that is, that the present justice system under which they suffer has not served their people at all well.
I would like to ask the Minister, as the report recommends, if he is willing to work along with aboriginal leaders toward
Oral Questions
the development of a contemporary aboriginal or native justice system in Canada. The Minister knows that there is nothing shocking or radical in such a suggestion since it works well elsewhere in North America. For example, the Pueblo and Navajo have worked out such an arrangement with the American Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, there have been a number of initiatives and studies undertaken on the issue of sentencing and parole. The Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General has given very serious consideration, if I understand the proceedings well, to this whole issue. I expect that its report, which is anticipated some time next week, will try to deal with some of those complex issues.
This is something where we will have to consult widely, where there is no simple answer. It is a commitment which we have on behalf of the aboriginal people of Canada to make sure that justice does apply equally to all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians.


B. Keith Penner: The Minister talks about sentencing and parole. He knows that the question went well beyond that. We are talking about a contemporary aboriginal or native justice system developed in Canada, which is far beyond the matters to which the Minister referred.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
B. Keith Penner: For my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to turn to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The report cites poverty as being a major factor in the excessively high levels of incarceration among aboriginal peoples.
I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether, this week or perhaps next week, the Government will announce that the Native Economic Development Program will be renewed. As the Minister knows, that program will expire at the end of this fiscal year. Can native people expect to see a renewal of this ambitious effort to help them find their own feet, get off the welfare system and dependency on the Government of Canada?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the Native Economic Development Program has known quite a bit of activity. There have been 1,687 requests totalling some $1.2 billion. Fully 94 per cent of all requests have been dealt with.

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions
The program was extended last year so that we could have, as a Government, the opportunity to review, with the people concerned, and the Assembly of First Nations, modifications that could be brought to a new version of the program to be introduced. It was extended until March 31 of next year. Those consultations have been going on very well.
I expect that we will be in a position very shortly to announce modifications or a new version of the program that could be put in place as of April 1, 1989.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The residents of Whitehorse in the Yukon are beginning to wonder if the Minister is attempting to add a northern question to the game of Trivial Pursuit, to wit: "What is the only capital city in Canada without a federally run post office?" Answer: "It looks like it's going to be Whitehorse".
In two months the current Post Office building will be demolished. For some reason Canada Post has continued to be secretive about its intentions for this retail facility.
Will the Minister now tell the taxpayers of Whitehorse what plans he has for the central post office?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member and her constituents that the mail receiving and sending public of the Yukon will continue to receive and be able to send mail.
As to specific details as to what and where the post office will be operating, that is a question that I will of course have the Post Office reply to, if the Hon. Member would prefer to have me ask the Post Office rather than ask herself.


COST OF POST OFFICE BOXES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his offer, because we have continually asked Canada Post, and it has continually failed to respond.
The Minister states that we will continue to be able to send and receive mail. Does the Minister realize that under his privatization scheme the cost of a post office box in a privately run post office has increased in Whitehorse anywhere from 400 per cent to 1,700 per cent from that in the federal post office, and that is what I call a "super box".
What does the Minister intend to do about this?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member states that she has made inquiries and has not been able to receive an answer. If the Hon. Member will send me a copy of those inquiries, I will
get an explanation as to why. I would like to see evidence that the Hon. Member has asked and not received replies.
Lock box fees are set by regulation. The types of changes the Hon. Member talks about are impossible. If the Hon. Member will wait for four or five days I think that she will hear some very good news in terms of lock box fees.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the Member for St. John's West, the Acting Minister of Fisheries, boast about a $10,000 award that he has received from-in my view-a questionable organization called the National Citizens Coalition.
That is the same Minister who, last week, denied there was any crisis in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland. Last Saturday night in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, some 700 fishermen turned out at a public meeting in response to the Minister to tell him that he is wrong, that there is a crisis, that they are hungry, and that they are without incomes.
They asked me to present the Minister with an award of their own. One David Mugford, who has earned less than $1,000 since May, asked me to send the Minister his pay cheque for that week, which is $9.45. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I send that across the floor to the Acting Minister of Fisheries.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister, since the Acting Minister of Fisheries, the Member for St. John's West, refuses to acknowledge the crisis atmosphere in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland, the hunger that exists among fishing families in the inshore of Newfoundland, if the Prime Minister will establish, on an emergency basis, a compensation program to assist fishermen, primary producers, in exactly the same manner that this Government and previous Governments assisted farmers who are also primary producers? Can that be done quickly to assist hungry families today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, last week the Hon. Member who asked this question claimed that there was a disastrous inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador this year. That is an untrue and unfactual statement.
This year, up to July, the inshore cod landings and values were 90,000 metric tonnes caught, and $40 million in value, compared to 59,000 metric tonnes having a value of $28 million in the inshore fishery last year in the same period of time. How can the Hon. Member say that there is a disastrous failure in the Newfoundland fishery?
However, Mr. Speaker, this year, as happens every year on
certain sections of the coast, which is thousands of miles in
August 23, 1988

length, some areas have not had fish in the inshore fishery. One of those areas is the St. Anthony area in White Bay. Another area is that of Lawn and St. Lawrence on the south coast of Newfoundland, as I said last week.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, he's finally catching on.


John Carnell Crosbie: If there is need for assistance in those particular areas, in the past there have been certain employment programs for areas like that and that will certainly be considered, but there is no disaster in the Newfoundland inshore fishery. Over much of the province it has been very good. For example, capelin landings are up to $28 million in value this year as compared to $7 million last year. To date, crab landings are also up in value.
The hon. gentleman's statement is simply untrue, except with respect to certain areas.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Spadina.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF TASK FORCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with all those boring statistics that ignore human beings, it is no wonder that the Speaker nearly fell asleep, as did most of the House while listening to that dispassionate, callous, cruel, and thoughtless answer from the Acting Minister of Fisheries.
Landings may be up, but the price of fish is only half of what it was last year. While the value to the companies may have risen, the fishermen who catch the fish by the sweat of their brow are hungry this year. That is the lesson that the Minister is only now beginning to acknowledge. I tell the Minister that fishermen do not want an 8, 9, or 10 week program-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen of Newfoundland want the same consideration in times of natural disaster as the farmers of this country rightly received. They are in a desperate situation now.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to set up a task force on an emergency basis because the crisis is now, Prime Minister- they are hungry now-to look at the situation of inshore fishermen all over Newfoundland and to provide financial compensation to those people who have earned pay cheques of $9.45 for a week, or who have earned less than $500 or $1,000 for the year?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, as we all know, is grandstanding, or he is trying to imitate the big-mouth bass or doing some kind of fish impersonation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The position is that, despite a drop in prices this year of something like 40 per cent, the landed value of fish caught in the inshore fishery of Newfoundland is up considerably. I have given you the figures, Mr. Speaker. I have given you the landings of the capelin, crab, and cod.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Their take-home pay is down.


John Carnell Crosbie: In areas where there is a local disaster as there is in some areas, then we will do the usual careful survey and if help is needed-


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is needed.


John Carnell Crosbie: -as always with this Government, the fishermen in those areas will get the necessary help, but they will not be helped by this kind of an exhibition in the House.


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
As the Minister knows, there is a very desperate housing situation faced by the people of Toronto. People Find it impossible to buy a home or often even to rent a home. Periodicals like Time magazine or The Financial Times have pointed to Toronto as a situation in which part of the reason for this housing shortage is that speculators are driving up the price of housing.
Would the Minister be willing to take steps to cool down this speculation in real estate and housing in Toronto? Will he consider a special tax on land speculation, which is what is bidding up the price of housing in Toronto?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Diversification):: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Government of Canada through Canada Mortgage and Housing has been recognized. There are expenditures on assisted housing in Canada of some $1.5 billion a year. In Toronto, the fair share of that amount is being put forward. There are more people in need at this time because of the housing policies that have been developed co-operatively with the provinces and the Government of Canada receiving assisted need in housing.

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
The Minister responsible has had discussions and informed the House as late as yesterday as to actions that he has taken that will provide more land after consultation with other Departments, and try to assist in putting forward land that is presently held by the Government, for the use of housing in the Metropolitan Toronto area.


FUNDING OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question about a tax on land speculation although his colleague Government in Ontario has done that in the past decade. It is also within the responsibility of the federal Government. I would point out that in the past municipal infrastructure, such as roads, sewers and water systems, has been aided by federal public works programs.
Would the Minister consider a tax on land speculation in order to contribute to funding to the necessary renovation of the municipal infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and water systems?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question. The Government is not considering any such tax.
What the Government is considering is its firm approach to monetary expansion to make sure that inflation does not get out of hand, to make sure that we do not have 21 per cent interest rates as we had in 1981 and to make sure that we do not have 13 per cent unemployment rates as we had in 1982. That is our approach.
In addition, we have brought in a capital gains tax which cuts particularly heavily into real estate companies that are speculating.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, August 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Martin:
That this question be now put.
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in terms of social policy at the national level, there is no need more urgent nor claim more legitimate than a call for a comprehensive child care policy. That is what the people of Canada need. That is what they require and that is precisely what the Conservative Government has failed to deliver.
In my youth, to put it in perspective, the large majority of mothers, wherever they were in our country, whether in the East, central Canada, on the plains of our Prairies or beyond the mountains in British Columbia, worked exclusively within the household. Today not only a majority but a growing majority of mothers work outside the home. It is folly to assume, as the Government seems to be, that history will suddenly reverse itself. The conclusion that we reach for those who care for children, for those who believe and believe genuinely in equality between the sexes, for those who prefer reality to mythology as a guide to public policy, is that we need to be launching in Canada a comprehensive child care program, and we need to be doing it now from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Today, fully 60 per cent of the mothers of pre-school children are working outside the home, with no access available to quality child care services for almost two million children of such families. The Government in the face of this reality has presented us not with a national program but a national fraud. The Government has done so not in ignorance of the facts for which some matters of policy might be excusable, but it has done so with full knowledge of the contemporary Canadian reality.
The evidence is all around us. For Members of Parliament of each Party in the House of Commons, from any part of our country, whether we speak to our friends, our neighbours or acquaintances we all understand that the family has changed. We have conventional families, unconventional families, women and men reversing conventional roles. Sometimes the man stays at home to rear the child or children while the woman works out in the market-place. More often than not, as I have just indicated, both partners in the family structure are working outside the home. We know it from our personal experience, but beyond our personal experience we have the evidence, and that too was presented to all Members of the House as a result of the special committee established to look into this question.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) for our Party was an active and caring member of that committee and reported back to our caucus on that committee's findings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to cite some of the instances that she has drawn to our attention and to the attention of all members of that committee. Again, I repeat, regardless of their Party they became aware of it during the course of their travels throughout Canada.
What are some of the important and salient matters of fact that this Government ought to have been considering that were drawn to our attention by this report? First, that parents overwhelmingly were saying, wherever they were in Canada, whatever their financial circumstance, that it was almost
August 23, 1988

impossible to still find in Canada, in the latter part of the 1980s, reliable and consistent child care service. Second, some mothers actually reported that they had 10 or more different services for care provided before their child was out of the diaper stage. Third, that it is common-not the exception-to take six months or more to be able to find a child care space for one of your children.
It was reported to this committee in a number of instances that parents have had to resort to finding a name posted somewhere, in a local Becker's store or in a grocery store, with a phone number attached which indicated that they would be willing to provide child care service. We should keep in mind that for many families in our country both members are still working outside the home, in part as a matter of choice and also as a matter of economic necessity. If they were not working outside of the home-both partners-the percentage of Canadian families living at the poverty level would rise dramatically.
It is very easy for people in upper-income positions, like Members of Parliament, to be able to say: "Why is it that a family would turn to a local grocery store to obtain the name of a child care service and perhaps check it out in the most rudimentary kind of way?" The evidence is that for most families, certainly for a great many families, it is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of economic necessity. A majority of families find the cost of quality day care prohibitive.
These are just some of the facts, I repeat, that became available to members of all Parties in the House, including members of the Cabinet, who have to assume responsibility for drafting this abomination which they call a child care policy.
I was a Member of the House in 1970 when a Royal Commission reported that the needs for child care required "immediate action". That was in 1970. Today, as the whole country knows, the situation has got worse, not better.
In responding to this worsening situation, in terms of the need, the Government has almost acted perversely. Refusing to see or to respond to reality, the Conservatives cling instead to mythology. They hurl abuse at experts and they are ignoring the modern family in all its diversity.
One of the things that has struck me in observing Conservatives, whether here in Canada or in the country to the south of us, is the amount of lip service that they pay to the family, as if they had some kind of exclusive-and I am tempted to say property-right to the notion of the family. Time after time one hears in Canadian politics and on this continent Conservatives talking about the importance of the family. I want to say, with considerable passion, if they really understand the Canadian family as it exists not in the 1930s but in the 1980s, if there is one group that is ignoring the contemporary family and all of its needs, it is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canada Child Care Act


John Edward Broadbent: The Conservatives' so-called National Strategy on Child Care-that is the name that they gave to it-is a strategy right out of George Orwell. It is "double speak" of the worst kind. It is saying one thing, paying lip service to one idea, but moving quite clearly in the opposite direction.
Conservatives clearly have disappointed the people of Canada in many ways since the election of 1984, but there is no greater disappointment in terms of the legitimate claims of the majority of Canadian families than what the Conservatives have offered in this so-called child care policy.
Canadian parents and their children need more rapid access to child care spaces and they need better quality child care. The Conservative Government with this program has delivered neither, but they have taken credit for both.
What is the evidence for what I regard as the severe indictment that I have just made about the Conservative program? I want to point out exactly why I say that. First, the number of spaces without this program has been growing in recent years at the rate of some 15 per cent a year, doubling every five years.
The Conservative promise to add 200,000 non-profit spaces by 1995 might sound impressive on the surface, if one hears just the numbers, until you realize that this actually constitutes a reduction in the rate of growth, from 15 per cent annually to 10 per cent, and instead of requiring only five years to double the number of spaces, with this program that the Conservatives have brought in it will take seven years.
Second, not only have the Conservatives brought in a program which will result in a reduction in the rate of increase in the number of spaces but they have actually put a cap on the growth in these spaces to make sure that by the end of the seven-year program no more spaces will be created than they themselves intended to have created.
Third, there is no requirement in this Bill at all for the provinces, which will be getting federal funds, to offer guarantees that they will actually be providing quality child care spaces as a result of those federal funds.
The conclusion is that the Conservatives have reduced the rate of growth, have put a ceiling on that growth, have ignored quality day care, and then have had the effrontery to describe this as "an effective national child care system". This is a fraud and typical Conservative hypocrisy, that is what it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: When George Orwell was writing his masterpiece 1984, I am tempted to add that he was blissfully unaware at the time that the people of Canada would be electing a government in that very year which would turn out to be the most ardent practitioners of the black art of propaganda that he so vividly described in that master work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act


John Edward Broadbent: We in this Party say that now is the time to embark on a truly national program based on real but varying needs in all of our regions and provinces, and we say that such action would be fully consistent with the kind of federalism that we have decided to renew at the national level of former co-operative federalism that finds itself embedded in the Meech Lake Accord.
Mr. Speaker, the setting of national objectives would be quite compatible with the Meech Lake Accord, but the Government refuses to shoulder its responsibilities. It is not asserting the leadership required to create a Canadian child care program. We can even go so far as to say that there is no program. Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said that their goal is to provide sufficient accessible and affordable quality services, none of this is in the Bill. This Bill attains none of these four objectives.
Let us talk about availability. The normal increase in the number of available places will go down.
Let us talk about cost. There is no national objective and the federal Government has even imposed a budget restriction.
Let us talk about quality and ease of access. Here again there is no national objective. In his speech of August 11, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, "They are the actions of a Government determined to lead in implementing coherent national programs. These actions clearly illustrate that this Government is committed to social justice for all Canadians. Child care is the centrepiece of that commitment." That is what he said!
The Prime Minister has come up with an incoherent program that will create fewer spaces in seven years than will be created by normal growth.
He refused to use the Meech Lake Accord as a tool to develop a Canadian policy for quality child care from coast to coast, a quality program that could very well be implemented by the provincial Governments according to their specific needs. Instead of that, the Prime Minister set no objective. This means that he is overlooking the Meech Lake Agreement. Indeed, he has chosen to ignore this Agreement. That means that the Prime Minister is not showing leadership. On the contrary, he has abandoned his leadership role. He has forgotten Canadian children.

The Conservatives are all so great at talking about the need for choice, as if they had a monopoly on the idea of freedom of choice. Again this has been applied to the program they have brought in. They claim that they will give parents choices by spending $2.4 billion through the tax system.
In the first place, more than half of this money is not new. It was already in the system. In the second place, most of the new money will go to a program which gives parents a maximum of $200 per child per year. As my colleague behind me has said, big deal, and as another child care advocate has said about this sum of money, it will hardly be sufficient to pay for two children's snowsuits. Indeed, if we think of what the Conservatives have done for the average family since they came to power, we can see the kind of shell game they are up to.
Since 1984, the Conservatives have increased taxes on an annual basis. Income and other taxes have been increased by some $1,000 per year for the average family. Here the Conservatives think they will con people into thinking they are doing something effective for children by giving some $200 of that back to parents.
We in this Party say that we should not be playing shell games with the tax system but we should be building an effective and accessible child care system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my Party is opposing this Conservative scheme because we do believe Canada's children deserve the best and that that should be our goal. We should now be putting in place a comprehensive system of child care. We should be laying down a foundation for such a universal system and we should be doing it now. I regret that the Conservatives have not seized the opportunity to support the modern family in the carrying out of its most fundamental role, the caring and raising of children.
Evidence shows that the first priority of an adequate policy must aim at providing a sufficient amount of money to provide an adequate number of licensed, quality child care spaces that will be universally accessible and affordable for all the families of Canada. Our experience with medicare and public education ought to have been some kind of guide to the Conservatives in drafting this policy.
We would not today have medicare if the Government that first launched that system in Canada, the then NDP Government of Saskatchewan, subsequently followed up on a national basis, had used the tax system and simply gave the money to the people and encouraged them to act as consumers in the market-place and thereby create a universal medicare system. It was simply the failure of the market-place to meet this human need that caused thinking people in Canada and in western Europe to recognize the need for government involvement to create a system that was outside the market. The Conservatives, as is so often the case, learned nothing from history.
As was the case when medicare was first launched, so too now we hear the propaganda from the Conservatives, from the Minister who brought in the Bill and from Conservative spokespersons who write columns in newspapers. They are saying about the New Democratic Party what they said in the early 1960s when we fought to get medicare established. They
August 23, 1988

are saying: "Oh, there they are, those people who want the state to meddle in the affairs of individuals. There they are, they want the heavy hand of the state determining in a day-today way the lives of Canadian citizens, taking away flexibility, taking away variety, imposing uniformity".
These are the cliches we heard in the Conservative opposition to the medicare system in the early 1960s, a system which they now defend. They are repeating those cliches now. They were wrong in the early 1960s about medicare and they are wrong in the 1980s about child care.
The truth is, just as we said that comprehensive medicare in the 1960s would provide freedom for doctors and for patients and particularly freedom from worry about medical bills, so too we are saying about a national child care system that we do not want uniformity. Quite the contrary. I have already said that this measure is compatible with the Meech Lake Accord in terms of its national objectives by acknowledging the differing needs of our different provinces. In that context, some parents in some parts of Canada will want a different kind of child care system for their children, and we want to make sure it is available to them.
We have said that we want diversity, not uniformity. We want a range of options including child care centres, parent cooperatives, after school care, family home child care and neighbourhood drop-ins for parents and children. In short, it is the Tories who are denying flexible, imaginative, variable child care services. It is the New Democrats once again who are arguing for just such diversity to meet the needs of contemporary families.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am about to reach the time limit imposed on me in participating in this debate. I would like to ask for the permission of the House for a few moments to continues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As is the custom, I am sure the House will agree.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank Hon. Members opposite and on this side for their courtesy.
I want to conclude with a positive assertion of the basic elements of what the New Democratic Party is advocating. I have tried to make clear what we find objectionable about the Conservative approach. I want now to say what we would put in its place.
First, we would introduce a Bill that would include an outline of national objectives including a set of principles that would be pertinent to the distribution of federal funds to the provinces with the objective of assuring quality child care. Legislation should require a provincial child care program to conform to the following national objectives: non-profit, comprehensive, quality, affordable and accessible. Each
Canada Child Care Act
province would, within its own domain, pass legislation within this framework setting out its own definitions of these concepts. That would then be assessed according to the national objectives laid down by the Parliament of Canada which would be providing federal funding.
These principles which I have described with respect to the criteria that ought to be spelled out to provinces if they are going to get federal funds are modelled on the Canada Health Act and, as I have already indicated, are fully consistent with the Meech Lake Accord. With these principles in place we would provide the necessary federal leadership but also permit the details of the program delivery to vary to meet the differing needs of families and communities in Newfoundland, Toronto, Moose Jaw and Whitehorse.
Contrary to the assertion of the Conservatives that putting objectives in the legislation would trample on provincial jurisdiction, we assert that this is totally consistent with the model of co-operative federalism that existed in the early 1960s, and totally consistent with the Meech Lake Accord. When we were debating the Meech Lake Accord, if I remember correctly, and I am sure I do, both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said we could lay down such objectives for a national child care program. They said that when they brought in the Meech Lake legislation. They failed to do it. They ought to have done it.
Second, we would have as a priority the creation of additional child care spaces. We would not only set out a program that would increase the number of spaces in all the variety that I have already alluded to, but make sure they would be quality spaces. Our plan would provide some 50,000 new child care spaces per year on average over the next four years so that we would have 200,000 new non-profit spaces by 1992.
1 want to be explicit about this. In the first year we would be spending S330 million in new money. New spending in 1992 would be as high as $560 million. Including a portion of Canada Assistance Plan spending, which we would keep in place to continue to provide subsidies for low-income parents, we would be spending about $800 million a year in 1992. At the end of the four years there would be about 450,000 child care spaces in Canada at a cumulative cost of approximately $2.3 billion.
During the same period of time the Conservatives would be using up over $1 billion in federal spending additional to what we have advocated, but they would be creating far fewer child care spaces. This is precisely because they prefer to tinker with the tax system and we prefer to get on with the job of providing additional child care spaces.
The third point 1 would like to make is that child care for us has to be affordable. No one is talking about a free system of child care. We do not have free medicare or free elementary schools. We have services that we pay for in our society either

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
in the market-place or as taxpayers through collected tax revenue. What we see as a need right now is a mixture of the two in meeting a real human and family child need in providing affordable child care. By maintaining Canada Assistance Plan subsidies and by maintaining affordability as a national objective, we can ensure a progressive cost structure for child care services.
In the years ahead we believe that paying for child care should be based on the same principles as our progressive tax system. The higher your income is, the greater your capacity to pay, the more you would have to pay. The lower your income is, the less your capacity to pay, the less you would have to pay. Surely we ought to recognize the real need and real and differing capacities to pay for it and get on with the job and make sure it is available.
I want to conclude by referring to what I said at the very outset of my speech this afternoon. The family structure and family life in this magnificent country of ours has changed profoundly in the last three or four decades. From this it follows for us that if we really mean what we say when we say we care for Canada's families and for Canada's children, we have to put in place a child care policy that does not deny this reality but recognizes this reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Mr. Duguay:: Mr. Speaker, I want to have the opportunity to ask the Leader of the NDP a few questions about his comments on this very important issue.
He will know, as the Vice-Chairman on the Task Force on Child Care, I had the opportunity of travelling across the country to some 37 cities, along with the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), to deal with the problem of defining child care. In 1970 there was a report dealing with the status of women which laid out all these problems. Yet we found in 1987 and 1988 a remarkable dearth of information about the true nature of the problem.
I know the Hon. Member for Vancouver East must have had some difficulty in her chair when she heard her Leader talk about Orwell and fraud and hyprocrisy of the Conservatives. That certainly was not the spirit of the committee. We had very little difficulty in agreeing on the nature of the problem. Being as respectful as I can, I would accept that there might be different alternatives and solutions. However, I reject categorically the Leader of the NDP's assertion that we are wasting money on tax expenditures. Hundreds of Canadians have been writing me the last two or three months telling me that although the $200 per child is really not enough, and we all know that, try telling them it is nothing when it amounts to $2.3 billion.
I wonder if the Leader of the NDP might answer at least a couple of questions based on this principle. Yes, it is true there are two million Canadians requiring child care. However, 85
per cent of those are currently being looked after in an informal system. A lot of Canadians told us they like that informal system. Some Canadians said they had a great deal of difficulty. Some wanted access to day care and could not find spaces. However, not every single Canadian of that 2 million viewed that situation as a crisis.
Three very quick questions. What does the Leader of the Opposition have to say about his approach to child care, which abandons all those people, fully 85 per cent, who use informal child care and like it? He has not said much today in his speech but in assertions outside he talked a lot about the ideology of the not-for-profit centre. Fully 40 per cent of Canadians in day care, that is the small group that is in formal day care, have their children in the private sector. Would we abandon those in his formula?
The Hon. Member talked about relations with the provinces. Where on earth does he get the information that they can create 50,000 spaces next year? Why do you think you can tell the provinces what to do in an area exclusively under their jurisdiction? It seems to me you are not going to get very far, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, by saying to people like we Conservatives who care as much about the family as you do that our attempt to solve this problem is a fraud. I do not like it and Canadians will not like it, either.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do want to reply to what I take to be the Member's serious questions. First, I want to be clear, I did not say about the Hon. Member or any other member of his committee that he or they constituted a fraud. I described the Government's policy, brought in by the Cabinet as such, and I took care to say why I thought it was a fraud, and nothing the Hon. Member has just said has deterred me from thinking so. In fact, the Member has confirmed my thinking that what Cabinet brought in was a fraud. If the Hon. Member had understood wrongly what I said about the intentions or the work that was done by members of his committee, I want to tell him I was describing the Government's policy.
There were three specific questions, as I understand, and, by the way, the Hon. Member was asking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to answer. I would like to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say in this matter also, but as Leader of the New Democratic Party, I will be happy to reply. The first question was what are we offering the family which the Member said was using the informal system, which is very often a euphemism for using a baby-sitter who stays at home. The Member was on the committee and heard a lot of testimony to this effect. The baby-sitter sits before a television set all day long with a small child or small children. Very often that is the situation. I am sure the Hon. Member would not like that anymore than I would. But if the Hon. Member is asking what we are offering to those families, we are not offering anything directly because we want to put it out there
August 23, 1988

so we can have quality child care service outside the home for those who want to have a viable option outside the home.
Like the Hon. Member's Government, we are facing a priority question. Where is the real need? We have listened to the experts, as did the Hon. Member when he was travelling across the country, and we have our experience as parents and Members of Parliament and in talking to people. It is clear that we need new quality spaces made available. That is what we are saying.
Second, I was asked about profit day care. If I understood the legislation correctly, the Government itself finally accepted in its approach for new child care spaces all the best evidence on this, which is that financing will only go for capital grants, starting up a new system should go only to non-profit child care. This is the way we got other social systems under way in this country. The Government itself acknowledges the legitimacy of the point we are making. If we are going to put public expenditures out there for a social service, the general rule should be, and we have applied it here, that it should go for non-profit service for children.
Third, the Member makes reference to the Canadian Constitution and the principles of Canadian federalism. He repeats the Conservative line by asking how we can tell the provinces what to do. I can say very easily that if you, Sir, as a Member of the federal Parliament, were going to allocate federal funds to the provinces for a child care system consistent with what your Leader and your Prime Minister said about the Meech Lake Accord, if you want to set out such a national program with national objectives, flexibly applied according to different provincial needs, then there is a requirement, I say to you, Sir, that the provinces live up to those obligations, that we just do not throw the money out there and pray. We must make sure they live up to their commitments.


Mrs. Tardif:: Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments about the possibility of giving the provinces instructions. I would like to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party a question. We all know that Manitoba had an NDP Government from 1982 to 1987. The statistics for this period show that this province had the lowest rate of growth for permits granted to spaces provided by non-profit organizations. Only 3,000 spaces were added in Manitoba throughout this five-year period. The NDP was in power and could have done more. Why did it not do more for the children of Manitoba? Why did it not use the money available from the Canada Assistance Plan, which was prepared to share the costs of these available spaces? This would have benefited the children and families who needed it.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to say that the Manitoba Government during this period had the lowest tax rate for the citizens of this province of Canada and it set a record for job creation-it was second of all Canadian provinces. That is also a fact!
Canada Child Care Act
Concerning the specific question, I have no information here, but I would like to get the information for the Hon. Member, after discussing it with the former Premier of Manitoba. But the Government had its priorities and set an excellent record, in general, for the middle class and poor in Manitoba. But I would like to obtain a more specific answer for the Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall continue the debate now with speeches of at most 10 minutes each. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) has the floor.


Léo Duguay: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in a debate on a subject that is of vital importance to our society.
When we look at the day-care situation across the country, we must consider how the situation has evolved in the last ten or fifteen years. When our committee was studying this subject, we found that for 85 per cent of Canadians, day-care is provided in an informal setting. Parents find their own solutions. They often ask relatives or friends to help them or they hire a sitter.
Of course, the Leader of the New Democratic Party doesn't realize that quite often, parents who provide day-care for their children in an informal setting prefer that arrangement because their children feel more secure with one person who takes care of them instead of being in a large group.

We have heard people talk about child care in Canada as a crisis. Well, in some parts of the country it may be a crisis. In other parts of the country it is a problem. In other parts of the country services are available and are being provided. The system of child care without this massive infusion provided for by the federal Government was growing at a rate of nearly 2 per cent a year. People talk about waiting lists as measurements of whether or not there are spaces required in the country. You know how it is with waiting lists, Mr. Speaker, people put their name on one, then another, then another. We found there were Canadians whose names were on 20 waiting lists. There is no doubt that airplanes overbook by 10 per cent or 15 per cent because people put their names on lists.
It seems very clear to me that the word "crisis" is important in child care in some parts of the country, but not everywhere.
In any case, what is more important than whether we define the problem as just a problem or a crisis, is the fact that all we Canadians care more about our children than we care about anything else. We want our children to grow up and be better citizens than we are. We want our country to grow and be better than it is now. Therefore, we are prepared to devote all of our resources as parents and as a Government to ensure that our children receive the proper care they deserve. This is not for me a question of ideology as it is for the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I do not get up every morning and say: "I am a Conservative. I am for profit centres. They are New Democrats. They are not for profit

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
centres". I care more about the quality of care children receive than I care about who is providing it.
What we have tried to do in this legislation is find a mechanism to respond to all of those things that parents want from their Government.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party has often bragged about the quality of service provided for child care in Manitoba. Let me give him an example. Ideologically, they would not support profit centres. I can document examples in my province of very wealthy parents having their children in subsidized centres while poor parents had to go down the street to the profit centre and pay more. The reason is that not enough spaces are provided. This matter does not deal with ideology, it is a question of doing what is right for young people.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about the relationship with the provinces. My view is consistent with the attitude that in order to work things out in Canada one must work with people. A government cannot sit in its ivory tower in Ottawa and dictate what is good for everybody and decide that every province will do exactly the same thing. The Leader of the NDP gave the examples of medicare and post-secondary education. We have federal legislation in those areas in order to provide funds, but they do not contain minimum national standards in the area of program delivery compared to those he was suggesting. None of the Bills contain such things as doctor-patient ratios or bed-ratios.
Who do we think we are in Ottawa, that we have all the wisdom in the country and that we can tell the provinces what to do because we know better? I will support the right of provinces to make decisions in this area because, very often, the provinces are closer than us to the scene. They know the needs of their own provinces better than we do. Our responsibility as a Canadian Government is to help the provinces and help the parents so that children get the best support we can possibly provide them.
In summary, Canadians care a lot about the children in this country. Even Canadians who do not have children care a lot about the future of this country. It is our responsibility to help the provinces. We are doing that with this legislation.
It is our responsibility to help the parents. We are doing that with this legislation through tax relief. Do not let anyone say, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party said last week in Vancouver, that $2.3 billion in tax relief for Canadians is irrelevant. While it may not be enough, and we would like to do more, we are doing everything we can for the moment. I reject and resent considerably the Member's implication that this policy is a fraud. I think he should go back and read Orwell again. He has obviously missed a few lessons about what it truly means.
This Bill helps Canadians help children. I think it is the greatest piece of legislation we have introduced in this Parliament.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-144 which concerns day-care, since the previous speaker said this was the most important piece of legislation tabled in Parliament in the last four years. I would not go that far, but I would say it is a subject that should have received Parliament's attention well before this Government was getting towards the end of its mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the need for day-care services in this country has become particularly urgent. We know that a tremendous change has taken place in the very structure of the average Canadian family and that in 50 per cent of families with children, both spouses work, so that some form of daycare is necessary, either through day-care centres, home daycare or the help of relatives or friends.
Mr. Speaker, since I am in the same situation myself-we have a seven-year old and a five-year old-I can tell you that for most parents it is a real headache. I am rather disappointed to see that this Bill, which has the full backing of the Government, will do practically nothing about the increasing problems of families where both parents work. Mr. Speaker, today, only 20 per cent of Canadian children have access to day-care and 57 per cent of children between the ages of 6 and 14 are alone after school.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is supposed to provide about 200,000 spaces, at a time when we would need something like one million spaces. Mr. Speaker, the Government is talking about
200,000	spaces over the next seven years. In other words, it won't do my children any good, although maybe my grandchildren will get something out of it, and all because the Government is nickeling and diming to deal with an urgent problem. The Conservative Government has failed to recognize the changes that are taking place in our society, and the truly pressing need that exists in our cities and in rural areas as well in this country. Take for instance l'Ange Gardien de Rouville, where women fought for this cause and managed to convince the municipal council in a small rural area to set up a day-care centre, and now the demand is increasing. They started with 25 spaces and they think they will get up to 50, and I can tell you this is a success story. But the problem is that this program will not solve the problems that exist across Canada, and the whole undertaking is so fragile, you would think the federal Government tabled Bill C-144 just to pretend it was doing something about the situation.
I advise mothers who are listening to us today and who plan to go back to work in the next six months or the next year not to get their hopes up. Bill C-144 certainly will not solve your problems. Don't count on this legislation to provide day-care spaces. Don't go out and apply for a job right away!
August 23, 1988

Mr. Speaker, usually, once you get the job you make arrangements for day-care. I think the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif) is so nervous about the fact that she is probably going to be beaten in a matter of weeks or months that she fails to realize what the situation is. She may have to go out there and get a job herself. But the truth is that one of the reasons why mothers don't go out and look for a job is that they don't have access to day-care. When parents decide, and this is a choice they both have to make, they both want to go to work, what are they going to do with the children? Can they get a sitter? Can they find a space? 1 know. We had the same experience. We applied for spaces in day-care centres, and we had to wait for up to a year or a year and a half for an opening.
This is an urgent problem, and I think the Government is just paying lip service, because it should have introduced measures that are far more energetic than the ones it has tabled.
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the figures, the Government said it wants to help families and it says that families without any taxable income will be entitled to a measly increase of $200 annually in the child tax credit, for each child under six.
Mr. Speaker, you have children too and $200 a year doesn't go very far. I am sure that on $200 a year, if you feed them Similac and buy Pampers, you won't last six months.
I am sure that poor families won't be able to say this program is doing them any good. This is peanuts, when we know how much it costs to raise a family, Mr. Speaker.
And another thing: I think it is clear that this Bill is not very specific about standards and objectives. One wonders exactly what this Government wants to accomplish. One wonders whether it is not just an another example of so-called election goodies. One wonders whether this Government is really serious about what it is doing and if it has any goals, any real family policy that favours a rising birth rate.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Minister is a member of the national impro league, because this is a perfect example of total improvisation. There are no guarantees for universal access. There are no guarantees like ... No other steps have been taken to make it possible for families ... to allow for parental leave or things like that. No consideration was given such measures at all, and no consideration was given to the quality of services that will be available under this program.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the Government has failed to do its homework better and really focus on modern family problems in Canada. What can you expect, Mr. Speaker, most Government Members believe that the Canadian family is still structured along the line of the old traditional model. For instance, they do not recognize the reality of single parent families which are among the poorest in Canada and which, under this program, will have no new services made available to them.
Canada Child Care Act
Mr. Speaker, I think that if the tax measures are inadequate, so are the parents' benefits ... They ask for instance for maternity leave to be increased to 26 weeks, parental leave for each of the spouses, top quality services guaranteed, as well as improved accessibility and cost sharing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not meet the expectations of even the most interested groups.
The great many witnesses who came forward to express their views on this Bill have all criticized its inadequacy and lack of generosity.
Mr. Speaker, we need to think only of the issue of day-care in the workplace. We know that we are taking the very first steps in this direction. There are a few high profile examples, including the Lavalin firm and here in the House of Commons. There are others, but we know that they are unique cases, and the Government should have helped set up daycare centres in the workplace by allowing an over 100 per cent amortization deduction over a five year period to encourage the rapid growth of quality daycare services in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, you indicate to me that I have only a few minutes left. I am sorry to hear that, because I could tell you about the problems which Canadian families trying to raise children are faced with today, especially the younger ones where both the father and mother went to school and started a career only to find themselves in this predicament... It is not that they do not want to provide their children with the best of care, but none is available. You can visit just about any region in Quebec or the rest of Canada: You better have very good contacts with the day-care centres, or be very affluent; otherwise, you will have to wait years and years for a space. The worst thing is that, generally, it is the wife who has to sacrifice her career and decide to stay home for a year or two while the children are very young. So she suffers a set back in the development of her career. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that
200.000	spaces are just not enough. If you told me that this program would apply only to Quebec, I would say that these
200.000	spaces would make sense.
But since this program will apply to Canada as a whole, Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait seven or eight years. You can imagine that by the time these 200,000 spaces are available, the children who are now 10 years old will be able to exercise their right to vote and be themselves in need for day-care spaces.
Therefore, it is far from beeing enough. I feel also that it is much too late, because this debate should have taken place a long time ago. The Government is trying to pressure us into adopting this Bill quickly. We have only ten minutes at our disposal to express our view on an issue of such tremendous importance for the future of our society.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that Bill C-144 is quite inadequate, that the Liberal Party over the next few months will propose a valide alternative to this Bill, and that we mean to discuss the issue with all the interested Parties, because the Government is showing neither great courage nor leadership on this issue.

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make just a brief comment on the question that my colleague from across the way raised with regard to my Leader's speech on day care. She tried to portray the record of the Manitoba Government as being a weak record in terms of day care. I suppose she did that in order to try to indicate that the NDP as a federal Government would not have a strong record in this area. Thus she made the statement, as I understood it, that between the years 1982 and 1987 the lowest rate of increase in day care was in the Province of Manitoba.
I am seeking information with regard to this matter. However, in the meantime I want to make note of one thing, that is, if we compare the number of spaces in a province such as Manitoba which has had two NDP Governments, one under Howard Pawley and one under Ed Schreyer, and then compare that with Saskatchewan which has a similar population base, one will see that Manitoba has some 8,771 spaces. Saskatchewan has some 3,698 spaces. There is a Conservative Government in that province, the Government of Mr. Devine. That puts the Manitoba record in a very good light.
The only point I want to make is that we have to look closely at statistics that are being quoted in the House in order to form impressions. I say that because it depends on what statistics one looks at as to what impression one forms. I suggest that it just might be that the Hon. Member across the way selected her statistics in order to put the Manitoba NDP Government in the worst possible light. She did that rather than seeking to provide some objective indication of what the situation is in Manitoba, in which there are far more day care spaces than there are in Saskatchewan which has a Conservative Government.
I have a little more information in this regard. Manitoba has the highest per capita expenditures of all provinces on day care. Why did the Conservative Member not mention that statistic? It reminds me of a book that I read a number of years ago. The title of the book stands out in my mind. It is: How to Lie with Statistics. Rather than using statistics to shed light on a situation, to provide some objective criteria so that we can get a handle on reality, some people use statistics in order to create false impressions, in order to score political points. I am not saying that this is the case here, but one begins to wonder why the Hon. Member quoted one statistic which was the rate of increase statistics rather than pointing out that at the same time Manitoba has the highest per capita expenditures of all provinces on day care.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would have wanted to point out at the same time that there are more spaces per capita in Manitoba, and that Manitoba has the most comprehensive standards in Canada with regard to the quality of care. Not only do we have numbers, a measure of quantity, but there is a measure of quality. Manitoba has the most comprehensive standards with regard to the quality of day care.
As well, I would like to point out that we have increased funding for day care spaces to 11,200 from 6,500. That is a 72 per cent increase from fiscal year 1981-82 to 1986-87. What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker?
My friend across the way, if I remember what she said, said that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I just realized that the Hon. Member has already spoken on this matter on Thursday, August 11. As he knows, he cannot speak twice.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Is this not an amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To answer the comment of the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the Hon. Member has spoken on the amendment we are debating now.


Cyril Keeper: I spoke earlier in this debate on what I thought was the main motion. However, I thought we were on another procedure which allowed me to speak again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has spoken on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mrs. Martin), which is the motion that we are presently debating. The Hon. Member may also have spoken on the main motion. We will proceed with the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate regarding the Government's national strategy on child care. It is one that I am very proud of. I want to focus on the strategies and benefits for Canadian women, and on the impact it will have on women's over-all potential as equal contributors to our country's growth and prosperity.
The national strategy on child care is a very important element of our Government's efforts to help women achieve full equality. It is one of the initiatives that we have undertaken to create an environment that supports and encourages workers of both genders in fulfilling both their employment and family responsibilities.

Our government recognizes that child care is the key to economic equality-that it is a needed and essential social program.
We are committing substantial amounts of money through the strategy to support existing child care services, and to provide incentives for the creation of new quality child care spaces. We have honoured the commitment we made to Canadian men and women to improve the child care system in this country. Moreover, I believe we have done so in a way which respects the choices of parents.
August 23, 1988

In the last twenty years, the social fabric of our society has been profoundly changed as more and more women with children enter the paid workforce and find themselves balancing their combined responsibilities in the workplace and in the home.
In the past two decades we have seen the traditional Canadian family-consisting of a breadwinner father and a mother at home with one or more children-become the exception rather than the rule.
Today 54 per cent of all Canadian women are in the paid labour force. Of women between the ages of 20 and 64, 65 per cent are working outside the home. A full 62 per cent of Canadian mothers with children under 16 are currently in the paid labour force.

An increasing number of Canadian women are raising families on their own. In fact, 83 per cent of single-parent families in Canada today are headed by women.
In some cases, two incomes are needed to keep a family above the poverty line. The National Council on Welfare has estimated that 62 per cent more Canadian families would be poor, if both partners did not work outside the home.
It comes down to the following: Women work for the same reasons that most men work; they work for personal fulfillment, economic fulfillment and, in many cases, out of necessity. The same economic, social, and psychological factors related to employment apply to women as they do to men, and the right to the same choices should also exist for women.
However, women's choices have been constrained in the struggle for equality, whether it is in the workplace, the professions, the business world, at home, or at school; whether they live in rural communities or urban centres. They have been constrained in terms of bringing increased fulfillment to themselves and economic stability to their families by the lack of child care.
It has been a major barrier to women's participation in the labour force. I believe there can be no greater stress on a mother than worrying about the well-being of her child. Not allowing women the opportunity to achieve their full potential means that, as a nation, we are not making the best use of the glorious skills and talents of half our population. That is a situation that we as a society cannot afford, and our future competitiveness and ability to finance ourselves is at stake.
Our child care strategy acknowledges that there is no single solution which can respond completely to the diverse and changing child care needs of Canadian families. For this reason we have offered Canadians a balanced choice of initiatives. The national strategy goes far beyond any child care program ever offered or even contemplated by any government in Canada.
First, the Canada Child Care Act will provide funding to create 200,000 new, quality, subsidized child care spaces
Canada Child Care Act
through new cost sharing arrangements with the provinces. This will go a long way to assure parents not only of the availability of child care, but of care which is professional, safe, and developmentally healthy for their children.
Because we recognize that people are different and want to make different choices, the second part of the strategy consists of two new tax measures which will benefit almost three-quarters of Canadian families with pre-school age children. As a Government we recognize the unfairness of a system that has allowed the bulk of working families incomes to be eaten up by child care expenses. This strategy aims to ease the situation by doubling the child care expense deduction from $2,000 to $4,000 a year for each child under six years of age, and in addition, removing the limit of $8,000 on allowable deductions.
As well, lower income parents and many families without child care receipts will benefit, beginning this year, from the supplement to the child tax credit, amounting to $100 this year, and $200 next year.
In addition, the strategy creates a $100 million child care initiatives fund which will give priority to practical proposals designed to meet child care needs and innovative approaches to providing services.
In total, the Government is committing $6.4 billion to the strategy, including special amounts for native children over the next seven years, and another $1 billion annually after that to support child care in this country.
This strategy goes far beyond anything ever offered. Certainly, for many years the Liberals sat on the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women from 1970 without doing anything about what was looked at then as an urgent problem. The NDP seems to believe that all Canadian families are the same, that all children are the same, and everyone has the same needs.
Crafting our strategy was difficult because the needs of Canadian families are not the same and one solution will not do. A walk down a street in downtown Toronto versus a walk down a street in a small community in Newfoundland, or a drive 40 miles from the nearest community to a farm in Saskatchewan, will tell one that. We heard from people about those problems, and we are determined to resolve them.
The reason that I am happy with this strategy, and the reason that I am very proud of it, is that the fundamental position of the Government is that women have the capacity and the ability to contribute so much to our society. The structures that have existed from the beginning of time where men work outside the home and women work inside the home are changing, and they are changing fast because of economic needs, and because of that great capacity that women have to contribute more fully if they are given the choices. The major constraint on that at the moment is child care, and we are absolutely determined to celebrate those differences that women have, and altering the structures of our society in a way

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
that is positive for them, for their children, and for family life however it may be formed in Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the subject of child care. It is one that I have met on many occasions much more personally than politically. In the raising of our seven children we had many occasions not only to make use of child care, such as was available, but also at times to give child care. A number of my adult children have also done the same.
I agree with the previous speaker that there are many varieties of child care. However, I would also tell the previous speaker that, from my experience as a father and grandfather, the variety that is most needed is non-profit, publicly funded, affordable child care spaces. There will always be other arrangements for those who need them or prefer them, but the great bulk of what is needed is of the type the previous speaker made fun of because it is what the NDP advocates. The problem with Bill C-144, Mr. Speaker, is that rather than building and expanding the child care provision in Canada it limits it. It will provide fewer spaces in six years than would have been provided had the growth of child care places continued as it was under the Canada Assistance Plan.
In 1974, there were 55,181 places. Six years later, in 1980, it had virtually doubled to 109,141 places. In 1986, it doubled again to 220,517 places. Currently, it is up around the level of
243.000	in 1987.
My point is that the Canada Assistance Plan did not set a ceiling, a lid, a limit, and it did not cause the day care providers and managers of the money to set ceilings and limits, all the way down the line. At that rate, by 1994 we would have
480.000	or more places for child care under the Canada Assistance Plan. But the Bill C-144 plan would not allow us to reach that figure until a year later. In other words, it is slowing down the provisions of places for child care. That is bad enough in itself. If it were only that there was to be some shortfall under this Government's plan compared to the plan that we have had previously, but it is worse than that, because the uncertainty created by the nature of this program has caused chaos in at least one major centre of Canada, that is, Toronto, in the provision of child care.
I refer to what was noticed in The Globe and Mail on July 12, in the story entitled "Federal day-care strategy called inadequate". It described the case of a mother who had searched for a year for proper child care for her daughter while she worked. It says:
After weeks on a waiting list, she finally won a space for (her 18-month-old child) in the University Settlement House centre in downtown Toronto.
She then discovered that she could not get a subsidy from Metro Toronto, although she qualified under a means test, because the municipal government has recently resorted to what amounts to a freeze in subsidized spaces.
That is a strange new practice for Metro Toronto social services. It is explained here as follows:
Although it has expanded the number of subsidies, Metro cannot keep up with the demand.
In other words, they are worried about the ceiling being imposed by Bill C-144. The story goes on:
Part of the problem, child-care lobbyists say, is that the federal child-care strategy, which promised 200,000 new subsidized spaces, has given families the impression that the spaces already are available ...
At the same time, the accompanying child-care legislation, widely rumored to be destined for first reading in the House of Commons this week or next, will limit what is now open-ended cost-sharing between Ottawa and the provinces.
Therefore, it explains further down:
The provinces do not want to get caught spending money that may not be matched by Ottawa.
So we have chaos and cut-backs introduced into the whole system by this legislation, even before it is passed. It is simply the news and the confusion of it.
Although that is the worst fault of this legislation, it is not by any means the only one. There is also the serious fault relating to quality, that for the first time federal spending will not be diverted in part to day care centres established for profit.
The Ontario Government has done a study to compare, according to the standards of the Province of Ontario, day care centres run for profit and day care centres not run for profit. On every criterion considered, the profit-oriented day care centres treat the children-not to mention the staff-worse. This confirms what many of us have observed around Metro Toronto, that it is done as a careful study. They point out in a Toronto Star article of May 14, entitled "Non-profit day-care does the best job study shows":
Almost 54 per cent of commercial centres failed to have enough qualified staff as required by the act, compared to 15 per cent of parent- or community-run non-profit centres.
The story also goes on to point out:
Commercial centres took longer than other centres to correct staffing problems. Ninety-five per cent of non-profit centres with parent or community boards solved staff shortages within six months, compared to 77 per cent of commercial centres. In fact, 11 per cent of commercial centres still had a staff shortage after 10 months.
They just do not care as much. If they are running for profit, they will squeeze the money even if they are violating provincial standards.
Given that this Government has refused, contrary to what was implied by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he preached Meech Lake, to put national objectives into the legislation-that is with teeth-it is there in the preamble, perhaps, and in the PR, but not as laws-we can therefore expect provinces to get even slacker than some of them now are, by enforcing their standards.
The story goes on:
Commercial centres more often than non-profit centres had restricted licences because of Act violations.
August 23, 1988

Violations of the Standards Act. Furthermore, commercial centres more often had more spaces than the Act entitled them to have, that is, they were taking children, that they were not authorized to have, much more often than non-profit centres.
My point is that this spending program as proposed by the Government will not get as many day care spaces as we would have under the existing program, and the quality of the care will be worse than it is now. This opens the government funding to commercial outfits, some of whom have demonstrated their complete contempt for any kind of standards of child care, let alone the well-being and good pre-school education of the children.
This law is really a fraud. It pretends to do something that it does not even attempt to do, and if it goes into action it will gravely undermine even what is being done now, to provide day care. If this law is passed, the public, understanding the need of day care for the 60 per cent of families where both parents work, will simply have to throw this Government out and put a Government in that will repeal this law and put in a real child care Act that will meet the need.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: I am
pleased to take part in this debate on child care. I would like first to commend my colleague for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) for the quality of the work she has done on this matter on behalf of the Liberal caucus.
Mr. Speaker, under the Governement child care strategy
200.000	spaces are proposed for 1.8 million children aged 0 to 13 years. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, that proposal, that strategy will be implemented over seven years. Can you visualize that,
200.000	spaces over seven years when more than one million are needed now!
There you have the nature of the problem. I heard the suggestion made earlier from Governement benches that they would like to do more but this is all they can afford!
How come then they can afford some $12 billion for nuclear submarines? When it comes to this very important need, they stop at 200,000 spaces. Truly, this is a drop of water in the ocean!
Society has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Today, less than one in six Canadian families fit the traditional family pattern, the wife at home with the children and the husband out working. Many families are headed by single parents, most of whom are young mothers. And while more than half of all women with pre-school children work outside the home, only about 20 per cent of those children are served by accredited day care centres.
What is more disturbing, only about 2 per cent of every school-age child of working parents, the so-called latchkey
Canada Child Care Act
child, has access to after-school care. Raising children is expensive whether one or both parents work, and providing child care is one of the highest costs.
Inadequate child care is not just a women's issue. It is not just an issue for parents. It is an issue for all of us, parents, employers and governments, every Canadian. 1 believe that all of us have a responsibility, a duty, to be part of the solution.

Mr. Speaker, let us refer to accessibility. Of course, there are people who, under this Government's proposal, can get a tax credit, and a hefty one at that because of their high income and they can afford child care. But what about needy families, those that cannot afford that, especially in my constituency of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, where in the majority of cases, they are single parent families, or families where both husband and wife work because they need the extra salary. Both work because they need the money to maintain their homes, or to pay the rent, or to send the children to school, in order to be part of that new society.
And if we have no strategy, no policy, no Act that can help those families, Mr. Speaker, we will have failed as Members of Parliament. We are not here to help those who are rich, those who have money. We are here indeed to help improve society for people in need. And this Government's legislation, this Tory Government's strategy does not exactly address those problems.
Mr. Speaker, the other problem today is that one only has to walk through our streets, our cities, our towns to realize the number of children, and in a few weeks chidren will be back to school. And how many children will there be? There will be thousands and thousands of "latchkey kids", and that is unacceptable!
Although in our society there is an elementary or high school in every area or district. There is a school! There is a school, Mr. Speaker, and the children go there.
But why can't there be a program, a piece of legislation which would help the provinces to put to use these buildings and facilities which have been paid for by their very taxpayers? Why can't we turn them into day care centres, where children could go during the lunch hour or after school until their parents can come and get them.
Mr. Speaker, that is also a major problem which must be addressed in a child care policy or strategy.
Today, as I was saying, women, whether married or single mothers, don't go to work for pleasure or for sport, they need the money. We must therefore devise policies and laws which help them find quality day care centres for their children while giving them the assurance that their children will be well looked after.
In fact, I think we could look at the school system for a solution. Think about the number of teachers who have been laid off. Before I was elected to this House, I lectured teachers

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
who were retrained and encouraged to switch to a business career, because their jobs had become redundant. Mr. Speaker, why don't we retrain those teachers so that we can provide quality child care services at school? In summer, students are out of school for two months, while most parents only have a two-week holiday. What happens during the balance of six weeks? Couldn't we have summer camps? Mr. Speaker, I speak from experience having taken part in a program put together by a community agency from my constituency, where we were able, for the first time, to use the facilities of four different schools for summer camps. Children living near those schools can go to summer camp and their parents can go to work knowing that their children are being supervised by counsellors.
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for the government to allow tax credits while letting recipients choose where their children will be cared for while they are at work. It is not enough because some couples have to work to make ends meet and their tax credit is insufficient to solve their problems!
I think that we must first have a policy for all those in need and then reach an agreement with the provinces to create quality child care centres in schools. That would solve a big part of the problem. Finally, the Government must guarantee a certain number of spaces, establish standards of quality and ensure that all Canadian citizens have access to child care services.
You are telling me, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. There is still the whole issue of flexibility to talk about but I hope I will have other opportunities to do so.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, the Canada Child Care Act.
The process has been demanding, Mr. Speaker, but we always proceeded with the knowledge that what was going to be presented to Parliament would represent what Canadian parents wanted, and would affect the well-being of children and of family life for decades to come.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the process may have seemed long, for the issues were complex, but it was a deliberate course, thoughtfully examined and re-examined, until the Government was sure that its child care plan was right for children.
Canadians deeply value their children and hold the family unit as a cornerstone of society. Yet, at the same time, Canada is a pluralistic society occupying a vast land filled with diversity of views and needs. The contrasts between rural and urban life, and between different regions of the country, offer up a rich mosaic making Canada unique among nations. It is no wonder that Canadians hold differing views as to how to best meet child care needs.
In respecting these different parent preferences and situations, it was necessary to proceed intentionally and thoughtfully. This was not a task that could be done unilaterally in isolation from families and children. It was a task that required consultation with parents, with deeply concerned citizens, with professional and lay associations, with front line child care workers, and with other levels of government.
We sought a policy which reflected the caring nature of Canadians to which governements would commit their support and resources.
Mr, Speaker, I would like to review with you the process and milestones along the way which resulted in this bill now before the House.
During the summer of 1984, at a debate hosted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, involving the leaders of the three political Parties, child care emerged as a key issue. As leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Mulroney firmly committed his Party to a strong leadership response to address this pressing and urgent issue.
Following the election, this commitment was underscored in the Speech from the Throne, and I quote: "My Government has as a high priority measures to support and strengthen the Canadian family, which is the cornerstone of our society. The need for accessible and affordable child care has in recent years come to the forefront of the social agenda facing Canada. In an effort to reach a national consensus on options in this area, you will be asked to establish a parliamentary task force on the future of child care in Canada."
In proceeding with this commitment it was most important to consult with the Canadian public. To this end, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), was asked to chair the special committee on child care. The parliamentary task force was established in February of 1986. It was given a broad mandate to go beyond the traditional child care issues and study all aspects of child care. In order to ensure that all Canadians had an opportunity to express their views on this important subject, the task force travelled across the country from coast to coast holding public hearings and receiving submissions.
There was an overwhelming response from individuals and organizations which reflected the importance Canadians attach to their children. While there was great diversity in the views presented to the task force, there were presented many imaginative and innovative ideas.
Between March and June 1986, the special committee on child care heard 1,047 presentations, welcomed 1,632 witnesses, and received 944 written submissions. Canadians who wanted to be heard were heard!
The task force heard from families with special needs. It also heard from native people who felt that culturally appropriate child care services would help them retain their identity and provide an important support to families. Parents of
August 23, 1988

disabled children expressed their concerns about the integration of their children in Canadian society and their own need for support and respite from time to time. Of course, for many members of ethnic minorities, the search for linguistic and culturally sensitive child care services was outlined as a major concern.
Although, as would be expected, the views were remarkably diverse, three common themes were expressed repeatedly: The affordability, availability, and quality of day care.
In October of 1986 child care was reaffirmed by the Government as a high priority in the Speech from the Throne. The Government also indicated, at that time, that discussions with the provinces would begin once the report of the task force had been received.
During this same period of time, Canadians also contacted the Government directly to share their views. Mr. Epp met with a range of national groups, including the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association.
Through public opinion polls, the federal Government received additional evidence that the views being received by the special committee on child care and through direct contact with citizens, was indeed representative of the views of the country. The polls indicated that while Canadians believed that there were serious problems with the day care system, they were still prepared to assume a considerable degree of the financial responsibility for child care, and wanted the system to offer flexibility.
More than six in ten Canadians indicate a preference for government support for a lot of different day care options and 77 per cent of Canadians with children using day care hold this view.
More than seven in ten Canadians-73 per cent-believe that there are not enough spaces to meet current needs. Parents in general-76.9 per cent-and those parents with children using day care, 78 per cent, are even more likely than average to believe that there are not enough spaces at present.
Almost eight in ten Canadian women, 79 per cent, feel that there are not enough day care spaces available to meet current needs. Women are more likely-76 per cent-to agree that day care is too expensive for the average Canadian. Seventy-two per cent of women believe that the problem of "single parents who are unemployed who could be able to get a job if day care spaces were available for their children", affects a large number of parents.
When asked how governments could best ensure that quality, affordable day care is available to those who need it, the public supported a flexible approach. In this regard, while most believed that the best method was to provide financial assistance directly to day care centres, direct assistance to parents-29 per cent-and employers-30 per cent-also met with support.
Canada Child Care Act
Mr. Speaker, the federal government recognized that in order to have a national child care program, the provinces would have to be collaborators and partners. Much of the child care system does and will continue to come under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore it was essential that the federal Government not only enter into dialogue with Canadian citizens, but that they also consult closely with their governments.
To this end, at the First Minister's Conference held in November of 1986, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reiterated the federal Government's intention to allocate substantial resources to child care.
During that meeting the Prime Minister also announced that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would be meeting with provincial Ministers to assist the Government to develop a child care system of the very highest order for Canada. This commitment was honoured in January 1987 when the Minister of National Health and Welfare convened a federal-provincial/territorial meeting of social service Ministers. During that meeting, a target date was established by Minister Epp for confirmation of the federal strategy.
Indeed, most provinces clearly affirmed the federal Government's position that child care, although coming under provincial jurisdiction, was a national issue that would have to be resolved in federal-provincial/territorial partnership.
Of course, the views expressed by different provinces reflected the diversity that exists across the country. However most shared the view expressed by the general public that flexibility, choice, availability, affordability, and quality were essential ingredients to be included in a national program.
In March of 1987 the federal Government received the report of the parliamentary task force on child care, "Sharing the Responsibility". Two minority reports were also received. Having consulted with parents and Canadian citizens; having consulted with the provinces and territories; and now having the recommendations of the task force, the federal Government carefully studied and scrutinized all the data, recommendations, and viewpoints it had received to finalize the federal strategy.
Mr. Speaker, it was an exciting moment, on December 3 of 1987, when the National Strategy on Child Care was announced. A new social program was being offered to Canadians!
The National Strategy offered $3 billion for a new federal-provincial/territtorial program, $2,3 billion for tax initiatives, and $100 million for the Child Care Initiatives Funds.
The next two months were hectic indeed. Government officials travelled to every province and territory to discuss the federal offer in detail and to ascertain preliminary reactions of those who would have the responsibility of implementing the program.

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Following this round of discussion and consultation with the provinces and territories, a meeting of federal/provincial/terri-torial deputy ministers was convened. During this meeting the provinces were asked to submit their projected expenditure plans and space targets for the next seven years. These plans would provide the federal Government with a firm overview as to the level and degree of provincial and territorial commitment to expansion of the number and quality of affordable child care services in Canada.
Indeed, most provinces responded with enthusiasm and clearly affirmed the information previously obtained by the federal Government, that the child care issue was indeed a high priority for provinces. In fact, the provincial and territorial response went beyond that which was earlier anticipated. The expenditure plans went well beyond the $3 billion announced earlier in December by the federal Government.
This is of course presented an interesting quandary to the Government in that we were delighted that the provinces were responding to our leadership but also very concerned about being fiscally responsible and not committing ourselves to spending more resources than we could afford.
The provincial and territorial plans were carefully studied. The solution reflected the sensitive balance between fiscal responsibility and the desire to make a fully adequate and caring response to the needs of Canadian children and families.
The result was the annoucement this past month that the federal Government was adding an additional $1 billion to the package, $940 million for the enhanced federal-provincial program and $60 million for child care programs for Indians on reserves.
Consequently, we now have before us this Bill which represents an historic milestone in Canadian history. As I have shown, it is a product of broad consultation with interest groups and citizens across the country. Their views and preferences have been subjected to the most careful study and scrutiny, and, I suggest to you, represents a balance of the various perspectives. It involves support to the formal day care sector, to parents using informal child care arrangements, support to the family, extends flexibility to the provinces and territories so they can develop a system best suited for their situation, and it addresses the issues of availability, affordability, and quality.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to raise my voice in support of the Canada Child Care Act, a truly historic milestone for improved child care services in Canada.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on child care. As a former teacher I recognize how important it is that we look after children at an early age. I am sure the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), a former teacher himself,
would agree with me that this is the most important time and it should be a government priority.
One of the things I find despicable is that at the end of four years in government, the Conservatives are just starting to come to grips with something they made an election priority in 1984. They said they were going to move quickly on child care. Yet here we are, one week short of four full years of Conservative Government, and they are only now bringing the Bill forward.
I also find it deplorable that this Bill does not really meet the number one problem facing parents looking for child care spaces, that is, a lack of availability of spaces. Earlier today my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), spoke about what the NDP believes must happen. He criticized the legislation in front of us. In response to his speech, one of the Conservatives got up and tried to indicate that the Province of Manitoba had a poor record under Howard Pawley on child care spaces. I am going to use part of the few minutes I have to set the record straight.
The NDP Government in Manitoba in fact had a very good record of providing spaces and standards for child care. Despite the figures the Government tried to read into the record based on whatever inaccuracies, let us talk about what really happened in Manitoba from 1981 to 1987. Manitoba had the highest per capita expenditure of all provinces on child car, not second, not third, not fourth or fifth, but the highest per capita expenditure on child care. Remember that Manitoba is not a rich province. Remember that Manitoba was also suffering cut-backs in the money it was receiving from the federal Government during that same time. Manitoba did not get the money from the federal Government it was entitled to because of the new formulae originally devised by the Liberal Government under A. J. MacEachen, which was further reduced by the Conservatives when they came into power. Yet Manitoba found the money for that number one priority, our young children.
During that same time period we had the most comprehensive standards with respect to the quality of child care. Again that shows the emphasis that the Pawley New Democratic Government placed on young children in our province. Funding for day care spaces was increased to $11,200 from $6,500, a 72 per cent increase. Some people may say that this is not enough, but over that five or six year period it is a fairly large increase. Obviously more could have been done. Obviously some of us would have liked more to have been done. However, the point is that money was going into that program. The funds earmarked for grants for day care spaces and subsidies to parents increased by 225 per cent during that same time, from $8.5 million in 1981-82, when the Government changed, to $27.5 million. As I said earlier, a 225 per cent increase.
I would like to see the Province of British Columbia match
that record. I would like to see the Liberal Government of
August 23, 1988

Ontario match that record, with all the riches it has. I would like to see the Conservative Governments in Saskatchewan and Alberta match that record. Incidentally, the last time I checked, Alberta was not one of the poorest provinces in this country. I would like to see them match the record of the NDP when it was in government. That is why I know, when we look at the speech made by Ed Broadbent in Vancouver last week on child care-


Don Boudria: Ed Broadbent?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Hon. Leader of the NDP. The most popular leader in the country.


Don Boudria: Who? I have told you a million times not to exaggerate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: They laugh. There are people in this country who are afraid of Mr. Broadbent because he tells the truth. When he was telling the truth on child care, when he talked about the policies and priorities we believe in, the national standards we believe are necessary for child care, people know he means it and that our Party means to bring it about.
It is a comprehensive program because it recognizes the needs of the various provinces. It also recognizes the need for national objectives. That is what is so sadly lacking in the program we have before us today. Despite the fact that the Meech Lake Accord allows the federal Government to call for national objectives when it moves on new programs, the federal Government, on its first important measure after initialling the Meech Lake Accord, failed to set national objectives. I cannot understand why a government that negotiated the Meech Lake Accord would refuse to provide leadership in setting national objectives for so important a program as child care.
We all accept now that medicare had to have national objectives. When we renegotiated the Canada Health Act and introduced legislation on that a few years ago, all Parties in the House agreed there must be national objectives for health care. Why not for child care? To be told that each province is different, that each province has different circumstances and priorities, is not really to answer the problem. We recognize the differences in financing and salaries. We recognize the differences that exist because of regional disparities. However, in my riding we have remote reserves which are setting up child care facilities. If they can live up to provincial standards in Manitoba, obviously the regions of this country can live up to national standards. It is a real shame the Government did not have the political courage to bring those standards into the legislation.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   BROADCASTING CRTC DECISION TO AWARD ALL-NEWS CHANNEL TO CBC
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
December 11, 1987-Mr. Shields:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should set aside the
decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) to award the national all-news channel to the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
Mr. Shields:: Speaking on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the members of the Opposition would like to have more time to debate the child care legislation. Indeed, they have asked for more time for that purpose. Therefore, in the spirit of generosity of this House, I withdraw my motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) have unanimous consent of the House to withdraw his motion?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, although I am prepared to give our colleague unanimous consent to withdraw his Bill, the House should be aware that he must withdraw his Bill because, under the traditions of this House, Parliamentary Secretaries do not participate in Private Members' hour. It is not because the Member has a surge of generosity flowing through his system at the moment that he wants to afford the opposition Members of this House the opportunity to debate any particular initiatives.
I just want to set the record straight, but I am prepared, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, to provide unanimous consent so he can withdraw his motion.


Jack Wendele Shields: Just to clear up any misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, it is not a Private Member's Bill, it is a motion. Indeed, there is nothing in the rules of the House to stop a Parliamentary Secretary from putting forth a motion in this House. I want to reiterate that, in the spirit of co-operation and generosity, I would really like to give the Opposition more time to debate the child care legislation. The Opposition has asked for it, and with that thought in mind, I am withdrawing my motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Government is trying to play another fast one. We certainly want to debate child care but we are not going to be forced into meeting some government objective, some timetable it has. We do not appreciate the idea of having to rush legislation through where obviously the public does not have a chance to really participate, but when the Government has already indicated that it is going to try to ram this legislation through committee, we are not co-operating.


Mr. Horner:: When did you ever co-operate?

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that there is unanimous consent for the Member not to put his motion, therefore, to withdraw it. We had really hoped that members of the New Democratic Party, and we see eight of them in the House now, would want to go ahead and debate child care. However, if they do not want to, I would suggest we suspend the sittings until six o'clock. I wish to advise the House that after the vote, we will return to the child care legislation and I would expect that none of the eight Members who are in the Chamber now will speak thereafter.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there was consultation among the Parties approximately an hour ago. What the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) is offering now, to withdraw the motion and suspend the sitting, is in fact what was agreed to, not what was stated before.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, despite the, shall we say, rhetoric we heard from the Deputy House Leader, it is my understanding that what he is now saying is what they were saying an hour ago.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Now we are back on track.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Athabasca have unanimous consent to withdraw his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.
[ Translation]


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As there is nothing before us at this time, the sitting of the House is suspended until six o'clock.
At 5.05, the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 21, consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, August 17, 1988, the House will now proceed to the taking of the recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
Call in the Members.
(and the Bells rung)


Mr. Speaker:: The first vote is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motion Nos. 61 and 65.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 2 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;"
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 60 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 52 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural
resources;"
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 76 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 62 the following:
"and "Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources."
Motion No. 1 was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 512)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthousc	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	Ny stromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Pcnncr(Brant)	Hovdcbo	PepinBlaikic	Isabelle	Prud'hommcBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbcnt	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezdc Jong	Lapicrrc	SkcllyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestonc	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
August 23, 1988

++NAYS
Members
Andre Beatty Bernier Binns Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin Bosley Bourgault Boyer Bradley Brightwell Browes Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Chartrand Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland Fontaine Forrestall Fraleigh Fretz Gagnon Gervais Girard Gormley


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motions Nos. 61 and 65 lost.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek unanimous consent you would possibly find, through an arrangement made earlier today, that Members would be favourably disposed to applying the result of this vote to all other remaining votes, and possibly to having the same vote in reverse for the concurrence motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Considering that there are 46 votes to go, I think that is an excellent idea, and certainly we would support that.
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard Wise-142
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed that the division just taken be recorded as applying to all of the remaining motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it also agreed that the division just taken be applied in reverse to the motion for concurrence in the Bill at report stage?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 3.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 4.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived
on the following division:
August 23, 1988

(Division No. 515)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Do mm Dor in Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Pcnnock
Peterson
Pietz
Porter
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Canada- US. Free Trade Agreement
Turner	Warner	Wilson(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wenman	(EtobicokeValcourt	White	Centre)Van De Walle	Wilson	WinegardVankoughnet	(Swift Current	Wise-142Vezina	-Maple Creek)
Vincent


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 9. A vote on Motion No. 9 applies to Motion Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to apply to lands, resources, and waters claims by aboriginal peoples under an aboriginal claim."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
''7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect the environment or conservation of land, resources and waters."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new special adjustment programs to help Firms or workers adjust to the changes brought about by the implementation of the Agreement."
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after lines 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new regional development programs."
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, daycare, pensions, minimum wage laws, labour laws and maternity benefits."
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new cultural programs by future Canadian governments."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 17. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 8.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	The next question is	Hockin Holtmann	Mulroney Nicholson	Van De Walle Vankoughneton Motion No. 19. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Horner	(Niagara Falls)	VezinaMotion No. 19.	Howie	Nowlan	VincentHudon	Oberle	WarnerThat Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 9.	Jacques	O'Neil	WenmanJames	Oostrom	WhiteThe House divided on Motion No. 19,	which was negatived	Jepson Jourdenais	Pennock Peterson	Wilson (Swift Currenton the following division:	Kempling	Pietz	-Maple Creek)King	Porter	WilsonLandry	Ravis	(Etobicoke(Division No. 518)	Lawrence Layton	Redway Reid	Centre) WinegardYEAS	Lewis	Reimer	Wise-142MacDonald	Roman	(Kingston and	St. Germain	Members	the Islands)	St-Julien	Allmand Althouse	Fulton Gagliano	Mitchell Murphy	Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 21. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Angus	Gray	Nystrom	Motion No. 21	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	Orlikow	Benjamin	Harris	Parry	That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line	Blackburn	Heap	Penner	29 at page 5 the following:	(Brant)	Hovdebo	Pepin	Blaikie	Isabelle	Prud'homme	"(d) that appointments to such committees, panels, commissions or other	Boudria	Jewett	Riis	bodies ensure representation from consumers groups, labour and business."	Broadbent	Kaplan	Robichaud	which was negativedCassidy	Keeper	Robinson	The House divided on Motion No. 21,	Copps de Jong	Langdon Lapierre	Rodriguez Skelly	on the following division:	Dewar	Marchi	Tobin	Epp	McCurdy	Waddell	(Thunder Bay- Nipigon)	McDonald (Broadview-	Young-48	(Division No. 519)	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	YEAS	NAYS	Members	Members	Allmand	Epp	LangdonAndre	Cardiff	Crouse	Althouse	(Thunder Bay-	LapierreBeatty	Chartrand	Dantzer	Angus	Nipigon)	MarchiBernier	Clark	Darling	Axworthy	Finestone	McCurdyBinns	(Brandon-Souris)	Daubney	Benjamin	Foster	McDonaldBlackburn	Clifford	de Cotret	Blackburn	Fulton	(Broadview-(Jonquiere)	Clinch	Desjardins	(Brant)	Gagliano	Greenwood)Blouin	Coates	Desrosiers	Blaikie	Gray	McLaughlinBosley	Cochrane	Domm	Boudria	(Windsor West)	MitchellBourgault	Collins	Dor in	Broadbent	Harris	MurphyBoyer	Cornea u	Duguay	Cassidy	Heap	NystromBradley	Cook	Duplessis	Copps	Hovdebo	OrlikowBrightwell	Corbett	Edwards	de Jong	Isabelle	ParryBrowes	Cossitt	Ellis	Dewar	Jewett	PennerCadieux	Crosby	Epp	Kaplan	PepinCaldwell	(Halifax West)	(Provencher)	Keeper	Prud'homme
August 23, 1988
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly Tobin Waddell Young-48
++NAYS
(b)	the activities, economic viability and ability to compete within a given sector of all companies doing business in Canada and the United States of America; and
(c)	agricultural pressures in Canada resulting from the agreement."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 22. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 5 the following:
"(3) One such committee that the Governor in Council may establish, under this section, shall monitor and review matters arising out of the Act or the Agreement, including
(a) the adjustment impact on company workers and communities;
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers
Domm
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Oostrom	Scott	Valcourt	Gustafson	Mayer	SchellenbergerPennock	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Van De Walle	Halliday	Mazankowski	(Wetaskiwin)Peterson	Scowen	Vankoughnet	Hamelin	McCain	ScottPietz	Shields	Vezina	Hardey	McCrossan	(Victoria-Haliburton)Porter	Speyer	Vincent	Harvey	McDermid	ScowenRavis	Stackhouse	Warner	Hawkes	McDougall	ShieldsRedway	Stevens	Wenman	Hees	(St. Paul's)	SpeyerReid	Stewart	White	Hicks	McKinnon	StackhouseReimer	Tardif	Wilson	Hnatyshyn	McKnight	StevensRoman	(Charlesbourg)	(Swift Current	Hockin	McMillan	StewartSt. Germain	Taylor	-Maple Creek)	Holtmann	Merrithew	TardifSt-Julien	Thacker	Wilson	Horner	Minaker	(Charlesbourg)Schellenberg	Towers	(Etobicoke	Howie	Mitges	Taylor(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Tupper	Centre)	Hudon	Moore	ThackerSchellenberger	Turner	Winegard	Jacques	Mulroney	Towers(Wetaskiwin)	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wise-142	James	N icholson	TupperJepson	(Niagara Falls)	Turner


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is	Jourdenais Kempling	Nowlan Oberle	(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourton Motion No. 23.	Mr. Axworthy moved:	King	O'Neil	Van De WalleMotion No. 23	Landry Lawrence	Oostrom Pennock	Vankoughnet VezinaThat Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 11.	Layton	Peterson	VincentLewis	Pietz	WarnerThe House divided on Motion No. 23. which was negatived	MacDonald	Porter	Wenmanon the following division:	(Kingston and the Islands)	Ravis Redway	White WilsonMacKay	Reid	(Swift CurrentMailly	Reimer	-Maple Creek)(Division No. 521)	Malone	Roman	WilsonMantha	St. Germain	(EtobicokeYEAS	Marin	St-Julien	Centre)Martin	Schellenberg	WinegardMasse	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Wise-142
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	Ny stromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 24. A vote on Motion No. 9 applies to Motion Nos. 33, 42, and 82. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 12
(a)	by striking out line 36 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor: "12.(1) The Governor in Council may, by order,"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 43 at page 5 the following:
"(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clifford
Clinch
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is Filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than Five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order or on the day provided in the order.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 10 the following:
"(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	A regulation referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the regulation or, if no such day is provided in the regulation, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the Filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five
hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular regulation to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular regulation to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the regulation or on the day provided in the regulation.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by
(a)	striking out line 13 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "the Secretariat to be appointed by an order of the"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 15 at page 35 the following:
"(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of
August 23, 1988

Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that the House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order or on the day provided in the order.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136, by adding immediately after line 32 at page 104 the following:
"(3) An order made under subsection (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House.
(4)	A committee referred to in subsection (3) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(5)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by the subsection (4), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(6)	An order referred to in subsection (2) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of a motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(7)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (6) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (3), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the Filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(8)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (7) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(9)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
other House and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(10)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (9) that the House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(11)	Where the motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(12)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order.
(13)	For the purpose of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion Nos. 33, 42, and 82 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 25. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 12.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is		
on Motion No. 30.	A vote on Motion	No. 30 applies toMotions Nos. 32, 38,	41, 43, 44, 50, 56, and 58. Mr. Langdon	
moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 32 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"appointed by the Governor in Council subject to review and approval by a committee of the House of Commons."
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"21.(1) The Governor in Council, subject to review and approval of a House of Commons committee, may".
August 23, 1988

Motion No. 38
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out line 30 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"report to the Governor in Council and committee of the House of Commons on the".
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 13 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"with the consent of the Minister and a committee of the House of Commons and the".
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 14 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"Governor in Council, subject to review and approval by a Committee of the House of Commons, to hold office for a
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 35 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"77.27 The Governor in Council, subject to approval by a committee of the House of Commons, may, on".
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 12 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.1 The Governor in Council, with approval of a committee of the House of Commons, may".
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 53 by striking out line 15 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"27.1 (1) The Governor in Council, with the approval of a committee of the House of Commons,"
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 57 by striking out line 20 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) The Governor in Council, subject to approval by a committee of the House of Commons, may make".
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 524)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Broadbent Cassidy Copps de Jong Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray
(Windsor West) Harris Heap Hovdebo Isabelle Jewett Kaplan
Keeper Langdon Lapierre Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell Murphy Nystrom Orlikow Parry Penner
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Pepin Prud'homme Riis Robichaud Robinson	Rodriguez
 NAYS Members	Skelly Tobin Waddell Young-48
Andre	Gottselig	NowlanBeatty	Graham	OberleBernier	Gurbin	O'NeilBinns	Gustafson	OostromBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PetersonBlouin	Hardey	PietzBosley	Harvey	PorterBourgault	Hawkes	RavisBoyer	Hees	Red wayBradley	Hicks	ReidBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	ReimerBrowes	Hockin	RomanCadieux	Holtmann	St. GermainCaldwell	Horner	St-JulienCardiff	Howie	SchellenbergChartrand	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clark	Jacques	Schellenberger(Brandon-Souris)	James	(Wetaskiwin)Clifford	Jepson	ScottClinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)Coates	Kempling	ScowenCochrane	King	ShieldsCollins	Landry	SpeyerComeau	Lawrence	StackhouseCook	Layton	StevensCorbett	Lewis	StewartCossitt	MacDonald	TardifCrosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)(Halifax West)	the Islands)	TaylorCrouse	MacKay	ThackerDantzer	Mailly	TowersDarling	Malone	TupperDaubney	Mantha	Turnerde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Desjardins	Martin	ValcourtDesrosiers	Masse	Van De WalleDomm	Mayer	VankoughnetDorin	Mazankowski	VezinaDuguay	McCain	VincentDuplessis	McCrossan	WarnerEdwards	McDermid	WenmanEllis	McDougall	WhiteEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift CurrentFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)Fontaine	McMillan	WilsonForrestall	Merrithew	(EtobicokeFraleigh	Minaker	Centre)Fretz	Mitges	WinegardGagnon Gervais Girard Gormley	Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion	lost. I also declare
Motion Nos. 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 56,		and 58 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 31. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 31		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 6 the following:		
"(3) this section shall not come into force until equivalent and effective bid		
challenge procedures are available to Canadians in the United States."		
The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988
Canada
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Boudria
Broadbent
Cassidy
Copps
de Jong
Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Division No. 525)
++YEAS
Members
Fulton	Mitchell
Gagliano	Murphy
Gray	Nystrom
(Windsor West)	Orlikow
Harris	Parry
Heap	Penner
Hovdebo	Pepin
Isabelle	Prud'homme
Jewett	Riis
Kaplan	Robichaud
Keeper	Robinson
Langdon	Rodriguez
Lapierre	Skelly
Marchi	Tobin
McCurdy	Waddell
McDonald	Young-48
(Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin
++NAYS
Members
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 39. A vote on Motion No. 39 applies to Motion No. 93. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 37 at page 21 the following:
""48.2. That the Tribunal be empowered to oversee the agreement; in particular it shall;
(A) 1. Report to Parliament to include;
(a)	quantity and nature of Canada-United States trade;
(b)	United States federal and state programs which affect Canada-United States trade;
(c)	determine whether the rights and benefits to which Canada is entitled under the agreement are being denied;
(d)	if the determination of the tribunal is affirmative under paragraph (c), then the Tribunal shall also determine and report what corrective action is necessary.
2. (a) The Tribunal shall be empowered to receive petitions from any entity, including a trade association, firm, union or group of workers who represents a Canadian industry and who has reason to believe that
(i)	the industry is likely to face, as a result of the Canada-United States trade agreement, increased competition from subsidized American imports, including those supported through the United States defense programs; and
(ii)	the industry is likely to experience a deterioration in its competitive position during the time negotiations occur between Canada and the United States on subsidies
(b) Upon receipt of a petition under paragraph (a) the Tribunal shall:
(1)	compile and make available to the industry, information on the amount of subsidization to the American industry, the increase in market share since the agreement came into effect, and the impact of those imports on the Canadian industry.
(ii)	update this information annually or as requested by the industry;
(iii)	provide to Parliament a copy of any reports undertaken as a result of subparagraphs (i) or (ii).
(c) (i) The tribunal shall review information obtained under paragraph
(2)	and consult with the industry to decide whether action may be appropriate under section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, and recommend such action be taken by the Minister of Finance in conjunction with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
(ii) The Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall, upon receipt of any recommendation under subparagraph (i) determine whether to take action and shall on determination that action be taken, give preference to actions that most directly affect the products benefitting from governmental subsidies unless the application of action under section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act to other products would be more effective.
(B) Be empowered to implement and oversee adjustment programs for those Firms and workers who will be dislocated as a result of the agreement including:
(a) specific programs for groups most disadvantaged; older workers, new immigrants, women, aboriginal workers;
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(b)	procedures for application by firms to be designated dislocated and apply for adjustment assistance;
(c)	generalized programs for workers to insure that they are retrained for jobs that become available.
(C) Monitor and report to Parliament the extent to which United States exports are subsidized by U.S. defense expenditures and the impact such products have on Canadian industry.
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 146 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 113 the following:
""(5) Implementation through section (4) of this Act is conditional on:
(a)	the Tribunal's report to Parliament on United States Defense Department subsidization of transportation
(b)	proof that the United States government does not assist the transportation of agricultural exports to Canada.""
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 39, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 526)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Hees	McDermid	ScottHicks	McDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Hnatyshyn	(St. Paul's)	ScowenHockin	McKinnon	ShieldsHoltmann	McKnight	SpeyerHorner	McMillan	StackhouseHowie	Merrithew	StevensHudon	Minaker	StewartJacques	Mitges	TardifJames	Moore	(Charles bourg)Jepson	Mulroney	TaylorJourdenais	Nicholson	ThackerKempling	(Niagara Falls)	TowersKing	Nowlan	T upperLandry	Oberle	TurnerLawrence	O'Neil	(Ottawa-Carleton)Layton	Oostrom	ValcourtLewis	Pennock	Van De WalleMacDonald	Peterson	Vankoughnet(Kingston and	Pietz	Vezinathe Islands)	Porter	VincentMacKay	Ravis	WarnerMailly	Redway	WenmanMalone	Reid	WhiteMantha	Reimer	WilsonMarin	Roman	(Swift CurrentMartin	St. Germain	-Maple Creek)Masse	St-Julien	WilsonMayer	Schellenberg	(EtobicokeMazankowski	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Centre)McCain	Schellenberger	WinegardMcCrossan	(Wetaskiwin)	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion No. 93 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 45. A vote on Motion No. 45 applies to Motion Nos. 46, 47, and 48. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 47.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion Nos. 46, 47, and 48 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 49. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 8 at page 41 the following:
"48. Notwithstanding all the provisions of this agreement on a bilateral dispute settlement mechanism, Canada reaffirms its commitment to the superior GATT dispute settlement mechanism which allows Canada to challenge the law itself as well as its application.
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray
(Windsor West) Harris Heap Hovdebo Isabelle Jewett Kaplan Keeper Langdon Lapierre Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin
++NAYS
Cook	Layton	Stevens	Corbett	Lewis	Stewart	Andre	EppCossitt	MacDonald	Tardif	Beatty	(Provencher)Crosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)	Bernier	Ferland(Halifax West)	the Islands)	Taylor	Binns	FontaineCrouse	MacKay	Thacker	Blackburn	ForrestallDantzer	Mailly	Towers	(Jonquiere)	FraleighDarling	Malone	Tupper	Blouin	FretzDaubney	Mantha	Turner	Bosley	Gagnonde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Bourgault	GervaisDesjardins	Martin	Valcourt	Boyer	GirardDesrosiers	Masse	Van De Walle	Bradley	GormleyDomm	Mayer	Vankoughnet	Brightwell	GottseligDorin	Mazankowski	Vezina	Browes	GrahamDuguay	McCain	Vincent	Cadieux	GurbinDuplessis	McCrossan	Warner	Caldwell	GustafsonEdwards	McDermid	Wenman	Cardiff	HallidayEllis	McDougall	White	Chartrand	HamelinEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson	Clark	Hardey(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift Current	(Brandon-Souris)	HarveyFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)	Clifford	HawkesFontaine	McMillan	Wilson	Clinch	Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly
August 23, 1988
which was negatived
Mitchell
Murphy
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly
Tobin
Waddell
Young-48
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Scowen
Shields
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens
Stewart
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 52. A vote on Motion No. 52 applies to Motion No. 70. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 28 at page 41 the following:
"49. All processed agricultural products containing the sum of 10 per cent or more by weight of farm products defined by the (National) Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act shall be placed on the import control list effective January 1, 1989."
And Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 112 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 85 the following:
"(3) Where it appears at any time to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that agricultural processed products entering Canada from the United States contain 10 per cent by weight of supply or price managed ingredients, those products shall be placed on the Import Control List."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion No. 70 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 53. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 49.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 54. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
The House divided on Motion No. 54, which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 531)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermidBeatty	Fretz	McDougallBernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)Binns	Gervais	McKinnonBlackburn	Girard	McKnight(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillanBlouin	Gottselig	MerrithewBosley	Graham	MinakerBourgault	Gurbin	MitgesBoyer	Gustafson	MooreBradley	Halliday	MulroneyBrightwell	Hamelin	NicholsonBrowes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)Cadieux	Harvey	NowlanCaldwell	Hawkes	OberleCardiff	Hees	O'NeilChartrand	Hicks	OostromClark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	PetersonClifford	Holtmann	PietzClinch	Horner	PorterCoates	Howie	RavisCochrane	Hudon	RedwayCollins	Jacques	ReidComeau	James	ReimerCook	Jepson	RomanCorbett	Jourdenais	St. GermainCossitt	Kempling	St-JulienCrosby	King	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Crouse	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)Darling	Lewis	ScottDaubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Cotret	(Kingston and	ScowenDesjardins	the Islands)	ShieldsDesrosiers	MacKay	SpeyerDomm	Mailly	StackhouseDorin	Malone	StevensDuguay	Mantha	StewartDuplessis	Marin	TardifEdwards	Martin	(Charlesbourg)Ellis	Masse	TaylorEpp	Mayer	Thacker(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TowersFerland	McCain	TupperFontaine Forrestall	McCrossan	
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner	Warner	Wilson	MacKay	Oberle	Stewart(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wenman	(Etobicoke	Mailly	O'Neil	TardifValcourt	White	Centre)	Malone	Oostrom	(Charlesbourg)Van De Walle	Wilson	Winegard	Mantha	Pennock	TaylorVankoughnet	(Swift Current	Wise-142	Marin	Peterson	ThackerVezina	-Maple Creek)	Martin	Pietz	TowersVincent	Masse	Porter	TupperMayer	Ravis	Turner


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 55. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Mazankowski McCain McCrossan	Redway Reid Reimer	(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De WalleMotion No. 55	McDermid	Roman	VankoughnetMcDougall	St. Germain	Vezina
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 51.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 57. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 57 by striking out lines 20 to 23 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) In this section,
(a) "local signal" means
(i)	a signal that is readily receivable directly from the terrestrial station by a significant proportion of the public within the licensed service area of the retransmitter;
(ii)	a signal of a terrestrial station the Grade B official contour of which, or the equivalent thereof as determined by the Department of Communications, is within 32 kilometres of any part of the licensed service area of the retransmitter; or
(iii)	such further and other signals defined or designated as local in regulations the Governor in Council may make; and
Members
Andre	Crosby	GurbinBeatty	(Halifax West)	GustafsonBernier	Crouse	HallidayBinns	Dantzer	HamelinBlackburn	Darling	Hardey(Jonquiere)	Daubney	HarveyBlouin	de Cotret	HawkesBosley	Desjardins	HeesBourgault	Desrosiers	HicksBoyer	Domm	HnatyshynBradley	Dorin	HockinBrightwell	Duguay	HoltmannBrowes	Duplessis	HornerCadieux	Edwards	HowieCaldwell	Ellis	HudonCardiff	Epp	JacquesChartrand	(Provencher)	JamesClark	Ferland	Jepson(Brandon-Souris)	Fontaine	JourdenaisClifford	Forrestall	KemplingClinch	Fraleigh	KingCoates	Fretz	LandryCochrane	Gagnon	LawrenceCollins	Gervais	LaytonComeau	Girard	LewisCook	Gormley	MacDonaldCorbett	Gottselig	(Kingston andCossitt	Graham	the Islands)
(b) "distant signal" means any signal that is not a "local signal"
(4) the Governor in Council may make regulations relating to the applications of subparagraph (4)(a).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 59. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out lines 28 and 29 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"to 50.7 the Board may make regula-".
The House divided on Motion No. 59, which was negatived
on the following division:
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Domm
Dor in
Duguay
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
(Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
Clifford	Jepson	Scott	Clinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermid	Coates	Kempling	Scowen	Beatty	Fretz	McDougall	ICochrane	King	Shields	Bernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)	.Collins	Landry	Speyer	Binns	Gervais	McKinnon	Comeau	Lawrence	Stackhouse	Blackburn	Girard	McKnight	Cook	Layton	Stevens	(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillan	Corbett	Lewis	Stewart	Blouin	Gottselig	Merrithew	Cossitt	MacDonald	Tardif	Bosley	Graham	Minaker	Crosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)	Bourgault	Gurbin	Mitges	(Halifax West)	the Islands)	Taylor	Boyer	Gustafson	Moore	'5Crouse	MacKay	Thacker	Bradley	Halliday	Mulroney	Dantzer	Mailly	Towers	Brightwell	Hamelin	Nicholson	Darling	Malone	Tupper	Browes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)	Daubney	Mantha	Turner	Cadieux	Harvey	Nowlan	de Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Caldwell	Hawkes	Oberle	Desjardins	Martin	Valcourt	Cardiff	Hees	O'Neil	Desrosiers	Masse	Van De Walle	Chartrand	Hicks	Oostrom	%Domm	Mayer	Vankoughnet	Clark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock	Dorin	Mazankowski	Vezina	(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	Peterson	Duguay	McCain	Vincent	Clifford	Holtmann	Pietz	Duplessis	McCrossan	Warner	Clinch	Horner	Porter	Edwards	McDermid	Wenman	Coates	Howie	Ravis	4Ellis	McDougall	White	Cochrane	Hudon	Redway	tEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson	Collins	Jacques	Reid	$(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift Current	Comeau	James	Reimer	Ferland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)	Cook	Jepson	Roman	4Fontaine	McMillan	Wilson	Corbett	Jourdenais	St. Germain	iForrestall	Merrithew	(Etobicoke	Cossitt	Kempling	St-Julien	Fraleigh	Minaker	Centre)	Crosby	King	Schellenberg	iFretz	Mitges	Winegard	(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Gagnon	Moore	Wise-142	Crouse	Lawrence	Schellenberger	Gervais	Mulroney	Dantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)	Girard	Nicholson	Darling	Lewis	Scott	1Gormley	(Niagara Falls)	Daubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)	
Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tupper
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 60. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 59 by striking out lines 7 to 11 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
"50.4(1) The Board shall, in establishing a manner of determining royalties under paragraph 50.3(1 )(a), ensure that it does not have any material impact upon small retransmission systems serving small and isolated communities.
(2) In this section a "small retransmission system" is a system licensed under the Broadcasting Act having 6,000 or fewer subscribers."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 62. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 62		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out lines 4 to 23 at		
page 58.		
The House divided on Motion No. 62,		which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 536)
++YEAS
++NAYS
	Members			Members	
Andre	Clifford	Dorin	Allmand	Fulton	MitchellBeatty	Clinch	Duguay	Althouse	Gagliano	MurphyBernier	Coates	Duplessis	Angus	Gray	NystromBinns	Cochrane	Edwards	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBlackburn	Collins	Ellis	Benjamin	Harris	Parry(Jonquiere)	Cornea u	Epp	Blackburn	Heap	PennerBlouin	Cook	(Provencher)	(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBosley	Corbett	Ferland	Blaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBourgault	Cossitt	Fontaine	Boudria	Jewett	RiisBoyer	Crosby	Forrestall	Broadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudBradley	(Halifax West)	Fraleigh	Cassidy	Keeper	RobinsonBrightwell	Crouse	Fretz	Copps	Langdon	RodriguezBrowes	Dantzer	Gagnon	de Jong	Lapierre	SkellyCadieux	Darling	Gervais	Dewar	Marchi	TobinCaldwell	Daubney	Girard	Epp	McCurdy	WaddellCardiff	de Cot ret	Gormley	(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Chartrand	Desjardins	Gottselig	Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Clark	Desrosiers	Graham	Finestone	Greenwood)	(Brandon-Souris)	Domm	Gurbin	Foster	McLaughlin	
August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
++NAYS
(Division No. 537)
++YEAS
Members
	Members		Alima nd	Fulton
			Althouse	Gagliano
			Angus	Gray
Andre	Gottselig	Nowlan	Axworthy	(WindscBeatty	Graham	Oberle	Benjamin	HarrisBernier	Gurbin	O'Neil	Blackburn	HeapBinns	Gustafson	Oostrom	(Brant)	HovdeboBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock	Blaikie	Isabelle(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	Peterson	Boudria	Jewett
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chart rand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dor in Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Pietz
Porter
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 63. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 7 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor:
"United States or a project in the United States undertaken by the Government of Canada and destined to become the property of the Government of Canada;''
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 63, which was negatived
on the following division:
Broadbent Cassidy Copps de Jong Dewar Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Kaplan Keeper Langdon Lapierre Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin
++NAYS
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
Mitchell
Murphy
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly
Tobin
Waddell
Young-48
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner	Warner	Wilson	Kempling	Mitges	Speyer(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wenman	(Etobicoke	King	Moore	StackhouseValcourt	White	Centre)	Landry	Mulroney	StevensVan De Walle	Wilson	Winegard	Lawrence	Nicholson	StewartVankoughnet	(Swift Current	Wise-142	Layton	(Niagara Falls)	TardifVezina	-Maple Creek)	Lewis	Nowlan	(Charles bourg)Vincent	MacDonald	Oberle	Taylor(Kingston and	O'Neil	Thacker


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	The next question is	the Islands) MacKay	Oostrom Pennock	Towers Tupperon Motion No. 66.	. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Mailly	Peterson	TurnerMotion No. 66	Malone Mantha	Pietz Porter	(Ottawa-Carleton) ValcourtThat Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 91 by striking out line 3 at page 73	Marin	Ravis	Van De Walleand substituting the following therefor:	Martin Masse	Redway Reid	Vankoughnet Vezina"(a) may be made	more than once".	Mayer	Reimer	VincentMazankowski	Roman	WarnerThe House divided on Motion No. 66,	which was negatived	McCain	St. Germain	Wenmanon the following division:	McCrossan McDermid	St-Julien Schellenberg	White WilsonMcDougall	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	(Swift Current{Division No. 538)	(St. Paul's)	Schellenberger	-Maple Creek)McKinnon	(Wetaskiwin)	WilsonMcKnight	Scott	(EtobicokeYEAS	McMillan	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Centre)Merrithew	Scowen	WinegardMinaker	Shields	Wise-142Members	Mr. Speaker:	I declare the motion lost.	The next question isAllmand	Fulton	Mitchell	on Motion No. 67. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Althouse	Gagliano	Murphy	Motion No. 67	Angus	Gray	Nystrom	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	Orlikow	That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 102.	Benjamin	Harris	Parry	Blackburn	Heap	Penner	The House divided on Motion No. 67,	which was negatived(Brant) Blaikie	Hovdebo Isabelle	Pepin Prud'homme	on the following division:	Boudria	Jewett	Riis	Broadbent	Kaplan	Robichaud	{Division No. 539)	Cassidy	Keeper	Robinson	Copps	Langdon	Rodriguez	de Jong	Lapierre	Skelly	YEAS	Dewar	Marchi	Tobin	Epp	McCurdy	Waddell	(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48	Members	Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyNAYS	Angus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowMembers	Benjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinAndre	Blaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCook	Gagnon	Boudria	Jewett	RiisBeatty	Corbett	Gervais	Broadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudBernier	Cossitt	Girard	Cassidy	Keeper	RobinsonBinns	Crosby	Gormley	Copps	Langdon	RodriguezBlackburn	(Halifax West)	Gottselig	de Jong	Lapierre	Skelly(Jonquiere)	Crouse	Graham	Dewar	Marchi	TobinBlouin	Dantzer	Gurbin	Epp	McCurdy	WaddellBosley	Darling	Gustafson	(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Bourgault	Daubney	Halliday	Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Boyer	de Cotret	Hamelin	Finestone	Greenwood)	Bradley	Desjardins	Hardey	Foster	McLaughlin	Brightwell	Desrosiers	Harvey	Browes	Domm	Hawkes	NAYS	Cadieux	Dor in	Hees	Caldwell	Duguay	Hicks	Cardiff	Duplessis	Hnatyshyn	Members	Chartrand	Edwards	Hockin	Clark	Ellis	Holtmann	(Brandon-Souris)	Epp	Horner	Andre	Bosley	CaldwellClifford	(Provencher)	Howie	Beatty	Bourgault	CardiffClinch	Ferland	Hudon	Bernier	Boyer	ChartrandCoates	Fontaine	Jacques	Binns	Bradley	ClarkCochrane	Forrestall	James	Blackburn	Brightwell	(Brandon-Souris)Collins	Fraleigh	Jepson	(Jonquiere)	Browes	CliffordComeau	Fretz	Jourdenais	Blouin	Cadieux	Clinch
August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock
Peterson	Parry	Riis	SkellyPietz	Penner	Robichaud	TobinPorter	Pepin	Robinson	WaddellRavis	Prud'homme	Rodriguez	Young-48Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni)	Andre	NAYS Members Gottselig	Nowlan
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 68. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 104.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 71. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 2 at page 90 the following:
"121. Any restrictions on the export of Canadian grain under the provisions of this Act shall be contingent on the United States administration keeping exports to Canada at the same level while those restrictions are in place."
The House divided on Motion No. 71, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Division No. 541)	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)	Warner Wenman	Wilson (EtobicokeValcourt	White	Centre)YEAS	Van De Walle	Wilson	WinegardVankoughnet	(Swift Current	Wise-142Members	Vezina Vincent	-Maple Creek)	Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Members


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 72. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 123 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 90 the following:
""87.2 The Parliament of Canada may require a minimum percentage of issued end-use certificates to be investigated annually to ensure compliance with section 87.1.''"


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is	
on Motion No. 73. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 73		
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 127.		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 73,		which was negatived
on the following	division: (Division No. 543)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Blackburn	BoyerBeatty	(Jonquiere)	BradleyBernier	Blouin	BrightwellBinns	Bosley	BrowesBourgault	CadieuxCaldwell	Hicks	PietzCardiff	Hnatyshyn	PorterChartrand	Hockin	RavisClark	Holtmann	Redway(Brandon-Souris)	Horner	ReidClifford	Howie	ReimerClinch	Hudon	RomanCoates	Jacques	St. GermainCochrane	James	St-JulienCollins	Jepson	SchellenbergComeau	Jourdenais	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cook	Kempling	SchellenbergerCorbett	King	(Wetaskiwin)Cossitt	Landry	ScottCrosby	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)(Halifax West)	Layton	ScowenCrouse	Lewis	ShieldsDantzer	MacDonald	SpeyerDarling	(Kingston and	StackhouseDaubney	the Islands)	Stevensde Cotret	MacKay	StewartDesjardins	Mailly	TardifDesrosiers	Malone	(Charlesbourg)Domm	Mantha	TaylorDorin	Marin	ThackerDuguay	Martin	TowersDuplessis	Masse	TupperEdwards	Mayer	TurnerEllis	Mazankowski	(Ottawa-Carleton)Epp	McCain	Valcourt(Provencher)	McCrossan	Van De WalleFerland	McDermid	VankoughnetFontaine	McDougall	VezinaForrestall	(St. Paul's)	VincentFraleigh	McKinnon	WarnerFretz	McKnight	WenmanGagnon	McMillan	WhiteGervais	Merrithew	WilsonGirard	Minaker	(Swift CurrentGormley	Mitges	-Maple Creek)Gottselig	Moore	WilsonGraham	Mulroney	(EtobicokeGurbin	Nicholson	Centre)Gustafson	(Niagara Falls)	WinegardHalliday	Nowlan	Wise-142Hamelin	Oberle	Hardey	O'Neil	Harvey	Oostrom	Hawkes	Pennock	Hees	Peterson


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is	
on Motion No. 74. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 74		
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 128.		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 74,		which was negatived
on the following division: (Division No. 544)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Cassidy	GaglianoAlthouse	Copps	GrayAngus	de Jong	(Windsor West)Axworthy	Dewar	HarrisBenjamin	Epp	HeapBlackburn	(Thunder Bay-	Hovdebo(Brant)	Nipigon)	IsabelleBlaikie	Finestone	JewettBoudria	Foster	KaplanBroadbent	Fulton	Keeper
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Langdon	Mitchell	RiisLapierre	Murphy	RobichaudMarchi	Ny strom	RobinsonMcCurdy	Orlikow	RodriguezMcDonald	Parry	Skelly(Broadview-	Penner	TobinGreenwood)	Pepin	WaddellMcLaughlin	Prud'homme	Young-48
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dor in Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Scheilenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 75. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
The House divided on Motion No. 75, which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 545)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Pennock
Peterson
Pietz
Porter
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
St-Julien
Scheilenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 76. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 130.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 77. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 131.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 78. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 132.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 79. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
The House divided on Motion No. 79, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Division No. 549)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Towers	Vincent	WilsonTupper	Warner	(EtobicokeTurner	Wenman	Centre)(Ottawa-Carleton)	White	WinegardValcourt	Wilson	Wise-142Van De Walle	(Swift CurrentVankoughnet	-Maple Creek)
Vezina


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 81. A vote on Motion No. 81 applies to Motion No. 83. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out line 32 at page 104 and substituting the following therefor:
"the purposes of this Act. The Board shall retain the right to accept or reject
orders made by Governor in Council."
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 34 to 37 at page 104 and substituting the following therefor:
"is not binding on the Board."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion No. 83 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 84. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 104 the following:
"(5) The Board will have the same status and authority with respect to the Agreement and domestic legislation as the United States Federal Regulatory Commission and Economic Regulatory Administration."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 86. A question is on Motion No. 86 A vote on Motion No. 86 applies to Motion No. 87. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 104 and lines 1 to 5 at page 105 and substituting the following therefor:
"84.3(1) The Governor in Council must, by order ensure that exports of energy goods to the United States are in accordance with 83(a) of the National Energy Board Act.

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, declare that the maintenance or introduction of a restriction in the exportation to the United States of energy goods or of any quality, kind or class thereof is required under subsection (1), or is justified under Article 904 of the Agreement."
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 47 to 50 at page 105 and lines 1 to 11 at page 106 and substituting the following therefor:
"84.6 The Board may not, under any circumstances, issue a licence for the exportation of such energy goods to the United States unless it is satisfied that such exports are in accordance with section 83(a) of the National Energy Board Act."


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion	lost. I also declareMotion No. 87 lost	. The next question	is on Motion No. 85.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 85
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 104, lines 1 to 50 at page 105 and lines 1 to 11 at page 106.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 88. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 88		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 137 by striking out line 33 at page 106 and substituting the following therefor: "countries including the United States."		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 88, on the following division: {Division No. 554)
 YEAS Members		which was negatived
Allmand	de Jong	HarrisAlthouse	Dewar	HeapAngus	Epp	HovdeboAxworthy	(Thunder Bay-	IsabelleBenjamin	Nipigon)	JewettBlackburn	Finestone	Kaplan(Brant)	Foster	KeeperBlaikie	Fulton	LangdonBoudria	Gagliano	LapierreBroadbent	Gray	MarchiCassidy Copps	(Windsor West)	McCurdyNAYS Members	Andre	Gottselig	NowlanBeatty	Graham	OberleBernier	Gurbin	O'NeilBinns	Gustafson	OostromBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PetersonBlouin	Hardey	PietzBosley	Harvey	PorterBourgault	Hawkes	RavisBoyer	Hees	RedwayBradley	Hicks	ReidBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	ReimerBrowes	Hockin	RomanCadieux	Holtmann	St. GermainCaldwell	Horner	St-JulienCardiff	Howie	SchellenbergChartrand	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clark	Jacques	Schellenberger(Brandon-Souris)	James	(Wetaskiwin)Clifford	Jepson	ScottClinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)Coates	Kempling	ScowenCochrane	King	ShieldsCollins	Landry	SpeyerComeau	Lawrence	StackhouseCook	Layton	StevensCorbett	Lewis	StewartCossitt	MacDonald	TardifCrosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)(Halifax West)	the Islands)	TaylorCrouse	MacKay	ThackerDantzer	Mailly	TowersDarling	Malone	TupperDaubney	Mantha	Turnerde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Desjardins	Martin	ValcourtDesrosiers	Masse	Van De WalleDomm	Mayer	VankoughnetDorin	Mazankowski	VezinaDuguay	McCain	VincentDuplessis	McCrossan	WarnerEdwards	McDermid	WenmanEllis	McDougall	WhiteEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift CurrentFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)Fontaine	McMillan	WilsonForrestall	Merrithew	(EtobicokeFraleigh	Minaker	Centre)Fretz	Mitges	WinegardGagnon	Moore	Wise-142Gervais	Mulroney	Girard	Nicholson	Gormley	(Niagara Falls)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 89. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
The House divided on Motion No. 89, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement {Division No. 555)
++YEAS
Members
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current 

Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermidBeatty	Fretz	McDougallBernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)Binns	Gervais	McKinnonBlackburn	Girard	McKnight(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillanBlouin	Gottselig	MerrithewBosley	Graham	MinakerBourgault	Gurbin	MitgesBoyer	Gustafson	MooreBradley	Halliday	MulroneyBrightwell	Hamelin	NicholsonBrowes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)Cadieux	Harvey	NowlanCaldwell	Hawkes	OberleCardiff	Hees	O'NeilChartrand	Hicks	OostromClark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	PetersonClifford	Holtmann	PietzClinch	Horner	PorterCoates	Howie	RavisCochrane	Hudon	RedwayCollins	Jacques	ReidComeau	James	ReimerCook	Jepson	RomanCorbett	Jourdenais	St. GermainCossitt	Kempling	St-JulienCrosby	King	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Crouse	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)Darling	Lewis	ScottDaubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Cotret	(Kingston and	ScowenDesjardins	the Islands)	ShieldsDesrosiers	MacKay	SpeyerDomm	Mailly	StackhouseDorin	Malone	StevensDuguay	Mantha	StewartDuplessis	Marin	TardifEdwards	Martin	(Charlesbourg)Ellis	Masse	TaylorEpp	Mayer	Thacker(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TowersFerland	McCain	TupperFontaine Forrestall	McCrossan


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 92. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 92, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 556)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Crosby	GurbinBeatty	(Halifax West)	GustafsonBernier	Crouse	HallidayBinns	Dantzer	HamelinBlackburn	Darling	Hardey(Jonquiere)	Daubney	HarveyBlouin	de Cotret	HawkesBosley	Desjardins	HeesBourgault	Desrosiers	HicksBoyer	Domm	HnatyshynBradley	Dorin	HockinBrightwell	Duguay	HoltmannBrowes	Duplessis	HornerCadieux	Edwards	HowieCaldwell	Ellis	HudonCardiff	Epp	JacquesChartrand	(Provencher)	JamesClark	Ferland	Jepson(Brandon-Souris)	Fontaine	JourdenaisClifford	Forrestall	KemplingClinch	Fraleigh	KingCoates	Fretz	LandryCochrane	Gagnon	LawrenceCollins	Gervais	LaytonComeau	Girard	LewisCook	Gormley	MacDonaldCorbett	Gottselig	(Kingston aiCossitt	Graham	the Islands)
August 23, 1988

MacKay	Oberle	StewartMailly	O'Neil	TardifMalone	Oostrom	(Charlesbourg)Mantha	Pennock	TaylorMarin	Peterson	ThackerMartin	Pietz	TowersMasse	Porter	TupperMayer	Ravis	TurnerMazankowski	Redway	(Ottawa-Carleton)McCain	Reid	ValcourtMcCrossan	Reimer	Van De WalleMcDermid	Roman	VankoughnetMcDougall	St. Germain	Vezina(St. Paul's)	St-Julien	VincentMcKinnon	Schellenberg	WarnerMcKnight	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	WenmanMcMillan	Schellenberger	WhiteMerrithew	(Wetaskiwin)	WilsonMinaker	Scott	(Swift CurrentMitges	(Victoria-Haliburton)	-Maple Creek)Moore	Scowen	WilsonMulroney	Shields	(EtobicokeNicholson	Speyer	Centre)(Niagara Falls)	Stackhouse	WinegardNowlan	Stevens	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next question is		
on Motion No. 95. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 95		
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 146.		
The House divided on Motion No. 95, which was negatived		
on the following division: (Division No. 557)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Flarris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Bradley	ClinchBeatty	Brightwell	CoatesBernier	Browes	CochraneBinns	Cadieux	CollinsBlackburn	Caldwell	Cornea u(Jonquiere)	Cardiff	CookBlouin	Chartrand	CorbettBosley	Clark	CossittBourgault	(Brandon-Souris)	CrosbyBoyer	Clifford	(Halifax West)
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Crouse	Jepson	RavisDantzer	Jourdenais	RedwayDarling	Kempling	ReidDaubney	King	Reimerde Cotret	Landry	RomanDesjardins	Lawrence	St. GermainDesrosiers	Layton	St-JulienDomm	Lewis	SchellenbergDorin	MacDonald	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Duguay	(Kingston and	SchellenbergerDuplessis	the Islands)	(Wetaskiwin)Edwards	MacKay	ScottEllis	Mailly	(Victoria-Haliburton)Epp	Malone	Scowen(Provencher)	Mantha	ShieldsFerland	Marin	SpeyerFontaine	Martin	StackhouseForrestall	Masse	StevensFraleigh	Mayer	StewartFretz	Mazankowski	TardifGagnon	McCain	(Charlesbourg)Gervais	McCrossan	TaylorGirard	McDermid	ThackerGormley	McDougall	TowersGottselig	(St. Paul's)	TupperGraham	McKinnon	TurnerGurbin	McKnight	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gustafson	McMillan	ValcourtHalliday	Merrithew	Van De WalleHamelin	Minaker	VankoughnetHardey	Mitges	VezinaHarvey	Moore	VincentHawkes	Mulroney	WarnerHees	Nicholson	WenmanHicks	(Niagara Falls)	WhiteHnatyshyn	Nowlan	WilsonHockin	Oberle	(Swift CurrentHoltmann	O'Neil	-Maple Creek)Horner	Oostrom	WilsonHowie	Pennock	(EtobicokeHudon	Peterson	Centre)Jacques	Pietz	WinegardJames	Porter	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 96. Mr. Langdon moved:		
Motion No. 96		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 152 by striking out line 22 at page 122 and substituting the following therefor:		
"tion (1) unless the Governor in Council, with approval of the Parliament of		
Canada, is".		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 96, on the following division: (Division No. 558)
 YEAS Members		which was negatived
Allmand	Dewar	IsabelleAlthouse	Epp	JewettAngus	(Thunder Bay-	KaplanAxworthy	Nipigon)	KeeperBenjamin	Finestone	LangdonBlackburn	Foster	Lapierre(Brant)	Fulton	MarchiBlaikie	Gagliano	McCurdyBoudria	Gray	McDonaldBroadbent	(Windsor West)	(Broadview-Cassidy	Harris	Greenwood)Copps	Heap	McLaughlinde Jong	Hovdebo	Mitchell
August 23, 1988
Murphy
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez Skelly Tobin Waddell Young-48
(Division No. 559)
++YEAS
Members
	NAYS	
	Members	
Andre	Gottselig	NowlanBeatty	Graham	OberleBernier	Gurbin	O'NeilBinns	Gustafson	OostromBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PetersonBlouin	Hardey	PietzBosley	Harvey	PorterBourgault	Hawkes	RavisBoyer	Hees	RedwayBradley	Hicks	ReidBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	ReimerBrowes	Hockin	RomanCadieux	Holtmann	St. GermainCaldwell	Horner	St-JulienCardiff	Howie	SchellenbergChartrand	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clark	Jacques	Schellenberger(Brandon-Souris)	James	(Wetaskiwin)Clifford	Jepson	ScottClinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)Coates	Kempling	ScowenCochrane	King	ShieldsCollins	Landry	SpeyerComeau	Lawrence	StackhouseCook	Layton	StevensCorbett	Lewis	StewartCossitt	MacDonald	TardifCrosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)(Halifax West)	the Islands)	TaylorCrouse	MacKay	ThackerDantzer	Mailly	TowersDarling	Malone	TupperDaubney	Mantha	Turnerde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Desjardins	Martin	ValcourtDesrosiers	Masse	Van De WalleDomm	Mayer	VankoughnetDorin	Mazankowski	VezinaDuguay	McCain	VincentDuplessis	McCrossan	WarnerEdwards	McDermid	WenmanEllis	McDougall	WhiteEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson(Provenchcr)	McKinnon	(Swift CurrentFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)Fontaine	McMillan	WilsonForrestall	Merrithew	(EtobicokeFraleigh	Minaker	Centre)Fretz	Mitges	WinegardGagnon	Moore	Wise-142Gervais	Mulroney	Girard	Nicholson	Gormley	(Niagara Falls)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 100. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 100
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting the Preamble.
The House divided on Motion No. 100, which was negatived
on the following division:
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermidBeatty	Fretz	McDougallBernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)Binns	Gervais	McKinnonBlackburn	Girard	McKnight(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillanBlouin	Gottselig	MerrithewBosley	Graham	MinakerBourgault	Gurbin	MitgesBoyer	Gustafson	MooreBradley	Halliday	MulroneyBrightwell	Hamelin	NicholsonBrowes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)Cadieux	Harvey	NowlanCaldwell	Hawkes	OberleCardiff	Hees	O'NeilChartrand	Hicks	OostromClark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	PetersonClifford	Holtmann	PietzClinch	Horner	PorterCoates	Howie	RavisCochrane	Hudon	RedwayCollins	Jacques	ReidComeau	James	ReimerCook	Jepson	RomanCorbett	Jourdenais	St. GermainCossitt	Kempling	St-JulienCrosby	King	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Crouse	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)Darling	Lewis	ScottDaubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Cotret	(Kingston and	ScowenDesjardins	the Islands)	ShieldsDesrosiers	MacKay	SpeyerDomm	Mailly	StackhouseDorin	Malone	StevensDuguay	Mantha	StewartDuplessis	Marin	TardifEdwards	Martin	(Charlesbourg)Ellis	Masse	TaylorEpp	Mayer	Thacker(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TowersFerland	McCain	TupperFontaine Forrestall	McCrossan	
August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
++NAYS
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


CANADA CHILD CARE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Martin (p. 18222).
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments tonight to speak to the Government's proposed child care legislation and to offer my Party's response to the same issue. The major social challenge facing Canada today is the urgent need of average Canadians and their families for reliable care for our children. Over 1.8 million children whose parents are in the labour force do not have access to quality child care services. The inadequate number of child care spaces is failing our children and makes it even more difficult for women to participate equally in the workplace. Canadian men and women want government action that responds to the real needs of their families. The Conservative Government of Canada has put forward a charade.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the Hon. Member would like the House to hear the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. The Hon. Member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan has the floor.


Iain Francis Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my
colleague for her intervention drawing the attention of the

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
House to child care. It is a very important issue in Canada today and one that is not being dealt with appropriately by the Conservative Government. This Government's so-called national strategy on child care is an excellent example of Conservative broken promises to Canadian families. After waiting four full years for this Government to keep its promise, or for the Conservative Party to keep the promise of the 1984 campaign to introduce an effective national system of child care, Canadian families have been disappointed once again. Canadian parents and their children need greater access to quality care at lower costs. This Government's scheme will create fewer child care spaces after seven years than would have resulted without it.
The Conservatives have promised to add 200,000 non-profit child care spaces to Canada's existing 240,000 spaces by 1995. That is a growth rate of less than 10 per cent annually. In fact, child care spaces in Canada are already doubling every five years. The average rate of growth over the last four years was 15 per cent.
What is happening under this Conservative smoke and mirrors in child care is that we are actually going to have less child care spaces created throughout Canada-urban Canada, rural Canada, northern Canada, native Canada-than would have been created under the existing Canada Assistance Plan. That is very regrettable. The Government had the opportunity to take a very progressive step to ensure that those families, whether they be mother-led families or father-led families or two-parent families, had the opportunity to have their children looked after in a quality manner by staff who are appropriately trained and appropriately reimbursed for their education and their labours while the parents went out, whether it was one parent or both parents, to work outside the home in order to meet the economic realities of today.
For those of us who come from the larger urban centres of this country, child care is a norm, and there are child care centres in our communities. Some are profit, some are nonprofit, some are municipally run, but there are other communities, particularly in the distant locations, rural locations and the North, where there is no formal child care at all. In the community of Atikokan, one of the communities that I represent in this House, there is not a child care centre or a day care centre; there is only informal care giving through babysitting. While there is every good intention by those care givers, the reality is that most often or not they do not have the skills to provide the kind of quality experience that one can obtain in a municipally operated or a non-profit child care centre that is child focused and family focused.
There is a need to expand the programs. There is a need to ensure that child care is provided not as a means to make profit but as a means to provide services, much needed services to the families of this generation.
I mentioned earlier that the Government's child care program is less than what the current program offers. In fact, it actually puts a ceiling on the amount of child care spaces
that the Government will support. Even worse, the Conservatives are asking the provinces for any commitments as to quality in return for federal funding.
Would you, Mr. Speaker, if you were in private business, give money to a subsidiary company and not ask what it is going to do and not require that it do certain things? Would you, as a banker, give money to a company without having strings attached? Of course not.
What we have been saying and what was provided for in the Meech Lake round of amendments to the Constitution was that national standards be included in the legislation, not standards that would say that you would have to have a child care centre that is 300,000 square feet and employs five staff, but one that would say that if you are going to get federal funds, you must create spaces, you must create new spaces and fund new spaces. We need to develop in rural Canada the kind of spaces that are needed to meet the variations of lifestyle, to reflect the seasonal kind of economy on the farm when children need to be away from the farm so that both parents could work on complicated and dangerous machinery and to keep the young children from underfoot and out of danger. It also applies to a small northern community that has a single industry to function with, to survive with, that operates around the clock, for example, a pulp and paper mill in a community like Terrace Bay where there is need for more than just eight o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the afternoon kind of child care and a need for overnight services.
There was an opportunity to develop national standards that every province would have to adhere to in order to get federal tax dollars returned to their taxpayers, but they chose not to do that. They chose to be wimpish about it and leave it to the province to say "we cannot interfere". We on this side of the House reject that kind of mentality.
The Conservatives also claim that they are going to give parents choices by spending $2.4 billion through the tax system. In the first place, more than half of this goes to existing tax measures. In the second place, most of that new money will go into a program which gives parents a maximum of $200 per child per year. As a parent I know that in this day and age $200 does not go very far. One child care advocate appearing before the committee reviewing this legislation indicated that a parent would be lucky to buy two snowsuits with that money. If you think about the growth rates of young children, you know that two snowsuits a year is not unheard of. Children grow quickly and put a great deal of wear and tear on their clothes. So this amount is a pittance. The money would have been better used to provide child care spaces in quality and affordable child care centres for the young children of Canada.
There is a better way, Mr. Speaker. I realize my time is
running out so I will be brief. We want a program that will
meet the real child care needs of Canadians and give Canadian
August 23, 1988

men and women real choices. Priority on child care spaces means a good child care program to establish a base on which we can build good quality child care in Canada, not the ceiling in the government plan. The New Democrat's plan would provide 50,000 new child care spaces per year, on average, resulting in 200,000 new non-profit spaces by 1992. I emphasize non-profit. We would establish a set of national principles in the federal funding legislation which would guarantee quality child care. The legislation should require a provincial child care program and conform to the following national objectives: comprehensive, quality, affordable, accessible, flexible, non-profit, and accountable child care.
These principles are modelled on the principles in the Canada Health Act and are consistent with the Meech Lake Accord. Enhanced maternity and parental benefits are policies which give parents real choices. The Government does nothing about paid parental leave. New Democrats would increase opportunities for parents to stay at home with an infant child by providing enhanced and extended maternity and parental leave benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Finally, we propose 10 days paid family responsibility leave through the Canada Labour Code. These proposals are all designed to spend more time with our children, but when we cannot, it will ensure that children have quality child care available whether they are in Toronto, Thunder Bay, Atiko-kan, or wherever.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment-


An Hon. Member:: There are no questions or comments.


Felix Holtmann: There are no questions or comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No questions or comments.


Felix Holtmann: I will make a short speech which will all add up to the same sensible argument that we have put forward on behalf of our Party on child care.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) rose and said that the program announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was a fraud.


Iain Francis Angus: That is right.


Felix Holtmann: He also indicated that the Tories have no concern and are not interested in the welfare of families of Canadians. I want to point out to Members opposite, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, that it was this Government which has created so many jobs in the workforce. If the Members opposite would realize how jobs really help families in their ability to cope, they would know how significant the Government's program under its new economic
Canada Child Care Act
growth for Canada was able to come up with a child care program for children.
In any event, the Leader of the NDP also said that the people who look after young children today, the baby-sitters, sit home and watch television. That is what he said this afternoon in his speech to the Canadian public. Baby-sitters sit and watch television. What a slam against the women of Canada, Mr. Speaker. The New Democrats think that anyone who stays home and looks after children sits and watches television. In other words, they are not providing any quality day care. I do not know who will vote for the New Democrats in the next federal election if the Leader of the New Democratic Party thinks that people who look after children do nothing but watch television.


Mr. Althouse:: When did he say that?


Felix Holtmann: He said it this afternoon in the House. I have some difficulty with the New Democratic Party's new proposed child care program. I understand that the Leader and his Party will pay every person who has a child to stay home, someone to give quality day care. It will not be television watching time any more under the New Democrats. That will not happen, but the New Democrats will take the wealth which the Tory Government has created with its growing economy and throw it in every nook and cranny and claim that that will help Canadian families. That is the way the New Democrats will do things. The people who are now looking after young children, as far as the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his Party are concerned, just stay home and watch TV. There is no quality health care there at all. I thought he took a pretty big slam at a lot of women in Canada who I think are doing a tremendous job.
We want more health care for Canadians and we want to invest quite a bit of money. There is a debate still going on in many parts. Some of my constituents say that in certain areas they really do not necessarily need more but they need some assistance.
I am sure many Canadian women were quite surprised to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party claiming that the Tories are not great people and that we have no concern for family life. I think the Tories demonstrated in this House not long ago on the issue of abortion that we are very concerned about family life. It is the New Democratic Party which collectively believes in abortion on demand. That is the philosophy of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without wanting to engage in debate, I would ask that the Member, if he is going to state policy of another Party, do it correctly. Our policy is that the issue is between the woman and her doctor. They are the ones who will decide.


Felix Holtmann: Once again, I have riled up the New Democrats. Why is the Hon. Member's Leader deciding what

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
the Tory Government thinks about families? The Member should stick to the subject. This New Democratic Party has no handle or exclusivity on who represents Canadians and families.


Iain Francis Angus: Ask your spouse.


Felix Holtmann: Even the Liberals have to admit that this was a very bold policy that our Minister brought forward-


Iain Francis Angus: They wouldn't lie as much.


Felix Holtmann: The Liberals are prepared to accept it. I am sure many of the New Democrats, when they get out on the hustings, will be told not to throw money away recklessly. They are going to be asked to put a price tag on what they propose to do and will be told to make sure the money is used in a very effective and efficient way. Obviously Canadians are not prepared to give that Party an opportunity to start spending Canadian dollars. Never will they do that.
When their Leader announced this great day care policy, I believe a couple of weeks ago, I did not read any editorials about how great it was. The policy seems to have finally died. It will be comical during the next federal election to know where the New Democrats will get all the money for their day care promises and all the things they have proposed. They have not figured how to keep people working or how to create more jobs. They will just borrow money like the former Government did.
Canadians will never give the New Democrats the opportunity to implement some of these wild, woolly, witchy, wacky ideas which they scheme up, I guess in their caucus rooms, and whoever else schemes them up. Their policies are not sound and they probably never will be sound. Their Leader basically condemned most of the women in this country for staying home to look after their own children, saying that all they do is watch TV and that is not day care. That is the New Democratic Party policy of the way they think of women in this country. A mother does not look after her own child well enough. She is considered a poor person in the provision of quality day care. That is the attitude of New Democrats. They are going to get somebody else to do it.
The Government will spend the money and provide this new, wonderful, quality day care. Probably New Democrats are not capable of looking after their own children. They need a lot of assistance. They cannot do it on their own. They need help from the Government. They need some expert to tell them how to change diapers and what their children should eat. That is what the New Democrats want.
I think we know now where New Democrats stand. We know their game. It is just fuddle-duddle promises and that is all it will end up being.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the child care program the Government says it is putting in place. I find it rather sad that from a Government that is supposed to be trying to put a new face on its activities and to keep its promises, we have a Bill that is full of puffery. It is window-dressing and trickery with figures. It will not meet our present needs, and it puts a cap on the natural growth that was already in place.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, without this new program, the federal Government would have spent, assuming an inflationary factor of only 5 per cent a year, $17 billion over the next seven years. The total federal spending over that same period of time could now be slightly more than $22 billion or 4 per cent per year more than we now have without this new program.
On top of all that, there is a catch. We do not know if even one nickel will be spent in each of the provinces. It takes a federal-provincial agreement with each province to put this into place. As Marjorie Nichols points out, we have to use a conditional tense when talking about child care anywhere within Canada. Certainly we will not have a national child care system with national standards and objectives which must be met.
We talk about the low birth rate in Canada. We talk about our concern for the family and the family structure. We talk about children as being our future. One of the most important building blocks in our society is the child care system, whether it is for pre-school children or for school children with two working parents, children called latchkey children.
I become dreadfully sad when I recall going before the royal commission on the status of women, chaired by Senator Florence Bird. We brought the concern over latch key children into the public view, and we discussed how important it was to ensure that these children had good supervision after school hours so that their parents could work with free minds. Their parents needed two salaries to make ends meet. At that time, we were talking about the working poor but now we are talking about all families. The traditional family with the mother staying home is only one out of every ten families. We are not facing the reality of the society in which we live.
We will not end up with a national program; we will end up with 10 separate agreements with 10 different standards. According to the Meech Lake Accord, we were supposed to have national objectives. This new look at the Constitution would provide for good cost-shared programs with the thought that across Canada there would be equivalent programs. There is no dazzling multi-billion program for day care across this land.
The spending increases will be absolutely minimal. In fact, they are paltry, to use the word of Marjorie Nichols. About $570,000 a year would be made available beyond what is already available under the Canada Assistance Plan. Further, the provinces that want to enter into the national day care
August 23, 1988

program have to opt out of the Canada Assistance Plan. A cap has been put on the growth of this very key sector in society.
I believe that when Conservatives are out on the hustings and have to face the electorate, they will be very embarrassed by the fact that no one will be tricked into thinking that saying that they have put in a great national child care system means that they have really done so, because they have not. In reality, this let's pretend child care program is supposed to provide $6.4 billion over seven years, but $2.3 billion of that total is in the form of new tax deductions on credits announced in the February Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I am not against that, but those are certainly not new dollars for new child care spaces.
The child care legislation we are addressing today contains exactly $4 billion. However, we have forgotten that $1.9 billion of that $4 billion is already being spent annually by the federal Government through the Canada Assistance Plan on child care items. We have in reality a provision for $2.6 billion in new federal funds for direct spending, from which the $1.9 billion that is already being spent annually is subtracted, ending up with that marvellous amount of $560,000 a year being made available for new programs. That new money will certainly be sufficient for the much needed 200,000 spaces, but that will not answer the needs of another one million children who need this service.
Our Party feels that parents should have the right to choose, but they should also have the right to choose child care services that will be of quality, that will be affordable, and that will have standards for the teachers who will be paid commensurately as they provide the loving care that is needed for young children, and they should have programs in which they will have a say. None of those things have been articulated in this Bill, and I regret the sleight of hand, the use of language which is not reflected in reality in this Bill.
The unvarnished facts are embarrassing to the Government. I hope that each and every government Member will feel the discomfort as their constituents ask them about this not-national, not-good, poorly-conceived child care plan which they think will help the development of Canada and its future. I would suggest that when this Bill goes into legislative committee, government Members carefully consider the kinds of amendments that will truly reflect the needs of our children and their futures in Canada.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to say a few words on the child care Bill, Bill C-144. I will take my allotted time to speak particularly about rural Canada.
This time of year in rural Canada should be time of rejoicing and abundance while in the process of harvesting the crops. Right now, however, the farm community is not a happy community, and there are good reasons for this.
For the last five or six years, the impact of the economy has been building up to the point where farm communities are in a
Canada Child Care Act
very bad state. Prices have risen considerably in the last little while, but that is not having the impact it should on the farm community.
Rural Canada is made up of something over 200,000 farms and the villages and towns with their schools, churches, and medical facilities which serve those farms. For the last several years an average of eight farmers per day have been leaving the farm for reasons such as bankruptcy, foreclosure, and so on. That has not slowed down. In fact, the number is increasing each year. Consequently, farming communities are becoming more isolated. It is because of this situation that farming has become one of the most stressful occupations in the country. The farm suicide rate has tripled since 1981 and now stands at double the national average. There are many cases of rural family violence, much more than we ever thought would happen on the farm.
The bulk of farmers having financial problems are those between the ages of 30 and 45 years. They are highly productive farmers who have committed themselves to farming and they produce a great deal, but they are unable to keep up. It is those same families who have young children that need care.
Those farmers who are staying on the farm and those people in the small communities surrounding the farms are the people we are concerned about right now. A lot of the people leaving their farms are just moving into the surrounding towns or the nearest city. However, a lot of them are attempting to hang on, and they are the ones we need to talk about specifically.
There are probably three categories that we can point to of people who are attempting to stay on the farm and need some assistance with child care. There is the family where one or two members go to the nearest town or city to work. At the same time they attempt to keep the farm going.
There are farm families who move to the city so that the man, in most cases, can drive out to the farm and keep it going. There is a third group which has to be recognized as well. This group stays on the farm but attempts to eliminate all outside help. They try to keep the farm going with the family alone. Every member of the family has to take some responsibility for keeping the farm going.
Right now some farm men and women, in fact perhaps more women than men, are actually doing three jobs at the same time. They are working at a store or office in town, teaching school or driving a school bus to bring in some cash. They also take a certain amount of responsibility to keep the farm going. They do regular farm work and assist in keeping it going. They also take care of the children, raise the family.
Right now child care is a very unpopular concept in rural Canada because there is nothing in this Bill that indicates that rural Canada will be taken care of. There is nothing to indicate that they will have child care in those areas. As one lady told me yesterday, this is another federal program which we in

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
rural Canada will not be able to access. In most cases this involves small towns and villages of 50 to 75 people.
That is one of the things wrong with this approach to child care. We need to look at the specific requirements of rural Canada and make sure that either child care spaces or other arrangements can be made to make sure that the family is able to stay together and keep the farm going.
The federal Government spends huge amounts of money on things which are far less important to Canada than the raising of a family. We should not hesitate to pay people to assist the parents in raising their children. Doing that is a good investment for Canada. We should do it in such a way that it reaches out to those areas and those people who need it most.
Right now many people in rural Canada need assistance in raising their families. They need child care. Consequently, we should provide the spaces or provide the people or the money so that they are able to do a good job of raising a family. This Bill does not indicate to the rural community that any real care has been taken with respect to child care in rural Canada.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on this legislation, the Canada Child Care Act. I believe it is an initiative which will enable our Government to implement a major part of our new national child care strategy, which includes not only the provisions of this Act but the creation of 200,000 additional child care spaces. As well, there is the tax assistance to families which will be of great benefit to many men and women across this country, and the child initiatives fund.
It is interesting to look at the whole issue of child care and who should be responsible. I am pleased to see a change in attitude across the country on this issue. Recently the Vancouver Board of Trade, the largest business organization in Vancouver, issued a copy of its report making a case for quality child care services in British Columbia. It notes in its report that by the year 2000, 80 per cent of all new workforce members will be women, minorities, or immigrants, and that one-half of all women employees will have babies while they are employed. These facts translate into a need for employers of all types and sizes to deal with child care issues for their own self-interest. In fact, the Board of Trade quotes from some studies done by Fortune Magazine which report that 41 per cent of parents surveyed lost at least one day's work in the three months prior to the poll in order to care for sick children, and nearly 10 per cent took three to five days off for such purposes. Child care problems were also a major cause of unproductive time at work or the production of lower than normal quality work. Obviously, by addressing the child care issue, businesses can achieve greater stability and productivity in their workforces.
It is very interesting to note that the Vancouver Board of Trade goes on in its brief to suggest certain initiatives that the
provincial Government should take to respond to our new federal child care strategy and it went on to outline what it believes employers should be doing. The whole issue of child care is a relationship of four parts: the family, the parents, the employer, and the federal and provincial Governments. Each has a role to play in order for us to address the situation.
I am pleased that the legislation before us provides for the implementation of the goal which was announced last December, "an additional 200,000 new subsidized spaces which will require a federal commitment of some $3 billion". However, on the basis of the plans submitted by the provincial Governments over the last six months, it has become clear that additional financial assistance would be required if we were to meet the goal of 200,000 spaces, as well as ensure the quality of the system as a whole and that the existing spaces continue to improve.
We are aware that just last month the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) announced on behalf of the Government that we were committing an additional $1 billion to the child care program. We are not prepared to sacrifice quality for quantity. Both are equally important to parents whose children will be utilizing the child care system.
Just to share some information about how this new system will work, during the next seven years, which we are calling the "boost period", we intend to support the creation of 200,000 additional subsidized child care spaces. In effect, this will double the size of the current subsidized system. It has taken about 15 years for us to reach the level of 200,000 spaces and in seven years we will double that.
To assist the provinces, because delivery of the services is a provincial responsibility, we will provide 75 per cent of the capital costs involved in the development of new spaces in nonprofit child care agencies during the seven year period. As well, we will provide for 50 per cent of ongoing operating costs for both non-profit and commercial agencies. There have been a lot of questions of why "both", and certain groups have said only non-profit agencies should be eligible for the subsidies. However, we made the decision to include commercial agencies under the terms of the legislation. We recognize that we cannot ignore the basic fact that a full 40 per cent of subsidized child care spaces now being provided are being provided by the commercial sector. The reason our national policy on child care is a workable policy is that it builds upon a system that currently exists and adapts to the regional diversity of this country.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, from my involvement with child care, there is obviously some agencies that are better than others, but I have found excellent child care facilities operating in the commercial sector and excellent facilities working in the non-profit area. I do not believe that either side should be penalized, and I am pleased to see we have included both in our strategy.
This legislation will also permit the Government to increase
the rate of cost sharing for certain provinces based upon a
August 23, 1988

national average entitlement per child formula. We have included this special provision to assist parents and children who reside in provinces which are attempting to catch up to other parts of Canada in what they spend on child care. This is a national strategy. We believe that child care facilities and services should be more available in all parts of the country.
1 might point out that Clause 4 of the legislation sets out the various terms and conditions which will form part of a negotiated agreement between the federal Government and each province. These will include the annual federal commitment to the province, the number of spaces to be created during the seven-year period, and the basis for subsequent cost sharing agreements with respect to child care services.
I wanted to respond as well to some comments made earlier by the Eton. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who indicated that the current provisions under the Canada Assistance Plan would have resulted in $3 billion a year being spent on child care services. She is wrong. That is not the reality. The reality is that at the moment, between the federal and provincial Governments, we are spending about $480 million of which $160 million is federal money. Therefore, the provinces are spending $320 million a year. There is no way the provinces are going to be able to increase their expenditures, so they could theoretically take advantage of the maximum CAP funding. That is just not the real world.
In fact, the present CAP provisions do not include funding for the capital cost for the building or renovating, so there is no assistance there. There is no incentive for the creation of new spaces. Even in the operating area where it is 50 per cent of eligible costs, there are many costs which are not eligible. What actually occurs is that the federal Government ends up subsidizing only about 35 per cent of the total costs. The changes in the new child care strategy in the legislation we have before us, as I mentioned, are 75 per cent on capital cost and 50 per cent on operating and new criteria for establishing that 50 per cent. In the first year alone our contribution will double, and by the end of the seven years it is estimated that the federal contribution will be in the order of $800 million a year.
We will have spent, then, the estimated $4 billion for the creation of those spaces. This legislation is important to the women, to the parents, and to the children of this country. I would ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to give it early consideration so that the system can go into effect, the provinces can complete their negotiations, and those who are involved in establishing a child care agency and child care spaces can get on with the job of creating the spaces and the opportunities for families to have child care available to them.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to participate in this debate. I would like to preface my comments by thanking my Liberal colleagues who have allowed me to speak first so I can go home and spend some time with my daughter. We talk about Parliament and the opportunities for women being equal with men, but the reality
Canada Child Care Act
is that when we are having sitting sessions until ten o'clock every night, week upon week, to try to shove some government Bills through, that is simply not happening. That is just a practical note, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to spend some time outlining what I consider the giant fraud being perpetrated on the people of Canada in the over-all area of child policy. Let us not forget that this so-called child care policy is coming from a Government that has done everything in its power to cut back the purchasing power of the ordinary family. It has cut back on the child tax deductions from about $370 to about $60 over the course of its time in office. It has cut back on family allowances. What we should really be seeing here tonight is an overall policy for children which really does permit parents to make real choices.
Government Members tried to deindex senior citizens' pensions and they were not successful, but they were successful in doing it with the family allowances because families with children are not necessarily the most powerful voices in our society.
I only have 10 minutes so I would like to focus on what I consider to be the glaring contradictions in this so-called national policy for children. When parents are put in a position, either by choice or by economic necessity, of working outside the home and having to put their child in care other than their own, they want to be sure their child is safe.
I think that is the paramount concern of every parent. That is why the Government must include some national standards in announcing a policy. Yet, it has failed miserably in doing so because the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is introducing a Bill that permits the provinces to set whatever standards they want. There is no national level of care whereby parents in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, should have the same level of care for their child as a child in Toronto. That is not the case because there are no national standards.
According to the preamble of the Bill, the Government caps the amount of spending. Rather than indicate that the program will expand, it is putting a lid on it.
The previous Liberal Government established a program of subsidized child care spaces that was geared toward low-income earners. There was no limit on that program. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) was wrong when she said that the only difference between the previous Liberal program, which was instituted at a time when we were not even sure about the so-called child care crisis, was spending an amount of about 4 per cent per year.
There are no national standards in the Tory child care plan. There are rather generous tax deductions. The tax deductions are being doubled from $2,000 to $4,000 a year per child. As a parent who is earning a salary that is significantly above the

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
national average, I stand to benefit much more directly from the Government's child tax deduction than a woman in my riding who is working at the Hamilton General Hospital and may be earning $6 an hour.
If I am in the 50 per cent tax bracket and I get a $4,000 tax deduction, that is money in my pocket. However, a woman who is earning $6 an hour and is paying only 15 per cent or 20 per cent in income tax, her benefit is cut by two-thirds. We believe that the tax deduction system is wrong and should be replaced by a tax credit system which would see direct payments to parents, but would start by giving the most money to those parents who are at the lowest end of the income scale.
When one considers the lack of national standards and the fact that the child tax deduction will benefit the rich, it provides a rather clear picture of what policy the Tories want to establish. It has no national objectives.
What have we seen from the New Democratic Party? Its Leader announced that he would like to cut child care spending by about 30 per cent. He wants to spend about 30 per cent less than the Conservative Government, and will do that by eliminating any direct payments to families. A steelworker in my riding who gets a $2,000 tax deduction would lose that under an NDP Government.
Under an NDP Government, the Liberal initiative of a tax credit which would be more beneficial to the low and middle income earners would also be gone. The NDP does not believe in the right of the individual to make choices for themselves. It believes that everything should be run by the Government in an institutionalized fashion.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Wrong, and you know it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let me speak from personal experience. I have a terrific child care giver in my neighbourhood in Ottawa. Her name is Clotilde Keklikian. She has just given birth to another child of her own and now has three children. I probably could not have found a better care giver than her under any circumstances. She happens to have voluntarily associated herself with a licensing service. She would meet the need for national standards, but because she receives payment in her home, according to the NDP definition she is part of the massive profit-making conspiracy that would, of necessity, not be allowed under their policy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Is that making a profit?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am very happy to hear the NDP defend its policy because I am rather shocked that it would introduce a situation in which a woman like Clotilde Keklikian would not be able to qualify under its system.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member knows full well that the NDP supports family home day care. The woman to whom she is referring sounds like an excellent care giver. There is no reason why she should not be licensed. In fact, she would have many advantages with
extra subsidies under our plan if she were licensed as a family day care giver.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Vancouver East will make a few comments on this matter later tonight. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The NDP has not answered the basic question. Why is it cutting $3 billion from a child care program? There are parents who are currently spending thousands of dollars. Certainly it is very difficult for a steelworker in my riding to come up with the money that is necessary, yet under an NDP Government, that steelworker would probably see a reduction in his disposable income by some $1,000 to $3,000, depending on the number of children. The NDP is wiping out any direct tax credits or tax deductions to families. If that is the case, I would like the NDP to explain why its Leader said last week that he would be spending about one-third less of what is being spent under the Government's program.
There are some fundamental differences. The Liberal Party wants national standards. We also want tax credits as opposed to tax deductions. I have not heard the NDP speak out on this. According to the NDP definition, those who are in family care, who meet national standards and may be making a small profit, would be out of the picture. We believe that those people can also give good care.
Most important, the Liberal Party would introduce a child policy that supports all families and that offers women real opportunity and real choice, not simply a government program, which, over seven years, will result in a near 4 per cent annual increase in spending.
We want to see a program directed not only toward women and families who are working outside the home, but also toward women working in the home because we believe their contribution is just as valuable.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on 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.
I think we can conclude after what has been said so far, Mr. Speaker, that all three Parties agree on the substance of this Bill. We all agree that today, day-care is becoming an increasingly essential service. However, we do not agree on how funding should be allocated and made available to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I think that first of all, and this is very important, it is a matter of philosophy. I heard my colleague speak earlier about deductions and tax credits. We have opted for tax measures. Other political parties, groups and individuals who made their positions known across this country told us we should focus on establishing a national service paid for by
August 23, 1988

the State, to ensure the availability of such services and provide a number of guarantees. That is more or less the position taken by the NDP. However, in the first place, it is a matter of philosophy, a matter of how we look at the services to be offered to the customer and how we react to an increasingly pressing need.
Mr. Speaker, we can either provide the money or provide the opportunity to spend that money. We have opted for the former.
1 remember, and I think we have lived long enough with a Liberal Government to understand the Liberal approach, when we had an economic problem. The Government invented the Canada Works projects, so-called winter works, in the belief that by creating temporary jobs, it would be able to deal with economic problems, and so billions of dollars were spent every year. The Government spent enormous amounts of money on Canada Works projects which tended to come back every year, with a few new ones. That was one way of looking at the problem.
The Conservative Government and its Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, decided to opt for another solution, more in line with the philosophy of the Conservative Party, which is a philosophy of free enterprise, a philosophy of supporting developers. It provides Canadian decision makers with the economic conditions that tend to attract investors. That is the big difference. Our opponents however, would set up a program and then they would decide to index it. .. all of a sudden they discovered indexation. That was a wonderful discovery. After sliced bread, indexation is just about the best thing ever invented in Canada. Indexing means that starting today, tomorrow will be like yesterday, but indexed, a little better than yesterday. We cannot build an economy that way! I have never bought clothes from a tailor by saying that I would pay last year's price, indexed. I never bought a car that way, but we have built an economy that way. My colleague was just talking about it. He talked about family allowance, old age security pensions, the MPs' pension fund. It covers everything!
But in my opinion, it is not the right way to develop the economy because it does not teach individuals how to fish-it gives them fish. If in one year they needed a certain amount and the next year the economy has grown by 3 per cent, automatically they are given a 3 per cent increase-that is indexation. We, for our part, give people the opportunity to choose. And in doing so, Mr. Speaker-our program was so popular, we wanted to add about 200,000 spaces and we will have to give out money; we have to give out more money because of the very positive response from the provinces.
We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that child care is a provincial responsibility. And so on . . . We could not stick our nose in a field of provincial jurisdiction even if we wanted to. We can set up a national program that the provinces could join, that the federal Government could participate in and that would gradually bring people up to the national standards.
Canada Child Care Act
The Liberals suggest directly administering a program in a field of provincial jurisdiction. They are telling the provinces that they are incapable of running day care facilities, just as they are unable to read the Free Trade Agreement, so the Liberals would do all that for them. They tell the provinces not to worry, that they will decide for them and run the day care centres, even if it is a provincial responsibility, and they will force the provinces to accept national standards.
We too, Mr. Speaker, would like to have national standards of quality, and they are being developed, but this necessarily involves each of the ten Canadian provinces and each of the territories. This means that we will end up one day with quality standards that already exist in many provinces, but we will reach them at different rates. That is another foundation of the policy put forward by the Party, that we respect the rate at which each province progresses.
It is clear that Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have different rates of growth for a social product or program. One only has to look at a province's wealth and existing services, how developed its education services are, what work opportunities there are. Because of all that, the rate and support. . . support at that rate will start for a national program, and that is important for federal programs. All the policies we put forward, that sometimes lay in a grey area between federal and provincial jurisdictions, always led us to respect provincial rates of action, and this is what makes this Government different.
In my first year here, Mr. Speaker, I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, with whom I worked more closely at that time. We opened negotiations with the Province of Quebec, among others, on training programs. You are fully aware training programs are a long-standing contending issue between federal and provincial Governments, training being a provincial matter. Our greatest difficulty was to somewhat make up for the past because we were dealing with provinces that had been irked to the limit by standards that had always been forced upon them by the Canadian Government, because it had the spending power, it was at the top, it knew about all the needs, and had the means.
We succeeded in harmonizing and setting up new programs, a new job strategy ensuring that instead of having programs strictly to distribute the money to the people, we put forward programs that still sent the money to the people but that led the people to better themselves. Such has been the new job strategy, and the same job strategy was developed among students where the priority is to favour jobs that suit the student's career profile.
But the same thing applies to child care services. Ontario and Quebec will develop their own quality standards. They will not be all that different, but basically different. And what makes this country great is the fact that we have ten provinces and two territories each one as important as the other, each one having its priorities and its standards. There will be

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
fundamental differences between them but they will remain consistent with the general principles we care to set. And they will be encouraged.
We therefore support a system which will give parents the opportunity to help others, to tell them: Listen, in the field of child care, we are experts. Come and see us. We will take care of everything because we know what you really want.
That is the big difference and, as far as I am concerned, I am all for it. We could even pass it tonight. I am speaking, of course, of Bill C-144.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-144, an Act to provide child care to Canada. This is one of those Bills on which we have had an indication with respect to which form outweighs substance.
The Minister has portrayed the Bill as a bold new initiative. He has said that he is making great forays into assisting the families of Canada. As we looked at what he is proposing and as we looked at the kind of family assistance that his Government has provided we began to form quite a different opinion of what the Government is doing for families.
Over the years we have watched the previous Liberal Government and then this Conservative Government continue the practice of reducing the proportion of the family deductions on the income tax form. At one time those deductions would feed and clothe a child. That is what their original intention was. As the years went by that was eroded to the point now where, for most families, the child deduction barely provides the clothing that they need each year. This is the same group of people who are in the defence of the Canadian family.
In my home province of Saskatchewan they fought medicare, one of the programs that probably did as much as anything to provide equal access to full medical care for young people, old people, members of families, whether they could afford to see a doctor, be hospitalized or have a serious expensive operation. Medicare made that possible. It was both Liberals and Conservatives in our province who fought the introduction of that program.
During the past four years we have watched this Government attempt successfully-211 outvote 70-to deindex family allowances, further eroding the spending power of families. The provisions of family allowance have been in place since 1948-49. They were introduced as an attempt to equalize incomes and make poorer families more equal, give them access to goods and services on a more equal basis with the rest of the country's families. This is the Government that deindex-ed family allowances. It is also the Government that has gone
a long way in increasing taxes on ordinary families, particularly those families who find it necessary for both mom and dad to work.
The other day I did some quick calculations. A family with mom, dad, two kids, and both parents working most of the time, earning in the neighbourhood of $35,000, and a great many of our population are earning that type of salary and less, with the discovery by the Government of the ease with which it can extract taxes from ordinary people by increasing sales tax, that family is now paying more than $1,000 per year more in taxes than four years ago before the Government came to power. This Government purports to be the Government that stands up for families, yet it is taking more than $100 a month from the average working family with two children.
It is an unfortunate reality that a great many of our population is in the position where both mother and father have to work for wages. When we look at the statistics it can be seen that there are 856,000 two-parent families where both parents work. If either of those parents stopped working to stay home to devote all their time to child care and raising the family, the family income would go below the poverty line. Working mothers and fathers are not only a reality, but in most families they are also a necessity.
I wish to spend a little time talking about the special needs of the farm families that I know best, many of whom I represent in a rural riding such as I have. They will find any federal or provincial program suspicious, because they are not certain that their needs for child care will be recognized in any program that has been proposed. These farm families may be described by some people as traditional families, and to the untrained observer it may appear that the mother is not working. However, I assure you Mr. Speaker, that all farm wives probably have the equivalent of two or three jobs. They contribute not only to the income and the labour force required on the farm, but they are also required to look after the children. The main child-rearing role still falls on farm mothers. Farm fathers help as much as they can, but they are engaged in what are generally too dangerous pursuits in which to include children.
While farms are great places to raise children, and I would not have chosen to raise mine anywhere else, they can also be very dangerous places to raise children. Every season I hear of terrible accidents where young children, sometimes as old as 10 years old, but usually 10 and younger, are killed in the most horrible farm accidents that occurred largely because there was no supervision for them, or no one to help look after them. The parents were too busy trying to earn a living to keep full track of the children, or they were trying to involve them in some of the farm activities where an accident resulted.
We all know of instances where children have been inadvertently run over by a tractor. There are also combine or baler
accidents where they become entangled in power shafts. Not
August 23, 1988

too many years ago in my neighbourhood there was an incident where a fairly old child of nine or ten fell into a load of flax as it was being unloaded out of a 10-inch auger. He was immediately drowned. Flax flows like water and it was impossible to extract him. We also know of unfortunate incidents with manure pits around hog barns. There are sewage lagoons in some farm yards where open pits are still used for disposal of sewage. Most farms have ponds, dug-outs, or dams where it is possible for children to get into trouble. It is especially worrisome to parents in the busy times of the year when there is seeding or harvest time when mother and father are involved, as well as the older children, in trying to get the harvest in. Sometimes the children are on their own.
Any program proposed under a day care system, and I do not see any reference to it in this particular proposal, has to be flexible, accessible, affordable, and available in those small rural communities. The type of day care system that will fit those needs has not been attacked by this program or, I submit, most of the programs that I have seen. I do admit that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Collins), does have a section in her policy where she is at least prepared to put some money, study, and action into experiments in the rural areas to establish the workable day care and child care system that can work in those outlying, scattered rural communities where the population is scattered, but where the need is very great.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-144, the so-called day care Bill. I say the "so-called day care Bill" because this Bill is not a day care Bill. It is a "promise" care Bill. It is an attempt to care for the promises made by the Government four years ago when it first sought office as a governing Party, and when it promised a comprehensive, adequate, and accessible day care program for Canada.
Anyone who understands the need for day care today, accessible, quality day care, or anyone who has any idea of what is required and who is able to read this Bill, in either official language, will quickly discover that there is no relationship between the need that continues to grow as the nature of our economy evolves, and what is delivered in this Bill.
The country needs, and is going to need, some 2 million day care spaces. The Bill delivers 200,000 day care spaces over the next seven years. The requirement is for 2 million. The Bill delivers at best 200,000. The Bill does not recognize that society has dramatically changed in the past 20 years. Today less than one in six Canadian families fit the traditional view and pattern of the wife at home with the children and the husband off working. Many families today are headed by single parents, and most of those parents are single young mothers. While more than half of all women with pre-school children work outside the home, only about 20 per cent, two in ten, of those children are served by an accredited day care centre. Raising children is more expensive than ever before,
Canada Child Care Act
whether one or both parents work, and providing child care is one of the highest costs.
This Bill fails to recognize the tremendous need in the country today. Indeed, there is an excellent editorial in The Ottawa Citizen by Marjorie Nichols. The headline was "Epp"-referring to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp)-"at last decides his figures for child care program". It is an excellent article. It points out that one should get past the flimflammery. Once you have shattered the mirrors, once you have blown away the smoke, once you have seen through the orchestrated series of press events and numbers, you can see that the country does not have a child care program.
In 1966 medicare was established in this country. It worked because the national Government of the day, I am pleased to say a Liberal Government, established a set of national standards, established the principle that whether you are a Canadian living in British Columbia, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saskatoon or in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, your access to medical care, the kind of standard that you could expect as a Canadian, one of the qualifiers, one of the things that we held in common no matter where we lived, was a level of medical care that would be consistent right across this land. We set national standards. It was a national social program.
Nowhere in Bill C-144, the so-called day care Bill, is there anything establishing any national standard whatever across this country. Nowhere is there any guarantee that if you live in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, to the extent that you look to your federal Government because you are a citizen of Canada and your access to day care will be equivalent to the access of someone who lives in Toronto, Ontario, by comparison a much wealthier province, you will have those standards. They are not there, Mr. Speaker.
What is more shocking and what most Canadians do not realize is that there is absolutely nothing in this Bill to ensure that if you live in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia or in Manitoba or, for that matter if you live in Ontario, your province will even participate in a national day care program. Indeed, this Bill makes it not only possible but I would submit plausible, if not likely, that we will see those provinces with the fiscal capacity to participate in the program to the extent it meets any of the needs, but will do so only at a level of about 10 per cent, and we will see those without a fiscal capacity to participate not sign on board. Some provinces will determine that their fiscal capacity and priorities are in other directions and Canadians in some provinces of Canada will not be participating in this day care program.
We in this Party insist upon national, enforceable standards, similar to what we have in medicare. I heard my colleague in the New Democratic Party who just spoke, a Member from western Canada, refer to his own Party's day care proposal. He

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
said with respect to rural Canada-I represent a rural constituency-that his own Party's program makes some attempt and shows some willingness to experiment to see whether or not we can provide some services to rural Canadians. Ele said quite rightly that rural Canadians are very suspicious about day care policies no matter from which Party they come. They have this notion that we are talking about young, upwardly mobile professional working couples who can afford things like day care.


Mr. Harris:: Like the Member from Hamilton East.


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is really nothing for rural Canadians because in rural Canada the vast majority of day care in rural Newfoundland, almost all day care, is provided in home by people who open their homes and establish, in almost all cases that I know of, a quality level of day care for couples who are working or for a single mother who requires day care. The New Democratic Party's proposal makes no provision for that kind of day care.
The NDP proposal does not have the flexibility to develop that kind of day care. The NDP proposal wants to institutionalize right across this country a model based on a model that works perfectly in Toronto-God bless Toronto.
Rural Canadians need access-not to tax deductions because if your income is low you cannot claim it anyway-to tax credits. That has to be part of the proposal. While I fundamentally do not disagree with my friends in the New Democratic Party, who share many of the concerns the Liberal Party feels about this Bill and who recognize many of its gaping flaws, we must deal with the reality of Canada as we find it. We cannot afford the luxury as we develop laws and social policy for this nation of living in a false Utopia concocted by some pollster or academic living in an ivory tower in some fabled urban setting. We must recognize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise that the time for the Hon. Member has expired.


Brian Vincent Tobin: 1 regret it too, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: The Hon. Member for St. John's East.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate on this important issue of child care for Canadian families. It is my pleasure to participate because I do have some very important things to say which I think will outline the total inadequacy of the Government's approach to this issue. In doing so I want to talk about the kind of families that we mean when we talk about families in Canada.
I am sure this Government has no idea what most people in this country need because it probably did not ask the families themselves what kinds of needs they have. There are approximately 16,000 families in my riding of St. John's East with children living at home. That is comparable to other ridings
across this country. In my riding of 16,000 families, 3,600 of them are single parent families. Over 20 per cent are single parent families who are living in a situation where there is not a Mom and a Pop and two kids and two incomes and all those things that a lot of people take for granted when they talk about child care. We have to look at a program that meets the needs of single parent families, of two parent families, of situations where everything is not straightforward and even where two parents are working and where those kinds of choices which the Minister keeps talking about may or may not be available.
What we need to recognize is that for families who have children to look after and who need to work the biggest issue in their lives is how to find affordable quality child care. I know that from contact with people in those kinds of situations who have to struggle from one situation to the next who cannot find quality child care, who cannot find care they can afford and with which they can be satisfied and comfortable.
We heard the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who spoke about what a wonderful situation she had as an upper middle-class Canadian in a two-parent working family. She was able to find this caregiver who was adequate and provided quality care. That is a marvellous and a wonderful thing. It is a situation which could adequately operate under a New Democratic Party child care proposal. It is a situation where an individual, a caregiver, can associate with a licensed facility, be given assistance to provide quality care in terms of facilities and equipment for caregiving, and in terms of ensuring that that caregiver is given an adequate income.
That is the kind of flexibility that our Party would support and has proposed. It would provide quality and would be affordable, not only to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar), who has indicated that she makes an income quite substantially higher than that of the vast majority of Canadians, but for average working men and women who have to look after their children. They too should be able to afford quality care, and should be able to exercise a choice. The situation of a woman who is at home and is already looking after one or two children would quite adequately be met by providing assistance to the care giver at that level to ensure quality care giving as well as an adequate income for the care giver. Those are the kinds of choices our policy represents.
The Government suggests that one of the choices available to this mythical family composed of mom, pop and the kids is whether to work or not to work. The choice goes something like this: "We will give you a child tax credit of $200 per year if you decide to stay at home and look after your own children at home". Of course, that amounts to $ 16.66 a month. This is a real choice. I can see the women of Canada for the next three weeks mulling over whether or not to quit their jobs, stay at home and look after their children for the sake of $16.66 a
August 23, 1988

month. Those are the kinds of choices that are in the proposal the Government has put forward.
We would provide a national child care system which has a number of essential characteristics including accountability to parents. The child care system would be established on a nonprofit basis. Those who are already involved in profit-making centres would agree to a transition period for setting up nonprofit centres with control by parents and the care givers themselves. That would be desirable because this is a basic and fundamental service which meets a basic social need. It should be met on a non-profit basis. Most of the people who are now involved in child-care giving on a for-profit basis would do better in terms of personal income under a non-profit system based on the proposal of the New Democratic Party.
The essential features of such a system would be the requirement of minimum standard applicable all across Canada, specifically training standards and parent and community ownership and control of non-profit services. This would provide quality, affordable services. The next requirement would be that the system be accessible, that it would be available to those in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, as well as to those in Toronto. Parents need access to the kind of care that is standardized, provided that care givers are licensed so that parents will have some assurance that the people providing the service do adhere to training standards and are trustworthy and acceptable people.
Those elements are essential to a proper child care program. They are all missing from the Government's program. There is an absence of national objectives. There is no vision in the offering of child care choices that are needed. In fact, it imposes restrictions on the increases in child care spaces. It does not allow for an expanding and developing market, and for the first time has imposed restrictions on the amount of government assistance that will be offered to child care workers. This makes it impossible for us to support the Government's Bill. It does not do anything to enhance the position of child care workers, positions which are at best marginalized by the policies which allow for individuals to use the tax system to pay people minimum wages or less to look after children across Canada. That itself speaks for low standards and does not do anything to increase the quality of training and care.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, truth comes in strange ways and at strange moments. I think my colleague across the way just laid a little truth on the table. I think he said that they are against the Bill because it does nothing for child care workers. Does he mean all child care workers? Does he mean babysitters, the teenagers who sit for other people's children, the friends and neighbours? Are these child care workers? Are mothers child care workers?
I suspect that the NDP definition of a child care worker is someone who works in an institution and belongs to some kind of association which verges on being a union. Whether it is free
Canada Child Care Act
trade or child care, the NDP represents a leadership element in Canadian society. It represents people with pretty big salaries, union leaders, who drive pretty big cars and travel to pretty good hotels. The behaviour of Members across the way is conditioned on behalf of those people, the union leaders who belong to their political Party. It is time for them to join the rest of us in speaking out on behalf of all Canadians, not just a small portion of Canadians who happen to be in that fortunate position but on behalf of all Canadians.
The child care policy of this Government is a policy on behalf of all children, children who are cared for in their homes by their mothers or fathers. We are offering some help for them to raise their children. This legislation deals with the provisions of child care services in a more formal sense. The basic philosophy of this piece of legislation is that Parliament will provide money to the provinces to set up the services which the provinces need for the people who live in those provinces.
Living in Tuktoyaktuk is not the same as living in downtown Toronto. Living in Barrhead, Alberta, is not the same as living in the City of Calgary. What the NDP and Liberal Members are asking for when they talk about national standards is some kind of minimum qualification for the workers in the system, not for the good of the children. Children are well cared for by parents, no formal schooling required. They give love, care and attention. Children are well cared for by teenagers. Children are well cared for by relatives, by friends, by neighbours


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not always, they aren't.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: "Not always", she shouts across. They are not always well cared for by licensed, accredited child care workers or teachers or university professors. She knows that and I know that. We belong to that profession, and some of our colleagues go wrong. Some of them do terrible things. Some of them end up in jail. There is nothing legislation can do to ensure the quality of people, but we can tell the parents of Canada that they must accept some responsibility for determining whether the care their children are about to receive is the kind of care that they value. Is it consistent with your personal attitude and philosophy? This Bill encourages that kind of choice. This Bill says that we will enter into an agreement with the provinces to provide money to meet the child care needs in those provinces. This will be done in a way that fits.
What the NDP is saying is, let us let the population centres of the country decide, the areas with the most MPs, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, places with high density apartment buildings, lots of jobs in manufacturing, and a certain kind of lifestyle. They produce the most MPs because most people live in those kinds of centres, and the bulk of those MPs shall decide on a standard for the rest of the nation; for a fishing village in Newfoundland; a prairie agricultural community; a northern mining town. Let us have a standard that fits the cities. It may not fit the children but it fits workers because

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
you can control the supply and raise the wages of those who are lucky enough to be inside the system.
That is what the NDP represents. NDP Members would have you believe that they can produce a day care program which meets the same goals of this program for less money in virtually half the time. That proposition is an absolute joke. First, because the federal Government has no business in the day care business. It has no jurisdiction under Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution to run a day care system. In the same way it has no jurisdiction to run the public education system. Our forefathers gave that jurisdiction to the provinces so the politicians would be closer to the people when dealing with human and health services.
As a federal Government we can contribute. We can recognize a need and provide money. How can the NDP propose to do, for less money in a shorter period of time, more than what is proposed in this legislation? Have they had a single consultation with a single province? Have they been out there discussing with the provinces their needs, their priorities, their capacity? The NDP intends to provide all the money because this Bill does not provide all the money. The people of a province put up some of the money and the federal Government puts up some of the money. It is a partnership so that the program remains sensitive to the needs of the people in the province.
That is a long, slow process. We lived through 17 years of government where the Parliament of Canada thought it could intrude on provincial jurisdiction and do what it liked. We brought a different spirit to this land. We said we will come to office in a spirit of co-operation. Let the federal Government be the helpmate of the provinces. Let us discuss, let us work it out, let us avoid duplication, let us save taxpayers' dollars by co-operating and building together.
If the results of all those consultations and this legislation is to produce 200,000 new day care spaces for this dollar amount over a period of seven years, it does so because the consultation process has produced information from the provinces about their capacity, their needs and their willingness to proceed. Without that consultation with respect to doing something in an area of provincial jurisdiction you are simply saying to the Canadian people: "I have an idea. It is a pie in the sky idea but hopefully some of it will stick. It is not based on facts. It is not based on reality. Hopefully Canadians will believe me".
I think Canadians have their feet on the ground. I think Canadians know how much time and effort it takes to set up a new organization, a collection of parents, to create a new day care centre with a good board, good constitution, good facilities and adequate staff. Those things take months. You cannot stand in Parliament, decree it to happen and expect it to be there the next day. These are community endeavours of some complexity requiring participation on a voluntary basis by a lot of people.
The organizations that exist today to help are provincial Governments and the departments of those provincial Governments. They have the staff on a daily basis working with these kinds of groups. They know how long it takes. They know how expensive it is. I say to Canadians: When it comes to child care you really have a choice. In the next election you can vote for the Party who cares about their child care workers and their union bosses, or you can vote for the Party who cares about children and parental choice.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a chance to speak on Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. There is no question that this is a very important subject to literally millions of young couples who have children of school age or pre-school children. We learn as we look across the statistics that 44 per cent of families have two careers. Some 63 per cent of all mothers who work today, two million women, have children under 16 years of age. Almost half of all the women with pre-school children require day care.
What we need is an accessible, high quality, affordable day care system. Although we have some 250,000 licensed day care spaces today, the actual need approaches some two million across the country. There are lots of problems with the present system under CAP which is operated through the provinces. It is not very satisfactory for those in the middle income group because it is a welfare system. If you are above a certain level of income you cannot utilize it. Of course, other private day care systems are just too expensive for those middle income families.
The whole system today is not adequate to deal with the situation as we see it in rural Canada. Farming communities and resource areas certainly do not have an adequate day care system. The shortages are growing worse every year.
The plan before us today is an interesting one because when it was announced last December it was $1 billion less. There was a famous cabinet Minister who said: "What's a million"? In this case the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who has probably at his disposal more computers, more technical back up, than any other Department of government, erred by $1 billion. He announced a program of $5.3 billion. He discovered four or five months later that he was $1 billion short. The interesting part of that is that if we read the article written just a couple days ago in The Ottawa Citizen by Marjorie Nichols, the program put forward by the Government, involving some $4 billion for actual day care service itself, if you extrapolate it out over the seven year period, actually amounts to $570,000 per year above what is being paid out by the Government now under the Canada Assistance Plan. That takes into account inflation over the seven years. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, how much less it was before he added the $1 billion.
So we really have a proposal before us which probably will
not do anything different from what we have under the present
system. Of course, provinces that opt into this new proposal
August 23, 1988

will have to opt out of the Canada Assistance Program permanently. So we have a very questionable system which has already proven it is $1 billion short. The whole proposal is based on the provinces picking up this $4 billion. If the provinces do not have their share, then, of course, the $4 billion will not be spent.
There are a lot of problems with this proposal. First, there is no proposal to have national standards. So even if one has a rinky-dink system, one still receives the money because there are no national standards established by this program. There is very little help for the mother who stays at home. In fact, in this fiscal year, as I understand the proposal, they receive exactly a SI00 refundable tax credit. Next year it will be $200. The Hon. Member opposite, who is shaking his head and who raves every day about the socialists, may think $200 is enough to allow a homemaker to stay at home and take care of the children, but anyone who stops to think about it can see it is obviously not enough. That is why our distinguished critic, who served on the committee, proposed refundable spousal deduction. It is not only a tax credit but it is a refundable tax credit. If the deduction for a spouse is now, say, $4,000, and the tax credit basis is at 30 per cent or 40 per cent, they would receive that as a refundable tax credit in their own hands. If the spouse is not working or does not have any other income, she still receives the income. So there is an incentive there for homemakers and mothers to stay at home and raise their children, especially during the pre-school years.
The present system, which is going through the tax reform now in the Bill before the House, increases the exemption from $2,000 to $4,000 per year. Of course, it is a very regressive system. It is much more advantageous if one is in a high-income bracket. The New Democratic Party wants to cut that out. The NDP thinks it should only be maintained at the $2,000 limit. That is even more regressive because it does not provide the assistance for those who want to stay home.
What is more important, the proposal before the House does not carry enough new spaces. We need at least a million spaces. This proposal only creates 200,000 new spaces over a period of seven years. The system does not equitably share the burden. There should be more assistance for those low-income families.
We believe that this proposal, although it may have some useful features to it, it is not adequate. It simply does not meet the need. It is regressive. It is unfair and, most of all, it does not really provide a great deal of new money. According to Marjorie Nichols, who writes a column for The Citizen, over the life of the seven year program only $570,000 per year of new money is added. I think we have a very inadequate proposal before us tonight. It may be $570,000 better per year than the present system, but surely that is not a massive new national day care program. We know it is not. It does not provide much extra money and it does not provide any national standards. It is simply inadequate to deal with the massive responsibility which is before the country. It just does not adequately meet the needs of young families who cannot
Canada Child Care Act
afford proper day care when, because of economic necessity, both members of the family, both parents, have to work outside the home.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the question of providing an adequate day care system is of crucial importance to the people of Canada. The fact is that 60 per cent of the mothers of children under the age of three are now in the workforce. Most of these mothers are not just single parent mothers, but mothers in families with a joint income where both the husband and wife are working and mothers in families where both mother and father are middle-income earners who are working.
Why is that happening, Mr. Speaker? Well, to a large extent it is because it is almost impossible for a young couple to buy their own home and meet the mortgage payments with only one member of the family working. This is true even in the City of Winnipeg where the price of a home is probably just one-half of what it is in Ottawa, or a third of the cost of a home in Vancouver and probably a quarter of the cost of a home in Toronto. In the newer parts of my constituency the people who live there are almost entirely young couples between the ages of 25 and 40 years. One could shoot off a cannon during the middle of the day and there would not be a single person come out of the house to see what was happening because there is no one home. Both husband and wife are out working so they can meet the mortgage payments.
So Members of Parliament or people out in the community who believe and talk about really having a choice should realize that the choice for most parents is some system of day care or home care. They just do not realize what is happening. The choice is no longer between day care, public or private, adequate or inadequate, and home care, because home care is no longer a viable, possible choice. The alternative to day care is some kind of arrangement, leaving the child with a neighbour or getting some high school student in to look after the children or getting someone from the Philippines or some other country to come and look after the child, and these parents have no knowledge at all about the adequacy or ability of that person to give careful care and supervision of the children.
These are the facts. What are the needs? Health and Welfare Canada, which is not a preserve of wild-eyed radicals by any stretch of the imagination, states that the number of children with parents working more than 20 hours a week is over two million. According to Health and Welfare Canada, there are presently only 250,000 child care spaces. That means there are 1.75 million children of working parents for whom there are no child care spaces.
I find it amazing that Conservative Members of Parliament who talk so glibly and often about the family and how much they care about the family are prepared to ignore the problem or bring forth a proposal to deal with the problem that is

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
completely inadequate. It simply does not meet the needs of the people.
If one listens to the Parliamentary Secretary who spoke a few moments ago, one would think that the proposals put forward by members of the NDP are impractical, unaffordable and were somehow pulled out of thin air.
I want to put on the record the principles of a national day care policy as enunciated, not by the New Democratic Party, but by the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association. They say about universality:
All children should have access to high quality child care services regardless of family income or parent's employment status. Parents should determine the nature and extent of their children's participation.
They say about quality:
To ensure high quality, child care services should be licensed and regulated, reflecting the best current knowledge about early childhood development as well as the varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Canadian families.
One need only drive through the core areas of the major cities in Canada to see that the days when the population of the cities was 95 per cent white are long gone. In some of the core areas in the City of Winnipeg, for example, 95 per cent of the children attending elementary school are either immigrant children from Caribbean countries and South America or native children. They must have a care system that meets their needs, not one that is dictated to them by a government from Ottawa. They need a system that is developed in consultation with the local community and parents.
The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association discusses affordability. It states:
Cost should not be a barrier to access for any family. User fees should diminish over a realistic time frame, with a small parent fee to remain. Assistance with this fee should be provided to low-income families.
We know that there are many low income families in the cities. Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of low income families in rural areas.
The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association says about working conditions:
Child care staff should receive salaries and benefits commensurate with the value of their work and educational qualifications.
Let us deal with the question of cost and how we will pay for it.
We believe the federal Conservative Government has rejected the principles of organizations such as the one I just referred to, and has rejected the very fundamental principles it advocated when it urged Canadians to support the Meech Lake Accord.
Let us consider how these programs will be financed. Of the almost S5.5 billion being committed by the federal Government to the program, almost S2.5 billion will be spent through the tax system. Day care advocates and the former Manitoba Government estimated that if this had been committed to
creating new services, another 170,000 spaces could have been created for day care.
A large percentage of the almost $5.5 billion that the Government says it proposes to allocate to day care facilities is not new money. The federal Government presently spends $170 million every year through the child care expense deduction. Thus this would come to approximately $1 billion in new money.
Furthermore, the larger percentage of the money being proposed by the Government is going into a doubling of the child tax deduction. The Government's program already gives the greatest benefit to well-to-do families and gives nothing to low income families. That should be of no surprise because since day one, after its election, the Government has demonstrated quite clearly that it believes in the trickle-down theory of economics, that if you only give enough to people at the top through large salaries and tax breaks on investments or capital gains, the money spent by those with high income will somehow trickle down to those in the lower income brackets. That has not worked before and it will not work now.
Less well-off families will be given an increase of $100 for the first year for the child tax credit and a further $100 in the second year for baby-sitting or parents at home. A $200 increase is absolutely meaningless in terms of giving women real choices. If they are wealthy, $200 means nothing. Those who are in the lower income bracket need a great deal more than $200.
We have made it very clear that the Government's proposals are simply inadequate. We have proposed an alternative that meets the criteria and principles enunciated by organizations such as the one I have mentioned and by people who work in the existing day care centres who know the needs of the children who are in their care.
I, along with my colleagues, intend to oppose this legislation and do everything I can to see a much better system in place that will meet the needs of Canadian children.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to take part in this debate and to try to convince my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party that we should reject the Government's Bill and draft one that will be better and fairer for all Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, the day care system has existed in Canada since about the Second World War, when then-Prime Minister Mackenzie King decided to establish a system of "day nurseries", as they were called at the time, to encourage women to find work, because there was a labour shortage, particularly during the Second World War.
When thing returned to "normal" after the war, or at least
after the Armistice, when people resumed their more traditional roles, the day nurseries were closed because it was then
August 23, 1988

believed that there was less need for them; the day nurseries were closed. But gradually, as women entered the labour force in much larger numbers, the need for day care arose again. And again, the Liberal Party, which was in power, helped set up a system, in co-operation with the provinces, to encourage the development of day care facilities. That is the system which exists to this day.
Mr. Speaker, these days, in 1988, in 44 per cent of families, both parents work outside the home; I am informed that 63.8 per cent of women with children under 16 have a job, which means that two million women with children work outside the home.
Those two million people who are working outside the home require day care spaces for their children. In the large majority of those cases both parents work outside the home. That is actually the case wherever there is a traditional family with both spouses in the home type of unit.
In the cases of sole support parents the decision there is even more crucial. The mother has to work in order to be gainfully employed. As we know, apart from everything else, the cost of living is very high. The traditional system of obtaining funding from the parent who has left in the case of a sole support parent is not functioning. Maintenance orders are not being enforced as they should be enforced. Thus mothers are left without income.
We have a situation in which most women in the country who have children work, either by choice or where there is no choice. Whether it is a case of choice or not, whether they need to work outside the home or not, it is their decision. That is one thing. It is time that we accepted as a society that if a woman wants to work outside the home, or any one of the two parents, they should be able to do so with an established system of offering child care for their children. In the 1850s in Canada under the leadership of Edgerton Ryerson a school system for children aged six and older was established. Society took care of the children for a portion of the day. The children were taught the necessary academic knowledge they required from that age on. In the few years afterwards the system became compulsory. No one questions today whether or not we need a publicly-funded established educational system.
In the case of day care the debate, unfortunately, is still raging on. It deals with whether or not we need day care. I think the answer is fairly obvious with just the statistics that I gave moments ago. We do need a day care system.
But we need a day care system quite different from our educational system. It must be very flexible in order to accommodate the largest number of Canadian families possible. I totally disagree with those who think for one minute that the only way to have a day care system is to have a system in which the state runs it totally from one end of the spectrum to the other similar to our school system. I think it should be
Canada Child Care Act
funded in a way that permits as many families as possible to participate. But it should be flexible to accommodate a large number of Canadians. I would like to elaborate on that.
A day care system should be able to accommodate families in rural settings. That would not necessarily be the same system as one designed to accommodate civil servants who always work the same specified hours of the day. The Liberal Party has recognized that by the tremendous leadership and initiative demonstrated by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Outremont, (Mrs. Pepin), who proposed to us the establishment of a foundation which would oversee the establishment of day care centres in the various regions of our country and which would take into consideration local needs.
I was describing a while ago a potential day care kind of situation in the civil service setting, say in the west end of my constituency where a large number of my electors work here in the city. Perhaps they would require a day care system which would be structured in such a way as to bring their children there at 7.30 or 8 a.m. in the morning and pick them up at 4.30 in the afternoon. In the case of my rural constituents in the farming community that system could be totally different.
First, the traditional farm family cannot be stereotyped the way we are able to do with some families. Sometimes one of the two parents works full time on the farm. Sometimes the other parent works either in the village, town or elsewhere. However, even in the cases in which both parents work on the farm their role on the farm is far different from what it was a number of years ago, with the women often participating directly in the operation of the farm machinery, the actual management of the farm and so on, and not always available in the home as they would have been at some point in the past.
In the agricultural community the system must be able to accommodate the seasonal needs when both parents sometimes work very long hours during a certain period of the year, whether it is at seeding time or harvest time, and then the system would accommodate the fact that during certain periods of the year the need for day care would be less because it would be required for fewer hours.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, just in the examples I have given, a totally structured system designed to be the same for everyone would not be appropriate. Let me give Hon. Members another instance in the constituency which I represent. In the eastern end of my riding there are a number of textile mills. Some of those mills operate in the daytime. Some operate evening shifts. I also have a steel mill in my riding in L'Orignal. It works 24 hours a day with three shifts. Therefore we can see that the child care needs have to be structured in such a way as to accommodate the needs of the various kinds of communities that I have described.
Our caucus has disagreed through our spokesperson on this issue with the proposal of the Government simply because the Government's program fails in many respects. First, we have to remember that the Government is not re-inventing the wheel, it has not discovered the universe. It has not discovered

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
brand new way of providing child care. What the Government has done is to package an announcement, make a Bill around it and do so in a manner that is not totally filled with substance. As a matter of fact, I would say that it is largely devoid of substance. Then it decided that it would make this announcement, pretending that all the funding that it would provide toward day care is something brand new that did not exist in the past.
As my colleague from Outremont, I am sure, would want me to say, that is not the case. The Canada Assistance Plan assists now. It has no capping in terms of maximum funding. Whatever funding the province gives is matched at the present time by the federal Government under this program. What the Conservative program, apart from everything else, fails to do is to provide adequacy in terms of funding. Because of the caps that have been provided, my own Province of Ontario will be losing 12,000 child care spaces. That is far from being an adequate program. Who would think from reading the Government's literature, junk mail and everything else that it produces, that we would end up with fewer child care spaces? The Government does not brag about that.
Unfortunately, the time accorded to me has expired. I want to tell my colleagues in the Elouse that we need more child care spaces. The program must be flexible, but it must be meaningful, and not an empty announcement such as the one we have had.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. The debate this evening is certainly a hallmark in history when Members of Parliament rise to see who can outdo whom, and who loves children and mothers the most. Surely this must be great news to many children and many mothers and fathers who are seeking child care, and who seem to be the people I meet in my constituency with many concerns.
I rise this evening to speak against the Canada Child Care Act proposed by the Government. Despite the fact that we have heard from other Hon. Members that opposing this Bill seems to be against motherhood, against children, and against choice, I seem to be in very good company. The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, which represents day care associations across Canada, and I am proud to say also from the Yukon, has raised very serious concerns about this Bill, which they have relayed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney).
This association, many of whom are women, but who are a cross-section of people, have stated that this Bill ignores the child care needs of Canadian families, and does not encourage the development of a national child care system. They also acknowledge that child care is an issue of national importance and deserves the full public scrutiny available through the legislative process. Organizations that have joined in this letter to the Prime Minister include the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the National Federation of Nurses Union, and others.
As I reflected on the comments that I would like to make on this issue, having been involved in the child care issue for many years, first with my own children, now with my grandchildren, and certainly as a community advocate, the debate in a sense reminded me of something that Groucho Marx once said. He stated: "This would be a better world for children if parents had to eat the spinach".
I would suggest that if the Prime Minister and his colleagues had to utilize low-quality child care, deal with constantly revolving child caregivers, inadequate child care spaces and facilities, and be forced to pay high child care costs, we may have a very different child care Act before us, and indeed a better world for children.
Other speakers today have stated that, in their constituency, 85 per cent of their constituents are happy with the choices which they have to utilize the child care of their choice. Obviously, we live in very different worlds. It is true that there can be a range of options: Home care, family assistance, neighbours, family day homes, and child care centres. Every one is a possibility, but not all of them are real choices.
I do not need to reiterate that there is a child care crisis in Canada today. The very fact that the Government has brought forth this Bill acknowledges that there is a crisis. I do not think it is very fruitful to debate who cares most about whom, but rather to look at the Bill and see if it will address this crisis. In reviewing how far this Bill will take us in addressing the real crisis, I have to say that in sum this Bill is simply an articulate voice of the past.
Approximately one year ago I had an occasion to read a history of the development of public education in Canada. Many of the arguments put forth tonight about child care in general were arguments that were raised in those debates about public education. As the previous speaker so aptly said, we are not exactly saying that child care will be analogous to the public education system, but there are certain principles which are being advocated, just as were done in the public education system. Those are principles of national standards in order that Canadians and their children from coast to coast will have affordable, accessible child care.
Situations do indeed vary in communities. However, under this Bill there will be 12 different agreements. Again, that is not in and of itself a bad focus, because situations do differ between rural, urban, and appropriate cultural situations. However, covering those separate agreements there must be some type of national focus and standards, as we have very appropriately in other areas, which does not necessarily spell out every factor that will appear in those agreements, but will at least give a framework for a national objective in child care.
August 23, 1988

Situations do vary in communities. For example, in my own constituency of the Yukon, 12 per cent of Yukon families are single parents; 16 per cent of the families in the Yukon operate on the traditional male breadwinner with the female at home full-time model. This is not to denigrate in any way that model. Again, it is the choice that people make, or that they choose to make. It is a valid choice.
However, the problem is that the tax breaks offered in this Bill for a homemaker who stays at home, whether it is a man or a woman, will not benefit those with lower incomes. Obviously, it will be of greater benefit to those with a higher income. Those with a middle income will not benefit nearly as much, as other speakers have pointed out, from this particular tax concession. A tax credit would make more sense if we are to equalize the benefit.
The Bill illustrates that support for the family under this Bill means that there will be no substantive national standards, and that there will be a cap on federal spending. It is important to point out that, in this particular Bill, under the Canada Assistance Plan, as it presently is, jurisdictions must opt out of the Canada Assistance Plan if they are to participate in this Bill. For some jurisdictions this will mean that they have less ability to provide child care rather than more ability.
There is one very important area I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, and I hope it will be discussed thoroughly in committee. It is the provision for native services for individual Indian bands. In an analysis prepared by the legislative library several important concerns are pointed out in that area. That is an area that must be very closely examined and analysed when the Bill is in committee.
This Bill has many inadequacies which have been reiterated many times tonight. It must not be supported in its present form. It must have very full and adequate amendments that will be discussed in committee. Therefore, I cannot support this Bill, as my Party does not, and request that the Government listen to those people in the field who have called this totally unacceptable in meeting child care needs in Canada today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who always likes to wind up the debate, has the floor.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: I listened with great interest to all the speeches, since I make a habit of listening very carefully, when we are considering an important matter, to what Members on both sides of the House have to say.


An Hon. Member:: You wanted to wind up the debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Of course, I could . . . No, I am not going to wind up the debate. But I could of course quote all the
Canada Child Care Act
figures that were given. Some people say: Too much, while others say: Not enough. The statistics... I wonder, considering the little time we have left, whether we should not reflect together on the important subject of day care today.
Instead of dwelling on statistics, on the number of children attending day care centres and how many parents work, I would rather draw the attention of the population and Quebecers who are listening, and of course of Canadians, to the importance of this new phenomenon. Day-care is a new phenomenon. It is a whole new philosophy of life, because Canada is changing. Society changes and we must be prepared to meet the needs of the people. Perhaps I may give you an example. I see my colleague from Quebec who is listening carefully, as usual... Only a few years ago here in the House of Commons, a disabled person could not visit Parliament. Why not? Because we didn't realize that the disabled also had the right to visit Parliament and to have complete access. Why? Because there were stairs all over the place, because there was no way .. .

It was impossible to attend as so many people did tonight. We were not against the handicapped. We did not think of it. We were not prepared for a changing society. Who would have thought that big builders must now provide easy access to buildings? We did not think of it. We were not against people having easy access to any federal, provincial, or municipal building. It did not come to mind that a group of people could not do that. Now people who build must be prepared to provide easy access. In Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and every other city there are sidewalks. Why did we not have easy sidewalk access for people with wheelchairs? We were not against it; we just did not think of it. That was not part of our society then. It was not part of life not to have someone to assist those who were not easily mobile.
Society is changing, Mr. Speaker. I am not against what is being put to the House, but I am not for it. It does not provide for easy access to those who need it. They have a right to expect services from their Government.

So I wonder why this debate is dragging on. It is just because some people still refuse to realize that society has changed. It isn't what it used to be. I come from a family of twelve children. At that time, in my family, we were raised by our parents. And there were people in our family to look after the kids. My father was very busy. He was a doctor. He delivered over 9,000 babies. He was busy, and my mother was involved in all kinds of activities, but there were always people to take care of us at home. Things are different today. Things have changed. Society is different. This means that the federal Government has a duty to provide equal services to all Canadians.

Canada is not made up only of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Canada is made up of Foam Lake, Saskatchewan;

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
North Kapuskasing, Ontario; Thompson, Manitoba; and, my God, name me places that I love to visit in my country. People should expect equal access to services if they are to be comfortable and happy to call themselves Canadians. Otherwise we will hear them say that others are better treated. When people feel that another group is better treated, they start thinking that Canada is not what it should be and it is not equal in all parts of the country. This is a philosophical debate. I know that many Members of this House do not yet have the openness to express what they feel, but that does not mean they are not good Members. They are not yet ready to accept that the good old society to which they were accustomed is not the society that exists today. We must have a program that gives easy and equal access to people and treats those who need it most better than those who can afford certain projects or programs.
People talk about natural resources. Is there a greater resource than our young people? We must be ready to invest in the future of this country. What is better than to invest in our children? They will make this country better known in the world. It will be more open and more generous. Many are not ready to accept that the country is changing. Many are not yet ready, we know here in the House, to accept that more people from other countries will come to this country. The best way to integrate them into Canadian society will be to help them. They should understand that you can have black skin, yellow skin, come from a different culture or follow a different religion. You usually cannot do that when you are past 50. You have to start when you are very young. That is why it is capital-

We must realize that soon we will have to invest a lot of money in what we prize most in our society, our young people.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I hope this debate will soon come to an end, so that we can take this important Bill and consider the details in committee.

We must not have a closed mind. We must be prepared to change, if necessary, in committee. I will conclude because I know my time has expired, but if I may I will just take the 30 seconds left to say that I hope for once that all Members of Parliament start accepting that committee work is not an exercise in frustration. You do not arrive with a Bill, discuss it for three months, and come back to the House with the same Bill. I love doing committee work. I love to listen to my colleagues in every Party who can come up with better proposals than the ones I put forward. If democracy is to listen to people, it is also not to have a closed mind. One must be ready when this project goes to committee to change it.
I see an hon. friend, Mr. Stevens-I like to call Members by their names. We were together on the foreign affairs and national defence committee. We were always ready to listen to good ideas coming from other Members. It seems now that
people have closed minds. They are not ready to go to committee and give up on an old idea by saying that this one is better and therefore that is what I recommend to the House of Commons so that at report stage and third reading there will be a better Bill.
I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to put forward these thoughts, thoughts that are connected with the Bill but that do not deal with exactly how many dollars are involved. God knows you have listened to that for quite some time, and I think you will listen to some more.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-144. It would be appropriate for me to observe at this hour on a Tuesday night that it appears it is only members of the opposition Parties who are joining in the debate. The Tories have given up on it. It is rather a shame, because if they wanted to do something that would be significant, the best thing they could do is to continue making speeches on the importance of child care.
The Bill that is before us does not deserve to be passed if Conservative Members take the principles and the fine words of their speeches seriously. If they want the people of Canada to know how committed they are to all these fine principles of support for the family, they should keep on making speeches. If they continued to make speeches, this Bill, that is designed to damage child care rather than expand it as it needs to be expanded, would be talked out, as it deserves to be. I would encourage all of my Conservative colleagues to get back into the debate, keep it going and talk the Bill out so that it dies the death it so well deserves.
We in the New Democratic Party are profoundly opposed to Bill C-144 and will do all we can to prevent it from becoming law. We are opposed to it because we recognize the very great need for good quality child care that exists and we are convinced that the proposals the Government has put forward in its so-called national strategy on child care will actually produce fewer spaces over the next five or seven years than we will have if we continue with the Canada Assistance Plan arrangements.
The experience of the last four years has shown a growth, on average, of 15 per cent in the number of child care spaces created year by year. The proposal of the Government will limit that to 10 per cent. Surely any plan that purports to meet the needs of families but limits the growth to a lower rate than we have known over the past four years and caps it at that rate is not a plan nor is it a national strategy for child care.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has claimed, as the press has informed us, that he is determined to put this into effect. This indicates to me that this is a Minister with very limited concerns for the children of Canada. He is more concerned about saving the federal Government money. He is quite prepared to write off the
August 23, 1988

enormous need that exists for child care spaces, over and above the limited additions the plan will make. He is more concerned about providing some additional tax breaks, though those are very limited, to middle-class families who manage by one means or another to find some kind of care for their children.
Again, this Minister speaks fine words about the family. However, when it comes to the crunch, it is his responsibility to provide the arrangements that are needed in every province, city, town, and rural area. For all of this talk about $6 billion plus over seven years, that need will not be met. The tragedy of this is surely the enormous need that has developed for child care.
A dozen years ago, perhaps 30 per cent of families with children under three had both parents at work. It is conventional, and I suppose acceptable, to put this in more sexist terms; that is to say, a dozen years ago, only 30 per cent of the mothers and families with children under three were in the workforce. What do we find a dozen years later? We find a doubling of that figure to 60 per cent of mothers who are getting back into the workforce very soon after the births of their children and are looking for care for babies, never mind for children who are two, three, four or are in kindergarten. There are also needs beyond those ages when children are in school. Children who go home from school at 3.30 are alone for an hour or two hours before their parents arrive. This need runs to hundreds of thousands of children.
Let us consider the statistics. There are perhaps 240,000 spaces and 1.6 million children who are under the age of 13. I recognize here that the older children, those who are 10, 11, or 12, should not be left on their own. One worries about them when they are left by themselves for lengthy periods of time.
One can make all the fine speeches in the world about the desirability of mothers being home with their children, and Tories are past masters at making those speeches. However, they have done absolutely nothing positive to encourage or to enable mothers to do that. In fact, the tax increases of SI,000 per year per family of four that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has laid on Canadian families in the three and a half years plus that he has been responsible for the finances of this country, is surely an additional economic pressure that keeps both spouses working. Now a tax break will be added to the existing arrangements of a maximum of $200 per child. How far does $200 per child go toward covering that $1,000 in additional taxation that has been laid on families?
All the fine speeches that Conservatives make have done nothing to assist mothers who wish to stay with their children, to say it in that gender-oriented way again. That is an enormous social tragedy, but the Tories have done nothing about it except to make speeches. Then, when they bring a strategy forward that is designed to deal with it, they produce a plan that over seven years envisions another 200,000 spaces. If the Canada Assistance Plan arrangements continue over that period of time, without the Government's strategy, we
Canada Child Care Act
might actually have over 300,000 spaces brought into existence. The existing arrangements could produce more than 50 per cent more than the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been boasting about as being his strategy for child care.
Those are the reasons why we in the NDP, recognizing what all concerned about the child care have said, oppose the Bill. One needs a real strategy for providing relief of various sorts just to meet those objectives that Conservatives like to talk about so often but which they have done nothing about. Obviously we need a plan that uses money far more carefully, does not squander it in tax expenditures but creates the spaces. We New Democrats think it should be possible to add 50,000 spaces a year to achieve in only four years what the Minister is going to be proud of doing over a seven year period. That is what the people of Canada have to contemplate, a program that will really meet the need and do it in a far more imaginative and creative way than the Minister has laid before this country.


Ms. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the second time on this legislation because of my conviction this is one of the most important pieces of legislation, Bill C-144, and also because the majority of Canadian and Quebec families feel this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that is now before us.
Of course, the more I look at it, the more its flaws stand out. One of the most apparent flaws in the Bill has been the perception that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in July added $1 billion because people thought the Minister was adding more money in order to get still more child care spaces. And when we know that in fact, he was adding that kind of money to make the program he tabled in December complete because there had been an error-the original additions were wrong.
So at the start, the expectations were very high and if you look at the legislation, you realize as the majority of people do, and we have been hearing this for a number of days, that over one million children have no child care places. Currently, the Government is offering to create only 200,000 spaces over seven years.
In 1988, we currently have 240,000 licensed day care or unlicensed home care spaces. That the Government is adding 200,000 new spaces over seven years will not help solve the problem in my view, because after seven years we will end up with twice as big a gap as before. And above all, those new spaces will not be created with low- and middle-income family children as a priority.
As we know-and this has been substantiated by a number of studies-a child from a low-income, less educated family that is put into a good day care centre will be motivated, will go to school without being side-tracked, and probably will also

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
be taken off the social welfare ghetto. Therefore, child care is also preventive care.
Currently, the priority that used to be with low- and middle-income families is removed by the legislation. Of course, once that priority is removed it will be a matter of first come, first served.
My concern is that a number of companies intend to set up commercial child care centres, and what can come out of that? We will end up with child care chains, as we have McDonald chains-commercial child care centre chains. We know that currently, proposals to that effect have been submitted to provincial Governments.
And when we know, looking at the legislation, that no quality standards are required from provinces, I am somewhat amazed because when we set up health care, objectives were established. In this case no objectives exist, although this is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Looking at senior citizens, we realize that currently, according to their financial means, they either have good senior homes or they have homes where they are ill-treated, where the food is bad and where our senior citizens lead a very sad life.
With such a Bill which does not set any standards, we run the risk of having two kinds of day care centres, one for the children of affluent families, and one of poor quality for the children of have-not families. Because no priority is given to low and middle income families, we will be faced again with the same situation as with our senior citizens. As for standards, I insist again that they should be written in the Bill, in the agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments, because the quality of services may vary from one day care centre to the next in the very same province. I suggest that the Bill should provide for standards because of the money the federal Government is investing in this day care project.
However, glances at this new Bill realizes its significant lack of flexibility. The Government has stated that it wants to create 200,000 spaces over the next seven years. Yet, if you read this Bill carefully, you will realize that part of the money which was not spent on any given year cannot be spent the following year. I choose a number arbitrarily. Suppose, for instance, that a province which had agreed to create 200 day care spaces the first year, could create only 150 and told the federal Government: "Next year, I am going to create 250, because the program will operate better ... ", They will not be able to use us the second year that part of the money which was not spent during the first year, with the result that at the end of seven years, the objective of 200,000 day care spaces might very well not be met. I suggest, therefore, that the federal Government should demonstrate more flexibility, consistent with the provinces' wishes.
I wish to emphasize the fact that this Bill is quite silent about latchkey children. I was here when the Prime Minister told us how important it was to have programs to fight drug abuse and deliquency which start, when the children are left unattended, right between the ages of 6 and 14. In fact, 57 per
cent of all children are left alone and without supervision after school hours. The Province of Quebec was the only province which allowed school principals to keep their facilities open after school hours to offer these children shelter. In fact, clause 2 of this Bill clearly states that there will be cutbacks in education funding, wich means that in a given province, there will be simply 30,000 spaces which will no longer be operational. When I heard the Prime Minister's statement, I felt that the first thing we had to do, as a preventive measure, was to look after these kids, and I just do not see why we could not do it. All the studies and task force reports initiated by both Liberal and Conservative Governments over the years have come up with similar recommendations.
I was a member of the special committee on day care services where representatives of the three political Parties made significant recommendations which the Government did not even consider. Its Bill reflects none of our recommendations. On the contrary, our children are deprived of what they have. After that, what will happen to them? Putting a delinquent child in a foster home costs $40,000 a year. Since the Government realizes that it is a lot of money, we feel that an ounce of prevention would go a long way. It would cost a lot less if we had programs to supervise these children until the age of 14. And it would cost the Government a lot less.
And further on we can see that parental leave has been recommended by a number of commissions. Not a word of this, nothing at all about parental leave. People are being urged to have more children, but the Bill does not even mention parental leave. Like the Rosalie Abella Commission, the Katie Cooke Commission, and the commission made up of Members from all three Parties, we all recommended the same leave extension from 17 to 26 weeks. Instead of maternity leave this would be parental leave so that either parent can remain with the child for 26 weeks after birth. Unfortunately the Government did not see this as a priority and did not even mention it.
Others who have been left out are native children. Indeed, native people made a number of representations when the committee was travelling. They asked for day care centres where, particularly in the case of pre-school children, their culture would not be ignored. Of course, we know they have very particular problems, and there was a time when native children would be taken from their families to be looked after by white non-native people, with the result that they were completely cut off from their own cultural environment.
Mr. Speaker, nor has there been a word about day care centres in the workplace, yet we know the absenteeism rate would be reduced to a minimum and both parents would be able to look after the child. We know that in some provinces, particularly in certain cities in Nova Scotia where the fishing industry is a major employer, both parents have to work during the summer and some of them came to tell the committee that their 11-year-old child had to look after a 2-year-old infant
August 23, 1988

because there is no day care centre. They cannot even get someone to look after them at home. Nothing was said about that either. I am sure you have heard of companies-Lavalin, Bell Canada, Canadian National Bank, to name a few- providing day care centres at work. Why did the federal Government not think of allowing tax deductions for day care facilities in the workplace? I think that is another very important aspect which the new Bill has missed completely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


Lucie Pépin: Two minutes then. I simply want to say that when I ran in 1984 my platform was day care centres and the environment. I will just have to run on the same platform at the next election because I feel that the Conservative Government simply fails to meet the needs of Canadian families with this Bill.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: It
may seem odd to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of this House that 1 should have appeared this evening to speak to Bill C-144, but I simply could not resist the temptation. It is well known that I have had major objections to the constitutional proposal, and the Meech Lake Accord, which Members of this House have supported in vast numbers and which is designed to limit the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It seems to me that I should get into this debate about child care. The federal Government, through its taxing and spending power, has the opportunity to establish effective standards and criteria to ensure that child care becomes a reality and responds to the needs to which so many Members of this House have spoken.
I have heard people like my colleague from Saint-Denis and others who would not be expected normally to be involved in these issues recognize the significance of child care, as we all do.
However, some Members are indulging in what I would call intellectual schizophrenia. On the one hand, they support the Meech Lake Accord which tells us that the federal Government will no longer have a role to play in establishing national standards attached to the spending power. On the other hand, they say that we should be telling the provinces that they should be applying standards which meet the demand of Canadian families. Sadly, we cannot have it both ways.
It is perfectly clear to me, as 1 look at Bill C-144 and at the position taken by the Conservatives, that this is very much in the spirit of Meech Lake. I thought I might have to wait many years to turn to Members of this House with whom 1 have had many arguments and be able to say: "Obviously, I was right".
Canada Child Care Act
I did not realize it would be handed to me immediately with Bill C-144.
Bill C-144 is totally in keeping with the spirit of Meech Lake. The federal Government is to tax. The federal Government is to state broad objectives. The federal Government is going to leave it to the provinces to meet the needs of Canadians. It may be different in every province. There will be no national vision. There is a total absence of a national will, about which our former Prime Minister spoke both before the joint committee of the two Houses and the Senate. There is a total absence of a national will to establish effective criteria from coast to coast to ensure that the obvious child care needs of Canadian families are met. This is the spirit of Meech Lake.
I raise this because Meech Lake is not yet a reality. A Senator from the other place said: "This is a seamless web and, if one pulls on one of the strands, the whole thing will unravel". That may be his view, but it should not be the view of Canadians who witness this debate and see for the first time that the federal power, the right in fact of Members of this House of Commons to discuss the social needs of Canadians, is going to become totally academic. Almost no aspect of Canadian life which touches individuals on a daily basis is not within the exclusive jurisdiction under the existing Constitution and by virtue of the judicial interpretation that has been given to that Constitution over many, many years.
Education is totally within provincial jurisdiction. Child care is totally within provincial jurisdiction. The granting councils of which we are so proud that do matching grants with the provinces are totally within provincial jurisdiction. It is only the spending power of the federal Government which has permitted the Government of Canada to establish standards and to provide funds that have protected Canadians, that have helped Canadians, that have reached down to Canadian individuals and provided that balance which is so essential in a federation. However, all of a sudden we are looking at a child care Bill, and we are all concerned. We are transferring billions of dollars to the provinces and as long as it meets some vaguely defined national objectives, agreements yet to be established, we will be satisfied. Well, I am not satisfied, and from the debate in this House I do not think Members are satisfied, either.
I know that Canadians would not be satisfied if they realized the extent to which our capacity as a Government, a federal Government, and this place, to reach into the households of Canadians to help them where they need help with some kind of national standards, is being gutted and destroyed by the constitutional amendment which is moving like a Juggernaut through the process at the present time.
I think it is fortunate that this debate has arisen because we should recognize that we cannot have it both ways. We are going to have a country where we will tax and they will spend, where we will make suggestions but they will decide what the national objectives are to be and what standards are to be applied, and I should say apropos that:

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
In the speech he made at the National Assembly, Mr. Robert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec, said without hesitation that national objectives will be set in consultation with the provinces.

He made it perfectly clear. He hid nothing.
Why are we deluding ourselves? Mr. Bourassa believes that national objectives will not be established in this place. The program will be established by the Parliament of Canada out of the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord, after the provinces have decided what those national objectives are to be. That is the way of the future. Let us not fool ourselves. I think it is wrong.
Many here may think it is right, and I know many who do. That is a legitimate decision and I accept that. If Canadians from coast to coast want the provinces to assume entire exclusive jurisdiction in all matters that affect the daily lives of Canadians in terms of education, research, health, unemployment insurance which never would have been under federal jurisdiction had Meech Lake been in effect in 1940, then they are entitled to it if they want that. However, my concern is that they are unaware of the implications of the constitutional amendment.
This particular legislation with which we are dealing underlines those implications. There are many others. Those who wish to challenge my interpretation of Meech Lake on this subject are perfectly free to do so. However, I can assure you that there are many authorities who would support me, including the Premier of the Province of Quebec himself, according to his words, and others with whom I have had conversations at the provincial level regarding Meech Lake.
Let us go into this with our eyes open. Either we accept that this is the way of the future or, for those who say I am wrong, let us urge the Government once again to make a reference to the Supreme Court to find out what the full implications of the limitations on the federal spending power are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate. While my children are well beyond the stage when we might be using child care facilities, I have grandchildren on the way.
I have listened to members of the opposition Parties criticize the Government's proposal. It is a proposal that will increase the amount of spending for child care from some $170 million a year to $800 million a year. That is a significant increase in spending in this particular area.
The New Democratic Party suggests a program that would be almost like another school system, providing a place for
every child up to the age of 14, including latchkey children. While I agree that it is a major problem, it appears from their approach that New Democrats do not want parents to make their own decisions about how their children are handled. Perhaps they believe that every child must attend in order to be properly developed.
I have great confidence in the ability of parents to decide. I do not want a Government that implements a system in the belief that every child should go to day care and should not stay in a home environment.
Our Party has already done a great deal in the area of child care. For instance, we have increased the refundable child tax credit to parents. This is paid before Christmas, an important time of the year.
Another benefit is the great economic turn-around we have achieved since we became the Government in September, 1984. I am sure the Opposition will want to be reminded that 1.25 million jobs have been created in that time. I remind them that some 800,000 less people are on the poverty list. I remind them of the great confidence Canadians have in Canada, and their willingness to invest and proceed to plan for a strong future. This Bill caps off what we have accomplished in those four years.
One Member suggested that we should push standards on the provinces and that there should not be any services that do not have national standards.
I am a graduate of a university on which Governments have spent moneys for its support. No federal standards were applied to my education, nor to that of doctors or of nurses. There are no standards in the Canada Health Act under which we spend a lot of money. This legislation is no change. It is an example of programs that have been put into our system for many years.
The Liberal Party has proposed alternatives to the Bill but has not really suggested how it would derive the funds or encourage the provinces to co-operate. It has not said how much money it they would have to pay the provinces to produce more of these day care spaces.
I am sure that my colleagues in the Opposition are very eager to have this Bill go to committee where it can be studied properly. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 9, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon):
That this House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for
the purpose of completion of second reading stage of Bill C-144.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair must rule the motion out of order. The reason is that the mover of the motion said at the end of the motion: "for the purpose of completion of second reading". That is what the Chair finds out of order. He may propose the continuation but not the completion.
August 23, 1988


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Deputy Chairman:: The Hon. Member from Saint-Denis (M. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you with the utmost respect and to the House Leader in a friendly manner that if he has something to say, he should remain in his seat. The same thing goes for the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary. If he has recommendations to make to the Chairman, who knows quite well how to run things, he should know that under our Standing Orders require he should remain in his seat.He has no instruction to give to the Speaker who at this time might want to make a ruling. This applies particularly to the House Leader who has no business going up to the Speaker in order to influence his decision. If he has representations to make, he should make them from his seat. I repeat, I say this in a friendly manner.
Now, since the Hon. Member who spoke before me did not present his motion as he should have, I submit to you respectfully that the Hon. Member who rose now has the right to speak since the Hon. Member who made the proposal, which by the way is not in order, has lost his right to vote by out talking. Any Hon. Member who would like to speak now should be recognized.


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Surely to goodness it is appropriate that the Speaker recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who wishes to speak without the intervention of the Government Minister attempting to tell the Table what to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will decide who the Chair recognizes. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 9, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member from Haileybury:
That this House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for
the purpose of consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-144.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It was moved by Mr. O'Neil, seconded by Mr. Gagnon, in accordance with Standing Order 9:
That this House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for
the purposes of consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-144.
That motion is in order. Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Fewer than 15 Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b) the motion is adopted.
Canada Child Care Act
Motion (Mr. O'Neil) agreed to.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Calgary North on a point of order.


Paul Gagnon: Can you repeat who the seconder was, please?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yourself.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I think you should check with the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.
Is the House ready for the question?


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, I strongly recommend that my colleagues from both parties leave the House to protest this mockery of the Standing Orders.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague. I think this is perfectly within the rules. It is an obligation on the part of the Government. What we are dealing with here is the case of children. There has been ample time to debate at second reading. It is time for it to go to committee where there can be consideration of all of the details of the program. If there are problems and flaws, they can be corrected.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is the middle of the summer. We have put up with so much stalling for so many months. That is why the rule is there. That is why we have moved the rule.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Regina East.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, certainly my impulse is to walk out in protest at the abuse, I feel, of the parliamentary tradition and what this House is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead.


An Hon. Member:: No one will miss you.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Rather, Mr. Speaker, we hear the jackasses braying across the way on an extremely important matter. We have seen a cabinet Minister address and scold the Chair not from his proper place. We have seen a Member stand up and move a motion which was ruled out of order. I was standing in my place. I was not recognized. Instead, another government Member was recognized in order to repeat the motion in a proper form.
I suggest that what is happening with the institution of Parliament and particularly what is happening tonight shows how the erosion of this institution has occurred particularly

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
during these past summer months. The rule book has been torn up because the Government insisted that Parliament sit through the summer. Normally, Parliament would not have sat through the summer because none of the pieces of legislation can surely be considered as crucial. Normally, the rule book would have allowed Parliament to be called back in cases of emergencies. The Government is now insisting that we deal with this legislation tonight. We see this continual erosion of what Parliament is all about. I suggest that it is not surprising coming from the Tories.
We are dealing with an extremely important piece of legislation. It is the child care legislation. I have been a single parent, one of the few male single parents I must say who has had to deal with carrying on with my employment as well as ensuring that there was proper care given to my twin boys when they were younger. I had to deal with the various types of day care that were available to me. I have had my children in private day care, the name of which I picked up from a laundromat. I have had to wait several months before my children could gain access to a co-operative, non-profit day care centre where there was some quality of day care. I had to be concerned with what happens to my children while I had to be off earning an income.
What I experienced as a parent, a single parent, is repeated by hundreds and thousands of parents across the country. We are raising a generation of children whose life patterns and life training is so radically different from anything that has preceded it. Statistics show that some 60 per cent of families in the workforce have two income earners in them, whereas in 1976 that figure was only 30 per cent. We have seen the social and economic and industrial changes all the way starting from the industrial age and that broke up the traditional tribe and the traditional grouping in which children were raised in a sense of community.
We have seen the progression to where, now, even the nuclear family is in many ways threatened. Vast numbers of children are being raised in a single parent situation. As well, those families where there are still two parents in many, many cases, both incomes are needed in order to put the basic roof over their heads and food on the table.
It used to be that one income earner was enough to be able to afford the mortgage and to be able to put food on the table, but in this day and age it is necessary-it is essential-for vast numbers of Canadian families that there be two income earners. If there were only one income earner, hundreds of thousands of families would slip below the poverty line. It is not an easy life. It is not an easy life for working parents. Many of them work in hard jobs where they are on their feet. Very often they work boring, long, gruelling hours, then they must go home and prepare supper for their children, and be able to provide the love and attention and the warmth, the type of emotional nourishment that a child so desperately needs. It is not an easy life.
I am afraid that we are raising thousands of children who will not have had the opportunity to experience the human love and warmth that is so essential for the growth of a human being. I warn that as a country we will pay the price. The lack of the experience of human love creates psychotic behaviour. A psychopath is a person who has not had the experience of human love, and who does not know the difference between right and wrong. They have never had an opportunity to learn that. A human tragedy is in the making. Thousands and thousands of our children are dropped off at centres where there is no licensing and no guarantee of any quality care whatsoever.
I am sure many people who provide private day care facilities are well meaning. I have met many who love the children. Very often there are a dozen or so children in a home and one person cannot deal with all the emotional needs of those 12 children for a working day. It is too much to expect from individual people. That is why it is so essential that we provide quality day care in order that those parents who, through economic necessity have to go out and earn an income, at least know the children are being looked after by caring and qualified people, that the children will not be physically, emotionally, sexually abused or mishandled, and that there is a guarantee that the children will receive quality care while the parents are at work.
I find it unfortunate the manner in which the Government has dealt with this legislation tonight and the very legislation itself. Surely the Government must recognize the need. At least politically perhaps it recognized the need because perhaps the polls indicated it, but the Government's approach to the problem certainly shows that it does not understand what is needed out there. The Government does not understand the terrible hardships that both parents and children are going through. If the Government understood the problem, we would not get this type of legislation in front of us, we would not hear the type of speeches we have heard from government Members, and we would not hear the jackasses braying as they have done tonight.
A society shall be judged on how it treats its old and its young. The Government will be judged on how it treats its old and its young. This is the Government that tried to deindex old age pensions. This is the Government that is passing off a phoney piece of legislation as child care legislation. This is a Government that dares to introduce a motion and suggest that it is doing all those grandiose things for children, while at the same time it actually reduces the number of child care spaces that it will be providing. Under this legislation it will take some seven years to double the number of day care facilities and spaces available. Under the existing system it would take five years to double the number of spaces.
It is with cynicism that the Government has approached a
very serious problem that is facing us in a post-industrial
society. 1 believe that Members of the Conservative Party in
August 23, 1988

their Conservative thinking feel that we must revert to a traditional society. Even if that could be so, out of choice many of them would question that.
The reality is that most people, not out of conscious choice but out of necessity, find themselves in that situation today because of the social and economic forces of the industrial society. Those same forces started with the industrial revolution, and broke up the community and the tribe. It sent families to live in isolation from each other. It has further eroded families so that aunts and uncles are now spread from coast to coast, and there is not the familial support system that would allow children to be raised in warmth and love from the family. A vacuum has been created in society that must be filled by our collective society as a whole. Unfortunately, what we have in front of us today not only fails to do so, but in a cynical way attempts to take political advantage of the tremendous need that Canadians have, and pretends to do something about a problem, whereas in reality it is doing a disservice rather than a service to the children of our nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Elouse ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Epp (Provencher), seconded by Mr. Wise, moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Canada Child Care Act
Mrs. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Sparrow, moved:
That this question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been asked by the Acting Whip of the Official Opposition to defer the vote until tomorrow at 3 p.m., and the request has been granted.
It being 10.10 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, August 24, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, persuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the two petitions numbered as follows: 332-5112 and 332-5153.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT


Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-152, intituled An Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



NATIONAL CAPITAL ACT


Philip Derek Lewis: for leave to introduce Bill C-153, an Act to amend the National Capital Act.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (severance pay).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this Bill is to provide some protection, especially for middle-aged and older workers who find themselves increasingly vulnerable to plant closures.
The provisions of this Bill would be that anyone who has worked 20 years or more for an employer with 50 employees or more would receive at least six months' severance in the case of a plant closure. I do not assume that this would mean the worker concerned would be without suffering at all, but at least this would provide some protection in the face of circumstances that he or she cannot control, and provide some opportunity for re-adjusting himself or herself to new circumstances and new challenges.
I hope that this Bill can be considered by the House before long and that it can be given the approval that so many middle-aged and older workers seek.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
August 23, 1988
Petitions

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege this morning to rise in my place under Standing Order 106 to present a petition signed by several constituents urging the Government to call an election on the free trade deal, in that they feel that the people of Canada should be the ultimate judge and jury on this matter.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table two petitions signed by residents of the city of Winnipeg in which the petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The petitioners believe that the proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the United States market, which was a key objective in these negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people from Toronto which states that whereas families throughout Canada need high quality, available, and affordable child care, the Government has repeatedly recommended that it would make services available; and whereas the child care Act has neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care, the child care Act is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the child care Act forthwith.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present to you these petitions from some of my constituents, in particular residents of the communities of Acadieville, Saint-Ignace, Richibouctou and Saint-Louis.
The petitioners deplore Employment and Immigration's decision to increase the period of eligibility for unemployment insurance from 10 to 16 weeks. This decision fails to take into account the high rate of unemployment in the rural regions of my riding. The petitioners request that Parliament take corrective action and reinstate the 10- week eligibility period.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present this morning. The first petition is from residents of the city of Thunder Bay, and some other communities, who note that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada affecting approximately 1 per cent of the population. It causes severe mental anguish and suffering to the patients and to their relatives. It costs Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and in other support costs. The petitioners note research findings about the biochemical nature of this disorder, and the hope for a cure. The petitioners note that there is limited support for this research.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in the future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay

Nipigon): Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of the cities of Toronto, Oshawa, and some other primarily southern Ontario communities. The petitioners note that Canadian families need high quality, available, and affordable child care services. It has been repeatedly recommended that in order to make these services available to 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. The child care Act proposed by the Government contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements. Consequently, it is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families in Canada. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the proposed child care Act forthwith.
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from residents of the city of Thunder Bay who note that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. In the course of the bilateral trade negotiations the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. However, the petitioners assert that the trade agreement negotiated by the Mulroney Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions.
Given this attack on Canadian policy freedom in the free trade agreement, the petitioners call upon Parliament to
August 23, 1988

dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the supposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have one petition from a number of Canadians. The petitioners indicate that families throughout Canada need high quality, available, and affordable child care services. To make those 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 which is accessible to all families throughout Canada. The child care Act proposed by the Government of Canada contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements. It will not ensure that families have access to high quality day care. The proposed child care Act is not in the best interests of young Canadians or children.
The undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the proposed child care Act forthwith.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on the issue of child care. The undersigned petition that Parliament withdraw the proposed child care Act forthwith. The petitioners feel that the proposed child care Act contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements, and will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care. The petition is signed by some 30 Canadians, a number of whom reside in my constituency.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 386 will be answered today.

GRANTS AND/OR LOANS IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO AREA


Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Canada Development Investment 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?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Canada Development Investment Corporation has not provided any grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto since September 4, 1984.
Order Paper Questions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 361 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 361 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN THUNDER BAY AREA Question No. 361 [DOT]-Mr. Angus:
For each of the two years immediately prior to September 4, 1984, did any government departments or agencies spend money in the (a) constituency of Thunder Bay-Atikokan (b) community of Thunder Bay, Ontario (c) community of Atikokan, Ontario (d) area made up of the constituencies of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Kenora-Rainy River and, if so, by which departments or agencies and, in each case (i) in what amounts (ii) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that I have stood in my place on a number of occasions regarding a question on the Order Paper standing in my name which has been there since March 15, 1988. It is a question which is designated for a 45-day response. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that means that the Government has no choice but to give the answer within the period of 45 days.
As I indicated previously, I put that question on the Order Paper on March 15. Today is August 23. I understand that it is a complicated question, however, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could advise if the Government is making some headway toward answering this question concerning the funds received from the Government of Canada by an individual named Jean Sirois.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Hon. Member raised this only a few days ago.


Don Boudria: No, approximately two weeks ago.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: At that point I undertook to look into the matter. Members will remember that this is a question which is asked of all Departments, agencies, and Crown corporations.

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
I previously advised the House that questions that are in series rather than a single question require the Government to respond from every single Department, agency, and Crown corporation. The Hon. Member could receive answers much more quickly to a large part of this issue with a somewhat simpler question. The inquiries I have made indicate that there is at least one, and perhaps a couple more Departments or agencies that have not responded. We have the answer to 99 per cent of the question, but until we have a 100 per cent answer it is not appropriate for me to bring it to the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to make the usual preliminary ruling on some of the amendments that have been submitted. There are 17 motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper in relation to Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Acts, 1977 and certain related Acts.

I am now ready to make a preliminary ruling on some of the motions that are admissible. I will return later today to make a complete and final ruling on the remaining motions.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 7, 14, 15, and 17 are in order and each of them will be debated and voted upon separately.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Would you repeat that, Mr. Speaker, please?


Mr. Speaker:: I will go slowly. I am sorry.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Just the numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On your final judgment, it is not to be anticipated that you will rule in order any of the other motions that are on the Order Paper, is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that it is appropriate to necessarily get into what I am going to come back to the Chamber on, but there is no problem with these.


Michael Morris Cassidy: All right. Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may have had some constructive discussion with the Table. If the Hon. Member would like to speak with the Chair after-


Michael Morris Cassidy: That is not a problem, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: What I am going to do now is proceed with these motions when debate will commence.
[ Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Motion No 1
That Bill C-139 be amended in clause 6
(a)	by striking out line 37 at page 11 and substituting the following
therefor:
"a taxpayer in excess of $20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if any)
or such"
(b)	by striking out line 41 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"passenger vehicle exceeds $20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if
any) or"
(c)	by striking out line 45 at page 15 and substituting the following
therefor:
"$20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if any) or that other
prescribed"
(d)	by striking out line 9 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"(iii) $20,000 (plus the provincial retail sales tax, if any) or such amount
as".


M. Garneau:: 1 could quote all the evidence received by the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee. First, the Conservative government's proposal was astonishingly complex; on the other hand, it went against one of the objectives we on this side of the House have-and I imagine that is true of the other side as well-to encourage entrepreneurship and assist small and medium-sized business.
In achieving this objective, we must try to simplify our tax laws as much as possible, so that taxation, the many reports and all the complications, do not make it still more difficult for a man or a woman to get started in business, to be an entrepreneur, to open a small business, et cetera.
I don't need to tell you that the way the government is proposing to tax cars as well-and it intends to tax personal cars used for business purposes-will create complications and nightmares for independent workers. I am thinking, for example, of insurance agents and real-estate agents, who have to use their car to get around, of accountants who have to go and see their clients, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, by making recommendations, by exerting pressure, we have I believe partially succeeded in getting the Minister of Finance to accept certain changes. He has dropped most of the complications that he had introduced, keeping only two major changes. One of those is a limit of $20,000 per car, that is to say, if a taxpayer using his car for business purposes pays more than $20,000 for that car, he can claim capital cost allowance (CCA) on only the first $20,000 of the cost. Even if his car cost him $25,000 or $30,000, he will not be able to use a CCA rate applicable to an amount higher than $20,000.
We have no difficulty with this approach. There have of course been all sorts of representations made. At the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee we have looked at those representations, and we have analysed the average costs of cars normally purchased by companies. It seems fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that when the car in question is a company car, purchased for the use of salaried representatives, the problem isn't particularly serious.
It becomes serious, I believe, for agents, for independent workers, who don't have two cars. Most have only one; their family car is their business car, and now they are limited to a maximum of $20,000 for purposes of depreciation. I'm thinking of lawyers, accountants, insurance agents, sales reps, real-estate agents. Those people will certainly be penalized because of this maximum.
Furthermore I don't quite see the logic, because this same agent or lawyer could have a very luxurious office, which might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he could depreciate from his income the value of that law office, that accounting office, even if the walls are made of gold and the doorknobs of silver. But when it comes to his automobile, he is told, "You can't buy yourself a car that costs more than $20,000. If you do, you won't be able to claim a CCA of more than $20,000."
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
Mr. Speaker, obviously, given the limitations on the receivable amendments at this stage of our debate-and the Standing Orders set strict limits-we can't move all sorts of amendments, and what we would like to do is try to make the Minister's proposal at least mean the same all across the country, because obviouly if you buy a $20,000 car you're going to pay $20,000 plus provincial sales tax. In some provinces there is no sales tax. In others, the sales tax is 8 per cent, 10 per cent, perhaps 12 per cent, so that the same car purchased by a taxpayer in Newfoundland, Quebec or Alberta would lead to different tax exemptions in each case because of the level of the provincial sales tax.
And the objective that Motion No. 1 aims at achieving is respect for the $20,000 limit that minister has set as the depreciable maximum on a car for which expenses are being claimed for tax purposes. We are suggesting that this ceiling be modified by adding to it the provincial sales tax, so that the same amount would be depreciable for all taxpayers, whether they be Albertans, Quebecers or Newfoundlanders.
I hope, Mr Speaker, that this measure, designed to ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly, will be acceptable to the Government and that this House will approve the amendment, which is perhaps more technical than anything else but which would bring put Canadian taxpayers on a somewhat more equal footing, whichever province they live in.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. friend. His motion is premised on two arguments and I want to make sure I have them accurately. The first is that provincial sales tax should be included in the limit because provincial sales taxes vary from region to region in Canada.
The second part of his argument is more interesting. He seems to be kicking against the whole notion of a limit or a limit set at $20,000.
Let me deal first with the second point. The Liberals are often called Limousine Liberals and I think I understand why. What the Member wants here is to have cars that cost over $20,000 to be fully deductible with the taxpayer footing the bill. What about a Chevrolet Corvette Coupe at $41,000, Mr. Speaker? Here I see a BMW 528E at $40,400, a Lincoln Mark VII at $36,000 and on and on it goes. The public, the taxpayer, should not have to foot the bill for those kinds of cars.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Thomas Hockin: This is crazy. A Cadillac Sedan de Ville I see here in December, 1987, cost $32,950. These prices all include federal sales tax. And we have a Toyota Camry LE wagon. All these are wonderful and very expensive cars, but why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill for them?

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Most of them are junk.


Thomas Hockin: The Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) knows cars well and I am sure he would agree that the taxpayer should not be carrying the bill.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Agreed.


Thomas Hockin: I want the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) to understand that a Dodge Charger, a Ford Tempo, a Hyundai Stellar are inexpensive cars, but there are other more expensive cars that still cost less than $20,000. For example, a Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport and my car, a Chevrolet Caprice Classic four-door, is $17,500. What about a Buick Somerset and a Volkswagen Golf? These are fine cars and cost under $20,000.


Don Boudria: Why don't you drive one?


Thomas Hockin: There is no need to change the limit, Mr. Speaker. You can find a very fine car for less than $20,000. Why does the Liberal Party want us to move to the Liberal approach to things and have all cars, no matter how expensive they are, deductible? That is not our position. We believe in fairness. Our notion of fairness is to stop at $20,000.
I am very proud of the stand of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on this position because he has taken a basic position of fairness. The Liberal Party would rub that out, erase the distinction and we would find that every taxpayer-I do not think the NDP would like this either-paying for BMWs, Cadillacs and so on. It just does not make sense.
The second point is to add the provincial sales tax into the limit. For example, if provincial sales tax is 7 per cent in one province then that amount should be added to the $20,000 and the whole thing considered as the limitation on the cost of an automobile to be deducted for tax purposes. It is quite true in this country that different provinces have different sales taxes. There are many different factors that go into the price of a car from region to region, not just provincial sales tax. For instance, transportation costs are a major cost of a car in different regions of Canada. We all know that.


Don Boudria: They have equalized the cost of them now.


Thomas Hockin: I suppose if you could buy a car in Oshawa or in St. Thomas beside Talbotville where Fords are made, or in Oakville, they would be somewhat cheaper than buying cars in Newfoundland or in the Yukon. Transportation is a major part of the differential in costs.


Don Boudria: No. They have equalized them.


Thomas Hockin: We also have different retail margins in different parts of the country. Those retail margins have to do not just with volume but with real estate taxes, how expensive it is to have a property in some parts of Canada compared to others. All of these factors mean that it would be silly for the
Government to identify one particular factor, namely, the provincial sales tax and add that to the $20,000 limit.
Let us keep the limit at $20,000. It is clear for everybody. You can get a very fine car for that amount of money and I ask the House to defeat the motion and stay with the sanity and the fairness that is inherent in the tax reform proposal.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of taking part over the course of the past year in the deliberations of the Finance Committee on tax reform. On the side of the New Democratic Party, we were in a somewhat unusual and at times difficult position because we disagreed fundamentally with the tax reform because of the lack of fairness, the rates, and that the Conservatives had chosen to continue to allow special privileges for people and corporations of wealth for capital gains, et cetera, et cetera. At the same time we had to deal with a lot more specific concerns from people who have to work with the tax system on a day-to-day basis.
One of the most difficult issues was the question of automobile expenses. We heard many submissions. Perhaps it is because so many people can get their teeth around auto expenses. That was an issue which provoked probably more comment and contributions than any other single issue. It is partly because people who use their automobiles for business and have to do so felt that they should not be singled out when the Government of Canada moved-and I believe legitimately-to try to prevent the taxpayer from having to subsidize BMWs, Jaguars and the Lincoln the Minister used to drive before he became a Minister. He traded down, I think that is what he said.


Thomas Hockin: I have always had a Chevrolet.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I have just been reading about the Minister, who was allegedly one of the brighter lights hired for the founding of York University. In 1961 only Ed Broadbent emerged as the next Prime Minister of Canada according to Judy Steed's book.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: However, that is not relevant. Let me come back to the question at issue.


An Hon. Member:: Is Broadbent irrelevant?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: For the record, the Minister still has the car that Ed told him to buy. I hope it is a sporty model because everyone knows not to drive with the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) if he is at the wheel. It is a very scary experience, not for reasons of ideology but for other reasons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
August 23, 1988


Michael Morris Cassidy: And they are now giving an award to John Crosbie. That is very scary to me.
We will support this amendment. This issue came up in the committee on a number of occasions. As the Minister and the Government know, the committee in the end decided to take away the double pro-rationing of the capital cost, depreciation cost, of having an automobile because we felt it was so complicated that it should just be taken away. We tried to put other means in and we recognized in so doing that it is not an easy issue to handle.
The issue here is one of regional fairness. While it is not possible perhaps to compute exactly what the shipping costs are of a motor car to Newfoundland or to British Columbia if it is produced in central Canada-


Don Boudria: They are equalized.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria) says they are equalized.


Don Boudria: Yes. They have been for three years.


Michael Morris Cassidy: But someone who purchases an automobile in Newfoundland may get an automobile which is shipped indirectly by sea from Europe or Japan and will not have to pay shipping costs in the way that person would have to pay shipping costs if that car were shipped from California or Oshawa. However, the sales tax that is paid differs from province to province. The result of the Government's action is that a certain minor privilege, but a privilege nonetheless, is given to individuals or companies that purchase cares for business use in Alberta while individuals or companies that purchase cars in New Brunswick or Newfoundland will not have that privilege.
In Alberta, there is no provincial sales tax. Therefore, if the capital cost that is entered into the depreciation schedules for the automobile is $20,000, that is the total purchase price of the car. In Newfoundland where there is an 11 per cent or 12 per cent sales tax, that has to be taken off the top. As a consequence, the maximum value of the motor car that can be allowed for depreciation purposes is about $18,000, or $2,000 less. That is what is really unfair.
Effectively, the Government is saying that those in Alberta and provinces with low sales taxes will get luxury models, and those in eastern Canada where the sales taxes tend to be quite high will have to do with standard models, without automatic transmissions or without air conditioning or some of the other extras that make a business automobile more comfortable to travel in for someone who is constantly in his car on business. This is not a major issue, but it is an amendment that is appropriate to bring before the House.
In this case, we should listen to what the people were telling us, particularly those from down east, when they said that it was unfair and that this unfairness was something that could
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
be fixed. The cost of fixing it is very modest to the treasury, and of course, if people feel that the system they are being asked to conform to is not particularly fair, then voluntary compliance will weaken. The Government will therefore lose on voluntary compliance what it might gain in additional revenues through the unfairness enshrined in this clause which the amendment seeks to change.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion offered to the House by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). I just heard a new expression coming from a Tory. The Minister said that they believe in fairness. That is profound, and it is certainly a brand new concept for the Conservatives to believe in fairness.
We are glad to see this new initiative. I hope that initiative is applied when the Conservative Party chooses candidates, that it will apply when qualifying or disqualifying candidates in the riding of York-Peel, for instance, not to name anyone.
In his response, the Minister said that he was not willing to entertain the proposal offered to us by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. He said that the provincial sales taxes were not the only major expenditures involved in buying a car which differs from one part of the country to the other. He used as an example transportation costs for North American automobiles which are different in one part of the country than they are in another. I would suggest that the Minister ask his officials to prepare better briefing notes.

The report on tax reform by the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee, Mr. Speaker, says on page 59, and I would like to draw to the Minister's attention the second paragraph, where it says,
The average "non-fleet price" for the ...
. .. Canadian Automobile Leasing Association ...
... was $21,157,...
So we see that first of all the amount is too low, because ...
The average ... price [is in fact] $21,157 ...
... at the time we are speaking. And I would ask the Minister to listen carefully to the sentence that follows:
... a price that included freight, pre-delivery inspection, dealer mark-up,
sales tax and licence fee.
Good! A little further along we find the following sentence:
The issue of freight is not considered a problem, however, given the
equalization policy followed by most automobile manufacturers in Canada.
About three years ago, Mr. Speaker, North American automobile manufacturers equalized freight charges throughout the continent.

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts

If a person buys a North American car, whether in Newfoundland, in Toronto or in Hawkesbury in the great constituency of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the transport fees are the same. I bring this to the attention of the Minister. The defence that he utilized only moments ago is completely groundless and ill informed.
I want to bring something else to the attention of the Minister as well. The committee, in its report, recommended the following:-

That the $20,000 limit on the cost of a passenger vehicle for claiming capital cost allowance or lease costs be increased by the amount of the relevant provincial sales tax on a $20,000 vehicle and that there be regular review of the limit.
So, Mr. Speaker, we see that it was a recommendation by a Parliamentary Committee, that the Minister's defence had no validity because he was using a comparision with freight costs. And freight costs are the same everywhere in Canada.
What my colleague from Laval-des-rapides (Mr. Garneau) wants is to have provincial sales taxes in effect equalized, to some extent-not completely, because the tax will always be higher is some provinces than in others, unfortunately, but it could be taken into account nonetheless, and the cost of that tax could at least be deductible.
My honourable colleague for Westmorland-Kent (Mr Robichaud) pointed out to me just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial sales tax in his province is 11 per cent. That means that if someone buys a $20, 000 car in Alberta, for example, he would be able to buy $2,200 worth of options on his car before ha lost the deduction, whereas someone in Westmorland-Kent, in Moncton, let's say, or that region, a constituent of my colleague the Honourable Member for Westmorland-Kent, would have to pay $2,200 in sales tax and would not be able to deduct that part of the cost of operating a car.

The Minister said he believed in fairness. If that is so, how is it fair for the corporate president of a large manufacturing company to be allowed to deduct the cost of having oak panelling on the walls of his office, a golden doorknob, fancy sinks and a padded toilet seat while the vacuum cleaner salesman working for the same company is not able to deduct the cost of the air-conditioner in his or her station wagon? What is fair about that?
The Minister said he is in favour of fairness. If he is in favour of fairness, he should do two things. First, I would suggest that he increase the amount that is made available for the purchase of new cars. I do not want people to be driving Saabs and to be able to deduct the full cost of those cars or any of the other expensive cars worth $75,000 or whatever. However, a person who buys a station wagon with airconditioning cannot buy it for $20,000. Why does the Minister
not at least make the amount reasonable so that people can afford reasonable cars.
Second, why is he in favour of a totally discriminatory policy whereby the provincial tax is not deductible? He is basing this policy on the fact that there are other discriminatory features such as uneven costs of transportation. He should know, or his officials should have told him that that is not true. A number of years ago, the North American automobile manufacturers moved to equalize those costs because they had a hard time competing, particularly on the west coast, with the manufacturers of Japanese vehicles. Given that the manufacturers did that in order to make the system fairer, why can the Minister not do the same with his own policies? There is nothing wrong with the employee of a company being able to deduct the cost of an automobile which is reasonable.
I suggest to him that for a Ford Taurus station wagon, which I certainly consider to be an ordinary full-size car, with air-conditioning, you should be able to deduct the full cost. If the Minister says he does not need the air-conditioning, then I say he should not make air-conditioners deductible for corporate bosses in their high office towers either. What is good for an employee on the road selling Electrolux vacuum cleaners should be good for the President of Electrolux. If he wants to make it fair, that is what he should be doing. To be telling sales people, people who work for a living travelling around this country, that they cannot deduct automobile expenses because the Minister has decided the salesman has to have a car that is a foot shorter instead of a foot longer, or has decided he cannot have a radio, is easy for him to say. If he wants to do that, he should apply the same kinds of rules to the big corporate bosses. Until such time as he is willing to do that, I suggest that he make the deductions reasonable, and make provisions whereby the provincial sales tax is not counted in the arbitrary measure he wants to impose today.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member opposite for making the case for free trade.


Don Boudria: What?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: For making the case for free trade.


Don Boudria: Are you out of your mind?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Am I out of my mind?


David Orlikow: We know you are.


Don Boudria: I retract that. I already know the answer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Having listened to them, we know Members opposite often do not read the briefing notes prepared by their researchers before they stand in the House. He very carefully explained why the cost of automobiles was roughly equal
August 23, 1988

across the country all of a sudden. It is because of the competition from imports on the west coast. All of a sudden we in Alberta and British Columbia and so on are paying roughly the same. In the old days we got zonked on cars and trucks because we did not have competition. He made the case eloquently that costs for Canadians will go down because of the trade arrangement. That is the message we have been trying to give people, and he stands up in the House and supports it and we thank him for it.


Don Boudria: Point of order. The Consumer's Association of Canada said the average family of four would save $32 with free trade because of lower tariffs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He helps us even more because he just admitted there will be a saving. We have made progress. People are going to save money because of free trade and he just admitted it. If only he could go one step further and admit that people buying a home are going to save $8,000, then we would really make progress.
Then we come to the motion which he defends so eloquently. That is an example of the Liberals, historically speaking. They say let us not treat all Canadians the same. That is what this motion says. Let us have advantages for people from some provinces which do not exist for people in other provinces. This motion applies to people who live in some provinces but not in others. It is time Members opposite learn something about the Province of Alberta. How does this motion help someone in the Province of Alberta? Why should we have a tax system which is not equitable for all taxpayers everywhere?


Don Boudria: That is exactly what we want.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Under the National Energy Program we had a resource grab from the taxpayers of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It ruined our industry, threw people out of work, created wife beating, child beating and suicides, all kinds of social chaos. Why? Because the Liberal Party of Canada, supported by the NDP, said there shall be special taxes on some Canadians but they will not apply to all Canadians. That is what the NEP was about. Here we are debating a tax reform Bill and the very first motion proposed by the Liberals involves lack of equity for all Canadians, a tax break which applies to people in Ontario but not to people in Alberta. That is the Liberal view of Canada but it is not this Party's view. We reject it.
Taxation policy should be equitable for all Canadians wherever they come from, whatever province. We have worked hard for four years to restore to this country a sense of equity. We should all be first class Canadians whether we live in the Yukon, in Calgary, Baie Comeau, Toronto, Atlantic Canada or Newfoundland. We should all be treated the same by the Canadian Government that taxes us.
If those two Parties vote for this motion, they are voting for what they voted for before with respect to the NEP. They are
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
voting to provide an advantage to some taxpayers in some provinces but not in other provinces, and that is wrong. I urge Members of this House to defeat the motion.


Cyril Keeper: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Hon. Member does not want to mislead the House. He just said that the two Opposition Parties, including the NDP, voted for the NEP. That is a complete falsehood and I hope he stands up and corrects it immediately.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we have had two examples of Conservatives talking about fairness. First the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and then the Parliamentary Secretary. Let me deal for a moment with the Parliamentary Secretary. He says in voting for this amendment we are displaying again our refusal to treat all Canadians fairly. I remind the Hon. Member that his Province of Alberta has no sales tax. The Province of Newfoundland has a 12 per cent sales tax. It is for that kind of reason that this amendment is moved.


Don Boudria: The committee approved it unanimously.


David Orlikow: Yes, and he wants us to vote against it. He accused some Members on the opposition side of not reading their briefing notes. He should read his because he cannot possibly have had briefing notes which led him to make the comments he did.
I want to raise a point regarding the unfairness of the deduction for automobile expenses with the Minister, since he talked about his belief in fairness. This matter has been raised with me for a number of years by some of my constituents, particularly those in the construction industry, and it has been raised in an official way in a presentation made to the Government by the President of the Canadian Federation of Labour, a federation of labour unions which do not, at least publicly, support the NDP. Lawyers, doctors, self-employed businessmen are permitted, under the provisions of our Income Tax Act, to deduct a certain percentage of the expenses they incur in operating their car.
I do not disagree with that right because in doing some of their work they are required to use their cars. I do not object to that. However, I point out to the Minister that there are construction workers in Winnipeg, for example, who, in order to work, have spent months and sometimes years on construction of a big power project or a mine. For example, there is one now being built in the constituency of the Premier of Saskatchewan. These workers have gone to that construction project in Saskatchewan in order to earn a living for themselves and their families.
They have driven hundreds of miles from Winnipeg to the job site. Because they want to maintain a family life, because they want to avoid a breakdown of their marriage, and because they want to avoid a possible divorce, every two or three weeks on the weekend they make that drive back from the project

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
near Weyburn, Saskatchewan, to Winnipeg and then a few days later they go back to the job site. They are not permitted under our law to deduct a five cent piece from their income tax for the expenses they have incurred in order to keep their job.
I also point out to the Minister that while the living expenses for their families in Winnipeg continue, these workers have to pay for room and board on the job site, and they are not permitted to deduct anything from their income tax for that expense.
If the Minister believes in fairness, it is time to listen to the request made by the President of the Canadian Federation of Labour on this question, the same request that has been made by myself, and I am sure many other Members of Parliament from all Parties on behalf of constituents over the years. I urge the Minister, if he cannot do it now, to keep it in mind. If he is still the Minister the next time the Budget is brought down, which I doubt, I hope he, or whoever is Minister of Finance, will take this proposal, which is made not just by myself but by the President of the Canadian Federation of Labour, James McCambly, into consideration. If the Minister believes in fairness, as he says he does, I cannot think of any change to the Income Tax Act which would move more people to feel they are being dealt with fairly.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who stood in his place and went into great elaboration about how unfair the Government was, I really wondered what he was talking about when he referred to increasing the limitation costs of an automobile. He never mentioned what or how much his Party would want, but he thought the limitation should go up from $20,000.
I have in front of me the Canadian Car Price Guide which sets prices for a good number of automobiles in Canada. These prices are for new 1987 models and I do not know if there have been any increases since then. I do not know what the Member is so worried about because if one includes a 7 per cent provincial sales tax in some of the prices of these automobiles such as a Chevrolet Camaro, it still runs at $19,000. That is with the typical options.
How about a Chevrolet Caprice Classic for $17,000? This is a pretty nice car with a lot of options, and it is under $20,000.


Don Boudria: What options?


Felix Holtmann: There are $3,500 worth of options. That is not a bad buy. This is the total final price. What is wrong with a car like that? How about a Pontiac Fiero or a Buick LeSabre, all under $20,000? Has the Member a problem with cars like this? Perhaps he does not like the cars listed here, but that is his problem. How about a Ford Bronco? These cars are driven by Members of Parliament.


Don Boudria: You drive a Lincoln Continental.


Felix Holtmann: And an old Lincoln Continental like mine. So one really has to wonder what the Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell is so concerned about. He talked about air-conditioners in his office that can be deducted.


Don Boudria: That's right.


Felix Holtmann: But does anybody use the office for pleasure in the House? He cannot answer that. He is not sure. Members cannot use their offices for pleasure if they write the expenses off. Where is the fairness? The Member is suggesting that everyone should be allowed to put an air-conditioner in their car and write it off. Where is the fairness? One can buy a car for under $20,000. What does the Member want the threshold to be?
The Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and his Party must have been studying this Bill and had some real options they wanted to present, but for some reason what they want to do is increase the threshold. That is pretty vague. What does he mean by that? I am not certain if he knows what he is talking about.
The Member talks about fairness. He does not realize that different provinces have a different sales tax. Some provinces have sales tax and some do not. The idea is to have it included. I have a lot of difficulties with the statements made by the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the motion. In fact, they have an option, withdraw this silly motion.
[ Translation]


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to support my colleague's motion, which reflects the Committee's recommendation, "That the $20,000 limit on the cost of a passenger vehicle for claiming capital cost allowance or lease costs be increased by the amount of the relevant provincial sales tax on a $20,000 vehicle, and that there be a regular review of the limit."
Mr. Speaker, it always astounds me when I hear the Conservative MPs talk, especially when they talk about justice and fairness, and that's what the Minister was saying. He said he wanted this Bill to contain just and equitable measures for all Canadians.
The Honourable Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) got up and said the same thing, that he too wanted justice and fairness for all Canadians, and when you speak of all Canadians, it means Canadians from one end of the country to the other.
When you look at the sales tax rates in the various provinces, it is obvious there are differences: they go from zero to 12 percent. Now if we want to be just and fair to all Canadians, shouldn't we allow for these tax differences from one province to another?


Don Boudria: Of course!


Fernand Robichaud: Then how do we explain to the people of New Brunswick that if they pay 11 per cent they do so at their
August 23, 1988

own expense, while the people of Alberta, where there is no sales tax, scoop the pot? But I see more and more clearly when I listen to Government Members and Ministers, because they always talk about justice and about being fair and equitable.


Don Boudria: Fair for the rich!


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the changes made in the unemployment insurance qualifying period. In some parts of New Brunswick, the qualifying period has been increased from 10 to 16 weeks, and then we are told that all Canadians are to be treated fairly. We have seen that this Government has made changes applying to a particular region of Canada, the Capital region, Hull-Gatineau, because the unemployment rate for the city of Hull did not give an accurate picture of the situation in the rural parts of the region. The problem is exactly the same in New Brunswick. The cities are in a different situation from the rural areas. They talk about fairness and equity. They made the change for this region, yet while wanting to be fair and equitable, they are taking their time reviewing the changes for the people of New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the Ministers and Members of the Conservative Party speak, the better I understand the meaning of the words they use. I understand that the words fairness and equity mean something different when applied to people in outlying regions.
For that reason, I wish to support my colleague's motion. I urge all Government Members to support this motion if they are really sincere when they say they want a little fairness and equity for all Canadians, no matter where they live.
I should also say, Mr. Speaker, that when one lives in an outlying region, it costs more to do business, for the simple reason that the distances to cover are greater and taxes are higher in some areas-in New Brunswick, for example, the sales tax is 11 per cent. It costs more to do business in New Brunswick than in other provinces.
The motion made by my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides would take these disparities into account. That is why I support it and 1 call on all Members in this House to do likewise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Income Tax Act and Related Acts


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon separately. [English]


Raymond Garneau: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-139 be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out line 7 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor: "any property is 2/3 of his capital gain"
(b)	by striking out line 12 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor: "of any property is 2/3 of his capital loss"
(c)	by striking out line 17 at page 70 and substituting the following therefor: "the disposition of any property is 2/3 of'
(d)	by striking out lines 21 to 43 at page 70 and lines 1 to 28 at page 71 and substituting the following therefor:
"years and fiscal periods ending after 1987."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of Motion No. 2 is to limit to two-thirds the rate of inclusion of the capital gain to the personal income tax schedule.
[ Translation]
The object of this motion is to limit the capital gains inclusion rate to two thirds of the taxpayer's taxable income.

The reason is that with the rate of inclusion of three-quarters, as suggested by the Minister, the capital gain would be taxed by the federal Government at a higher rate than the dividend.
That is completely unfair and totally out of order because those people who invest in the long term take a risk and expect to have a capital gain or maybe a capital loss. If they take the risk they should be taxed at the lower rate than the people who get the dividend.
Furthermore, this approach by the Tory Government will mean that corporations will have more benefit in paying dividends than in accumulating capital in the corporation for future expansion.

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts

Mr. Speaker, the approach taken by the Minister of Finance seems to me to be completely at odds with the Government's objective of ensuring that we have a fairer, more equitable tax system, as well as a tax system designed to assist those who take investment risks and thus create businesses and enhance job creation.
Mr. Speaker, during that review, we received a lengthy study prepared by the ITouse of Commons Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, which had spent weeks listening to the testimony of various experts, groups and associations that had carried out in-depth analyses of the Finance Minister's proposals. We had a number of recommendations, as well as some technical analyses.
For example, the accounting firm Clarkson Gordon submitted a table showing the dividend and capital gains taxation rates that would result from the Finance Minister's recommendations, which are included in the bill we have before us. In 1988 in Ontario, dividends would be taxed at a rate of 30.26 per cent, while capital gains would eventually, when tax reform was implemented and the three quarters of the gains that were included in the taxpayer's income were taxed, which would be in 1990, be 33.60 per cent. That is, the capital gains taxation rate will be 3 per cent higher than the dividend taxation rate.
That goes against capital formation. It goes against economic growth. It is contrary to the idea that has always prevailed until this bill was introduced-that people who take investment risks, who may make capital gains, but who also may suffer capital losses, that that risk should be recognized in the tax system and should at least not be taxed at a higher rate. The opposite was proper. I think it was the rule. Before this, the capital gains taxation rate was lower than the dividend taxation rate.
In Ontario, for example, before tax reform, dividends were taxed at a rate of 35.7 per cent and capital gains at a rate of 26.7 per cent.
In Quebec, the difference was even greater. In 1987, the dividend taxation rate was 41 per cent, compared with 28 per cent for capital gains, the idea being to give Canadian men and women who are willing to take investment risks some degree of compensation. The policy proposed by the Minister of Finance, by raising the inclusion rate to three quarters, defeats the objective that was always pursued and was, in my view, economically sound. That is, the policy is now reversed and dividends will be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.
In British Columbia, there will be a difference-dividends will be taxed at a rate of 30.6 per cent and capital gains at 33.6 per cent. In British Columbia, 31.2 per cent for dividends and 34 per cent for capital gains. In Saskatchewan, 33 per cent for dividends and 35 per cent for capital gains. And so on for all provinces where dividends will be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains.
Mr. Speaker, the motion I have put before this House is intended to limit the inclusion rate to two-thirds, which we feel will restore equity, since dividends will be taxed at the same rate as capital gains. The document drawn up by the firm of Clarkson Gordon and tabled to the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee gives this interpretation, since in Ontario, when phase one of the inclusion rate is fully implemented, dividends would be taxed at 30 per cent and capital gains at 29.8 per cent. In Quebec, the rate would be 38 per cent for dividends and 34 per cent for capital gains, while in British Columbia, it would be about 30 per cent for both, and so forth.
We believe this would ensure greater equity. At least, those who risk investing in businesses would not be penalized by the Finance Minister's proposal.
I am surprised to see a government act in such an unfair, economically unsound manner. Such behaviour, goes against the very interests of workers whose jobs were often created as a result of the business risks taken by men and women.
Mr. Speaker, also as a result of this legislation, businesses will be urged by their shareholders to pay dividends rather than to accumulate capital with which to upgrade their business and invest in research and technology. Shareholders will prefer to receive dividends which are paid immediately, because they are taxed at a lower rate than if they were to wait three, four or five years and sell their shares, since this will result in capital gains in view of the accumulation of business capital. They would then be penalized, from a tax standpoint.
I appeal to the members of this House, and in particular to those who believe that an investment risk is a risk worthy of recognition. At the very least, the inclusion rate should be limited to two-thirds, so that those incurring these risks are not penalized. I would have preferred to see a different tax structure for businesses. Business and corporations must, of course, pay their fair share. We could do away with certain exemptions or increase the rate of taxation. However, to tax capital gains at a higher rate than dividends is illogical, Mr. Speaker, and goes against everything this Government has said.
Obviously I am concerned about fairness and it is for the sake of fairness that I propose this amendment. I do, however, have a question for the Conservatives who always jump the the defence of risk takers, entrepreneurs and the like. Have the Conservatives fallen asleep at the switch as the saying goes? It makes no sense. Is the Government prepared to give serious consideration to this amendment?
The members of the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee have draw a certain number of unanimous conclusions. They recommended "that as an interim measure only, the proportion of a capital gain or capital loss required to be included in computing an individual's taxable capital gain or allowable capital loss be increased from one-half to two-thirds for gains and losses realized in 1988 and 1989."
That is what we recommended to the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee, Mr. Speaker. This recommendation was
August 23, 1988

unanimously endorsed by the Conservatives Member on the Committee as well as by the NDP and Liberal committee Member. The three parties that examined this issue made a unanimous recommendation. The Minister of Finance should, in my opinion, at least acknowledge this unanimous position.
We also recommended "that in 1990, following a review of the subject of indexation of capital gains, the full amount of capital gains be included in income and the full amount of capital losses be deductible, provided such gains and losses are adjusted for inflation from the latter of the date of ownership or January 1
Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here-and this is another unanimous recommendation-is that we should go ahead with the two-thirds inclusion rate. At least it will mean that individuals share the tax burden equally, whether they are taxed on capital gains or on dividends. We should continue to look into this subject and do as certain other countries have done, that is opt for the total inclusion of capital gains and take into account depreciation for inflation. If a person invested $100 in 1980 and then decides to sell off his investment in 1995, inflation will have eaten up a portion of his capital gains.
If we want to tax capital gains, we should tax the real gains, not the imaginary ones. It would likely be fairer that way. Great Britain proceeds in this manner, and the United States have moved to include 100 per cent of capital gains. I have no objection to following their lead. We would have to find a way to take inflation into account. However, the motion I am introducing ties in with a unanimous recommendation made by the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee, one that calls for limiting the inclusion rate to two thirds for the time being and for examining the situation at greater length before proceeding any further. The proposal as it now stands is totally unjust and unfair.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely interesting that the Liberal Party is proposing to reduce taxes on capital gains as it is going into an election campaign in which members of that Party intend to present themselves as the friends of average Canadians and ask for support against a Conservative Government which has been too much allied with big business and too much allied with wealthy Canadians. But that is precisely what is happening here.
The Liberal amendment is designed to reduce the rate of capital gains by reducing the amount of gains that will be brought into income. As tax reform stands, and tax reform is flawed, the Government is proposing that three-quarters of capital gains be brought into income. The Liberals say that that should be limited to two-thirds of capital gains being brought into income.
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
The Conservatives have proposed to allow $100,000 of capital gains to be tax-free. But, after that, they are moving to this three-quarter taxation of remaining capital gains. The Liberals have not spoken about that particular question. They have not indicated that they want to do away with the $100,000 exemption, as New Democrats have said. What they are saying quite specifically is that Liberal policy in the past to give special treatment to income from property and income from capital gains should be allowed to continue. Therefore they are saying that no more than two-thirds of capital gains should be taxed.
I have calculated that according to the Government's figures this means that the Liberal Party wants to give something in the order of $110 million per year to corporations and to wealthy Canadians by reducing the amount of tax that they will have to pay on capital gains.


Thomas Hockin: It is $200 million.


Michael Morris Cassidy: According to the Minister of State it is probably $200 million. It is a very substantial amount. I ask myself what the devil is going on.

The Liberal Party finance critic states that dividends would be taxed at a lower rate than capital gains and that companies would thus be discouraged from reinvesting their profits into their business. What he did not say, however, was that if the capital gains tax is higher than the tax on dividends, perhaps the tax on dividends should be adjusted then to ensure greater equity with respect to the capital gains tax. What he failed to state was that it is impossible to accept that about 14 per cent of the population still lives below the poverty line. Tax reform is supposed to lower the taxes of low-income earners. Here we have the Liberal Party that wants to lower the taxes of those realizing capital gains . . . and who is going to pay? In the final analysis the ordinary taxpayer is going to pay.
Mr. Speaker, I see that only 1 per cent of the Canadian population realized 38 per cent of all capital gains in 1983. Who are these individuals? They are people who earn in excess of $100,000 a year. The mesure proposed by the Liberal Party finance critic would also affect large corporations. Instead of ensuring that corporations will pay their fair share of taxes, the Liberal Party wants the capital gains tax to be even lower than that proposed by the Conservative Party. The New Democratic Party believes that the other two parties are wrong. The Liberals are wrong in wanting to favour individuals and corporations realizing capital gains. The Conservatives are also wrong in trying to retain certain privileges for the wealthy and for corporations, in so far as capital gains are concerned.
I do not understand what the devil is going on. However, I noticed that, according to Statistics Canada, the poverty line

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
in 1988 for a family of four in a major Canadian city is approximately $23,400. The Conservative tax reform will tax that family when its income exceeds $18,500, or $5,000 below the poverty line. The Conservative tax reform gives tax cuts of over $4,000 to the largest number of people with incomes of over $100,000 a year. It is essentially unfair because it taxes people in poverty and gives big returns and big reductions in tax to people with high incomes.
What did the Liberals do about it? Did they try to ensure that the tax not be paid by people living below the poverty line? No. Did they try to ensure that tax be paid at least at current levels by people earning big incomes? No. What the Liberals tried to do is bring down the tax even further on wealthy Canadians, and bring down the tax even further on wealthy corporations, and not do a thing for ordinary taxpayers living below the poverty line.
As things presently stand under the outgoing tax system, the maximum rate for an individual of tax on capital gains is 17 per cent. At two-thirds inclusion under the new system it will be raised to 19 per cent. That is pretty dramatic, and a really substantial tax reform. The Liberals are saying that capital gains are so acceptable that they should continue to be privileged and only have a tax rate of 2 per cent more than was being paid under the old system, while at the same time a technician working for Bell Canada will pay a tax rate only two or three points below the tax rate paid by Jean de Grand-pre who has a million dollar income as a CEO and President of Bell Canada. There is something wrong with that.
A wealthy Canadian will pay 19 per cent of the value of his or her capital gains, according to the Liberal amendment, whereas the average Canadian, who is struggling to pay a mortgage, struggling to pay high interest rates, and struggling to support his or her family, will wind up paying 8 per cent more in tax on a marginal income of over $27,000 a year.
I cannot accept that type of Liberal tax reform. It reminds me that over the last year while the finance committee has been working on this particular issue, we have been trying to clean up problems and loopholes in the tax system which were put there first by the Liberals, particularly when the present Leader of the Liberal Party was the Minister of Finance, and also by the Progressive Conservatives in the rare periods of time when they had a chance to put loopholes into the tax system. If a certain company wanted a privilege, of course that was available; if wealthy Canadians wanted capital gains to be treated differently, of course it was available. That was the Liberal policy, and that was the Conservative policy.
Canadian voters who look at the two Parties in the forthcoming election campaign should remember precisely that. The Liberals take their marching orders from wealthy Canadians and corporations, just as the Progressive Conservatives take their marching orders from the same sources. If the Royal Bank gives $50,000 to the Conservatives, it gives $50,000 to the Liberals. Who will benefit from the new treatment of capital gains? The Royal Bank will be one of the
beneficiaries. If Alcan Aluminum wants to go for years without paying any tax at all, then it supports the Liberal Party. Alcan was allowed to go for years paying no tax at all. Now its favours turn over to the Progressive Conservatives, because who failed to put a minimum tax on corporations? Why, the Progressive Conservatives. Under the Reagan tax reform in the United States a minimum tax exists. It cannot be that progressive a measure if it was brought in by the Reaga-nites in Washington. However, the Tories did not bring that in here. The Liberals allowed Alcan, and many other companies, to go without paying tax at all.
Now on the side of capital gains, the Liberals are standing up to be counted. When you stand up to be counted on this issue, Mr. Speaker, you stand with ordinary Canadians, or you stand with corporations and wealthy Canadians.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) stands with wealthy Canadians and corporations because his Party is going to continue to treat capital gains favourably. Right at the side of the Minister of State for Finance stands the finance critic for the Liberal Party, and all of his Party. That Party is attempting to outdo the Conservatives in seeking support from the corporate sector by saying: "Look, we are not going to tax your capital gains the way those nasty Conservatives were going to do it. We are going to tax them less".
It reminds me of the marketing battles between Steinberg's and Loblaw's. Those stores kept having to reduce their prices in order to bring customers into the stores. We all know that the Liberals have been having trouble raising corporate donations over the last three or four years, and that is why that Party is $5 million in debt. It seems to me that what the Liberals are saying is: "Here is a bargain sale. Can you afford not to support us? We will do what you want us to do for you, just make sure that you do what we want you to do for us". The Liberals are saying: "If you support the Liberals, if a corporation makes donations to the Liberal Party, then the Liberal Party will return the favour by ensuring that the days of loopholes and tax exemptions will be here again if the Liberals get a chance to get back in power".
On behalf of my Party, I stand with ordinary Canadians who say that we need a fair tax system which does away with privileges to wealthy Canadians and to corporations.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the House must not allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to get away with what he has been saying in the last seven or eight minutes. The purpose of tax reform, and indeed the very purpose of the provision in tax reform to which this motion refers, is the exact opposite of what the Hon. Member claims is going on.
First, under tax reform, we now have a $100,000 capital gain exemption for everybody in the country.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Shame.
August 23, 1988


Thomas Hockin: We also have a $500,000 capital gain exemption for small businesses and farmers. The Hon. Member states that he is against capital gains. Is the Hon. Member against this capital gains exemption for farmers?


Michael Morris Cassidy: No.


Thomas Hockin: Is the Hon. Member against this capital gains exemption for small business?


Michael Morris Cassidy: No.


Thomas Hockin: What is the difference? I hope anyone who is watching the debate has not missed the Hon. Member's contradiction. The Hon. Member is for capital gains sometimes, and not for it at other times.
The Government has democratized capital gains. It has brought it in in order that it is available to everyone. It has been done in such a way that it renders quite unnecessary the motion of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
The motion of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides is, quite frankly, reminiscent of the Liberal Government's national energy policy for two reasons. First, it is highly unfair. Second, it is retroactive. First, let me speak to the retroactivity. The motion itself is to change the inclusion rate, and it is to apply to years and fiscal periods ending after 1987. This means that a corporation with a fiscal year that ended January 31, 1988, would find that capital gains would apply for most of 1987, and it would apply retroactively.
That is what the members of the Liberal Party did in the national energy policy, and this is what they would do as a government. We certainly are not going to do that today. The Hon. Member wants to increase the inclusion rate for 1987 with this motion. If the Hon. Member misdrafted the motion, which I hope is true, because this is an incredible mistake-


Raymond Garneau: That is not what it says.


Thomas Hockin: -then perhaps he can respond to me. However, more profound is the long-term implication of the motion of the Hon. Member which is to take the inclusion rate from three-quarters to two-thirds and leave it at two-thirds. For the average Canadian that would do nothing. For fairness in Canada that would do nothing. In fact, it would set it back. Who would take advantage of capital gains at a two-thirds rate instead of a three-quarters rate? The same large corporations that take advantage of capital gains today.
We want to encourage risk-taking, that is why we have a capital gains tax at a lower rate than the ordinary income tax. However, this motion overdoes it. It would include real estate companies, banks, insurance companies, and people and companies with appreciating assets. They are the ones that would be the winners, and the Hon. Member knows it. It would not be the average or the ordinary Canadian, it would be the big corporations.
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is quite accurate when he points out that this is an argument for the more privileged corporations to move the inclusion rate to two-thirds from three-quarters. We are attempting to make it fairer and more democratic.
Let us not forget that the Government of Canada, in bringing forth tax reform, has brought forth this very important $100,000 capital gain exemption for all Canadians. There is a $500,000 capital gains exemption for farmers and small businesses. This is our contribution to encouraging the real risk-takers, not the big corporations. The big corporations have enough of an incentive. He read the incentive himself. It is effectively a 30 per cent rate. We do not have to go where he wants to go in order to encourage risk-taking by large corporations.
I am very, very proud of this particular facet of tax reform, because it encourages risk-taking but does not overdo it; it encourages people to take chances-the ordinary Canadian- not just the large corporations.
Finally, I must say that the mistake in his motion to apply to the 1987 year would in effect move the capital gain rate, which is now 50 per cent, to two-thirds for a large part of 1987, if I read his motion clearly. So it is a badly drafted motion, or, if it is not badly drafted, it is retroactive.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides on a point of order.


Raymond Garneau: On a point of order, the Minister should have read the motion correctly. It applies for the fiscal period ending after 1987. It is not before, as he has just said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not sure that they are points of order, but the Hon. Minister of State for Finance.


Thomas Hockin: I do not want to debate it. I wanted clarification on a point of order. If you had a fiscal year that ended, for example, on January 31, 1988, then 11 months of 1987 would be caught by his motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, the Member for Laval-des-Rapides may answer for one minute.


Raymond Garneau: That is exactly what he is going to do for the three-quarters of the regular inclusion of the capital gain. What I did here is exactly the same as the piece of legislation, except it excluded the three-quarters. If he is correct in what he just said, he should immediately contact his official and change the law. Otherwise, it will have exactly the effect that he just explained for every taxpayer. I think that he should be more accurate when he is talking about the corporate capital gain. He should talk about the personal capital gain, because this is where they are hidden. The rate of taxation will be higher for capital gains than for a dividend. I do not understand the NDP. They voted for that in committee and now

August 23, 1988
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
they are trying to change their minds. It is not the first time that the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) will have changed his mind.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: First, on a point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I would just point out to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) that in the minority report submitted by the New Democratic Party we advocated full taxation of capital gains. We made our disagreement with that part of the committee's report entirely clear and obvious and certainly at no time would we have supported his proposal, which is to reduce the rate of taxation of capital gains back down to two-thirds, and give that kind of special privilege to corporations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the position taken by my colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), in opposition to this amendment. One of the most important studies made of the tax system in Canada was done by the Royal Commission appointed by Prime Minister Diefenbaker when he was the Leader of the Conservative Party. That commission was chaired by a very distinguished member of the chartered accountant profession in Canada. It made a very important recommendation. It was put before the people and the Government and the Parliament of Canada, Kenneth Carter. It was a very important principle which they believed should be adopted, and that was that a dollar of income is a dollar regardless of how the income is obtained, and every dollar of income should be taxed in the same way, whether it was earned by somebody working for wages or salary, whether it was earned by somebody who was clipping coupons from the bonds or the stocks which he or she earned, or whether it was earned in the form of rents on property which people or corporations owned.
Liberal and Conservative Governments from that day on have ignored and hidden from the public that recommendation made by the Royal Commission headed by Mr. Carter. Let me put on the record what we have seen in the last 35 or more years. In 1954, the federal Government collected in income tax from individuals $1.17 billion. That is eleven thousand million dollars. It got just under that, $1 billion from corporations. That is, it got almost equal amounts of revenue from individual taxpayers and from corporations.
If you look down the road, in 1982 the Liberals had been in office for almost two-thirds of the time from 1952, which I used as a starting point, to 1982. In 1982, the federal Government collected $26 billion in personal income tax and only $8 billion in corporate income tax. We have heard a great deal from the Liberal and Conservative Parties about their desire to move to a fairer tax system. We have heard the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) talking today about what the
Conservatives have accomplished in the way of a fairer tax system, tax reform in reality. What kind of tax reform have we had? The fact is that the average family is now paying somewhere between $1,000 and $1,200 more in taxes. If you include income tax, sales tax, excise tax and certain other taxes, they are paying $1,000 to $1,200 more in 1988 than they paid in 1984 when the Conservative Government was elected.
We talked about corporation taxes. My colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre, has already pointed out that an employee of Bell Canada earning between $20,000 and $30,000 a year will pay income tax at a rate only a few percentage points lower than the rate paid by the head of Bell Canada, Mr. de Grandpre, whose salary is over $1 million a year. That is how this Government looks at the tax system. That is what this Government means when it talks about its tax reform bases.
Let us just look at what has happened to corporation taxes. We know that small businesses-most of them individually owned-are paying a pretty healthy amount in the form of corporation taxes. When we look at the record for the last fiscal year for which we have information supplied to us by Revenue Canada, we see that in the year 1986 some of the most profitable, largest corporations in Canada somehow paid no tax at all.
Alcan Aluminum, whose pre-tax income was over $306 million, paid not one cent in corporation tax. Brascan had profits of $186 million and paid no tax at all. Power Financial which had profits of $131 million paid no tax at all. Hees International had profits of $117 million and paid not one penny in tax. Xerox Canada had $115 million in profits and paid not one cent in income tax. Cadillac Fairview, one of the most successful real estate developers in this country, had profits of $95 million in 1986 and paid not one cent in tax. Bramalea, another real estate developer, had profits of over $50 million and paid not one cent in taxes.
We have to ask ourselves from where is this Government coming? What has happened to its promises about tax reform? What has happened to the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the debates held just before the election that he agreed individuals and corporations should pay a minimum tax? As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre pointed out a few moments ago, the United States with the most conservative President, the most conservative right-wing administration it has had in the last 50 or more years has imposed a minimum tax on corporations. But this Conservative Government of Canada which talks about tax reform and fairness has not in four years tightened up the tax system so that every corporation, particularly the larger corporations, will be required to pay taxes.
They are only following the example set for them by previous Liberal governments. There was no one more
August 23, 1988

generous to corporations and wealthy individuals in the Liberal government years than the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was its Minister of Finance. In his first budget he gave a 9 per cent corporate tax reduction to manufacturing and processing companies. Lie also allowed these companies overly generous depreciation tax deductions on their equipment.
We will oppose this motion. Although we have become accustomed to the Liberals becoming quite progressive when in opposition and being very conservative when in government, here is a case where the Liberals are being very conservative and generous to their big business friends even while in the opposition. Lord only knows what they will do if they ever have a chance to form the government again. They would continue the process this Government has followed of giving more and more concessions to those individuals and corporations which have the most.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to try to throw a little light onto this debate by reminding those viewing and listening to what we have to say in Parliament of the measure that is before us. What we have under the rubric of tax reform is a Liberal amendment designed to reduce the rate of tax on capital gains.


Don Boudria: It was supported in committee by the New Democratic Party.


Cyril Keeper: That is the amendment and the concrete proposal we are dealing with here. What may cause some confusion as people examine the proposal is the rhetoric of each of the parties. Let us examine it. The Liberals and their spokesmen talked about equity and taxation. The Conservative spokesperson talked about democracy in taxation. Our Party is concerned about fairness in the taxation for the ordinary Canadian family.
I want to look behind the rhetoric to see whether or not the actions of each of these Parties stand up to their rhetorical flourishes. Let me begin by looking at the Liberals. When they talk about equity in taxation and we examine their amendment before us today, what are they saying? Equity to me means one person or one group will be treated with equal fairness as another group of people. When it comes to equity, the Liberal definition of equity is pretty narrow. Their spokesman was concerned about whether those who receive income from stocks and bonds, other investments, and dividends be treated equally with those who receive capital gains. That was the narrow definition of equity. At no time when they spoke for equity did they raise the concerns of the ordinary Canadian family.
For those who earn their income from the sweat on their brow, at no time did the Liberals say that person who gets a pay cheque ought to be treated with equity. They said: "We want to take care of those who have stocks, bonds and get dividends and see that they are treated the same as those who have capital gains." I did not hear that spokesperson say we
Income Tax Act and Related Acts
have to be concerned that taxes on the ordinary family have gone up by $1,500 under the Tory Government in the last three or four years and there ought to be some equity for the ordinary Canadian family and for the person who earns his or her income from a salary. While the Liberal Party is calling for taxation on capital gains to be reduced from three-quarters of that gain to two-thirds, the Liberals did not say that the ordinary family, except for a few small deductions, has to pay taxes on the vast majority of its income.


Michael Morris Cassidy: 100 per cent.


Cyril Keeper: Yes, 100 per cent. The Liberals did not call for a reduction in that area. Why did the amendment not call for that? That is the Liberal definition of equity. It is narrow, limited and shows no concern for the ordinary Canadian family.
What about the Conservative definition of democracy in taxation? The Conservatives say that to forgive taxes on capital gains is okay. It is okay to say that if your capital goes up in value by $100,000 you do not have to pay any taxes on it because that privilege is available to every single Canadian. There are very few taxpayers in my riding who have capital gains of that order. Who are the Conservatives talking for when they speak of democracy and capital gains and taxation? They are talking about giving a loaf to the wealthy while asking the ordinary middle-class Canadian to be satisfied with a few crumbs that fall off the table. In other words, if middle-class Canadians benefit in some small measure from capital gains exemption, they should not be concerned that others gain handsomely from it.
What about fairness for the ordinary Canadian family in the taxation system? How can you possibly give tax relief to the ordinary Canadian family if you are going to allow the very wealthy to get away with paying no tax on capital gains? Why is the Liberal Party asking for the measure to go even further than the Conservative Party is presently moving? This is not fair. This is not equity. This is not democracy.


Don Boudria: Why did the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) support that in committee?


Cyril Keeper: We need to take into account the financial situation of the ordinary Canadian family. If the Canadian family has dollars in its pockets to spend, the economy will be strong. If Canadian families are not overburdened by taxes, they can buy the products of the companies of this land and we will have a strong economy.
I think I see an indication from you that my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I think I have made my point. Let me make it once more. It is shocking that when the Liberals talk about equity, they are only talking about dividends and the very wealthy. They have forgotten the ordinary Canadian family.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.

August 23, 1988


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, since 1967 Canada has issued free permits for the live capture of beluga whales in Hudson Bay for display by aquariums in North America, Germany and Japan. A survey conducted by the Winnipeg Free Press shows that of the 59 whales captured, 20 have died.
The U.S. Navy took six belugas to a research centre in San Diego where three died. The Sea World chain has taken 18 or 19 of the belugas. Only 10 are still alive, including four that were taken one month ago.
Dan Goodman, federal adviser for marine mammals, says there is little the Government can do to ensure the safety of the whales once out of the country. Consequently, Canada should get out of the beluga business, be it for entertainment or for military purposes.
We urge the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to stop issuing live capture permits. Lately, whale watching has grown in popularity on both coasts of Canada. That is the way to go: to view such magnificent mammals in their habitat.



HISTORIC EVENTS


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, August 23, commemorating the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty of 1939, is celebrated as Black Ribbon Day in many communities across Canada including my own constituency of Kitchener. On August 23, 1939, Hitler and Stalin divided eastern Europe between themselves with the final outcome being that some 300 million Europeans became enslaved by communism.
I call upon all Hon. Members to wear a Black Ribbon Day ribbon or button proudly to demonstrate that the millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain are not forgotten. I call upon the Government of Canada to make strong representations to the Soviet Union welcoming the new attitudes behind the words glasnost and perestroika, and to prove that these words are not mere rhetoric.
I call upon Mr. Gorbachev to admit the Soviet guilt at Katyn Forest, to return Eastern Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia to their rightful self-determination, and to honour the Soviet Union's undertaking at Yalta 44 years ago to allow free, democratic and unfettered elections in all of Soviet occupied Europe.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-HYDRO DISCOUNTS

James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, what New Democrats have been saying for months has now been confirmed by the Minister of State for Science and Technology, the MP for Prince George Peace River (Mr. Oberle). Some mines and northern industries may never open and some may shut down if the Mulroney-Reagan deal on trade is implemented.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology confirmed last week that the trade deal would outlaw energy agreements such as B.C. Hydro discounts that have re-opened mines such as Endako and Granisle, and attracted operations like the hydrogen peroxide plant to Prince George. The Minister told the City Council of Prince George that such subsidies are "not permissible" under the pact. These are the same Conservatives who cut a deal with Alcan on Nechako River water-flows on the promise of new aluminum expansion in B.C and new industry for the Bulkley Valley or Vanderhoof, developments now promised for Quebec, not B.C. These are the Conservatives who promised a full Minister of Forests in 1984 and we still do not have one in 1988.
What you hear from the Tories is not what you get. Prior to the election the Prime Minister said, in opposing free trade, "it affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it". Northern workers, industry and small business have had four years of the largest Tory majority in history and want no more of it.



HISTORIC EVENTS


Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, today Canadians in 14 cities across the country and over 30 cities around the world will gather together to commemorate International Black Ribbon Day. International Black Ribbon Day symbolizes the quest for peace with freedom. The Black Ribbon is worn to show mourning for those who lost their lives in the defence of freedom and sorrow for those who still suffer.
August 23, 1988

The significance of the date on which Black Ribbon Day is commemorated is a reminder of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact which linked the Nazis and Soviets as partners in terror, genocide, and enslavement. The Nazis were defeated and brought to justice at Nuremberg, but the Soviets continue their reign of tyranny to this day.
The new Soviet policy of glasnost has proposed certain reforms, and in the spirit of that policy I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Government of Canada to press the Soviet Government to honour its pledge of free and fair elections in the Soviet and all countries under its sphere of influence.



THUNDER BAY-EFFECT OF REDUCED GRAIN EXPORTS

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Port of Thunder Bay faces a very bleak future in the year ahead due to the Government's approach to the shipment of grain through this port. Already 700 grain workers, railway workers and sailors have been laid off in the port. A confidential report indicates that by this time next year, over 1,150 will be laid off as well as those in the Great Lakes ports in the Lower St. Lawrence.
Four of the 13 elevators are shut down. Twenty of the 64 grain ships are idle. Of course, if they are idle for over a year many of them will move out of the Great Lakes system. Projections show as low as four million tonnes being shipped from the port in this crop year, whereas in the past year over 14 million tonnes were shipped. The viability of the port is in question when shipments go below seven million tonnes.
The Government has refused to give any commitment to maintain a reasonable share of shipments through this port. Yet only two months ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a commitment of $164 million for one constituency during the Saint-Jean by-election. I call on the Government to take action to maintain the viability of the Port of Thunder Bay which is an essential and important port in the Great Lakes system.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, on The National last night we saw a bold escape from East Berlin. Four people swam across the River Spree to freedom in West Berlin expecting to be shot at any moment. These brave individuals were helped on shore by some equally brave West
Berliners while an East German patrol boat was rapidly approaching.
I have been to Berlin, both Berlins, East and West. The difference between them is like the difference between night and day. The feeling in the air in East Berlin is a cold feeling of oppression. The feeling in West Berlin is one we all know well. That feeling is freedom.
This is the feeling that those four brave people will enjoy today and from now on. They were prepared to die for their freedom, a freedom we as Canadians take for granted.



NATIONAL CITIZENS COALITION


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the National Citizens Coalition has awarded $10,000 to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). This is the best example I have seen of birds of a feather flocking together.
The National Citizens Coalition claims to stand for freedom yet is a big business instrument to attack the freedom of trade unions to exercise their rights. The Minister for International Trade shows the same lack of consistency. In October of 1980 he called government advertising a very dangerous practice meant to obscure the issues and a Liberal piece of hypocrisy. Now, while in government, he continues to run his free trade ad campaign with the latest advertisement appearing in today's Globe and Mail.
These two birds deserve each other, but our country deserves neither of them.



AGRICULTURE


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, at a time when farmers are going through a difficult period brought on by severe drought and international trade wars, the federal and Saskatchewan Governments are responding by laying the foundation for a stable future in Saskatchewan. This week, Ag-West Bio-Tech Inc. received $306,000 under the Canada-Saskatchewan Advanced Technology Agreement to further develop agricultural biotechnology in Saskatchewan.
By aiding both short and long-term research projects which will diversify the agricultural industry, this newly created institute will improve the competitive ability of Saskatchewan farmers. As a not-for-profit institute, Ag-West will focus on and support biotechnology research and development. This will

lead to the commercialization of products necessary for the diversification of the Saskatchewan economy. This will allow Saskatchewan to meet the continuing challenges of a highly competitive international market-place.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were reminded by my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), of the courageous struggle for freedom that was crushed in Czechoslovakia 20 years ago. Today we continue to be appalled that in neighbouring country, Poland, free trade unions must still be threatened with the spectre of military force for representing the legitimate demands of Polish workers. My NDP colleagues and I call on the Polish Government to recognize Solidarity and to get on with the task of building a freer Poland.
Today is also a day known to many as Internationa] Black Ribbon Day, marking the anniversary of August 23, 1939, the beginning of so much of the oppression that is still being suffered by the peoples of eastern Europe and the Baltic. The signing of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Treaty, a treaty between Hitler and Stalin, on that date proved to be a dark day for all the world, not just for eastern Europe, in so far as it helped set the stage for World War II.
One of the true tests of glasnost and perestroika will be whether the new winds of freedom are allowed to blow in countries which for too long have been under Soviet domination. It has been suggested that Chairman Gorbachev show good faith by allowing free and open elections at the municipal level throughout Soviet occupied Europe as a first step. We in the NDP urge that this be done.



ABORTION


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I congratulate the Canadian Medical Association and the thousands of physicians it represents on the courageous and sensible guidelines it adopted on abortion during its annual meeting in Vancouver recently. Physicians know, perhaps as well or better than most, the trauma and tragedy often associated with situations which lead women to seek an abortion. Yet they realize that such a decision is a medical one, best made by the woman and her physician.
August 23, 1988
The CMA's guidelines also provide that abortions could be performed in provincially approved facilities other than hospitals. They emphasize the importance of counselling for women facing such a decision, and the provision of proper family planning and contraceptive services. They also establish 20 weeks as the limit for abortion except in exceptional circumstances.
These are all reasonable guidelines which I believe are consistent with the views of the majority of Canadians who, while they may not approve of abortion or consider it for themselves, recognize that women along with their physicians should have the freedom to make their own decisions and accept the responsibility for them.



HOUSING


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in response to my request yesterday that the Minister responsible for housing involve himself and his Government in easing the affordable housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, he was quoted today in the Toronto Star as saying: "We are going to let the free market forces dictate". That Tory answer is simply not good enough. These market forces are the same market forces which have pushed up the average price of a home in Metropolitan Toronto to over $230,000.
Young couples starting out with the dream of owning a home cannot do realize their dream. Couples who want to move perhaps from a semi-detached to a bungalow and then to a split level cannot do so. Senior citizens are having a hard time trying to maintain their homes on their pensions. It is time that the federal Government etched out a partnership with both the municipal and provincial Governments to the benefit of the housing crisis in Toronto.
The RHOSP program was cut. We have a Government which is not giving over 15 acres to the new $1.2 billion St. Lawrence housing project for 12,000 Canadians. We have no programs for first time home buyers. Therefore, I urge the Government to assume its leadership role and help the municipal and provincial Governments bring housing prices back to reality in the city of Toronto.



ELECTIONS EXPENSES


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, at the end of their annual regional meeting, the Quebec Conservative caucus
August 23, 1988

decided to implement public financing. We accept political contributions only from individuals. The Liberals and PQ have been doing so successfully in Quebec since 1976. Will the socialists do the same? Will they continue to use the major unions as their base of operations? Will they continue to use the premises of the Quebec teachers' union and telephones and stamps provided by unions? Will they still use union employees and supplies and money from the big unions? Will they illegally continue to use union dues for political purposes?
I challenge the socialist leader to comply with Quebec's standard of political morality, which we Conservatives share with the PQ and the provincial Liberals.
I say to the socialist leader, "Show yourself distinctly to Quebecers!" That is what we expect.



BANKS AND BANKING


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is about time small business people got a fair deal. Almost two months ago the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) huffed and puffed about "objectionable" service charges and negotiated with the banks a deal which would eliminate some service charges for consumers. However, small businesses continue to get dinged by the banks without notice, and continue to pay NSF charge-back fees which have been eliminated for consumers. While the pussycat Minister fiddles, small business people get burned.
Just yesterday the Royal Bank announced its intention to raise some of its service charges, including a 12 per cent increase for NSF cheques. While that fee is offset by the elimination of the charge-back to consumers, small business people pay both the increased fee for writing NSF cheques and a charge for cashing NSF cheques. This is unfair.
It is time the Minister paid attention to the concerns of small businesses which are often at the mercy of the big banks and are in no position to change banks. He found some charges "objectionable" for consumers and removed them. He should now do the same for small business.



HISTORIC EVENTS


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, on August 23, 1939, 49 years ago today, a few days before the start of World War II, Stalin and Hitler signed a pact which divided
Oral Questions
Eastern Europe between them. As a result, 300 million Europeans became enslaved by Soviet communism. The International Black Ribbon Day Committee marks this day to push for fundamental freedoms behind the Iron Curtain.
The ABN credo is freedom for nations, freedom for individuals. It is dedicated to the restoration of liberty, justice and independence for Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovania, Turkestan, Ukraine, Vietnam, and all other subjugated nations throughout the world. World peace can come only when all the people are set free.



ABORTION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the policy statement by the Canadian Medical Association which was released yesterday. The CMA said on abortion:
The decision to perform an abortion is a medical one, made privately between the patient and her physician-
For one thing, medical doctors should know better. They should know when you are talking about abortion and the patient and her physician, you are forgetting at least one person.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, as the person responsible for administering the Government's code of ethics. Last week, three Conservative Members, the Hon. Member for Rosemont, the Hon. Member for Duvernay and, more recently, the Hon. Member for LaSalle, said there was a kickback system in the Government.
Mr. Speaker, this morning at a press conference, the Hon. Member for Rosemont repeated her statement, and I quote from her press release, in which she said the following in referring to kickbacks and contracts: "I am convinced that this exists on an organized level, and that it can be brought to light. However, I am also sure that a criminal investigation, considering the methods that are customary in such instances

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions
and the kind of evidence that is required, would not be able to expose the existence of such a network. I think the best instrument, in this case, would be royal commission of inquiry".
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this: Considering the fact that the Hon. Member for Rosemont, a Conservative Member and a former Member of Cabinet, repeated her charges about the existence of a kickback system within our federal public administration, and that she is asking for a royal commission of inquiry, could the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House today whether he agrees with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and whether he will accede to her request for a royal commission of inquiry to substantiate the allegations she has made with respect to her Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member for Rosemont has alleged is a very serious violation of the Criminal Code. She has not been able to substantiate it. The responsibility for enforcing the Criminal Code lies with the police and the justice system. That process has been followed. An interview was undertaken by the RCMP. No specific evidence was forthcoming. So what we have here is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing without any evidence whatsoever. I do not know what a Royal commission would undertake to do when there is no basis in fact for the allegations.


ACCUSATIONS CONCERNING EXISTENCE OF KICK-BACK SYSTEM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister has just arrived, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister as the person responsible for the code of ethics.
The Hon. Member for Rosemont indicated in her press release this morning that patronage and kickbacks are nothing new and should not be considered a taboo subject in this day and age. In fact, the subject was brought up several times at the Quebec Members' Caucus, even in the presence of the Prime Minister himself. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the allegations of the Hon. Member for Rosemont regarding the existence of a kickback system were mentioned several times in his presence at the Quebec Caucus. If that was the case, it would indicate that a number of Members were concerned about these allegations. I want to ask the Prime Minister what he has done about the allegations with respect to the existence of a kickback system that were mentioned at the Conservative Caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a problem with the question because discussions among Members in Caucus are not really a matter of Government administration.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to draw the attention of the Hon. Member to two other statements made today by the Member in question, and I quote: "I did not bring this information to the attention of the RCMP because I was not personally a witness to what happened, so that if I were asked to testify, my testimony would have no legal value."


COMMUNICATION WITH MEMBER-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to venture on the kind of slippery terrain the Prime Minister is walking on and accuse his former colleague of lying to Canadians. In fact, I would now like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and perhaps to the Prime Minister himself.
Last Friday, around 11.30 a.m., during Oral Question Period, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, asked the Deputy Prime Minister, and I quote:
... when he contacted the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and if he has not done so, will he do so today? And if not, why not? After all, it's his responsibility!
And the Deputy Prime Minister's answer was:
Mr. Speaker, I considered that course of action. However, having considered the allegations as being of such a serious nature, I thought it would be improper for me to intervene, given the fact that we had been advised that the RCMP were going to conduct an interview with her, as the Solicitor General has indicated. I did not want to be seen as intervening in the process.
Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard the Hon. Member for Rosemont said it would be unworthy or against the code of ethics for the Deputy Prime Minister to intervene, as it was for the Prime Minister's chief of staff, who at 8.45 this very morning, contacted the Hon. Member for Rosemont, and as she said in her press release, asked her to retract or say her statements had been misquoted. This the Hon. Member refused to do.
I want to ask the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister why it was improper for the Deputy Prime Minister to communicate with the Hon. Member for Rosemont and why it was perfectly proper for the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Mr. Peter White, to put pressure on the Hon. Member and threaten her with expulsion from the Caucus if she did not retract.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Rosemont said, and I quote: "I know personally that patronage exists, that it continues to grow and that there is a kickback system for contracts", and she said this to La Presse on August 18. It is perfectly proper for a senior member of my staff to call the Hon. Member to find out if she intends to substantiate her claims and whether she intends to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister and her caucus colleagues. The fact remains that the same day, and I quote from an English text:
August 23, 1988



"An RCMP spokesman reading from a prepared statement issued late yesterday afternoon in Ottawa said: 'She had no details of any activity that would justify an RCMP investigation'
What we have here is a Member of Parliament who has made charges that would have the effect of tarnishing the reputation of all members of a Party and, by implication, the charge was made in respect to previous Governments. I felt that blanket charge was unfair and any evidence that she had should be brought forward. That has been my position. I invited her to come forward to the caucus and explain her point of view. As it happened, the RCMP visited with her and she told the RCMP that she had no information at all. That to me is a very sad and irresponsible situation for a Member of Parliament to place herself in.


QUERY CONCERNING SPOKESPERSON FOR GOVERNMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
I would like him to explain the contradiction for me. The Prime Minister has just told the House that it was quite normal to intervene politically to get information from the Hon. Member for Rosemont. However, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is seated next to him, says that it would be ill-advised to intervene.
I would like to know who speaks on behalf of the Government. Is it the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister? The Prime Minister says that it is quite normal and the Deputy Prime Minister said on Friday, "However, having considered the allegations as being of such a serious nature, I thought it would be improper for me to intervene, given the fact that we had been advised that the RCMP were going to conduct an interview with her, as the Solicitor General has indicated."
Is that right or wrong? Is it improper or quite normal? What is the answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find it quite normal that if an allegation is made in a general way, for example, if someone made a general statement about all the Liberal Members in the House, it would seem quite normal to me that the Liberal Members would immediately demand further information, some evidence, or that the accusations be withdrawn.
It seems quite normal to me that my chief of staff asked one of our Members to follow such a logical procedure. If the Hon. Member is offended, too bad for him. It seems quite normal to me to proceed in that way when people's reputations are involved, whether they are Members of the New Democratic Party, Liberals or Progressive Conservatives; everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and to be treated fairly.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR RETRACTION FROM MEMBER FOR ROSEMONT- PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says that everyone is entitled to fair treatment, but his chief of staff did not ask the Hon. Member for Rosemont for information politely. He threatened to throw her out of the Conservative Caucus. There is quite a difference between asking for information and blackmail and arm-twisting!
I ask the Prime Minister whether it is quite normal to ask a Member to retract, even to say the opposite of what is true; is it quite normal to say, "If you don't retract, you'll be thrown out of the Conservative Caucus"?


Mr. Speaker:: I will let the Right Hon. Prime Minister answer, but I am a little concerned about a preamble that gets awfully close to an allegation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there was no threat.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Oh, no!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member says, "Oh, no!" The same person who said that there were threats said on August 18:
I personally know that patronage exists and has continued to grow, that there is a contract kickback system.
Today, the same person says, "I did not bring this information to the RCMP because I personally was not a witness to these situations. If I were called as a witness, my contribution would have no legal value."
The same person who said that she had no evidence for the accusations made against people's reputations has no evidence for such a statement.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-HYDRO DISCOUNTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed the Minister for International Trade. He may be aware that last Monday, in an appearance before the City Council in Prince George, British Columbia, the Minister of State for Science and Technology stated that the trade deal with the United States would prohibit hydro discounts that have re-opened mines all across the Province of British Columbia and other parts of Canada.
The Minister was asked if the trade deal would allow subsidized energy rates that have allowed mines like those at

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions
Endako and Granisle to reopen. The Minister replied very precisely: "No, it is not possible".
The Minister knows how important subsidized energy rates have been to allow mines and plants across Canada to re-open. The Minister of State for Science and Technology has said that under the trade deal this kind of discounted rate, if you like, would not be permissible. Who is telling the truth? On a number of occasions the Minister has indicated that communities would not be placed at risk. The Minister of State for Science and Technology said whole numbers of single industry towns would now be placed at risk. Who is it that we are to believe?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I believe my hon. colleague said no such thing as the hon. gentleman is quoting him as saying. Second, we can subsidize whatever we like. We can subsidize whatever we wish in this country.
There is no international agreement that prevents us from subsidizing whatever goods we want to subsidize or whatever services we want to subsidize. However, if we do subsidize, if it is a trade related subsidy, we have to consider whether or not, if we export that product, another country might challenge it as being subsidized in an objectionable way so that it is no longer free trade or fair trade, and may attempt to bring an action against it.
That has always been the case. That is the case this year. That was the case five years ago. That will be the case in the future. There is nothing in the U.S.-Canada agreement that prevents us from subsidizing hydro rates if we wish, or anything else we wish to subsidize.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER OF STATE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, both in the newspaper and on radio tape, the Minister of State for Science and Technology has said that under the trade deal any effort to provide subsidized energy rates that have allowed mines like Endako and Granisle to re-open would not be permissible.
Who is that we are to believe? The Minister of State says that this kind of subsidized energy, if you like, would not be allowed under the trade deal. The Minister for International Trade says that it would be allowed under the trade deal. I am not sure what the Prime Minister has said. He closed down Schefferville, so we will stick with the two Ministers.


Marcel Masse: Cheap shot.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister spends millions of dollars on propaganda for this deal.


Harvie Andre: Cheap shot Riis.


Nelson Andrew Riis: His colleague, who I assume has read the deal, says to his constituents and to single industry towns across the country that that kind of subsidized energy will not be permissible. Who is it that we are to believe?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the people of Canada will believe those who constantly cry wolf, those who constantly make false statements about the effects of the U.S.-Canada trade arrangement, such as the hon. gentleman opposite.
Schefferville voted 85 per cent for the Prime Minister, so they must have understood what the Prime Minister was attempting to do. They understood that for years jobs had been created in Schefferville, that the resources had been developed, and that the hon. gentleman opposite has never created a job, or developed anything in his life. All he has done is mal-mouth in the House of Commons.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, if he is looking for wolves, there is a wolf in his Cabinet.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade will well know that from Newfoundland to British Columbia there are hundreds of communities that exist because a mine, a plant, or a mill was receiving subsidized low energy feedstocks. That was one of the reasons why those plants, those mines and those mills were created in those communities.
The Minister of State for Science and Technology has stated on tape, and is quoted in the newspapers as saying that this kind of subsidy would not be permitted in the future. I think that is serious. Who is that the people of Canada are to believe? Whom do we trust? Do we trust the Minister of State for Science and Technology or the Minister for International Trade?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as anyone who follows trade matters will realize, many countries in the world subsidize services or subsidize products, or help in the establishment of industries. Every country has this kind of program, and other countries to which they export challenge the subsidies if they think that they are trade related and unfair subsidies causing them to compete unfairly with domestic industries. That happens in the United States vis-a-vis Canada, and the United States vis-a-vis other countries. Here in Canada we challenge the exports of other countries to Canada on the same basis.
That is why, under the free trade agreement, we will work out with the Americans over the next five years an agreed definition of what is a trade related subsidy that could properly invite countervailing duties.
In the meantime, the U.S.-Canada agreement does not rule out subsidies in any way, shape or form. The position on subsidies is completely unchanged, except we will have a better
August 23, 1988

chance to challenge U.S. action because we will have a dispute settlement method to which we can revert.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Prime Minister and challenge his suggestion that in cases like this it is good enough simply to call in the RCMP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Who would you call in? The CIA? You never called anyone in, that is for sure.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We set up Royal commissions.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask that the Hon. Member for York Centre use his experience and perhaps some of the help that was intended for him yesterday in the exchange between myself and himself, and be very careful to keep within the rules.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Government to establish a Royal commission. I think that is in order.
I want to ask it to establish a Royal commission in light of the fact that there has already been a conviction for kickbacks during the life of this Government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Where?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is a case under investigation-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Withdraw.


Don Boudria: Have you forgotten already? Hypocrites.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. I do not know where the Hon. Member is leading. I am moving on to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


KICK-BACK ALLEGATIONS-PMO OFFICIAL'S CONTACT WITH MEMBER FOR ROSEMONT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the allegations which the Hon. Member for Rosemont has made with respect to kick-backs. Last Friday, August 19, in the House, one of the opposition Members asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question as to whether the Deputy Prime Minister would speak to the Hon. Member for Rosemont and, if he had not done so, would he do so "today". The Deputy Prime Minister replied, as reported at page 18565 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I considered that course of action. However, having considered the allegations as being of such a serious nature, I thought it would be improper for me to intervene, given the fact that we had been advised that the RCMP were going to conduct an interview with her...
Oral Questions
Today, the Member for Rosemont said that on Friday Mr. Peter White, chief of staff of the Prime Minister's Office, contacted her and told her to withdraw the remarks or run the risk of being kicked out of the Tory Caucus. Why is it that what is improper for the Deputy Prime Minister to do becomes proper for the Prime Minister's henchman to do?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member quoted exactly precisely what I stated. That occurred at about 11.30. My understanding at the time that we were made aware, as the Solicitor General indicated, was that in fact the RCMP were going to interview the Hon. Member for Rosemont. That was one of the considerations.
My understanding, and I may be wrong in this, is that the Prime Minister's chief of staff contacted her in the morning seeking clarification and reminding her of her obligation that if she had evidence she should produce that evidence and report to the police. My understanding is that was, essentially, the thrust of the conversation.


NOMINATION PAPERS OF MEMBER FOR YORK-PEEL
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Prime Minister.
In light of the fact that the Hon. Member for Rosemont has now been put out of the Tory caucus as of last weekend, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he intends to refuse to sign the nomination papers for the Hon. Member for York- Peel who broke the conflict of interest guidelines not once, not twice, but 14 times?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a Party matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I am having great difficulty in accepting that that is a question that has to do with the administration of government. Perhaps the Hon. Member could rephrase his question.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the conflict of interest guidelines are indeed the administration of justice-indeed, they are the handiwork of the Prime Minister himself-and in view of the fact that a member of his caucus, of his Government, was found to have breached those guidelines 14 times, and in light of the fact that he has kicked out one Member, the Hon. Member for Rosemont-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


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

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions


NATIONAL CITIZENS COALITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister as well. It concerns a totally different subject, that of the 510,000 prize that the Minister for International Trade has been awarded and has accepted, according to the media, from the National Citizens Coalition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I hope that the record will show that Conservative Members were applauding.
Given that the National Citizens Coalition is in favour of apartheid, pro-capital punishment, anti-bilingualism, against medicare, against immigration, and against social programs, will the Prime Minister order his colleague to refuse to accept the prize?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is very scary.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this comes within my Department or not. However, I can see the hon. gentleman is displaying a tremendous amount of jealousy at the news that I have received this award. Perhaps I could be induced to share the proceeds with him-


Don Boudria: I want no part of dirty money.


John Carnell Crosbie: -if his hurt feelings continue.
As to the National Citizens Coalition itself, I only know from what I see in the paper. It is an organized group with a conservative philosophy. I may agree with some of its views and policies and not with others, just the same as the hon. gentlemen across may agree with some of the views of the CLC and not with others, or perhaps they may agree with them all totally.
In any event, I am glad to be recognized as having made a contribution to the cause of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.


COALITION'S POSITION ON APARTHEID
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want no part of the Minister's blood money.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I want to ask him a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is asked of the Minister for International Trade who is also at the present time the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In its newsletter "Consensus" of February, 1987, the National Citizens Coalition said about the Government's
policy on South Africa: "Expediency, not principle; pragmatism, not morality. These are the models for Canada's foreign policy." How can the Minister accept this reward and remain in Cabinet?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I suppose, has never received an award before in his life.


Lloyd Axworthy: Don't laugh it off, John, it's a serious issue.


John Carnell Crosbie: He therefore believes that the recipient of any reward from any group must agree with every statement of the group that gives the award. Is this true of the Oscars? Is it true of the Nobel Peace Prize? If one accepts the Nobel Peace Prize does that mean that one agrees with using dynamite to blow up one's opponents or enemies? How ridiculous this is getting.


Lloyd Axworthy: You don't have a bit of integrity. What a dishonourable man.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Tory blood money.


John Carnell Crosbie: If this is what you are down to it is pretty bad.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. A special committee of the Canadian Bar Association has recommended a parallel justice system for Canada's first citizens. The report reveals that in Saskatchewan a treaty Indian woman is 131 times more likely to end up in jail than a white woman, and that 60 per cent of prison admissions are native, while only 6 per cent of Saskatchewan's population is native.
Would the Minister confirm that across Canada 10 per cent of federal inmates are native even though they make up only 2 per cent of the population, and that this Parliament and this Government have the authority and the responsibility to implement a parallel justice system for Canada's first citizens?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very serious question. I am pleased to try to address it in a serious way.
The Hon. Member will know that this is a preliminary report to the Canadian Bar Association. I have instructed my
August 23, 1988

officials to examine thoroughly and analyse the report and the statements and recommendations made therein.
I should say that we have tried as a Government, and I think with some success, to move forward in an examination of some of the difficulties faced by aboriginal populations in our country in the justice system. As a matter of fact at the present time my Department is undertaking a very extensive review of a number of initiatives. I think this report will be very closely examined. I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter in the House.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. Since Canada clearly has the constitutional authority to implement aboriginal courts and correctional systems, and since Section 35 of the Constitution Act is a full box of rights, including selfgovernment, will the Minister commit the Government to immediate action based on the CBA report, because many native Canadians are being prosecuted and incarcerated for practising their constitutional rights, making them, dare we say it here on the floor of the House of Commons, political prisoners in their own land, a situation which can no longer be allowed to continue?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we want to look at the question in a very serious and comprehensive way as a Government.
I can only say to the Hon. Member that the report itself and the Canadian Bar Association appreciate that there is no easy or facile solution to the problem. It is one that will require a number of initiatives.
I can tell the Hon. Member, and I hope he will accept my commitment on behalf of the Government, that we regard this as a very serious question. Tomorrow I will have the opportunity to address the Canadian Bar Association. It just so happens that one of the aspects I will be dealing with is the whole question of sentencing vis-a-vis our native population. We are in fact, and have been, considering this matter. We will continue to do that. I will welcome any suggestions made by Members of Parliament and the Parties in this House.


MINISTER'S POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the same Minister, the Minister of Justice. It is with regard to the report from the Canadian Bar Association.
The report strongly supports what aboriginal leaders have been telling the country for a very long while now, that is, that the present justice system under which they suffer has not served their people at all well.
I would like to ask the Minister, as the report recommends, if he is willing to work along with aboriginal leaders toward
Oral Questions
the development of a contemporary aboriginal or native justice system in Canada. The Minister knows that there is nothing shocking or radical in such a suggestion since it works well elsewhere in North America. For example, the Pueblo and Navajo have worked out such an arrangement with the American Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, there have been a number of initiatives and studies undertaken on the issue of sentencing and parole. The Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General has given very serious consideration, if I understand the proceedings well, to this whole issue. I expect that its report, which is anticipated some time next week, will try to deal with some of those complex issues.
This is something where we will have to consult widely, where there is no simple answer. It is a commitment which we have on behalf of the aboriginal people of Canada to make sure that justice does apply equally to all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians.


B. Keith Penner: The Minister talks about sentencing and parole. He knows that the question went well beyond that. We are talking about a contemporary aboriginal or native justice system developed in Canada, which is far beyond the matters to which the Minister referred.


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
B. Keith Penner: For my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to turn to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The report cites poverty as being a major factor in the excessively high levels of incarceration among aboriginal peoples.
I would like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether, this week or perhaps next week, the Government will announce that the Native Economic Development Program will be renewed. As the Minister knows, that program will expire at the end of this fiscal year. Can native people expect to see a renewal of this ambitious effort to help them find their own feet, get off the welfare system and dependency on the Government of Canada?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Native Economic Development Program has known quite a bit of activity. There have been 1,687 requests totalling some $1.2 billion. Fully 94 per cent of all requests have been dealt with.

August 23, 1988
Oral Questions
The program was extended last year so that we could have, as a Government, the opportunity to review, with the people concerned, and the Assembly of First Nations, modifications that could be brought to a new version of the program to be introduced. It was extended until March 31 of next year. Those consultations have been going on very well.
I expect that we will be in a position very shortly to announce modifications or a new version of the program that could be put in place as of April 1, 1989.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. The residents of Whitehorse in the Yukon are beginning to wonder if the Minister is attempting to add a northern question to the game of Trivial Pursuit, to wit: "What is the only capital city in Canada without a federally run post office?" Answer: "It looks like it's going to be Whitehorse".
In two months the current Post Office building will be demolished. For some reason Canada Post has continued to be secretive about its intentions for this retail facility.
Will the Minister now tell the taxpayers of Whitehorse what plans he has for the central post office?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member and her constituents that the mail receiving and sending public of the Yukon will continue to receive and be able to send mail.
As to specific details as to what and where the post office will be operating, that is a question that I will of course have the Post Office reply to, if the Hon. Member would prefer to have me ask the Post Office rather than ask herself.


COST OF POST OFFICE BOXES
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his offer, because we have continually asked Canada Post, and it has continually failed to respond.
The Minister states that we will continue to be able to send and receive mail. Does the Minister realize that under his privatization scheme the cost of a post office box in a privately run post office has increased in Whitehorse anywhere from 400 per cent to 1,700 per cent from that in the federal post office, and that is what I call a "super box".
What does the Minister intend to do about this?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member states that she has made inquiries and has not been able to receive an answer. If the Hon. Member will send me a copy of those inquiries, I will
get an explanation as to why. I would like to see evidence that the Hon. Member has asked and not received replies.
Lock box fees are set by regulation. The types of changes the Hon. Member talks about are impossible. If the Hon. Member will wait for four or five days I think that she will hear some very good news in terms of lock box fees.


FISHERIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the Member for St. John's West, the Acting Minister of Fisheries, boast about a $10,000 award that he has received from-in my view-a questionable organization called the National Citizens Coalition.
That is the same Minister who, last week, denied there was any crisis in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland. Last Saturday night in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, some 700 fishermen turned out at a public meeting in response to the Minister to tell him that he is wrong, that there is a crisis, that they are hungry, and that they are without incomes.
They asked me to present the Minister with an award of their own. One David Mugford, who has earned less than $1,000 since May, asked me to send the Minister his pay cheque for that week, which is $9.45. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I send that across the floor to the Acting Minister of Fisheries.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister, since the Acting Minister of Fisheries, the Member for St. John's West, refuses to acknowledge the crisis atmosphere in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland, the hunger that exists among fishing families in the inshore of Newfoundland, if the Prime Minister will establish, on an emergency basis, a compensation program to assist fishermen, primary producers, in exactly the same manner that this Government and previous Governments assisted farmers who are also primary producers? Can that be done quickly to assist hungry families today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, last week the Hon. Member who asked this question claimed that there was a disastrous inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador this year. That is an untrue and unfactual statement.
This year, up to July, the inshore cod landings and values were 90,000 metric tonnes caught, and $40 million in value, compared to 59,000 metric tonnes having a value of $28 million in the inshore fishery last year in the same period of time. How can the Hon. Member say that there is a disastrous failure in the Newfoundland fishery?
However, Mr. Speaker, this year, as happens every year on certain sections of the coast, which is thousands of miles in
August 23, 1988

length, some areas have not had fish in the inshore fishery. One of those areas is the St. Anthony area in White Bay. Another area is that of Lawn and St. Lawrence on the south coast of Newfoundland, as I said last week.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, he's finally catching on.


John Carnell Crosbie: If there is need for assistance in those particular areas, in the past there have been certain employment programs for areas like that and that will certainly be considered, but there is no disaster in the Newfoundland inshore fishery. Over much of the province it has been very good. For example, capelin landings are up to $28 million in value this year as compared to $7 million last year. To date, crab landings are also up in value.
The hon. gentleman's statement is simply untrue, except with respect to certain areas.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Spadina.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF TASK FORCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, with all those boring statistics that ignore human beings, it is no wonder that the Speaker nearly fell asleep, as did most of the House while listening to that dispassionate, callous, cruel, and thoughtless answer from the Acting Minister of Fisheries.
Landings may be up, but the price of fish is only half of what it was last year. While the value to the companies may have risen, the fishermen who catch the fish by the sweat of their brow are hungry this year. That is the lesson that the Minister is only now beginning to acknowledge. I tell the Minister that fishermen do not want an 8, 9, or 10 week program-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the fishermen of Newfoundland want the same consideration in times of natural disaster as the farmers of this country rightly received. They are in a desperate situation now.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to set up a task force on an emergency basis because the crisis is now, Prime Minister- they are hungry now-to look at the situation of inshore fishermen all over Newfoundland and to provide financial compensation to those people who have earned pay cheques of $9.45 for a week, or who have earned less than $500 or $1,000 for the year?
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, as we all know, is grandstanding, or he is trying to imitate the big-mouth bass or doing some kind of fish impersonation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The position is that, despite a drop in prices this year of something like 40 per cent, the landed value of fish caught in the inshore fishery of Newfoundland is up considerably. I have given you the figures, Mr. Speaker. I have given you the landings of the capelin, crab, and cod.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Their take-home pay is down.


John Carnell Crosbie: In areas where there is a local disaster as there is in some areas, then we will do the usual careful survey and if help is needed-


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is needed.


John Carnell Crosbie: -as always with this Government, the fishermen in those areas will get the necessary help, but they will not be helped by this kind of an exhibition in the House.


HOUSING
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
As the Minister knows, there is a very desperate housing situation faced by the people of Toronto. People Find it impossible to buy a home or often even to rent a home. Periodicals like Time magazine or The Financial Times have pointed to Toronto as a situation in which part of the reason for this housing shortage is that speculators are driving up the price of housing.
Would the Minister be willing to take steps to cool down this speculation in real estate and housing in Toronto? Will he consider a special tax on land speculation, which is what is bidding up the price of housing in Toronto?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Government of Canada through Canada Mortgage and Housing has been recognized. There are expenditures on assisted housing in Canada of some $1.5 billion a year. In Toronto, the fair share of that amount is being put forward. There are more people in need at this time because of the housing policies that have been developed co-operatively with the provinces and the Government of Canada receiving assisted need in housing.

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
The Minister responsible has had discussions and informed the House as late as yesterday as to actions that he has taken that will provide more land after consultation with other Departments, and try to assist in putting forward land that is presently held by the Government, for the use of housing in the Metropolitan Toronto area.


FUNDING OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question about a tax on land speculation although his colleague Government in Ontario has done that in the past decade. It is also within the responsibility of the federal Government. I would point out that in the past municipal infrastructure, such as roads, sewers and water systems, has been aided by federal public works programs.
Would the Minister consider a tax on land speculation in order to contribute to funding to the necessary renovation of the municipal infrastructure such as roads, sewers, and water systems?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question. The Government is not considering any such tax.
What the Government is considering is its firm approach to monetary expansion to make sure that inflation does not get out of hand, to make sure that we do not have 21 per cent interest rates as we had in 1981 and to make sure that we do not have 13 per cent unemployment rates as we had in 1982. That is our approach.
In addition, we have brought in a capital gains tax which cuts particularly heavily into real estate companies that are speculating.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, August 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Martin:
That this question be now put.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in terms of social policy at the national level, there is no need more urgent nor claim more legitimate than a call for a comprehensive child care policy. That is what the people of Canada need. That is what they require and that is precisely what the Conservative Government has failed to deliver.
In my youth, to put it in perspective, the large majority of mothers, wherever they were in our country, whether in the East, central Canada, on the plains of our Prairies or beyond the mountains in British Columbia, worked exclusively within the household. Today not only a majority but a growing majority of mothers work outside the home. It is folly to assume, as the Government seems to be, that history will suddenly reverse itself. The conclusion that we reach for those who care for children, for those who believe and believe genuinely in equality between the sexes, for those who prefer reality to mythology as a guide to public policy, is that we need to be launching in Canada a comprehensive child care program, and we need to be doing it now from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Today, fully 60 per cent of the mothers of pre-school children are working outside the home, with no access available to quality child care services for almost two million children of such families. The Government in the face of this reality has presented us not with a national program but a national fraud. The Government has done so not in ignorance of the facts for which some matters of policy might be excusable, but it has done so with full knowledge of the contemporary Canadian reality.
The evidence is all around us. For Members of Parliament of each Party in the House of Commons, from any part of our country, whether we speak to our friends, our neighbours or acquaintances we all understand that the family has changed. We have conventional families, unconventional families, women and men reversing conventional roles. Sometimes the man stays at home to rear the child or children while the woman works out in the market-place. More often than not, as I have just indicated, both partners in the family structure are working outside the home. We know it from our personal experience, but beyond our personal experience we have the evidence, and that too was presented to all Members of the House as a result of the special committee established to look into this question.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) for our Party was an active and caring member of that committee and reported back to our caucus on that committee's findings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to cite some of the instances that she has drawn to our attention and to the attention of all members of that committee. Again, I repeat, regardless of their Party they became aware of it during the course of their travels throughout Canada.
What are some of the important and salient matters of fact that this Government ought to have been considering that were drawn to our attention by this report? First, that parents overwhelmingly were saying, wherever they were in Canada, whatever their financial circumstance, that it was almost
August 23, 1988

impossible to still find in Canada, in the latter part of the 1980s, reliable and consistent child care service. Second, some mothers actually reported that they had 10 or more different services for care provided before their child was out of the diaper stage. Third, that it is common-not the exception-to take six months or more to be able to find a child care space for one of your children.
It was reported to this committee in a number of instances that parents have had to resort to finding a name posted somewhere, in a local Becker's store or in a grocery store, with a phone number attached which indicated that they would be willing to provide child care service. We should keep in mind that for many families in our country both members are still working outside the home, in part as a matter of choice and also as a matter of economic necessity. If they were not working outside of the home-both partners-the percentage of Canadian families living at the poverty level would rise dramatically.
It is very easy for people in upper-income positions, like Members of Parliament, to be able to say: "Why is it that a family would turn to a local grocery store to obtain the name of a child care service and perhaps check it out in the most rudimentary kind of way?" The evidence is that for most families, certainly for a great many families, it is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of economic necessity. A majority of families find the cost of quality day care prohibitive.
These are just some of the facts, I repeat, that became available to members of all Parties in the House, including members of the Cabinet, who have to assume responsibility for drafting this abomination which they call a child care policy.
I was a Member of the House in 1970 when a Royal Commission reported that the needs for child care required "immediate action". That was in 1970. Today, as the whole country knows, the situation has got worse, not better.
In responding to this worsening situation, in terms of the need, the Government has almost acted perversely. Refusing to see or to respond to reality, the Conservatives cling instead to mythology. They hurl abuse at experts and they are ignoring the modern family in all its diversity.
One of the things that has struck me in observing Conservatives, whether here in Canada or in the country to the south of us, is the amount of lip service that they pay to the family, as if they had some kind of exclusive-and I am tempted to say property-right to the notion of the family. Time after time one hears in Canadian politics and on this continent Conservatives talking about the importance of the family. I want to say, with considerable passion, if they really understand the Canadian family as it exists not in the 1930s but in the 1980s, if there is one group that is ignoring the contemporary family and all of its needs, it is the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canada Child Care Act


John Edward Broadbent: The Conservatives' so-called National Strategy on Child Care-that is the name that they gave to it-is a strategy right out of George Orwell. It is "double speak" of the worst kind. It is saying one thing, paying lip service to one idea, but moving quite clearly in the opposite direction.
Conservatives clearly have disappointed the people of Canada in many ways since the election of 1984, but there is no greater disappointment in terms of the legitimate claims of the majority of Canadian families than what the Conservatives have offered in this so-called child care policy.
Canadian parents and their children need more rapid access to child care spaces and they need better quality child care. The Conservative Government with this program has delivered neither, but they have taken credit for both.
What is the evidence for what I regard as the severe indictment that I have just made about the Conservative program? I want to point out exactly why I say that. First, the number of spaces without this program has been growing in recent years at the rate of some 15 per cent a year, doubling every five years.
The Conservative promise to add 200,000 non-profit spaces by 1995 might sound impressive on the surface, if one hears just the numbers, until you realize that this actually constitutes a reduction in the rate of growth, from 15 per cent annually to 10 per cent, and instead of requiring only five years to double the number of spaces, with this program that the Conservatives have brought in it will take seven years.
Second, not only have the Conservatives brought in a program which will result in a reduction in the rate of increase in the number of spaces but they have actually put a cap on the growth in these spaces to make sure that by the end of the seven-year program no more spaces will be created than they themselves intended to have created.
Third, there is no requirement in this Bill at all for the provinces, which will be getting federal funds, to offer guarantees that they will actually be providing quality child care spaces as a result of those federal funds.
The conclusion is that the Conservatives have reduced the rate of growth, have put a ceiling on that growth, have ignored quality day care, and then have had the effrontery to describe this as "an effective national child care system". This is a fraud and typical Conservative hypocrisy, that is what it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: When George Orwell was writing his masterpiece 1984, I am tempted to add that he was blissfully unaware at the time that the people of Canada would be electing a government in that very year which would turn out to be the most ardent practitioners of the black art of propaganda that he so vividly described in that master work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act


John Edward Broadbent: We in this Party say that now is the time to embark on a truly national program based on real but varying needs in all of our regions and provinces, and we say that such action would be fully consistent with the kind of federalism that we have decided to renew at the national level of former co-operative federalism that finds itself embedded in the Meech Lake Accord.
Mr. Speaker, the setting of national objectives would be quite compatible with the Meech Lake Accord, but the Government refuses to shoulder its responsibilities. It is not asserting the leadership required to create a Canadian child care program. We can even go so far as to say that there is no program. Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) said that their goal is to provide sufficient accessible and affordable quality services, none of this is in the Bill. This Bill attains none of these four objectives.
Let us talk about availability. The normal increase in the number of available places will go down.
Let us talk about cost. There is no national objective and the federal Government has even imposed a budget restriction.
Let us talk about quality and ease of access. Here again there is no national objective. In his speech of August 11, the Prime Minister said, and I quote, "They are the actions of a Government determined to lead in implementing coherent national programs. These actions clearly illustrate that this Government is committed to social justice for all Canadians. Child care is the centrepiece of that commitment." That is what he said!
The Prime Minister has come up with an incoherent program that will create fewer spaces in seven years than will be created by normal growth.
He refused to use the Meech Lake Accord as a tool to develop a Canadian policy for quality child care from coast to coast, a quality program that could very well be implemented by the provincial Governments according to their specific needs. Instead of that, the Prime Minister set no objective. This means that he is overlooking the Meech Lake Agreement. Indeed, he has chosen to ignore this Agreement. That means that the Prime Minister is not showing leadership. On the contrary, he has abandoned his leadership role. He has forgotten Canadian children.

The Conservatives are all so great at talking about the need for choice, as if they had a monopoly on the idea of freedom of choice. Again this has been applied to the program they have brought in. They claim that they will give parents choices by spending $2.4 billion through the tax system.
In the first place, more than half of this money is not new. It was already in the system. In the second place, most of the new money will go to a program which gives parents a maximum of $200 per child per year. As my colleague behind me has said, big deal, and as another child care advocate has said about this sum of money, it will hardly be sufficient to pay for two children's snowsuits. Indeed, if we think of what the Conservatives have done for the average family since they came to power, we can see the kind of shell game they are up to.
Since 1984, the Conservatives have increased taxes on an annual basis. Income and other taxes have been increased by some $1,000 per year for the average family. Here the Conservatives think they will con people into thinking they are doing something effective for children by giving some $200 of that back to parents.
We in this Party say that we should not be playing shell games with the tax system but we should be building an effective and accessible child care system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my Party is opposing this Conservative scheme because we do believe Canada's children deserve the best and that that should be our goal. We should now be putting in place a comprehensive system of child care. We should be laying down a foundation for such a universal system and we should be doing it now. I regret that the Conservatives have not seized the opportunity to support the modern family in the carrying out of its most fundamental role, the caring and raising of children.
Evidence shows that the first priority of an adequate policy must aim at providing a sufficient amount of money to provide an adequate number of licensed, quality child care spaces that will be universally accessible and affordable for all the families of Canada. Our experience with medicare and public education ought to have been some kind of guide to the Conservatives in drafting this policy.
We would not today have medicare if the Government that first launched that system in Canada, the then NDP Government of Saskatchewan, subsequently followed up on a national basis, had used the tax system and simply gave the money to the people and encouraged them to act as consumers in the market-place and thereby create a universal medicare system. It was simply the failure of the market-place to meet this human need that caused thinking people in Canada and in western Europe to recognize the need for government involvement to create a system that was outside the market. The Conservatives, as is so often the case, learned nothing from history.
As was the case when medicare was first launched, so too now we hear the propaganda from the Conservatives, from the Minister who brought in the Bill and from Conservative spokespersons who write columns in newspapers. They are saying about the New Democratic Party what they said in the early 1960s when we fought to get medicare established. They
August 23, 1988

are saying: "Oh, there they are, those people who want the state to meddle in the affairs of individuals. There they are, they want the heavy hand of the state determining in a day-today way the lives of Canadian citizens, taking away flexibility, taking away variety, imposing uniformity".
These are the cliches we heard in the Conservative opposition to the medicare system in the early 1960s, a system which they now defend. They are repeating those cliches now. They were wrong in the early 1960s about medicare and they are wrong in the 1980s about child care.
The truth is, just as we said that comprehensive medicare in the 1960s would provide freedom for doctors and for patients and particularly freedom from worry about medical bills, so too we are saying about a national child care system that we do not want uniformity. Quite the contrary. I have already said that this measure is compatible with the Meech Lake Accord in terms of its national objectives by acknowledging the differing needs of our different provinces. In that context, some parents in some parts of Canada will want a different kind of child care system for their children, and we want to make sure it is available to them.
We have said that we want diversity, not uniformity. We want a range of options including child care centres, parent cooperatives, after school care, family home child care and neighbourhood drop-ins for parents and children. In short, it is the Tories who are denying flexible, imaginative, variable child care services. It is the New Democrats once again who are arguing for just such diversity to meet the needs of contemporary families.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am about to reach the time limit imposed on me in participating in this debate. I would like to ask for the permission of the House for a few moments to continues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As is the custom, I am sure the House will agree.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I thank Hon. Members opposite and on this side for their courtesy.
I want to conclude with a positive assertion of the basic elements of what the New Democratic Party is advocating. I have tried to make clear what we find objectionable about the Conservative approach. I want now to say what we would put in its place.
First, we would introduce a Bill that would include an outline of national objectives including a set of principles that would be pertinent to the distribution of federal funds to the provinces with the objective of assuring quality child care. Legislation should require a provincial child care program to conform to the following national objectives: non-profit, comprehensive, quality, affordable and accessible. Each
Canada Child Care Act
province would, within its own domain, pass legislation within this framework setting out its own definitions of these concepts. That would then be assessed according to the national objectives laid down by the Parliament of Canada which would be providing federal funding.
These principles which I have described with respect to the criteria that ought to be spelled out to provinces if they are going to get federal funds are modelled on the Canada Health Act and, as I have already indicated, are fully consistent with the Meech Lake Accord. With these principles in place we would provide the necessary federal leadership but also permit the details of the program delivery to vary to meet the differing needs of families and communities in Newfoundland, Toronto, Moose Jaw and Whitehorse.
Contrary to the assertion of the Conservatives that putting objectives in the legislation would trample on provincial jurisdiction, we assert that this is totally consistent with the model of co-operative federalism that existed in the early 1960s, and totally consistent with the Meech Lake Accord. When we were debating the Meech Lake Accord, if I remember correctly, and I am sure I do, both the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said we could lay down such objectives for a national child care program. They said that when they brought in the Meech Lake legislation. They failed to do it. They ought to have done it.
Second, we would have as a priority the creation of additional child care spaces. We would not only set out a program that would increase the number of spaces in all the variety that I have already alluded to, but make sure they would be quality spaces. Our plan would provide some 50,000 new child care spaces per year on average over the next four years so that we would have 200,000 new non-profit spaces by 1992.
1 want to be explicit about this. In the first year we would be spending S330 million in new money. New spending in 1992 would be as high as $560 million. Including a portion of Canada Assistance Plan spending, which we would keep in place to continue to provide subsidies for low-income parents, we would be spending about $800 million a year in 1992. At the end of the four years there would be about 450,000 child care spaces in Canada at a cumulative cost of approximately $2.3 billion.
During the same period of time the Conservatives would be using up over $1 billion in federal spending additional to what we have advocated, but they would be creating far fewer child care spaces. This is precisely because they prefer to tinker with the tax system and we prefer to get on with the job of providing additional child care spaces.
The third point 1 would like to make is that child care for us has to be affordable. No one is talking about a free system of child care. We do not have free medicare or free elementary schools. We have services that we pay for in our society either

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
in the market-place or as taxpayers through collected tax revenue. What we see as a need right now is a mixture of the two in meeting a real human and family child need in providing affordable child care. By maintaining Canada Assistance Plan subsidies and by maintaining affordability as a national objective, we can ensure a progressive cost structure for child care services.
In the years ahead we believe that paying for child care should be based on the same principles as our progressive tax system. The higher your income is, the greater your capacity to pay, the more you would have to pay. The lower your income is, the less your capacity to pay, the less you would have to pay. Surely we ought to recognize the real need and real and differing capacities to pay for it and get on with the job and make sure it is available.
I want to conclude by referring to what I said at the very outset of my speech this afternoon. The family structure and family life in this magnificent country of ours has changed profoundly in the last three or four decades. From this it follows for us that if we really mean what we say when we say we care for Canada's families and for Canada's children, we have to put in place a child care policy that does not deny this reality but recognizes this reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Léo Duguay: Mr. Speaker, I want to have the opportunity to ask the Leader of the NDP a few questions about his comments on this very important issue.
He will know, as the Vice-Chairman on the Task Force on Child Care, I had the opportunity of travelling across the country to some 37 cities, along with the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), to deal with the problem of defining child care. In 1970 there was a report dealing with the status of women which laid out all these problems. Yet we found in 1987 and 1988 a remarkable dearth of information about the true nature of the problem.
I know the Hon. Member for Vancouver East must have had some difficulty in her chair when she heard her Leader talk about Orwell and fraud and hyprocrisy of the Conservatives. That certainly was not the spirit of the committee. We had very little difficulty in agreeing on the nature of the problem. Being as respectful as I can, I would accept that there might be different alternatives and solutions. However, I reject categorically the Leader of the NDP's assertion that we are wasting money on tax expenditures. Hundreds of Canadians have been writing me the last two or three months telling me that although the $200 per child is really not enough, and we all know that, try telling them it is nothing when it amounts to $2.3 billion.
I wonder if the Leader of the NDP might answer at least a couple of questions based on this principle. Yes, it is true there are two million Canadians requiring child care. However, 85
per cent of those are currently being looked after in an informal system. A lot of Canadians told us they like that informal system. Some Canadians said they had a great deal of difficulty. Some wanted access to day care and could not find spaces. However, not every single Canadian of that 2 million viewed that situation as a crisis.
Three very quick questions. What does the Leader of the Opposition have to say about his approach to child care, which abandons all those people, fully 85 per cent, who use informal child care and like it? He has not said much today in his speech but in assertions outside he talked a lot about the ideology of the not-for-profit centre. Fully 40 per cent of Canadians in day care, that is the small group that is in formal day care, have their children in the private sector. Would we abandon those in his formula?
The Hon. Member talked about relations with the provinces. Where on earth does he get the information that they can create 50,000 spaces next year? Why do you think you can tell the provinces what to do in an area exclusively under their jurisdiction? It seems to me you are not going to get very far, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, by saying to people like we Conservatives who care as much about the family as you do that our attempt to solve this problem is a fraud. I do not like it and Canadians will not like it, either.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do want to reply to what I take to be the Member's serious questions. First, I want to be clear, I did not say about the Hon. Member or any other member of his committee that he or they constituted a fraud. I described the Government's policy, brought in by the Cabinet as such, and I took care to say why I thought it was a fraud, and nothing the Hon. Member has just said has deterred me from thinking so. In fact, the Member has confirmed my thinking that what Cabinet brought in was a fraud. If the Hon. Member had understood wrongly what I said about the intentions or the work that was done by members of his committee, I want to tell him I was describing the Government's policy.
There were three specific questions, as I understand, and, by the way, the Hon. Member was asking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to answer. I would like to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say in this matter also, but as Leader of the New Democratic Party, I will be happy to reply. The first question was what are we offering the family which the Member said was using the informal system, which is very often a euphemism for using a baby-sitter who stays at home. The Member was on the committee and heard a lot of testimony to this effect. The baby-sitter sits before a television set all day long with a small child or small children. Very often that is the situation. I am sure the Hon. Member would not like that anymore than I would. But if the Hon. Member is asking what we are offering to those families, we are not offering anything directly because we want to put it out there
August 23, 1988

so we can have quality child care service outside the home for those who want to have a viable option outside the home.
Like the Hon. Member's Government, we are facing a priority question. Where is the real need? We have listened to the experts, as did the Hon. Member when he was travelling across the country, and we have our experience as parents and Members of Parliament and in talking to people. It is clear that we need new quality spaces made available. That is what we are saying.
Second, I was asked about profit day care. If I understood the legislation correctly, the Government itself finally accepted in its approach for new child care spaces all the best evidence on this, which is that financing will only go for capital grants, starting up a new system should go only to non-profit child care. This is the way we got other social systems under way in this country. The Government itself acknowledges the legitimacy of the point we are making. If we are going to put public expenditures out there for a social service, the general rule should be, and we have applied it here, that it should go for non-profit service for children.
Third, the Member makes reference to the Canadian Constitution and the principles of Canadian federalism. He repeats the Conservative line by asking how we can tell the provinces what to do. I can say very easily that if you, Sir, as a Member of the federal Parliament, were going to allocate federal funds to the provinces for a child care system consistent with what your Leader and your Prime Minister said about the Meech Lake Accord, if you want to set out such a national program with national objectives, flexibly applied according to different provincial needs, then there is a requirement, I say to you, Sir, that the provinces live up to those obligations, that we just do not throw the money out there and pray. We must make sure they live up to their commitments.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments about the possibility of giving the provinces instructions. I would like to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party a question. We all know that Manitoba had an NDP Government from 1982 to 1987. The statistics for this period show that this province had the lowest rate of growth for permits granted to spaces provided by non-profit organizations. Only 3,000 spaces were added in Manitoba throughout this five-year period. The NDP was in power and could have done more. Why did it not do more for the children of Manitoba? Why did it not use the money available from the Canada Assistance Plan, which was prepared to share the costs of these available spaces? This would have benefited the children and families who needed it.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to say that the Manitoba Government during this period had the lowest tax rate for the citizens of this province of Canada and it set a record for job creation-it was second of all Canadian provinces. That is also a fact!
Canada Child Care Act
Concerning the specific question, I have no information here, but I would like to get the information for the Hon. Member, after discussing it with the former Premier of Manitoba. But the Government had its priorities and set an excellent record, in general, for the middle class and poor in Manitoba. But I would like to obtain a more specific answer for the Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall continue the debate now with speeches of at most 10 minutes each. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) has the floor.


Léo Duguay: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in a debate on a subject that is of vital importance to our society.
When we look at the day-care situation across the country, we must consider how the situation has evolved in the last ten or fifteen years. When our committee was studying this subject, we found that for 85 per cent of Canadians, day-care is provided in an informal setting. Parents find their own solutions. They often ask relatives or friends to help them or they hire a sitter.
Of course, the Leader of the New Democratic Party doesn't realize that quite often, parents who provide day-care for their children in an informal setting prefer that arrangement because their children feel more secure with one person who takes care of them instead of being in a large group.

We have heard people talk about child care in Canada as a crisis. Well, in some parts of the country it may be a crisis. In other parts of the country it is a problem. In other parts of the country services are available and are being provided. The system of child care without this massive infusion provided for by the federal Government was growing at a rate of nearly 2 per cent a year. People talk about waiting lists as measurements of whether or not there are spaces required in the country. You know how it is with waiting lists, Mr. Speaker, people put their name on one, then another, then another. We found there were Canadians whose names were on 20 waiting lists. There is no doubt that airplanes overbook by 10 per cent or 15 per cent because people put their names on lists.
It seems very clear to me that the word "crisis" is important in child care in some parts of the country, but not everywhere.
In any case, what is more important than whether we define the problem as just a problem or a crisis, is the fact that all we Canadians care more about our children than we care about anything else. We want our children to grow up and be better citizens than we are. We want our country to grow and be better than it is now. Therefore, we are prepared to devote all of our resources as parents and as a Government to ensure that our children receive the proper care they deserve. This is not for me a question of ideology as it is for the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). I do not get up every morning and say: "I am a Conservative. I am for profit centres. They are New Democrats. They are not for profit

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
centres". I care more about the quality of care children receive than I care about who is providing it.
What we have tried to do in this legislation is find a mechanism to respond to all of those things that parents want from their Government.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party has often bragged about the quality of service provided for child care in Manitoba. Let me give him an example. Ideologically, they would not support profit centres. I can document examples in my province of very wealthy parents having their children in subsidized centres while poor parents had to go down the street to the profit centre and pay more. The reason is that not enough spaces are provided. This matter does not deal with ideology, it is a question of doing what is right for young people.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about the relationship with the provinces. My view is consistent with the attitude that in order to work things out in Canada one must work with people. A government cannot sit in its ivory tower in Ottawa and dictate what is good for everybody and decide that every province will do exactly the same thing. The Leader of the NDP gave the examples of medicare and post-secondary education. We have federal legislation in those areas in order to provide funds, but they do not contain minimum national standards in the area of program delivery compared to those he was suggesting. None of the Bills contain such things as doctor-patient ratios or bed-ratios.
Who do we think we are in Ottawa, that we have all the wisdom in the country and that we can tell the provinces what to do because we know better? I will support the right of provinces to make decisions in this area because, very often, the provinces are closer than us to the scene. They know the needs of their own provinces better than we do. Our responsibility as a Canadian Government is to help the provinces and help the parents so that children get the best support we can possibly provide them.
In summary, Canadians care a lot about the children in this country. Even Canadians who do not have children care a lot about the future of this country. It is our responsibility to help the provinces. We are doing that with this legislation.
It is our responsibility to help the parents. We are doing that with this legislation through tax relief. Do not let anyone say, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party said last week in Vancouver, that $2.3 billion in tax relief for Canadians is irrelevant. While it may not be enough, and we would like to do more, we are doing everything we can for the moment. I reject and resent considerably the Member's implication that this policy is a fraud. I think he should go back and read Orwell again. He has obviously missed a few lessons about what it truly means.
This Bill helps Canadians help children. I think it is the greatest piece of legislation we have introduced in this Parliament.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on Bill C-144 which concerns day-care, since the previous speaker said this was the most important piece of legislation tabled in Parliament in the last four years. I would not go that far, but I would say it is a subject that should have received Parliament's attention well before this Government was getting towards the end of its mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that the need for day-care services in this country has become particularly urgent. We know that a tremendous change has taken place in the very structure of the average Canadian family and that in 50 per cent of families with children, both spouses work, so that some form of daycare is necessary, either through day-care centres, home daycare or the help of relatives or friends.
Mr. Speaker, since I am in the same situation myself-we have a seven-year old and a five-year old-I can tell you that for most parents it is a real headache. I am rather disappointed to see that this Bill, which has the full backing of the Government, will do practically nothing about the increasing problems of families where both parents work. Mr. Speaker, today, only 20 per cent of Canadian children have access to day-care and 57 per cent of children between the ages of 6 and 14 are alone after school.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is supposed to provide about 200,000 spaces, at a time when we would need something like one million spaces. Mr. Speaker, the Government is talking about
200,000	spaces over the next seven years. In other words, it won't do my children any good, although maybe my grandchildren will get something out of it, and all because the Government is nickeling and diming to deal with an urgent problem. The Conservative Government has failed to recognize the changes that are taking place in our society, and the truly pressing need that exists in our cities and in rural areas as well in this country. Take for instance l'Ange Gardien de Rouville, where women fought for this cause and managed to convince the municipal council in a small rural area to set up a day-care centre, and now the demand is increasing. They started with 25 spaces and they think they will get up to 50, and I can tell you this is a success story. But the problem is that this program will not solve the problems that exist across Canada, and the whole undertaking is so fragile, you would think the federal Government tabled Bill C-144 just to pretend it was doing something about the situation.
I advise mothers who are listening to us today and who plan to go back to work in the next six months or the next year not to get their hopes up. Bill C-144 certainly will not solve your problems. Don't count on this legislation to provide day-care spaces. Don't go out and apply for a job right away!
August 23, 1988

Mr. Speaker, usually, once you get the job you make arrangements for day-care. I think the Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif) is so nervous about the fact that she is probably going to be beaten in a matter of weeks or months that she fails to realize what the situation is. She may have to go out there and get a job herself. But the truth is that one of the reasons why mothers don't go out and look for a job is that they don't have access to day-care. When parents decide, and this is a choice they both have to make, they both want to go to work, what are they going to do with the children? Can they get a sitter? Can they find a space? 1 know. We had the same experience. We applied for spaces in day-care centres, and we had to wait for up to a year or a year and a half for an opening.
This is an urgent problem, and I think the Government is just paying lip service, because it should have introduced measures that are far more energetic than the ones it has tabled.
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the figures, the Government said it wants to help families and it says that families without any taxable income will be entitled to a measly increase of $200 annually in the child tax credit, for each child under six.
Mr. Speaker, you have children too and $200 a year doesn't go very far. I am sure that on $200 a year, if you feed them Similac and buy Pampers, you won't last six months.
I am sure that poor families won't be able to say this program is doing them any good. This is peanuts, when we know how much it costs to raise a family, Mr. Speaker.
And another thing: I think it is clear that this Bill is not very specific about standards and objectives. One wonders exactly what this Government wants to accomplish. One wonders whether it is not just an another example of so-called election goodies. One wonders whether this Government is really serious about what it is doing and if it has any goals, any real family policy that favours a rising birth rate.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Minister is a member of the national impro league, because this is a perfect example of total improvisation. There are no guarantees for universal access. There are no guarantees like ... No other steps have been taken to make it possible for families ... to allow for parental leave or things like that. No consideration was given such measures at all, and no consideration was given to the quality of services that will be available under this program.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed unfortunate that the Government has failed to do its homework better and really focus on modern family problems in Canada. What can you expect, Mr. Speaker, most Government Members believe that the Canadian family is still structured along the line of the old traditional model. For instance, they do not recognize the reality of single parent families which are among the poorest in Canada and which, under this program, will have no new services made available to them.
Canada Child Care Act
Mr. Speaker, I think that if the tax measures are inadequate, so are the parents' benefits ... They ask for instance for maternity leave to be increased to 26 weeks, parental leave for each of the spouses, top quality services guaranteed, as well as improved accessibility and cost sharing. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not meet the expectations of even the most interested groups.
The great many witnesses who came forward to express their views on this Bill have all criticized its inadequacy and lack of generosity.
Mr. Speaker, we need to think only of the issue of day-care in the workplace. We know that we are taking the very first steps in this direction. There are a few high profile examples, including the Lavalin firm and here in the House of Commons. There are others, but we know that they are unique cases, and the Government should have helped set up daycare centres in the workplace by allowing an over 100 per cent amortization deduction over a five year period to encourage the rapid growth of quality daycare services in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, you indicate to me that I have only a few minutes left. I am sorry to hear that, because I could tell you about the problems which Canadian families trying to raise children are faced with today, especially the younger ones where both the father and mother went to school and started a career only to find themselves in this predicament... It is not that they do not want to provide their children with the best of care, but none is available. You can visit just about any region in Quebec or the rest of Canada: You better have very good contacts with the day-care centres, or be very affluent; otherwise, you will have to wait years and years for a space. The worst thing is that, generally, it is the wife who has to sacrifice her career and decide to stay home for a year or two while the children are very young. So she suffers a set back in the development of her career. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that
200.000	spaces are just not enough. If you told me that this program would apply only to Quebec, I would say that these
200.000	spaces would make sense.
But since this program will apply to Canada as a whole, Mr. Speaker, we will have to wait seven or eight years. You can imagine that by the time these 200,000 spaces are available, the children who are now 10 years old will be able to exercise their right to vote and be themselves in need for day-care spaces.
Therefore, it is far from beeing enough. I feel also that it is much too late, because this debate should have taken place a long time ago. The Government is trying to pressure us into adopting this Bill quickly. We have only ten minutes at our disposal to express our view on an issue of such tremendous importance for the future of our society.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that Bill C-144 is quite inadequate, that the Liberal Party over the next few months will propose a valide alternative to this Bill, and that we mean to discuss the issue with all the interested Parties, because the Government is showing neither great courage nor leadership on this issue.

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make just a brief comment on the question that my colleague from across the way raised with regard to my Leader's speech on day care. She tried to portray the record of the Manitoba Government as being a weak record in terms of day care. I suppose she did that in order to try to indicate that the NDP as a federal Government would not have a strong record in this area. Thus she made the statement, as I understood it, that between the years 1982 and 1987 the lowest rate of increase in day care was in the Province of Manitoba.
I am seeking information with regard to this matter. However, in the meantime I want to make note of one thing, that is, if we compare the number of spaces in a province such as Manitoba which has had two NDP Governments, one under Howard Pawley and one under Ed Schreyer, and then compare that with Saskatchewan which has a similar population base, one will see that Manitoba has some 8,771 spaces. Saskatchewan has some 3,698 spaces. There is a Conservative Government in that province, the Government of Mr. Devine. That puts the Manitoba record in a very good light.
The only point I want to make is that we have to look closely at statistics that are being quoted in the House in order to form impressions. I say that because it depends on what statistics one looks at as to what impression one forms. I suggest that it just might be that the Hon. Member across the way selected her statistics in order to put the Manitoba NDP Government in the worst possible light. She did that rather than seeking to provide some objective indication of what the situation is in Manitoba, in which there are far more day care spaces than there are in Saskatchewan which has a Conservative Government.
I have a little more information in this regard. Manitoba has the highest per capita expenditures of all provinces on day care. Why did the Conservative Member not mention that statistic? It reminds me of a book that I read a number of years ago. The title of the book stands out in my mind. It is: How to Lie with Statistics. Rather than using statistics to shed light on a situation, to provide some objective criteria so that we can get a handle on reality, some people use statistics in order to create false impressions, in order to score political points. I am not saying that this is the case here, but one begins to wonder why the Hon. Member quoted one statistic which was the rate of increase statistics rather than pointing out that at the same time Manitoba has the highest per capita expenditures of all provinces on day care.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would have wanted to point out at the same time that there are more spaces per capita in Manitoba, and that Manitoba has the most comprehensive standards in Canada with regard to the quality of care. Not only do we have numbers, a measure of quantity, but there is a measure of quality. Manitoba has the most comprehensive standards with regard to the quality of day care.
As well, I would like to point out that we have increased funding for day care spaces to 11,200 from 6,500. That is a 72 per cent increase from fiscal year 1981-82 to 1986-87. What do you think of that, Mr. Speaker?
My friend across the way, if I remember what she said, said that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I just realized that the Hon. Member has already spoken on this matter on Thursday, August 11. As he knows, he cannot speak twice.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Is this not an amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To answer the comment of the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the Hon. Member has spoken on the amendment we are debating now.


Cyril Keeper: I spoke earlier in this debate on what I thought was the main motion. However, I thought we were on another procedure which allowed me to speak again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has spoken on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mrs. Martin), which is the motion that we are presently debating. The Hon. Member may also have spoken on the main motion. We will proceed with the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate regarding the Government's national strategy on child care. It is one that I am very proud of. I want to focus on the strategies and benefits for Canadian women, and on the impact it will have on women's over-all potential as equal contributors to our country's growth and prosperity.
The national strategy on child care is a very important element of our Government's efforts to help women achieve full equality. It is one of the initiatives that we have undertaken to create an environment that supports and encourages workers of both genders in fulfilling both their employment and family responsibilities.

Our government recognizes that child care is the key to economic equality-that it is a needed and essential social program.
We are committing substantial amounts of money through the strategy to support existing child care services, and to provide incentives for the creation of new quality child care spaces. We have honoured the commitment we made to Canadian men and women to improve the child care system in this country. Moreover, I believe we have done so in a way which respects the choices of parents.
August 23, 1988

In the last twenty years, the social fabric of our society has been profoundly changed as more and more women with children enter the paid workforce and find themselves balancing their combined responsibilities in the workplace and in the home.
In the past two decades we have seen the traditional Canadian family-consisting of a breadwinner father and a mother at home with one or more children-become the exception rather than the rule.
Today 54 per cent of all Canadian women are in the paid labour force. Of women between the ages of 20 and 64, 65 per cent are working outside the home. A full 62 per cent of Canadian mothers with children under 16 are currently in the paid labour force.

An increasing number of Canadian women are raising families on their own. In fact, 83 per cent of single-parent families in Canada today are headed by women.
In some cases, two incomes are needed to keep a family above the poverty line. The National Council on Welfare has estimated that 62 per cent more Canadian families would be poor, if both partners did not work outside the home.
It comes down to the following: Women work for the same reasons that most men work; they work for personal fulfillment, economic fulfillment and, in many cases, out of necessity. The same economic, social, and psychological factors related to employment apply to women as they do to men, and the right to the same choices should also exist for women.
However, women's choices have been constrained in the struggle for equality, whether it is in the workplace, the professions, the business world, at home, or at school; whether they live in rural communities or urban centres. They have been constrained in terms of bringing increased fulfillment to themselves and economic stability to their families by the lack of child care.
It has been a major barrier to women's participation in the labour force. I believe there can be no greater stress on a mother than worrying about the well-being of her child. Not allowing women the opportunity to achieve their full potential means that, as a nation, we are not making the best use of the glorious skills and talents of half our population. That is a situation that we as a society cannot afford, and our future competitiveness and ability to finance ourselves is at stake.
Our child care strategy acknowledges that there is no single solution which can respond completely to the diverse and changing child care needs of Canadian families. For this reason we have offered Canadians a balanced choice of initiatives. The national strategy goes far beyond any child care program ever offered or even contemplated by any government in Canada.
First, the Canada Child Care Act will provide funding to create 200,000 new, quality, subsidized child care spaces
Canada Child Care Act
through new cost sharing arrangements with the provinces. This will go a long way to assure parents not only of the availability of child care, but of care which is professional, safe, and developmentally healthy for their children.
Because we recognize that people are different and want to make different choices, the second part of the strategy consists of two new tax measures which will benefit almost three-quarters of Canadian families with pre-school age children. As a Government we recognize the unfairness of a system that has allowed the bulk of working families incomes to be eaten up by child care expenses. This strategy aims to ease the situation by doubling the child care expense deduction from $2,000 to $4,000 a year for each child under six years of age, and in addition, removing the limit of $8,000 on allowable deductions.
As well, lower income parents and many families without child care receipts will benefit, beginning this year, from the supplement to the child tax credit, amounting to $100 this year, and $200 next year.
In addition, the strategy creates a $100 million child care initiatives fund which will give priority to practical proposals designed to meet child care needs and innovative approaches to providing services.
In total, the Government is committing $6.4 billion to the strategy, including special amounts for native children over the next seven years, and another $1 billion annually after that to support child care in this country.
This strategy goes far beyond anything ever offered. Certainly, for many years the Liberals sat on the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women from 1970 without doing anything about what was looked at then as an urgent problem. The NDP seems to believe that all Canadian families are the same, that all children are the same, and everyone has the same needs.
Crafting our strategy was difficult because the needs of Canadian families are not the same and one solution will not do. A walk down a street in downtown Toronto versus a walk down a street in a small community in Newfoundland, or a drive 40 miles from the nearest community to a farm in Saskatchewan, will tell one that. We heard from people about those problems, and we are determined to resolve them.
The reason that I am happy with this strategy, and the reason that I am very proud of it, is that the fundamental position of the Government is that women have the capacity and the ability to contribute so much to our society. The structures that have existed from the beginning of time where men work outside the home and women work inside the home are changing, and they are changing fast because of economic needs, and because of that great capacity that women have to contribute more fully if they are given the choices. The major constraint on that at the moment is child care, and we are absolutely determined to celebrate those differences that women have, and altering the structures of our society in a way

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
that is positive for them, for their children, and for family life however it may be formed in Canada.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the subject of child care. It is one that I have met on many occasions much more personally than politically. In the raising of our seven children we had many occasions not only to make use of child care, such as was available, but also at times to give child care. A number of my adult children have also done the same.
I agree with the previous speaker that there are many varieties of child care. However, I would also tell the previous speaker that, from my experience as a father and grandfather, the variety that is most needed is non-profit, publicly funded, affordable child care spaces. There will always be other arrangements for those who need them or prefer them, but the great bulk of what is needed is of the type the previous speaker made fun of because it is what the NDP advocates. The problem with Bill C-144, Mr. Speaker, is that rather than building and expanding the child care provision in Canada it limits it. It will provide fewer spaces in six years than would have been provided had the growth of child care places continued as it was under the Canada Assistance Plan.
In 1974, there were 55,181 places. Six years later, in 1980, it had virtually doubled to 109,141 places. In 1986, it doubled again to 220,517 places. Currently, it is up around the level of
243.000	in 1987.
My point is that the Canada Assistance Plan did not set a ceiling, a lid, a limit, and it did not cause the day care providers and managers of the money to set ceilings and limits, all the way down the line. At that rate, by 1994 we would have
480.000	or more places for child care under the Canada Assistance Plan. But the Bill C-144 plan would not allow us to reach that figure until a year later. In other words, it is slowing down the provisions of places for child care. That is bad enough in itself. If it were only that there was to be some shortfall under this Government's plan compared to the plan that we have had previously, but it is worse than that, because the uncertainty created by the nature of this program has caused chaos in at least one major centre of Canada, that is, Toronto, in the provision of child care.
I refer to what was noticed in The Globe and Mail on July 12, in the story entitled "Federal day-care strategy called inadequate". It described the case of a mother who had searched for a year for proper child care for her daughter while she worked. It says:
After weeks on a waiting list, she finally won a space for (her 18-month-old child) in the University Settlement House centre in downtown Toronto.
She then discovered that she could not get a subsidy from Metro Toronto, although she qualified under a means test, because the municipal government has recently resorted to what amounts to a freeze in subsidized spaces.
That is a strange new practice for Metro Toronto social services. It is explained here as follows:
Although it has expanded the number of subsidies, Metro cannot keep up with the demand.
In other words, they are worried about the ceiling being imposed by Bill C-144. The story goes on:
Part of the problem, child-care lobbyists say, is that the federal child-care strategy, which promised 200,000 new subsidized spaces, has given families the impression that the spaces already are available ...
At the same time, the accompanying child-care legislation, widely rumored to be destined for first reading in the House of Commons this week or next, will limit what is now open-ended cost-sharing between Ottawa and the provinces.
Therefore, it explains further down:
The provinces do not want to get caught spending money that may not be matched by Ottawa.
So we have chaos and cut-backs introduced into the whole system by this legislation, even before it is passed. It is simply the news and the confusion of it.
Although that is the worst fault of this legislation, it is not by any means the only one. There is also the serious fault relating to quality, that for the first time federal spending will not be diverted in part to day care centres established for profit.
The Ontario Government has done a study to compare, according to the standards of the Province of Ontario, day care centres run for profit and day care centres not run for profit. On every criterion considered, the profit-oriented day care centres treat the children-not to mention the staff-worse. This confirms what many of us have observed around Metro Toronto, that it is done as a careful study. They point out in a Toronto Star article of May 14, entitled "Non-profit day-care does the best job study shows":
Almost 54 per cent of commercial centres failed to have enough qualified staff as required by the act, compared to 15 per cent of parent- or community-run non-profit centres.
The story also goes on to point out:
Commercial centres took longer than other centres to correct staffing problems. Ninety-five per cent of non-profit centres with parent or community boards solved staff shortages within six months, compared to 77 per cent of commercial centres. In fact, 11 per cent of commercial centres still had a staff shortage after 10 months.
They just do not care as much. If they are running for profit, they will squeeze the money even if they are violating provincial standards.
Given that this Government has refused, contrary to what was implied by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he preached Meech Lake, to put national objectives into the legislation-that is with teeth-it is there in the preamble, perhaps, and in the PR, but not as laws-we can therefore expect provinces to get even slacker than some of them now are, by enforcing their standards.
The story goes on:
Commercial centres more often than non-profit centres had restricted licences because of Act violations.
August 23, 1988

Violations of the Standards Act. Furthermore, commercial centres more often had more spaces than the Act entitled them to have, that is, they were taking children, that they were not authorized to have, much more often than non-profit centres.
My point is that this spending program as proposed by the Government will not get as many day care spaces as we would have under the existing program, and the quality of the care will be worse than it is now. This opens the government funding to commercial outfits, some of whom have demonstrated their complete contempt for any kind of standards of child care, let alone the well-being and good pre-school education of the children.
This law is really a fraud. It pretends to do something that it does not even attempt to do, and if it goes into action it will gravely undermine even what is being done now, to provide day care. If this law is passed, the public, understanding the need of day care for the 60 per cent of families where both parents work, will simply have to throw this Government out and put a Government in that will repeal this law and put in a real child care Act that will meet the need.


Alfonso Gagliano: I am
pleased to take part in this debate on child care. I would like first to commend my colleague for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) for the quality of the work she has done on this matter on behalf of the Liberal caucus.
Mr. Speaker, under the Governement child care strategy
200.000	spaces are proposed for 1.8 million children aged 0 to 13 years. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, that proposal, that strategy will be implemented over seven years. Can you visualize that,
200.000	spaces over seven years when more than one million are needed now!
There you have the nature of the problem. I heard the suggestion made earlier from Governement benches that they would like to do more but this is all they can afford!
How come then they can afford some $12 billion for nuclear submarines? When it comes to this very important need, they stop at 200,000 spaces. Truly, this is a drop of water in the ocean!
Society has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Today, less than one in six Canadian families fit the traditional family pattern, the wife at home with the children and the husband out working. Many families are headed by single parents, most of whom are young mothers. And while more than half of all women with pre-school children work outside the home, only about 20 per cent of those children are served by accredited day care centres.
What is more disturbing, only about 2 per cent of every school-age child of working parents, the so-called latchkey
Canada Child Care Act
child, has access to after-school care. Raising children is expensive whether one or both parents work, and providing child care is one of the highest costs.
Inadequate child care is not just a women's issue. It is not just an issue for parents. It is an issue for all of us, parents, employers and governments, every Canadian. 1 believe that all of us have a responsibility, a duty, to be part of the solution.

Mr. Speaker, let us refer to accessibility. Of course, there are people who, under this Government's proposal, can get a tax credit, and a hefty one at that because of their high income and they can afford child care. But what about needy families, those that cannot afford that, especially in my constituency of Saint-Leonard-Anjou, where in the majority of cases, they are single parent families, or families where both husband and wife work because they need the extra salary. Both work because they need the money to maintain their homes, or to pay the rent, or to send the children to school, in order to be part of that new society.
And if we have no strategy, no policy, no Act that can help those families, Mr. Speaker, we will have failed as Members of Parliament. We are not here to help those who are rich, those who have money. We are here indeed to help improve society for people in need. And this Government's legislation, this Tory Government's strategy does not exactly address those problems.
Mr. Speaker, the other problem today is that one only has to walk through our streets, our cities, our towns to realize the number of children, and in a few weeks chidren will be back to school. And how many children will there be? There will be thousands and thousands of "latchkey kids", and that is unacceptable!
Although in our society there is an elementary or high school in every area or district. There is a school! There is a school, Mr. Speaker, and the children go there.
But why can't there be a program, a piece of legislation which would help the provinces to put to use these buildings and facilities which have been paid for by their very taxpayers? Why can't we turn them into day care centres, where children could go during the lunch hour or after school until their parents can come and get them.
Mr. Speaker, that is also a major problem which must be addressed in a child care policy or strategy.
Today, as I was saying, women, whether married or single mothers, don't go to work for pleasure or for sport, they need the money. We must therefore devise policies and laws which help them find quality day care centres for their children while giving them the assurance that their children will be well looked after.
In fact, I think we could look at the school system for a solution. Think about the number of teachers who have been laid off. Before I was elected to this House, I lectured teachers

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
who were retrained and encouraged to switch to a business career, because their jobs had become redundant. Mr. Speaker, why don't we retrain those teachers so that we can provide quality child care services at school? In summer, students are out of school for two months, while most parents only have a two-week holiday. What happens during the balance of six weeks? Couldn't we have summer camps? Mr. Speaker, I speak from experience having taken part in a program put together by a community agency from my constituency, where we were able, for the first time, to use the facilities of four different schools for summer camps. Children living near those schools can go to summer camp and their parents can go to work knowing that their children are being supervised by counsellors.
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough for the government to allow tax credits while letting recipients choose where their children will be cared for while they are at work. It is not enough because some couples have to work to make ends meet and their tax credit is insufficient to solve their problems!
I think that we must first have a policy for all those in need and then reach an agreement with the provinces to create quality child care centres in schools. That would solve a big part of the problem. Finally, the Government must guarantee a certain number of spaces, establish standards of quality and ensure that all Canadian citizens have access to child care services.
You are telling me, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. There is still the whole issue of flexibility to talk about but I hope I will have other opportunities to do so.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill, the Canada Child Care Act.
The process has been demanding, Mr. Speaker, but we always proceeded with the knowledge that what was going to be presented to Parliament would represent what Canadian parents wanted, and would affect the well-being of children and of family life for decades to come.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the process may have seemed long, for the issues were complex, but it was a deliberate course, thoughtfully examined and re-examined, until the Government was sure that its child care plan was right for children.
Canadians deeply value their children and hold the family unit as a cornerstone of society. Yet, at the same time, Canada is a pluralistic society occupying a vast land filled with diversity of views and needs. The contrasts between rural and urban life, and between different regions of the country, offer up a rich mosaic making Canada unique among nations. It is no wonder that Canadians hold differing views as to how to best meet child care needs.
In respecting these different parent preferences and situations, it was necessary to proceed intentionally and thoughtfully. This was not a task that could be done unilaterally in isolation from families and children. It was a task that required consultation with parents, with deeply concerned citizens, with professional and lay associations, with front line child care workers, and with other levels of government.
We sought a policy which reflected the caring nature of Canadians to which governements would commit their support and resources.
Mr, Speaker, I would like to review with you the process and milestones along the way which resulted in this bill now before the House.
During the summer of 1984, at a debate hosted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, involving the leaders of the three political Parties, child care emerged as a key issue. As leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Mulroney firmly committed his Party to a strong leadership response to address this pressing and urgent issue.
Following the election, this commitment was underscored in the Speech from the Throne, and I quote: "My Government has as a high priority measures to support and strengthen the Canadian family, which is the cornerstone of our society. The need for accessible and affordable child care has in recent years come to the forefront of the social agenda facing Canada. In an effort to reach a national consensus on options in this area, you will be asked to establish a parliamentary task force on the future of child care in Canada."
In proceeding with this commitment it was most important to consult with the Canadian public. To this end, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin), was asked to chair the special committee on child care. The parliamentary task force was established in February of 1986. It was given a broad mandate to go beyond the traditional child care issues and study all aspects of child care. In order to ensure that all Canadians had an opportunity to express their views on this important subject, the task force travelled across the country from coast to coast holding public hearings and receiving submissions.
There was an overwhelming response from individuals and organizations which reflected the importance Canadians attach to their children. While there was great diversity in the views presented to the task force, there were presented many imaginative and innovative ideas.
Between March and June 1986, the special committee on child care heard 1,047 presentations, welcomed 1,632 witnesses, and received 944 written submissions. Canadians who wanted to be heard were heard!
The task force heard from families with special needs. It also heard from native people who felt that culturally appropriate child care services would help them retain their identity and provide an important support to families. Parents of
August 23, 1988

disabled children expressed their concerns about the integration of their children in Canadian society and their own need for support and respite from time to time. Of course, for many members of ethnic minorities, the search for linguistic and culturally sensitive child care services was outlined as a major concern.
Although, as would be expected, the views were remarkably diverse, three common themes were expressed repeatedly: The affordability, availability, and quality of day care.
In October of 1986 child care was reaffirmed by the Government as a high priority in the Speech from the Throne. The Government also indicated, at that time, that discussions with the provinces would begin once the report of the task force had been received.
During this same period of time, Canadians also contacted the Government directly to share their views. Mr. Epp met with a range of national groups, including the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association.
Through public opinion polls, the federal Government received additional evidence that the views being received by the special committee on child care and through direct contact with citizens, was indeed representative of the views of the country. The polls indicated that while Canadians believed that there were serious problems with the day care system, they were still prepared to assume a considerable degree of the financial responsibility for child care, and wanted the system to offer flexibility.
More than six in ten Canadians indicate a preference for government support for a lot of different day care options and 77 per cent of Canadians with children using day care hold this view.
More than seven in ten Canadians-73 per cent-believe that there are not enough spaces to meet current needs. Parents in general-76.9 per cent-and those parents with children using day care, 78 per cent, are even more likely than average to believe that there are not enough spaces at present.
Almost eight in ten Canadian women, 79 per cent, feel that there are not enough day care spaces available to meet current needs. Women are more likely-76 per cent-to agree that day care is too expensive for the average Canadian. Seventy-two per cent of women believe that the problem of "single parents who are unemployed who could be able to get a job if day care spaces were available for their children", affects a large number of parents.
When asked how governments could best ensure that quality, affordable day care is available to those who need it, the public supported a flexible approach. In this regard, while most believed that the best method was to provide financial assistance directly to day care centres, direct assistance to parents-29 per cent-and employers-30 per cent-also met with support.
Canada Child Care Act
Mr. Speaker, the federal government recognized that in order to have a national child care program, the provinces would have to be collaborators and partners. Much of the child care system does and will continue to come under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore it was essential that the federal Government not only enter into dialogue with Canadian citizens, but that they also consult closely with their governments.
To this end, at the First Minister's Conference held in November of 1986, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reiterated the federal Government's intention to allocate substantial resources to child care.
During that meeting the Prime Minister also announced that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would be meeting with provincial Ministers to assist the Government to develop a child care system of the very highest order for Canada. This commitment was honoured in January 1987 when the Minister of National Health and Welfare convened a federal-provincial/territorial meeting of social service Ministers. During that meeting, a target date was established by Minister Epp for confirmation of the federal strategy.
Indeed, most provinces clearly affirmed the federal Government's position that child care, although coming under provincial jurisdiction, was a national issue that would have to be resolved in federal-provincial/territorial partnership.
Of course, the views expressed by different provinces reflected the diversity that exists across the country. However most shared the view expressed by the general public that flexibility, choice, availability, affordability, and quality were essential ingredients to be included in a national program.
In March of 1987 the federal Government received the report of the parliamentary task force on child care, "Sharing the Responsibility". Two minority reports were also received. Having consulted with parents and Canadian citizens; having consulted with the provinces and territories; and now having the recommendations of the task force, the federal Government carefully studied and scrutinized all the data, recommendations, and viewpoints it had received to finalize the federal strategy.
Mr. Speaker, it was an exciting moment, on December 3 of 1987, when the National Strategy on Child Care was announced. A new social program was being offered to Canadians!
The National Strategy offered $3 billion for a new federal-provincial/territtorial program, $2,3 billion for tax initiatives, and $100 million for the Child Care Initiatives Funds.
The next two months were hectic indeed. Government officials travelled to every province and territory to discuss the federal offer in detail and to ascertain preliminary reactions of those who would have the responsibility of implementing the program.

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Following this round of discussion and consultation with the provinces and territories, a meeting of federal/provincial/terri-torial deputy ministers was convened. During this meeting the provinces were asked to submit their projected expenditure plans and space targets for the next seven years. These plans would provide the federal Government with a firm overview as to the level and degree of provincial and territorial commitment to expansion of the number and quality of affordable child care services in Canada.
Indeed, most provinces responded with enthusiasm and clearly affirmed the information previously obtained by the federal Government, that the child care issue was indeed a high priority for provinces. In fact, the provincial and territorial response went beyond that which was earlier anticipated. The expenditure plans went well beyond the $3 billion announced earlier in December by the federal Government.
This is of course presented an interesting quandary to the Government in that we were delighted that the provinces were responding to our leadership but also very concerned about being fiscally responsible and not committing ourselves to spending more resources than we could afford.
The provincial and territorial plans were carefully studied. The solution reflected the sensitive balance between fiscal responsibility and the desire to make a fully adequate and caring response to the needs of Canadian children and families.
The result was the annoucement this past month that the federal Government was adding an additional $1 billion to the package, $940 million for the enhanced federal-provincial program and $60 million for child care programs for Indians on reserves.
Consequently, we now have before us this Bill which represents an historic milestone in Canadian history. As I have shown, it is a product of broad consultation with interest groups and citizens across the country. Their views and preferences have been subjected to the most careful study and scrutiny, and, I suggest to you, represents a balance of the various perspectives. It involves support to the formal day care sector, to parents using informal child care arrangements, support to the family, extends flexibility to the provinces and territories so they can develop a system best suited for their situation, and it addresses the issues of availability, affordability, and quality.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to raise my voice in support of the Canada Child Care Act, a truly historic milestone for improved child care services in Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to take part in this debate on child care. As a former teacher I recognize how important it is that we look after children at an early age. I am sure the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), a former teacher himself,
would agree with me that this is the most important time and it should be a government priority.
One of the things I find despicable is that at the end of four years in government, the Conservatives are just starting to come to grips with something they made an election priority in 1984. They said they were going to move quickly on child care. Yet here we are, one week short of four full years of Conservative Government, and they are only now bringing the Bill forward.
I also find it deplorable that this Bill does not really meet the number one problem facing parents looking for child care spaces, that is, a lack of availability of spaces. Earlier today my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), spoke about what the NDP believes must happen. He criticized the legislation in front of us. In response to his speech, one of the Conservatives got up and tried to indicate that the Province of Manitoba had a poor record under Howard Pawley on child care spaces. I am going to use part of the few minutes I have to set the record straight.
The NDP Government in Manitoba in fact had a very good record of providing spaces and standards for child care. Despite the figures the Government tried to read into the record based on whatever inaccuracies, let us talk about what really happened in Manitoba from 1981 to 1987. Manitoba had the highest per capita expenditure of all provinces on child car, not second, not third, not fourth or fifth, but the highest per capita expenditure on child care. Remember that Manitoba is not a rich province. Remember that Manitoba was also suffering cut-backs in the money it was receiving from the federal Government during that same time. Manitoba did not get the money from the federal Government it was entitled to because of the new formulae originally devised by the Liberal Government under A. J. MacEachen, which was further reduced by the Conservatives when they came into power. Yet Manitoba found the money for that number one priority, our young children.
During that same time period we had the most comprehensive standards with respect to the quality of child care. Again that shows the emphasis that the Pawley New Democratic Government placed on young children in our province. Funding for day care spaces was increased to $11,200 from $6,500, a 72 per cent increase. Some people may say that this is not enough, but over that five or six year period it is a fairly large increase. Obviously more could have been done. Obviously some of us would have liked more to have been done. However, the point is that money was going into that program. The funds earmarked for grants for day care spaces and subsidies to parents increased by 225 per cent during that same time, from $8.5 million in 1981-82, when the Government changed, to $27.5 million. As I said earlier, a 225 per cent increase.
I would like to see the Province of British Columbia match that record. I would like to see the Liberal Government of
August 23, 1988

Ontario match that record, with all the riches it has. I would like to see the Conservative Governments in Saskatchewan and Alberta match that record. Incidentally, the last time I checked, Alberta was not one of the poorest provinces in this country. I would like to see them match the record of the NDP when it was in government. That is why I know, when we look at the speech made by Ed Broadbent in Vancouver last week on child care-


Don Boudria: Ed Broadbent?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Hon. Leader of the NDP. The most popular leader in the country.


Don Boudria: Who? I have told you a million times not to exaggerate.


Rodney Edward Murphy: They laugh. There are people in this country who are afraid of Mr. Broadbent because he tells the truth. When he was telling the truth on child care, when he talked about the policies and priorities we believe in, the national standards we believe are necessary for child care, people know he means it and that our Party means to bring it about.
It is a comprehensive program because it recognizes the needs of the various provinces. It also recognizes the need for national objectives. That is what is so sadly lacking in the program we have before us today. Despite the fact that the Meech Lake Accord allows the federal Government to call for national objectives when it moves on new programs, the federal Government, on its first important measure after initialling the Meech Lake Accord, failed to set national objectives. I cannot understand why a government that negotiated the Meech Lake Accord would refuse to provide leadership in setting national objectives for so important a program as child care.
We all accept now that medicare had to have national objectives. When we renegotiated the Canada Health Act and introduced legislation on that a few years ago, all Parties in the House agreed there must be national objectives for health care. Why not for child care? To be told that each province is different, that each province has different circumstances and priorities, is not really to answer the problem. We recognize the differences in financing and salaries. We recognize the differences that exist because of regional disparities. However, in my riding we have remote reserves which are setting up child care facilities. If they can live up to provincial standards in Manitoba, obviously the regions of this country can live up to national standards. It is a real shame the Government did not have the political courage to bring those standards into the legislation.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   BROADCASTING CRTC DECISION TO AWARD ALL-NEWS CHANNEL TO CBC
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
December 11, 1987-Mr. Shields:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should set aside the
decision by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC) to award the national all-news channel to the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
Jack Wendele Shields: Speaking on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the members of the Opposition would like to have more time to debate the child care legislation. Indeed, they have asked for more time for that purpose. Therefore, in the spirit of generosity of this House, I withdraw my motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) have unanimous consent of the House to withdraw his motion?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, although I am prepared to give our colleague unanimous consent to withdraw his Bill, the House should be aware that he must withdraw his Bill because, under the traditions of this House, Parliamentary Secretaries do not participate in Private Members' hour. It is not because the Member has a surge of generosity flowing through his system at the moment that he wants to afford the opposition Members of this House the opportunity to debate any particular initiatives.
I just want to set the record straight, but I am prepared, on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, to provide unanimous consent so he can withdraw his motion.


Jack Wendele Shields: Just to clear up any misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, it is not a Private Member's Bill, it is a motion. Indeed, there is nothing in the rules of the House to stop a Parliamentary Secretary from putting forth a motion in this House. I want to reiterate that, in the spirit of co-operation and generosity, I would really like to give the Opposition more time to debate the child care legislation. The Opposition has asked for it, and with that thought in mind, I am withdrawing my motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Government is trying to play another fast one. We certainly want to debate child care but we are not going to be forced into meeting some government objective, some timetable it has. We do not appreciate the idea of having to rush legislation through where obviously the public does not have a chance to really participate, but when the Government has already indicated that it is going to try to ram this legislation through committee, we are not co-operating.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: When did you ever co-operate?

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it would seem that there is unanimous consent for the Member not to put his motion, therefore, to withdraw it. We had really hoped that members of the New Democratic Party, and we see eight of them in the House now, would want to go ahead and debate child care. However, if they do not want to, I would suggest we suspend the sittings until six o'clock. I wish to advise the House that after the vote, we will return to the child care legislation and I would expect that none of the eight Members who are in the Chamber now will speak thereafter.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there was consultation among the Parties approximately an hour ago. What the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) is offering now, to withdraw the motion and suspend the sitting, is in fact what was agreed to, not what was stated before.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, despite the, shall we say, rhetoric we heard from the Deputy House Leader, it is my understanding that what he is now saying is what they were saying an hour ago.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Now we are back on track.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Athabasca have unanimous consent to withdraw his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.
[ Translation]


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As there is nothing before us at this time, the sitting of the House is suspended until six o'clock.
At 5.05, the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 21, consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, pursuant to order made Wednesday, August 17, 1988, the House will now proceed to the taking of the recorded divisions at the report stage of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
Call in the Members.
(and the Bells rung)


Mr. Speaker:: The first vote is on Motion No. 1. The vote on this motion will also apply to Motion Nos. 61 and 65.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 2 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;"
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 60 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 52 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural
resources;"
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 76 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 62 the following:
"and "Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources."
Motion No. 1 was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 512)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthousc	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	Ny stromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Pcnncr(Brant)	Hovdcbo	PepinBlaikic	Isabelle	Prud'hommcBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbcnt	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezdc Jong	Lapicrrc	SkcllyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestonc	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
August 23, 1988

++NAYS
Members
Andre Beatty Bernier Binns Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin Bosley Bourgault Boyer Bradley Brightwell Browes Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Chartrand Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland Fontaine Forrestall Fraleigh Fretz Gagnon Gervais Girard Gormley


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motions Nos. 61 and 65 lost.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek unanimous consent you would possibly find, through an arrangement made earlier today, that Members would be favourably disposed to applying the result of this vote to all other remaining votes, and possibly to having the same vote in reverse for the concurrence motion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Considering that there are 46 votes to go, I think that is an excellent idea, and certainly we would support that.
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard Wise-142
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed that the division just taken be recorded as applying to all of the remaining motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it also agreed that the division just taken be applied in reverse to the motion for concurrence in the Bill at report stage?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 3.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 4.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 6.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 9. A vote on Motion No. 9 applies to Motion Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to apply to lands, resources, and waters claims by aboriginal peoples under an aboriginal claim."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
''7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect the environment or conservation of land, resources and waters."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new special adjustment programs to help Firms or workers adjust to the changes brought about by the implementation of the Agreement."
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after lines 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new regional development programs."
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, daycare, pensions, minimum wage laws, labour laws and maternity benefits."
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new cultural programs by future Canadian governments."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 17. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 8.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	The next question is	Hockin Holtmann	Mulroney Nicholson	Van De Walle Vankoughneton Motion No. 19. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Horner	(Niagara Falls)	VezinaMotion No. 19.	Howie	Nowlan	VincentHudon	Oberle	WarnerThat Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 9.	Jacques	O'Neil	WenmanJames	Oostrom	WhiteThe House divided on Motion No. 19,	which was negatived	Jepson Jourdenais	Pennock Peterson	Wilson (Swift Currenton the following division:	Kempling	Pietz	-Maple Creek)King	Porter	WilsonLandry	Ravis	(Etobicoke(Division No. 518)	Lawrence Layton	Redway Reid	Centre) WinegardYEAS	Lewis	Reimer	Wise-142MacDonald	Roman	(Kingston and	St. Germain	Members	the Islands)	St-Julien	Allmand Althouse	Fulton Gagliano	Mitchell Murphy	Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 21. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Angus	Gray	Nystrom	Motion No. 21	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	Orlikow	Benjamin	Harris	Parry	That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line	Blackburn	Heap	Penner	29 at page 5 the following:	(Brant)	Hovdebo	Pepin	Blaikie	Isabelle	Prud'homme	"(d) that appointments to such committees, panels, commissions or other	Boudria	Jewett	Riis	bodies ensure representation from consumers groups, labour and business."	Broadbent	Kaplan	Robichaud	which was negativedCassidy	Keeper	Robinson	The House divided on Motion No. 21,	Copps de Jong	Langdon Lapierre	Rodriguez Skelly	on the following division:	Dewar	Marchi	Tobin	Epp	McCurdy	Waddell	(Thunder Bay- Nipigon)	McDonald (Broadview-	Young-48	(Division No. 519)	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	YEAS	NAYS	Members	Members	Allmand	Epp	LangdonAndre	Cardiff	Crouse	Althouse	(Thunder Bay-	LapierreBeatty	Chartrand	Dantzer	Angus	Nipigon)	MarchiBernier	Clark	Darling	Axworthy	Finestone	McCurdyBinns	(Brandon-Souris)	Daubney	Benjamin	Foster	McDonaldBlackburn	Clifford	de Cotret	Blackburn	Fulton	(Broadview-(Jonquiere)	Clinch	Desjardins	(Brant)	Gagliano	Greenwood)Blouin	Coates	Desrosiers	Blaikie	Gray	McLaughlinBosley	Cochrane	Domm	Boudria	(Windsor West)	MitchellBourgault	Collins	Dor in	Broadbent	Harris	MurphyBoyer	Cornea u	Duguay	Cassidy	Heap	NystromBradley	Cook	Duplessis	Copps	Hovdebo	OrlikowBrightwell	Corbett	Edwards	de Jong	Isabelle	ParryBrowes	Cossitt	Ellis	Dewar	Jewett	PennerCadieux	Crosby	Epp	Kaplan	PepinCaldwell	(Halifax West)	(Provencher)	Keeper	Prud'homme
August 23, 1988
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly Tobin Waddell Young-48
++NAYS
(b)	the activities, economic viability and ability to compete within a given sector of all companies doing business in Canada and the United States of America; and
(c)	agricultural pressures in Canada resulting from the agreement."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 22. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 5 the following:
"(3) One such committee that the Governor in Council may establish, under this section, shall monitor and review matters arising out of the Act or the Agreement, including
(a) the adjustment impact on company workers and communities;
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers
Domm
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Oostrom	Scott	Valcourt	Gustafson	Mayer	SchellenbergerPennock	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Van De Walle	Halliday	Mazankowski	(Wetaskiwin)Peterson	Scowen	Vankoughnet	Hamelin	McCain	ScottPietz	Shields	Vezina	Hardey	McCrossan	(Victoria-Haliburton)Porter	Speyer	Vincent	Harvey	McDermid	ScowenRavis	Stackhouse	Warner	Hawkes	McDougall	ShieldsRedway	Stevens	Wenman	Hees	(St. Paul's)	SpeyerReid	Stewart	White	Hicks	McKinnon	StackhouseReimer	Tardif	Wilson	Hnatyshyn	McKnight	StevensRoman	(Charlesbourg)	(Swift Current	Hockin	McMillan	StewartSt. Germain	Taylor	-Maple Creek)	Holtmann	Merrithew	TardifSt-Julien	Thacker	Wilson	Horner	Minaker	(Charlesbourg)Schellenberg	Towers	(Etobicoke	Howie	Mitges	Taylor(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Tupper	Centre)	Hudon	Moore	ThackerSchellenberger	Turner	Winegard	Jacques	Mulroney	Towers(Wetaskiwin)	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wise-142	James	N icholson	TupperJepson	(Niagara Falls)	Turner


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is	Jourdenais Kempling	Nowlan Oberle	(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourton Motion No. 23.	Mr. Axworthy moved:	King	O'Neil	Van De WalleMotion No. 23	Landry Lawrence	Oostrom Pennock	Vankoughnet VezinaThat Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 11.	Layton	Peterson	VincentLewis	Pietz	WarnerThe House divided on Motion No. 23. which was negatived	MacDonald	Porter	Wenmanon the following division:	(Kingston and the Islands)	Ravis Redway	White WilsonMacKay	Reid	(Swift CurrentMailly	Reimer	-Maple Creek)(Division No. 521)	Malone	Roman	WilsonMantha	St. Germain	(EtobicokeYEAS	Marin	St-Julien	Centre)Martin	Schellenberg	WinegardMasse	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Wise-142
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	Ny stromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 24. A vote on Motion No. 9 applies to Motion Nos. 33, 42, and 82. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 12
(a)	by striking out line 36 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor: "12.(1) The Governor in Council may, by order,"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 43 at page 5 the following:
"(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clifford
Clinch
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm
Dorin
Duguay
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is Filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than Five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order or on the day provided in the order.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 10 the following:
"(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	A regulation referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the regulation or, if no such day is provided in the regulation, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the Filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five
hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular regulation to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular regulation to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the regulation or on the day provided in the regulation.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by
(a)	striking out line 13 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "the Secretariat to be appointed by an order of the"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 15 at page 35 the following:
"(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of
August 23, 1988

Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that the House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order or on the day provided in the order.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136, by adding immediately after line 32 at page 104 the following:
"(3) An order made under subsection (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House.
(4)	A committee referred to in subsection (3) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(5)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by the subsection (4), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(6)	An order referred to in subsection (2) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of a motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(7)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (6) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (3), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the Filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(8)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (7) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(9)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
other House and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(10)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (9) that the House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(11)	Where the motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(12)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order.
(13)	For the purpose of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion Nos. 33, 42, and 82 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 25. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 12.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is		
on Motion No. 30.	A vote on Motion	No. 30 applies toMotions Nos. 32, 38,	41, 43, 44, 50, 56, and 58. Mr. Langdon	
moved:
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 32 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"appointed by the Governor in Council subject to review and approval by a committee of the House of Commons."
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"21.(1) The Governor in Council, subject to review and approval of a House of Commons committee, may".
August 23, 1988

Motion No. 38
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out line 30 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"report to the Governor in Council and committee of the House of Commons on the".
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 13 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"with the consent of the Minister and a committee of the House of Commons and the".
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 14 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"Governor in Council, subject to review and approval by a Committee of the House of Commons, to hold office for a
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 35 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"77.27 The Governor in Council, subject to approval by a committee of the House of Commons, may, on".
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 12 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.1 The Governor in Council, with approval of a committee of the House of Commons, may".
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 53 by striking out line 15 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"27.1 (1) The Governor in Council, with the approval of a committee of the House of Commons,"
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 57 by striking out line 20 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) The Governor in Council, subject to approval by a committee of the House of Commons, may make".
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 30, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 524)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Blaikie Boudria Broadbent Cassidy Copps de Jong Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray
(Windsor West) Harris Heap Hovdebo Isabelle Jewett Kaplan
Keeper Langdon Lapierre Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin Mitchell Murphy Nystrom Orlikow Parry Penner
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Pepin Prud'homme Riis Robichaud Robinson	Rodriguez
 NAYS Members	Skelly Tobin Waddell Young-48
Andre	Gottselig	NowlanBeatty	Graham	OberleBernier	Gurbin	O'NeilBinns	Gustafson	OostromBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PetersonBlouin	Hardey	PietzBosley	Harvey	PorterBourgault	Hawkes	RavisBoyer	Hees	Red wayBradley	Hicks	ReidBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	ReimerBrowes	Hockin	RomanCadieux	Holtmann	St. GermainCaldwell	Horner	St-JulienCardiff	Howie	SchellenbergChartrand	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clark	Jacques	Schellenberger(Brandon-Souris)	James	(Wetaskiwin)Clifford	Jepson	ScottClinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)Coates	Kempling	ScowenCochrane	King	ShieldsCollins	Landry	SpeyerComeau	Lawrence	StackhouseCook	Layton	StevensCorbett	Lewis	StewartCossitt	MacDonald	TardifCrosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)(Halifax West)	the Islands)	TaylorCrouse	MacKay	ThackerDantzer	Mailly	TowersDarling	Malone	TupperDaubney	Mantha	Turnerde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Desjardins	Martin	ValcourtDesrosiers	Masse	Van De WalleDomm	Mayer	VankoughnetDorin	Mazankowski	VezinaDuguay	McCain	VincentDuplessis	McCrossan	WarnerEdwards	McDermid	WenmanEllis	McDougall	WhiteEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift CurrentFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)Fontaine	McMillan	WilsonForrestall	Merrithew	(EtobicokeFraleigh	Minaker	Centre)Fretz	Mitges	WinegardGagnon Gervais Girard Gormley	Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion	lost. I also declare
Motion Nos. 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 56,		and 58 lost. The next
question is on Motion No. 31. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 31		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 6 the following:		
"(3) this section shall not come into force until equivalent and effective bid		
challenge procedures are available to Canadians in the United States."		
The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988
Canada
Allmand
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Boudria
Broadbent
Cassidy
Copps
de Jong
Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Division No. 525)
++YEAS
Members
Fulton	Mitchell
Gagliano	Murphy
Gray	Nystrom
(Windsor West)	Orlikow
Harris	Parry
Heap	Penner
Hovdebo	Pepin
Isabelle	Prud'homme
Jewett	Riis
Kaplan	Robichaud
Keeper	Robinson
Langdon	Rodriguez
Lapierre	Skelly
Marchi	Tobin
McCurdy	Waddell
McDonald	Young-48
(Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin
++NAYS
Members
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 39. A vote on Motion No. 39 applies to Motion No. 93. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 37 at page 21 the following:
""48.2. That the Tribunal be empowered to oversee the agreement; in particular it shall;
(A) 1. Report to Parliament to include;
(a)	quantity and nature of Canada-United States trade;
(b)	United States federal and state programs which affect Canada-United States trade;
(c)	determine whether the rights and benefits to which Canada is entitled under the agreement are being denied;
(d)	if the determination of the tribunal is affirmative under paragraph (c), then the Tribunal shall also determine and report what corrective action is necessary.
2. (a) The Tribunal shall be empowered to receive petitions from any entity, including a trade association, firm, union or group of workers who represents a Canadian industry and who has reason to believe that
(i)	the industry is likely to face, as a result of the Canada-United States trade agreement, increased competition from subsidized American imports, including those supported through the United States defense programs; and
(ii)	the industry is likely to experience a deterioration in its competitive position during the time negotiations occur between Canada and the United States on subsidies
(b) Upon receipt of a petition under paragraph (a) the Tribunal shall:
(1)	compile and make available to the industry, information on the amount of subsidization to the American industry, the increase in market share since the agreement came into effect, and the impact of those imports on the Canadian industry.
(ii)	update this information annually or as requested by the industry;
(iii)	provide to Parliament a copy of any reports undertaken as a result of subparagraphs (i) or (ii).
(c) (i) The tribunal shall review information obtained under paragraph
(2)	and consult with the industry to decide whether action may be appropriate under section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, and recommend such action be taken by the Minister of Finance in conjunction with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
(ii) The Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall, upon receipt of any recommendation under subparagraph (i) determine whether to take action and shall on determination that action be taken, give preference to actions that most directly affect the products benefitting from governmental subsidies unless the application of action under section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act to other products would be more effective.
(B) Be empowered to implement and oversee adjustment programs for those Firms and workers who will be dislocated as a result of the agreement including:
(a) specific programs for groups most disadvantaged; older workers, new immigrants, women, aboriginal workers;
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(b)	procedures for application by firms to be designated dislocated and apply for adjustment assistance;
(c)	generalized programs for workers to insure that they are retrained for jobs that become available.
(C) Monitor and report to Parliament the extent to which United States exports are subsidized by U.S. defense expenditures and the impact such products have on Canadian industry.
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 146 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 113 the following:
""(5) Implementation through section (4) of this Act is conditional on:
(a)	the Tribunal's report to Parliament on United States Defense Department subsidization of transportation
(b)	proof that the United States government does not assist the transportation of agricultural exports to Canada.""
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 39, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 526)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Hees	McDermid	ScottHicks	McDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Hnatyshyn	(St. Paul's)	ScowenHockin	McKinnon	ShieldsHoltmann	McKnight	SpeyerHorner	McMillan	StackhouseHowie	Merrithew	StevensHudon	Minaker	StewartJacques	Mitges	TardifJames	Moore	(Charles bourg)Jepson	Mulroney	TaylorJourdenais	Nicholson	ThackerKempling	(Niagara Falls)	TowersKing	Nowlan	T upperLandry	Oberle	TurnerLawrence	O'Neil	(Ottawa-Carleton)Layton	Oostrom	ValcourtLewis	Pennock	Van De WalleMacDonald	Peterson	Vankoughnet(Kingston and	Pietz	Vezinathe Islands)	Porter	VincentMacKay	Ravis	WarnerMailly	Redway	WenmanMalone	Reid	WhiteMantha	Reimer	WilsonMarin	Roman	(Swift CurrentMartin	St. Germain	-Maple Creek)Masse	St-Julien	WilsonMayer	Schellenberg	(EtobicokeMazankowski	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Centre)McCain	Schellenberger	WinegardMcCrossan	(Wetaskiwin)	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion No. 93 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 45. A vote on Motion No. 45 applies to Motion Nos. 46, 47, and 48. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 46.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 47.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion Nos. 46, 47, and 48 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 49. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 8 at page 41 the following:
"48. Notwithstanding all the provisions of this agreement on a bilateral dispute settlement mechanism, Canada reaffirms its commitment to the superior GATT dispute settlement mechanism which allows Canada to challenge the law itself as well as its application.
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis
Fulton
Gagliano
Gray
(Windsor West) Harris Heap Hovdebo Isabelle Jewett Kaplan Keeper Langdon Lapierre Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin
++NAYS
Cook	Layton	Stevens	Corbett	Lewis	Stewart	Andre	EppCossitt	MacDonald	Tardif	Beatty	(Provencher)Crosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)	Bernier	Ferland(Halifax West)	the Islands)	Taylor	Binns	FontaineCrouse	MacKay	Thacker	Blackburn	ForrestallDantzer	Mailly	Towers	(Jonquiere)	FraleighDarling	Malone	Tupper	Blouin	FretzDaubney	Mantha	Turner	Bosley	Gagnonde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Bourgault	GervaisDesjardins	Martin	Valcourt	Boyer	GirardDesrosiers	Masse	Van De Walle	Bradley	GormleyDomm	Mayer	Vankoughnet	Brightwell	GottseligDorin	Mazankowski	Vezina	Browes	GrahamDuguay	McCain	Vincent	Cadieux	GurbinDuplessis	McCrossan	Warner	Caldwell	GustafsonEdwards	McDermid	Wenman	Cardiff	HallidayEllis	McDougall	White	Chartrand	HamelinEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson	Clark	Hardey(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift Current	(Brandon-Souris)	HarveyFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)	Clifford	HawkesFontaine	McMillan	Wilson	Clinch	Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly
August 23, 1988
which was negatived
Mitchell
Murphy
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly
Tobin
Waddell
Young-48
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Scowen
Shields
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stevens
Stewart
Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 52. A vote on Motion No. 52 applies to Motion No. 70. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 28 at page 41 the following:
"49. All processed agricultural products containing the sum of 10 per cent or more by weight of farm products defined by the (National) Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act shall be placed on the import control list effective January 1, 1989."
And Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 112 by adding immediately after line 19 at page 85 the following:
"(3) Where it appears at any time to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that agricultural processed products entering Canada from the United States contain 10 per cent by weight of supply or price managed ingredients, those products shall be placed on the Import Control List."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion No. 70 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 53. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 49.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 54. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
The House divided on Motion No. 54, which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 531)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermidBeatty	Fretz	McDougallBernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)Binns	Gervais	McKinnonBlackburn	Girard	McKnight(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillanBlouin	Gottselig	MerrithewBosley	Graham	MinakerBourgault	Gurbin	MitgesBoyer	Gustafson	MooreBradley	Halliday	MulroneyBrightwell	Hamelin	NicholsonBrowes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)Cadieux	Harvey	NowlanCaldwell	Hawkes	OberleCardiff	Hees	O'NeilChartrand	Hicks	OostromClark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	PetersonClifford	Holtmann	PietzClinch	Horner	PorterCoates	Howie	RavisCochrane	Hudon	RedwayCollins	Jacques	ReidComeau	James	ReimerCook	Jepson	RomanCorbett	Jourdenais	St. GermainCossitt	Kempling	St-JulienCrosby	King	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Crouse	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)Darling	Lewis	ScottDaubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Cotret	(Kingston and	ScowenDesjardins	the Islands)	ShieldsDesrosiers	MacKay	SpeyerDomm	Mailly	StackhouseDorin	Malone	StevensDuguay	Mantha	StewartDuplessis	Marin	TardifEdwards	Martin	(Charlesbourg)Ellis	Masse	TaylorEpp	Mayer	Thacker(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TowersFerland	McCain	TupperFontaine Forrestall	McCrossan	
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner	Warner	Wilson	MacKay	Oberle	Stewart(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wenman	(Etobicoke	Mailly	O'Neil	TardifValcourt	White	Centre)	Malone	Oostrom	(Charlesbourg)Van De Walle	Wilson	Winegard	Mantha	Pennock	TaylorVankoughnet	(Swift Current	Wise-142	Marin	Peterson	ThackerVezina	-Maple Creek)	Martin	Pietz	TowersVincent	Masse	Porter	TupperMayer	Ravis	Turner


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 55. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Mazankowski McCain McCrossan	Redway Reid Reimer	(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De WalleMotion No. 55	McDermid	Roman	VankoughnetMcDougall	St. Germain	Vezina
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 51.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 57. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 57 by striking out lines 20 to 23 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) In this section,
(a) "local signal" means
(i)	a signal that is readily receivable directly from the terrestrial station by a significant proportion of the public within the licensed service area of the retransmitter;
(ii)	a signal of a terrestrial station the Grade B official contour of which, or the equivalent thereof as determined by the Department of Communications, is within 32 kilometres of any part of the licensed service area of the retransmitter; or
(iii)	such further and other signals defined or designated as local in regulations the Governor in Council may make; and
Members
Andre	Crosby	GurbinBeatty	(Halifax West)	GustafsonBernier	Crouse	HallidayBinns	Dantzer	HamelinBlackburn	Darling	Hardey(Jonquiere)	Daubney	HarveyBlouin	de Cotret	HawkesBosley	Desjardins	HeesBourgault	Desrosiers	HicksBoyer	Domm	HnatyshynBradley	Dorin	HockinBrightwell	Duguay	HoltmannBrowes	Duplessis	HornerCadieux	Edwards	HowieCaldwell	Ellis	HudonCardiff	Epp	JacquesChartrand	(Provencher)	JamesClark	Ferland	Jepson(Brandon-Souris)	Fontaine	JourdenaisClifford	Forrestall	KemplingClinch	Fraleigh	KingCoates	Fretz	LandryCochrane	Gagnon	LawrenceCollins	Gervais	LaytonComeau	Girard	LewisCook	Gormley	MacDonaldCorbett	Gottselig	(Kingston andCossitt	Graham	the Islands)
(b) "distant signal" means any signal that is not a "local signal"
(4) the Governor in Council may make regulations relating to the applications of subparagraph (4)(a).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 59. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out lines 28 and 29 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"to 50.7 the Board may make regula-".
The House divided on Motion No. 59, which was negatived
on the following division:
Desjardins
Desrosiers
Domm
Dor in
Duguay
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
(Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
Clifford	Jepson	Scott	Clinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermid	Coates	Kempling	Scowen	Beatty	Fretz	McDougall	ICochrane	King	Shields	Bernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)	.Collins	Landry	Speyer	Binns	Gervais	McKinnon	Comeau	Lawrence	Stackhouse	Blackburn	Girard	McKnight	Cook	Layton	Stevens	(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillan	Corbett	Lewis	Stewart	Blouin	Gottselig	Merrithew	Cossitt	MacDonald	Tardif	Bosley	Graham	Minaker	Crosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)	Bourgault	Gurbin	Mitges	(Halifax West)	the Islands)	Taylor	Boyer	Gustafson	Moore	'5Crouse	MacKay	Thacker	Bradley	Halliday	Mulroney	Dantzer	Mailly	Towers	Brightwell	Hamelin	Nicholson	Darling	Malone	Tupper	Browes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)	Daubney	Mantha	Turner	Cadieux	Harvey	Nowlan	de Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Caldwell	Hawkes	Oberle	Desjardins	Martin	Valcourt	Cardiff	Hees	O'Neil	Desrosiers	Masse	Van De Walle	Chartrand	Hicks	Oostrom	%Domm	Mayer	Vankoughnet	Clark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock	Dorin	Mazankowski	Vezina	(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	Peterson	Duguay	McCain	Vincent	Clifford	Holtmann	Pietz	Duplessis	McCrossan	Warner	Clinch	Horner	Porter	Edwards	McDermid	Wenman	Coates	Howie	Ravis	4Ellis	McDougall	White	Cochrane	Hudon	Redway	tEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson	Collins	Jacques	Reid	$(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift Current	Comeau	James	Reimer	Ferland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)	Cook	Jepson	Roman	4Fontaine	McMillan	Wilson	Corbett	Jourdenais	St. Germain	iForrestall	Merrithew	(Etobicoke	Cossitt	Kempling	St-Julien	Fraleigh	Minaker	Centre)	Crosby	King	Schellenberg	iFretz	Mitges	Winegard	(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Gagnon	Moore	Wise-142	Crouse	Lawrence	Schellenberger	Gervais	Mulroney	Dantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)	Girard	Nicholson	Darling	Lewis	Scott	1Gormley	(Niagara Falls)	Daubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)	
Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg) Taylor Thacker Towers Tupper
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 60. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 59 by striking out lines 7 to 11 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
"50.4(1) The Board shall, in establishing a manner of determining royalties under paragraph 50.3(1 )(a), ensure that it does not have any material impact upon small retransmission systems serving small and isolated communities.
(2) In this section a "small retransmission system" is a system licensed under the Broadcasting Act having 6,000 or fewer subscribers."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 62. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 62		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out lines 4 to 23 at		
page 58.		
The House divided on Motion No. 62,		which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 536)
++YEAS
++NAYS
	Members			Members	
Andre	Clifford	Dorin	Allmand	Fulton	MitchellBeatty	Clinch	Duguay	Althouse	Gagliano	MurphyBernier	Coates	Duplessis	Angus	Gray	NystromBinns	Cochrane	Edwards	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBlackburn	Collins	Ellis	Benjamin	Harris	Parry(Jonquiere)	Cornea u	Epp	Blackburn	Heap	PennerBlouin	Cook	(Provencher)	(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBosley	Corbett	Ferland	Blaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBourgault	Cossitt	Fontaine	Boudria	Jewett	RiisBoyer	Crosby	Forrestall	Broadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudBradley	(Halifax West)	Fraleigh	Cassidy	Keeper	RobinsonBrightwell	Crouse	Fretz	Copps	Langdon	RodriguezBrowes	Dantzer	Gagnon	de Jong	Lapierre	SkellyCadieux	Darling	Gervais	Dewar	Marchi	TobinCaldwell	Daubney	Girard	Epp	McCurdy	WaddellCardiff	de Cot ret	Gormley	(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Chartrand	Desjardins	Gottselig	Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Clark	Desrosiers	Graham	Finestone	Greenwood)	(Brandon-Souris)	Domm	Gurbin	Foster	McLaughlin	
August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
++NAYS
(Division No. 537)
++YEAS
Members
	Members		Alima nd	Fulton
			Althouse	Gagliano
			Angus	Gray
Andre	Gottselig	Nowlan	Axworthy	(WindscBeatty	Graham	Oberle	Benjamin	HarrisBernier	Gurbin	O'Neil	Blackburn	HeapBinns	Gustafson	Oostrom	(Brant)	HovdeboBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock	Blaikie	Isabelle(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	Peterson	Boudria	Jewett
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chart rand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dor in Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Pietz
Porter
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
St-Julien
Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 63. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 7 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor:
"United States or a project in the United States undertaken by the Government of Canada and destined to become the property of the Government of Canada;''
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 63, which was negatived
on the following division:
Broadbent Cassidy Copps de Jong Dewar Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Kaplan Keeper Langdon Lapierre Marchi McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) McLaughlin
++NAYS
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
Mitchell
Murphy
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez
Skelly
Tobin
Waddell
Young-48
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner	Warner	Wilson	Kempling	Mitges	Speyer(Ottawa-Carleton)	Wenman	(Etobicoke	King	Moore	StackhouseValcourt	White	Centre)	Landry	Mulroney	StevensVan De Walle	Wilson	Winegard	Lawrence	Nicholson	StewartVankoughnet	(Swift Current	Wise-142	Layton	(Niagara Falls)	TardifVezina	-Maple Creek)	Lewis	Nowlan	(Charles bourg)Vincent	MacDonald	Oberle	Taylor(Kingston and	O'Neil	Thacker


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	The next question is	the Islands) MacKay	Oostrom Pennock	Towers Tupperon Motion No. 66.	. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Mailly	Peterson	TurnerMotion No. 66	Malone Mantha	Pietz Porter	(Ottawa-Carleton) ValcourtThat Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 91 by striking out line 3 at page 73	Marin	Ravis	Van De Walleand substituting the following therefor:	Martin Masse	Redway Reid	Vankoughnet Vezina"(a) may be made	more than once".	Mayer	Reimer	VincentMazankowski	Roman	WarnerThe House divided on Motion No. 66,	which was negatived	McCain	St. Germain	Wenmanon the following division:	McCrossan McDermid	St-Julien Schellenberg	White WilsonMcDougall	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	(Swift Current{Division No. 538)	(St. Paul's)	Schellenberger	-Maple Creek)McKinnon	(Wetaskiwin)	WilsonMcKnight	Scott	(EtobicokeYEAS	McMillan	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Centre)Merrithew	Scowen	WinegardMinaker	Shields	Wise-142Members	Mr. Speaker:	I declare the motion lost.	The next question isAllmand	Fulton	Mitchell	on Motion No. 67. Mr. Axworthy moved:	Althouse	Gagliano	Murphy	Motion No. 67	Angus	Gray	Nystrom	Axworthy	(Windsor West)	Orlikow	That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 102.	Benjamin	Harris	Parry	Blackburn	Heap	Penner	The House divided on Motion No. 67,	which was negatived(Brant) Blaikie	Hovdebo Isabelle	Pepin Prud'homme	on the following division:	Boudria	Jewett	Riis	Broadbent	Kaplan	Robichaud	{Division No. 539)	Cassidy	Keeper	Robinson	Copps	Langdon	Rodriguez	de Jong	Lapierre	Skelly	YEAS	Dewar	Marchi	Tobin	Epp	McCurdy	Waddell	(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48	Members	Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyNAYS	Angus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowMembers	Benjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinAndre	Blaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCook	Gagnon	Boudria	Jewett	RiisBeatty	Corbett	Gervais	Broadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudBernier	Cossitt	Girard	Cassidy	Keeper	RobinsonBinns	Crosby	Gormley	Copps	Langdon	RodriguezBlackburn	(Halifax West)	Gottselig	de Jong	Lapierre	Skelly(Jonquiere)	Crouse	Graham	Dewar	Marchi	TobinBlouin	Dantzer	Gurbin	Epp	McCurdy	WaddellBosley	Darling	Gustafson	(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Bourgault	Daubney	Halliday	Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Boyer	de Cotret	Hamelin	Finestone	Greenwood)	Bradley	Desjardins	Hardey	Foster	McLaughlin	Brightwell	Desrosiers	Harvey	Browes	Domm	Hawkes	NAYS	Cadieux	Dor in	Hees	Caldwell	Duguay	Hicks	Cardiff	Duplessis	Hnatyshyn	Members	Chartrand	Edwards	Hockin	Clark	Ellis	Holtmann	(Brandon-Souris)	Epp	Horner	Andre	Bosley	CaldwellClifford	(Provencher)	Howie	Beatty	Bourgault	CardiffClinch	Ferland	Hudon	Bernier	Boyer	ChartrandCoates	Fontaine	Jacques	Binns	Bradley	ClarkCochrane	Forrestall	James	Blackburn	Brightwell	(Brandon-Souris)Collins	Fraleigh	Jepson	(Jonquiere)	Browes	CliffordComeau	Fretz	Jourdenais	Blouin	Cadieux	Clinch
August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Coates
Cochrane
Collins
Comeau
Cook
Corbett
Cossitt
Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock
Peterson	Parry	Riis	SkellyPietz	Penner	Robichaud	TobinPorter	Pepin	Robinson	WaddellRavis	Prud'homme	Rodriguez	Young-48Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni)	Andre	NAYS Members Gottselig	Nowlan
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 68. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 104.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 71. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 2 at page 90 the following:
"121. Any restrictions on the export of Canadian grain under the provisions of this Act shall be contingent on the United States administration keeping exports to Canada at the same level while those restrictions are in place."
The House divided on Motion No. 71, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Division No. 541)	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)	Warner Wenman	Wilson (EtobicokeValcourt	White	Centre)YEAS	Van De Walle	Wilson	WinegardVankoughnet	(Swift Current	Wise-142Members	Vezina Vincent	-Maple Creek)	Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Members


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 72. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 123 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 90 the following:
""87.2 The Parliament of Canada may require a minimum percentage of issued end-use certificates to be investigated annually to ensure compliance with section 87.1.''"


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is	
on Motion No. 73. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 73		
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 127.		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 73,		which was negatived
on the following	division: (Division No. 543)
 YEAS Members	
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Blackburn	BoyerBeatty	(Jonquiere)	BradleyBernier	Blouin	BrightwellBinns	Bosley	BrowesBourgault	CadieuxCaldwell	Hicks	PietzCardiff	Hnatyshyn	PorterChartrand	Hockin	RavisClark	Holtmann	Redway(Brandon-Souris)	Horner	ReidClifford	Howie	ReimerClinch	Hudon	RomanCoates	Jacques	St. GermainCochrane	James	St-JulienCollins	Jepson	SchellenbergComeau	Jourdenais	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Cook	Kempling	SchellenbergerCorbett	King	(Wetaskiwin)Cossitt	Landry	ScottCrosby	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)(Halifax West)	Layton	ScowenCrouse	Lewis	ShieldsDantzer	MacDonald	SpeyerDarling	(Kingston and	StackhouseDaubney	the Islands)	Stevensde Cotret	MacKay	StewartDesjardins	Mailly	TardifDesrosiers	Malone	(Charlesbourg)Domm	Mantha	TaylorDorin	Marin	ThackerDuguay	Martin	TowersDuplessis	Masse	TupperEdwards	Mayer	TurnerEllis	Mazankowski	(Ottawa-Carleton)Epp	McCain	Valcourt(Provencher)	McCrossan	Van De WalleFerland	McDermid	VankoughnetFontaine	McDougall	VezinaForrestall	(St. Paul's)	VincentFraleigh	McKinnon	WarnerFretz	McKnight	WenmanGagnon	McMillan	WhiteGervais	Merrithew	WilsonGirard	Minaker	(Swift CurrentGormley	Mitges	-Maple Creek)Gottselig	Moore	WilsonGraham	Mulroney	(EtobicokeGurbin	Nicholson	Centre)Gustafson	(Niagara Falls)	WinegardHalliday	Nowlan	Wise-142Hamelin	Oberle	Hardey	O'Neil	Harvey	Oostrom	Hawkes	Pennock	Hees	Peterson


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is	
on Motion No. 74. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 74		
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 128.		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 74,		which was negatived
on the following division: (Division No. 544)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Cassidy	GaglianoAlthouse	Copps	GrayAngus	de Jong	(Windsor West)Axworthy	Dewar	HarrisBenjamin	Epp	HeapBlackburn	(Thunder Bay-	Hovdebo(Brant)	Nipigon)	IsabelleBlaikie	Finestone	JewettBoudria	Foster	KaplanBroadbent	Fulton	Keeper
August 23, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Langdon	Mitchell	RiisLapierre	Murphy	RobichaudMarchi	Ny strom	RobinsonMcCurdy	Orlikow	RodriguezMcDonald	Parry	Skelly(Broadview-	Penner	TobinGreenwood)	Pepin	WaddellMcLaughlin	Prud'homme	Young-48
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dor in Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKinnon McKnight McMillan Merrithew Minaker Mitges Moore Mulroney Nicholson (Niagara Falls)
Nowlan Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Porter Ravis Redway Reid Reimer Roman St. Germain St-Julien Scheilenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent Warner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek) Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 75. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
The House divided on Motion No. 75, which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 545)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blouin
Bosley
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Clinch Coates Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Corbett Cossitt Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Daubney de Cotret Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Dorin Duguay Duplessis Edwards Ellis Epp
(Provencher)
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gagnon
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hees
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Jepson
Jourdenais
Kempling
King
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Mailly Malone Mantha Marin Martin Masse Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McKinnon
McKnight
McMillan
Merrithew
Minaker
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls)
Nowlan
Oberle
O'Neil
Oostrom
Pennock
Peterson
Pietz
Porter
Ravis
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
St. Germain
St-Julien
Scheilenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni) Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scowen Shields Speyer Stackhouse Stevens Stewart Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 76. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 130.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 77. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 131.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 78. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 132.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 79. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
The House divided on Motion No. 79, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Division No. 549)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Towers	Vincent	WilsonTupper	Warner	(EtobicokeTurner	Wenman	Centre)(Ottawa-Carleton)	White	WinegardValcourt	Wilson	Wise-142Van De Walle	(Swift CurrentVankoughnet	-Maple Creek)
Vezina


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 81. A vote on Motion No. 81 applies to Motion No. 83. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out line 32 at page 104 and substituting the following therefor:
"the purposes of this Act. The Board shall retain the right to accept or reject
orders made by Governor in Council."
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 34 to 37 at page 104 and substituting the following therefor:
"is not binding on the Board."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. I also declare Motion No. 83 lost. The next question is on Motion No. 84. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 104 the following:
"(5) The Board will have the same status and authority with respect to the Agreement and domestic legislation as the United States Federal Regulatory Commission and Economic Regulatory Administration."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 86. A question is on Motion No. 86 A vote on Motion No. 86 applies to Motion No. 87. Mr. Langdon moved:
Motion No. 86
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 104 and lines 1 to 5 at page 105 and substituting the following therefor:
"84.3(1) The Governor in Council must, by order ensure that exports of energy goods to the United States are in accordance with 83(a) of the National Energy Board Act.

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, declare that the maintenance or introduction of a restriction in the exportation to the United States of energy goods or of any quality, kind or class thereof is required under subsection (1), or is justified under Article 904 of the Agreement."
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 47 to 50 at page 105 and lines 1 to 11 at page 106 and substituting the following therefor:
"84.6 The Board may not, under any circumstances, issue a licence for the exportation of such energy goods to the United States unless it is satisfied that such exports are in accordance with section 83(a) of the National Energy Board Act."


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion	lost. I also declareMotion No. 87 lost	. The next question	is on Motion No. 85.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 85
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 104, lines 1 to 50 at page 105 and lines 1 to 11 at page 106.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 88. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 88		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 137 by striking out line 33 at page 106 and substituting the following therefor: "countries including the United States."		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 88, on the following division: {Division No. 554)
 YEAS Members		which was negatived
Allmand	de Jong	HarrisAlthouse	Dewar	HeapAngus	Epp	HovdeboAxworthy	(Thunder Bay-	IsabelleBenjamin	Nipigon)	JewettBlackburn	Finestone	Kaplan(Brant)	Foster	KeeperBlaikie	Fulton	LangdonBoudria	Gagliano	LapierreBroadbent	Gray	MarchiCassidy Copps	(Windsor West)	McCurdyNAYS Members	Andre	Gottselig	NowlanBeatty	Graham	OberleBernier	Gurbin	O'NeilBinns	Gustafson	OostromBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PetersonBlouin	Hardey	PietzBosley	Harvey	PorterBourgault	Hawkes	RavisBoyer	Hees	RedwayBradley	Hicks	ReidBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	ReimerBrowes	Hockin	RomanCadieux	Holtmann	St. GermainCaldwell	Horner	St-JulienCardiff	Howie	SchellenbergChartrand	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clark	Jacques	Schellenberger(Brandon-Souris)	James	(Wetaskiwin)Clifford	Jepson	ScottClinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)Coates	Kempling	ScowenCochrane	King	ShieldsCollins	Landry	SpeyerComeau	Lawrence	StackhouseCook	Layton	StevensCorbett	Lewis	StewartCossitt	MacDonald	TardifCrosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)(Halifax West)	the Islands)	TaylorCrouse	MacKay	ThackerDantzer	Mailly	TowersDarling	Malone	TupperDaubney	Mantha	Turnerde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Desjardins	Martin	ValcourtDesrosiers	Masse	Van De WalleDomm	Mayer	VankoughnetDorin	Mazankowski	VezinaDuguay	McCain	VincentDuplessis	McCrossan	WarnerEdwards	McDermid	WenmanEllis	McDougall	WhiteEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson(Provencher)	McKinnon	(Swift CurrentFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)Fontaine	McMillan	WilsonForrestall	Merrithew	(EtobicokeFraleigh	Minaker	Centre)Fretz	Mitges	WinegardGagnon	Moore	Wise-142Gervais	Mulroney	Girard	Nicholson	Gormley	(Niagara Falls)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 89. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
The House divided on Motion No. 89, which was negatived
on the following division:

August 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement {Division No. 555)
++YEAS
Members
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current 

Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermidBeatty	Fretz	McDougallBernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)Binns	Gervais	McKinnonBlackburn	Girard	McKnight(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillanBlouin	Gottselig	MerrithewBosley	Graham	MinakerBourgault	Gurbin	MitgesBoyer	Gustafson	MooreBradley	Halliday	MulroneyBrightwell	Hamelin	NicholsonBrowes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)Cadieux	Harvey	NowlanCaldwell	Hawkes	OberleCardiff	Hees	O'NeilChartrand	Hicks	OostromClark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	PetersonClifford	Holtmann	PietzClinch	Horner	PorterCoates	Howie	RavisCochrane	Hudon	RedwayCollins	Jacques	ReidComeau	James	ReimerCook	Jepson	RomanCorbett	Jourdenais	St. GermainCossitt	Kempling	St-JulienCrosby	King	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Crouse	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)Darling	Lewis	ScottDaubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Cotret	(Kingston and	ScowenDesjardins	the Islands)	ShieldsDesrosiers	MacKay	SpeyerDomm	Mailly	StackhouseDorin	Malone	StevensDuguay	Mantha	StewartDuplessis	Marin	TardifEdwards	Martin	(Charlesbourg)Ellis	Masse	TaylorEpp	Mayer	Thacker(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TowersFerland	McCain	TupperFontaine Forrestall	McCrossan


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 92. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 92, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 556)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin	
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Crosby	GurbinBeatty	(Halifax West)	GustafsonBernier	Crouse	HallidayBinns	Dantzer	HamelinBlackburn	Darling	Hardey(Jonquiere)	Daubney	HarveyBlouin	de Cotret	HawkesBosley	Desjardins	HeesBourgault	Desrosiers	HicksBoyer	Domm	HnatyshynBradley	Dorin	HockinBrightwell	Duguay	HoltmannBrowes	Duplessis	HornerCadieux	Edwards	HowieCaldwell	Ellis	HudonCardiff	Epp	JacquesChartrand	(Provencher)	JamesClark	Ferland	Jepson(Brandon-Souris)	Fontaine	JourdenaisClifford	Forrestall	KemplingClinch	Fraleigh	KingCoates	Fretz	LandryCochrane	Gagnon	LawrenceCollins	Gervais	LaytonComeau	Girard	LewisCook	Gormley	MacDonaldCorbett	Gottselig	(Kingston aiCossitt	Graham	the Islands)
August 23, 1988

MacKay	Oberle	StewartMailly	O'Neil	TardifMalone	Oostrom	(Charlesbourg)Mantha	Pennock	TaylorMarin	Peterson	ThackerMartin	Pietz	TowersMasse	Porter	TupperMayer	Ravis	TurnerMazankowski	Redway	(Ottawa-Carleton)McCain	Reid	ValcourtMcCrossan	Reimer	Van De WalleMcDermid	Roman	VankoughnetMcDougall	St. Germain	Vezina(St. Paul's)	St-Julien	VincentMcKinnon	Schellenberg	WarnerMcKnight	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	WenmanMcMillan	Schellenberger	WhiteMerrithew	(Wetaskiwin)	WilsonMinaker	Scott	(Swift CurrentMitges	(Victoria-Haliburton)	-Maple Creek)Moore	Scowen	WilsonMulroney	Shields	(EtobicokeNicholson	Speyer	Centre)(Niagara Falls)	Stackhouse	WinegardNowlan	Stevens	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. The next question is		
on Motion No. 95. Mr. Axworthy moved:		
Motion No. 95		
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 146.		
The House divided on Motion No. 95, which was negatived		
on the following division: (Division No. 557)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Flarris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Bradley	ClinchBeatty	Brightwell	CoatesBernier	Browes	CochraneBinns	Cadieux	CollinsBlackburn	Caldwell	Cornea u(Jonquiere)	Cardiff	CookBlouin	Chartrand	CorbettBosley	Clark	CossittBourgault	(Brandon-Souris)	CrosbyBoyer	Clifford	(Halifax West)
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Crouse	Jepson	RavisDantzer	Jourdenais	RedwayDarling	Kempling	ReidDaubney	King	Reimerde Cotret	Landry	RomanDesjardins	Lawrence	St. GermainDesrosiers	Layton	St-JulienDomm	Lewis	SchellenbergDorin	MacDonald	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Duguay	(Kingston and	SchellenbergerDuplessis	the Islands)	(Wetaskiwin)Edwards	MacKay	ScottEllis	Mailly	(Victoria-Haliburton)Epp	Malone	Scowen(Provencher)	Mantha	ShieldsFerland	Marin	SpeyerFontaine	Martin	StackhouseForrestall	Masse	StevensFraleigh	Mayer	StewartFretz	Mazankowski	TardifGagnon	McCain	(Charlesbourg)Gervais	McCrossan	TaylorGirard	McDermid	ThackerGormley	McDougall	TowersGottselig	(St. Paul's)	TupperGraham	McKinnon	TurnerGurbin	McKnight	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gustafson	McMillan	ValcourtHalliday	Merrithew	Van De WalleHamelin	Minaker	VankoughnetHardey	Mitges	VezinaHarvey	Moore	VincentHawkes	Mulroney	WarnerHees	Nicholson	WenmanHicks	(Niagara Falls)	WhiteHnatyshyn	Nowlan	WilsonHockin	Oberle	(Swift CurrentHoltmann	O'Neil	-Maple Creek)Horner	Oostrom	WilsonHowie	Pennock	(EtobicokeHudon	Peterson	Centre)Jacques	Pietz	WinegardJames	Porter	Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 96. Mr. Langdon moved:		
Motion No. 96		
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 152 by striking out line 22 at page 122 and substituting the following therefor:		
"tion (1) unless the Governor in Council, with approval of the Parliament of		
Canada, is".		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 96, on the following division: (Division No. 558)
 YEAS Members		which was negatived
Allmand	Dewar	IsabelleAlthouse	Epp	JewettAngus	(Thunder Bay-	KaplanAxworthy	Nipigon)	KeeperBenjamin	Finestone	LangdonBlackburn	Foster	Lapierre(Brant)	Fulton	MarchiBlaikie	Gagliano	McCurdyBoudria	Gray	McDonaldBroadbent	(Windsor West)	(Broadview-Cassidy	Harris	Greenwood)Copps	Heap	McLaughlinde Jong	Hovdebo	Mitchell
August 23, 1988
Murphy
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Robinson
Rodriguez Skelly Tobin Waddell Young-48
(Division No. 559)
++YEAS
Members
	NAYS	
	Members	
Andre	Gottselig	NowlanBeatty	Graham	OberleBernier	Gurbin	O'NeilBinns	Gustafson	OostromBlackburn	Halliday	Pennock(Jonquiere)	Hamelin	PetersonBlouin	Hardey	PietzBosley	Harvey	PorterBourgault	Hawkes	RavisBoyer	Hees	RedwayBradley	Hicks	ReidBrightwell	Hnatyshyn	ReimerBrowes	Hockin	RomanCadieux	Holtmann	St. GermainCaldwell	Horner	St-JulienCardiff	Howie	SchellenbergChartrand	Hudon	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clark	Jacques	Schellenberger(Brandon-Souris)	James	(Wetaskiwin)Clifford	Jepson	ScottClinch	Jourdenais	(Victoria-Haliburton)Coates	Kempling	ScowenCochrane	King	ShieldsCollins	Landry	SpeyerComeau	Lawrence	StackhouseCook	Layton	StevensCorbett	Lewis	StewartCossitt	MacDonald	TardifCrosby	(Kingston and	(Charlesbourg)(Halifax West)	the Islands)	TaylorCrouse	MacKay	ThackerDantzer	Mailly	TowersDarling	Malone	TupperDaubney	Mantha	Turnerde Cotret	Marin	(Ottawa-Carleton)Desjardins	Martin	ValcourtDesrosiers	Masse	Van De WalleDomm	Mayer	VankoughnetDorin	Mazankowski	VezinaDuguay	McCain	VincentDuplessis	McCrossan	WarnerEdwards	McDermid	WenmanEllis	McDougall	WhiteEpp	(St. Paul's)	Wilson(Provenchcr)	McKinnon	(Swift CurrentFerland	McKnight	-Maple Creek)Fontaine	McMillan	WilsonForrestall	Merrithew	(EtobicokeFraleigh	Minaker	Centre)Fretz	Mitges	WinegardGagnon	Moore	Wise-142Gervais	Mulroney	Girard	Nicholson	Gormley	(Niagara Falls)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 100. Mr. Axworthy moved:
Motion No. 100
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting the Preamble.
The House divided on Motion No. 100, which was negatived
on the following division:
Allmand	Fulton	MitchellAlthouse	Gagliano	MurphyAngus	Gray	NystromAxworthy	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBenjamin	Harris	ParryBlackburn	Heap	Penner(Brant)	Hovdebo	PepinBlaikie	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBoudria	Jewett	RiisBroadbent	Kaplan	RobichaudCassidy	Keeper	RobinsonCopps	Langdon	Rodriguezde Jong	Lapierre	SkellyDewar	Marchi	TobinEpp	McCurdy	Waddell(Thunder Bay-	McDonald	Young-48Nipigon)	(Broadview-	Finestone	Greenwood)	Foster	McLaughlin
NAYS Members	Andre	Fraleigh	McDermidBeatty	Fretz	McDougallBernier	Gagnon	(St. Paul's)Binns	Gervais	McKinnonBlackburn	Girard	McKnight(Jonquiere)	Gormley	McMillanBlouin	Gottselig	MerrithewBosley	Graham	MinakerBourgault	Gurbin	MitgesBoyer	Gustafson	MooreBradley	Halliday	MulroneyBrightwell	Hamelin	NicholsonBrowes	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)Cadieux	Harvey	NowlanCaldwell	Hawkes	OberleCardiff	Hees	O'NeilChartrand	Hicks	OostromClark	Hnatyshyn	Pennock(Brandon-Souris)	Hockin	PetersonClifford	Holtmann	PietzClinch	Horner	PorterCoates	Howie	RavisCochrane	Hudon	RedwayCollins	Jacques	ReidComeau	James	ReimerCook	Jepson	RomanCorbett	Jourdenais	St. GermainCossitt	Kempling	St-JulienCrosby	King	Schellenberg(Halifax West)	Landry	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Crouse	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDantzer	Layton	(Wetaskiwin)Darling	Lewis	ScottDaubney	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)de Cotret	(Kingston and	ScowenDesjardins	the Islands)	ShieldsDesrosiers	MacKay	SpeyerDomm	Mailly	StackhouseDorin	Malone	StevensDuguay	Mantha	StewartDuplessis	Marin	TardifEdwards	Martin	(Charlesbourg)Ellis	Masse	TaylorEpp	Mayer	Thacker(Provencher)	Mazankowski	TowersFerland	McCain	TupperFontaine Forrestall	McCrossan	
August 23, 1988

Canada Child Care Act
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Van De Walle Vankoughnet Vezina Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142
Vincent
Warner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)
++NAYS
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise-142


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


CANADA CHILD CARE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Martin (p. 18222).
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments tonight to speak to the Government's proposed child care legislation and to offer my Party's response to the same issue. The major social challenge facing Canada today is the urgent need of average Canadians and their families for reliable care for our children. Over 1.8 million children whose parents are in the labour force do not have access to quality child care services. The inadequate number of child care spaces is failing our children and makes it even more difficult for women to participate equally in the workplace. Canadian men and women want government action that responds to the real needs of their families. The Conservative Government of Canada has put forward a charade.


Mr. Speaker:: I presume the Hon. Member would like the House to hear the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. The Hon. Member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan has the floor.


Iain Francis Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my colleague for her intervention drawing the attention of the

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
House to child care. It is a very important issue in Canada today and one that is not being dealt with appropriately by the Conservative Government. This Government's so-called national strategy on child care is an excellent example of Conservative broken promises to Canadian families. After waiting four full years for this Government to keep its promise, or for the Conservative Party to keep the promise of the 1984 campaign to introduce an effective national system of child care, Canadian families have been disappointed once again. Canadian parents and their children need greater access to quality care at lower costs. This Government's scheme will create fewer child care spaces after seven years than would have resulted without it.
The Conservatives have promised to add 200,000 non-profit child care spaces to Canada's existing 240,000 spaces by 1995. That is a growth rate of less than 10 per cent annually. In fact, child care spaces in Canada are already doubling every five years. The average rate of growth over the last four years was 15 per cent.
What is happening under this Conservative smoke and mirrors in child care is that we are actually going to have less child care spaces created throughout Canada-urban Canada, rural Canada, northern Canada, native Canada-than would have been created under the existing Canada Assistance Plan. That is very regrettable. The Government had the opportunity to take a very progressive step to ensure that those families, whether they be mother-led families or father-led families or two-parent families, had the opportunity to have their children looked after in a quality manner by staff who are appropriately trained and appropriately reimbursed for their education and their labours while the parents went out, whether it was one parent or both parents, to work outside the home in order to meet the economic realities of today.
For those of us who come from the larger urban centres of this country, child care is a norm, and there are child care centres in our communities. Some are profit, some are nonprofit, some are municipally run, but there are other communities, particularly in the distant locations, rural locations and the North, where there is no formal child care at all. In the community of Atikokan, one of the communities that I represent in this House, there is not a child care centre or a day care centre; there is only informal care giving through babysitting. While there is every good intention by those care givers, the reality is that most often or not they do not have the skills to provide the kind of quality experience that one can obtain in a municipally operated or a non-profit child care centre that is child focused and family focused.
There is a need to expand the programs. There is a need to ensure that child care is provided not as a means to make profit but as a means to provide services, much needed services to the families of this generation.
I mentioned earlier that the Government's child care program is less than what the current program offers. In fact, it actually puts a ceiling on the amount of child care spaces
that the Government will support. Even worse, the Conservatives are asking the provinces for any commitments as to quality in return for federal funding.
Would you, Mr. Speaker, if you were in private business, give money to a subsidiary company and not ask what it is going to do and not require that it do certain things? Would you, as a banker, give money to a company without having strings attached? Of course not.
What we have been saying and what was provided for in the Meech Lake round of amendments to the Constitution was that national standards be included in the legislation, not standards that would say that you would have to have a child care centre that is 300,000 square feet and employs five staff, but one that would say that if you are going to get federal funds, you must create spaces, you must create new spaces and fund new spaces. We need to develop in rural Canada the kind of spaces that are needed to meet the variations of lifestyle, to reflect the seasonal kind of economy on the farm when children need to be away from the farm so that both parents could work on complicated and dangerous machinery and to keep the young children from underfoot and out of danger. It also applies to a small northern community that has a single industry to function with, to survive with, that operates around the clock, for example, a pulp and paper mill in a community like Terrace Bay where there is need for more than just eight o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the afternoon kind of child care and a need for overnight services.
There was an opportunity to develop national standards that every province would have to adhere to in order to get federal tax dollars returned to their taxpayers, but they chose not to do that. They chose to be wimpish about it and leave it to the province to say "we cannot interfere". We on this side of the House reject that kind of mentality.
The Conservatives also claim that they are going to give parents choices by spending $2.4 billion through the tax system. In the first place, more than half of this goes to existing tax measures. In the second place, most of that new money will go into a program which gives parents a maximum of $200 per child per year. As a parent I know that in this day and age $200 does not go very far. One child care advocate appearing before the committee reviewing this legislation indicated that a parent would be lucky to buy two snowsuits with that money. If you think about the growth rates of young children, you know that two snowsuits a year is not unheard of. Children grow quickly and put a great deal of wear and tear on their clothes. So this amount is a pittance. The money would have been better used to provide child care spaces in quality and affordable child care centres for the young children of Canada.
There is a better way, Mr. Speaker. I realize my time is running out so I will be brief. We want a program that will meet the real child care needs of Canadians and give Canadian
August 23, 1988

men and women real choices. Priority on child care spaces means a good child care program to establish a base on which we can build good quality child care in Canada, not the ceiling in the government plan. The New Democrat's plan would provide 50,000 new child care spaces per year, on average, resulting in 200,000 new non-profit spaces by 1992. I emphasize non-profit. We would establish a set of national principles in the federal funding legislation which would guarantee quality child care. The legislation should require a provincial child care program and conform to the following national objectives: comprehensive, quality, affordable, accessible, flexible, non-profit, and accountable child care.
These principles are modelled on the principles in the Canada Health Act and are consistent with the Meech Lake Accord. Enhanced maternity and parental benefits are policies which give parents real choices. The Government does nothing about paid parental leave. New Democrats would increase opportunities for parents to stay at home with an infant child by providing enhanced and extended maternity and parental leave benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Finally, we propose 10 days paid family responsibility leave through the Canada Labour Code. These proposals are all designed to spend more time with our children, but when we cannot, it will ensure that children have quality child care available whether they are in Toronto, Thunder Bay, Atiko-kan, or wherever.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment-


An Hon. Member:: There are no questions or comments.


Felix Holtmann: There are no questions or comments?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No questions or comments.


Felix Holtmann: I will make a short speech which will all add up to the same sensible argument that we have put forward on behalf of our Party on child care.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) rose and said that the program announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was a fraud.


Iain Francis Angus: That is right.


Felix Holtmann: He also indicated that the Tories have no concern and are not interested in the welfare of families of Canadians. I want to point out to Members opposite, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, that it was this Government which has created so many jobs in the workforce. If the Members opposite would realize how jobs really help families in their ability to cope, they would know how significant the Government's program under its new economic
Canada Child Care Act
growth for Canada was able to come up with a child care program for children.
In any event, the Leader of the NDP also said that the people who look after young children today, the baby-sitters, sit home and watch television. That is what he said this afternoon in his speech to the Canadian public. Baby-sitters sit and watch television. What a slam against the women of Canada, Mr. Speaker. The New Democrats think that anyone who stays home and looks after children sits and watches television. In other words, they are not providing any quality day care. I do not know who will vote for the New Democrats in the next federal election if the Leader of the New Democratic Party thinks that people who look after children do nothing but watch television.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: When did he say that?


Felix Holtmann: He said it this afternoon in the House. I have some difficulty with the New Democratic Party's new proposed child care program. I understand that the Leader and his Party will pay every person who has a child to stay home, someone to give quality day care. It will not be television watching time any more under the New Democrats. That will not happen, but the New Democrats will take the wealth which the Tory Government has created with its growing economy and throw it in every nook and cranny and claim that that will help Canadian families. That is the way the New Democrats will do things. The people who are now looking after young children, as far as the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his Party are concerned, just stay home and watch TV. There is no quality health care there at all. I thought he took a pretty big slam at a lot of women in Canada who I think are doing a tremendous job.
We want more health care for Canadians and we want to invest quite a bit of money. There is a debate still going on in many parts. Some of my constituents say that in certain areas they really do not necessarily need more but they need some assistance.
I am sure many Canadian women were quite surprised to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party claiming that the Tories are not great people and that we have no concern for family life. I think the Tories demonstrated in this House not long ago on the issue of abortion that we are very concerned about family life. It is the New Democratic Party which collectively believes in abortion on demand. That is the philosophy of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without wanting to engage in debate, I would ask that the Member, if he is going to state policy of another Party, do it correctly. Our policy is that the issue is between the woman and her doctor. They are the ones who will decide.


Felix Holtmann: Once again, I have riled up the New Democrats. Why is the Hon. Member's Leader deciding what

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
the Tory Government thinks about families? The Member should stick to the subject. This New Democratic Party has no handle or exclusivity on who represents Canadians and families.


Iain Francis Angus: Ask your spouse.


Felix Holtmann: Even the Liberals have to admit that this was a very bold policy that our Minister brought forward-


Iain Francis Angus: They wouldn't lie as much.


Felix Holtmann: The Liberals are prepared to accept it. I am sure many of the New Democrats, when they get out on the hustings, will be told not to throw money away recklessly. They are going to be asked to put a price tag on what they propose to do and will be told to make sure the money is used in a very effective and efficient way. Obviously Canadians are not prepared to give that Party an opportunity to start spending Canadian dollars. Never will they do that.
When their Leader announced this great day care policy, I believe a couple of weeks ago, I did not read any editorials about how great it was. The policy seems to have finally died. It will be comical during the next federal election to know where the New Democrats will get all the money for their day care promises and all the things they have proposed. They have not figured how to keep people working or how to create more jobs. They will just borrow money like the former Government did.
Canadians will never give the New Democrats the opportunity to implement some of these wild, woolly, witchy, wacky ideas which they scheme up, I guess in their caucus rooms, and whoever else schemes them up. Their policies are not sound and they probably never will be sound. Their Leader basically condemned most of the women in this country for staying home to look after their own children, saying that all they do is watch TV and that is not day care. That is the New Democratic Party policy of the way they think of women in this country. A mother does not look after her own child well enough. She is considered a poor person in the provision of quality day care. That is the attitude of New Democrats. They are going to get somebody else to do it.
The Government will spend the money and provide this new, wonderful, quality day care. Probably New Democrats are not capable of looking after their own children. They need a lot of assistance. They cannot do it on their own. They need help from the Government. They need some expert to tell them how to change diapers and what their children should eat. That is what the New Democrats want.
I think we know now where New Democrats stand. We know their game. It is just fuddle-duddle promises and that is all it will end up being.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the child care program the Government says it is putting in place. I find it rather sad that from a Government that is supposed to be trying to put a new face on its activities and to keep its promises, we have a Bill that is full of puffery. It is window-dressing and trickery with figures. It will not meet our present needs, and it puts a cap on the natural growth that was already in place.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, without this new program, the federal Government would have spent, assuming an inflationary factor of only 5 per cent a year, $17 billion over the next seven years. The total federal spending over that same period of time could now be slightly more than $22 billion or 4 per cent per year more than we now have without this new program.
On top of all that, there is a catch. We do not know if even one nickel will be spent in each of the provinces. It takes a federal-provincial agreement with each province to put this into place. As Marjorie Nichols points out, we have to use a conditional tense when talking about child care anywhere within Canada. Certainly we will not have a national child care system with national standards and objectives which must be met.
We talk about the low birth rate in Canada. We talk about our concern for the family and the family structure. We talk about children as being our future. One of the most important building blocks in our society is the child care system, whether it is for pre-school children or for school children with two working parents, children called latchkey children.
I become dreadfully sad when I recall going before the royal commission on the status of women, chaired by Senator Florence Bird. We brought the concern over latch key children into the public view, and we discussed how important it was to ensure that these children had good supervision after school hours so that their parents could work with free minds. Their parents needed two salaries to make ends meet. At that time, we were talking about the working poor but now we are talking about all families. The traditional family with the mother staying home is only one out of every ten families. We are not facing the reality of the society in which we live.
We will not end up with a national program; we will end up with 10 separate agreements with 10 different standards. According to the Meech Lake Accord, we were supposed to have national objectives. This new look at the Constitution would provide for good cost-shared programs with the thought that across Canada there would be equivalent programs. There is no dazzling multi-billion program for day care across this land.
The spending increases will be absolutely minimal. In fact, they are paltry, to use the word of Marjorie Nichols. About $570,000 a year would be made available beyond what is already available under the Canada Assistance Plan. Further, the provinces that want to enter into the national day care
August 23, 1988

program have to opt out of the Canada Assistance Plan. A cap has been put on the growth of this very key sector in society.
I believe that when Conservatives are out on the hustings and have to face the electorate, they will be very embarrassed by the fact that no one will be tricked into thinking that saying that they have put in a great national child care system means that they have really done so, because they have not. In reality, this let's pretend child care program is supposed to provide $6.4 billion over seven years, but $2.3 billion of that total is in the form of new tax deductions on credits announced in the February Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I am not against that, but those are certainly not new dollars for new child care spaces.
The child care legislation we are addressing today contains exactly $4 billion. However, we have forgotten that $1.9 billion of that $4 billion is already being spent annually by the federal Government through the Canada Assistance Plan on child care items. We have in reality a provision for $2.6 billion in new federal funds for direct spending, from which the $1.9 billion that is already being spent annually is subtracted, ending up with that marvellous amount of $560,000 a year being made available for new programs. That new money will certainly be sufficient for the much needed 200,000 spaces, but that will not answer the needs of another one million children who need this service.
Our Party feels that parents should have the right to choose, but they should also have the right to choose child care services that will be of quality, that will be affordable, and that will have standards for the teachers who will be paid commensurately as they provide the loving care that is needed for young children, and they should have programs in which they will have a say. None of those things have been articulated in this Bill, and I regret the sleight of hand, the use of language which is not reflected in reality in this Bill.
The unvarnished facts are embarrassing to the Government. I hope that each and every government Member will feel the discomfort as their constituents ask them about this not-national, not-good, poorly-conceived child care plan which they think will help the development of Canada and its future. I would suggest that when this Bill goes into legislative committee, government Members carefully consider the kinds of amendments that will truly reflect the needs of our children and their futures in Canada.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to say a few words on the child care Bill, Bill C-144. I will take my allotted time to speak particularly about rural Canada.
This time of year in rural Canada should be time of rejoicing and abundance while in the process of harvesting the crops. Right now, however, the farm community is not a happy community, and there are good reasons for this.
For the last five or six years, the impact of the economy has been building up to the point where farm communities are in a
Canada Child Care Act
very bad state. Prices have risen considerably in the last little while, but that is not having the impact it should on the farm community.
Rural Canada is made up of something over 200,000 farms and the villages and towns with their schools, churches, and medical facilities which serve those farms. For the last several years an average of eight farmers per day have been leaving the farm for reasons such as bankruptcy, foreclosure, and so on. That has not slowed down. In fact, the number is increasing each year. Consequently, farming communities are becoming more isolated. It is because of this situation that farming has become one of the most stressful occupations in the country. The farm suicide rate has tripled since 1981 and now stands at double the national average. There are many cases of rural family violence, much more than we ever thought would happen on the farm.
The bulk of farmers having financial problems are those between the ages of 30 and 45 years. They are highly productive farmers who have committed themselves to farming and they produce a great deal, but they are unable to keep up. It is those same families who have young children that need care.
Those farmers who are staying on the farm and those people in the small communities surrounding the farms are the people we are concerned about right now. A lot of the people leaving their farms are just moving into the surrounding towns or the nearest city. However, a lot of them are attempting to hang on, and they are the ones we need to talk about specifically.
There are probably three categories that we can point to of people who are attempting to stay on the farm and need some assistance with child care. There is the family where one or two members go to the nearest town or city to work. At the same time they attempt to keep the farm going.
There are farm families who move to the city so that the man, in most cases, can drive out to the farm and keep it going. There is a third group which has to be recognized as well. This group stays on the farm but attempts to eliminate all outside help. They try to keep the farm going with the family alone. Every member of the family has to take some responsibility for keeping the farm going.
Right now some farm men and women, in fact perhaps more women than men, are actually doing three jobs at the same time. They are working at a store or office in town, teaching school or driving a school bus to bring in some cash. They also take a certain amount of responsibility to keep the farm going. They do regular farm work and assist in keeping it going. They also take care of the children, raise the family.
Right now child care is a very unpopular concept in rural Canada because there is nothing in this Bill that indicates that rural Canada will be taken care of. There is nothing to indicate that they will have child care in those areas. As one lady told me yesterday, this is another federal program which we in

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
rural Canada will not be able to access. In most cases this involves small towns and villages of 50 to 75 people.
That is one of the things wrong with this approach to child care. We need to look at the specific requirements of rural Canada and make sure that either child care spaces or other arrangements can be made to make sure that the family is able to stay together and keep the farm going.
The federal Government spends huge amounts of money on things which are far less important to Canada than the raising of a family. We should not hesitate to pay people to assist the parents in raising their children. Doing that is a good investment for Canada. We should do it in such a way that it reaches out to those areas and those people who need it most.
Right now many people in rural Canada need assistance in raising their families. They need child care. Consequently, we should provide the spaces or provide the people or the money so that they are able to do a good job of raising a family. This Bill does not indicate to the rural community that any real care has been taken with respect to child care in rural Canada.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on this legislation, the Canada Child Care Act. I believe it is an initiative which will enable our Government to implement a major part of our new national child care strategy, which includes not only the provisions of this Act but the creation of 200,000 additional child care spaces. As well, there is the tax assistance to families which will be of great benefit to many men and women across this country, and the child initiatives fund.
It is interesting to look at the whole issue of child care and who should be responsible. I am pleased to see a change in attitude across the country on this issue. Recently the Vancouver Board of Trade, the largest business organization in Vancouver, issued a copy of its report making a case for quality child care services in British Columbia. It notes in its report that by the year 2000, 80 per cent of all new workforce members will be women, minorities, or immigrants, and that one-half of all women employees will have babies while they are employed. These facts translate into a need for employers of all types and sizes to deal with child care issues for their own self-interest. In fact, the Board of Trade quotes from some studies done by Fortune Magazine which report that 41 per cent of parents surveyed lost at least one day's work in the three months prior to the poll in order to care for sick children, and nearly 10 per cent took three to five days off for such purposes. Child care problems were also a major cause of unproductive time at work or the production of lower than normal quality work. Obviously, by addressing the child care issue, businesses can achieve greater stability and productivity in their workforces.
It is very interesting to note that the Vancouver Board of Trade goes on in its brief to suggest certain initiatives that the
provincial Government should take to respond to our new federal child care strategy and it went on to outline what it believes employers should be doing. The whole issue of child care is a relationship of four parts: the family, the parents, the employer, and the federal and provincial Governments. Each has a role to play in order for us to address the situation.
I am pleased that the legislation before us provides for the implementation of the goal which was announced last December, "an additional 200,000 new subsidized spaces which will require a federal commitment of some $3 billion". However, on the basis of the plans submitted by the provincial Governments over the last six months, it has become clear that additional financial assistance would be required if we were to meet the goal of 200,000 spaces, as well as ensure the quality of the system as a whole and that the existing spaces continue to improve.
We are aware that just last month the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) announced on behalf of the Government that we were committing an additional $1 billion to the child care program. We are not prepared to sacrifice quality for quantity. Both are equally important to parents whose children will be utilizing the child care system.
Just to share some information about how this new system will work, during the next seven years, which we are calling the "boost period", we intend to support the creation of 200,000 additional subsidized child care spaces. In effect, this will double the size of the current subsidized system. It has taken about 15 years for us to reach the level of 200,000 spaces and in seven years we will double that.
To assist the provinces, because delivery of the services is a provincial responsibility, we will provide 75 per cent of the capital costs involved in the development of new spaces in nonprofit child care agencies during the seven year period. As well, we will provide for 50 per cent of ongoing operating costs for both non-profit and commercial agencies. There have been a lot of questions of why "both", and certain groups have said only non-profit agencies should be eligible for the subsidies. However, we made the decision to include commercial agencies under the terms of the legislation. We recognize that we cannot ignore the basic fact that a full 40 per cent of subsidized child care spaces now being provided are being provided by the commercial sector. The reason our national policy on child care is a workable policy is that it builds upon a system that currently exists and adapts to the regional diversity of this country.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, from my involvement with child care, there is obviously some agencies that are better than others, but I have found excellent child care facilities operating in the commercial sector and excellent facilities working in the non-profit area. I do not believe that either side should be penalized, and I am pleased to see we have included both in our strategy.
This legislation will also permit the Government to increase the rate of cost sharing for certain provinces based upon a
August 23, 1988

national average entitlement per child formula. We have included this special provision to assist parents and children who reside in provinces which are attempting to catch up to other parts of Canada in what they spend on child care. This is a national strategy. We believe that child care facilities and services should be more available in all parts of the country.
1 might point out that Clause 4 of the legislation sets out the various terms and conditions which will form part of a negotiated agreement between the federal Government and each province. These will include the annual federal commitment to the province, the number of spaces to be created during the seven-year period, and the basis for subsequent cost sharing agreements with respect to child care services.
I wanted to respond as well to some comments made earlier by the Eton. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who indicated that the current provisions under the Canada Assistance Plan would have resulted in $3 billion a year being spent on child care services. She is wrong. That is not the reality. The reality is that at the moment, between the federal and provincial Governments, we are spending about $480 million of which $160 million is federal money. Therefore, the provinces are spending $320 million a year. There is no way the provinces are going to be able to increase their expenditures, so they could theoretically take advantage of the maximum CAP funding. That is just not the real world.
In fact, the present CAP provisions do not include funding for the capital cost for the building or renovating, so there is no assistance there. There is no incentive for the creation of new spaces. Even in the operating area where it is 50 per cent of eligible costs, there are many costs which are not eligible. What actually occurs is that the federal Government ends up subsidizing only about 35 per cent of the total costs. The changes in the new child care strategy in the legislation we have before us, as I mentioned, are 75 per cent on capital cost and 50 per cent on operating and new criteria for establishing that 50 per cent. In the first year alone our contribution will double, and by the end of the seven years it is estimated that the federal contribution will be in the order of $800 million a year.
We will have spent, then, the estimated $4 billion for the creation of those spaces. This legislation is important to the women, to the parents, and to the children of this country. I would ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to give it early consideration so that the system can go into effect, the provinces can complete their negotiations, and those who are involved in establishing a child care agency and child care spaces can get on with the job of creating the spaces and the opportunities for families to have child care available to them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to participate in this debate. I would like to preface my comments by thanking my Liberal colleagues who have allowed me to speak first so I can go home and spend some time with my daughter. We talk about Parliament and the opportunities for women being equal with men, but the reality
Canada Child Care Act
is that when we are having sitting sessions until ten o'clock every night, week upon week, to try to shove some government Bills through, that is simply not happening. That is just a practical note, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to spend some time outlining what I consider the giant fraud being perpetrated on the people of Canada in the over-all area of child policy. Let us not forget that this so-called child care policy is coming from a Government that has done everything in its power to cut back the purchasing power of the ordinary family. It has cut back on the child tax deductions from about $370 to about $60 over the course of its time in office. It has cut back on family allowances. What we should really be seeing here tonight is an overall policy for children which really does permit parents to make real choices.
Government Members tried to deindex senior citizens' pensions and they were not successful, but they were successful in doing it with the family allowances because families with children are not necessarily the most powerful voices in our society.
I only have 10 minutes so I would like to focus on what I consider to be the glaring contradictions in this so-called national policy for children. When parents are put in a position, either by choice or by economic necessity, of working outside the home and having to put their child in care other than their own, they want to be sure their child is safe.
I think that is the paramount concern of every parent. That is why the Government must include some national standards in announcing a policy. Yet, it has failed miserably in doing so because the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is introducing a Bill that permits the provinces to set whatever standards they want. There is no national level of care whereby parents in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, should have the same level of care for their child as a child in Toronto. That is not the case because there are no national standards.
According to the preamble of the Bill, the Government caps the amount of spending. Rather than indicate that the program will expand, it is putting a lid on it.
The previous Liberal Government established a program of subsidized child care spaces that was geared toward low-income earners. There was no limit on that program. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) was wrong when she said that the only difference between the previous Liberal program, which was instituted at a time when we were not even sure about the so-called child care crisis, was spending an amount of about 4 per cent per year.
There are no national standards in the Tory child care plan. There are rather generous tax deductions. The tax deductions are being doubled from $2,000 to $4,000 a year per child. As a parent who is earning a salary that is significantly above the

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
national average, I stand to benefit much more directly from the Government's child tax deduction than a woman in my riding who is working at the Hamilton General Hospital and may be earning $6 an hour.
If I am in the 50 per cent tax bracket and I get a $4,000 tax deduction, that is money in my pocket. However, a woman who is earning $6 an hour and is paying only 15 per cent or 20 per cent in income tax, her benefit is cut by two-thirds. We believe that the tax deduction system is wrong and should be replaced by a tax credit system which would see direct payments to parents, but would start by giving the most money to those parents who are at the lowest end of the income scale.
When one considers the lack of national standards and the fact that the child tax deduction will benefit the rich, it provides a rather clear picture of what policy the Tories want to establish. It has no national objectives.
What have we seen from the New Democratic Party? Its Leader announced that he would like to cut child care spending by about 30 per cent. He wants to spend about 30 per cent less than the Conservative Government, and will do that by eliminating any direct payments to families. A steelworker in my riding who gets a $2,000 tax deduction would lose that under an NDP Government.
Under an NDP Government, the Liberal initiative of a tax credit which would be more beneficial to the low and middle income earners would also be gone. The NDP does not believe in the right of the individual to make choices for themselves. It believes that everything should be run by the Government in an institutionalized fashion.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Wrong, and you know it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Let me speak from personal experience. I have a terrific child care giver in my neighbourhood in Ottawa. Her name is Clotilde Keklikian. She has just given birth to another child of her own and now has three children. I probably could not have found a better care giver than her under any circumstances. She happens to have voluntarily associated herself with a licensing service. She would meet the need for national standards, but because she receives payment in her home, according to the NDP definition she is part of the massive profit-making conspiracy that would, of necessity, not be allowed under their policy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Is that making a profit?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am very happy to hear the NDP defend its policy because I am rather shocked that it would introduce a situation in which a woman like Clotilde Keklikian would not be able to qualify under its system.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member knows full well that the NDP supports family home day care. The woman to whom she is referring sounds like an excellent care giver. There is no reason why she should not be licensed. In fact, she would have many advantages with
extra subsidies under our plan if she were licensed as a family day care giver.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Vancouver East will make a few comments on this matter later tonight. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The NDP has not answered the basic question. Why is it cutting $3 billion from a child care program? There are parents who are currently spending thousands of dollars. Certainly it is very difficult for a steelworker in my riding to come up with the money that is necessary, yet under an NDP Government, that steelworker would probably see a reduction in his disposable income by some $1,000 to $3,000, depending on the number of children. The NDP is wiping out any direct tax credits or tax deductions to families. If that is the case, I would like the NDP to explain why its Leader said last week that he would be spending about one-third less of what is being spent under the Government's program.
There are some fundamental differences. The Liberal Party wants national standards. We also want tax credits as opposed to tax deductions. I have not heard the NDP speak out on this. According to the NDP definition, those who are in family care, who meet national standards and may be making a small profit, would be out of the picture. We believe that those people can also give good care.
Most important, the Liberal Party would introduce a child policy that supports all families and that offers women real opportunity and real choice, not simply a government program, which, over seven years, will result in a near 4 per cent annual increase in spending.
We want to see a program directed not only toward women and families who are working outside the home, but also toward women working in the home because we believe their contribution is just as valuable.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on 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.
I think we can conclude after what has been said so far, Mr. Speaker, that all three Parties agree on the substance of this Bill. We all agree that today, day-care is becoming an increasingly essential service. However, we do not agree on how funding should be allocated and made available to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I think that first of all, and this is very important, it is a matter of philosophy. I heard my colleague speak earlier about deductions and tax credits. We have opted for tax measures. Other political parties, groups and individuals who made their positions known across this country told us we should focus on establishing a national service paid for by
August 23, 1988

the State, to ensure the availability of such services and provide a number of guarantees. That is more or less the position taken by the NDP. However, in the first place, it is a matter of philosophy, a matter of how we look at the services to be offered to the customer and how we react to an increasingly pressing need.
Mr. Speaker, we can either provide the money or provide the opportunity to spend that money. We have opted for the former.
1 remember, and I think we have lived long enough with a Liberal Government to understand the Liberal approach, when we had an economic problem. The Government invented the Canada Works projects, so-called winter works, in the belief that by creating temporary jobs, it would be able to deal with economic problems, and so billions of dollars were spent every year. The Government spent enormous amounts of money on Canada Works projects which tended to come back every year, with a few new ones. That was one way of looking at the problem.
The Conservative Government and its Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, decided to opt for another solution, more in line with the philosophy of the Conservative Party, which is a philosophy of free enterprise, a philosophy of supporting developers. It provides Canadian decision makers with the economic conditions that tend to attract investors. That is the big difference. Our opponents however, would set up a program and then they would decide to index it. .. all of a sudden they discovered indexation. That was a wonderful discovery. After sliced bread, indexation is just about the best thing ever invented in Canada. Indexing means that starting today, tomorrow will be like yesterday, but indexed, a little better than yesterday. We cannot build an economy that way! I have never bought clothes from a tailor by saying that I would pay last year's price, indexed. I never bought a car that way, but we have built an economy that way. My colleague was just talking about it. He talked about family allowance, old age security pensions, the MPs' pension fund. It covers everything!
But in my opinion, it is not the right way to develop the economy because it does not teach individuals how to fish-it gives them fish. If in one year they needed a certain amount and the next year the economy has grown by 3 per cent, automatically they are given a 3 per cent increase-that is indexation. We, for our part, give people the opportunity to choose. And in doing so, Mr. Speaker-our program was so popular, we wanted to add about 200,000 spaces and we will have to give out money; we have to give out more money because of the very positive response from the provinces.
We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that child care is a provincial responsibility. And so on . . . We could not stick our nose in a field of provincial jurisdiction even if we wanted to. We can set up a national program that the provinces could join, that the federal Government could participate in and that would gradually bring people up to the national standards.
Canada Child Care Act
The Liberals suggest directly administering a program in a field of provincial jurisdiction. They are telling the provinces that they are incapable of running day care facilities, just as they are unable to read the Free Trade Agreement, so the Liberals would do all that for them. They tell the provinces not to worry, that they will decide for them and run the day care centres, even if it is a provincial responsibility, and they will force the provinces to accept national standards.
We too, Mr. Speaker, would like to have national standards of quality, and they are being developed, but this necessarily involves each of the ten Canadian provinces and each of the territories. This means that we will end up one day with quality standards that already exist in many provinces, but we will reach them at different rates. That is another foundation of the policy put forward by the Party, that we respect the rate at which each province progresses.
It is clear that Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have different rates of growth for a social product or program. One only has to look at a province's wealth and existing services, how developed its education services are, what work opportunities there are. Because of all that, the rate and support. . . support at that rate will start for a national program, and that is important for federal programs. All the policies we put forward, that sometimes lay in a grey area between federal and provincial jurisdictions, always led us to respect provincial rates of action, and this is what makes this Government different.
In my first year here, Mr. Speaker, I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Hon. Flora MacDonald, with whom I worked more closely at that time. We opened negotiations with the Province of Quebec, among others, on training programs. You are fully aware training programs are a long-standing contending issue between federal and provincial Governments, training being a provincial matter. Our greatest difficulty was to somewhat make up for the past because we were dealing with provinces that had been irked to the limit by standards that had always been forced upon them by the Canadian Government, because it had the spending power, it was at the top, it knew about all the needs, and had the means.
We succeeded in harmonizing and setting up new programs, a new job strategy ensuring that instead of having programs strictly to distribute the money to the people, we put forward programs that still sent the money to the people but that led the people to better themselves. Such has been the new job strategy, and the same job strategy was developed among students where the priority is to favour jobs that suit the student's career profile.
But the same thing applies to child care services. Ontario and Quebec will develop their own quality standards. They will not be all that different, but basically different. And what makes this country great is the fact that we have ten provinces and two territories each one as important as the other, each one having its priorities and its standards. There will be

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
fundamental differences between them but they will remain consistent with the general principles we care to set. And they will be encouraged.
We therefore support a system which will give parents the opportunity to help others, to tell them: Listen, in the field of child care, we are experts. Come and see us. We will take care of everything because we know what you really want.
That is the big difference and, as far as I am concerned, I am all for it. We could even pass it tonight. I am speaking, of course, of Bill C-144.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-144, an Act to provide child care to Canada. This is one of those Bills on which we have had an indication with respect to which form outweighs substance.
The Minister has portrayed the Bill as a bold new initiative. He has said that he is making great forays into assisting the families of Canada. As we looked at what he is proposing and as we looked at the kind of family assistance that his Government has provided we began to form quite a different opinion of what the Government is doing for families.
Over the years we have watched the previous Liberal Government and then this Conservative Government continue the practice of reducing the proportion of the family deductions on the income tax form. At one time those deductions would feed and clothe a child. That is what their original intention was. As the years went by that was eroded to the point now where, for most families, the child deduction barely provides the clothing that they need each year. This is the same group of people who are in the defence of the Canadian family.
In my home province of Saskatchewan they fought medicare, one of the programs that probably did as much as anything to provide equal access to full medical care for young people, old people, members of families, whether they could afford to see a doctor, be hospitalized or have a serious expensive operation. Medicare made that possible. It was both Liberals and Conservatives in our province who fought the introduction of that program.
During the past four years we have watched this Government attempt successfully-211 outvote 70-to deindex family allowances, further eroding the spending power of families. The provisions of family allowance have been in place since 1948-49. They were introduced as an attempt to equalize incomes and make poorer families more equal, give them access to goods and services on a more equal basis with the rest of the country's families. This is the Government that deindex-ed family allowances. It is also the Government that has gone
a long way in increasing taxes on ordinary families, particularly those families who find it necessary for both mom and dad to work.
The other day I did some quick calculations. A family with mom, dad, two kids, and both parents working most of the time, earning in the neighbourhood of $35,000, and a great many of our population are earning that type of salary and less, with the discovery by the Government of the ease with which it can extract taxes from ordinary people by increasing sales tax, that family is now paying more than $1,000 per year more in taxes than four years ago before the Government came to power. This Government purports to be the Government that stands up for families, yet it is taking more than $100 a month from the average working family with two children.
It is an unfortunate reality that a great many of our population is in the position where both mother and father have to work for wages. When we look at the statistics it can be seen that there are 856,000 two-parent families where both parents work. If either of those parents stopped working to stay home to devote all their time to child care and raising the family, the family income would go below the poverty line. Working mothers and fathers are not only a reality, but in most families they are also a necessity.
I wish to spend a little time talking about the special needs of the farm families that I know best, many of whom I represent in a rural riding such as I have. They will find any federal or provincial program suspicious, because they are not certain that their needs for child care will be recognized in any program that has been proposed. These farm families may be described by some people as traditional families, and to the untrained observer it may appear that the mother is not working. However, I assure you Mr. Speaker, that all farm wives probably have the equivalent of two or three jobs. They contribute not only to the income and the labour force required on the farm, but they are also required to look after the children. The main child-rearing role still falls on farm mothers. Farm fathers help as much as they can, but they are engaged in what are generally too dangerous pursuits in which to include children.
While farms are great places to raise children, and I would not have chosen to raise mine anywhere else, they can also be very dangerous places to raise children. Every season I hear of terrible accidents where young children, sometimes as old as 10 years old, but usually 10 and younger, are killed in the most horrible farm accidents that occurred largely because there was no supervision for them, or no one to help look after them. The parents were too busy trying to earn a living to keep full track of the children, or they were trying to involve them in some of the farm activities where an accident resulted.
We all know of instances where children have been inadvertently run over by a tractor. There are also combine or baler accidents where they become entangled in power shafts. Not
August 23, 1988

too many years ago in my neighbourhood there was an incident where a fairly old child of nine or ten fell into a load of flax as it was being unloaded out of a 10-inch auger. He was immediately drowned. Flax flows like water and it was impossible to extract him. We also know of unfortunate incidents with manure pits around hog barns. There are sewage lagoons in some farm yards where open pits are still used for disposal of sewage. Most farms have ponds, dug-outs, or dams where it is possible for children to get into trouble. It is especially worrisome to parents in the busy times of the year when there is seeding or harvest time when mother and father are involved, as well as the older children, in trying to get the harvest in. Sometimes the children are on their own.
Any program proposed under a day care system, and I do not see any reference to it in this particular proposal, has to be flexible, accessible, affordable, and available in those small rural communities. The type of day care system that will fit those needs has not been attacked by this program or, I submit, most of the programs that I have seen. I do admit that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Collins), does have a section in her policy where she is at least prepared to put some money, study, and action into experiments in the rural areas to establish the workable day care and child care system that can work in those outlying, scattered rural communities where the population is scattered, but where the need is very great.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-144, the so-called day care Bill. I say the "so-called day care Bill" because this Bill is not a day care Bill. It is a "promise" care Bill. It is an attempt to care for the promises made by the Government four years ago when it first sought office as a governing Party, and when it promised a comprehensive, adequate, and accessible day care program for Canada.
Anyone who understands the need for day care today, accessible, quality day care, or anyone who has any idea of what is required and who is able to read this Bill, in either official language, will quickly discover that there is no relationship between the need that continues to grow as the nature of our economy evolves, and what is delivered in this Bill.
The country needs, and is going to need, some 2 million day care spaces. The Bill delivers 200,000 day care spaces over the next seven years. The requirement is for 2 million. The Bill delivers at best 200,000. The Bill does not recognize that society has dramatically changed in the past 20 years. Today less than one in six Canadian families fit the traditional view and pattern of the wife at home with the children and the husband off working. Many families today are headed by single parents, and most of those parents are single young mothers. While more than half of all women with pre-school children work outside the home, only about 20 per cent, two in ten, of those children are served by an accredited day care centre. Raising children is more expensive than ever before,
Canada Child Care Act
whether one or both parents work, and providing child care is one of the highest costs.
This Bill fails to recognize the tremendous need in the country today. Indeed, there is an excellent editorial in The Ottawa Citizen by Marjorie Nichols. The headline was "Epp"-referring to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp)-"at last decides his figures for child care program". It is an excellent article. It points out that one should get past the flimflammery. Once you have shattered the mirrors, once you have blown away the smoke, once you have seen through the orchestrated series of press events and numbers, you can see that the country does not have a child care program.
In 1966 medicare was established in this country. It worked because the national Government of the day, I am pleased to say a Liberal Government, established a set of national standards, established the principle that whether you are a Canadian living in British Columbia, Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City, Saskatoon or in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, your access to medical care, the kind of standard that you could expect as a Canadian, one of the qualifiers, one of the things that we held in common no matter where we lived, was a level of medical care that would be consistent right across this land. We set national standards. It was a national social program.
Nowhere in Bill C-144, the so-called day care Bill, is there anything establishing any national standard whatever across this country. Nowhere is there any guarantee that if you live in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, to the extent that you look to your federal Government because you are a citizen of Canada and your access to day care will be equivalent to the access of someone who lives in Toronto, Ontario, by comparison a much wealthier province, you will have those standards. They are not there, Mr. Speaker.
What is more shocking and what most Canadians do not realize is that there is absolutely nothing in this Bill to ensure that if you live in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia or in Manitoba or, for that matter if you live in Ontario, your province will even participate in a national day care program. Indeed, this Bill makes it not only possible but I would submit plausible, if not likely, that we will see those provinces with the fiscal capacity to participate in the program to the extent it meets any of the needs, but will do so only at a level of about 10 per cent, and we will see those without a fiscal capacity to participate not sign on board. Some provinces will determine that their fiscal capacity and priorities are in other directions and Canadians in some provinces of Canada will not be participating in this day care program.
We in this Party insist upon national, enforceable standards, similar to what we have in medicare. I heard my colleague in the New Democratic Party who just spoke, a Member from western Canada, refer to his own Party's day care proposal. He

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
said with respect to rural Canada-I represent a rural constituency-that his own Party's program makes some attempt and shows some willingness to experiment to see whether or not we can provide some services to rural Canadians. Ele said quite rightly that rural Canadians are very suspicious about day care policies no matter from which Party they come. They have this notion that we are talking about young, upwardly mobile professional working couples who can afford things like day care.


Jack Harris: Like the Member from Hamilton East.


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is really nothing for rural Canadians because in rural Canada the vast majority of day care in rural Newfoundland, almost all day care, is provided in home by people who open their homes and establish, in almost all cases that I know of, a quality level of day care for couples who are working or for a single mother who requires day care. The New Democratic Party's proposal makes no provision for that kind of day care.
The NDP proposal does not have the flexibility to develop that kind of day care. The NDP proposal wants to institutionalize right across this country a model based on a model that works perfectly in Toronto-God bless Toronto.
Rural Canadians need access-not to tax deductions because if your income is low you cannot claim it anyway-to tax credits. That has to be part of the proposal. While I fundamentally do not disagree with my friends in the New Democratic Party, who share many of the concerns the Liberal Party feels about this Bill and who recognize many of its gaping flaws, we must deal with the reality of Canada as we find it. We cannot afford the luxury as we develop laws and social policy for this nation of living in a false Utopia concocted by some pollster or academic living in an ivory tower in some fabled urban setting. We must recognize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise that the time for the Hon. Member has expired.


Brian Vincent Tobin: 1 regret it too, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: The Hon. Member for St. John's East.


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate on this important issue of child care for Canadian families. It is my pleasure to participate because I do have some very important things to say which I think will outline the total inadequacy of the Government's approach to this issue. In doing so I want to talk about the kind of families that we mean when we talk about families in Canada.
I am sure this Government has no idea what most people in this country need because it probably did not ask the families themselves what kinds of needs they have. There are approximately 16,000 families in my riding of St. John's East with children living at home. That is comparable to other ridings
across this country. In my riding of 16,000 families, 3,600 of them are single parent families. Over 20 per cent are single parent families who are living in a situation where there is not a Mom and a Pop and two kids and two incomes and all those things that a lot of people take for granted when they talk about child care. We have to look at a program that meets the needs of single parent families, of two parent families, of situations where everything is not straightforward and even where two parents are working and where those kinds of choices which the Minister keeps talking about may or may not be available.
What we need to recognize is that for families who have children to look after and who need to work the biggest issue in their lives is how to find affordable quality child care. I know that from contact with people in those kinds of situations who have to struggle from one situation to the next who cannot find quality child care, who cannot find care they can afford and with which they can be satisfied and comfortable.
We heard the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who spoke about what a wonderful situation she had as an upper middle-class Canadian in a two-parent working family. She was able to find this caregiver who was adequate and provided quality care. That is a marvellous and a wonderful thing. It is a situation which could adequately operate under a New Democratic Party child care proposal. It is a situation where an individual, a caregiver, can associate with a licensed facility, be given assistance to provide quality care in terms of facilities and equipment for caregiving, and in terms of ensuring that that caregiver is given an adequate income.
That is the kind of flexibility that our Party would support and has proposed. It would provide quality and would be affordable, not only to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar), who has indicated that she makes an income quite substantially higher than that of the vast majority of Canadians, but for average working men and women who have to look after their children. They too should be able to afford quality care, and should be able to exercise a choice. The situation of a woman who is at home and is already looking after one or two children would quite adequately be met by providing assistance to the care giver at that level to ensure quality care giving as well as an adequate income for the care giver. Those are the kinds of choices our policy represents.
The Government suggests that one of the choices available to this mythical family composed of mom, pop and the kids is whether to work or not to work. The choice goes something like this: "We will give you a child tax credit of $200 per year if you decide to stay at home and look after your own children at home". Of course, that amounts to $ 16.66 a month. This is a real choice. I can see the women of Canada for the next three weeks mulling over whether or not to quit their jobs, stay at home and look after their children for the sake of $16.66 a
August 23, 1988

month. Those are the kinds of choices that are in the proposal the Government has put forward.
We would provide a national child care system which has a number of essential characteristics including accountability to parents. The child care system would be established on a nonprofit basis. Those who are already involved in profit-making centres would agree to a transition period for setting up nonprofit centres with control by parents and the care givers themselves. That would be desirable because this is a basic and fundamental service which meets a basic social need. It should be met on a non-profit basis. Most of the people who are now involved in child-care giving on a for-profit basis would do better in terms of personal income under a non-profit system based on the proposal of the New Democratic Party.
The essential features of such a system would be the requirement of minimum standard applicable all across Canada, specifically training standards and parent and community ownership and control of non-profit services. This would provide quality, affordable services. The next requirement would be that the system be accessible, that it would be available to those in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, as well as to those in Toronto. Parents need access to the kind of care that is standardized, provided that care givers are licensed so that parents will have some assurance that the people providing the service do adhere to training standards and are trustworthy and acceptable people.
Those elements are essential to a proper child care program. They are all missing from the Government's program. There is an absence of national objectives. There is no vision in the offering of child care choices that are needed. In fact, it imposes restrictions on the increases in child care spaces. It does not allow for an expanding and developing market, and for the first time has imposed restrictions on the amount of government assistance that will be offered to child care workers. This makes it impossible for us to support the Government's Bill. It does not do anything to enhance the position of child care workers, positions which are at best marginalized by the policies which allow for individuals to use the tax system to pay people minimum wages or less to look after children across Canada. That itself speaks for low standards and does not do anything to increase the quality of training and care.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, truth comes in strange ways and at strange moments. I think my colleague across the way just laid a little truth on the table. I think he said that they are against the Bill because it does nothing for child care workers. Does he mean all child care workers? Does he mean babysitters, the teenagers who sit for other people's children, the friends and neighbours? Are these child care workers? Are mothers child care workers?
I suspect that the NDP definition of a child care worker is someone who works in an institution and belongs to some kind of association which verges on being a union. Whether it is free
Canada Child Care Act
trade or child care, the NDP represents a leadership element in Canadian society. It represents people with pretty big salaries, union leaders, who drive pretty big cars and travel to pretty good hotels. The behaviour of Members across the way is conditioned on behalf of those people, the union leaders who belong to their political Party. It is time for them to join the rest of us in speaking out on behalf of all Canadians, not just a small portion of Canadians who happen to be in that fortunate position but on behalf of all Canadians.
The child care policy of this Government is a policy on behalf of all children, children who are cared for in their homes by their mothers or fathers. We are offering some help for them to raise their children. This legislation deals with the provisions of child care services in a more formal sense. The basic philosophy of this piece of legislation is that Parliament will provide money to the provinces to set up the services which the provinces need for the people who live in those provinces.
Living in Tuktoyaktuk is not the same as living in downtown Toronto. Living in Barrhead, Alberta, is not the same as living in the City of Calgary. What the NDP and Liberal Members are asking for when they talk about national standards is some kind of minimum qualification for the workers in the system, not for the good of the children. Children are well cared for by parents, no formal schooling required. They give love, care and attention. Children are well cared for by teenagers. Children are well cared for by relatives, by friends, by neighbours


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not always, they aren't.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: "Not always", she shouts across. They are not always well cared for by licensed, accredited child care workers or teachers or university professors. She knows that and I know that. We belong to that profession, and some of our colleagues go wrong. Some of them do terrible things. Some of them end up in jail. There is nothing legislation can do to ensure the quality of people, but we can tell the parents of Canada that they must accept some responsibility for determining whether the care their children are about to receive is the kind of care that they value. Is it consistent with your personal attitude and philosophy? This Bill encourages that kind of choice. This Bill says that we will enter into an agreement with the provinces to provide money to meet the child care needs in those provinces. This will be done in a way that fits.
What the NDP is saying is, let us let the population centres of the country decide, the areas with the most MPs, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, places with high density apartment buildings, lots of jobs in manufacturing, and a certain kind of lifestyle. They produce the most MPs because most people live in those kinds of centres, and the bulk of those MPs shall decide on a standard for the rest of the nation; for a fishing village in Newfoundland; a prairie agricultural community; a northern mining town. Let us have a standard that fits the cities. It may not fit the children but it fits workers because

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
you can control the supply and raise the wages of those who are lucky enough to be inside the system.
That is what the NDP represents. NDP Members would have you believe that they can produce a day care program which meets the same goals of this program for less money in virtually half the time. That proposition is an absolute joke. First, because the federal Government has no business in the day care business. It has no jurisdiction under Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution to run a day care system. In the same way it has no jurisdiction to run the public education system. Our forefathers gave that jurisdiction to the provinces so the politicians would be closer to the people when dealing with human and health services.
As a federal Government we can contribute. We can recognize a need and provide money. How can the NDP propose to do, for less money in a shorter period of time, more than what is proposed in this legislation? Have they had a single consultation with a single province? Have they been out there discussing with the provinces their needs, their priorities, their capacity? The NDP intends to provide all the money because this Bill does not provide all the money. The people of a province put up some of the money and the federal Government puts up some of the money. It is a partnership so that the program remains sensitive to the needs of the people in the province.
That is a long, slow process. We lived through 17 years of government where the Parliament of Canada thought it could intrude on provincial jurisdiction and do what it liked. We brought a different spirit to this land. We said we will come to office in a spirit of co-operation. Let the federal Government be the helpmate of the provinces. Let us discuss, let us work it out, let us avoid duplication, let us save taxpayers' dollars by co-operating and building together.
If the results of all those consultations and this legislation is to produce 200,000 new day care spaces for this dollar amount over a period of seven years, it does so because the consultation process has produced information from the provinces about their capacity, their needs and their willingness to proceed. Without that consultation with respect to doing something in an area of provincial jurisdiction you are simply saying to the Canadian people: "I have an idea. It is a pie in the sky idea but hopefully some of it will stick. It is not based on facts. It is not based on reality. Hopefully Canadians will believe me".
I think Canadians have their feet on the ground. I think Canadians know how much time and effort it takes to set up a new organization, a collection of parents, to create a new day care centre with a good board, good constitution, good facilities and adequate staff. Those things take months. You cannot stand in Parliament, decree it to happen and expect it to be there the next day. These are community endeavours of some complexity requiring participation on a voluntary basis by a lot of people.
The organizations that exist today to help are provincial Governments and the departments of those provincial Governments. They have the staff on a daily basis working with these kinds of groups. They know how long it takes. They know how expensive it is. I say to Canadians: When it comes to child care you really have a choice. In the next election you can vote for the Party who cares about their child care workers and their union bosses, or you can vote for the Party who cares about children and parental choice.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a chance to speak on Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. There is no question that this is a very important subject to literally millions of young couples who have children of school age or pre-school children. We learn as we look across the statistics that 44 per cent of families have two careers. Some 63 per cent of all mothers who work today, two million women, have children under 16 years of age. Almost half of all the women with pre-school children require day care.
What we need is an accessible, high quality, affordable day care system. Although we have some 250,000 licensed day care spaces today, the actual need approaches some two million across the country. There are lots of problems with the present system under CAP which is operated through the provinces. It is not very satisfactory for those in the middle income group because it is a welfare system. If you are above a certain level of income you cannot utilize it. Of course, other private day care systems are just too expensive for those middle income families.
The whole system today is not adequate to deal with the situation as we see it in rural Canada. Farming communities and resource areas certainly do not have an adequate day care system. The shortages are growing worse every year.
The plan before us today is an interesting one because when it was announced last December it was $1 billion less. There was a famous cabinet Minister who said: "What's a million"? In this case the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who has probably at his disposal more computers, more technical back up, than any other Department of government, erred by $1 billion. He announced a program of $5.3 billion. He discovered four or five months later that he was $1 billion short. The interesting part of that is that if we read the article written just a couple days ago in The Ottawa Citizen by Marjorie Nichols, the program put forward by the Government, involving some $4 billion for actual day care service itself, if you extrapolate it out over the seven year period, actually amounts to $570,000 per year above what is being paid out by the Government now under the Canada Assistance Plan. That takes into account inflation over the seven years. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, how much less it was before he added the $1 billion.
So we really have a proposal before us which probably will not do anything different from what we have under the present system. Of course, provinces that opt into this new proposal
August 23, 1988

will have to opt out of the Canada Assistance Program permanently. So we have a very questionable system which has already proven it is $1 billion short. The whole proposal is based on the provinces picking up this $4 billion. If the provinces do not have their share, then, of course, the $4 billion will not be spent.
There are a lot of problems with this proposal. First, there is no proposal to have national standards. So even if one has a rinky-dink system, one still receives the money because there are no national standards established by this program. There is very little help for the mother who stays at home. In fact, in this fiscal year, as I understand the proposal, they receive exactly a SI00 refundable tax credit. Next year it will be $200. The Hon. Member opposite, who is shaking his head and who raves every day about the socialists, may think $200 is enough to allow a homemaker to stay at home and take care of the children, but anyone who stops to think about it can see it is obviously not enough. That is why our distinguished critic, who served on the committee, proposed refundable spousal deduction. It is not only a tax credit but it is a refundable tax credit. If the deduction for a spouse is now, say, $4,000, and the tax credit basis is at 30 per cent or 40 per cent, they would receive that as a refundable tax credit in their own hands. If the spouse is not working or does not have any other income, she still receives the income. So there is an incentive there for homemakers and mothers to stay at home and raise their children, especially during the pre-school years.
The present system, which is going through the tax reform now in the Bill before the House, increases the exemption from $2,000 to $4,000 per year. Of course, it is a very regressive system. It is much more advantageous if one is in a high-income bracket. The New Democratic Party wants to cut that out. The NDP thinks it should only be maintained at the $2,000 limit. That is even more regressive because it does not provide the assistance for those who want to stay home.
What is more important, the proposal before the House does not carry enough new spaces. We need at least a million spaces. This proposal only creates 200,000 new spaces over a period of seven years. The system does not equitably share the burden. There should be more assistance for those low-income families.
We believe that this proposal, although it may have some useful features to it, it is not adequate. It simply does not meet the need. It is regressive. It is unfair and, most of all, it does not really provide a great deal of new money. According to Marjorie Nichols, who writes a column for The Citizen, over the life of the seven year program only $570,000 per year of new money is added. I think we have a very inadequate proposal before us tonight. It may be $570,000 better per year than the present system, but surely that is not a massive new national day care program. We know it is not. It does not provide much extra money and it does not provide any national standards. It is simply inadequate to deal with the massive responsibility which is before the country. It just does not adequately meet the needs of young families who cannot
Canada Child Care Act
afford proper day care when, because of economic necessity, both members of the family, both parents, have to work outside the home.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the question of providing an adequate day care system is of crucial importance to the people of Canada. The fact is that 60 per cent of the mothers of children under the age of three are now in the workforce. Most of these mothers are not just single parent mothers, but mothers in families with a joint income where both the husband and wife are working and mothers in families where both mother and father are middle-income earners who are working.
Why is that happening, Mr. Speaker? Well, to a large extent it is because it is almost impossible for a young couple to buy their own home and meet the mortgage payments with only one member of the family working. This is true even in the City of Winnipeg where the price of a home is probably just one-half of what it is in Ottawa, or a third of the cost of a home in Vancouver and probably a quarter of the cost of a home in Toronto. In the newer parts of my constituency the people who live there are almost entirely young couples between the ages of 25 and 40 years. One could shoot off a cannon during the middle of the day and there would not be a single person come out of the house to see what was happening because there is no one home. Both husband and wife are out working so they can meet the mortgage payments.
So Members of Parliament or people out in the community who believe and talk about really having a choice should realize that the choice for most parents is some system of day care or home care. They just do not realize what is happening. The choice is no longer between day care, public or private, adequate or inadequate, and home care, because home care is no longer a viable, possible choice. The alternative to day care is some kind of arrangement, leaving the child with a neighbour or getting some high school student in to look after the children or getting someone from the Philippines or some other country to come and look after the child, and these parents have no knowledge at all about the adequacy or ability of that person to give careful care and supervision of the children.
These are the facts. What are the needs? Health and Welfare Canada, which is not a preserve of wild-eyed radicals by any stretch of the imagination, states that the number of children with parents working more than 20 hours a week is over two million. According to Health and Welfare Canada, there are presently only 250,000 child care spaces. That means there are 1.75 million children of working parents for whom there are no child care spaces.
I find it amazing that Conservative Members of Parliament who talk so glibly and often about the family and how much they care about the family are prepared to ignore the problem or bring forth a proposal to deal with the problem that is

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
completely inadequate. It simply does not meet the needs of the people.
If one listens to the Parliamentary Secretary who spoke a few moments ago, one would think that the proposals put forward by members of the NDP are impractical, unaffordable and were somehow pulled out of thin air.
I want to put on the record the principles of a national day care policy as enunciated, not by the New Democratic Party, but by the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association. They say about universality:
All children should have access to high quality child care services regardless of family income or parent's employment status. Parents should determine the nature and extent of their children's participation.
They say about quality:
To ensure high quality, child care services should be licensed and regulated, reflecting the best current knowledge about early childhood development as well as the varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds of Canadian families.
One need only drive through the core areas of the major cities in Canada to see that the days when the population of the cities was 95 per cent white are long gone. In some of the core areas in the City of Winnipeg, for example, 95 per cent of the children attending elementary school are either immigrant children from Caribbean countries and South America or native children. They must have a care system that meets their needs, not one that is dictated to them by a government from Ottawa. They need a system that is developed in consultation with the local community and parents.
The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association discusses affordability. It states:
Cost should not be a barrier to access for any family. User fees should diminish over a realistic time frame, with a small parent fee to remain. Assistance with this fee should be provided to low-income families.
We know that there are many low income families in the cities. Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of low income families in rural areas.
The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association says about working conditions:
Child care staff should receive salaries and benefits commensurate with the value of their work and educational qualifications.
Let us deal with the question of cost and how we will pay for it.
We believe the federal Conservative Government has rejected the principles of organizations such as the one I just referred to, and has rejected the very fundamental principles it advocated when it urged Canadians to support the Meech Lake Accord.
Let us consider how these programs will be financed. Of the almost S5.5 billion being committed by the federal Government to the program, almost S2.5 billion will be spent through the tax system. Day care advocates and the former Manitoba Government estimated that if this had been committed to
creating new services, another 170,000 spaces could have been created for day care.
A large percentage of the almost $5.5 billion that the Government says it proposes to allocate to day care facilities is not new money. The federal Government presently spends $170 million every year through the child care expense deduction. Thus this would come to approximately $1 billion in new money.
Furthermore, the larger percentage of the money being proposed by the Government is going into a doubling of the child tax deduction. The Government's program already gives the greatest benefit to well-to-do families and gives nothing to low income families. That should be of no surprise because since day one, after its election, the Government has demonstrated quite clearly that it believes in the trickle-down theory of economics, that if you only give enough to people at the top through large salaries and tax breaks on investments or capital gains, the money spent by those with high income will somehow trickle down to those in the lower income brackets. That has not worked before and it will not work now.
Less well-off families will be given an increase of $100 for the first year for the child tax credit and a further $100 in the second year for baby-sitting or parents at home. A $200 increase is absolutely meaningless in terms of giving women real choices. If they are wealthy, $200 means nothing. Those who are in the lower income bracket need a great deal more than $200.
We have made it very clear that the Government's proposals are simply inadequate. We have proposed an alternative that meets the criteria and principles enunciated by organizations such as the one I have mentioned and by people who work in the existing day care centres who know the needs of the children who are in their care.
I, along with my colleagues, intend to oppose this legislation and do everything I can to see a much better system in place that will meet the needs of Canadian children.
[ Translation]


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to take part in this debate and to try to convince my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party that we should reject the Government's Bill and draft one that will be better and fairer for all Canadian families.
Mr. Speaker, the day care system has existed in Canada since about the Second World War, when then-Prime Minister Mackenzie King decided to establish a system of "day nurseries", as they were called at the time, to encourage women to find work, because there was a labour shortage, particularly during the Second World War.
When thing returned to "normal" after the war, or at least after the Armistice, when people resumed their more traditional roles, the day nurseries were closed because it was then
August 23, 1988

believed that there was less need for them; the day nurseries were closed. But gradually, as women entered the labour force in much larger numbers, the need for day care arose again. And again, the Liberal Party, which was in power, helped set up a system, in co-operation with the provinces, to encourage the development of day care facilities. That is the system which exists to this day.
Mr. Speaker, these days, in 1988, in 44 per cent of families, both parents work outside the home; I am informed that 63.8 per cent of women with children under 16 have a job, which means that two million women with children work outside the home.
Those two million people who are working outside the home require day care spaces for their children. In the large majority of those cases both parents work outside the home. That is actually the case wherever there is a traditional family with both spouses in the home type of unit.
In the cases of sole support parents the decision there is even more crucial. The mother has to work in order to be gainfully employed. As we know, apart from everything else, the cost of living is very high. The traditional system of obtaining funding from the parent who has left in the case of a sole support parent is not functioning. Maintenance orders are not being enforced as they should be enforced. Thus mothers are left without income.
We have a situation in which most women in the country who have children work, either by choice or where there is no choice. Whether it is a case of choice or not, whether they need to work outside the home or not, it is their decision. That is one thing. It is time that we accepted as a society that if a woman wants to work outside the home, or any one of the two parents, they should be able to do so with an established system of offering child care for their children. In the 1850s in Canada under the leadership of Edgerton Ryerson a school system for children aged six and older was established. Society took care of the children for a portion of the day. The children were taught the necessary academic knowledge they required from that age on. In the few years afterwards the system became compulsory. No one questions today whether or not we need a publicly-funded established educational system.
In the case of day care the debate, unfortunately, is still raging on. It deals with whether or not we need day care. I think the answer is fairly obvious with just the statistics that I gave moments ago. We do need a day care system.
But we need a day care system quite different from our educational system. It must be very flexible in order to accommodate the largest number of Canadian families possible. I totally disagree with those who think for one minute that the only way to have a day care system is to have a system in which the state runs it totally from one end of the spectrum to the other similar to our school system. I think it should be
Canada Child Care Act
funded in a way that permits as many families as possible to participate. But it should be flexible to accommodate a large number of Canadians. I would like to elaborate on that.
A day care system should be able to accommodate families in rural settings. That would not necessarily be the same system as one designed to accommodate civil servants who always work the same specified hours of the day. The Liberal Party has recognized that by the tremendous leadership and initiative demonstrated by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Outremont, (Mrs. Pepin), who proposed to us the establishment of a foundation which would oversee the establishment of day care centres in the various regions of our country and which would take into consideration local needs.
I was describing a while ago a potential day care kind of situation in the civil service setting, say in the west end of my constituency where a large number of my electors work here in the city. Perhaps they would require a day care system which would be structured in such a way as to bring their children there at 7.30 or 8 a.m. in the morning and pick them up at 4.30 in the afternoon. In the case of my rural constituents in the farming community that system could be totally different.
First, the traditional farm family cannot be stereotyped the way we are able to do with some families. Sometimes one of the two parents works full time on the farm. Sometimes the other parent works either in the village, town or elsewhere. However, even in the cases in which both parents work on the farm their role on the farm is far different from what it was a number of years ago, with the women often participating directly in the operation of the farm machinery, the actual management of the farm and so on, and not always available in the home as they would have been at some point in the past.
In the agricultural community the system must be able to accommodate the seasonal needs when both parents sometimes work very long hours during a certain period of the year, whether it is at seeding time or harvest time, and then the system would accommodate the fact that during certain periods of the year the need for day care would be less because it would be required for fewer hours.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, just in the examples I have given, a totally structured system designed to be the same for everyone would not be appropriate. Let me give Hon. Members another instance in the constituency which I represent. In the eastern end of my riding there are a number of textile mills. Some of those mills operate in the daytime. Some operate evening shifts. I also have a steel mill in my riding in L'Orignal. It works 24 hours a day with three shifts. Therefore we can see that the child care needs have to be structured in such a way as to accommodate the needs of the various kinds of communities that I have described.
Our caucus has disagreed through our spokesperson on this issue with the proposal of the Government simply because the Government's program fails in many respects. First, we have to remember that the Government is not re-inventing the wheel, it has not discovered the universe. It has not discovered

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
brand new way of providing child care. What the Government has done is to package an announcement, make a Bill around it and do so in a manner that is not totally filled with substance. As a matter of fact, I would say that it is largely devoid of substance. Then it decided that it would make this announcement, pretending that all the funding that it would provide toward day care is something brand new that did not exist in the past.
As my colleague from Outremont, I am sure, would want me to say, that is not the case. The Canada Assistance Plan assists now. It has no capping in terms of maximum funding. Whatever funding the province gives is matched at the present time by the federal Government under this program. What the Conservative program, apart from everything else, fails to do is to provide adequacy in terms of funding. Because of the caps that have been provided, my own Province of Ontario will be losing 12,000 child care spaces. That is far from being an adequate program. Who would think from reading the Government's literature, junk mail and everything else that it produces, that we would end up with fewer child care spaces? The Government does not brag about that.
Unfortunately, the time accorded to me has expired. I want to tell my colleagues in the Elouse that we need more child care spaces. The program must be flexible, but it must be meaningful, and not an empty announcement such as the one we have had.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening on Bill C-144, the Canada Child Care Act. The debate this evening is certainly a hallmark in history when Members of Parliament rise to see who can outdo whom, and who loves children and mothers the most. Surely this must be great news to many children and many mothers and fathers who are seeking child care, and who seem to be the people I meet in my constituency with many concerns.
I rise this evening to speak against the Canada Child Care Act proposed by the Government. Despite the fact that we have heard from other Hon. Members that opposing this Bill seems to be against motherhood, against children, and against choice, I seem to be in very good company. The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, which represents day care associations across Canada, and I am proud to say also from the Yukon, has raised very serious concerns about this Bill, which they have relayed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney).
This association, many of whom are women, but who are a cross-section of people, have stated that this Bill ignores the child care needs of Canadian families, and does not encourage the development of a national child care system. They also acknowledge that child care is an issue of national importance and deserves the full public scrutiny available through the legislative process. Organizations that have joined in this letter to the Prime Minister include the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the National Federation of Nurses Union, and others.
As I reflected on the comments that I would like to make on this issue, having been involved in the child care issue for many years, first with my own children, now with my grandchildren, and certainly as a community advocate, the debate in a sense reminded me of something that Groucho Marx once said. He stated: "This would be a better world for children if parents had to eat the spinach".
I would suggest that if the Prime Minister and his colleagues had to utilize low-quality child care, deal with constantly revolving child caregivers, inadequate child care spaces and facilities, and be forced to pay high child care costs, we may have a very different child care Act before us, and indeed a better world for children.
Other speakers today have stated that, in their constituency, 85 per cent of their constituents are happy with the choices which they have to utilize the child care of their choice. Obviously, we live in very different worlds. It is true that there can be a range of options: Home care, family assistance, neighbours, family day homes, and child care centres. Every one is a possibility, but not all of them are real choices.
I do not need to reiterate that there is a child care crisis in Canada today. The very fact that the Government has brought forth this Bill acknowledges that there is a crisis. I do not think it is very fruitful to debate who cares most about whom, but rather to look at the Bill and see if it will address this crisis. In reviewing how far this Bill will take us in addressing the real crisis, I have to say that in sum this Bill is simply an articulate voice of the past.
Approximately one year ago I had an occasion to read a history of the development of public education in Canada. Many of the arguments put forth tonight about child care in general were arguments that were raised in those debates about public education. As the previous speaker so aptly said, we are not exactly saying that child care will be analogous to the public education system, but there are certain principles which are being advocated, just as were done in the public education system. Those are principles of national standards in order that Canadians and their children from coast to coast will have affordable, accessible child care.
Situations do indeed vary in communities. However, under this Bill there will be 12 different agreements. Again, that is not in and of itself a bad focus, because situations do differ between rural, urban, and appropriate cultural situations. However, covering those separate agreements there must be some type of national focus and standards, as we have very appropriately in other areas, which does not necessarily spell out every factor that will appear in those agreements, but will at least give a framework for a national objective in child care.
August 23, 1988

Situations do vary in communities. For example, in my own constituency of the Yukon, 12 per cent of Yukon families are single parents; 16 per cent of the families in the Yukon operate on the traditional male breadwinner with the female at home full-time model. This is not to denigrate in any way that model. Again, it is the choice that people make, or that they choose to make. It is a valid choice.
However, the problem is that the tax breaks offered in this Bill for a homemaker who stays at home, whether it is a man or a woman, will not benefit those with lower incomes. Obviously, it will be of greater benefit to those with a higher income. Those with a middle income will not benefit nearly as much, as other speakers have pointed out, from this particular tax concession. A tax credit would make more sense if we are to equalize the benefit.
The Bill illustrates that support for the family under this Bill means that there will be no substantive national standards, and that there will be a cap on federal spending. It is important to point out that, in this particular Bill, under the Canada Assistance Plan, as it presently is, jurisdictions must opt out of the Canada Assistance Plan if they are to participate in this Bill. For some jurisdictions this will mean that they have less ability to provide child care rather than more ability.
There is one very important area I would like to bring to the attention of the Government, and I hope it will be discussed thoroughly in committee. It is the provision for native services for individual Indian bands. In an analysis prepared by the legislative library several important concerns are pointed out in that area. That is an area that must be very closely examined and analysed when the Bill is in committee.
This Bill has many inadequacies which have been reiterated many times tonight. It must not be supported in its present form. It must have very full and adequate amendments that will be discussed in committee. Therefore, I cannot support this Bill, as my Party does not, and request that the Government listen to those people in the field who have called this totally unacceptable in meeting child care needs in Canada today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who always likes to wind up the debate, has the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: I listened with great interest to all the speeches, since I make a habit of listening very carefully, when we are considering an important matter, to what Members on both sides of the House have to say.


An Hon. Member:: You wanted to wind up the debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Of course, I could . . . No, I am not going to wind up the debate. But I could of course quote all the
Canada Child Care Act
figures that were given. Some people say: Too much, while others say: Not enough. The statistics... I wonder, considering the little time we have left, whether we should not reflect together on the important subject of day care today.
Instead of dwelling on statistics, on the number of children attending day care centres and how many parents work, I would rather draw the attention of the population and Quebecers who are listening, and of course of Canadians, to the importance of this new phenomenon. Day-care is a new phenomenon. It is a whole new philosophy of life, because Canada is changing. Society changes and we must be prepared to meet the needs of the people. Perhaps I may give you an example. I see my colleague from Quebec who is listening carefully, as usual... Only a few years ago here in the House of Commons, a disabled person could not visit Parliament. Why not? Because we didn't realize that the disabled also had the right to visit Parliament and to have complete access. Why? Because there were stairs all over the place, because there was no way .. .

It was impossible to attend as so many people did tonight. We were not against the handicapped. We did not think of it. We were not prepared for a changing society. Who would have thought that big builders must now provide easy access to buildings? We did not think of it. We were not against people having easy access to any federal, provincial, or municipal building. It did not come to mind that a group of people could not do that. Now people who build must be prepared to provide easy access. In Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and every other city there are sidewalks. Why did we not have easy sidewalk access for people with wheelchairs? We were not against it; we just did not think of it. That was not part of our society then. It was not part of life not to have someone to assist those who were not easily mobile.
Society is changing, Mr. Speaker. I am not against what is being put to the House, but I am not for it. It does not provide for easy access to those who need it. They have a right to expect services from their Government.

So I wonder why this debate is dragging on. It is just because some people still refuse to realize that society has changed. It isn't what it used to be. I come from a family of twelve children. At that time, in my family, we were raised by our parents. And there were people in our family to look after the kids. My father was very busy. He was a doctor. He delivered over 9,000 babies. He was busy, and my mother was involved in all kinds of activities, but there were always people to take care of us at home. Things are different today. Things have changed. Society is different. This means that the federal Government has a duty to provide equal services to all Canadians.

Canada is not made up only of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Canada is made up of Foam Lake, Saskatchewan;

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
North Kapuskasing, Ontario; Thompson, Manitoba; and, my God, name me places that I love to visit in my country. People should expect equal access to services if they are to be comfortable and happy to call themselves Canadians. Otherwise we will hear them say that others are better treated. When people feel that another group is better treated, they start thinking that Canada is not what it should be and it is not equal in all parts of the country. This is a philosophical debate. I know that many Members of this House do not yet have the openness to express what they feel, but that does not mean they are not good Members. They are not yet ready to accept that the good old society to which they were accustomed is not the society that exists today. We must have a program that gives easy and equal access to people and treats those who need it most better than those who can afford certain projects or programs.
People talk about natural resources. Is there a greater resource than our young people? We must be ready to invest in the future of this country. What is better than to invest in our children? They will make this country better known in the world. It will be more open and more generous. Many are not ready to accept that the country is changing. Many are not yet ready, we know here in the House, to accept that more people from other countries will come to this country. The best way to integrate them into Canadian society will be to help them. They should understand that you can have black skin, yellow skin, come from a different culture or follow a different religion. You usually cannot do that when you are past 50. You have to start when you are very young. That is why it is capital-

We must realize that soon we will have to invest a lot of money in what we prize most in our society, our young people.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I hope this debate will soon come to an end, so that we can take this important Bill and consider the details in committee.

We must not have a closed mind. We must be prepared to change, if necessary, in committee. I will conclude because I know my time has expired, but if I may I will just take the 30 seconds left to say that I hope for once that all Members of Parliament start accepting that committee work is not an exercise in frustration. You do not arrive with a Bill, discuss it for three months, and come back to the House with the same Bill. I love doing committee work. I love to listen to my colleagues in every Party who can come up with better proposals than the ones I put forward. If democracy is to listen to people, it is also not to have a closed mind. One must be ready when this project goes to committee to change it.
I see an hon. friend, Mr. Stevens-I like to call Members by their names. We were together on the foreign affairs and national defence committee. We were always ready to listen to good ideas coming from other Members. It seems now that
people have closed minds. They are not ready to go to committee and give up on an old idea by saying that this one is better and therefore that is what I recommend to the House of Commons so that at report stage and third reading there will be a better Bill.
I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to put forward these thoughts, thoughts that are connected with the Bill but that do not deal with exactly how many dollars are involved. God knows you have listened to that for quite some time, and I think you will listen to some more.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-144. It would be appropriate for me to observe at this hour on a Tuesday night that it appears it is only members of the opposition Parties who are joining in the debate. The Tories have given up on it. It is rather a shame, because if they wanted to do something that would be significant, the best thing they could do is to continue making speeches on the importance of child care.
The Bill that is before us does not deserve to be passed if Conservative Members take the principles and the fine words of their speeches seriously. If they want the people of Canada to know how committed they are to all these fine principles of support for the family, they should keep on making speeches. If they continued to make speeches, this Bill, that is designed to damage child care rather than expand it as it needs to be expanded, would be talked out, as it deserves to be. I would encourage all of my Conservative colleagues to get back into the debate, keep it going and talk the Bill out so that it dies the death it so well deserves.
We in the New Democratic Party are profoundly opposed to Bill C-144 and will do all we can to prevent it from becoming law. We are opposed to it because we recognize the very great need for good quality child care that exists and we are convinced that the proposals the Government has put forward in its so-called national strategy on child care will actually produce fewer spaces over the next five or seven years than we will have if we continue with the Canada Assistance Plan arrangements.
The experience of the last four years has shown a growth, on average, of 15 per cent in the number of child care spaces created year by year. The proposal of the Government will limit that to 10 per cent. Surely any plan that purports to meet the needs of families but limits the growth to a lower rate than we have known over the past four years and caps it at that rate is not a plan nor is it a national strategy for child care.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has claimed, as the press has informed us, that he is determined to put this into effect. This indicates to me that this is a Minister with very limited concerns for the children of Canada. He is more concerned about saving the federal Government money. He is quite prepared to write off the
August 23, 1988

enormous need that exists for child care spaces, over and above the limited additions the plan will make. He is more concerned about providing some additional tax breaks, though those are very limited, to middle-class families who manage by one means or another to find some kind of care for their children.
Again, this Minister speaks fine words about the family. However, when it comes to the crunch, it is his responsibility to provide the arrangements that are needed in every province, city, town, and rural area. For all of this talk about $6 billion plus over seven years, that need will not be met. The tragedy of this is surely the enormous need that has developed for child care.
A dozen years ago, perhaps 30 per cent of families with children under three had both parents at work. It is conventional, and I suppose acceptable, to put this in more sexist terms; that is to say, a dozen years ago, only 30 per cent of the mothers and families with children under three were in the workforce. What do we find a dozen years later? We find a doubling of that figure to 60 per cent of mothers who are getting back into the workforce very soon after the births of their children and are looking for care for babies, never mind for children who are two, three, four or are in kindergarten. There are also needs beyond those ages when children are in school. Children who go home from school at 3.30 are alone for an hour or two hours before their parents arrive. This need runs to hundreds of thousands of children.
Let us consider the statistics. There are perhaps 240,000 spaces and 1.6 million children who are under the age of 13. I recognize here that the older children, those who are 10, 11, or 12, should not be left on their own. One worries about them when they are left by themselves for lengthy periods of time.
One can make all the fine speeches in the world about the desirability of mothers being home with their children, and Tories are past masters at making those speeches. However, they have done absolutely nothing positive to encourage or to enable mothers to do that. In fact, the tax increases of SI,000 per year per family of four that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has laid on Canadian families in the three and a half years plus that he has been responsible for the finances of this country, is surely an additional economic pressure that keeps both spouses working. Now a tax break will be added to the existing arrangements of a maximum of $200 per child. How far does $200 per child go toward covering that $1,000 in additional taxation that has been laid on families?
All the fine speeches that Conservatives make have done nothing to assist mothers who wish to stay with their children, to say it in that gender-oriented way again. That is an enormous social tragedy, but the Tories have done nothing about it except to make speeches. Then, when they bring a strategy forward that is designed to deal with it, they produce a plan that over seven years envisions another 200,000 spaces. If the Canada Assistance Plan arrangements continue over that period of time, without the Government's strategy, we
Canada Child Care Act
might actually have over 300,000 spaces brought into existence. The existing arrangements could produce more than 50 per cent more than the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been boasting about as being his strategy for child care.
Those are the reasons why we in the NDP, recognizing what all concerned about the child care have said, oppose the Bill. One needs a real strategy for providing relief of various sorts just to meet those objectives that Conservatives like to talk about so often but which they have done nothing about. Obviously we need a plan that uses money far more carefully, does not squander it in tax expenditures but creates the spaces. We New Democrats think it should be possible to add 50,000 spaces a year to achieve in only four years what the Minister is going to be proud of doing over a seven year period. That is what the people of Canada have to contemplate, a program that will really meet the need and do it in a far more imaginative and creative way than the Minister has laid before this country.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the second time on this legislation because of my conviction this is one of the most important pieces of legislation, Bill C-144, and also because the majority of Canadian and Quebec families feel this is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that is now before us.
Of course, the more I look at it, the more its flaws stand out. One of the most apparent flaws in the Bill has been the perception that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in July added $1 billion because people thought the Minister was adding more money in order to get still more child care spaces. And when we know that in fact, he was adding that kind of money to make the program he tabled in December complete because there had been an error-the original additions were wrong.
So at the start, the expectations were very high and if you look at the legislation, you realize as the majority of people do, and we have been hearing this for a number of days, that over one million children have no child care places. Currently, the Government is offering to create only 200,000 spaces over seven years.
In 1988, we currently have 240,000 licensed day care or unlicensed home care spaces. That the Government is adding 200,000 new spaces over seven years will not help solve the problem in my view, because after seven years we will end up with twice as big a gap as before. And above all, those new spaces will not be created with low- and middle-income family children as a priority.
As we know-and this has been substantiated by a number of studies-a child from a low-income, less educated family that is put into a good day care centre will be motivated, will go to school without being side-tracked, and probably will also

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
be taken off the social welfare ghetto. Therefore, child care is also preventive care.
Currently, the priority that used to be with low- and middle-income families is removed by the legislation. Of course, once that priority is removed it will be a matter of first come, first served.
My concern is that a number of companies intend to set up commercial child care centres, and what can come out of that? We will end up with child care chains, as we have McDonald chains-commercial child care centre chains. We know that currently, proposals to that effect have been submitted to provincial Governments.
And when we know, looking at the legislation, that no quality standards are required from provinces, I am somewhat amazed because when we set up health care, objectives were established. In this case no objectives exist, although this is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
Looking at senior citizens, we realize that currently, according to their financial means, they either have good senior homes or they have homes where they are ill-treated, where the food is bad and where our senior citizens lead a very sad life.
With such a Bill which does not set any standards, we run the risk of having two kinds of day care centres, one for the children of affluent families, and one of poor quality for the children of have-not families. Because no priority is given to low and middle income families, we will be faced again with the same situation as with our senior citizens. As for standards, I insist again that they should be written in the Bill, in the agreement between the Federal and Provincial Governments, because the quality of services may vary from one day care centre to the next in the very same province. I suggest that the Bill should provide for standards because of the money the federal Government is investing in this day care project.
However, glances at this new Bill realizes its significant lack of flexibility. The Government has stated that it wants to create 200,000 spaces over the next seven years. Yet, if you read this Bill carefully, you will realize that part of the money which was not spent on any given year cannot be spent the following year. I choose a number arbitrarily. Suppose, for instance, that a province which had agreed to create 200 day care spaces the first year, could create only 150 and told the federal Government: "Next year, I am going to create 250, because the program will operate better ... ", They will not be able to use us the second year that part of the money which was not spent during the first year, with the result that at the end of seven years, the objective of 200,000 day care spaces might very well not be met. I suggest, therefore, that the federal Government should demonstrate more flexibility, consistent with the provinces' wishes.
I wish to emphasize the fact that this Bill is quite silent about latchkey children. I was here when the Prime Minister told us how important it was to have programs to fight drug abuse and deliquency which start, when the children are left unattended, right between the ages of 6 and 14. In fact, 57 per
cent of all children are left alone and without supervision after school hours. The Province of Quebec was the only province which allowed school principals to keep their facilities open after school hours to offer these children shelter. In fact, clause 2 of this Bill clearly states that there will be cutbacks in education funding, wich means that in a given province, there will be simply 30,000 spaces which will no longer be operational. When I heard the Prime Minister's statement, I felt that the first thing we had to do, as a preventive measure, was to look after these kids, and I just do not see why we could not do it. All the studies and task force reports initiated by both Liberal and Conservative Governments over the years have come up with similar recommendations.
I was a member of the special committee on day care services where representatives of the three political Parties made significant recommendations which the Government did not even consider. Its Bill reflects none of our recommendations. On the contrary, our children are deprived of what they have. After that, what will happen to them? Putting a delinquent child in a foster home costs $40,000 a year. Since the Government realizes that it is a lot of money, we feel that an ounce of prevention would go a long way. It would cost a lot less if we had programs to supervise these children until the age of 14. And it would cost the Government a lot less.
And further on we can see that parental leave has been recommended by a number of commissions. Not a word of this, nothing at all about parental leave. People are being urged to have more children, but the Bill does not even mention parental leave. Like the Rosalie Abella Commission, the Katie Cooke Commission, and the commission made up of Members from all three Parties, we all recommended the same leave extension from 17 to 26 weeks. Instead of maternity leave this would be parental leave so that either parent can remain with the child for 26 weeks after birth. Unfortunately the Government did not see this as a priority and did not even mention it.
Others who have been left out are native children. Indeed, native people made a number of representations when the committee was travelling. They asked for day care centres where, particularly in the case of pre-school children, their culture would not be ignored. Of course, we know they have very particular problems, and there was a time when native children would be taken from their families to be looked after by white non-native people, with the result that they were completely cut off from their own cultural environment.
Mr. Speaker, nor has there been a word about day care centres in the workplace, yet we know the absenteeism rate would be reduced to a minimum and both parents would be able to look after the child. We know that in some provinces, particularly in certain cities in Nova Scotia where the fishing industry is a major employer, both parents have to work during the summer and some of them came to tell the committee that their 11-year-old child had to look after a 2-year-old infant
August 23, 1988

because there is no day care centre. They cannot even get someone to look after them at home. Nothing was said about that either. I am sure you have heard of companies-Lavalin, Bell Canada, Canadian National Bank, to name a few- providing day care centres at work. Why did the federal Government not think of allowing tax deductions for day care facilities in the workplace? I think that is another very important aspect which the new Bill has missed completely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


Lucie Pépin: Two minutes then. I simply want to say that when I ran in 1984 my platform was day care centres and the environment. I will just have to run on the same platform at the next election because I feel that the Conservative Government simply fails to meet the needs of Canadian families with this Bill.


Donald James Johnston: It
may seem odd to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of this House that 1 should have appeared this evening to speak to Bill C-144, but I simply could not resist the temptation. It is well known that I have had major objections to the constitutional proposal, and the Meech Lake Accord, which Members of this House have supported in vast numbers and which is designed to limit the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It seems to me that I should get into this debate about child care. The federal Government, through its taxing and spending power, has the opportunity to establish effective standards and criteria to ensure that child care becomes a reality and responds to the needs to which so many Members of this House have spoken.
I have heard people like my colleague from Saint-Denis and others who would not be expected normally to be involved in these issues recognize the significance of child care, as we all do.
However, some Members are indulging in what I would call intellectual schizophrenia. On the one hand, they support the Meech Lake Accord which tells us that the federal Government will no longer have a role to play in establishing national standards attached to the spending power. On the other hand, they say that we should be telling the provinces that they should be applying standards which meet the demand of Canadian families. Sadly, we cannot have it both ways.
It is perfectly clear to me, as 1 look at Bill C-144 and at the position taken by the Conservatives, that this is very much in the spirit of Meech Lake. I thought I might have to wait many years to turn to Members of this House with whom 1 have had many arguments and be able to say: "Obviously, I was right".
Canada Child Care Act
I did not realize it would be handed to me immediately with Bill C-144.
Bill C-144 is totally in keeping with the spirit of Meech Lake. The federal Government is to tax. The federal Government is to state broad objectives. The federal Government is going to leave it to the provinces to meet the needs of Canadians. It may be different in every province. There will be no national vision. There is a total absence of a national will, about which our former Prime Minister spoke both before the joint committee of the two Houses and the Senate. There is a total absence of a national will to establish effective criteria from coast to coast to ensure that the obvious child care needs of Canadian families are met. This is the spirit of Meech Lake.
I raise this because Meech Lake is not yet a reality. A Senator from the other place said: "This is a seamless web and, if one pulls on one of the strands, the whole thing will unravel". That may be his view, but it should not be the view of Canadians who witness this debate and see for the first time that the federal power, the right in fact of Members of this House of Commons to discuss the social needs of Canadians, is going to become totally academic. Almost no aspect of Canadian life which touches individuals on a daily basis is not within the exclusive jurisdiction under the existing Constitution and by virtue of the judicial interpretation that has been given to that Constitution over many, many years.
Education is totally within provincial jurisdiction. Child care is totally within provincial jurisdiction. The granting councils of which we are so proud that do matching grants with the provinces are totally within provincial jurisdiction. It is only the spending power of the federal Government which has permitted the Government of Canada to establish standards and to provide funds that have protected Canadians, that have helped Canadians, that have reached down to Canadian individuals and provided that balance which is so essential in a federation. However, all of a sudden we are looking at a child care Bill, and we are all concerned. We are transferring billions of dollars to the provinces and as long as it meets some vaguely defined national objectives, agreements yet to be established, we will be satisfied. Well, I am not satisfied, and from the debate in this House I do not think Members are satisfied, either.
I know that Canadians would not be satisfied if they realized the extent to which our capacity as a Government, a federal Government, and this place, to reach into the households of Canadians to help them where they need help with some kind of national standards, is being gutted and destroyed by the constitutional amendment which is moving like a Juggernaut through the process at the present time.
I think it is fortunate that this debate has arisen because we should recognize that we cannot have it both ways. We are going to have a country where we will tax and they will spend, where we will make suggestions but they will decide what the national objectives are to be and what standards are to be applied, and I should say apropos that:

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
In the speech he made at the National Assembly, Mr. Robert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec, said without hesitation that national objectives will be set in consultation with the provinces.

He made it perfectly clear. He hid nothing.
Why are we deluding ourselves? Mr. Bourassa believes that national objectives will not be established in this place. The program will be established by the Parliament of Canada out of the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord, after the provinces have decided what those national objectives are to be. That is the way of the future. Let us not fool ourselves. I think it is wrong.
Many here may think it is right, and I know many who do. That is a legitimate decision and I accept that. If Canadians from coast to coast want the provinces to assume entire exclusive jurisdiction in all matters that affect the daily lives of Canadians in terms of education, research, health, unemployment insurance which never would have been under federal jurisdiction had Meech Lake been in effect in 1940, then they are entitled to it if they want that. However, my concern is that they are unaware of the implications of the constitutional amendment.
This particular legislation with which we are dealing underlines those implications. There are many others. Those who wish to challenge my interpretation of Meech Lake on this subject are perfectly free to do so. However, I can assure you that there are many authorities who would support me, including the Premier of the Province of Quebec himself, according to his words, and others with whom I have had conversations at the provincial level regarding Meech Lake.
Let us go into this with our eyes open. Either we accept that this is the way of the future or, for those who say I am wrong, let us urge the Government once again to make a reference to the Supreme Court to find out what the full implications of the limitations on the federal spending power are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate. While my children are well beyond the stage when we might be using child care facilities, I have grandchildren on the way.
I have listened to members of the opposition Parties criticize the Government's proposal. It is a proposal that will increase the amount of spending for child care from some $170 million a year to $800 million a year. That is a significant increase in spending in this particular area.
The New Democratic Party suggests a program that would be almost like another school system, providing a place for
every child up to the age of 14, including latchkey children. While I agree that it is a major problem, it appears from their approach that New Democrats do not want parents to make their own decisions about how their children are handled. Perhaps they believe that every child must attend in order to be properly developed.
I have great confidence in the ability of parents to decide. I do not want a Government that implements a system in the belief that every child should go to day care and should not stay in a home environment.
Our Party has already done a great deal in the area of child care. For instance, we have increased the refundable child tax credit to parents. This is paid before Christmas, an important time of the year.
Another benefit is the great economic turn-around we have achieved since we became the Government in September, 1984. I am sure the Opposition will want to be reminded that 1.25 million jobs have been created in that time. I remind them that some 800,000 less people are on the poverty list. I remind them of the great confidence Canadians have in Canada, and their willingness to invest and proceed to plan for a strong future. This Bill caps off what we have accomplished in those four years.
One Member suggested that we should push standards on the provinces and that there should not be any services that do not have national standards.
I am a graduate of a university on which Governments have spent moneys for its support. No federal standards were applied to my education, nor to that of doctors or of nurses. There are no standards in the Canada Health Act under which we spend a lot of money. This legislation is no change. It is an example of programs that have been put into our system for many years.
The Liberal Party has proposed alternatives to the Bill but has not really suggested how it would derive the funds or encourage the provinces to co-operate. It has not said how much money it they would have to pay the provinces to produce more of these day care spaces.
I am sure that my colleagues in the Opposition are very eager to have this Bill go to committee where it can be studied properly. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 9, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Gagnon):
That this House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for
the purpose of completion of second reading stage of Bill C-144.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair must rule the motion out of order. The reason is that the mover of the motion said at the end of the motion: "for the purpose of completion of second reading". That is what the Chair finds out of order. He may propose the continuation but not the completion.
August 23, 1988


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member from Saint-Denis (M. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I submit to you with the utmost respect and to the House Leader in a friendly manner that if he has something to say, he should remain in his seat. The same thing goes for the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary. If he has recommendations to make to the Chairman, who knows quite well how to run things, he should know that under our Standing Orders require he should remain in his seat.He has no instruction to give to the Speaker who at this time might want to make a ruling. This applies particularly to the House Leader who has no business going up to the Speaker in order to influence his decision. If he has representations to make, he should make them from his seat. I repeat, I say this in a friendly manner.
Now, since the Hon. Member who spoke before me did not present his motion as he should have, I submit to you respectfully that the Hon. Member who rose now has the right to speak since the Hon. Member who made the proposal, which by the way is not in order, has lost his right to vote by out talking. Any Hon. Member who would like to speak now should be recognized.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Surely to goodness it is appropriate that the Speaker recognize the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who wishes to speak without the intervention of the Government Minister attempting to tell the Table what to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will decide who the Chair recognizes. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 9, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member from Haileybury:
That this House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for
the purpose of consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-144.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It was moved by Mr. O'Neil, seconded by Mr. Gagnon, in accordance with Standing Order 9:
That this House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for
the purposes of consideration of the second reading stage of Bill C-144.
That motion is in order. Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Fewer than 15 Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b) the motion is adopted.
Canada Child Care Act
Motion (Mr. O'Neil) agreed to.


Paul Gagnon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Calgary North on a point of order.


Paul Gagnon: Can you repeat who the seconder was, please?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yourself.


Paul Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I think you should check with the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.
Is the House ready for the question?


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, I strongly recommend that my colleagues from both parties leave the House to protest this mockery of the Standing Orders.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague. I think this is perfectly within the rules. It is an obligation on the part of the Government. What we are dealing with here is the case of children. There has been ample time to debate at second reading. It is time for it to go to committee where there can be consideration of all of the details of the program. If there are problems and flaws, they can be corrected.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is the middle of the summer. We have put up with so much stalling for so many months. That is why the rule is there. That is why we have moved the rule.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Regina East.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, certainly my impulse is to walk out in protest at the abuse, I feel, of the parliamentary tradition and what this House is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead.


An Hon. Member:: No one will miss you.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Rather, Mr. Speaker, we hear the jackasses braying across the way on an extremely important matter. We have seen a cabinet Minister address and scold the Chair not from his proper place. We have seen a Member stand up and move a motion which was ruled out of order. I was standing in my place. I was not recognized. Instead, another government Member was recognized in order to repeat the motion in a proper form.
I suggest that what is happening with the institution of Parliament and particularly what is happening tonight shows how the erosion of this institution has occurred particularly

August 23, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
during these past summer months. The rule book has been torn up because the Government insisted that Parliament sit through the summer. Normally, Parliament would not have sat through the summer because none of the pieces of legislation can surely be considered as crucial. Normally, the rule book would have allowed Parliament to be called back in cases of emergencies. The Government is now insisting that we deal with this legislation tonight. We see this continual erosion of what Parliament is all about. I suggest that it is not surprising coming from the Tories.
We are dealing with an extremely important piece of legislation. It is the child care legislation. I have been a single parent, one of the few male single parents I must say who has had to deal with carrying on with my employment as well as ensuring that there was proper care given to my twin boys when they were younger. I had to deal with the various types of day care that were available to me. I have had my children in private day care, the name of which I picked up from a laundromat. I have had to wait several months before my children could gain access to a co-operative, non-profit day care centre where there was some quality of day care. I had to be concerned with what happens to my children while I had to be off earning an income.
What I experienced as a parent, a single parent, is repeated by hundreds and thousands of parents across the country. We are raising a generation of children whose life patterns and life training is so radically different from anything that has preceded it. Statistics show that some 60 per cent of families in the workforce have two income earners in them, whereas in 1976 that figure was only 30 per cent. We have seen the social and economic and industrial changes all the way starting from the industrial age and that broke up the traditional tribe and the traditional grouping in which children were raised in a sense of community.
We have seen the progression to where, now, even the nuclear family is in many ways threatened. Vast numbers of children are being raised in a single parent situation. As well, those families where there are still two parents in many, many cases, both incomes are needed in order to put the basic roof over their heads and food on the table.
It used to be that one income earner was enough to be able to afford the mortgage and to be able to put food on the table, but in this day and age it is necessary-it is essential-for vast numbers of Canadian families that there be two income earners. If there were only one income earner, hundreds of thousands of families would slip below the poverty line. It is not an easy life. It is not an easy life for working parents. Many of them work in hard jobs where they are on their feet. Very often they work boring, long, gruelling hours, then they must go home and prepare supper for their children, and be able to provide the love and attention and the warmth, the type of emotional nourishment that a child so desperately needs. It is not an easy life.
I am afraid that we are raising thousands of children who will not have had the opportunity to experience the human love and warmth that is so essential for the growth of a human being. I warn that as a country we will pay the price. The lack of the experience of human love creates psychotic behaviour. A psychopath is a person who has not had the experience of human love, and who does not know the difference between right and wrong. They have never had an opportunity to learn that. A human tragedy is in the making. Thousands and thousands of our children are dropped off at centres where there is no licensing and no guarantee of any quality care whatsoever.
I am sure many people who provide private day care facilities are well meaning. I have met many who love the children. Very often there are a dozen or so children in a home and one person cannot deal with all the emotional needs of those 12 children for a working day. It is too much to expect from individual people. That is why it is so essential that we provide quality day care in order that those parents who, through economic necessity have to go out and earn an income, at least know the children are being looked after by caring and qualified people, that the children will not be physically, emotionally, sexually abused or mishandled, and that there is a guarantee that the children will receive quality care while the parents are at work.
I find it unfortunate the manner in which the Government has dealt with this legislation tonight and the very legislation itself. Surely the Government must recognize the need. At least politically perhaps it recognized the need because perhaps the polls indicated it, but the Government's approach to the problem certainly shows that it does not understand what is needed out there. The Government does not understand the terrible hardships that both parents and children are going through. If the Government understood the problem, we would not get this type of legislation in front of us, we would not hear the type of speeches we have heard from government Members, and we would not hear the jackasses braying as they have done tonight.
A society shall be judged on how it treats its old and its young. The Government will be judged on how it treats its old and its young. This is the Government that tried to deindex old age pensions. This is the Government that is passing off a phoney piece of legislation as child care legislation. This is a Government that dares to introduce a motion and suggest that it is doing all those grandiose things for children, while at the same time it actually reduces the number of child care spaces that it will be providing. Under this legislation it will take some seven years to double the number of day care facilities and spaces available. Under the existing system it would take five years to double the number of spaces.
It is with cynicism that the Government has approached a very serious problem that is facing us in a post-industrial society. 1 believe that Members of the Conservative Party in
August 23, 1988

their Conservative thinking feel that we must revert to a traditional society. Even if that could be so, out of choice many of them would question that.
The reality is that most people, not out of conscious choice but out of necessity, find themselves in that situation today because of the social and economic forces of the industrial society. Those same forces started with the industrial revolution, and broke up the community and the tribe. It sent families to live in isolation from each other. It has further eroded families so that aunts and uncles are now spread from coast to coast, and there is not the familial support system that would allow children to be raised in warmth and love from the family. A vacuum has been created in society that must be filled by our collective society as a whole. Unfortunately, what we have in front of us today not only fails to do so, but in a cynical way attempts to take political advantage of the tremendous need that Canadians have, and pretends to do something about a problem, whereas in reality it is doing a disservice rather than a service to the children of our nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Elouse ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Epp (Provencher), seconded by Mr. Wise, moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Canada Child Care Act
Mrs. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Sparrow, moved:
That this question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
During the ringing of the bells:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have been asked by the Acting Whip of the Official Opposition to defer the vote until tomorrow at 3 p.m., and the request has been granted.
It being 10.10 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 24, 1988