1988-08-17

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to protest vigorously against the distribution of Garbage Pail Kids cards in Montreal. These cards, inserted in chewing gum packages, show absolutely disgusting and unacceptable pictures of children. For example, one card shows a baby with its elbow in its behind and its umbilical cord plugged into an electric outlet. Another shows a small boy scalding his hands under a hot water tap and the skin literally melting away. The cards also give reprehensible advice, such as eating until you vomit and watching what has happened to the food consumed.
Mr. Speaker, who has responsibility? According to a Montreal Urban Community police officer, nothing can be done about it. Unfortunately, the prosecutors he consulted told him that there is no legal recourse to stop the distribution of these cards.
Mr. Speaker, we are facing a serious problem. We must put on pressure to stop the distribution of these cards. It is true that children's education plays an important role, but if our laws are powerless to stop the social abuse I described, it is time to change them.
I ask the Conservative Government to investigate the possibility of amending the Criminal Code to prevent the distribution of such material, to stop the abuse of children's rights in the media and to put an end to such disgusting and abusive material.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, word has been received that this morning the President of Pakistan, the United States Ambassador to Pakistan, and 35 other civilians died in a plane crash over Pakistan. Apart from any other consideration, the manner of their deaths must impress all Members of this House and law-abiding and peace loving citizens of this country. We must ask ourselves, in view of the possible assassination, what manner of world this is becoming when any person in a position of public leadership faces the risk that any leader faces today. It causes us to make note of the need for greater security for leaders and to value the peace that is part of this country.
I know that, apart from any political considerations, the sympathies of this country will go to the families concerned.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago Best Outer Wear Limited in Spadina went out of business, stopped making ladies coats, and dismissed 20 workers, owing each an average of $1,000 in back wages. The workers cannot collect their pay because the Bank of Montreal, being the secured creditor, has claimed the company's assets, leaving nothing to pay the workers. This is outrageous because this same Bank of Montreal in 1982 made $239 million profit but paid no taxes at all. In fact, it received a $22 million tax rebate.
This year, according to the Canadian Bankers' Association, none of our banks expects to pay tax. It is unconscionable that workers must pay taxes on their wages to subsidize banks that pay no taxes but the banks then have the power to seize the workers' wages. Canadian banks do the same to the peoples of Latin America where workers and peasants must watch their children suffer malnutrition and disease so that billions of dollars in external debt can be repaid to Canadian banks.
The people of Canada must organize to end these unjust Canadian laws made by the bankers' friends in the House of Commons and the Senate.

August 17, 1988


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the view from the Shadow Lake area, about 11 miles up a mountain in Banff National Park, is magnificent and glorious. For years Bud Brewster has been taking Canadians seven miles up the mountain in a vehicle on a fire road, and then even a man on crutches can go the rest of the way. Thus, scores of seniors have been able to visit Shadow Lake and marvel in ecstasy at this handiwork of God. However, this fall Parks Canada threatens to close the fire road which means that no aged or crippled Canadian will ever again visit Shadow Lake.
In 1979 Parks Canada was stopped by the then Minister of Parks, the Hon. John Fraser, from closing this road. Our national parks are not just for the young and the strong. I plead with the Minister and the Government of Canada to keep this road open so all Canadians, including the aged, the weak, and the crippled, can enjoy our national parks.


ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we attended a press conference that was a real farce. There were the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. de Cotret) and the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt). The three were all there to announce the idea of an entrepreneurship institute.
When journalists asked them about its mandate and budget and what they would do, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism said, "I will get back to you in a month to make an announcement about that." A real farce!
Today, small business is stuck with bank charges, people have to pay twice for a returned cheque, and the Government is dragging its feet. Why don't they announce really necessary things that help small business instead of electioneering, as they did yesterday?


ABORTION
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I read with regret in The Ottawa Citizen, and had it confirmed by the Justice Department, that Justice officials are continuing to try to deny Joe Borowski his day in court. It is regrettable that the obvious bias of some Justice Department officials is continuing to prejudice Mr. Borowski's case which is to come before the Supreme Court in October.
I call on the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to allow due process of law to be carried out in a free and democratic way. I get the distinct impression that Justice officials are afraid of the possible outcome of the Borowski trial and that, indeed, the life of the unborn might be protected under the Charter as Mr. Borowski claims in his submission.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the tragic news that Nelson Mandela has been transferred to a hospital and is seriously ill with tuberculosis, a disease produced by cramped and inhumane prison conditions. The white South African Government still refuses to release him, even on humanitarian grounds. It insists he is a criminal and a terrorist.
The crime for which he has spent the last 25 years in prison was refusing to accept the South African Government's view that blacks are less than equal. Nelson Mandela is a political prisoner. Anyone with a conscience knows that, just as people know who the real criminal and terrorist is in South Africa.
More important, Mandela is a symbol of black South Africans' struggle for justice. His refusal to bend to the racist regime or to be robbed of his human dignity is nothing less than a fiery demand by all black South Africans for full and complete equality, socially, politically, and economically.
The South African Government must release Nelson Mandela, not because he is sick but for the same reason it should free all black South Africans, because it is right. Canada and the world should insist upon it.
August 17, 1988


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the people of Canada that irresponsible municipal government action has created a potential health hazard at Pearson International Airport.
On a daily basis Pearson is producing 40 tonnes of waste. The compactors at the airport can handle only 21 tonnes. It does not take a mathematical genius to conclude that Pearson has 19 tonnes of excess garbage to dispose of each day, every day.
Mounds of garbage already surround the planes and the disposal site. Flies and rats are infesting this refuse. These known carriers of disease pose a grave health hazard to the people working at the airport and in the surrounding area.
A new disposal system is being put in place at Pearson but, temporarily, the garbage must go somewhere. Toronto has an incinerator on Commissioner Street. Despite requests from Pearson Airport, Toronto closed this incinerator.
Hamilton has an incinerator running at 50 per cent capacity only. Why? Because they do not have enough garbage. Yet they refuse to take the garbage from Pearson until they get planes from Pearson.
Toronto and Hamilton's self-serving interests are holding the country to ransom. Their narrow-minded attitude is endangering the health of airport personnel, citizens of Canada, and the agriculture industry at large. Something must be done.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, when the Conservative Government raised taxes on families in 1984 average Canadians asked-


Some Hon. Members:: Where was Brian?


Nelson Andrew Riis: When taxes were raised in 1985-


Some Hon. Members:: Where was Brian?


Nelson Andrew Riis: When taxes were raised in 1986-


Some Hon. Members:: Where was Brian?


Nelson Andrew Riis: When taxes were raised in 1987-


Some Hon. Members:: Where was Brian?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Now the Government intends to add insult to injury by introducing a new everything-included national sales tax. What will this mean for the average Canadian taxpayer?
When you get a haircut, you will pay the new tax. When you buy school supplies for your children, you will pay the new tax. When you go to see a movie or rent a video, you will pay the new tax. When you go to McDonald's, you will pay the new tax. When you buy insurance, you will pay the new tax.
As more and more average Canadians find out about this new Conservative sales tax they are asking-


Some Hon. Members:: Where is Brian?


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the New Democratic Party for his astuteness in encouraging the former Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Howard Pawley of Selkirk, to run in the next federal election. Apparently the NDP consider Mr. Pawley to be a bright light. As the federal MP for that area I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and this House, that the constituents know it is nothing more than low voltage and a dead fuse.
In the last provincial election Manitobans passed judgment on Pawley's NDP Government. At the same time they also passed judgment on one Mr. Sargent-remember?-who was defeated in Pawley's own riding.
In the next federal election Manitobans will have an opportunity to pass judgment on the man whose Party and leadership are sinking dramatically. Please, Mr. B., tell Mr. Pawley to run against me.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment manifests itself in different forms and hits different people in different regions of our country. In Toronto, and in my riding of York West, for instance, I am encountering an alarming number of younger Canadians, fresh from high school, college, or university, who are unable to find job opportunities that suit their academic training and will provide them with the all important on-the-job experience in their chosen profession.
This phenomenon is coupled with the experience of older workers who are being dismissed by employers despite their


COMMONS DEBAT. S
[Stage Direction]
August 17, 1988
Oral Questions
long years of service and experience and now face horrendous difficulties in convincing new firms to invest in their talents.
Their dilemmas are not easy ones. Older workers still have mortgages to pay and families to maintain. The morale and self esteem of young graduates are being shattered every day.
The Government has failed to address these two solitudes in our society. Through innovative employment programs we simply must combat this two-pronged employment malaise so that young Canadians are not denied a place to stand and older workers are not forgotten or abandoned.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Last Friday employees at Simonds Saw in Granby read on the bulletin board next to the "punch" that their employment with the company would end on November 11 this year, because of the company's decision to transfer its operations back to Massachusetts and cover the North American market from its plant in the United States, thus adding 131 Canadians to the ranks of the unemployed.
I sent a telex to the Prime Minister the same day, and I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister: Has he had a chance to look at the possibility of adjustment programs for these workers, a pre-retirement program or even a program to reopen the business with Canadian backing?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with this matter on two occasions this week. I believe the hon. gentleman is referring to the plant in Granby which he falsely stated was to be closed because of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Of course, he has now had to drop those allegations.
All government programs in connection with situations where plants close, for retraining or assistance for workers who are laid off, are in effect under the Department of Employment and Immigration and others. Everything will be done to assist them, as is always the case whenever a plant closes in Canada for whatever reason.
In this case two of the company's four plants are being closed, one in the United States and one in Canada, for reasons, the company says, of economy and greater productivity.
[ Translation]


LOSS OF NUMERONS JOBS IN GRANBY-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACCEPT ITS RESPONSIBILITY
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would really like to have the Prime Minister's attention in this matter which is vitally important, since the 131 victims of free trade down in Granby are in their fifties. There is no pre-retirement progam for these people. As for the programs referred to by the Minister for International Trade, the only programs available are unemployment insurance for 52 weeks and welfare up to 65. I hope the Minister doesn't think these programs are designed to deal with the problems of these people.
Mr. Speaker, the workers at Simonds Saw are not looking for handouts. They didn't ask to have their jobs taken away and transferred to the United States. The workers at Simonds Saw want some consideration from the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who thinks this is a consequence of free trade. Even a supporter of free trade, the PQ MNA for Shefford, wrote to Premier Bourassa saying that manufacturing of knives and saws will be transferred to Fitchburg, Massachusetts, in accordance with the principles of free trade.
Consequently, I want to ask the Government to act responsibly and ask the Prime Minister what he has to say to 131 people who just lost their jobs and who will be out on the street as of November 11.
[DOT] (K20)


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I can speak on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government to these 131 persons to say that we very much regret the fact that they will be unemployed as a result of the decision of this company to close its plant, which has no connection at all to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. This was confirmed by Simonds official J. D. Patry who said there was no connection between the plant closing and the trade deal. He is a native of Granby. He has been laid off himself as the plant comptroller. He said he had no stake in protecting the company, but the position is that there was no connection between the plant closing and the trade deal.
I commiserate with these employees at that plant too because their representative appears to be interested in nothing but attempting to score political points out of their misfortune.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTEREST ITSELF IN SITUATION OF WORKERS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, once again I ask the Prime Minister to show some sympathy and understanding for what happens to ordinary workers.
August 17, 1988

I ask him to remember his own background, because these people could be one of his relatives. They could be from the North Shore.
At this very moment, we have 131 workers in their fifties who were machinists. We know that digital control machines are the way of the future, and that these workers will not be able to work with these new machines.
I want to ask the Prime Minister what he has to say to 131 heads of families who are going to lose their jobs. Will he just continue to ignore them as he did during my first two questions?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will once again point out that the company in question is closing its Portland, Oregon, plant, with western production being consolidated in the company's plant in Vancouver, while in the east it made a decision to continue a plant it has in Massachusetts while closing the plant in Granby.
Everyone in the House can sympathize with the 131 people who will be laid off. I personally sympathize with them, and all government programs will be available to them in securing and helping them in the transition period to other employment. Unfortunately, every year hundreds of thousands of people are laid off. They go on to obtain other jobs. In fact, the figures total several million a year.
In this particular case it is unfortunate that the company decided for economic and overhead reasons to do this, and unfortunate that the Hon. Member is attempting to twist this around for partisan political purposes.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday, when answering a question posed to him concerning the strong bias that was built in against the Province of Manitoba when the Prime Minister announced a guarantee for an aluminum smelter in his riding, the Minister said that the Government was prepared to provide a level playing field, equal treatment for all in order to attract investors.
On the very day that he was making that statement the Minister signed a document from his Department, an industry profile on the aluminum industry, in which he says: "The prospects of expanding ABI's Becancour facility and of constructing a world-scale aluminum plant elsewhere in Quebec are promising. Prospects for new aluminum smelters in Manitoba and British Columbia are less attractive".
Oral Questions
Is that a level playing field when his own Department signs a report designed to give direct instructions to the industry as to where and how it should be investing, and talking about one being promising and the other less attractive? Does that not give total lie and distortion to the comntitment and guarantee given by the Minister, that in fact the Province of Manitoba is not being discriminated against? Is this not a clear distortion of the meaning of a level playing field?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I noted that my hon. friend said in his prefatory remarks that: "The Prime Minister announced a guarantee for an aluminum industry in Quebec". That statement is false from beginning to end.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I made no such statement. My statement is on the record.
What is also on the record in regard to the smelter issue is a statement from Manitoba by Peter MacGuire, Alumax's manager of corporate development. He is promoting the idea of a smelter in Manitoba and says: "I do not think it has an effect one way or the other. We were aware as a company of Sept-Iles and thought it would go ahead regardless of our decision".
These are two different projects, both of which appear to have support and value. One is more further along than the other. One is in the process of submitting a request to provincial and federal Governments. Premier Bourassa and I indicated that among the series of choices in the Province of Quebec which the private consortium was interested in, we indicated our support for Sept-Iles which has some 27 per cent unemployment and has endured very difficult and tough moments.
This in no way precludes the possibility of another group, whose spokesman says that the Sept-Iles decision has no impact on them, coming forward with plans for Manitoba which the Government of Canada, when these plans are brought forward, would look at with consideration and concern and would make sure that the same kinds of programs that were made available to Quebec or British Columbia are made available to the developers in the Province of Manitoba.


MANITOBA PROJECT-REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it will come as some surprise to the people of Sept-Iles whose expectations were raised by the Prime Minister's statement, that the Prime Minister is now retracting the promise and the guarantee he gave in his own riding. If there was ever a clear example of the Prime Minister doing a flip-flop and a changeover, boy do we have it now.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Tell the truth. It is time to tell the truth.

August 17, 1988
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: It is not I, it is the Prime Minister who just changed his mind.


Mr. Dick:: Tell the truth.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let us put the Prime Minister's commitment to the test. A federal official has said that some $82 million would be guaranteed for the aluminum smelter in Quebec. That is fine with us, and a good commitment. Is the Prime Minister prepared today to give exactly the same kind of commitment for financial assistance to build transportation facilities to support the building and development of an aluminum smelter in Manitoba? Will he give the same kind of guarantee in Manitoba that he gave to the Premier of Quebec and his constituents last weekend?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, again I have to tell my hon. friend that his statement is in complete error from beginning to end in regard to-


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us get the transcript.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You mean you are speaking without the transcript?


Lloyd Axworthy: Why do you not read it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have it here and I can assure you that what you just implied about Premier Bourassa and me is completely and flatly wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members will want to put their questions and their responses through the Chair. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to the transcript. I will give him the transcript. It said: "Yesterday in Montreal I met with Premier Bourassa and we discussed the proposal to build an aluminum smelter that is now under study by an international consortium. Of course, the final decision will be made by the investors, but the Premier and I agreed to promote Sept-Iles as the site of the proposed smelter".


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us give the same guarantee to Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Keep going.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be delighted to continue: "The federal Government is monitoring this project's progress with interest. This project being studied by international investors of solid reputation would create many jobs and have a considerable economic impact on Sept-Iles, on the North Shore and all of Quebec. This is another example of how a stable political climate and open markets attract private investment".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We do not have before the Cabinet or the Government of Canada a request from the Government of
Manitoba or the private developers in Manitoba seeking to develop a smelter in Manitoba. As soon as those plans are forthcoming they will be carefully considered and favourably considered, if the objective criteria are met, by the Government of Canada. We are very much interested in the approach that Premier Filmon is bringing to industrial development and clearly it will have very beneficial effect for Manitoba.
My hon. friend refers to the surprise of the people of Sept-Iles.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They will be surprised in hearing a Liberal spokesman today denigrating a legitimate-


Lloyd Axworthy: You retracted your guarantee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -attempt by the Government of Canada to try to get rid of some of the high unemployment. My hon. friend's slogan is "Let the people decide". The Winnipeg Free Press suggests your slogan should be: "Tell the people the truth".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Why do you not tell the people in your riding the truth?


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PROMOTE MANITOBA SITE FOR SMELTER
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister for the most part was careful in what he had to say about this. One of the things that it appears he was careful not to say was that he would be promoting Manitoba as a site for an aluminum smelter. I am not so sure we have the flip-flop here that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry says we have, unless of course we can get the Prime Minister to his feet to say that, indeed, he will be promoting Manitoba as a site for an aluminum smelter.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in fairness, usually a politician does get blamed for what he says. My hon. friend says: "I am now blaming the Prime Minister for what he has been careful not to say".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have a proposal from the Government of Quebec. As the gentleman from Manitoba indicated, they have been aware of the Quebec proposal for many years. It has not been a secret. The private sector representing people from Japan, Europe, the United States, and La Societe generate d'investissements du Quebec, has put together a consortium which proposes to build an aluminum smelter some place in the Province of Quebec. That is one of the proposals.
There is another proposal that had been unsuccessful over some years with the previous Government and which Premier
Wi



August 17, 1988

Filmon is now seeking to resurrect and bring to fruition, which involves the establishment of an aluminum smelter in Manitoba which looks to entirely different markets and entirely different financing-an entirely different approach-both of which are sustainable in a country such as Canada.
My hon. friend asks me to be careful about what not to say. I will tell him what I told Premier Filmon when he raised the matter in a private meeting with me a week ago. It was that when the Government of Manitoba had all the facts and was ready to proceed with some recommendations, the Government of Canada would be delighted to sit down with him as Premier of Manitoba, with his colleagues, to make sure that if they thought this was a deal that would fly in Manitoba the Government of Canada would be there to help them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was careful once again not to say that he would promote the Province of Manitoba as a site for an aluminum smelter.
The Prime Minister continues to maintain, as the Minister did yesterday, that there has been no proposal from Manitoba. This is not a proposal that Premier Filmon has to resurrect. It is a proposal that was made to the Government in the form of the Manitoba Government's submission with respect to the Western Diversification Program, for instance, within the last year, and no answer was ever received from this Government with respect to that proposal until we heard from the Prime Minister in Quebec just the other day.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister for Western Economic Diversification):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be given an opportunity to correct the record. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill points out, it was a proposal that was put forward by the previous New Democratic Government of Manitoba. It was one line on a 19-page document that totalled over a $1 billion request to the Government of Canada for assistance to that provincial Government at that time, including municipal roads, support for all university programs, as well as almost every election commitment made by the New Democrats and unfulfilled over the last elections.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that line before. However, Manitobans know and statistics prove that we have been getting the short end of the stick with respect to the Western Diversification Program for a long time. It has not changed under the current Progressive Conservative Government of Manitoba. Manitoba continues to be done in by this Government.
Oral Questions
I go back to the Prime Minister because I notice he was reluctant to get up a second time. We still have not a commitment from the Prime Minister with respect to the so-called level playing field. We have not a commitment from the Minister or an explanation as to why, on the same day he talked about a level playing field, he released a report which states that the prospects in Manitoba are not as good as they are in Quebec, with no explanation. What was the intention of this, to reinforce the Prime Minister's already predetermined political decision that Quebec and not Manitoba would be favoured for such a smelter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are hearing increasingly disturbing statements by the New Democrats and the Liberal Party critic. I have just come back from a disadvantaged region. Premier Bourassa and myself, reacting to a proposal by an international consortium, quite simply indicated that we favoured Sept-Iles as a potential site for the new plant. Now the Liberals and the New Democrats in the House of Commons apparently want to raise all kinds of concerns about the nature of the project, thereby harming not only Quebec's interests but also the interests of Manitobans. There is no connection between the proposal for Quebec and the project being proposed for Manitoba. The New Democrats and the Liberals seem to think we have to choose between the two, and that if there is one in Quebec, we can't have another one in Manitoba. That is absolutely false. We can have both a fair deal for Quebecers and a fair deal for Manitobans. That is something the Liberals have never understood!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the Government's futile and expensive advertising campaign to con Canadian taxpayers into supporting the free trade deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I have in hand a copy of a newspaper advertisement in which a Winnipeg business woman, Ms. Meghan Grey, is depicted as supporting the Prime Minister's trade deal.
Given that Ms. Grey said in an interview, and I quote: "I still haven't made up my mind. But people who see the ad might think I'm pro free trade, and that isn't the case". Will the Prime Minister immediately order a withdrawal of this ad? Will he apologize to Ms. Grey and to all Canadians who have

August 17, 1988
Oral Questions
been so misled? Will he do what he suggested himself a while ago, tell the truth to Canadians?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the ad in question is an ad that does not advocate free trade. It is an ad that states: "Free trade. We're getting ready now."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The person in the ad describes how they are getting ready for free trade. Then, in the advertisement, more information is available on the free trade agreement, and it gives where one can call toll-free. It is an ad of the Government of Canada.
With respect to the young business woman in question, she has not said that she is displeased with this ad. She has confirmed that she has agreed to further use of the same ad featuring her in other publications. She was never asked to endorse the free trade agreement. She was asked to tell other Canadians how her firm was preparing to take advantage of the opportunities created by the FTA. She knew in advance that the ads were sponsored by the Government. She approved the copy of the ad before it appeared.
We are very happy with the publicity we are getting from this because the truth is coming out, despite the best efforts of the hon. gentleman in the Official Opposition and his Leader who had to be admonished by the Winnipeg Free Press to occasionally tell the truth, and the NDP.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that this ad is not designed to promote free trade. It states: "Canadians are getting ready for free trade. The Government of Canada is there to help."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: What is that if it is not promotion? [Translation]


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Don Boudria: I would like to put my supplementary to the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in two days that the Government has been caught with its pants down. Yesterday, $6.3 million were spent to influence public opinion after a negative poll, and today we have advertisements that are completely false. I want to ask the Conservative Government when the Prime Minister and his Govennment will be frank and honest with Canadians on this issue. When will he call an election?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the advertisement in question states: "Free trade. We're getting ready now". The Canadian business community, small, medium, and larger businesses, are trying to get ready
for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which holds out great possibilities for them, for those who work for them, and for their suppliers. However, they are prevented from getting ready by the Leader of the Opposition and his threat to use the Senate, and by the obstructive tactics of the opposition Parties.
Finally, with respect to this Member, let me just tell him that truth does not lurk in rat holes.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister realize that the chartered banks have just raised their mortgage rate to 12 per cent, following an increase in the bank rate set by the Bank of Canada last week, which means it is getting harder for average Canadians to buy their own home? Does the Minister and does the Government support the Bank of Canada's policy to keep interest rates high and thus increase our mortgage rates?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have commented on a number of occasions on the reason for the monetary policy of the Bank of Canada, which is supported by the Government of Canada, and that is to avoid the very difficult times we had during the 1970s and early 1980s when the previous Government ignored the pressures of inflation that were building at that time which led to 13 per cent inflation rates, and 23 to 25 per cent interest rates. That brought the unemployment rate up to 13 per cent.
I think that we can be judged on the record of our economic policy over the past four years. We have brought the unemployment rate down from 11.7 per cent to 7.9 per cent. We have managed in the broadest sense the economic policy in a way that has resulted in Canada being the number one country of the G-7 countries in economic growth during this period.


POLICY OF BANK OF CANADA
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate increase by the Bank of Canada last week, which has led to 12 per cent interest rates on mortgages for Canadians across the country, touches people who are trying to buy a house in Kamloops, in Alberta, in Chicoutimi, in Moncton, and not only in the area of southern Ontario.
Does the Minister endorse the central bank for Canada becoming the central bank for central Canada, which is what is happening now because the Bank of Canada seems to be directing its policies only to what is happening in southern Ontario.
August 17, 1988

Can the Minister say how high interest rates will go before the Government is prepared to intervene?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that last question is an impossible one to answer. Even he, with his utmost ability and full knowledge of everything that is going to happen in the future, cannot predict what is going to happen to inflation and interest rates, and that goes without saying.
The Hon. Member also knows, and he has discussed this with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, that there cannot be an interest rate policy that is different in different parts of the country. We have a monetary policy which is a national policy. We have regional policies which are devoted to regional concerns. That has been the policy of this Government.


HOUSING
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. Rumours have been flying around Parliament Hill that the Government may make some federal land in Metro available for affordable housing, but rumours are not homes. When will the Government move us from rumours to action?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House on various occasions, we are looking at the federally owned lands in the Metropolitan Toronto area. We appreciate that there is a problem. Under those circumstances, we have asked the various agencies to review their present situations and needs.
I can assure my colleague that when that policy is ready to be divulged we will certainly bring that announcement to the House.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Since December, 1986, the position of the Government has been that banks and trust companies should not be owned by large commercial interests because of the potential for conflict.
In June the Minister signalled a retreat from that, but did not say exactly what he had in mind, or when he would introduce legislation. Although this is not a politically glamorous issue, it is of vital importance to the Canadian
Oral Questions
economy. Will the Minister tell us today exactly what he has in mind?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Government was announced with a draft Bill on trust and loan companies on December 22, 1987. We have also elaborated on it since in a press release in June, to which the Hon. Member refers.
Through Bills C-42 and C-56 we have accomplished excellent protection for depositors, and policy holders. We have improved the supervisory system for our financial institutions. We have put in place a draft Bill on ownership and powers. It is pretty well all completed, and in very short order we hope to have the Bill itself before the House.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the draft legislation is there, but draft legislation is not a Bill.
Since the predecessor of the Minister described this matter as urgent about four years ago, I would like to ask the Minister exactly when he will introduce the Bill.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, it should be appearing very soon. The structure we have in place now protects depositors, protects policy holders, and improves the supervisory system. What we have left to do is to change investment rules and the control and ownership provisions, and that is what we will reveal very shortly.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the Minister advise the House whether or not his Department has agreed not to press charges of price-fixing against a number of real estate boards, provided that the industry as a whole adopted a code of ethics?
Could the Minister also tell us whether or not his Department threatened to investigate an additional five real estate boards if the Canadian Association did not accept that code? If the officials of the Minister's Department did, will he tell us whether or not he supported that decision?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question of the Hon. Member, there was no selective agreement for part of the boards. The new Competition Act passed by this Parliament requires that there be competition in providing real estate brokerage services.

August 17, 1988
Oral Questions
The director is enforcing that, seeking compliance, and doing it through the Canadian Real Estate Association. Ele will proceed to the point to ensure that that compliance is achieved right across the country, as required by law.


PRICE-FIXING-REQUEST THAT CHARGES BE PRESSED
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be aware that a number of boards have stated that they will not comply with the agreement that was worked out last week between department officials and the real estate board.
Could the Minister tell us whether, as a result of the investigations by the RCMP and other officials, there was indeed price-fixing in a number of local real estate boards? Would the Minister advise the House whether he will indeed press charges against those who were guilty of violating the Competition Act, and prosecute them?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, because of the confidentiality provisions contained in the Act I am unable to advise the Hon. Member on specific details of whether there might or might not have been compliance with the Act.
The law is there and the law will be enforced. We are seeking compliance rather than necessarily trying to get convictions. However, the law will be complied with, and the director will ensure that happens.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On July 26 in answer to a question about the proposed purchase of 820 Swedish design all-terrain troop carriers at a cost of $421 million the Minister told the House that the vehicles would cost approximately $170,000 each.
On this basis the actual cost of the vehicles would be approximately $144 million, which leaves $277 million unaccounted for. The Minister had an explanation for this. He stated: "The difference is the difference in exchange rates and the inflation rates during that period," 1993 to 1997.
What type of inflation and exchange rates was the Minister of National Defence predicting for Canada when he told us that $277 million of a $420 million order would be eaten up with inflation and exchange rates?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will have to talk to the person who made those utterances. All I can tell the Hon. Member is that the contract in question was costed in the dollars of 1992
at the beginning of the contract, and spare parts and other costing figures have to be included.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: At this time we would expect him to know that.


TECHNICAL DATA PACKAGE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: The
Minister stated that the Canadian Forces already had 100 of these vehicles. He said that if we were to ask that some be designed, we would have to start from scratch at considerably greater cost. We now learn that the motor is going to be changed because it lacks power and many other adjustments are going to be made to this vehicle. Why did the Minister not tell us about that when we asked about the extra costs?
Why did the Minister not admit that the technical data package is in the Swedish contractor's office and the Minister's own departmental officials must visit the Swedish firm's consultant to get information and look at the plans because these things do not exist in his own Department? Will the Associate Minister now admit that his own Minister did not know what he was talking about when he gave that information to the House?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that the northern all-terrain vehicle is the only one in existence and it is the one manufactured by Sweden. There happens to be a similar prototype on which the Finns are working, but the only one we in Canada have is a Swedish one. The only one in existence is the Swedish one. Four other NATO countries have that same vehicle. It is a very good all-purpose vehicle.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister might note that a recent report issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raises very serious concerns about the building of the Rafferty and Alameda Dam and its effects on water quality. In its report, the Corps of Engineers has rejected the study of the Saskatchewan Government on water quality for being highly simplified, lacking in credibility, and for drawing the wrong conclusions. Why did the Minister issue the licence so that the Saskatchewan Government could start building the dam before the report of the Corps of Engineers was released?
I understand the Minister knew this report was in the making. How can the Minister now trust the Saskatchewan
August 17, 1988

Government to uphold the water quality conditions of the licence?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the Hon. Member that my decision to approve the permit under the International River Improvements Act was not based on the study with which the Corps of Engineers has taken issue. Very stringent environmental conditions were attached to the permit. There were 13 in all. If any one of those conditions is not met by the Province of Saskatchewan, the permit will be revoked and the power plant will be brought to an end.


Mr. Benjamin:: Do you want to bet?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, that is the very question I was posing. The report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shows that the Saskatchewan Government's work in the area in terms of water quality is lacking. How can the Minister trust the Saskatchewan Government to live up to the conditions of the licence when it cannot even produce an honest, unbiased report?


PRESERVATION OF WATER QUALITY IN SOURIS RIVER
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in the same report, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that water quality in the Souris River will be severely affected by building the Rafferty-Alameda Dam and the reservoir. The report states that the final concern expressed is the effect of the project on the water quality leaving the U.S. for Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Speech!


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Boundary Waters Treaty calls for nondegradation of water passed to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Simon Leendert de Jong: This requirement may not be satisfied with the decreased flow regimes. Again, it appears this project will break the Boundary Waters Treaty. How can the Minister allow the Province of Saskatchewan to proceed when the study shows that the water quality indeed will be lowered? Why does he not refer the question of water quality to the-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question has been quite extensive.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member did not listen to my first response. I told him that my decision to issue the permit was not based exclusively on the report he says is flawed. My own Department found the report flawed. We identified some 19 major omissions or problems with the study. On the basis of those 19 flaws, if you will, we specified 13 stringent environmental conditions that would have to be met. If they are not met, the permit will be revoked and the project will be terminated.
Oral Questions ABORTION


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to ask him what his Government's policy is on abortion. After the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the old law almost seven months ago, the Minister of Justice said that legislation would be brought in regulating abortion on an urgent basis and that it would respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada. Since then there have been two wasteful and misguided government initiatives which have failed to produce anything. The Prime Minister now says that legislation will be brought in at an appropriate time.
After seven months of abortion on demand, thanks to this Government, isn't now an appropriate time? When is the Government going to bring in its legislation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a former Solicitor General would ask a question like that, notwithstanding certain important developments before the Supreme Court of Canada in what is a most serious and sensitive issue that has important moral and religious implications for Canadians as a whole and, if I may so, in a very special way for the women of Canada. It is an extremely challenging issue where we would all seek to bring together a position that can be supported by the largest number of people, given the pluralistic society in which we live.
My hon. friend appears to be berating me somewhat for not being more precise than that. I regret that, except to express surprise that he would say that of me when his own Leader indicated that his, his leader's views on this issue were irrelevant.


BOROWSKI HEARING BEFORE SUPREME COURT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Prime Minister, I think, is responsible for the Government of Canada and for legislation that is needed on this subject, and the Leader of the Official Opposition did take a position on the resolutions that were brought forward.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he ran. He wasn't here.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have the communique here. He did take a position on the resolutions. It was the Prime Minister who said he had no position on those resolutions. Then he said he would bring forward legislation. I would like to ask him about the Borowski matter. If the Government has not taken a position, why, with no position, does the Government feel justified in going back to the Supreme Court of Canada a second time to try to prevent a private citizen from having a case heard before the Supreme Court of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Borowski case, the Chief Law Officer of the Crown, the Attorney General of Canada, has

August 17, 1988
Oral Questions
filed, as he must do, a brief in that case setting forth a factum, setting forth the law which the law officers of the Crown feel to be pertinent to the questions in the appeal. His document is a legal submission, Mr. Speaker, not a statement of government policy. It sets forth an analysis of the current state of the law rather than being a statement of what the law might be or should be. That is the position taken by the Attorney General, who, in these matters, must operate independently of the Government. The Government cannot direct the Attorney General, nor the law officers of the Crown, as to what legal opinions they must produce.
They must give their unvarnished legal opinions, undeterred by government policy and separate altogether from any directives or directions of the Government. The Attorney General asked the court to postpone the appeal until Parliament had dealt with the matter so that the questions could be heard in a legislative context. That was his request which the court turned down. The matter is now going forward.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FRASER VALLEY CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
Cable television companies in the Fraser Valley have recently notified their subscribers that they are about to receive additional services. Rates will be increased to cover the cost of three new channels which will be arbitrarily added to the cable service.
In light of the fact that many of my own constituents, especially seniors in the Fraser Valley and I am sure others across the country, do not want the additional channels, could the Minister request the CRTC to re-examine these proposed changes immediately?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to award licences for new specialty services was taken by the CRTC last November. It included in those series of decisions a structure for the imposition of new tariffs regarding the services.
The CRTC also indicated at that time that the carriage of these services would be by cable but it would not be mandatory. In other words, the services would be carried by the cable distributors based on the requirements of the local market.
The CRTC also at that time did a study indicating that it felt that the over-all rate of the increase of the new tariffs would not be excessive, and the Government in responding to
those services and to the appeals therefrom last January did not see fit to vary that decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert, a single question please.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is continuing to reduce services to remote and rural areas of Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: What nonsense.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: My question is for the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion. We have seen a cut in postal and transportation services. Now it has come to light that the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion intends to close its offices in Prince Albert and La Ronge, Saskatchewan, and in Prince George, British Columbia. These DRIE offices administer the special ARDA and the Regional Economic and Development subsidiary agreements.
Instead of forcing northerners to travel many miles to reach other offices and take advantage of the services there, will the Minister make a commitment today that these three offices will remain open as long as these programs are in effect?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would only like to reassure my hon. colleague that the whole thrust of what this Government is doing in the area of regional development is to decentralize the decision-making process so that regions can make their own decisions that have an effect in those regions.
We have done that with the Western Diversification Office, we have done that with the Atlantic agency, we have done that with Northern Ontario, and we have done it with Quebec. That is the spirit in which the whole program is working.
I will be happy to look into those three specific cases, but let me assure my colleague that decentralization on local decisionmaking fits perfectly well with the whole thrust of what we are doing.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North. Then before going into Routine Proceedings, as I think has been arranged among Members, there will be a statement by the Minister for International Trade. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North.
August 17, 1988


AIRPORTS
Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. It is my understanding that today Agriculture Canada was going to announce if it would approve the trucking of excess garbage from Pearson Airport to another province for incineration. Every day 19 tonnes of excess garbage builds up at Pearson Airport. Can the Minister tell us whether permission was granted?
Since Hamilton has the capacity to deal with our waste because its incinerator is running at only 50 per cent capacity, can the Minister assure this House that something will be done to prevent Hamilton from holding the safety of this country for ransom by refusing to alleviate this serious, critical health condition?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the airlines have requested permission of the Department of Agriculture to transport the garbage, both compacted and uncompacted, out of the area.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is the primary responsibility of the Department of Agriculture to ensure that garbage coming in from international flights is handled in such a way that we can ensure there is no danger of any disease being introduced into Canada which could be a threat to the Canadian agricultural community.
I am advised that the Department this afternoon has requested additional information from the airlines with respect to the proposal. If, indeed, that information is provided and is complete and there is a possibility of the garbage being moved out, and assurance that it will be moved out without any risk to the Canadian agricultural community, then a decision will be announced by the end of the week.
I might also note that the federal Minister of Agriculture, according to my understanding, does not have the power to compel the Hamilton community or any other community to accept that garbage. It may be, however, that Premier Peterson and his colleagues have that responsibility should they choose to exercise it.


Mr. Speaker:: As I mentioned, I will recognize the Hon. Minister for International Trade. I think the distinguished spokespersons from the other two Parties will also want to make some remarks. The Hon. Minister.
___________________________________18439
External Affairs EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


TRAGIC DEATH OF PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, I want to say on behalf of the Government and the people of Canada that we are deeply shocked by the news of the tragic death of the President of Pakistan, Zia-ul-Haq and others in an aircraft disaster this morning in Pakistan.
The Government extends its condolences to the people of Pakistan on this sad occasion. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has sent a message of condolence to the Acting President, Ghulam Ishaq Khan. President Zia has had a long and distinguished career in the service of his country. He was deeply committed to the social and economic development of the people of Pakistan and to bringing peace to that troubled area of the world. He will be long remembered for the leadership he provided in assisting the people of Afghanistan in their efforts to restore independence.
His loss comes at a critical time in the history of Pakistan. The Government and people of Canada hope that this tragedy will not affect the further restoration of democracy to Pakistan.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I would like to join in the expression of condolence and sympathy on the death of President Zia of Pakistan.
President Zia was known not only for his commitment to his own country and to the establishment of a better life for the people of that country but also for his efforts on the international stage, particularly in that troubled area of the world in Afghanistan where his efforts contributed to the re-establishment of the independence of that country.
It is ironic that this tragedy occurred just at the end of the week of celebration of the independence of Pakistan. I was myself with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the City of Toronto where we celebrated the independence in City Hall Square, Toronto, in the presence of Mayor Art Eggleton. On that occasion the Minister and myself saw a wonderful demonstration of the loyalty to Canada and of the dedication to peace and security in Pakistan of the thousands and thousands of Torontonians and Canadians who have come to our country from Pakistan and who now make Canada their homeland.
On their behalf and on behalf of other Canadians and in particular of the Official Opposition, I extend our sympathy and condolence.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to join with the Government in its regret at the news of the violent death of the President of Pakistan, President Zia, and others such as the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan in the aircraft disaster this morning.

August 17, 1988
Tabling of Documents
We extend our condolences to the bereaved families involved and to the people of Pakistan. Our thoughts and prayers will be with them in the obviously difficult days which lie ahead. We share the hope, as the Minister himself said, that the road to full restoration of democracy in Pakistan will not be negatively affected by this event.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-4940 to 332-4956 inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, I announced in this place that the major banks had decided to act voluntarily to improve their service to customers. It is with great pleasure that I rise today to present an interim report from the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on the compliance of the six major banks with this policy.
Hon. Members will be pleased to note that the sincere efforts being made by financial institutions to enhance their service have also been affected in the last two months. In addition to eliminating certain charges, the banks are providing enhanced disclosure, notifications, and a complaints mechanism to customers. They are in fact acting in advance of the legislation that I have introduced for this purpose.
I would also like to point out that while trust companies have not been surveyed for this report, the major federally regulated trust companies are taking similar actions to those of the banks, and their compliance with the measures will be examined in short order.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I introduced a Bill to force banks and other financial institutions to institute certain reforms, such as reducing certain charges, providing increased disclosure and providing an effective consumer complaint mechanism. Since my own surveys in the last week and discussions with all the banks have indicated that all six major banks are now fully in compliance with my Bill, I seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw my Bill from the private members' list which is third in order of precedence.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough has risen seeking unanimous consent of the House to withdraw his Bill. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the request of the Hon. Member. I simply want to make the observation that I feel the initiative he took as a private Member actually put teeth into the committee report. While he might be convinced that the banks have indicated that they have backed off sufficiently, I must say that I reluctantly take his word. I do not have the kind of enthusiastic endorsement for that position as he might have. I have some suspicions that we still have some way to go.
He has requested that the Private Member's Bill be withdrawn, since he is the private Member who sponsored the Bill. We will certainly support his request.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request. Is there unanimous consent that the Bill be withdrawn?


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



ORDER OF PRECEDENCE OF BILL C-264

Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Bill C-292 has been withdrawn by unanimous consent of the House, I would like to ask you to seek unanimous consent of the House that Bill C-264, which is presently No. 10 on the private members' list of precedence, be moved up to No. 3 and debated on Monday, August 22 at third reading.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party, now that there is an opportunity with the withdrawal of the Private Member's Bill regarding bank charges to facilitate the processing of this Bill and to participate in the final debate at third reading, that we are prepared to support this request.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party I wish to add our support to the final debate of this particular initiative by the Hon. Member.
August 17, 1988

Motions
We have indicated throughout that we are prepared to cooperate with respect to this particular piece of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the request of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights entitled "Human Rights and Aging in Canada".
In accordance with Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response. This report on human rights and aging in Canada shows that Canadians suffer age discrimination in spite of the Charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act forbidding it. This discrimination is felt in the job market where middle aged and older people find that they are an invisible minority denied opportunity because of prejudice based on age.
The report also focuses on how other human rights are denied older people. It includes 17 recommendations to which the Government is asked to respond.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INDIAN ACT


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: for leave to introduce Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Indian Act (death rules).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications)
asked for leave to introduce Bill C-151, An Act to amend the Radio Act and certain other Acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to give the Minister leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I would now indicate to the House something that I usually indicate on Thursdays. It would be the intention of the Government to call day one of the time allocation debate at report stage on Bill C-130 tomorrow, Thursday, and to call day two on Monday of next week. Under those circumstances that would mean that any required divisions and the concurrence motion under the Order passed yesterday would be at 9.45 p.m. on Monday.
However, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That further to the Order made on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, relating to the report stage of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, at no later than 10:00 p.m. on Monday, August 22, 1988, all questions necessary to dispose of the remaining report stage motions shall be put to the House and any demanded divisions, along with divisions already deferred, shall stand deferred until 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 23, 1988.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposition put forward by the Hon. Minister of State. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
August 17, 1988
Petitions
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Deputy Government House Leader that one appreciates this type of Order to enable us to make the necessary planning, because various Members are in other places other than in the House today.
I wonder if we could make the same request of the Deputy Government House Leader, that he indicate as early as possible when the days for the third reading will also take place, particularly the vote at third reading, again to enable Members of the House of Commons to have ample notification to ensure that they are able to be in Ottawa for that important vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Minister of State deals with the second matter that has been raised, I think I should take the disposition of the House. I gather there was agreement to the suggestion made by the Hon. Minister of State as expressed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.
On the second question, the Hon. Minister of State may wish to comment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, very much so, Mr. Speaker. In order to enable Members to plan their schedules, we will be coming back to the House-if not tomorrow, perhaps early next week-to advise as to when the final two days of debate would take place. I am open to suggestions on how we can accommodate Members voting at that time.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of a number of constituents who feel that Canada needs high quality, accessible, and affordable child care services.
They believe that the Child Care Act presently before the House, which we will be debating later today, contains neither national objectives nor the necessary funding arrangements. It will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care. They also feel that the proposed Act is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families and therefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, it happens that I have a petition from a number of residents of Spadina and
other constituencies in Toronto who are concerned about the trade deal negotiated between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States. They point out that it threatens the fabric of Canadian sovereignty and that the Prime Minister had no mandate to negotiate it in the first place. It would reduce Canada's ability to plan our economic, social, and cultural programs and integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
For those reasons they ask Parliament to ensure that a national debate takes place on the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and that the debate result in a national general election before such an agreement is finalized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a different petition to present. I should have done it at the same time as the previous one, but if I can be recognized I will simply present it now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We can do that by unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, again pursuant to Standing Order 106,1 am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners who believe that the fabric of our society is being threatened by the proposed trade deal. They believe that the Government lacks a mandate to negotiate this trade deal with the U.S. and that the deal will reduce our country's ability to plan our economic, social and cultural future.
There are a number of other concerns, but I will simply summarize their final point by saying that they ask for a national debate to take place on the trade deal and that it result in a national general election before the agreement is finalized.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from a number of people in Canada who have expressed concern with the Government's cut-backs in Canada Post services. They believe that these cutbacks have been detrimental to the service and will consequently be at the expense of consumers. They also believe that many rural post offices are being closed as a result of this policy, cancellation of routes in rural communities have been effected, and there has been a drastic reduction in service for many Canadians.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved services the highest priority of the Canada Post Corporation and abandon the policy of closing rural post offices and urban postal stations.
August 17, 1988


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present three petitions from persons in my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton. Schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada, affecting about 1 per cent of the population, causing severe mental anguish and suffering to patients and their relatives. It costs Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and other support costs.
Schizophrenia patients, their relatives, and friends desperately hope that a cure and method of prevention can be found as soon as possible through larger research efforts dedicated to schizophrenia. The petitioners ask that Parliament ensure that such research efforts reflect the very serious nature of this disease in the future.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege of tabling a petition from many citizens in Toronto and district. They say that whereas the Child Care Act proposed by the Government of Canada contains neither national objectives nor necessary funding arrangements, will not ensure that families have access to high quality child care, and whereas the Act is not in the best interests of young children, women, or families, therefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by over 300 residents of southwestern Saskatchewan who express concern over any possible transfer of jurisdiction over irrigation projects in that area from the PFRA to the Saskatchewan Water Corporation. The petitioners point out that this area of southwestern Saskatchewan is drought prone. It is a dry and arid area within the Palliser Triangle, and the management of water is especially important.
They note that the PFRA, for over 50 years, has maintained and operated the irrigation projects in the area in a very satisfactory manner. Accordingly they point out that it is not in the best interests of farm families, small businesses, or rural communities to transfer the administration of and responsibility for irrigation projects in the area from the PFRA to the Saskatchewan Water Corporation.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to retain the PFRA in its present form.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House, comprising approximately 1,500 names from the Province of Nova Scotia
Order Paper Questions
primarily, dealing with the trade deal which the Government signed with the U.S.
The petitioners indicate their view that when an issue of such fundamental importance to the future of Canada, as is this proposed trade pact with the U.S., comes before the House of Commons it deserves the fullest possible examination and should not be put into effect before an election permits the people to have a say on the subject.
I also have a petition in a different form from, again, mostly people in Nova Scotia but some in Ottawa as well, perhaps another 250 people who make the point that this proposed trade deal would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would deny Canadians the secure access which was sought to the U.S. market. Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to permit the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the trade agreement.


Mr. Anthony Roman (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the York Region Friends of Schizophrenia. They wish to remind Members that schizophrenia is a major illness in Canada, affecting about 1 per cent of the population, causing severe mental anguish and suffering to the patients and their relatives, and costing Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and other support costs. They specifically request that research efforts related to schizophrenia be commensurate with the seriousness of the illness.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 384 will be answered today.


Mr. Malone: Since the 80-20 formula under the Fuel Tax Rebate Program was implemented on June 26, 1986, has the government (a) received any revenue from farm fuel taxes and, if so, in what amount (b) incurred costs for auditing and administering the taxable portion of farm fuels and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: The guidelines for use of the 80-20 formula which the Minister of National Revenue issued on June 26, 1986, simplified claim procedures and the paper burden for farmers who are eligible for the federal fuel tax rebate program. It is not the policy of the department to assess farmers on the basis of the 80-20

August 17, 1988
Order Paper Questions
formula where farmers have documentation to substantiate the fuel used on highway which is not eligible for the fuel tax rebate. The formula is used for audit only in those instances where farmers use fuel which is eligible for the fuel tax rebate in vehicles licenced for highway use and have no documentation of such highway use of fuel.
Assessments and reductions in amounts claimed by farmers including field audit costs for fiscal years 1986-87 and 1987-88 were as follows:
Fiscal Year	Assessment/Reduction	Field Audit Costs1986-87	$1,142,747.13	$183,4951987-88	$1,209,029.19	$169,381Total	$2,351,776.32	$352,876


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary will know, as does the Deputy Government House Leader, that Question No. 289 standing in my name has been on the Order Paper since March 15, 1988. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Standing Orders of this House permit the Government only 45 days to respond to a question asked by an Hon. Member. I know that the question I have asked is a terrible embarrassment to the Government, but there is no provision in the rules to allow the Government a greater length of time to answer embarrassing questions.
Why is it that by strange coincidence this very embarrassing question has not been responded to? Why are the rules of the House being breached in such a cavalier manner by the Tories?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's behaviour is consistent. He has classified the answer as embarrassing to the Government at the same time as saying that he has not seen the answer. He does not have it because the Government has not provided it. That is consistent with his behaviour over four years. I have watched it time and time again. The Member reaches conclusions on the absence of information, the fabrication of information, and the total creation of information.
In that the Member has the right to ask about the answer to that question-


Don Boudria: I have a right to a response.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -I will undertake to find out exactly what the problem is in terms of answering Question No. 289.1 point out that as of August 12 we had answered 93.1 per cent of the questions presented to us. That is a much better record, indeed a fabulous record compared to the record of his Government when it was in control of this Chamber. However, I do not accept the notion that he can classify an answer he has not received as embarrassing to the Government. That is a total fabrication which should be brought to the attention of the Canadian people right now.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the question to which I am referring is about Mr. Jean Sirois of Quebec. All Canadians will understand that Mr. Jean Sirois is a political embarrassment to the Government. That is not a secret from anyone, regardless of what the answer will contain.
I will agree to allow the questions to stand, provided that the Government respects the rules adopted unanimously by the House wherein there is no provision not to respond to questions within 45 days. It is not good enough to say that the Government is only delinquent seven times out of ten or six times out of ten, or whatever it is. It should observe the rules all the time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would like to make a short comment to end this matter.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I will try to bring it to a conclusion. I have stood in this Chamber before and answered the inquiries of opposition Members about questions which were slow to be answered. I have told this Chamber, and that Member in particular, that when questions are asked which involve inquiries of every single Department of the Government and every single budget of the Government, it is going to take longer to get an answer. If a series of questions were asked with respect to one Department at a time, we would be in a position to answer more quickly. When the question is asked with regard to every single Department of the Government, we cannot answer the question until we have all the answers back from all the Departments.
Without even making inquiries, I know that part of the problem was created by the form of the question, and the Member has been warned about using that form of question.


Don Boudria: You have been warned to respect the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to provide the answer as soon as possible.

The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the other questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
August 17, 1988


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to page 18401 of Hansard which reports the speech I made in this Chamber yesterday. During the course of that speech I said that the Opposition, through its dilatory tactics, was wasting the time of this Chamber at about the rate of a half million dollars a day.
When I read Hansard this morning I saw that it says "$500 million a day". That is a bit of an exaggeration. If it cost $500 million a day to run this Chamber throughout the sitting days in a normal year that would be very close to the total federal Budget. That is a bit extravagant even for the Parliament of Canada. I listened to the tape and I did say "half a million dollars a day". I suggest that the Hansard staff might correct that to read "$500,000 a day" in both the French and English Hansard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has done some calculations on what our efforts to stop the jamming of this trade legislation through the House of Commons has cost. Has he calculated what it cost the taxpayers of Canada when the Conservative Party of Canada closed down the House of Commons for 16 days and made it impossible for the House of Commons to run day after day after day? Has he made that calculation yet?


Don Boudria: What about when they stormed the Speaker's chair? What did that cost?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, August 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) that Bill C-144,
Canada Child Care Act
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.
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-144, the Canada child care Bill. It is a double pleasure in that I was part of the special committee which was formed in 1986 and travelled the country to study this very important question and that I took part in the deliberations and putting together of a report for the Minister. While it was not a unanimous report it was, nonetheless, a majority report which has met with very favourable comment from practically all the provinces. The provinces are responding very favourably to the negotiations which are being undertaken by the Minister.
I would like to outline briefly some of the main parts of this Bill. Some $2.3 billion of tax benefits will be spread over one million families. There is a $100 million child care initiatives fund to support applied research and innovation of Canadian child care. There is also $60 million to stimulate the development of accredited on reserve day care for Indian children.
Within the system itself is contained 50 per cent of the provincial and territorial operating costs of their non-profit and commercial services, as well as 75 per cent of the capital costs for non-profit day care services, in other words, to grow more spaces. There is also a special provision for the topping up of this 75 per cent to as high as 90 per cent for those provinces which are not up to speed on child care due to their inability to fund. This will enable those provinces to catch up on their child care expenditures.
In a national child care strategy there is no one single facet with meets the needs of every person. In the final decision child care must rest with parents, and it behoves governments to support parents in their choices.
This afternoon I would like to speak in terms of the criticism which has been brought before the Canadian public of the national child care strategy. It has been argued that more could have been achieved for child care by simply making changes to the Canada Assistance Plan, better known as CAP. This view is far too simplistic.
As we studied the needs of Canadians and looked at all the presentations that came before us, one could rationalize how to assist and make more happen by using the CAP system. When one delves into it, one has to consider why CAP was established and what was its purpose. CAP is a generic act in the sense that its provisions cover the full range of social assistance and welfare service costs which the federal Government shares with the provinces and the territories. To begin to introduce into CAP the new provisions found in the Canada Child Care Act would have resulted in radical changes to the tried and

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
true provisions of CAP. It was wiser and more responsible to create a new instrument to share in the costs of provincial day care services.
The flexibility and benefits afforded provinces and territories are clearer and greater. We are very cognizant of the fact that the application of child care is a provincial matter. It behoves us as the federal Government not to impinge on the responsibilities of the provinces. I am sure the provinces would not have thanked us if we tried to introduce a measure that would dictate to them something under their jurisdiction.
Consider the benefits which this new Act offers. Sharing in day care services under CAP is limited mainly to the cost of non-profit agencies. Services purchased from the commercial sector can be shared only on behalf of families who qualify for social assistance. Forty per cent of Canadian day care spaces are provided by the commercial sector. Under the Canada child care Bill the federal Government will now share in the cost of provincial operating subsidies to both commercial and non-profit agencies. It does not tell the provinces that they cannot share in profit and non-profit. It leaves the option open to them.
CAP sharing is restricted to subsidies to low income families and those who qualify for social assistance. Under the Canada child care Bill, all children under the age of 15 years are eligible clients. There is no requirement for provinces to needs test or income test the parents of these children. It will be up to parents whether they want to avail themselves of it. The choice is up to the province as well. Our Government believes in people making choices. It is not up to the Government to dictate what these choices should be.
Except in a limited way, CAP does not share in provincial capital expenditures to create and renovate day care spaces. Under the Canada Child Care Act, the federal Government will share 75 per cent of provincial and territorial capital grants and subsidies to their non-profit sectors.
Some provinces have not been able to keep pace with other provinces in their expenditures per child on the creation and maintenance of their child care systems. CAP cannot help them catch up. The Canada child care Bill contains provisions whereby such provinces may qualify for enhanced levels of cost sharing as they catch up. Indeed, they may qualify for a maximum federal contribution to their eligible expenditures of 90 per cent. Under such an agreement, a province would only have to put up one dime for every dollar spent on child care within its borders.
As I noted earlier, CAP shares in a range of services. Additional services under the Canada child care Bill shall be resource and referral services to assist parents so that they can find and obtain quality day care for their children. Also included are public education programs so that parents can be informed of what to look for in a child care agency. Such services will assist parents to be better consumers and to be more demanding of the quality of care for their children.
There has been much discussion of child care standards. There should be consideration of this important matter, but there is no requirement of or reference to standards under CAP. The Canada child care Bill clearly requires as a condition of cost sharing that provinces and territories establish a statutory basis for standards of care in their legislation or regulations, that their standards be publicized and enforced, and that they provide evidence that those standards are being enforced.
Finally, the financial benefits to provinces and territories of the Canada child care Bill are important. Under CAP the federal Government presently shares about 35 per cent of national expenditures on child care, largely because there are limits on the kind of costs which can be shared with the provinces. Through the first seven years under the new Act the federal Government will share in more than 50 per cent of those expenditures and at least 50 per cent in subsequent years.
The federal contributions to provincial and territorial day care costs will increase about twofold in the first year under the new Act and will increase about fivefold in the seventh year.
Finally, it has been repeatedly argued in the House that more new spaces would have been created under CAP than under the new Act. Those who have advanced this argument have obviously not spoken to provincial and territorial Governments.
It is true that the number of day care spaces has increased markedly in recent years. Governments can be proud of this growth and how it reflects their commitment to child care. However, the provinces and territories told us that they could not continue to support recent rates of growth unless new money was injected into the child care sector.
In other words, the growth of day care under CAP had about reached its limits. That is why the Canada child care Bill is before us, to provide the kind of funding that CAP could not. It is to enhance the capacity of provinces to maintain and in some cases accelerate the rates of growth of child care.
In my estimation the advantages of the Canada child care Bill are clear. It will produce more and better day care for Canadian children than could have been achieved under CAP. It has taken us some 15 years to create the first 200,000 subsidized day care spaces in Canada. Under this new Bill it will only take seven years to double the number of spaces.
We also discovered as we travelled across the country that there was not a consensus on to how a solution should be brought about. People suggested that they wanted to be able to have assistance with what would happen to their children. This Bill allows people to have that input. It also takes into consideration the responsibility of the provinces and asks for the co-operation of the provinces.

August 17, 1988

It is with pleasure that I heartily endorse the Bill before us today and ask the House to send it to committee so that we can ensure that the legislation is finalized and put into law.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this Conservative Bill and this Conservative child care program will not meet the needs for accessible quality child care in Canada. We have heard a lot of rhetoric by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) exaggerating the benefits of this Bill. However it is mostly just that, rhetoric and window-dressing.
There is no doubt that this Bill will make some slight improvement in child care in Canada, but on the whole the policy is wrong and the program is inadequate. This Bill will not do the job.
The House may ask why this Bill will not do the job. In a nutshell, the Bill provides for 200,000 new subsidized child care spaces in Canada over a period of seven years. However, there is a need in Canada for two million spaces. There are presently over two million Canadian women in the workforce with children under 16 years. Almost one-half are mothers of pre-schoolers who require all-day care. That is why so many day care associations and day care groups in this group have criticized the program. I have here several telegrams and letters from day care groups all across the country asking us not to pass this legislation. In fact, about 30 minutes ago, various Members of this House introduced petitions asking that this House not pass this Bill.
While the Government will be spending $6.4 billion on this program over seven years-not in one year-$2.3 billion of that amount will go to tax assistance, not to increasing child care spaces which is the greatest need. There are presently about 240,000 subsidized child care spaces in Canada. This Bill would provide another 200,000 over seven years, but there is a need for two billion spaces. More seriously, the $2.3 billion in tax assistance will give greater benefit to rich mothers rather than to poor mothers. Again, the greatest need is being ignored. At the present time child care money is being provided through the Canada Assistance Plan. While that system is obviously inadequate, it at least ensures that the money goes to those in greatest need. Under the Canada Assistance Plan the money goes to those Canadian mothers and families with the greatest need, but under the new program there is no such assurance.
The Prime Minister and his Ministers brag about this program, claiming what a great improvement it is because of the provision of $6.4 billion over seven years. It sounds like a lot of money, but when this Government will spend over $8 billion on 10 nuclear submarines, we can obviously see it is not very much. It shows where this Government's priorities are. It is proposing to spend over $8 billion on 10 nuclear submarines and only $6.4 billion over seven years on child care. That will
Canada Child Care Act
not do the job. It will only provide for 200,000 spaces. If the Government is going to do a job for day care, one would think it would do it right.
We had a task force on child care which was appointed by the Trudeau Government during the last Parliament and headed by Katie Cooke. The task force reported to the new Conservative Government in 1986. Its report recommended that we have a national, fully publicly funded, provincially run child care system taking the present health care and education systems as a model. I ask Members of this House and the public to think about that for a moment.
We have had public education in Canada going back to the early 1920s, and in some provinces before that. At one time, I suppose before the First World War, most education was private. People had to pay. However Canadians decided that public universal education was necessary, and now all children aged five years or over go to public schools free of charge and those schools are paid for by tax money. We would not for one moment think of doing away with that system. I ask Canadians and Members of this House to think of day care in those terms. What we can do is extend that principle whereby we will have facilities for children less than five years of age who do not go to school. We will have facilities and personnel to take care of them while their mothers and fathers are at work, because most of them have to work, and these children can be taken care of in a proper environment.
We accept public education for children from about five years to twenty years, and I think public day care should be an extension of that concept. In this respect, it is rather upsetting to me when I see schools being boarded up or torn down because they are no longer necessary. It would seem to me that we could put those older schools to good use as child care centres and other community organizations. I know that is done in some places, but I still see too many schools which no longer serve a large enough child population being boarded up. Of course, I would also like to see our churches, shopping centres, and so on providing child care centres.
Some Conservative Members in this debate have asked how the Liberals can criticize this program, that when they were in office they did not do as much. In fact, one or two Members have wrongly said that we were in office for 20 years and did nothing. When I came to this House 23 years ago, child care was not an issue. There was not the demand of the 1980s. In the late 1950s and early 1960s there were larger families, fewer single mothers, and fewer mothers in the workforce. In fact, in the 1950s and early 1960s, a greater percentage of mothers stayed at home with their children. However, as we went into the 1970s, there were major social, demographic, and economic changes. Women entered the workforce in greater and greater numbers. Liberal Governments which were faced with that situation responded with tax breaks for child care, first deductions and then tax credits. Then the regulations for the Canada Assistance Plan were amended so that child care centres could be funded under the Canada Assistance Plan.

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Finally, the Liberal Government undertook a program of encouraging child care in places of work, including work places under the federal Government. As we came into the election of 1984, that is what was being done. We had a program of tax breaks for child care. We had child care centres financed through the Canada Assistance Plan and we had certain policies for encouraging child care centres in work places and commercial centres.
As we went into the 1980s, it became obvious that this sort of program was not adequate. That is why former Prime Minister Trudeau appointed Katie Cooke to head up a task force to examine how we might put in place a national day care program. In the 1984 election campaign, in that famous women's debate, all Parties promised improvements in dealing with the day care situation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives won that election with an overwhelming majority, and since 1984 we have been waiting for them to carry out the promises they made in that election campaign. Four years went by and we did not get a Bill on this issue until July 25, 1988, just about a month ago. Perhaps negotiations and some spade work was going on behind the scenes, but in fact we had no new programs put into effect until this Bill on July 25, one month ago.
The Conservatives have spent almost four years preparing a program they promised in 1984, and it ends up being a half measure, a measure which will not do the job adequately. When Liberal Governments brought in medicare in 1966 they did it right. They did not bring in a half measure. They brought in a program that has turned out to be one of the best medicare programs in the world. It is a universal, comprehensive, portable, publicly funded program.
While those four principles are laid down in the federal legislation, and the federal Government funds the provincial programs up to 50 per cent, medicare is administered by the provinces. Medical health care is principally a provincial area of jurisdiction, but nevertheless the federal Government is funding medicare and stimulates the creation of the medicare program through that federal legislation and provides the four principles in the legislation which the provinces had to meet in order to get the federal money.
Beyond that, when certain Tory Governments in the 1980s tried to circumvent those principles by permitting extra billing and user fees in the last Parliament, a Liberal Government stopped that to keep the program public and universal. I simply refer to the medicare program to point out that that is the way we did it on medicare. We would approach day care in the same way.
As I said, this Bill is a half measure. It only provides for about 10 per cent of the spaces that are required. It does not help those who need help most. It contains no national objectives or guiding principles to assure equality of treatment in all provinces. It does not deal at all with the problem of
latchkey children, that is, younger children who go to school in the daytime but must go home to an empty house where there is no mother and father because the mother and father are working, usually because they have to work to make ends meet. These children are left alone from 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. until the parents come home. There is no provision in the Bill for that, although it was recommended that something be done.
Finally, this Bill contains a ceiling on what can be spent for child care centres, a ceiling which did not exist before.
We have had a great deal of Tory rhetoric during this debate about this Bill. But when all is said and done, if the Bill is passed there will still be a crying need for quality child care in Canada. There will still be a crying need for child care in Canada because it will only deal with about 10 per cent of the problem. This Bill will not do the job.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). I was quite intrigued with his conclusion that two million spaces are needed. He is assuming that everyone who works wants to have their children in a day care program. That is not the case.
He also went on at great lengths about the Katie Cooke task force and its report. Yet I find it ironic in that he forgot to mention the dollar figure that is attached to that report. The report recommended that a universal system be put into place which would cost up to $8 billion per year for the two senior levels of government. I guess this is the irresponsibility of the Liberal Party that it does not matter how much one spends and how big the deficit grows. However, we are trying to work within fiscal responsibility. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) whom we have had for this past four years has hit his targets every time he has put before this House his Budget in terms of the amount of reduction of the growth of the deficit. The deficit is still with us and still growing. We have brought forward a Bill which deals within the fiscal framework of what we have in our country.
Are the Liberals not aware that the Hon. Member mentioned a good suggestion which I might point out about the schools that are closed and which could be converted to day care centres? I see nothing in this legislation that would not permit a non-profit organization from putting the capital costs it is eligible to receive through its provincial system for renovating schools into this system. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if Liberals are not aware that that provision is there. Churches can do it. Any non-profit organization can take advantage of the capital costs that are available to them.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, yes, I was aware of that. In my remarks I was simply deploring the fact that too often school buildings are closed and are not used for community purposes.
August 17, 1988

With respect to the main point in the Hon. Member's question concerning the cost of the program, my understanding is that the Katie Cooke program-and she mentioned the figure herself-would cost about $9 billion. While I think the principal recommendations in the Katie Cooke report are worth while to consider, we in the Liberal Party have not accepted the total proposal of that report. We believe in our alternative plan, a plan that was put out by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) entitled "Choices for child care now and in the future, a Liberal minority report on child care". We propose that people in the upper income brackets pay up to at least 50 per cent of the costs out of their own pockets. We also suggest that there should be refundable tax credits in place of tax deductions. This is one of my criticisms of the Bill before us.
In the Bill before us we are concerned about the money being spent. Part of the money, as I pointed out, is about $2.3 billion which is through tax deductions and tax credits. We do not believe that tax deductions are a proper way to go because tax deductions help those in the upper income brackets rather than those in the lower income brackets. Our plan would be restricted to tax credits, refundable tax credits which would help those in the lower income brackets rather than those in the upper income brackets.
It becomes not simply a question of spending large sums of money, but it becomes a question of how we spend the limited amount of money we have so that we best meet the needs of the Canadian population. The principal need right now is to increase the number of spaces and to help those on lower and middle incomes. A lot of the need is with respect to single mothers who must go out to work if they are going to stay off welfare. I think we would all encourage that they work rather than stay on welfare. Their incomes on the whole are much lower than those of men and other women. Thus, if we are to use the money available in the best possible way, then we should not have tax deductions. We should have a full tax credit system combined with moneys that will increase the number of spaces.
I just want to make clear that therefore our alternative is partially based on Katie Cooke's report but not totally.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a credibility problem. In the old days he had his interests in the manpower policy. We had 10 per cent of the unemployed people in the country living in the Province of Alberta, and he supported a Government that gave us 1 per cent of the funds. That was his view of what was best for all Canadians.
He made clear to this Chamber today that he thought what this Government was doing was not sufficient and that it should spend better. Child tax credits are better than deductions.
When this system is in place, child tax credits will double for lower income Canadians. Those with young children will get double what the Hon. Member's Government made available.
Canada Child Care Act
Child services in the next six years will be better than double what was provided in the last six years of his Government. How can the Hon. Member stand in this Chamber and tell us we are not doing enough without providing this Chamber with solid evidence that he severely condemns the Liberal Government in terms of child care? If doubling is not enough on the two things the Hon. Member thinks are more important, how could he have stayed in the Chamber over 15 or 20 years and supported the previous Government and what it was doing for children?
The Hon. Member states that it is not enough and that we need two million new places. I challenge him to stand in the Chamber and tell us what is his schedule for providing two million new spaces, and then tell us the cost. Is the money to be borrowed in order that future generations, those same children, have to pay the interest on the public debt, or will some other services be cut in the system? Will the Hon. Member tell us what the cost will be for the two million new spaces, how the money will be found, and what the schedule will be to produce those spaces?


William Warren Allmand: In my remarks I explained that the whole problem of child care has been a developing question. When I first came to Parliament in 1965 it was not an issue. It became an issue through the 1970s, and it became more acute in the 1980s because there were more single mothers, smaller families, and more mothers were working. As a result, in the last Parliament the Liberal Government, recognizing that what was in place was not adequate, appointed the Katie Cooke task force. There was a clear recognition that what we had tried up to that time was not adequate. First, we met the problem with tax deductions and tax credits, and then we moved to the Canada Assistance Plan. I was in the House and there was not a hue and cry from Conservative Members at that time to go much beyond that because the demand was developing. However, in the 1980s it became pretty clear that the demographics and social situation in Canada had changed. That is why the previous Government appointed the Katie Cooke task force. I do not favour all her recommendations, as I said to the Hon. Member on the last question. As the problem became more acute what we tried before was not adequate.
In the federal election in 1984, in the famous women's debate, all Parties promised to deal with this growing problem in a more responsible and adequate manner. We have an alternative program. Anyone can have a copy of the Liberal Party policy on child care by contacting our Party or the Hon. Member for Outremont. When we did our calculations it came to approximately $5 billion, but that has to be updated.
I find it amusing that the Parliamentary Secretary asks that question, because with all the resources of the Government it took it four years to put in place its policy after negotiating with the provinces. When the Minister first announced the policy in January, the provinces told him that was not enough,

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
so he had to amend his proposals and add more money. Obviously it is not easy to cost these proposals. I want to assure the Hon. Member that we will update our costing on this proposal shortly, and when we go into an election it will be very specific with respect to costing.
The program being put forward by the Conservative Government is a half measure and it will not do the job. If it is passed as it is, there will still be a hue and cry in the country for something more adequate. We are committed to filling that need over a period of time. The Government is taking seven years in this particular program and I presume that that would be a first stage. Obviously it has to be staged, and even the new New Democratic proposal is over a four-year period. It is obvious that this cannot be done overnight.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: I would like to ask the Hon. Member one question. In the minority report of the Liberal Party on child care, the Party committed itself to expansion of child care in those years where the federal deficit would go down. That is contained in the report. Since 1969, when the Liberals have been in office, the deficit has gone up every year except in 1979 when they were in office for three months of those twelve months. Could the Member explain how the Liberal Party intends to expand child care if those conditions prevail?


William Warren Allmand: I agree with the Hon. Member that it could not be expanded very much under those conditions. There has been an update and in the update that is not contained, and this is made even more specific. The minority report was published in March, 1987, following the report of the Martin committee. It is fairly obvious, if there is going to be a national program with so many unforeseen emergencies, that it cannot be expanded under those conditions. I would agree with the Minister on that point.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate, since I support wholeheartedly what the Government is trying to accomplish with its national strategy on child care and the instrument it intends to use, and I am referring to the Canada Child Care Act, to establish terms for co-operation with the provinces.
The whole issue of improving day care will have to be considered in terms of the kind of relations that should exist at various levels. At the most important stage, the actual provision of care to Canadian children, good working relations must exist between parents and day care staff and management. The federal and provincial governments will of course have to work as a team to harmonize their programs and ensure that both intermediate and general objectives are reasonable and realistic. Finally, the Government's policy must take its cue from the needs of parents and families.
Mr. Speaker, the national strategy on child care launched by the federal Government responds to this need for concerted action in a far more satisfactory manner than any of the measures proposed by other levels of government, by pressure groups or by the Hon. Members opposite.
As I see it, our strategy is the most practical response for two reasons. First of all, it meets the needs of children, women, parents and families, which is the guiding principle of the federal Government's commitment. Furthermore, the policy is designed in such a way that all Canadians, in all regions and provinces, are treated equitably.
The issue of what should be done to improve child care services in Canada has been the subject of a great deal of debate, protest and fault finding. However, if we listen very carefully to what is being said by pressure groups and Members of the Opposition, we soon realize it does not reflect the views of the Canadian people and shows utter disregard for the real needs of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate on this Bill so far, we have heard the same platitudes, the same erroneous definitions of needs and the same ideological positions that in the past two years have been typical of the Opposition's approach to child care. I think the time has come to stop and reflect on a more realistic perspective for this debate. That being said, I would like to talk about what Canadians are thinking and what parents want, so that we can consider the Government's initiative in its true light.
In Canada, all parents accept responsibility for looking after their children. No Member in this House would deny this fundamental aspect of our family life. Not only do parents accept this responsibility, they are bound to do so. That is the basis of our family law and of much of our penal law in this country.
Although all Canadians have a number of fundamental values in common, their living habits are different, customs vary from region to region, from city to city and even from family to family, and their heritage consists of values and traditions from many countries the world over.
They want to bring up their children their way, without having government bodies telling them what to do and how to behave. Mr. Speaker, we all know the truth of that.
So when it comes to day care services, why would we suppose that this natural tendency does not exist, when indeed it does? Parents want to make their own choice based on their needs and those of their children. They do not want to be told by the Government, and especially a government as remote from them as the federal Government, that there is only one way for child care and one system that the Government is prepared to subsidize.
To say the opposite is sheer idiocy. There is not a single Member in this House who does not remember cases where
August 17, 1988

previous administrations tried to tell the Canadian people that there was only one way to proceed. Canadians have always rebelled at that because it goes against their will. I am constantly amazed by the people opposite who, on the one hand, spend a great deal of their time promoting the pluralism and multiculturalism of Canadian society and, on the other, require that all Canadians subscribe to a specific, rigid line of conduct.
These Members demand that the federal Government establish a universal, institutionalized child care system without considering the many ways Canadians take care of their children. They are also the ones who say that the Government must not allow parents to stay at home to look after their children, if that is their wish, or to leave their children in the care of an unofficial service, a family member or a neighbour if that works better for them.
The Canadian people also recognize that paying for child care services is first of all the parents' responsibility. Parents want some help, because paying for child care services can be quite a heavy financial burden for a family. But there is no doubt that they want this assistance given to them on their own terms.
Mr. Speaker, most Canadian families would reject government assistance if it meant having to raise their children the way the Government feels they should.
If you look at the Government's child care strategy from this perspective, you will immediately realize how well adapted it is to the way Canadian families live and what they believe in. The strategy supports all child care options, from fully subsidized spaces to parents who choose to pay the total cost of official services in a private setting, and includes those who decide to stay at home because they believe that this is best for their family.
The purpose of the national child care strategy is not to restrict the options available to parents and families; rather, it is meant to help parents choose the solution best suited to their family's needs and to ensure that these options are less costly, whatever the family's financial situation. The tax measures announced as part of the strategy provide tax credits as well as higher deductions for child care expenses as ways to keep parents' child care options open.
Canadians are extremely well disposed to the need for subsidized day care spaces, especially for single-parent families. No parent who has had to look for a quality space for her or his children denies the need for more such spaces, subsidized or not.
In its strategy, the Government is committed to doubling the number of subsidized spaces over the next seven years. This means that if this goal is reached, the number will increase from 200,000 to 400,000 during the period of growth envisaged by the strategy and the Bill now being debated. But hold on, it does not mean that Canada will have only 400,000 day care spaces all told. Indeed these will be the only spaces
Canada Child Care Act
for which the federal and provincial governments will pay all or most installation costs.
Complementary family day care facilities are not included in these figures, nor are neighbouring services or more formal private services which are now completely paid for by parents. Thanks to higher day care tax deductions, private services will become less of a financial drain on Canadian families. The resulting stronger demand might trigger a virtual explosion of the number of spaces made available this way.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that when consumers pick up the whole tab for a readily available service it has to live up to their expectations. If on top of that you consider the legislative provisions under which the provinces are required to define and implement child care service standards, I would suggest that parents will be surprised to find out how quickly day care services-public and private alike-will meet the requirements of parents, communities, and provincial authorities.
When it comes to child care services, Canadians have taken a pragmatic approach, as they did in connection with a number of other social issue. Canadians do not believe that the problem can be solved overnight, nor that a mere statement of principle by the Government will solve everything. I do not think that people are overly concerned whether a day care service is operated by a non-profit organization or by a commercial undertaking. The bottom line is not who runs the operation but how good are the services available.
Of course if there is one aspect about which all parents see eye to eye it has to be the need to improve the quality of child care services throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, this should not be interpreted to imply that existing services are downright inferior and fail to meet the basic needs of children, quite the contrary. This is just another indication that parents want their children to have the best they can afford, and this includes quality services when they simply cannot personally look after their children.
Under Section 4 of the Bill, the federal Government is firmly committed to improving child care standards in very many respects: child/person ratios, parent participation, health and safety measures, programming, to name only a few. However, a practical and realistic approach had to be designed in relation to child care standards. Canadians don't want arbitrary standards to be forced upon them as if they did not know what is best for their children.
I believe parents want to be sure that child care standards reflect their values as well as those of the communities and the regions where they live and to which they relate. In other words, Mr. Speaker, parents want to have a say in the quality standards which will apply to the care their children will be receiving.
I challenge any Member of this House to say that he or she knows what are the needs and concerns of Canadian parents. Once you have said child care services must conform to the highest quality standards, you can say no more without

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
infringing on the parents' right to define what they believe to be the best for their children. All Hon. Members with young children know that this is true, no matter what they may claim during this debate.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have indicated that they are prepared to support the extension of child care services everywhere in Canada. Recent surveys have shown that even Canadians without children recognize the important social and economic benefits which may result from more accessible and better quality child care services.
They will not really mind if Governments, both federal and provincial, invest large amounts of taxpayers money to enhance the child care system as long as they can ascertain that these expenses will achieve realistic goals and are shared equitably.
Many Canadians feel that subsidized day care government programs meet the needs of low-income families and that higher-income Canadians can provide for their own children. Those who need assistance most are the middle-income Canadian families where both working parents can hardly keep up their standard of living. Anyone who has carefully examined every aspect of the national strategy will clearly realize that the federal Government has not overlooked middle-income Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we can all recognize that there are many special needs which current child care services cannot fully satisfy now. After all, it is only under this Government that child care was upgraded from a social welfare service to a social service. This Governement has recognized that child care is in a state of infancy as a social service and that in the future there will be a tremendous development and a great many changes similar to those provided to senior citizens.
The Government has shown leadership in these areas, just as it did in the case of the Child Care Special Initiatives Fund, the purpose of which is to support the solutions proposed by various communities to meet special needs. Canada's history is filled with examples of Canadians, working within small communities who have found solutions to many challenging social problems to various Governments.
It seems to me that the people opposite should look up Canada's history before requiring the federal Government to find solutions to meet all the various needs and values of Canadians.
As I pointed out, a feature of the national child care strategy is the good partnership that was made possible thanks to this Government. This is true both in terms of the needs and interests of Canadian families and our relations with provincial authorities, because let us not forget that the latter are responsible for child care services and programs.
Under the legislation, the Canadian Government is taking the initiative to increase and improve child care services. But
in so doing it is respecting the roles of provinces, taking into account provincial programs and services, while making it possible to reach realistic goals within a relatively short timeframe. To those who demand a unilateral stand from the Canadian Government, something that flies in the face of established usage, and also centrally imposed criteria, I say: Stand up and explain two things. How will you operate the system, since you do not even have any right to act in that area in the first place? And then, how will you convince the large majority of Canadian families that they should pay for a system they will never use?
Let me make this clear, Mr. Speaker-I am not asking them to come and air their political rhetoric or ideological stands. What I am asking for is that they come up with a workable, affordable and feasible plan Canadian taxpayers and provinces can afford. I have yet to hear something in this debate that will convince me Opposition Members have found solutions that are more logical than the strategy put forward by this administration.
It is not difficult to trumpet that this Government should do this or that. It is not difficult either to glean figures here and there and use them to support a position, even if those figures have little basis in fact. But we must be careful about something. Figures should not be interpreted in a self-serving manner.
The solutions to Canada's social and economic problems lie in a balanced approach; we must be responsive to the needs of the various regions and provinces, and we must have a good partnership I was referring to earlier. This is how this country operates, and this is why this general legislation meets the needs of Canadian families as no other could.
I urge my colleagues in this House to put aside for a moment their political restraints in order to look at our children's genuine needs. In this pre-election period, it is very easy to promise people a cure-all solution. Will that solution however improve the quality of child care services? Will it create one single extra place in our current child care system? No.
I do not even believe, Mr. Speaker, it would bring us one extra vote.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) on her very good speech. I think she made points that were quite logical and most relevant on the proper way to raise children.
Children, as we know, need love and attention. They can get it in their homes. That is where young children belong. We are well aware of the psychological problems experienced later in life by children who are put under care as soon as they are born. That is why the main objective of a social policy aimed at children must be to keep them with their families. There are exceptional cases where parents must work outside the home. The Government has a responsibility to help them, and that is where a federal public day care policy is required.
August 17, 1988

In Alberta, for instance, we have an abundance of day care spaces, a matter that comes under provincial jurisdiction. The federal Government must provide help across Canada, in poor regions that are economically unable to set up services. Transfer payments must therefore be made by the Federal Government. That is how we should consider this Bill. The legislation must be balanced and must provide help in those marginal cases where the mother must stay home because she has several children. Tax credits must be added for those families.
Those are the comments I wanted to make. I wanted also to congratulate the Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert on her excellent speech.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having this opportunity to say a few words on this important issue of child care. I want to begin my remarks by recalling an incident in Kamloops during the 1984 election campaign when the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) visited Kamloops. He went on at some length at a public meeting about all of the wonderful initiatives that his Government would take in providing adequate child care to meet the needs of Canadian families and that it was one of his top priorities.
Here we are on the eve of an election call, four years later, and we are now just beginning to talk about legislation. But, this legislation before us is seriously and fundamentally flawed. It is actually a step backward in time. What the Government is providing is a complete and total smoke-screen because what we will get as a result of this so-called child care Bill is something worse than what we have today. Let me outline why I say that.
First I want to prick one big balloon myth that has been floating around. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has said on many occasions that this package will add $6.4 billion over seven years to provide child care in Canada.
I want to quote from Marjorie Nichols column in The Ottawa Citizen of August 17, 1988. If there is one journalist we all hold in high esteem, it is Marjorie Nichols. If there is one journalist whose work appears in newspapers across the country, who appears on national television regularly as a commentator on the Government's work, it is Marjorie Nichols. She says that the Bill before the Commons would provide for about $2.6 billion in new federal funds for child care. Not $6.4 billion but $2.6 billion. I just wanted to put on the record very clearly that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not doing what he says he is doing. I would not say he is intentionally misleading Canadians, but I would come awfully close to saying that.
What is the situation? We have a crisis in child care and there is no other word for it. There is not a Member of
Canada Child Care Act
Parliament who does not have a long list of experiences with constituents who are forced to work and, therefore, know the tragedy of having to leave their young children with babysitters and so on. They get up at seven o'clock in the morning only to find their baby-sitter has gone on holidays and forgot to tell them, or is sick and cannot take their young children and they have to find someone else before they can go to work. There are all sorts of absolute horror stories that people are forced to contend with because the Government has not acted.
I have two letters here from constituents, one of which says:
I am a single mother with two children living in Dallas.
That is a suburb of Kamloops, not Dallas, Texas. It says:
I have a part-time job working about 30 hours a week and make only $1100 a month, yet I am required to pay out $610 a month for child care for my children. It is good care for my children and I applaud the care givers, but, Mr. Riis, I can hardly afford it. How can I continue? Have you any advice?
I will not read her name because I have not asked her permission to read the letter into the record, but she is a constituent. The other letter says:
My husband and I own a small cattle ranch and my husband is forced to
work out at Tumbler Ridge-
I should say that Tumbler Ridge is a coal mining area in British Columbia which is obviously away from their ranch. It
says:
-due to the bank problems that you are well aware of. The problem is that while I have managed to get a part-time job, there are no daycare facilities for our three children all under the age of seven. I hope in your attempts to get the Government to introduce more support for child care that you remember those of us who live in rural areas or small towns who desperately need daycare if we are to survive.
These letters are typical of the dozens of letters that constituents write to us vividly detailing the crisis they face on a personal basis. This has mushroomed into a national crisis. If you look at the situation in 1988, according to the national day care information centre there are 2,103,450 children whose parents work or study full time. How many licensed child care spaces are there in Canada? Only 243,000. In other words, less than 12 per cent of those who may need licensed child care spaces have them available. The province I am proud to represent from the constituency of Kamloops-Shuswap requires more than 150,000 day care spaces just to meet present needs. There are only 243,000 all across Canada. That is why I call it a crisis. Adequate child care spaces in Canada simply do not exist.
When we talk about child care we are going beyond simply day care spaces. We all recognize that significant numbers of day care spaces are available but there are also other forms of child care, including family home child care which we must develop. We must develop before and after school care. We must develop neighbourhood drop-in child care centres for young children and their parents. We see the development of essentially a resource centre to help people raising their children. We need 24 hour child care for those who have to work shifts or leave home for one or two days a week because of their jobs, such as selling and so on. We need weekend care

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
facilities, particularly for single parents who on occasion simply must have a break. A weekend child care facility would provide that. We need toy lending libraries. We need part-time care and play groups. I could go on and on.
What is required under the general umbrella of child care is simply much more than day care spaces. I could talk about the need for enhanced maternity and parental benefits in our system or the fact we need paid family responsibility leave under the Canada Labour Code. Obviously the crisis is here. The need for action is now yet the Government is going backward. It is not introducing legislation to advance these services which are so desperately required. I say that in a country which has over 2 million young people in need of some kind of care or other, to have only 243,000 child care spaces obviously means the situation is totally and completely inadequate.
I suppose that is why when the National Action Committee on the Status of Women appeared before Members of Parliament not long ago they had very strong criticisms of the federal Government with respect to the lack of action over the last one, two, three or four years of the federal Government's administration. I remember that day in Kamloops when the Prime Minister said: "We have this at the top of our list of priorities". Even today, nothing has been done and now we are going to start worsening the situation through this legislation. That is why I say at the outset that I oppose the legislation. It is unamendable. You cannot improve it because it is such a disaster. I oppose it and hope the Government will bring in something that will actually begin to meet the crisis. It is not an easy situation to resolve. It will take many years. However, let us start building a good strong base today.
One of the things that the legislation will do is create
200.000	child care spaces over the next seven years. That sounds good to you and I, but under existing programs a lot more than that would be created. For example, in 1980 we had
109.000	child care spaces in Canada. In 1986 it had increased to 220,000. This year it is as high as 243,000. Over seven years, if we are to apply this same increase of 15 per cent each year, we would create over 500,000 spaces seven years from now. Under the government program we will only create an extra 200,000, which means we will have fewer child care spaces than under the present system.
Under the federal Government's program the number of child care spaces over the next seven years would increase at a rate of 10 per cent. Under present conditions, using the Canada Assistance Plan, it would increase at 15 per cent year over year for seven years. That is why I say we are going backward. The federal Government is worsening the situation. In addition, this legislation puts a cap on spending. After seven years, that is it. Of course, we will in no way be meeting the situation with this program, yet the Government says there will be no further expenditure. At least, that is the best information available today.
Another problem is that there will be no national guidelines or objectives. In other words, we will have one day care system in British Columbia, another one in P.E.I., a different one in Alberta, something different in Ontario and something totally different in Nova Scotia. We will have this patchwork of social programs for day care. That is not the way to run a country. That is not the way to provide leadership. Can you imagine if we had different family allowance cheques going out in different amounts in every province? Or, a different pension system in every province? Or, a different medicare system in every province? That is not a country, that is a hodge-podge. In her column a few days ago Marjorie Nichols said that the Government will rip the country apart by allowing different child care systems in each province of Canada.
In some provinces that might not be a bad deal, but I have no faith at all that Bill Vander Zalm in British Columbia will spend the money from the federal Government to enhance child care. As a matter of fact, Mr. Vander Zalm is on record as saying that if he gets the money, he does not know what he is going to spend it on. He has said that he is not going to spend it on operating funds. In other words, he might create a few extra spaces but the provincial Government will not give any money to operate those day care centres. I shudder at the thought of Bill Vander Zalm in charge of child care in British Columbia. Yet, that is what this particular legislation creates. We are obviously not very keen on that.
Let us look at the status quo in British Columbia and Alberta. In British Columbia there presently exist about
10.000	non-profit child care spaces and about 4,500 commercial child care spaces for a total of 14,500 child care spaces. In the Province of Alberta there are 824 public child care spaces, another 7,000 non-profit child care spaces, and an additional nearly 30,000 commercial spaces for a total of nearly 38,000 child care spaces. The Province of Alberta, therefore, has
38.000	child care spaces while over the mountains in a larger province, there are only 14,000 child care spaces. Therefore, even now we have a serious imbalance in what is provided to parents with young families in those two provinces. I could go through the list for every province in Canada.
We presently see two problems. One is the overwhelming lack of spaces for children in need of licensed child care facilities and the lack of federal standards to ensure that children have the same opportunities whether they live in British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, or Prince Edward Island. There is a lack of the federal leadership which is so desperately needed today.
Another problem is that, of the money being provided by the federal Government, $2.4 billion will be used through the tax system. With the way things are in Canada today, a low income family, particularly one headed by a single parent, probably does not pay any income tax. They are not likely to be in a taxable situation. If you do not pay any income tax, a tax break is of no benefit to you. To be fair, the doubling of the
August 17, 1988

child care expense deduction will ease the situation for middle and upper-income families.
If the $2.4 billion to be used through the tax system, which will obviously benefit the middle and upper-income Canadian family, were used in the development of child care spaces we could develop another 170,000 child care spaces. That is the situation which I believe most Canadians would like to see in order to help the families most in need.
The legislation does provide some money for the low-income family. To help with baby-sitting the Government is going to give them an extra $200 a year. If you have five kids and are trying to find a way to get along, $200 a year for baby-sitting is almost a slap in the face.
Elowever, we should not be surprised at this because it is this Government which brought in deindexing. It deindexed family allowance increases, child tax credit increases, and the child tax credit.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It's the opposite of Ronald Reagan.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend says that this is the opposite of Ronald Reagan's action. As a result of the Conservative Government's deindexation, rather than the family allowance going up with the cost of living, the costs go up but the family allowance cheque does not go up by the same amount. As a matter of fact, in 1988 $55 million which would normally go to parents in the form of family allowance cheques will not be paid out. The federal Government will keep it for nuclear submarines or whatever else it may want to use it for. The same is true for millions and millions of dollars under the child tax credit and millions and millions of dollars under the child tax exemption.
When you add up the money which has been taken out of the hands of Canada's children by the Government this year alone, it comes to $900 million. By 1992 that will total $1.7 billion. Thanks to our Prime Minister, $1.7 billion which should be going to the children of Canada is not going to them any longer. We should not be shocked that the Conservative Government does not seem to be making much of a progressive move on child care.
The country obviously needs a comprehensive child care policy which would be the first major national social program since medicare. We must approach child care as a Medicare II. At the urging of the NDP and CCF provincial Governments of the day and NDP and CCF Members of the House of Commons, Canadians took a major leap of faith and said that we should have medicare as other countries had. We finally got that and we should now be doing the same with child care in order that every young boy and girl in this country who requires child care has it available to them.
We need a comprehensive child care policy which will provide federal leadership to the provinces in order to have a uniform system across Canada so that boys and girls in Newfoundland and boys and girls in British Columbia will have the same kinds of opportunities. We need program
Canada Child Care Act
criteria for funding set by national objectives and national standards to accomplish this.
The Government says that we should leave it to the marketplace, that if there is a need it will be filled. Well, there obviously is a need and it is not being filled. The Americans have left it to the market-place, and we know the situation in the United States. There are tens of millions of young children in the United States desperately in need of decent child care. We should look to western Europe where decent child care systems have been in place for many, many years.
To summarize, I suggest that we not leave this to the provinces to decide. The most recent study done on this by the parliamentary sub-committee on child care said that the Government should not be funding new commercial services through capital or operating grants or fee subsidies or any other means. It said that if we are interested in creating a real child care system, the time has come to use this energy within a non-profit structure. I think that should be our model.
I could and should go on much longer, Mr. Speaker, but you are indicating, unfortunately, that my time is up. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), a Member of the New Democratic Party, spent her entire lifetime caring for people and developing programs to support children. She represented the New Democrats on the standing committee which examined this issue. She wrote her own report entitled "Caring for Canada's Children" in March of 1987 outlining all the details which the New Democratic Party feels ought to be considered on this issue. If you, Mr. Speaker, or others would like a copy of that report, you can certainly obtain a copy to learn what New Democrats have in mind for a comprehensive first-rate child care policy for Canada in 1988.
[Translation\


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) has the floor for a question or comment.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), since the New Democratic Party's long term goal is to establish a network of non-profit day care centres that will be fully subsidized by the State and accessible to all.
We looked very carefully at the day-care policy announced by the NDP. The New Democratic Party would establish this network in three stages. The first stage, until 1992, would involve establishing a system of direct operating and capital grants for the provinces and territories, in order to stabilize existing services, promote the development of new services, provide for new or expanded facilities or equipment, promote services for children with special needs, and improve wages and social benefits of care-givers. Grants would be approved only for licensed non-profit day care, and operating subsidies would be structured as follows: $8 per day for a handicapped child, $5 a day for toddlers or children with special needs, $4 per day for a school age child or when there is no school, and

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
$2 per day for a child who goes to day care after school or for half days. According to the capital grants system recommended by the New Democratic Party, $1,500 would be provided for a handicapped child, $1,000 for a pre-schooler, $500 for a school age child and $500 for a child in home day-care.
What bothers us a little is that the budget for the first year would provide $247 million in operating grants and $21 million in capital grants.
If the average operating grant is $4 per day and the average capital grant is $1,000, the budget for the first year would subsidize 237,000 licensed spaces and create only 21,000 new spaces.
In March of this year, we had 243,545 licensed day care spaces in this country, of which 153,159 were spaces in nonprofit day care or home day care. Between March 1986 and March 1987, the number of licensed spaces increased by 23,000, and the number of spaces in non-profit day care and home day care increased by 12,334 spaces.
If the budget for the first year is maintained in constant dollars for five years, by the end of 1992 only 105,000 new spaces in non-profit day care would be created under the NDP plan.
My question for the Hon. Member is this: If, as his Party claims, we urgently need 1.8 million additional licensed day care spaces, why does the New Democratic Party plan to fill only 1.2 per cent of this requirement during the first year of its program?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the serious question by the Hon. Member. She outlined some areas that I did not have a chance to pursue.
Of course one of our top priorities would be to improve the wages for care givers, the people employed in child care facilities who provide the support systems for children. They are presently grossly underpaid. I think the average industrial wage in Canada today is about $14,000 a year and the average child care worker makes at least 30 per cent less than that. In the commercial venture, child care for profit venture, which I personally do not support in principle, the pay is even less. That is a situation which we must improve quickly.
Obviously the kind of facilities that are run by communities and non-profit organizations are the best because parents play a direct role in the kind of care being given to their children. They do not have much say in a commercial or profit oriented venture because the reason that child care centre exists is to make money, not necessarily to care for children, while that is obviously a by-product of that initiative.
Community based, co-operative or non-profit organizations are ones in which the parents set the criteria for the curriculum and schedules. That is the kind of child care I think we want to see in this country.
The Hon. Member has raised an interesting question and one that I look forward to discussing, particularly in the upcoming election campaign. It is the legitimate question of how we pay for all of this. Where does the money come from?
The people of Canada will have an interesting opportunity to make some choices. If the people of Canada really want nuclear powered attack hunter submarines that will cost billions of dollars, then they should vote for the Conservatives because that is one of their high priorities. If they want decent child care facilities, they should vote for the New Democrats because that will be on the top of our priority list.
The people of Canada will have a choice to make, and that is what elections are all about. Do they want nuclear submarines or child care facilities? Do you want a variety and comprehensive set of child care opportunities for your children or do you want a fleet of nuclear attack hunter submarines on our east and west coasts? That is the choice. Those are the choices Canadians will have to make. If they want the nuclear fleet for Canada, they should vote for the Conservative Member in that constituency. If they want decent child care on the corner, a decent after-school care facility for their children, or a resource centre for families with spouses who remain at home to raise their children but want to have better books and toys, vote for the New Democrats. That is what elections and politics are all about. I look forward, as I suppose many of us do, to getting out in the election campaign and giving those choices to the people, to let the people decide.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, during the Hon. Member's speech I interjected a point to which I want his reaction. He was criticizing the Government for reducing the indexing and in some cases eliminating the indexing on taxation and some social benefit programs. Did the Hon. Member watch the Ronald Reagan event at the Republic Convention in the last few days? The President of the United States, a very Conservative President who, in some ways, is an extreme rightwinger, took great pride in the fact that he introduced indexation into the taxation system in the United States, copying an idea that was brought into the Canadian system by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Finance many years ago. Is the Hon. Member aware that that right-winger, Ronald Reagan, is less harsh on the poor and ordinary citizens in his country than the Government has been toward poor and middle-income Canadians?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that interjection by my hon. friend. I suppose there are only two pages from the Ronald Reagan book that I would like to apply to Canada. One is the imposition of a minimum corporate tax that I believe was another progressive item which the President and others have mentioned at the Republican Convention.
August 17, 1988

As the Hon. Member stated, in the past Canada has introduced a mechanism to combat inflation eating away at something like the family allowance. The value of the family allowance cheque would diminish year after year as inflation grows. I think all of us were pleased at the progressive initiative taken by the Minister of Finance some years ago with that indexation.
One of the very first actions of the Conservative Government was to grab money from the children of Canada by taking money from the family allowance cheque and the child tax deduction. It grabbed money from the child tax credit. I do not know if Canadians really appreciate the fact that it was one of the very first things the Conservative Government did.
Even Ronald Reagan commented that this indexation was one of the ways governments can provide better levels of financial support in order to provide for children in our countries. I thank my hon. colleague for his interjection and reminder of the fact that even right-wingers in the United States index these critical programs so that their young children will not be severely handicapped in the amount of money that will justly go to them from federal fiscal payments.
As I indicated earlier, I look forward to the campaign when Canadians can decide whether they want a nuclear submarine or a set of decent child care facilities.
iO)


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to participate in the debate today on Bill C-144 with respect to Canada's Child Care Act. First, I would like to congratulate the chairman of the child care task force, the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) and her colleagues, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher), the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) and the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay). They certainly gave a great deal of their time and energy as they travelled across this country hearing from many groups and individuals. It was very interesting to read the report of the task force and note there were people who supported non-profit child care as well as people who supported commercial day care. They all gave extremely good representations. There were a number of people who appeared before the task force who felt very strongly that children should first be at home and gave some excellent reasons why they felt women should be supported in the home so they could take care of their families.
Members of the Opposition Parties, as well as some of the media, have criticized the Government's child care program because it has not imposed national standards. They claim that strong national leadership is not possible without national standards and that we will have a balkanization of day care across Canada with widely varying standards. Such criticism misses on two fronts. It misunderstands the nature of Canada and it misunderstands the fundamental role of standards. Canada is not a small, unified, monolithic country. A number of visitors from European countries with expertise in child care
Canada Child Care Act
have expressed admiration for the multifaceted, pluralistic nature of Canada. They have expressed the sentiment that they would like to be in such a position where they could in fact observe and benefit from a variety of approaches and models which address regional differences rather than being hindered by an inability to allow creative and innovative approaches without having to make changes in their monolithic standards.
Child care in Canada is, in many ways, in its early formative stages. To prejudice the ultimate or final form and shape of child care services is to prematurely cut off the normal experimental path that developmental professions have to be free to follow in order to find a more efficient and effective approach. Just stop and think for a moment, Mr. Speaker. The realities facing Canadian families in downtown Toronto or Vancouver are vastly different from those which face families in Labrador City, Berin's River or Fort Simpson. What possible standard appropriate for Toronto would make equal sense to a remote village without indoor plumbing? Implementing standards to ensure quality of care in Toronto may well leave large parts of the country without the capacity to provide day care services at all.
This is not to imply that such standards would result in good care in Toronto while other sections of the country without identical standards would be offering inferior services. What it means is that situations differ widely and call for a clustering of approaches which meet the needs of specific situations.
This brings me to what I mentioned earlier, the misunderstanding of the nature and objective of standards. Licensing standards, which are of utmost importance to safeguard the well-being of children, should not be confused with quality issues. Licensing represents the minimum standard that a Government thinks is permissible in order to operate equally. It is not the same thing as a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. It is only indirectly related to quality day care. Quality care comes from individuals and groups who do their very best to offer the most nurturing and favourable care possible.
The federal Government recognizes the need for experimentation and fuller information as to what constitutes quality care and through its child care initiative fund supports efforts in this direction. This Government's approach is to work with the provinces. We recognize that there are certain areas in standards that do relate directly to good care and insist that in order for the provinces to enter into the cost sharing provisions of this Act, the provinces must address in regulation the various areas. However, the provinces, being closer to the unique situation of parents in their region, can develop specific standards in each of these identified areas that best meet the situation in those areas. I might add that standards are a matter directly under provincial jurisdiction.
I would also stress that given the tremendous differences which exist across Canada, licensing standards are remarkably similar. Who among the Opposition would think that, sitting in

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
Ottawa, they could design more appropriate standards and enforce the standards better than can be done at the provincial level?
I would like to draw to the attention of members of the Opposition that some of the leading day care advocates have taken similar approaches to the federal Government on the question of national standards. On July 14, 1988, on the CBC Morningside program, Mr. Jack London, a member of the Katie Cooke task force, said:
Now there is no way and our report found this in 1986. There is no way that Ottawa can tell a region somewhere in a remote area what ratios of children to supervisors there ought to be in a particular space.
That's ridiculous. Ottawa can't control in that way. However, the federal Government has to ensure a number of basic standards right across the country and there are three of them. One is that money flow only into licensed, that is regulated and supervised care spaces, not into unsupervised and, therefore, inadequate spaces. Secondly, that moneys given to the provinces, and that's really what's happening here, moneys shared with the provinces, ought to be properly distributed so that the requisite number of spaces are available for infants, for preschool children, for school-aged children in the urban and rural areas. There's to be a proper distribution. And thirdly that the money be used to support public child care and not anything else.
On the CBC program, As It Happens, on August 11, Ms. P. Coates, Vice-President of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association was asked:
Wouldn't the provinces object to having standards imposed on them?
Ms. Coates responded:
We hadn't asked for specific standards to be imposed. What we had asked for was some global statements about the importance of standards, the importance of staff training, the importance of enriched staff child ratios without actually attaching detailed numbers to them. But if the criteria had been in there then there would have been pressure on the provinces to look at their standards, really review them and be accountable for the money that they spent on the types of programs.
The reporter asked her: "So all you want is a statement?" She replied: "We wanted some initial statements to begin with, national objectives and some criteria". So it is clear that those who have studied the question agree that our approach to quality and standards is sound.
I would like to go back to the February, 1988 Budget which stated that the child tax credit would be $559 for the 1988 tax year. Under this child care legislation the tax credit will be topped up by $100 per child under 18 years in 1988 and by another $100 per child in 1989. That is a $200 increase in the child tax credit.
On the deduction side in this legislation, parents with children under the age of six and with receipts from a child care facility will be able to deduct up to $4,000 per child. The lower income of a two-parent income family must be used.
Both of these assets, the child tax credit and the child deduction, represent $2.3 billion in this new program. Of the $2.3 billion about $2 billion goes to top up the child care tax credit. Thus out of every additional dollar of tax assistance in
this program, 88 per cent is going to go to top up the child tax credit. That is good.
I want to talk about children here because topping up the child tax credit really assists children. Children have to come first. I know today that all across Canada in various regions and areas there are many parents who need child care assistance and child care facilities. I am willing to help those in need. We are a caring government. We will certainly assist those people in need, especially single parent women. But I feel that if there is a way to keep a family together, to keep children at home, especially in the very young years, then let us do it. I feel that parents have the responsibility to look after their children. I say let us try to encourage that.
I was very fortunate to be in a position to stay at home and look after my children. I recognize that. I strongly emphasize that I am willing to help those people in need. But if we can do anything, and do anything more to assist mothers or, indeed, fathers to stay at home and bring their children up in the home, I would certainly encourage it.
The Bill before us is the beginning of a new program. It is good. There are some inequities in it. I hope that we can resolve them in order to encourage moms or dads to stay at home. Child care is the responsibility of the parents. They should make the decision.
Within the Bill before us today there is flexibility. We have a great deal of flexibility that allows parents to choose between staying at home and receiving a child tax credit or sending their children to a commercial or non-profit child care facility with respect to which they will be allowed the tax deduction, as I said, with receipts up to $4,000 per child under the age of six. We have to work this child care program through. As I said, it is a beginning.
I know people have difficulties. I recognize that there are a great many ways to improve the situation. This is a beginning. There will be 200,000 new spaces created over the course of seven years. I welcome that. I welcome the fact that the provinces will be setting the standards. I welcome the fact that we will be working with each and every province to ensure that our moneys are well spent.
I am glad that 50 per cent of the provincial and territorial operating costs of non-profit commercial services will be paid for under the new legislation. Some 75 per cent of the capital costs for non-profit day care centres and services will be paid for. This is a step in the right direction. We have a long way to go. I am pleased to speak, but I must reiterate that kids come first. I would like to see kids come first at home.
I commend the Minister on his job well done, as well as the task force, and say that I look forward to implementing this new Canada Child Care Act. Canada can have the best child care system perhaps in the world if not, indeed, in North America.
August 17, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Calgary East.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. I listened with a great deal of attention to what the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) had to say. I wonder what her feeling is about the tax credit. It is only $100 in the first year and $200 in the next. For the mother who has to stay at home, I wonder if the Hon. Member would like to see this tax credit increased in order that more mothers can stay at home and so that they receive real justice for taking care of their children. Personally, I do not believe that day care is the solution to rearing a child. The Hon. Member is a nurse by training and has probably seen children who were abandoned, who have been in hospital and who did not get attention and love. This creates problems later in life.
I was surprised to hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) say that he wanted two million day care spaces in Canada. As a physician, I know that people who put children in day care come to the medical office and quite often the children are sick because they are in contact with other children in the day care centre. They get infections. This creates a problem for certain mothers and fathers because certain children cannot stay in day care because of this problem. They are too easily infected with disease. The best solution to this problem is to have the child at home with a caring mother or father, grandmother or grandfather taking care of the child. I think we should look at this solution. For this reason we should give child tax credits in a larger amount so that people who stay home can benefit not only from tax credits but from being with their children.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) for his question. I have to agree with some of the statements he has made. When we compare the child tax credit to the tax deduction, I think there is an inequity. I would like to see more encouragement given to keeping a parent, whether it be the male or female parent, at home with the youngsters.
The child tax credit for the tax year 1988 is $559. The Bill which is before us will increase that tax credit by $100 per child under 18 years of age this year and by another $100 next year so that there will be a $200 increase, which will bring the tax credit up to $759. Each person will have to equate this within their own tax bracket. I have to check the figures, but for an income of $46,000 to $48,000, or perhaps into the $50,000 range, the child tax credit would be totally phased out. That compared to $4,000 per child with receipts is what is unfair in here.
I have to say to my colleague that this is a start. Even the Minister has recognized that there are some areas where perhaps there is not fairness. I look forward to reviewing it once the program is implemented, and seeing if by raising the
Canada Child Care Act
child tax credit we could keep more moms and dads at home for their kids.
There are people who need child care facilities, and we know this. There are many single parents and many two-parent families who need double incomes to exist today, and we recognize that. The cost of raising children and the cost of housing is expensive. The inflation rate is between 3.9 and 4.1 per cent, depending on where one lives in the country. Therefore, it is very costly. The care of youngsters is up to the parents. I am quite willing to help those in need.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary East referred to the New Democratic Party comparing the national defence policy and the $8 billion for submarines and stating that that money should be spent on child care. It is very interesting that one compares eight to ten submarines with a child care program. If the truth were known, and as I understand it, the policy of the New Democratic Party with regard to defence is to scrap the eight to ten nuclear propelled submarines and build twelve conventional submarines. The New Democratic Party would also add an additional fleet of six frigates.
Members of the New Democratic Party have also stated publicly that they would discontinue defence cost sharing programs in order to design and build the defence equipment here in Canada. Their defence program will probably cost $3 to $6 billion more than ours. We are talking about $8 billion over 25 years. It represents $300,000 per year. This is not new money, and it is already budgeted for in the Budgets of the Government. I cannot believe how anyone can compare nuclear propelled submarines to a child care program.
This Government does not have tunnel vision. We do not look at one area, we look across Canada. We not only look at child care, but at post-secondary education, the agricultural department. Over the last four years we have spent $8 billion in the area of agriculture. Look what we have done in the energy sector. If we do not have agriculture healthy, energy healthy, and manufacturing healthy, we will not be able to pay for anybody's program. We need a balanced government, and that is exactly what we have done. We have helped the energy sector, the agricultural sector, and we are moving in to help the people in Newfoundland to create more jobs. The Government believes in a whole and total Canada and every person that we can get out there working will be able to support our social programs.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I may be in a somewhat unique position in the House since I am a day care parent. I hope the Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) might listen to what I have to say because I heard him make some disparaging remarks about children who are in day care. I consider it a rare privilege that my little boy is in day care on the Hill. He receives incredibly good care and has had a great educational opportunity. I wish to pay tribute to the professional staff of the day care that operates here, and also to pay tribute to a former Speaker, the Right Hon. Jeanne Sauve, who was the initiator of that program. It demonstrates

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
the type of silly mythology and somewhat disparaging commentary that we heard from the Member for Calgary East.
Child care is a reality for 60 per cent of Canadian families. Let me make it very clear that, when one has direct experience, one speaks to the parents of other children, or is on the board as I am, or in my own riding where I have several day care centres, one finds out what people are talking about. It might help some Members opposite to spend a little more time talking to people who have a direct interest and involvement, which happens to be the majority of Canadian families.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You bet we talk to them.


Lloyd Axworthy: From what I have heard in the speeches, I do not think anybody from the Conservative caucus has talked to people whose children need day care. I listened to the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), who attempted to explain away the lack of standards. Has that Member ever talked to a parent with a deep concern about who is looking after their child, and what type of facilities the child will be in? What is the most important responsibility is that question of one's young child, who is going to look after him or her and how, and to have the assurances that are needed that there is proper teaching, proper care, proper surveillance, proper quality toys, and proper quality health facilities.
That should not be divided town by town, region by region, and province by province. We should not have a checkerboard Canada. There should not be discrimination in the quality of services because one happens to live in a rural area versus an urban area. By practice and experience we have learned since the 1960s that the only way to ensure that there is proper quality of social services is to ensure that the federal Government takes the lead and the responsibility for that insurance and does not surrender it.
I wish to take you back four or five years, Mr. Speaker, and discuss the medicare system, perhaps the most important and useful social program in this country. What was happening back in 1983 in Alberta, Ontario, and the Atlantic provinces? Provincial governments were undermining the standard of care under the medicare system. It was only when the national government brought in the Canada Health Act to establish national standards to ensure that funding was related to quality and services were we able to correct the downward decline of the medicare system.


Mr. Halliday:: There is no relation at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: There is a relationship. For anyone to argue that, argues against the history of the last 60 years. This is the first major social program we have talked about where the federal Government is abdicating its responsibility to ensure that there are national equitable standards for all children regardless of where they live. Flexible experimentation I believe were the words used by the Hon. Member for Calgary South. Does the Hon. Member know what that translates into?
It translates into hodge-podge, substandard care and inequality. Those are the real words that should be used. I bring that back to the living reality of the parents I see every day when I take my own child to day care, or the people in my own riding who I talked to when I visited every single day care centre. It is a very important concern because it relates to the next one. The next concern is that so many parents in Canada today are accepting that substandard care because there is no other alternative. They do not know who is looking after their child because they have to go into the private market-place to find care.


Mr. Thacker:: Why is a rich man like you being subsidized?


Lloyd Axworthy: I am not being subsidized. We pay our full share. What a silly, stupid, reactionary attitude from the Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). The fact of the matter is that he is talking about 60 or 70 per cent of the parents in this country. The Tories do not recognize because of their tax policies in other areas that one has to be part of a two-income family to survive in this country today.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It was your policy which did that. There was 22 per cent interest while you were the Government.


Lloyd Axworthy: If decent and proper care is not provided for children, the economy will fall to the bottom. This is a bad program. It is not designed for the care and concern of our children. It may be designed to fit the mythology and the ideology of the Member for Calgary East. However, it has nothing to do with what is required and what people want. I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker.
In 1985, I sat down with the churches and social service groups in my constituency, and organized what I think is probably the most extensive family study ever undertaken in Canada. We contacted every single household in my riding to ask about family related issues. We had close to 10,000 responses in a riding where there are 45,000 households. Close to 10,000 responses. I suggest that that is probably the most singular largest study of family concerns ever undertaken in Canada at a local community level.
What did we find? In my constituency, which goes from a downtown area where there is a high predominance of singleparent families to suburban areas with middle, upper middle-class families, upwards of anywhere from 58 per cent to 75 per cent of those in the area said that the number one concern was proper, decent child care. It had nothing to do with just those on the lowest income. This kind of Florence Nightingale, noblesse oblige kind of attitude that we hear that somehow we are going to help those only in need flies in the face of the fact that there is 60 or 70 per cent. I will give an example. In the Fort Richmond, Waverley Heights, South Fort Garry part of my riding, an area of middle, lower-middle-class, working class families, some upper-class families, 71 per cent of the parents say that additional child care programs are needed.
August 17, 1988

That compares to the fact that in that same area at the present time there is a grand total of 166 spaces for children, an area which includes close to 5,000 households. A hundred and sixty-six.
Do you know what the additional increment of the new Tory program will bring about in that area if you add it up? It is about six new spaces over that time.


Don Boudria: Great stuff.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have to tell you that the people of South Richmond, South Fort Garry, Waverley Heights are not going to be dancing in the streets because they are going to get six additional spaces because of this new program.


Don Boudria: Such largess.


Lloyd Axworthy: If anything points to the dramatic disparity between the rhetoric and the reality, it is that figure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you sure about that figure?


Lloyd Axworthy: I am positive about that figure. There are 166. If you add up the increment, they are going to get maybe an additional six spaces.
How can anyone stand up in this House and say that we have now met the problem? For those families, you have not begun to meet the problem. You have not begun to scratch the surface of the problem. You have not even got close to the problem.
When I hear, "Well, it is a beginning", it is a beginning and it is also the end. Once you entrench this program and turn it into one in which the provinces have complete control with no requirement for standard, you will never retrieve it again in order to establish a national program with national standards. You will never be able to undo the bad work that is being done. You will never be able to correct the major flaw that is being built into that program.
I can testify from my experience in my own community. That question of standards is absolutely essential. I have had parents come into my office and I have talked to them on the streets and in the day care centres. They have described to me the experiences of what it is like, the panic of when you have two parents working because they have to keep up mortgage payments or whatever it may be, trying to live in this high-cost economy, and all of a sudden they realize that there is no place for their child. They put an advertisement in the newspaper. Someone walks the street and says: "I may or may not be qualified", and they find out two or three weeks later that the baby-sitter, that private entrepreneur, is spending all afternoon with the TV set on, or is in some way ignoring the kid. We are dealing with that indifference, or even worse.


Marion Dewar: With no background in child care.


Lloyd Axworthy: With no background in child care training for families. I agree that there are some good private facilities.
Canada Child Care Act
I have no argument about that. In fact, my mother was responsible for a day care centre for 15 years. She provided good treatment. They recognize that there had to be the essential question of standards there, because there are so many bad operators. There are so many corporate operators who simply see child care as a way of making a buck.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Shame.


Lloyd Axworthy: There are too many chains being established across Canada with the idea of making a profit on children by providing the service; not providing the best service-


Marion Dewar: With day care workers.


Lloyd Axworthy: -to make sure that the day care workers get the minimum payment. How about the question of after school? Is there anything in this Bill that will provide for afterschool care for the children? There is not one thing. I can tell you from a discussion that I had last weekend with some coparents at the day care centre whose kids are about to graduate, recognizing that there is no provision for after-school programs, that they are now trying to rearrange their schedules and so on. We are not talking about people with big incomes. We are talking about secretaries working on this Hill who are making SI4,000 a year, faced with the enormous question of "What do I do when my child has to go to kindergarten and is only there for three hours a day? Do I leave work?" All of a sudden the standard of living of the members of the family collapses.
That is the reality that we are talking about, not some document drafted by some bureaucrat in the Department of National Health and Welfare that is being read out by Members opposite. I am talking about something that is real, something you touch every day, something you understand by dealing with the people who are deeply involved in the issue.
I do not buy the argument that this is just the beginning and that all along the way we will tinker here or there. If you are going to do it, do it right. Get it right the first time. Do not put into place the kind of expectations that are out there in the public. They talk about $6 billion or $7 billion when in fact it is $2.3 billion, as we well know, for the actual additions of new spaces and for the support of families who need it going into child care services. How do you get that back? To go back in time and to rework it in a major way will occupy the next Government's time and energy.
I say to myself, when you have the Katie Cooke study and the House of Commons meeting for two years, how did you get it so bad, how did you get it so wrong? Why did you put together a Rube Goldberg machine? It is unquestionably the number one concern of the majority of families in Canada, and this Government missed the target by a mile.
I have heard the Member for Calgary South say: "Well, after a lot of pressure we have now increased the child tax credit". It is now $759 for those in the lowest income level. Do you know what the average cost is of a day care space, even

August 17, 1988
Canada Child Care Act
those that are subsidized? It ranges from $450 to $900 a month. It may get your child one month's care. You have to compare that against the provision of the service and the space itself, geared to income. That is the real question. EIow much are you misallocating the resources by doing it that way as opposed to making sure that the space is there? It is not a 4 per cent increment a year. It is also to ensure that it is geared to income so that it can be properly monitored and managed. That is what the families are asking for, those with the lowest income; the single-parent families in my riding. That is what they want.
The middle class families also need the space. If there is a proper day care system with proper standards, set by a program that recognizes the importance of teaching and quality facilities, they are prepared to pay what it costs for their children if they can find the space. Yet, both those criteria have been missed in this program. They are not there.
No one here is arguing against the objective of a new child care program. The problem is that this is not the right program. It does not come in any way, shape or form close to meeting the real issue that is out there, street by street.
I have talked about the South Winnipeg family study, and the close to 10,000 people who responded to it. It was not just a statistical study. It was done house by house, with household interviews, being with groups in neighbourhoods. We had close to 300 or 400 volunteers, working over a year, giving up their time to undertake this kind of a program. I had the opportunity to join them in many of the discussions, to meet with the parents and with the organizations being called.
I only wish that Members of the House had gone through a similar kind of experience to realize that it is not an abstraction, it is not something that is for partisan dispute. It is something that is close to the real, basic concern. There can be nothing deeper and sweeter than the feeling of a parent for their child, and the yearning, the demand, the appetite for some support out there to meet that need.
SO)
The disappointment that comes with this program, Mr. Speaker, is crushing. It goes beyond just the sheer provision of child care. I suppose if I had my way-I am not the critic for my Party-I would revamp our entire family program structure. As you go through the other studies, you find that there is a desperate need for support for the latchkey kids and the roofless teenagers.
In my riding, the South Winnipeg Family Services said there were 1,200 teenage kids who are what they call foot loose kids who for all kinds of reasons have left home at 14 or 15 years of age and are living with friends or kicking around the streets. We have close to 800 or 900 homeless children in downtown Winnipeg. I do not want to be dramatic, Mr. Speaker, but there is a crisis out there when it comes to these family concerns, whether in housing, proper support, or counselling. The third highest priority is psychological and
mental counselling. Many families want someone to talk to in order to deal with problems with their children or aging parents. People go through a terrific emotional upheaval trying to cope with these sorts of things. There have been breakdowns in church support. I regret that, but it has happened. In modern urban and rural society that support is no longer there.
We find the kind of family support which governments provide is sometimes wrongly targeted. I spoke to a family in my riding a couple of weeks back who had found that one of their children had a learning disability. This was an average family, but no place was prepared to help them deal with this child's learning disability. The parents will have to wait until the child gets to the public school system where there might be some help, but it could be too late. They told me the family allowance was not enough to cope with it, and they were unable to go on social welfare. There was no one to help them deal with their child who every day they could see was falling backward. The family will sacrifice, maybe sell the family car or even the family home to get that kid into a proper rehabilitation program. It seems to me we should have a better concept of the family and reorganize the way in which we deliver our income programs so that families as they meet crises can apply resources where they are most needed at the appropriate time. We have to get rid of the rigidities in the system.
The problem with this program before us is it will compound the problem. It will not help. It adds one more series of tortuous networks to go through rather than providing a greater facility and ability for families to meet their needs. I am not saying the state is the sole responsibility. Of course it is not. In our child care policy we said that it has to be a partnership between the parents, primarily supported by their governments, and the private sector. That is the basis of our policy, that sharing partnership principle, whereby we can employ the full resources.
People took leadership here several years ago to put a day care centre on the Hill, not just for Members of Parliament but for secretaries' and clerks' families and for the 5,000 people who work on the Hill. Those things should be done in work places around the country.


Marion Dewar: There is a two-year waiting list.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, there is a two-year waiting list. My wife and I got down on our knees and lit a candle when we got Stevie into that day care program because we were really up against it and we did not know what we were going to do.
From a personal point of view, I think I can say something in the House. I do not like to argue from a singular experience because as Members of Parliament we are supposed to represent the broad view. I think I can represent that because I have this study, but from the point of view of someone who is living the problem and able to share it with some other parents, I can tell Tory Members that they have this wrong. This program is not a good one. It will not work the way they
August 17, 1988

want it to. They will waste a lot of resources, raise a lot of expectations and they will not get the kinds of answers they need. I suppose it will be up to another Government to go back to the drawing board.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I may have misled the House when I spoke about 20 minutes ago. I want to clarify what I said about the child tax credit.
The top-up for the child tax credit which is $100 in 1988 and another $100 in 1989 is for children six years and under. I mention that so as not to mislead the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Duplessis) for a question or comment.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I followed closely the speech made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and I would like to reiterate to him that the strategy we want to put in place is aimed first at honouring a commitment to significantly improve the child care situation, and it is a flexible, humane policy that respects the rights of parents as far as the care of their children is concerned, that respects the provinces' jurisdiction and that ensures the quality standards we want to put in place.
We carefully studied the child care policy put forward by the Liberal Party, as well as liberal propositions on child care services, and we find they include no objectives, no time table for increasing approved places. Also, they include less tax support than this Government's proposals or the existing system, and they venture into dangerous constitutional ground by proposing direct federal intervention through an appointed board and through involvement in the program's administration and the setting up of program administration standards, and they make the system's expansion conditional on the reduction of the deficit, something no Liberal Government has accomplished since 1969.
And when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry stated earlier, and gave as example their national health system, that they could set up one system across the country,
Canada Child Care Act
there is nothing in the Canada Health Act that says how many hospitals there should be per capita, in all provinces, and when earlier he also gave as an example post-secondary education, there is nothing in the Act that says how many professors there should be per university, nor what qualifications professors should have.
I feel the Hon. Member is venturing into highly dangerous ground, and I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what Premiers such as Mr. Bourassa, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Ghiz, Mr. Peterson could say if ever the Government came up with very specific standards it wanted to have.
Therefore, I think this would intrude upon provincial jurisdiction.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, I accept the good intentions of the parliamentary task force chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mrs. Martin) which developed a day care program, but I said it was not a good program, for the reasons I mentioned, particularly the lack of national standards to establish whether the program would be the same throughout the country. When it comes to the rights of children it is very important that they be given similar treatment under similar circumstances, region by region and province by province. That is the responsibility of the national Government, and as far as I am concerned this Government did forget all about its responsibility, more specifically as it relates to such an important program as child care services. This is my opportunity to point out that our national Government is responsible for this service, but unfortunately you forgot that responsibility. Besides, parents and children in Canada have no guarantee that comparable services will be available everywhere.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to order adopted on Monday, June 27, 1988, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 6, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers