1989-11-24

Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) moved:: That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues.

One morning in the middle of June, lying in my bed, the alarm clock went off on my clock radio and I listened, as I usually do each morning, to the morning CBC news. On this particular day the news I heard was deeply distressing. The report on that particular morning was that we have in this country of ours 1,121,000 children living in poverty.
Normally I had been reasonably well aware, given my responsibility as the Leader of the New Democratic Party, of the general social policy oriented data, if I can put it in those very abstract terms, but I frankly say that on that particular morning I was totally surprised by how serious the problem of child poverty in Canada had become.
I went to my office that very morning, checked with members of our research staff and asked them to get me a copy of the report on child poverty which had just been produced and which formed the basis of the CBC news report.
It turned out that the figures used were true. There were well over a million poor kids in this Canada of ours in 1989, not 1939; in Canada, a developed industrial society, not a poor emerging nation in the Third World.
The situation is bad for our children. For the rest of us, no matter how we have been burdened by tax increases, no matter how hard done by we feel when we cannot buy an extra suit that we might have planned on, take our families out to another restaurant for a dinner on a given week, or have a more extended holiday, that is the reality for a majority of Canadians.
It is certainly our task as a party, our task as parliamentarians, to be constantly trying to improve the well-being of the majority, but the well-being of the majority in recent years has been improving. While this has been going on in our country, the well-being of a significant number of our kids has been getting worse.
From 1980 to 1986, when the child population of Canada actually fell by some 4 per cent, the number living in poverty in Canada at precisely the time the rest of us were doing better increased by 13.4 per cent.
A few years after I was elected to the House of Commons a survey was taken in 1973. In 1973 it was found in this land of ours that 21 per cent of our kids were poor. The most recent figure, according to the Canadian Council on Social Development, is that this percentage has increased from 21 per cent to 25 per cent, one child out of four from Newfoundland in the east to British Columbia in the west. Some provinces are obviously much worse than others, not necessarily because of the different political regimes but certainly because of the different capacities of the different regions to generate growth.
I repeat, while the over-all sense of well-being for most Canadians has been getting better, that of our children has been getting worse. While the rest of us have been better clothed, there are more kids going without shoes. While the rest of us have improved housing, we have literally thousands of children who are homeless in Canada. While the majority now take their families out to a restaurant from time to time for a meal,

November 24, 1989
Supply
we have thousands of kids, indeed 151,000 children, using food banks each month.
While we in Canada have witnessed in the statistics that Mercedes Benzes and Porsches and Cadillacs are selling in record numbers, one quarter of our children are wasting away. This is a national horror. This is a national shame. It is a horror and a shame that we should put an end to.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, one of the major obligations of our democratic responsibilities-and I say this to all members on both sides of the House-is to improve the well-being of the majority. That is a fundamental requirement of a democratic society.
It is also a requirement to go back to an old-fashioned and for me fundamental notion of democracy which predates the view that you have a democracy simply if you have a competitive political system, legal institutions and the rule of law. The early 19th century and pre-19th century notion of democracy was that you had a society, not just governmental institutions as important as they are, so organized that all of its members had fully equal opportunities to develop their capacities and talents as human beings. It is to that notion of democracy that we in Canada should be committing ourselves.
When we apply this test we have to understand particularly here, now, in our generation, that we have the obligation of persuading a majority of Canadians to take on the task in the interests of a minority, in the interests of our poor, in the interests in particular of poor children.
In my maiden speech 21 years ago I noted in the euphoria of that time at the end of the 1960s that our task as a people was not simply to praise our past and celebrate our present. I said that our task was to create a future, a different future, to defend what we have, and that to refuse to go beyond was to refuse to lead. We have an obligation always in this chamber to lead.
For too long we have refused to go beyond into the future when it comes to our children. For too long we have ignored the appalling poverty in the midst of affluence. For years the United States and Canada had
been regarded not only here in North America but around the world as the world's two most affluent nations and in many criteria well beyond average personal income, this remains true today. However, today also among industrial states, Canada has the second highest rate of children living in a condition of severe poverty. We are second only in this terrible indicator to the United States.
I want now to get beyond the abstractions of some of these statistics.

What is the face of poverty? It is dangerously underweight babies. It is infant deaths. The infant mortality rate of the poor is twice as high as that of the rich. Physicians in Quebec have stated that babies bom in certain poor areas of the province run the risk of being as underweight as babies in developing countries.
Poverty means chronic illness, infection and viral diseases. The rate of poor children in poor health is 150 per cent higher than the national average. This is appalling!
A recent study on poverty in Regina mentioned babies who were brought to the emergency ward with convulsions because mothers had diluted their milk to make it go further. We cannot allow this to happen!

An Ontario study found that being on welfare was one of the best and surest indicators of discovering a child with chronic health problems. Welfare payments are totally inadequate to deal with that problem.
Third, the face of poverty is malnutrition. It means going to school without breakfast and going to bed at night hungry. Again in the same recent study in Saskatchewan that I picked up and read when I was recently out there, it showed that a youngster from school during the summer vacation of two months lost 25 pounds. The weight was checked before school recessed and checked when the kids came back to school. Some 25 pounds in weight was lost by that child because the school lunches that that child was getting during the school year were not being provided at home during the summer in that it was a very poor family.
I repeat, this is happening in Canada 1989, not 1939.

Supply
Children dependent on welfare in British Columbia can meet daily nutritional requirements according to medical reports that have been done for only two and a half weeks per month. What are they going to do for the other one and a half weeks? Well, they suffer; that is what they do.
While the rest of us are well off, while the rest of us go to restaurants, while the rest of us have lots of pleasure, these kids are suffering. We should be suffering when we think about it so that we will move and put an end to it.
Being a poor kid means box lunches from food banks and soup from soup kitchens. Children make up 26 per cent of the population, but they make up 40 per cent of the users of food banks in Canada.
Around Thanksgiving I was speaking somewhere here in my home province. I picked up a copy of The Toronto Star and in that paper on Thanksgiving weekend, when most of us are with our families and enjoying our families and when most of us have lots to be thankful for, I saw a report that in Toronto, our richest city, there were 34,000 Canadians who could not feed themselves adequately. Over half that 34,000 were under five years of age. They have inadequate diets.
There are more food banks in Toronto than McDonald's hamburg outlets. Perhaps if we had neon signs in front of every food bank in the city of Toronto and in every city across Canada, when we drove around in this country of ours we would become as aware of poverty, and particularly poverty for young kids, as we are of McDonald's hamburgs.

Mr. Speaker, to be a poor kid means trying to read or write or think on an empty stomach.
A Harvard medical study has shown a direct link between poor nutrition and the ability to concentrate, so important in the learning process. A survey of 132 public schools in Calgary reported that in 46 schools, the number of children coming to school without breakfast was a serious problem.
It is not surprising that poor children are twice as likely to drop out of school as other children.

In Canada we know-and in every country where studies have been done they know it-that rich kids are not inherently better than poor kids, that they do not have a greater capacity to become musicians, poets, good hockey players or great skiers. The poor in our nation genetically have the same capacities over all, statistically, as the rich kids. But as every study shows if you are suffering from malnutrition and you are underhoused and you have all of the concomitant negative effects on your life that goes with that, you are not likely to do as well in the learning process, by a considerable proportion, as the rich or the average.
It is time we took our obligations seriously to ensure that every kid in this country has the right and the same right to develop his or her capacities and talents, that the child in Cape Breton Island ought to have the same opportunities to be what he or she can as the child in Rosedale in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, to be poor means to be homeless and without hope. Three years ago, 30,000 children were looking for a place to sleep in shelters for the homeless. Others lived on the street or with poor families who skimped on food to pay the rent.

There is now in Canada and in the United States a vicious cycle involving the poor. Poor kids are undernourished, underhoused, more sickly, more poorly educated, get the second or third rate jobs, and when the lay-offs come, they get laid off first.
The same young people many each other and then they produce children, statistically out of proportion, who go through the same cycle. We have a cycle of poor food, poor housing, poor clothing, poor education, poor jobs, poor spouses, more poor kids. This is a vicious cycle. It is a vicious cycle that can be broken and it is a vicious cycle that must be broken in this Canada of ours.
Our children, 25 per cent of them, are imprisoned in poverty and we must get them out of that prison. There is a problem in this relatively well off democracy of ours in dealing with this. It is to get the problem recognized for what it is. It is to get people reasonably well off to care about the problem so that they will come to grips with it.

November 24, 1989
Supply
First and foremost, there has to be a change in attitude. Let me just cite some examples. I will not give names, but I will give positions here.
The Social Services Minister in the Province of Saskatchewan, when asked about poverty in that province, said-and I do not exaggerate-that poverty among children in Saskatchewan does not exist. Saskatchewan has the second highest level, in excess of 25 per cent, of child poverty in Canada.
A premier in one of the western provinces said if poor kids go to school hungry, it is because their parents do not love them. That is outrageous. It shows a terrible insensitivity. Every member in this House has poor families in his or her constituency. Every member in this House knows them. Every member knows that poor parents care for their kids just as much as any other parents. It is terribly offensive to suggest that we have poor kids because their parents do not care for them.
In another province a cabinet minister said kids go to school hungry in her province because their parents spend their money on booze and cigarettes.
There is a psychological explanation for this. We have learned during the course of the 20th century about the psychological mechanism of denial. We all do it in varying degrees in our personal lives. People in political life people do it too. That is to say, when there is a reality out there that you do not want to recognize, you do not recognize it. You pretend it does not exist, and at a certain profound level you believe it does not exist. This reaction, the psychological mechanism of denial, is going on at too many levels in our country.
If I may be personal again on this subject, when I discovered this in the middle of June and woke up to the reality myself from that newscast, I began to speak, and for five months, I spoke in every province of Canada on this subject. Every speech I have made since the middle of June, with the exception of two speeches which were exclusively devoted to the Constitution, I talked about child poverty. There is, to my knowledge, one and only one news report about that issue that has been made on a speech that I gave in five months of making speeches from coast to coast in Canada.
It would be interesting to understand why the news media in our country has ignored the question. Is there a
kind of denial mechanism that is going on there as well? Is it because it is not conflict laden, not entangled in personality battles of some kind, or regional battles? Whatever the reason-I repeat, five months of speeches with the exception of two in every part of Canada-I have said almost word for word what I have said today, and the nation has little knowledge of it. There is a problem. The reality is there. The reality is abominable, and the reality is correctible. But many Canadians-I believe most Canadians-do not know about it.
A friend of mine many years ago, Michael Harrington, who is now dead, wrote a remarkable book on poverty in the Unites, a book called The Other America. That was almost three decades ago.
As a result of that book and because it came to the attention of a president, a young man named John Kennedy, it did get attention. It was taken up in the centres of power, which is normally what happens in a society. I say to the minister, those who have power are in a position to do something. Something was done. There was going to be something done in that particular instance. President Kennedy was planning a 1964 campaign based on the issue of poverty in America. As the whole world knows, he was shot and it was not done.
It was written about the United States, and it happened to take off for reasons I know not exactly, but I know it became a political issue because a president took it up. I am convinced that this will become an issue in this country of ours when premiers from coast to coast and when the Prime Minister of Canada say, "We have to put an end to child poverty".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I quoted some of the statements by ministers and governments who blame poverty of children on their parents. Many Canadians will believe that, and average Canadians will believe it as well. But I want to say that that is not the case. The study done recently for the city of Regina looking into hunger produced, as I understand it, a virtually unanimous report on the following points when it came to the causes of the poverty.
November 24, 1989

It was not due to waste. It was not due to laziness, mismanagement, bingo, booze or wilful neglect. It was due to the fact that the families were without money.
Poor kids are poor kids because they are poor kids. If we want to overcome poverty in this country, we have to do something about getting more money into the hands of poor people. That is where we have to start.
On Monday of this week the United Nations adopted the first-ever Convention on the Rights of Child. Canada co-sponsored that landmark agreement. Let us as a Parliament use that as a nation for a starting point. Article 14 of the Convention imposes on us to recognize, and I quote:
-	the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
According to this Article we are now obligated to take:
-	appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programs, particularly with regard to nutrition, health, clothing and housing.
We can, we must take up our obligations now.
The point that I want to make is that it can be done. In Sweden, Norway and West Germany there is a level of child poverty one-fifth as high as ours. Where over 25 per cent of our children live in poverty, theirs are around 5 per cent. Other societies that have cared, that have targeted the problem, have understood it is a problem, have done something about it.
In Canada, all parties-and I am not going to talk about the political genesis of it beyond that-in the late 1950s and early 1960s recognized that we had a serious problem with our elderly. We saw then that statistically speaking a much greater percentage of senior citizens were living in poverty than the percentage of children living in poverty today. The people of Canada did not sit back, and at one point people in all parties did not sit back. We all have parents. We know senior citizens. We know it is a human right that a man or woman, who spends his or her life working for the nation and with his contribution whatever it is in labour, ought to be able to retire with dignity, not just survive but retire with some dignity.
Supply
We began to move as a country. In the early 1960s we began the important struggle for elderly Canadians. In 1963, 41 per cent of elderly Canadians were poor. The Canada Pension Plan came in. Old age security was significantly improved. Indexation of pensions and pension benefits took place. By 1966, the percentage of elderly couples living in poverty had dropped from 41 per cent to 9.5 per cent. We still have poor citizens. More has to be done, of course. But we made real progress for the elderly.
There is one person who is sitting here-I see him now-who sat here day in and day out, often in the front-benches of the New Democratic Party rows, now before the Speaker, who in particular did a remarkable job for senior citizens, and that is Stanley Knowles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to you if we want to succeed with our children we have to deal as specifically with their poverty as we did with senior citizens. We helped to bring dignity to the lives of the elderly. We must now do that for our children. We must show that for us human dignity is to be cherished as much in life's first pages as it is in the concluding chapters.
I say to the minister that the federal government must show leadership. The Prime Minister said this fall that our goal for social programs must be those that "bring us both peace of mind and pride in citizenship". I agree. All Canadians would agree. I simply say it is time to match the rhetoric with action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Basically, at the federal level the government must start by increasing the minimum federal wage which is now the lowest in the country and has not been increased in three years. It should be indexed to the cost of living, just as pensions were indexed several years ago. Second, the federal government must increase family allowances and the child tax credit and index them to the rate of inflation. This money goes directly to low-and middle-income families to pay for food, housing and clothing. Third, the federal government must increase federal financing for low-cost housing.

Supply
Ten years ago, the government financed construction of 30,000 new low-cost housing units per year. Today, this number has dropped to 20,000.

We must also move to bring in child care legislation which has as its purpose and fundamental goal an increase in the number of spaces that will be available for children throughout Canada.
This in itself will help thousands of Canadian women who love their children, who want to care for them but who are now locked into welfare. They cannot afford adequate child care and so are forced to stay home when they would prefer to be spending part of their time working in the economy out of the house and part of their time looking after children but they know that they cannot leave them if there are not adequate child care spaces available.
One recent survey showed that there were over 21,000 Canadian women who specifically said they would prefer to be off welfare, would prefer to be working out of the house if only this nation of ours had taken the proper steps some time ago to ensure adequate child care service is available. We must begin to make that child care spacing available for these women.
I would like to propose that the Prime Minister or the federal government before long convene a national conference on the elimination of child poverty, inviting first and foremost the provincial governments because much of the responsibility as we know in this federal constitution of ours to deal with this problem resides with the provinces. Also invited should be municipalities to send delegates, volunteer agencies, the trade union movement, chambers of commerce, service clubs and poor peoples' representatives themselves.
There should be a national effort to talk about and understand the gravity of the problem and to understand that things can be done. Tliis conference should be called. In my view such a grand coalition that could be brought together should not be a one-shot deal, but it should obligate itself to meet on an annual basis to establish targets. I am aware we cannot do this overnight, as I am aware if we begin to spend money now and target spending to overcome the disgrace of national poverty
for children certain other priorities would have to be set aside. No serious man or woman in political life can escape from that. I am aware that it cannot be done overnight and without some sacrifice in some other domain, but by God I am saying we should now organize our political community like we have never done before. This can be done by bringing in groups that have not been involved before, setting out a national target, and monitoring it on an annual basis until we eliminate child poverty in this country.
I want to conclude with these observations. Whatever their philosophical basis, whether Canadians are Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats, I know there is not the slightest bit of difference in terms of their commitment to the well-being of children. However else we may differ on other political matters, and the differences are real and serious, on this issue there is no difference on the commitment to overcome child poverty. I believe there would be no difference about that goal.
I think that if we speak to all of Canada and if all Parties took this on, we could get a response. I am convinced that a great attempt to mobilize the energy and effective imagination of Canadians would meet with a great response from the people of Canada. We have the resources. We have the ability. We have done it before on pensions. We have done it before on medicare. What we need now is to demonstrate the same will concerning the needs of our children.
For the sake of our children, let us find that same spirit of reform, of hope, of courage, of tenacious intelligence that has led this nation of ours to great accomplishments in the past. Let us affirm today in this Parliament that as a nation by the beginning of the 21st Century-only 11 years away-child poverty in this great Canada will be a relic of the past.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate today in this debate about child welfare and child poverty. However, before addressing the motion perhaps the House could bear with me for a minute while I make some remarks with regard to the hon. gentleman for Oshawa.
The hon. member, when he moved his motion and gave a very eloquent address today, did not make mention of the fact that this is probably the last opportu-

nity that he will have as Leader of the New Democratic Party to put a motion before the House of Commons.
He made mention of the fact that throughout his long and distinguished career in federal politics he has been very concerned about issues related to poverty. Indeed, over the years we have seen that this hon. member has been in the forefront of the fight against poverty at all levels.
He mentioned the struggle that was led by the Hon. Stanley Knowles on pension reform, on the rights of seniors. The hon. gentleman from Oshawa was there at all times as well strongly supporting any initiative which could reduce poverty. Indeed, he talked with considerable eloquence and force about the commitment he made earlier this year in all of the speeches which he gave, with the exception of two which dealt exclusively with the Constitution, that in every instance he raised the issue of child poverty because of a sense of deep personal commitment.
I think it is probably appropriate, knowing the hon. gentleman and the depth of his commitment, his sincerity, his compassion for people who have fewer benefits than the rest of us, that he would put as his last motion a motion which is forward looking, which tries to provide for the children of the future, which is compassionate, and which recognizes that there are far too many Canadians who do not share the benefits that the rest of us do. It is a motion, as well, which in its very tone and its phrasing is non-partisan, which seeks the support of members on all sides of the House.
I think it was striking, and I know that members of the press gallery will have noted as well as other Canadians that the tone of the hon. gentleman's remarks today was one which was non-partisan and an appeal for Canadians transcending all differences of philosophy, all differences of region, culture, class, faith and of language to work together to try to deal with the common goal to ensure that all of Canada's children have an opportunity and to ensure that the scourge of poverty is ended. I think the extent to which we can work together in trying to achieve that goal will be a fit legacy for the hon. gentleman for the contribution that he has made to Canadian public life.
Supply
There was some speculation in the news media today as to where the hon. gentleman is going after he leaves the federal Parliament. It is not for me to speculate on that and, indeed, I do not know. But I do know that on the strength of having sat in Parliament with him for some 17 years that there is a depth of commitment there to public service which will lead him in whatever capacity, whether in Parliament or outside of Parliament, to continue to have a concern about the welfare of Canadians and to continue to work conscientiously for the betterment of all Canadians. Parliament has been better and the country has been better for his service in Parliament and our best wishes go with him for the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would be more effusive in my praise if I had not had the experience last time there was a major party leader's resignation back in 1979 when Mr. Trudeau announced that he was stepping down. The news struck me and I was moved to write a column for my weekly newspapers, praising Mr. Trudeau and his contribution to Canada, saying things which never could have escaped through my lips while he was still party leader, talking about what a tremendous contribution he had made to Canada because I was absolutely confident that he was going.
Two weeks later the government was defeated. We were back into an election campaign and the first thing that greeted me in my weekly newspapers was a column by me praising Mr. Trudeau and saying what a great guy he was. Until the NDP convention is actually over, and until I see the results, this is the last of the praise that I will be offering in the direction of the hon. member for Oshawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The motion which the hon. member put before the House today asks that the House express its concern for the more than 1 million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. Members of the opposition would like to see us agree with this motion, and indeed we do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Supply


Henry Perrin Beatty: All Canadians, regardless of political affiliation, care deeply about the future of our children and about the future of our country. All Canadians can work together to try to deal with this issue.
There is no question that poverty affects many Canadians. Poverty oppresses more than 3.5 million people in Canada. Despite a generous system of elderly benefits, approximately 450,000 seniors, most of them single, continue in poverty. The problem which is most troubling to us all is that almost one child in six-close to 1 million children-will find it difficult to break out of this vicious cycle.
These numbers are bad enough on a national basis but when we look at the pattern region by region we see even more disturbing trends. In Newfoundland, for instance, we see that more than 25 per cent of the children are poor. In Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick the rates are 20 per cent or higher. This is far too high.

Canada is not the only countiy to have reached this conclusion. Every night, two-thirds of the world's children go to bed hungry, and every day more than 38,000 children die of hunger, or because they have no shelter or are not getting proper health care.
One of the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is to reduce that number. There is only one way to ensure that children enjoy those rights and have a chance to develop: We must deal with the underlying problem, which is poverty.
Now that the convention has been adopted, we intend to support the agreement, in close co-operation with the provinces, so that Canada's name can be added to the list of signatory countries.

But in Canada the problems facing children are much simpler to define than in many of the other countries of the world. For instance, the Convention calls for basic rights for children, including the right to a name. Most of the rights that are listed are fundamental in our society and are already being met in Canada.
We know that the lot of children in Canada has been improving step by step. In 1984, more than 1.1 million
children lived in poverty. By 1987, that number had dropped to under 1 million. This is a significant improvement but the number is still too high.
As we look at the goal of eradicating poverty by the year 2000 we have to ask ourselves this. How was this progress achieved and what can we do as the federal Parliament to continue this trend?
There are two ways to put more money into the hands of our children. The first, which was largely the emphasis of the speech by the hon. gentleman from Oshawa, was by redistributing the wealth that we have. The second is by increasing the total amount of wealth available.
Let us talk first about the programs we have to target support to the most needy. The foundation of Canada's support to the needy is the Canada Assistance Plan. This year we expect to transfer $5.1 billion to the provinces for a range of social assistance expenditures. In addition to basic income support payments to families, the Canada Assistance Plan supports social services such as counselling and emergency shelters.
When we began our first mandate in 1984 we were determined that families with children should receive more support. The segment of the population most in need was obviously lower income families. The first thing that we did was to increase the child tax credit by more than 50 per cent. The child tax credit was increased to $565 per child and a new $200 supplement was brought in for children six years old and younger. We wanted to help families break out of poverty. Because 70 per cent of Canadian families have children at home, we knew that we needed a program for small children.
The growing numbers of two-income families and single-parent families showed us that an effective child care program is needed. We have already brought in a $100 million child care initiatives fund and developed child care programs which really work for different communities. This year we expect to spend another $240 million under CAP for subsidized child care spaces. That is a 20 per cent increase in CAP in just one year. All of our spending on child care this year at the federal level will amount to a figure just under $1 billion. We will implement a new national child care program by the end
November 24, 1989

of the current Parliament, as both the Prime Minister and the Speech from the Throne have announced.
As I have already stated, there are two ways to increase the amount of money available for low-income Canadians. The first clearly is the redistribution of wealth. The second involves increasing the total amount of wealth within a country.
The hon. member for Oshawa made reference to the commitment of President Kennedy to the eradication of poverty. It was President Kennedy who said that all ships float higher on the flood tide. As we can increase national prosperity in Canada, all Canadians should benefit from the increases, both in our ability to finance increased transfers to individuals who are in need in Canadian families and in terms of new opportunities for Canadians.
In 1984 this country had just come through one of the worst recessions seen since 1929. Runaway inflation robbed pensioners of their life savings and of their dignity. The level of unemployment was so high that when young people looked for jobs they were told that their skills simply were not needed.
We embarked on a program to revitalize our economy, enlarging our foreign markets for Canadian goods and services, turning Crown corporations that had outlived their public policy purposes back to the private sector, and deregulating industries which were stifling under government intervention. We needed income tax reform because the system that we had inherited choked initiative. We removed 850,000 lower-income Canadians from the tax rolls. We wanted to free up disposable income and improve incentives for people to work, thereby generating economic activity and jobs for others.
In just five years these and other initiatives have helped to create 1.5 million jobs for Canadians, the majority of them full-time jobs. Retail sales are up by 48 per cent. Manufacturing shipments are up by 28 per cent. It goes a long way to explaining how we are able to remove some 549,000 Canadians from below the poverty line. We are continuing to look for ways to further develop the strategy. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to make progress in this area to ensure that economic growth can continue.
An important part of this package showing the government's continuing concern for those with lower incomes
is that those with incomes lower than $30,000 will be better off after sales tax reform than they are now. This would be possible because we will have a progressive GST credit. We are doing this because we want Canadian families to have opportunities. This is a prosperous country and each Canadian should have the right to better his or her own situation.
I am a married man and I have two small children. I know how parents agonize over how to raise their children well. The fundamental responsibility for raising their children will always remain with the parents themselves. Within the Department of National Health and Welfare we have taken some important steps to help families with problems.
Perhaps we could call it eleven o'clock at this point, Mr. Speaker, and I could resume discussion of some of these initiatives following Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to statements by members with the hon. member for Miramichi.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, for the past six months the people of Miramichi have gone through hell. Four people, Mrs. Annie Flamm, Linda and Donna Daughney, and the Rev. James Smith were brutally and senselessly murdered. Nina Flamm was brutally beaten but fortunately survived. Father Smith was the brother of my predecessor, G.A. Percy Smith, who many members will remember. All the victims were gentle and good people who had never hurt anyone.
During the night and early morning the prime suspect was apprehended as a result of the work of brave, careful and dedicated police men and women of the RCMP and the towns of Chatham and Newcastle. I am told that the officer who was instrumental in the apprehension is a female member of the RCMP.
I want to take this opportunity to applaud and thank most sincerely all the brave and courageous men and women who put their lives on the line to bring this awful

November 24, 1989
5. 0. 31
nightmare to a successful conclusion. We are fortunate indeed to have such people in our police forces.
I also want to congratulate the people of Miramichi for their stoicism in the face of this awful nightmare.


THE ELDERLY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. government and the pharmacists have instituted a program of voluntary drug review for our senior citizens. In one case, a senior had 48 bottles of pills on hand. This may occur when old prescriptions are not discarded, when the medications are changed or discontinued, or as a result of different doctors prescribing medications for the same patient.
The elderly are much more likely to develop adverse reactions and be much more sensitive to medications, particularly sedatives and tranquillizers. They are also more likely to be confused as to the directions and may have difficulty remembering if they have taken the medication.
This program is designed to eliminate inadvertent, excessive and duplicate drug use. I would encourage all governments, pharmacists and doctors across Canada to work together to protect the elderly in this way.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the fight to save VIA Rail continues across this country. Following on the heels of the Standing Committee on Transport's report that recommended a moratorium on the VIA Rail cuts, rallies are springing up across this country. In Windsor, in Toronto, and yesterday in Vancouver, union members and Canadians rallied in support of rail passenger services.
A group is travelling to North Bay this weekend; troubadours, labour leaders and other Canadians, to point out to the government that VIA Rail is important, it must be maintained.
I want the Minister of Transport to reconsider. In order to assist him in reconsidering, I have booked passage from Ottawa to Toronto, Monday morning, train No. 41, a ticket in my name and a ticket in the name of the Minister of Transport. I would like him to join me,
ride to Toronto, talk to the people who use VIA Rail and find out what they think about his decision to cut their services and then he can catch a plane back with me to Ottawa so we can be here for Question Period.
The minister has a ticket to ride, but does he care?


NATIONAL AWARENESS-DRUG ADDICTION
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Drug Awareness Week and it is important for each and every one of us, whatever our field of activity, to combine our efforts to fight the scourge of the various forms of drug addiction.
In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I would point out an important event that I chaired at the beginning of this week, namely the first regional conference on addiction, organized by Unite Domremy Lamater, which brought together more than a hundred participants from all backgrounds-educational, cultural, social, industrial- to be better informed, but especially to establish a joint regional strategy and thus better reach the target population.
It was a success and I wish to mention the outstanding work done by the president of Unite Domremy Lamater, Pierre Sigouin, and by Noel Beaupre and their whole team.
Mr. Speaker, addiction knows no boundaries and everyone must get involved.


PROPOSED GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the present manufacturers' sales tax works in favour of imports from other countries, creating jobs there at the expense of the Canadian labour force. That is why this tax must be replaced with a new proposed GST tax. In this regard, I have received petitions and correspondence from many people and businesses in my riding pointing out some of the inequities in the proposed tax.
In particular, many ask that all pre-cooked and ready-to-eat food to be consumed at home be treated the same whether purchased in fast food outlets, groceries or
November 24, 1989

supermarkets as far as the application of the sales tax is concerned.
Others have expressed concern that the proposed tax rate is too high and should be lowered. Still others propose that the tax be abandoned altogether.
I am confident that the government has been listening and will continue to listen carefully to these representations and others and will make the right decision so that the proposed goods and services tax will be as equitable as possible.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, although women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past few years, their income levels are still only 60 per cent of their male counterparts. Economic security is still a dream for many women and this is especially true for those who are retired or are entering retirement age.

In many cases, women who have chosen the more traditional role of homemaker do not have access to the private pension plans which are essential to a decent retirement. Because most of them count on their husband's income and the financial plans he made, they can quickly find themselves in poverty if they are suddenly widowed or some other misfortune strikes. Four out of ten households headed by women in Canada are poor.

A recent report by the National Council of Welfare stated that the disparity of benefits paid to men and women under the Canada Pension Plan is increasing. Instead of introducing regressive pension clawback schemes, this government should be concentrating on programs to improve the quality of pension plans for women.


JUSTICE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we are most fortunate. For the most part, we can send our children to school, go shopping, go to work, and go about our normal daily lives
in relative security. We are free of the terror and horror that disrupts daily life in so many countries around the world. Only when terror and horror strikes close to home do we realize how fortunate we are as Canadians. This has been the case in my home province of New Brunswick.
Over the past number of months, as convicted murderer and prison escapee Alan Legere terrified, brutalized and horrified residents of the Miramichi, we were not at ease. I am pleased to report that Alan Legere has been captured and hopefully life in the communities along the Miramichi will gradually return to the quality and standard that we take for granted in this great nation of ours.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, November 25 is the eighth annual International Day to End Violence Against Women. This day was initiated by women in Latin America in 1981 and is now celebrated with marches and demonstrations throughout the world. The threat of violence against women is a growing phenomena in the developing world.
In Mexico, a woman is raped every nine minutes. More than 80 million African women and girls are victims of various forms of genital mutilation. In El Salvador women have banded together within the National Coordinating Council of Salvadoran Women known as CONAMUS. Under the shadow of civil war, CON-AMUS organized the women of El Salvador and established clinics for battered women and women who have suffered sexual assault. On November 15, in response to the good work of CONAMUS, the Salvadoran military raided and looted their office and destroyed their clinic.
One in ten Canadian women will be abused by her partner. As we mark this special day it is important to remember that violence against women is an ever-increasing problem in Canada and throughout the world.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Pope John Paul II granted an audience to the delegation from the Attikamek-Montagnais Council of Quebec and assured

November 24, 1989
them of his full support in their campaign against low-level military flights over their ancestral land.
In his communique, the Pope stated clearly that the Church recognizes Amerindians as the ones mainly responsible for their own development, which must be based on their own spiritual and moral values, that it is with them in this task and supports them in their search for just and equitable solutions to situations that threaten their welfare and the future of their communities.
Mr. Speaker, Amerindians have succeeded in making people in Canada and abroad aware of this cause, on which I have already spoken, declaring myself to be against these low-level military flights.


LEBANON
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, the tragic news of the assassination of the newly elected president of Lebanon is another cruel and senseless blow aimed at all of the Lebanese people. Such an act of violence can only destroy and further complicate the process of national reconciliation so desperately needed after 15 years of civil war.
I think it is only normal that the Lebanese people in this country should call upon this government which sits in the United Nations on the Security Council. The only solution to the problem is to have an international conference concerning the problem in Lebanon. Obviously, the solution will be achieved if the two invading armies on Lebanese soil go back to their own homelands.
The Middle East is a holy land. Lebanon is as holy for the Lebanese people as for any other people in that area. Therefore, it is the role of the Canadian government to call upon the two invading armies of Israel and Syria to withdraw and regulate the Palestinian question once and for all.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the latest tempest in a teapot over FBDB making loans to companies which operate strip clubs is useful because it raises once again the larger question as to why government would be in the lending business at all. Each government lending agency means a duplication of personnel and facilities and additional expense for Canadians.
We have in Canada an excellent system of private-sector lending institutions, including banks, credit unions and trust companies, all of which are perfectly capable of providing the financial intermediation services that Canadians need. Why on earth do we need another layer of government bureaucracy in the lending business?
Given the national debt and deficit situation and the clear message from Canadians that government should cut spending, I suggest it is time examine the whole question of government involvement in the financial intermediation field.


NORTHERN TAX ALLOWANCE
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, residents across northern British Columbia and other provinces are expressing outrage over the report of the task force on the northern and isolated tax allowance.
New Democrats have been leading the fight against the regressive recommendations and we are pleased that the member for Prince George-Peace River and a member of cabinet have now joined our call to scrap the report. In a November 17 Prince George Citizen report the minister is quoted as saying that he is disappointed with the task force recommendations and that he will ask the finance minister to take another look at the report.
The minister should listen to northerners, New Democrats, and his cabinet colleagues and scrap the task force report.
November 24, 1989


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, since accessibility to the American market as promised during the free trade debate is now seen as a myth, as witnessed by the countervail being imposed on Canadian pork entering the American market, when can the Canadian farmer expect to see some counter steps taken or hear some positive announcements by the government? This would put stability back into our domestic markets, since that expanding market in the U.S. is gradually being closed through harassment, as the Minister of Agriculture so aptly described, according to a news item in the The Ottawa Citizen on October 28. The minister said: "Rather than harmonizing, we're being subjected to harassment and it is timely and necessary to remind our American friends of the spirit within which the free trade agreement was negotiated."
When can farmers expect to hear the plans that the government has to counter this harassment?


OPPOSITION TO BRUNELLE REPORT
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to protest against the Brunelle report on isolated posts in the north and other areas. You will understand that my constituents, and I agree with them 100 per cent, are very upset about the possibility of further cuts in certain programs. We are really isolated, because we lack a number of essential services. There are a number of examples of this in remote areas. Take our transportation network, which is quite primitive compared to the rest of the country. Compensation through this isolation allowance makes it possible to level some of the disparities in the system, in a country the size of Canada. Our economy has benefited from this allowance, Mr. Speaker. The young, the not so young and the elderly are starting to enjoy living in this part of the country. Before making this decision, I think we should sit down and consider ways of giving people a fair deal. Today I want to ask the Minister of Finance to reject the conclusions of the Brunelle report so that we can discuss the matter again.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, the harbourfront of the city of Dartmouth is one of the last underdeveloped waterfronts of any major city in Canada. Over the last number of years, the city administration has examined various redevelopment options which would encompass a mix of recreational, commercial and residential development.
One of the major impediments to this project going ahead is Canadian National's marshalling yards located directly on the waterfront. In the past, CN has either refused to cost share any studies of harbourfront development or to fund any studies dealing with the relocation of the marshalling yards to other parts of the city of Dartmouth.
Early this week I met with CN president Ron Lawless to discuss this urgent and pressing matter. I have asked no more than the city of Dartmouth be treated in the same manner as that of Toronto, Edmonton, Montreal or other Canadian cities where CN has participated in harbourfront or downtown redevelopment in partnership with municipalities and the private sector.
I therefore ask this government, and in particular the Minister of Transport, to support this important initiative to the fullest, and to encourage Canadian National's active and early participation in this very necessary, timely and exciting proposal.


EDUCATION
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, this current week has been selected to mark the great contribution which our community colleges and technical schools make to the life of our country.
Canada's community colleges and technical schools offer a wide diversity of job-oriented, educational programs designed to create the skills which will be required as Canadians face the impressive challenges of our national future. Graduates from these programs step into every area of our nation's life, using their new skills and knowledge to make a significant difference both for their own lives and for Canada.
Whether it be in the fields of health or social services, in our primary manufacturing industries or in the business services sector, the impact of community college

November 24, 1989
Oral Question
training on our social and economic fabric is enormously beneficial.
As the theme from New Brunswick's community colleges states, they are reflective of our province and responsive to our people. Whether you need the skills to enter the new job market or the upgrading to improve your present position, they have the training that works. I feel certain that those words speak for all community colleges and technical schools right across Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning I spoke to Miss Karen Ridd, the young Canadian aid worker who has just returned from El Salvador and who also happens to be a constituent of mine. She spoke of the very deep and urgent need for this country to press for a negotiated settlement in that strife-ridden country, and particularly for the protection of human rights. The Catholic bishops who appeared before the external affairs committee yesterday said exactly the same thing, that it is time for Canada to take advantage of its new position in the OAS and to take action in this area.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the Government of Canada has expressed its deep desire for the government of El Salvador to begin negotiating a settlement in that country? Have we expressed our concern to the United States government, suggesting that it stop providing military aid to the government of El Salvador during this strife? In other words, what action is the Government of Canada taking to try to bring an end to that horrible situation in El Salvador?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that, with all the members of this House, we deplore what is happening today in El Salvador. Of course we are trying every possible means to make this terrible situation come to an end and provide some relief for the population. At the OAS meeting in Washington yesterday, we discussed
the situation with the entire team, and I can inform the hon. member that talks have now ended but will resume Monday, and of course we hope that as a result of all these negotiations, the situation will come to an end and peace will return to El Salvador.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister who has just spoken. Yesterday when the Catholic bishops appeared before the committee, they expressed a very important concern that there be a form of independent inquiry and independent protection for human rights in El Salvador. They had just returned from the funeral of the six slain Jesuit priests and said that the threat, the danger and the menace that exists in that country is repressive.
Has Canada taken advantage of its new position in the OAS to ask that organization to undertake an independent inquiry into the deaths of those priests? Have we or will we use our position on the Security Council to ask for an international presence in that country to protect all those people whose human rights are presently being threatened or being menaced? In other words, is Canada taking specific initiatives to try to provide for the protection of the lives of the people of El Salvador?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I am of course aware of the fact that three priests appeared yesterday before the Standing Committee on External Affairs, where they too expressed their concern about the situation.
The hon. member knows very well that the government wishes to see a negotiated peace in El Salvador, and we have indicated our position through the OAS. We shall continue to urge all parties, all governments to cease their intervention in El Salvador, and we continue to hope that the parties will be able to sit down and negotiate a lasting peace, which is the only way to bring back peace to this country and eventually ensure the development and well-being of the people of El Salvador.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, Canada can act alone right now with regard to El Salvador. For example, we can have an open-door policy for refugees. We can make our aid conditional on respect

for human rights. We can also increase our diplomatic presence.
My question is this: Will the Government take immediate action to help Salvadoran refugees? Will it change our aid program to reflect our concerns? Will our diplomatic presence in El Salvador be increased? Indeed, will the Government take action to help that country?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, again, I think I understand my hon. colleague's concerns.
We now have in El Salvador two representatives from our embassy in San Jose who are there to help with the situation.
Refugees are quite able now to apply as provided for in our system and we believe that the present staff there is sufficient.
Of course, if the need should increase, we would agree to add staff to meet the demand.
As for our aid, I would repeat to my hon. colleague that given the present situation, we saw fit to suspend the distribution of aid projects, if I may say. But I would repeat that in spite, perhaps, of my hon. colleague's objections, the aid which has been delivered is really reaching the displaced and impoverished people. Many have confirmed that our aid projects do really reach the people. Last year, these projects helped 200,000 people suffering from the situation in El Salvador.
I can assure my hon. colleague that we shall continue to monitor the situation very closely and act so as to restore lasting peace to El Salvador.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In early October, the Prime Minister tried to reassure thousands of Atlantic lobster fishermen that they would not be affected by American legislation to limit the import of live lobsters of a certain size into the United States. An industry of over $100 million is at stake!
Oral Question
The Prime Minister told us that he had spoken with the President of the United States and that External Affairs had undertaken a series of very special representations.
In spite of all that, we know that the U.S. bill has now passed all stages and only requires the President's signature.
Obviously, the Prime Minister and External Affairs failed completely in their task.
So here is my question: Where is the Minister of Fisheries on this issue? What other representations does the Government intend to make to ensure that Atlantic fishermen will not be affected by this U.S. measure which threatens to cause them serious losses? And finally, how come, with the free trade treaty, we are still harassed in this way by the Americans?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me to answer on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries who is unavoidably absent today.
As my hon. friend knows, the minister is very much seized with this issue. It has been dealt with at the highest level. As the member himself said, the Prime Minister discussed this issue with the President himself and the President's signature is not on any document. I can tell the hon. member that the minister is very much concerned as is the hon. member and others, and we are on top of the situation.


Fernand Robichaud: The minister is now seized with this question, the fishermen will be seized this coming Monday when they set their traps in Nova Scotia for a new lobster season.
What assurances can the government give the fishermen that they will not be affected by their ineffective action? What assurances can he give them that the price of lobster will not be affected and that the revenue of all those families will not be affected. Can he give them those assurances?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member has acknowledged that action has been taken. The Prime Minister discussed this issue with the President. So why do we not wait to see what the outcome of those deliberations are and not raise any fears that may not be justified.

November 24, 1989
Oral Question CHILD CARE


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister knows, as we were talking about it in debate earlier this morning, that there is not only a serious but a growing problem of poverty among Canada's children.
There are in fact more than 1,000 bodies active from coast to coast in Canada, providing food for the poor, including 151,000 children eveiy month. Food banks are growing so rapidly that they are now outpacing the number of McDonald's outlets in the country. In the city of Toronto there are more food banks than McDonald's outlets.
Given the expression of concern that we heard from him this measure announced on the part of the government to deal with the serious problem-will the minister on behalf of the government now tell us what measures the government is taking to alleviate this alarming situation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why the hon. gentleman has not heard yet of the government's proposals is that the very eloquent speech that he gave went on for some 40 minutes. I have not had a chance to complete my remarks. I hope over the course of my remarks following Question Period to talk about some of the initiatives that we have taken and some of our goals in terms of eliminating child poverty.
Our approach is essentially twofold. The first is to ensure that in transfers to individuals and to families, adequate assistance is given to ensure that we can deal with problems of poverty. The second, which he did not deal with in his remarks, was the question of ensuring prosperity and growth in Canada which creates opportunity for all Canadians.
As a result of the government's policies, we have significantly decreased the number of Canadians in poverty over the course of the last five years, including the number of Canadian children in poverty.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that I look forward to hearing the concluding part of his speech after Question Period, but I also want to say that the government's reliance on continual growth in the
economy will not be adequate in the future just as it has not been in the past.
The economy has been growing in the last few years, but while it has been growing the situation for children has been getting worse. There has been over a 13 per cent increase in poverty among children in recent years.
In those things that he may be announcing this afternoon, will the government now deal with the level of the federal minimum wage? The federal minimum wage now is the lowest in all of Canada, lower than all the provinces. An increase in the federal minimum wage would not cost the federal treasury scarcely a cent. It would be obligatory for all those companies working within federal jurisdictional authority. Will the federal government now show some leadership to the provinces by announcing an immediate increase in the level of the federal minimum wage?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows it is not for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to announce changes to the federal minimum wage. Obviously that is a question which should be put elsewhere.
The hon. member should be careful when he uses statistics. He has been here long enough to recognize the fact that the base that is used is very important in determining what the statistics mean.
The hon. gentleman says there has been a 13 per cent increase in child poverty. As he will recall, in my remarks I took as the base line 1984 when this government came into office. In 1984, more than 1.1 million children lived in poverty. By 1987, that number had dropped to under a million. That is a 20 per cent decrease.
The hon. gentleman may say that there are fewer children, the birth rate has fallen. It has not fallen by 20 per cent. The fact is that the number of Canadians living in poverty and the number of children living in poverty has decreased during the term of this government in office. It has not increased. I think the hon. gentleman should recognize that fact.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that we are operating with different statistics, but as has been the case in the past if the government has statistics which show that the degree of the problem is not what I said it was compared to recent years, I am quite prepared to accept that.
November 24, 1989

Also as the minister knows, whatever the nuance or difference between those statistics may be, the alarming reality is that we still have over one million children living in poverty. That presumably to him, as well as to me, is unacceptable.

The last question concerns what the Government does concretely to finance home building.
Ten years ago, the government financed the construction of 30,000 new homes. Now it is only 20,000, a major reduction.
Would the Government, and the minister speaks for the government today, would the minister announce today or soon that this figure of 20,000 will be increased to provide more adequate housing for the poor in Canada?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. gentleman is asking me as Minister of National Health and Welfare to make announcements on behalf of my colleague. He could more properly put the question to him.
What I can do, though, is give the House some information about the progress that has been made in dealing with poverty during the tenure of this government. Some 550,000 Canadians have escaped poverty since the government took office according to Statistics Canada low income measures. The poverty rate declined to 14.1 per cent in 1987 from 16.8 per cent in 1984. The child tax credit was increased by more than 50 per cent between 1984 and 1989.
In addition a new CTC supplement for children aged six years and under was introduced. There was a refundable sales tax credit introduced in 1986 to help support low income families. It will double by 1990 to $140 per adult and $70 per child.
The 1988 income tax reform removed 850,000 Canadians from the tax rolls. I accept the point the hon. gentleman makes that as long as there is one Canadian who lives in poverty, as long as there is one Canadian who cannot share the benefits of the prosperity that we have in society, more needs to be done.
Oral Question
I think we are on the right track. The fact that we have reduced poverty in Canada and that we continue to do so indicates both the commitment on the part of the government and the knowledge on the part of the government on how to achieve this.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank.
Yesterday the minister refused to table in the House a list of all strip joints funded directly or indirectly by the Federal Business Development Bank, preferring to tell members and Canadians that such information was available from the House of Commons Order Paper.
Now we discover through the media that the minister has ordered a probe of the FBDB to determine how many such loans have been made.
Given that such is the case, is the minister now prepared to commit himself to tabling the list, either now if he has it or as soon as it is provided to him by the officials of the Federal Business Development Bank? If not, why not?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member is accurate in stating what was asked of me yesterday, nor my response. I was asked yesterday for a list of notaries and legal agents who work for the FBDB, and my response to that was that that is more properly directed to the Order Paper.
I do not recall in answer to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell mentioning the Order Paper at all, so I think he has mixed up a couple of questions there. I think he should reread Hansard from yesterday.
On the question of the propriety of funding nightclubs that feature this kind of entertainment I think I have answered quite clearly. It is improper. We have beefed up the policy of the bank to make sure it does not happen again.
I have asked the bank to examine and to make sure if, in looking back over the records, it is able to establish a

November 24, 1989
Oral Question
flagrant disregard for that policy on the part of some officers, they should be dealt with appropriately, and if in fact they were errors of omissions, if you will, loopholes in the policy and so on, then to be sure that the new policy will prevent that happening in the future.
I have not asked them to assemble a detailed list but if it is part of their examination, and if the hon. member has some curiosity in this regard and it will not violate business confidence or trample on the rights of people who need not have their rights trampled on, I will certainly give consideration to his request.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell the minister that on page 6094 of Hansard of yesterday I specifically asked him to table the list in question.

I would now like to put my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the government prepared to initiate, as of today, a complete investigation by a parliamentary committee of the administrative practices of the Federal Business Development Bank? Is the government prepared to respond to this issue today?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, I told the hon. member that his reference to the fact that I had suggested he put it on the Order Paper was improper. That response on the Order Paper was in regard to another question. He knows that. He should not try to misrepresent what I said in the House.
In terms of an investigation, as I have indicated I have instructed the President of the Federal Business Development Bank to determine how in fact we have this situation where strip clubs receive mortgage financing from the bank in contradiction of the bank's policy.
In terms of a committee of the House of Commons, under parliamentary reform a committee is free to take whatever action the committee decides to take.


LAY-OFFS
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday in Montreal, Fonderie CSF announced 250 lay-offs at its plant in East Montreal. Since the beginning of this year, we have now had over 80 lay-off announcements involving nearly 7,000 workers in Montreal. When does the Government intend to take these lay-offs seriously? And what is the Government prepared to do to reverse this deplorable situation?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)):: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why but every Friday, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace rises in the House and asks his usual question, claiming that jobs have been lost in Montreal and that the government has done nothing about it. And every Friday I give him more or less the same answer. I may inform the hon. member that he has a very selective memory, and that from time to time, plants close down in Montreal as they do anywhere else. However, there are also plants that open their doors in Montreal, thus creating new jobs. In fact, one of the reasons why Montreal and the Quebec economy are more dynamic is that in Quebec and Montreal, the entire economic community, the economic elite was in favour of the Free Trade Agreement and Bill C-22. We have created far more jobs in Montreal during the past five years than were created under the previous Liberal government, and that will continue, Mr. Speaker.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it so happens that every week there are more and more lay-offs at Montreal. The answer of the minister is a very harsh and cold response to the situation of these workers.
Since the beginning of this year nearly 7,000 lay-offs have been announced in Montreal: 900 hundred plus at VTA Rail, 500 at Domtar, 200 at Eastern Airlines, 590 at Gillette, 1,100 at Simpson's, 360 at Weston's, 380 at Vickers, and the list goes on and on. These are real lay-offs affecting real persons, not simply estimates based on surveys.
November 24, 1989

I want to ask the minister again: What is the government going to do about this deplorable situation at Montreal?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace goes through the same routine every Friday. He gets up and puts forward a list of jobs that would have been lost when in fact there are thousands of jobs that have been created on the Island of Montreal and in the Montreal area since this government has been in power.
The unemployment rate has been down not only across the country but also in the Montreal area and the province of Quebec. One of the reasons why unemployment is down in Montreal is that this government, for example, put forward Bill C-22, a bill his party obstructed. This created thousands of jobs on the Island of Montreal. Why did the Liberals do that?
Another good example is the space agency that went into Montreal. There are numerous measures that this government put forward, and the best answer I can give to this House is that if they want to compare their record of 1980 to 1984 to our record from 1984 to today, I think the answer will be very clear for all the people of Montreal and of Canada.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank. He will know that yesterday loans out to strip joints and topless bars and so on had reached $3 million. By this morning another $600,000 has been uncovered. It is going up like a fund-raising chart by the day.
He will be aware of the rage that is growing across the country from the small business community and people like the hon. member from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia who has joined with the chairman of the finance committee to condemn the government for failing to act and failing to monitor adequately to ensure that loans in the millions of dollars were not being made to strip joints and the like.
Recognizing just how outraged Canadians are as they learn more about this situation, will the minister indicate
Oral Question
that indeed an investigation is being conducted and that he will report to the House the extent of the loans that have been made to these kinds of business operations?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the hon. member would agree with me it is appropriate that immediately upon becoming aware of this situation, even the one case, it brought about that policy change. The fact that there was more than one case is in a sense immaterial. There should not even be one. We have introduced the policy. I hope he would have the grace to admit that was the appropriate action to take.
I hope he would also have the grace to admit that I have asked the president to ascertain whether in fact any of the loans in question occurred as a result of flagrant disregard for what had been the policy all along, since 1944 I am informed, of not funding these kinds of organizations and how that occurred. If it occurred through administrative error, he is to ensure me through whatever legal advice is necessary that in fact the existing policy will prevent that from happening in the future.
As I indicated earlier to questions from other members, we are looking into the files. We know they go back as far as 1972. It did not start in 1984.
This minister has not looked into a single loan of the FBDB. I have not authorized a single loan. It is a Crown corporation, one of those government run organizations the NDP likes to see in operation. It operated at arm's length. It made decisions contrary to government policy. Remedial action is being taken.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, today we found out more about loans from the Federal Business Development Bank to clubs which exploit and degrade women. These loans bring the total so far to $3.5 million of taxpayers' money used for these clubs.
At the same time this government has cut $2 million for the funding of women's organizations, despite intensive lobbying by both the government's own status of women department and women's groups across the country. The FBDB has refused to set up a special fund for women entrepreneurs.
When will the government redress the balance between the millions of dollars given to businesses that degrade and exploit women and the millions cut from

November 24, 1989
Oral Question
programs designed to help women participate fully in Canadian society?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat, because the questions keep coming back with the accusation that somehow there is concurrence or agreement on the part of the government for those loans, that there is not. There never has been. We do not support it. It would be helpful if members would try to avoid the temptation of putting that accusation into their preambles.
It is perhaps technical, but the fact is that there has been no taxpayers' subsidies involved here. In fact the FBDB makes a small profit. It should not be making a profit off of these kinds of loans, but it does make a profit.
Third, let me say that over the past three years the bank has authorized some 16,000 loans for $2.7 billion.
Most of the loans are less than $100,000. Small business is its clientele.
I do not have the exact numbers available, but I will look into them because the small business secretariat of my department tells me that, in fact overwhelmingly, women are a much higher proportion of small business entrepreneurs than men. They have a higher success ratio, I might add.
I would not be at all surprised that after going through these statistics we will find that the FBDB funds more women owned small businesses than men owned small businesses. I hope that is the case.


FINANCE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and concerns the suggestion that there are thousands of Canadians, individual and corporate, who are "profitable but pay no tax". A couple of obvious reasons are that they carry forward farm and business losses from previous years and the use of business investment tax credits on the purchase of production equipment, and there are regional incentives.
I want to ask the Minister: Are these the real reasons? Who are these individual Canadians and Canadian corporations? Are they really profitable and what are the reasons for these allegations?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out two reasons why there are profitable corporations that do not pay taxes. The interesting observation that I would make is that the NDP referred to 93,000 large corporations in 1987, the sense being that 93,000 large corporations are not paying tax.
If we go back to the large corporations tax that we introduced in the last budget, only 3,500 corporations qualified to pay for that. There are a large number of very small corporations that are in that 93,000 number as has been identified by the NDP.
The second point I would make is that that information was for the calendar year 1987. That was the year before tax reform came into play. It also is before the impact of tax reform on financial institutions.
I believe one-third of the corporations in the listing of the NDP were in the financial services area. The large amount of money in that is with banks and large trust companies.
The tax reform that came into effect in 1988 is directly pointed at ensuring that banks and large financial organizations do pay their fair share of tax. They are paying tax now; they were not paying tax in 1987. That is clearly a demonstration of the resolve this government has of making sure that we have a fair corporate tax system and that those who should be paying tax do pay tax.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I notice he also walked out. However, it is for whoever wants to get up and answer it.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That was before you even got up.


Jim Karygiannis: In August, while visiting England to celebrate-
November 24, 1989


An Hon. Member:: Where did you find this guy?


Jim Karygiannis: If members across the hall listen, there might be something they want to hear about human rights.
In August, while visiting England to celebrate the Ahmadian centenary, a request was submitted regarding a number of Ahmadian refugees in England whose visas were expiring and faced deportation back to Pakistan. They expressed their wish to come to Canada.
The Ahmadian Muslims are facing many forms of persecution in Pakistan. An official at the Canadian Embassy, Mr. Gerard, gave me assurances that he would give this matter his immediate attention. To this date nothing has been done.
Would the minister responsible instruct her officials to make haste in processing the necessary documentation for these people so that they may finally get on with rebuilding their lives?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, it might be of some use for the hon. member to know that the Deputy Prime Minister left at approximately 11.40 because he had a scheduled flight to take and a previous engagement. I think it might be useful for him to know that when such things happen it is not always within our own control, and that he was here as is usually the case doing his duty.
I can't say I was very surprised by the remark. Is this not the member who suggested that we should throw Quebeckers into the ocean, I think? It is the same type of remark.
I will be very happy to take up the representations that the hon. member has just made and to transmit them this day to the Department of Employment and Immigration so that it may offer its usual rapid response.


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I did approach the Minister of Employment and Immigration a week and a half ago and I was expecting an answer. However to this date I have received nothing.
My supplementary question, if somebody would have the decency to answer it, is: Would the government instruct the minister responsible to make haste and instruct her officials in England who are fully aware of
Oral Question
what is going on to proceed with these particular cases because their families back in Pakistan are being persecuted?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, I will take up this matter with the minister as rapidly as possible and get back to the hon. member as rapidly as possible.


TAXATION
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. According to the Association provinciale des constructeurs d'habitations du Quebec, the GST, and I quote: "-will increase the price of homes by at least 2 per cent and in the long run restrict access to home ownership in Quebec". Since there is already a lack of affordable housing, how can the Minister justify this new sales tax on housing, and furthermore, how is he going to deal with the problems that will ensue?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the numbers that the hon. member has put before the House.
We have demonstrated in the technical paper that as a result of the very generous housing rebate the impact of the GST on the price of housing will be quite limited when you take into account that there is an existing hidden sales tax, a sales tax that I am sure the hon. member does not agree we should keep. We need to move to this new sales tax system, but there is that existing sales tax in the price of a new house which is about equivalent to the net of the GST less the housing rebate. So in the large majority of communities across the country there will be no increase in the price of houses.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister has the wonderful capacity to dismiss everybody else's figures on this and all of the criticisms of the GST.
It is an amazing thing, not just the construction people in Quebec but elsewhere in Canada have shot the department's figures full of holes on the housing side. The minister knows that the tax on housing is unfair. He knows that its burden is going to fall most heavily on the major cities like Toronto and Vancouver, and he knows

November 24, 1989
Oral Question
that his attempt to claw back the housing rebate has a major loophole in it.
In the most recent Gallup survey, which I am sure has been brought to the minister's attention, done for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business only 7 per cent of Canadians still support the GST.
Why does the minister not admit that his tax first of all should not apply to housing? Second, why does he not do what Canadians are demanding and withdraw the GST and bring about some real tax reform based on fairness and ability to pay?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to my not accepting figures of other people. Let me refer him to a quote from The Edmonton Journal to tell you why I do not accept the figures of other people.
This is a statement made by an unnamed senior treasury official in the Government of Alberta who said that "the Treasurer of Alberta made a simple math error" in the figures he had been quoting quite aggressively about the impact of the GST.
I also point out to the hon. member that the provinces have a report. It was leaked over two weeks ago. We have not seen this report, but we have seen that the chief economist of the Conference Board who did the analytical work for that report has distanced himself from the conclusions that have been draw by the provincial treasurers and finance ministers, saying that he regrets the conclusions that have been drawn by the treasurers and that finance ministers have been used; they are too pessimistic. He said he would take the more optimistic side of the analysis he presented to them. He believes that the result has been an unfortunate and misleading one.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Yesterday, the minister joined the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in announcing a fishing ban and consumption advisory for commercial, recreational and native fishing for crabs, clams, oysters,
prawns and shrimp. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is further quoted as saying that the poisonous dioxins have been found in shellfish, crabs and bottom-fish.
A lot of this food is in the food distribution system. Some of it is in our homes, some on retail store shelves, and in grocery warehouses.
The consumption advisory is what bothers me. Would the minister recommend to the people who have these products on their shelves that they consume them or throw them out? Indeed, would the minister feed these products to his own children or his own grandchildren?
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, certainly not to my own grandchildren. When we issued the advisory what we did was to indicate by type of fish whether they should be consumed or not. I would be pleased to make available for the hon. gentleman copies of that advisory so he could look by type of fish, by location in terms of where it was caught, whether it poses a threat to human health, whether there should be limitations in terms of consumption, or whether it should not be consumed at all.


David Stupich: I am not sure whether the minister was talking about the food that is already on shelves or whether he is talking about what might have been fished had they not banned fishing. He did not make that clear.
That is not the end of the story.


THE ENVIRONMENT
David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question should be to the Minister of the Environment. Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are requesting the companies in the areas affected by these closures to stop pouring these poisons into the water. They are requesting them.
This is not a new problem. These problems have been operating for two, three and four decades. All we are doing at this stage is asking them not to continue doing it or asking them to change their habits. This problem arose because the government did not accept its responsibility to deal with this problem even when it knew about it years ago.
November 24, 1989

Oral Question
What plans does it have to tighten up on those procedures? What plans does it have to insist that the pulp mills clean up their act and to start levying fines if they do not?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the results of those studies stem from an operation which was launched last year by our department to know more about the level of dioxin and furans in effluent waters around those mills. We now have the conclusions. I will send letters to all companies across Canada next week notifying them that a new regulation will be enacted next year.
This regulation will call for the virtual elimination of all furans and dioxins throughout Canada. It will be a very tough regulation. It will oblige the companies to change the technology and process. This work will be done.
We have warned the companies last March that we were drafting those new regulations. Many companies now have begun to change the process, and we think that by next year we will have eliminated those very dangerous toxins all over Canada.


JUSTICE
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for prisons and prison security.
Over the past number of months convicted murderer and escapee Allan Legere has terrified and horrified the people of northeast New Brunswick, the Miramichi region. What assurances can the minister give this House and all Canadians that the series of events, mistakes and misjudgments that led to the escape of this individual will not happen again.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General I would like to advise the House that when that occurrence took place there was a full internal inquiry into the reasons for the escape. It is my understanding from the documents available to me that all or most of the suggestions in the report have been implemented in order that this will not occur again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: To conclude question period there will be one question from the member for Keno-ra-Rainy River and one question for the member for Saskatoon-Dundum.


CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. It relates to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. I do not think that the government understands the ramifications of the decision to withdraw funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Canadians believe environmental issues are a number one priority today. The centre had plans to provide crucial information to Canadians on the environment. When the government decided to withdraw its funding, the centre was forced to put a stop to those plans.
My question is this: How can this government claim on the one hand to be concerned about the environment but, on the other hand, cut the funding to this centre? Would the minister explain this to the House and will he guarantee the future of the centre to Canadians who are very interested in environmental issues in this country?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of this issue is that the government is not necessarily the only source of funding for this centre. Other alternatives can reasonably be looked at as to whether those who have a stake in the centre should also be called upon to help fund the centre. Beyond that, I will be happy to make some representations to the Minister of Labour.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, there are 2,200 public servants off the job from federal vessels. My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The issue of wage parity is one which any thinking person can certainly support. People who face daily risk to save lives should be decently paid regardless of which coast of the country they live on, whether they live near the Great Lakes or work on the Great Lakes or on the St. Lawrence. These public

November 24, 1989
Routine Proceedings
servants are anxious to get back to work but they want to see fairness prevail. Will the minister use his office to bargain constructively and do the right thing by immediately establishing wage parity across the country and help to bargain for a fair and liveable wage for these esteemed public servants?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is not in the House today. As the hon. member knows, my colleague is very much aware and very much involved in the discussions on this particular matter. I believe he commented on it in the House three or four days ago. Certainly I will draw the attention of the President of Treasury Board to the question of the hon member and I expect he will get back to him next week.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Ihx Act, and I ask that an order of the day be designated to debate the motion.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Government House Leader):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the report of the Nordic Council's International Conference on the Pollution of the Seas in Copenhagen, Denmark from October 16 to October 18, 1989, in both official languages.
I would just say, Your Honour, since this invitation came through you, I was asked to lead this delegation along with the official critic on the environment, the Member for Hamilton East, the Member for Skeena, the official spokesman for his party, and Senator Robertson of the other place.
This important conference attempted to urge a number of major advances with respect to the marine environment, in particular the ratification of the Law of the Sea in which Canada played such a crucial role, a series of measures to restore the marine environment of the North Atlantic, North Sea and the Arctic Ocean, urge a 50 per cent reduction of toxic and bio-accumulating waste in the marine environment, a ratification of the 1989 Basle Convention and a ban on ocean dumping and incineration. I believe the initiative of the Nordic countries to call this conference, which included both eastern and western Europe and Canada, was an important advance and I look forward to a further follow-up of the important decisions and discussion that took place at that time.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Jean J. Charest: for leave to introduce Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the province of Manitoba concerning the proposed goods and services tax that the government is presenting. These petitioners present the ways in which the tax will unfairly affect them and they ask humbly that the government withdraw this goods and services tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of a number of western Canadians who point out a whole set of reasons why they are disenchanted and very disappointed with the government's decision to reduce and curtail VIA Rail service, and they are asking the government to reverse that decision and actually invest in an effort to improve and modernize our passenger rail service, as virtually every other western industrialized nation has done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a second issue, there are hundreds of petitioners who point out their concern with the government's goods and services tax and are asking the government to reconsider what it is doing and essentially forget the tax.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty today to present petitions from my constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt and the constituency of the Minister of National Defence. These constituents ask the government to reject the goods and services tax and to put in place a tax that is more fair to all Canadians and not one that is regressive.
Routine Proceedings
It is interesting that small-town Saskatchewan is supplying these petitions as in many cases every member of the community signs the petition.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from roughly 800 residents of the riding of Comox-Alberni on the west coast of Canada who call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax which they characterize as shifting the tax burden on to ordinary Canadians through a regressive consumption tax instead of through real tax reform, and they call for reform of the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of private music teachers in my constituency, and I know that this reflects the concerns of music teachers in Manitoba and across Canada, I want to present this petition which asks for the abolition of the goods and services tax on music, which is an enrichment for all of us. It is another tax on education, another tax on culture and another tax on children and others who, quite rightly, profit from music education.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to present a petition from another 100 residents of Ottawa West and other ridings in the national capital region objecting to the fact that the government has increased the manufacturers' sales tax by 50 per cent, from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent, and now proposes to replace that increased tax by the goods and services tax. These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour today to rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of producers from western Canada who are concerned about the future that this government is providing with respect to agriculture.
They are particularly concerned with the fact that the government has removed oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and are concerned over the future of supply management and orderly marketing in this country.

November 24, 1989
Routine Proceedings
They call upon this government to replace under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection that wheat now has under the Canadian Wheat Board.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from residents in my part of British Columbia who wish to bring attention to this tax-crazed government.
The first petition is with regard to the additional tax on long distance calls which they feel is an unfair burden on northern and rural Canadians who must use these services.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on the grief and suffering tax as it is known across the country. The residents of the riding of Caribou-Chilcotin and other areas are expressing their concern to this government in introducing this very unfair tax.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 with two petitions signed by a number of residents from Calgary, Alberta and the cities of Revelstoke, Kimberley and the communities of Winfield, Nakusp, Westbank and Burton, all in the southeast comer of British Columbia.
The petitioners condemn the cancelling of the Canadian line of the VIA system and call upon Parliament to maintain VIA Rail's present national network to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment and to give VIA Rail the sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present to the government a petition signed by Vernon residents, members of the Communities Against Sexual Abuse, that call on the government to revise the laws of Canada and allow the Canada Evidence Act to better serve victims with disabilities, allowing them to communicate their account of their victimization in court.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also present to the House today again under the provisions of Standing Order 36, my first instalment consisting of 88 petitions, a total of 7,500 signatures, residents of the Okanagan-Shuswap area, who re simply outraged with the government's proposed goods and services tax.
The 7,500 petitioners call upon the government to reject the proposed goods and services tax and to consult with business, labour and consumer groups to reach a broad consensus on reform of the tax system before implementing further changes and to ensure that there is a process of fair tax reform that will ensure a healthy climate for future economic growth in Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 133 and 164.


Mr. Heap: 1.	What number of person-years are allocated to the Immigration and Refugee Board?
2.	What number of these person-years will be applied to the Appeals Division of the IRB?
3.	Will any adjudicators now being hired be solely responsible for refugee claims or will they work in other areas?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. For the fiscal year 1989-90, a total of 525 person years have been allocated to the Immigration and Refugee Board. A further 217 members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, who are appointed by the Govemor-in-Council, are not included in the Board's person-year allocation.
2. Staff person-years are not allocated by Division. Of 217 members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, 22 are allocated to the Immigration Appeal Division.
...
November 24, 1989

3. A claim to refugee status may be initiated at two distinct stages; when a person still has valid status in Canada or within the context of an immigration inquiry with respect to Immigration allegations brought against the person concerned.
All adjudicators preside over all aspects of the inquiry/ hearing process. This applies whether the refugee claim is submitted by a person who has valid status in Canada, or whether the hearing into the eligibility and credible basis of the claim is conducted within the context of an immigration inquiry. In the latter case, abjudicators are also responsible for considering evidence and rendering decisions with respect to the Immigration allegations brought against the person concerned.


Mr. Keyes: Has the government provided (a) capital grants (b) loan guarantees,
or (c) any other type of financial assistance to Nationair Canada, and,
if so (i) in what amounts and (ii) in what years?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am
informed by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Federal Business Development Bank and the Department of Transport as follows:
a), b) & c) No.
i) and ii) Not applicable.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the government House leader have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received an application pursuant to Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 52, I rise to request of the chair an emergency debate on the question of El Salvador.
We have seen this morning the fact that the situation is deterioration greatly. Canadians from all walks of life and the Catholic bishops appeared yesterday to talk about the importance of the Canadian presence in that region. We listened to the minister and understood that the Government of Canada is not doing anything to represent its new position, yet we were promised by the Prime Minister in his acceptance of membership at the OAS that this would now become an area where Canada would have an active and important involvement.
I think it would be important for this House to represent the concerns and feelings of many Canadians about this desperate situation in El Salvador and to give members of this House an opportunity to express their concerns on behalf of constituents and to tiy to develop the kinds of initiatives we think the Government of Canada should take to respond to the very tragic situation in El Salvador.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has carefully reviewed the application made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The Chair recognizes that the matter is most serious in El Salvador at the present time.
However, the Chair does not feel that the application made by the hon. member meets the strict requirements of the standing orders at this time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, when we broke an hour and a
[Stage Direction]
November 24, 1989
Supply
quarter ago I was pointing out to the House that the fundamental responsibility for raising their children will always remain with Canadian parents themselves.
Within the Department of National Health and Welfare we have taken some important steps to help families with problems. Our family violence initiative is in its second year. This $65 million program which works in co-operation with the provinces will create many more shelter spaces for battered women and their children.
In the past family violence and child sexual abuse were seen as strictly private matters. We are only now beginning to understand the depths of these problems and the number of child abuse and wife battering cases being reported to authorities is growing dramatically.
[Stage Direction]
The Badgley Report shows that 42 per cent of our population has at some point been a victim of unwanted sexual acts and many of these victims are children. This is a most disturbing statistic. Canada can no longer tolerate exploitation of the most vulnerable by brutal individuals.
We must pool all our resources to fight family violence. Special attention must be paid to the needs of native Canadians who, because of their isolation and poverty, suffer the tragedy of family violence.
Early in the new year, my special adviser on the sexual exploitation of children, Rix Rogers, will present me with his report, the result of two years of consultations across the country.
[Stage Direction]
In the meantime, I announced recently that the federal government would support an important new national service for children in distress with $1.3 million in funding. The Kids Help Phone received more than 45,000 calls in its first six months. Three thousand of them reported that they had been abused. With an outlet like this we can start to identify those children who really need our help and concentrate more of our future efforts on them.
We will be working over the next few months to further develop programs which will be helpful. I think there is much more that we can do.
Let us focus for a minute on the future. The motion before us today sets an important goal. It calls for the elimination of poverty among Canadian children by the
year 2000. What can we expect in the year 2000? What will Canada be like? We have just completed the most comprehensive demographic survey in Canadian history and it gives us a pretty good idea what is happening to families and where the population is going.
By the year 2000, roughly 12 per cent of our population will be 65 or older. Today Sweden and West Germany have more than 15 per cent. Both of these are dynamic and vibrant economies which have no difficulty supporting their social network, nor if we act prudently should Canada have difficulty, but what will change significantly over the next 10 years is the nature of the family itself. The more that I learn about families the more I realize that even today there is no such thing as an average Canadian family.
We see examples of the nuclear family, single parent families, extended families and families who choose not to have children. In our attempts to be supportive of families, we have tended to concentrate on the disfunc-tioning family. It is critical that we assist those who are in difficulty.
I want us to look as well at what we can do to help families which are functioning well but which may need help in some of the routine affairs of life. This means reaching children in school and teaching them that drugs or smoking will damage their mental and physical health. It means reaching parents in the workplace and teaching them how to cope with stress. It means developing a child care program which will be supportive of families. When all that fails and families break down, it means intervening and giving them the tools that they need to help themselves.
We need to develop a seamless approach to what we are doing, stitching together the disparate programs available today to build a comprehensive policy for the future.
We know that by the year 2000 there will be more women in the workforce, a trend we must expect to continue for some time. As a result we must make sure that women have full access to the labour market. This means that we have to ease the transition back and forth from child raising to the workplace.
A major challenge to the lives of children in the developing world today and possibly in the year 2000 is disease. Children in the Third World die from diseases which are easily preventable. Until recently that has not been a serious problem in Canada. We have a universal
November 24, 1989
[Stage Direction]
health care system which has eradicated many of these killers.
In 1982 that started to change. That was the first year we identified a case of AIDS in Canada. Since then 3,000 more have surfaced. As the disease spreads through the heterosexual community, we see more mothers giving birth to children infected with HIV.
In New Jersey one in seven children has the virus at birth but with many of the diseases plaguing the Third World, the situation is completely preventable. AIDS is still a new disease and we must make sure that it does not have an opportunity to become an old one.
Looking toward the year 2000 the burden of the national debt may not lighten appreciably without several more years of continued economic growth. The cruel truth is that this year we will be spending more on the debt interest payments than on old age security, family allowance, child care, health care and all of the other programs and services delivered by my department put together.
If we keep going at this rate, which is adding another $30 or $35 billion to the debt each year, by the year 2000 our accumulated debt would approach three quarters of a trillion dollars. That would be the worst thing that we could do for the future of our children.
Why should they be saddled for the excesses of their parents? We came to that realization about the environment. Why can we not come to that realization about the debt?
Over the years Canadian governments have developed a national network of social support programs that are admired by people in much of the world, including many, I believe, in this country. Despite tensions in the system today, our health care system is remarkably successful, so much so that I was recently invited to Washington to explain its workings to a group of American health care experts looking north of the border for solutions.
Each and every child in Canada must have access to adequate health care. Our goal must be to make sure that each and every child is also freed from the trap of poverty. The hon. member for Oshawa has asked us to
Supply
try to eliminate poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
During Question Period he asked whether or not I was making new announcements today. I am sure that the hon. member would not expect that having just received notice of his motion late yesterday afternoon the government would redesign whole new programs simply in response. What I have tried to do is indicate today that important progress has been made, that we commit ourselves to the principle of making more progress, that we believe that we are on track in terms of moving ahead in the right direction and that by working together there is substantial progress that can be made.
Simply redistributing wealth will not help us to achieve that goal. It is essential that we increase the total amount of wealth by encouraging our economy, removing impediments to growth and reducing the burden of debt facing our children.
The point that I must repeat, almost whenever I speak as Minister of National Health and Welfare dealing with this issue related to the debt and dealing with our children's future is this. We are spending more money just for the interest charges this year on the national debt than on all of the programs administered by my department put together, all of our national health care, all of our welfare programs, all of our old age security, family allowances and so on. It is the very survival of these programs which help us to have a humane and compassionate and caring society that is in question if we do not get our economic house in order.
Our generation, the generation of the Leader of the NDP and myself, must take that initiative now. We must stop borrowing from our children's future to finance expenses today. We are concerned about poverty. We are concerned about our ability to maintain progressive social programs which will help us to alleviate the suffering of those people who are in poverty in Canada and to give opportunity to Canadian children.
It is essential that we ensure the very survival of those programs. It is essential that we get our economic house in order.
Let me conclude this way. We do not have to be afraid of the future. We have a prosperous and a dynamic economy which if managed well promises to improve even further. We have the tools to reduce the number of
[Stage Direction]
November 24, 1989
Supply
children living in poverty as we have for each and every year since 1984.
In a few short weeks we will be entering a new decade. This is a good time for us to reflect on the very real progress that we have made in the past and to think about what accomplishments we want in the 1990s. Any society that cares about its future must care about the plight of its children today. This government has demonstrated that commitment and I can assure you it will continue to demonstrate that commitment.
Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the minister's remarks. I appreciate that he did not have some overnight programs to introduce today. On the other hand, I would like to ask him if he would be prepared to make a commitment to the proposal put by my leader earlier, and that is to give leadership to calling together a national conference on the topic of elimination of child poverty.
If I recall correctly, my leader described this as a vehicle that certainly needs government leadership and would involve provinces. More than that, it would involve poverty groups, chambers of commerce, voluntary groups and all other groups that are able to become involved in solutions to poverty.
He also proposed that this action group meet annually, establish timetables and targets and have a monitoring function.
I would like to add to that. During Question Period the minister felt he was unable to answer anything about housing or tax measures, things that were in other departments, or whether such a conference would involve a number of federal ministries so that there would be a comprehensive consideration of solutions and then an action plan.
Would he commit himself to at least calling this kind of a conference during the next year?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the leader of the New Democratic party made about six or seven separate proposals for steps that he felt would be important steps in dealing with poverty, ranging from increasing subsidized housing to increasing the minimum wage to having a continuing national conference with regard to child poverty.
Certainly we will look at all of the recommendation he made. We are pleased to do that. We appreciate any suggestions that are made by him and by his colleagues. Additionally, the issue of poverty is obviously one that is on the agenda on a continuing basis when we meet with the provinces and when we meet with colleagues from other departments.
The focus I have had during the time which I have been Minister of National Health and Welfare is broader than simply the focus on child poverty. I think that is one essential element of the concern we should have. My concern has been a broader one in trying to look at problems of families. It means economic problems, socials problems such as familial violence. It means problems such as child sexual abuse. It means a whole range of other issues that we should be pulling together and not looking at in a disjointed, separate isolated way. Rather the tests that we want to apply, the government initiatives at all levels, should be: Are these initiatives supportive of families? Do they help families to function well and do they help with interventions in cases where families become disfunctioning?
Today the leader of the NDP asked me to give a commitment with regard to increased subsidized housing. One of the areas where the government has acted and which I can tell him about today where significant progress has been made is in Project Haven, a program that was under the leadership of my colleague who is responsible for housing.
What we have done is significantly increase moneys going to the provinces to provide shelters for women and for children who are in homes which are abusive. We are pleased to say that the take-up on that program has been very considerable by the provinces. It allows us to intervene in instances where children and wives are in situations where they are physically in danger and to provide alternatives.
The leader of the NDP would no doubt propose other initiatives that we could take as well. We are glad to take a look at any of those. I think it is important when we deal with family measures to not look at them simply in an isolated way, independent of everything else that is being done, but begin to stitch them together, take a much more holistic approach and begin to apply a test to government programs as to whether they are supportive
November 24, 1989

of families or not, instead of looking at them in a scattered and fragmented way.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the minister a very specific question.
During the course of his remarks, he talked about the government wanting to fulfil its commitment of two years ago to bring in the child care program. I want to ask the minister specifically when exactly can we expect that child care program to be brought into the House? Do we have a timetable? Is it going to be at the end of this term or is it going to be within the next month or two?
The fact is that we have waited a year since the election and there has been absolutely no indication of when there would be a bill, so I want to know, does he have a timetable that he can share with the House today?
Second, in bringing forward that legislation, has the government looked at the veiy serious criticisms raised by the number of associations representing child care workers and previous bill brought in by his predecessor which showed serious inadequacies? It was really not going to add any new spaces. It was going to sort of eliminate a number of the opportunities that child care should have. Can we expect a new, better, reformed, revised child care bill taking into account those commentaries and critiques that were raised by the child care community in Canada?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I wish that we had national child care legislation in place today. He knows as well as I do why we do not. The legislation died on the Order Paper before Parliament because of delays in the House of Commons and the Senate in getting it passed before Parliament was dissolved.
I think that members who opposed the bill made an error. I do not think the government ever held it out as something that was perfect or that was beyond improvement. But it would have given us a basis on which to establish a national child care system and on which to build and evolve a new system.
The commitment that has been made by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Finance, by the Speech from the Throne, by myself and by the minister responsible for
Supply
the status of women has been that during the life of this Parliament, we will have a new program in place, not promised, not progressing through Parliament but in place.
In the meantime, we continue to fund programs for child care. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, this year if you consider the tax measures, if you consider spending under CAP, if you consider the child care initiatives fund and a range of other initiatives we have taken, the federal government will be putting slightly less than $1 billion into child care in Canada. It is a significant amount of money.
In the case of the Canada Assistance Plan, it is entirely open-ended. We are anticipating an increase of some $40 million this year in transfers to the provinces under CAP. But if the provinces decide to increase spending on child care beyond that, the program is open-ended and the federal government will pay some 50 cents out of every dollar that is eligible that is spent by the provinces. As a consequence then we are seeing a significant commitment to child care and one which is going to increase.
The other element of the hon. member's question was whether the government is taking on board criticisms or comments or suggestions made by people in response to the previous legislation. Yes, we are.
I have had the opportunity to meet with my provincial colleagues and a number of national organizations and to visit a number of child care centres. As we come back to Parliament with proposals with regard to child care, what we will be doing is trying to ensure that the package we present to Parliament is one which is as contemporary and responsive to present circumstances as possible and one that meets the national need.
What is the need? The need is to dramatically increase the number of spaces in Canada. The need is to ensure that they are high quality spaces. The need is also to ensure that Canadian families have freedom of choice and that parents themselves have the ability to take a decision as to what the most appropriate form of child care is for them.
I think that within those principles, I am certainly open to have representations from any member of the House or from others with regard to what the nature of the program should be. But in the meantime, we are

November 24, 1989
Supply
continuing to spend a significant amount of money to provide child care spaces.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the motion placed before the House by my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa, is of profound concern and of great importance to Liberal Members of Parliament as well as to the rank and file of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The substance of the motion, that is dealing with the plight of poor Canadian children, ought to be one of the highest priorities for all members of this great institution. Today, many Canadians enjoy a quality of life, a standard of living, which leaves many throughout the world envious of our socio-economic status. There are, however, certain hard realities whose consequences are inescapable. To deny that childhood poverty is not common in Canada would be totally irresponsible and factually incorrect.
I believe it important that we place on the record certain facts which are indisputable. More than 1 million Canadian children live in poverty, up 120,000 since 1980, and over 60 per cent of these children come from single female-led families who are poor.
Canada's children are poor because their parents are poor. The gap between the rich and the poor is sadly growing and growing under this administration. The poorest 40 per cent of Canadians received less of Canada's total income in 1986 than they did in 1980. At the same time, the wealthiest 40 per cent increased their share of the total income.
Poor children suffer ill health, hardship and educational failure. Twice as many poor children fall behind in school as do children from rich families. According to the National Council on Welfare, children now make up the single largest group of poor people in the country. In 1986, more than 1 million children were growing up in poverty. That is about one child in six.
The poverty rate for families headed by persons not in the labour force is approximately 23 per cent compared to 9 per cent for families in which the head of the family is doing paid work. The risk of poverty is greater for young children. Twenty-one per cent of children below the age of six and 19 per cent of those between the ages of six and 14 are growing up in poverty.
There are almost 7.5 million Canadian children under the age of 20 in Canada. In 1985, 6,000 of those children died. Of the 365,000 babies bom in Canada in 1985, nearly 3,000 died before reaching their first birthday.
A recent Canadian survey indicated that the child mortality rate is twice as high among families at the lowest income level than among those at the highest income level.
Other facts are clear, unequivocal and very disheartening. The major cause of hospitalization of children under 14 is respiratory illness. A recent Canadian study indicated that the mortality rate from respiratory illness was twice as high among boys and six times higher among girls from low-income families than among children of high-income families.
A recent study in Ontario found that being on welfare was one of the strongest predictors of psychiatric disorders and chronic health problems among children. When you review the statistics as evidenced by agencies of the Government of Canada, one is not only disconcerted with these facts but, indeed, I find them to be alarming.
Child poverty statistics on a province by province basis in 1986 show that in the province of Newfoundland, a province dear to my heart, families in excess of 44,000 were believed to be in poverty. Female single parents in that province number roughly 7,800, that being a percentage of 72.9 per cent. In Nova Scotia, my own province, 39,000 families were found to be in poverty. The female single parents in that province number roughly 15,000 for a percentage of 70.9 per cent found to be below the poverty level for children under 16 years of age.
Such families in the province of Alberta number 93,000. Female single parents number 34,000 for a percentage of 51.3. So goes the statistics which for all of us must be alarming and it deserves our careful attention and speedy action.
Let me discuss native people. In 1977, the number of hospital admissions of native Indians because of infections and parasitic diseases was about seven times higher than the national average. In 1983, the mortality rate among native infants was two times higher for Indians, four times higher for Inuit than the national rate. In 1982, the mortality rate was almost three times higher
November 24, 1989

for native children ages one to four years than for non-native children. And the facts go on.
Native Canadians are also at risk. In 1981, 50 per cent of native people were in the labour force and the average income was two-thirds less for natives than for non-natives.
I put these facts on the record, not to be disputatious with my colleagues who will speak after me, but it is an attempt to have members of Parliament focus on the true meaning of those particular facts and the consequences of them for young Canadians.
I do not speak today of bridges. I do not speak of airplanes, bricks and mortar. I speak of young Canadians who have dreams and aspirations as diverse as those of the men and women who occupy these seats in perhaps the greatest institution in the world.
The human face of poverty in our country must be described, it must be articulated, but more important, it must be felt and it requires action by those of us who now occupy positions of responsibility.
A report in my own province entitled Women and Children Last of February, 1989 talks about single mothers on welfare in the province of Nova Scotia. For the benefit of those members who are here today, I would like to read two excerpts for their edification and, indeed, for their reflection.
This is a social worker in the province of Nova Scotia commenting on a situation. I quote from page 56 of that document:
A social worker at the Izaak Walton Killam Children's Hospital has seen single mothers bringing their babies into the emergency room with diarrhea and vomiting. They tell the doctors who examine their babies that they have been feeding them diluted whole milk, or Similac diluted at twice the normal amount. Their welfare checks were insufficient to permit them to buy Similac, which is much more costly than milk, or to buy enough of it. A month's supply of Similac costs around $60. These mothers are not aware that their efforts to stretch an inadequate income have led to their babies' illnesses. "They just blanch at the thought of having to give the proper amount of Similac because of the cost."
A basic necessity of life for young children is milk. We have not only in my province but across this country individuals confronted with similar serious situations. I believe that to be horrifying for Canadians anywhere in this great country.
Supply
Page 57 of the same document talks about a child with asthma:
The medications and Medi-Mist he needs cost between $80 and $100 a month. But $80 or $100 is far beyond the means of his mother, who receives Family Benefits. The tragic consequence for this child and others like him is that he is not getting the treatment he needs. When asthma is poorly controlled, a child is much more likely to suffer from attacks of life-threatening breathlessness. Hospitalization may follow such crises. The child may have to spend approximately ten days in hospital before his asthma can be brought under control. Then the vicious cycle is likely to repeat itself a few weeks or a few months later, when once again, the child's parent is unable to afford the treatments he needs.
This again is another real life example, not some bare-faced statistic found within Statistics Canada or the National Council on Welfare. It is real people experiencing the difficulties and the necessities of trying to have a healthy and happy life.
For what it is worth, it must be frustrating for those who are out there confronted with these serious issues and the problems that they manufacture not only for poor children, but for poor families, to see that our government has reacted not in a great positive way but indeed in a negative way. There has been the partial deindexing of family allowance, the reduced turnover point for the refundable child tax credit threshold which the RCTC has decreased based on family earnings from $26,300 to $23,500, partial deindexing of this threshold level, the net effect which will be an increasing number of near-poor families losing some of that child tax credit. There has been a reduction in the child tax exemption from $710 to $390 by 1989, and a partial deindexing of this exemption. Thx reform has since reduced this exemption to a rather insignificant credit of $65.
I could go on with regard to the lack of programs in terms of child care or in terms of the proliferation of personal income taxes that have caused grief to many Canadians and particularly poor families.
The motion put forward by my colleague from Oshawa was done, I think, in an attempt to marshall and harness the spirit which is within Parliament to address this problem not only conceptually but, indeed, from an action perspective.
The causes of child poverty are great and many. Child poverty is directly related to family poverty, and families without meaningful employment and economic opportunities in this country continue to find that their plight

November 24, 1989
Supply
and the plight of their children will be directly related to those economic opportunities.
An inadequate educational and training system both at the federal and at the provincial levels is also facilitating the difficulties in terms of causing poverty and child poverty in this country. The lack of affordable, accessible and quality child care in this country again is another cause, a cause in which I believe all of us should join and try to find new child care spaces in this country.
There has also been a failure of institutions, the failure of Parliament to deal with the necessities that young poverty-stricken children will have to face, but also the failure of other institutions such as the courts which have been less than adequate, have not persevered, have not been vigorous in forcing maintenance orders upon those spouses who duly must and ought to pay those maintenance payments to families who are in need of that financial assistance.
It is an absolute disgrace that an institution such as the courts across this country, administered by the provinces, are allowing individuals to act irresponsibly and not pay the maintenance orders that a court deemed to be appropriate.
About the welfare system itself, I could tell you story upon story. I come from a riding where the poverty is real and the welfare system acts to prohibit and restrict the incentive of the individual.
In Nova Scotia, we have a system which I would deem archaic. The cross-examination and the evaluations that these people must go through in order to receive some assistance to care for their children and their families is, in many instances, unbelievable.
When you lose your dignity, you lose everything, and I would hope that as we reflect upon the substance of this motion, as we reflect upon what we can do as parliamentarians, we will look squarely and clearly at the national systems that we have in place which are very inadequate indeed in addressing the concerns of our welfare system.
Many of those individuals who work in that system are caring, compassionate, loving persons. But equally so, I am afraid to say, there are numerous individuals who have lost the compassion, the sensitivity and the understanding to deal with those problems with which they are being confronted with on a daily basis.
I recognize that my time is limited. However, I would like to close, if I may, with a quote from a book entitled Two Worlds of Childhood. It says the following which I believe to be descriptive of the substance and the spirit of the motion today and hopefully can be descriptive of the action that we as a Parliament may take:
This is the place to start, for that is where the children are. For only a hard look at the world in which they live-a world we adults have created for them in large part by default-can convince us of the urgency of their plight and the consequences of our inaction. Then perhaps it will come to pass that, in the words of Isaiah, 'A little child shall lead them."
I urge all members to support the motion to demonstrate to Canadians that Parliament, the rock of democracy, has the capacity, and, more important, the political will to confront and to resolve child poverty throughout this great nation.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech in the lobby and here in the House, and the Minister has said, and we will say it again today in the course of this debate, that we fully support the motion presented by the Leader of the New Democratic Party However, poverty among children is not something that came out of the blue. I may remind the hon. member that a political party and a government must have vision and look to the future.
When the Liberal government was in power, at the beginning of the quiet revolution, it was a time when families started to have problems and women were taking their place in society. At the same time, divorce, separation, and so forth, were becoming more common. And at a time when this country needed a long-term policy that would prepare for the impact of the quiet revolution on today's society, the government went off on an incredible spending spree with taxpayers' money. In my own riding, we had the expropriation of 97,000 acres for Mirabel. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was spent for nothing, because the government was later obliged to sell the land back to the owners.
I would like to ask the hon. member who was a member of the Liberal government for almost a quarter of a century, for 25 years, how he can-we all agree that child poverty is insidious, it is unacceptable, it does not

make sense and that everyone must do what he can to help alleviate the problem. Elowever, I wish the hon. member would explain how we can deal with child poverty if we take only a fraction of the money we need to pay the interest on the cost of servicing the debt, because that is what we are doing now. We have a national debt that has assumed incredible proportions, while at the same time, as we approach the year 2000, we must deal with the problems of sexual abuse. I am very much concerned, and the subject was brought up by the hon. member and the minister as well, and the Rix Rogers report will be submitted very shortly, and I am sure that all members will be appalled when they read that in Canada, more and more children are suffering sexual abuse, children that today need treatment because after sexual abuse something must be done. But all this takes enormous amounts of money! The last ministers' conference made it abundantly clear that the needs that exist are an administrative nightmare. So could the hon. member explain what he did when he was in the government to try and deal with this problem or to take preventive action?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the time allowed me is sufficient to explain all of the positive things that my government was able to do in the years in which I was fortunate enough to be a representative of the people of my constituency from 1980 to 1984.1 do wish to say to the hon. member that I know she would not want us to enter into a long, winding debate of political partisanship and of pointing the blame at different individuals. However, since she has done that, it may be necessary for me to accommodate the hon. member in response to the question she raises.
There is no question that for governments at every level, Conservative, Liberal and NDP, provincially and federally, there is sufficient blame to go around. If members of Parliament want to point the finger at someone else other than themselves, that is fine, but that does nothing to eradicate the serious situation which affects young children and families in this country.
Yes, there were family allowances. Yes, we did something with regard to the Canada Assistance Act. Yes, we
Supply
did many things with regard to the child tax credit. A whole host of things took place with regard to trying to address some of those issues.
But I say to the hon. member that that ought not to be the question. The question that she poses is: Where is the money? Where is the money going to come from in addressing this most serious situation? I suggest to the hon. member that one must have a vision of one's nationhood. You must have a vision as to where you wish your children to be, and then you assess your priorities accordingly.
We learn every day that governments give moneys to questionable enterprises. We learn every day that national governments refuse, for whatever reasons, to collect appropriate taxes from corporations that ought to be paying them. We learn that governments give moneys to their friends and to their political cronies. But on the other hand-and this is a serious point-we give very little in terms of money, time and concerted effort with regard to child poverty and poverty as a whole.
So I would say to the hon. member that perhaps she ought to change her vision as to where she wishes this nation to go. Yes, members on this side are concerned with regard to the deficit as are members on that side and I am sure are members to the left. But if you want to eradicate child poverty in this country, your view must change. You must have the political will. You must have the courage to say no to the corporate elite in this country who get off without paying appropriate taxes. You must say no to your political cronies wherever they may be and provide the appropriate money for child care. You must say no to those provincial governments who wish to extract money from the Government of Canada and then spend it elsewhere. That is what you must do.
I urge the hon. member to change the vision that she may have, that her party certainly has, in order to rectify and to put a priority with regard to child poverty and poverty as well.


Lise Bourgault: Are we still on questions and comments, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne):: No, we are not.

November 24, 1989
Supply


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, for your information and that of hon. members, the government agreed that we would get ten minutes speaking time and-


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. I think you will find that there is agreement that while we will continue with our usual rotation of speakers, if one of the parties wishes to break up the 20-minute speech and 10-minute question and comment period they could do that by having a 10-minute speech and a five-minute question and comment period and take two of those. I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow that to occur for the rest of the day to enable the maximum number of speakers to have a chance to raise their voice on this most important issue.


David Charles Dingwall: This matter has not come to my attention since the hon. member has just raised it. Perhaps we could continue on with the speaking order that we have in place I could report to him very shortly in terms of whether or not that consensus can be given on behalf of our party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne):: In that case I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will try to limit my remarks so that others will have an opportunity to speak on this very important topic.
I am sure all members of the House were very moved, as I certainly was, at the last address from my leader, the hon. member or Oshawa, when he spoke so emotionally about the importance of us taking action together to eliminate child poverty in Canada. His approach was non-partisan and appealed to all parties and to all leaders across Canada because, of course, provinces have a very important role in this mission.
He appealed to the media. I could not agree with him more. The media must take a much greater responsibility to make the public aware that this is one of the most tragic aspects of life in Canada today. We do not want it just to be done at Christmas time. I think a lot of us talk
about the funds for children at Christmas and then we forget them the rest of the year.
Our leader spoke about the tragedy in the fact that one in four children in Canada are poor. This figure is not diminishing very quickly at all. He said that 151,000 children line up at food banks each month. From 1974 to 1986 we know that 86 per cent of the working poor families increased and this was an increase of about 19 per cent. Poverty for families is still in a very devastating situation and there is no question that we need con- | certed action from all of us.
Last year I had the honour to chair an interparliamentary committee which met as part of the Interparliamentary Union Conference in Hungary. We studied the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and made resolutions to the larger body.
I want to say that I was very moved by the representations from delegates from many different countries of the world who spoke of the situation of children. They spoke of children in many Third World countries who are dying of starvation and preventable disease, children who were being brain damaged and permanently disabled by malnutrition, children who were abandoned because of war and poverty and the movements of people in many countries, and the serious neglect that comes with poverty in every country of the world. The people we talked to from Third World countries could not understand how, in a country as affluent and well endowed as Canada with our rich resources and our low birth rate, we could have over a million children who are poor.
We know that in Third World countries one of the reasons they cannot make any headway, in fact they are going backward in trying to provide a floor of health and welfare services that would protect children, is because of the immense pressures of international debt, a debt which we should be doing something about. We do not have those kinds of restrictions. Yet we have children who are lining up at food banks every month.
Canada is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This week we actually signed the formal declaration that passed the UN. We have an obligation to act here in Canada. We must bring our standards up to recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. That is
November 24, 1989

what we said we would do when we signed that agreement.
The motion that is before us today in the House asks us to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. I wish we could agree to take major steps in this direction during 1990. I, for one, am not satisfied to wait until the year 2000. If we were to delay action until the year 2000 we would have a whole generation of children who would continue to be victimized and damaged and who as adults would be unable to function adequately in society. The unending cycle of poverty from family to family would continue.
As my leader pointed out, the solution to poverty is to get more money into the households of poor families. He proposed several specific measures to reduce poverty which I would just like to summarize again.
He proposed that we should have action on the part of the federal government, something which could be done immediately, to raise the federal minimum wage which is the lowest in Canada, and that this minimum wage should be indexed so that it provides jobs at adequate incomes for poor families.
He proposed that family allowance and the child tax credit, the two federal programs that are targeted directly to families and to children, and particularly to low-income families, should be raised. I would propose that we consider raising this to 20 per cent in 1990.
He proposed reintroduction of effective and affordable quality child care programs.
He also proposed a national conference on the elimination of child poverty involving the provinces, municipalities, voluntary agencies, labour, chambers of commerce, and all people, including all federal departments that can make some impact on poverty in Canada. He proposed that this group meet annually, establish targets and timetables and in fact to act as an advocacy group and an ombudsman group to make sure we take practical and specific steps as quickly as possible to alleviate poverty for children in Canada.
The minister talked in vague terms about redistributing wealth and rationalized some of the credit programs which we do not believe have been very effective for
Supply
low-income families. He talked about increasing the amount of wealth in Canada. I want to say that children are being victimized now. They will not be victimized further because of the national debt in Canada. Children should not be sacrificed to the national debt.
If we were to put money now into satisfactory incomes for low-income families with children, we could have one million poor children over the next 10 years who would be adequately nourished, have adequate housing and child care and the opportunities to grow into mature adulthood. This would, in effect, result in one million adults and their families who would break the poverty cycle and who would become contributors to the tax system of Canada. Even in economic terms, we have to take action.
We need the political will to address this problem, and we need it on all sides of this House. Unfortunately, I must say that the policies carried out by this government have not addressed this issue, and I do not want to dwell on this today, but we must remember that the trade deal and the shifting of production south of the border is very hard for families. Changes to UI will restrict benefits for many low-income families. The national child care program has been indefinitely postponed. The clawback of family allowance and old age security benefits are a direct impact on low-income families.
The lack of monitoring of the Canada assistance cost-shared programs and the threats to cut shared programs with the provinces are also of great concern, not to mention the increasing impact of both the goods and services tax and the inflation that will hit low-income families as a result.
What can we all do together to really make some impact on poverty? First of all, we need to have major increases in family incomes. I would suggest that although there are many people who are poor, including single people and still many single older women, who we must not forget, that probably there is some justification to targeting a major income increase to families with young children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Dionne):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but her speaking time has expired. There are five minutes for questions and answers.

November 24, 1989
Supply


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: I was wondering if perhaps the hon. member who has just spoken might have further comments in this regard she would wish to make.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I would be very pleased to finish my remarks very quickly, Mr. Speaker.
Not only do we need to increase incomes, we need to have affordable housing for low-income families. So much of their incomes goes to rent. We must have an affordable, good child care program across this country. Of course, we have to change policies in order to redistribute income.
I just want to say in closing that I hope we will all work, perhaps through the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, as an all-party action group to sponsor a national conference on the elimination of child poverty, and to get on with the specific measures in the federal jurisdiction which we can take immediately to make some impact on this problem.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to join in this debate. I wish also to congratulate my leader on his last speech in this body for bringing up a subject that I think this body tends to avoid or to steer around because we are all a bit ashamed of the figures concerning child poverty and the figures relating to poverty in this country.
I was pleased to see at the beginning of the debate how members seemed to adopt this issue as one that was rather non-partisan, we would all like to deal. I hope as a result of this debate the few examples of partisanship that did introduce themselves will be forgotten. I hope that ultimately the wording of the motion will be the thing that will be remembered by people in this House. Essentially, what this motion is asking us to do is to set as a priority the elimination in this country of child poverty by the year 2000. If there is anything we choose to remember about the Leader of the New Democratic Party and about this debate, it should be the challenge that he has thrown out to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada. This is a personal challenge that I think he has taken on, to eliminate this terrible child poverty that we experience in this country by a certain time period.
I do not think we could expect the Minister of National Health and Welfare to come back within the scope of
this debate and list a series of priorities which he would adopt under this motion. I certainly would have hoped for a commitment from the minister and perhaps from his parliamentary secretary that he would go out and take part in the structure suggested, such as a national conference on poverty, or perhaps by referring the issue to the health and welfare committee of this House. I hope that he will work to develop a series of programs that would ultimately result in achieving the challenge that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has set for us.
I do not want to go through the statistics that have already been enumerated by a number of the speakers in this debate. They are terrifying statistics especially, for those who experience the reality of poverty in their | day-to-day life. What struck me was one of those statistics which points out that in the industrialized countries of the world, Canada is the second worst in terms of child poverty. We are second only to the United States in how poorly we deal with this problem.
The member for Oshawa pointed out to us that there are other countries to which we can look as models and countries which seem to have established as a priority the elimination of child poverty. These are countries which are doing much better than we are. If there are these models around the globe, then at least we should be committing ourselves to look at these models to see how they do it, at least to examine their priorities and possibly try to match our priorities to theirs in terms of eliminating poverty.
The fact is hundreds of thousands of Canadian children go to bed hungry every single night of the year. Hundreds of thousands of children go to school every morning without an adequate breakfast and without a school lunch. They do not perform well in school as a result of the fact that they have a problem of poor nutrition. They suffer academically as a result and often cannot complete their schooling because of nutritional and other problems.
There are tens of thousands of children in this country who as a result of inadequate clothing, inadequate insulation in their homes and sometimes a lack of fuel altogether, suffer more than other children in this country from common diseases such as respiratory diseases and others which can be easily dealt with if they had proper clothing, shelter and fuel or the wherewithal to acquire those things. Unfortunately in Canada there
November 24, 1989

are tens of thousands of children and tens of thousands of families who do not have the wherewithal.
In large part the blame for that problem lies with we in this House, because of the things we do or neglect to do. It is because of the priorities that we establish or neglect that those children and their families are suffering in poverty.
There is a group in British Columbia called End Legislative Poverty. Poverty in this country is not an accident. It is not an accident of any individual. People who are poor are not necessarily lazy or incompetent. They are not necessarily people who cannot obtain the wherewithal to live normal lives. Poverty in this country is legislated. It is legislated through what we do in this House or what we omit to do in this House. We on all sides of this House are the people who are responsible for the problem of poverty in Canada.
I reject the suggestions made by one member opposite who would wish to blame a previous government for creating the debt problem here.
I recall the minister saying that one of the problems we have is that when the economy expands we are going to be able to look after the issue of poverty. On the other hand he is saying that when the economy goes down again those people are going to become poor again. We are going to leave those people subject to the variations in the economy. That does not make sense. We have to establish an absolute priority in this House that no Canadian is going to be pushed into poverty as a result of the variations in the economy. If any government has that policy, it does not belong in government. If any member has that policy, they do not belong in this House.
I look back on a statement made by Abraham Lincoln. He said, "This nation cannot exist half slave and half free". If he qualified that statement by saying, "except in bad economic times", we would never remember that President as a great liberator. In fact, his name would have been tarnished from that day to this.
Our object in this Parliament should be to follow the challenge that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has laid out for us, that is, to set as a goal for the year 2000 that no child in this country should be a poor child, that no family in this country should be a poor family.
Supply
This country is rich enough and we as a collective are wealthy enough to make sure that is the case. I think what simply remains for us to do is to set that goal for ourselves and to work hard to reach that goal. That can be done through the conference that our leader has suggested, as well as through establishing priorities through a committee of the House-whatever it takes. Let us, out of this debate, establish that as our goal.
I think we should put a banner up in the House outlining the goal to eliminate child poverty in this country by 2000. I think we should put other banners up showing how we perform as those figures go down. By my stars, if those figures do not go down, then we do not deserve to be re-elected as members of this House. Let us establish that goal. Let us set it up where we can see it. Let us challenge ourselves every single day to make sure that we accomplish it.
A part of the problem in this issue is the attitudes that we hold as a group. People in Canada think that those who are poor are all on welfare. As the gentleman who spoke previously pointed out, in fact the vast majority of people who are poor in this country work for a living, and they work hard. In some cases because they work at minimum wages, very low wages, they work at two jobs. In some cases, both heads of families work. So it is very difficult when you tell people that they should work in order to get out of poverty and they find themselves going deeper and deeper into poverty. While costs go up, while taxes go up, and while interest rates go up the fact is the minimum wage has stayed very low. The minimum wage in this country is not sufficient for hard working people to work themselves out of poverty. I applaud my leader for his suggestion to raise that minimum wage so that we can bring those people who work for a living out of poverty.
There is also the suggestion that poor people are all on welfare and that they do not pay their own way. Studies which have been carried out across this country, in particular at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, have analyzed the taxes paid by poor people. The results show that not only do they pay for their own programs, they pay more. They pay for other people as well, people who are not poor.
There is a serious problem with the way taxes are structured in this country. There are taxes that favour rich people and which are generous to them but which create a burden and an oppression on the poor. There

November 24, 1989
Supply
are many things that have to be done in order to eliminate the problem of poverty in this country.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell the rest of the people in this House, the one thing that first needs to be done is the one thing that is called for in this motion. Members of Parliament unanimously have to establish as a goal the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. We should establish that out of this motion making it a goal of this Parliament.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he could give us some suggestions, since he says the government should introduce legislation. Does he have any suggestions about the kind of legislation the government should table in the House to deal with the problem of child poverty, and doesn't he think that one way to deal with poverty is to ensure that families have access to jobs? Is he prepared to acknowledge that the government-although of course it was not 100 per cent, since nobody is perfect-has made considerable progress, since the unemployment rate has declined from 11.6 per cent in September 1984 to 7.4 per cent in October this year, and the youth unemployment rate has declined from 18.2 to 11.3 per cent? Will the hon. member acknowledge that the government deserves some credit for introducing policies that promote job creation in this country?


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for her question. I would like to point out that many of the jobs that have been created since the recession of 1981-1982 are part-time jobs at very low rates of pay, in fact at minimum wages both in the provinces and nationally. As I pointed out in my speech, those people who are working at those minimum wages, in some cases at two jobs, simply cannot make the money to make ends meet, to feed their families, to get decent shelter, to put decent clothing on their children and to provide for decent education and medical care.
As a response to the question I just want to give the example of a woman in my riding who, as a result of a marriage breakdown, went on welfare. She felt humiliated by being on welfare. Her daughter had a chronic illness. Although welfare provided her with a less than
adequate income, fortunately, it provided her with free medical care, free dental care and with prescription drugs that her daughter desperately required.
When she tried to take training to go back to work to become a legal assistant she was disqualified from welfare because the course was one year long. She went anyway and was able to beat the system and take that course.
Then she went to work in a lawyer's office and she was paid at the minimum wage. She lost the right to those free medical, dental and prescription drug benefits. She ended up making less on the minimum wage than she made when she was on welfare. Her daughter's health was put into jeopardy as a result of that.
What we need is a system that addresses those kinds of obstructions to work and that raises the minimum wage so that people who are working can look after their children and are not forced to sacrifice the health and safety of their children simply by getting off welfare and going to work.
There are a lot of things that need to be done. We are the people who have the power to do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the motion on child poverty.
On behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party on behalf of the poor childen in this country, for addressing their concerns in his last speech on an opposition day. It is an eloquent example of the hon. member's great sensitivity to the problems of the neediest in our society.
I sincerely hope that after he leaves Parliament, the hon. member will continue his active involvement in addressing the terrible problem of child poverty and especially, Mr.Speaker, the appalling increase in child sexual abuse.
November 24, 1989

I think that as a private citizen, the hon. member for Oshawa would be in an excellent position to increase Canadians' awareness of this very serious problem.
The family is our starting point in this world. It is the environment in which we grow up and it teaches us sharing and compassion.
Although we are aware of the problems facing families today, we must not forget that most families, whatever their structure or status, are responsible and take care of their family members and are proud to see them grow up and make their way in this world.
When I was growing up, Mr. Speaker, most of our families consisted of a father who worked outside the house and a mother who worked at home. We had strict discipline and felt secure in our family unit. However, as we approach the year 2000, the family is undergoing major changes and faces economic pressures and significant challenges.
In over 60 per cent of Canadian households, both spouses are in the labour force. Thus, most children live in an environment where their parents do double duty: Work outside and family responsibilities. Many of these children, who do not receive the same family support as I did when I was growing up, do not feel loved and wanted; they often feel as though they are in the way because when their mother comes home from work, she is pre-occupied and perhaps unfortunately does not have the time to give them all the attention they deserve.
Furthermore, one marriage in three ends in divorce or separation. Therefore, the probability that Canadian children will spend part of their childhood in a singleparent family increases every day.
These facts shape the daily reality of today's younger generation, and as decision-makers, we cannot escape them. Child poverty is also another reality for some Canadian families. One child in six is poor, as poverty is defined in Canada. This situation could jeopardize the development of some of tomorrow's adults and their chance to reach their full potential; we cannot be indifferent to it.
That is why the government has taken action to support the family. Without resting on our laurels, of course, we must be glad that child poverty has declined
Supply
since the Conservative Government took power. This improvement is due to the economic recovery of recent years, the lower unemployment rate which has benefited all families and social programs for the economic betterment of families. Economic priorities are the guarantee of our future prosperity.
In that respect I should mention the value of the refundable child tax credit which is designed to help low-and middle-income families and which has gone up by 50 per cent since 1984, from $367 to $565. Close to five million children stand to benefit from this measure this year. For that credit alone the federal government will issue cheques totalling about $2 million.
Aware of the tight financial situation of families with children, in November the government sends an advance part payment of the child tax credit to eligible households. Mr. Speaker, God knows the month is well chosen-just in time for Christmas! We also help support families through the monthly family allowances paid for each child under age 18.
This year, roughly 6.6 million children will be entitled to the allowance and the federal government's outlay will amount to about S2.6 billion. In the Province of Quebec alone, 1.6 million children receive the monthly allowance.
Mr. Speaker, I might point out that pursuant to specific Family Allowances Act criteria the provinces may choose the way to distribute the allowances. This enables them to give greater consideration to their own priorities. The Province of Quebec avails itself of this provision. For instance, Quebec youths aged 12 to 17 inclusive get a higher allowance than younger children. The amount of the allowance also increases according to the child's rank in the family.
We know for a fact that poverty is more prevalent among children of single-parent families. It is more difficult for a single parent to assume his or her economic and family responsibilities in a world where two parents generally look after the child. What is more, the economic situation of a single-parent family takes a turn for the worse when the marriage breaks up.
Anxious to help the provinces enforce support orders and family agreements, the federal government has created two services. The first uses federal data banks such as the unemployment insurance benefits central file

November 24, 1989
Supply
to keep track of parents who have defaulted in their financial obligations. The second service recuperates from the defaulter parent the amounts administered and paid out by the federal government such as tax refunds and public pension plan or unemploymewnt insurance benefits.
Although these services have been operative for only a few years, they report that the number of retraced parents and seized funds is on the increase. Single parent families are the first to benefit from these improvements. Thanks to the new GST, the tax system will be made more equitable through a number of integrated changes which will make it possible for low income families to receive tax credits. So, following the implementation of the new GST, families earning under $30,000 a year will be much better off.
The government has publicly commited itself to supporting families through social measures aimed at developing a day care network and at ending family violence. Let us not overlook the significance of the Canada Assistance Plan whose costs are equally shared by the Federal and Provincial Governments and whose purpose is to provide financial assistance to needy families. Let us not forget either the convention on the Rights of the Child which was proposed and adopted this week by the United Nations, more specifically on November 20. The purpose of this Convention is to set up modem international standards aimed at protecting the social, economic, political, religious, cultural and civil rights of children.
Mr. Speaker, in order to live up to these new international standards, we will have to amend our relevant legislation. In my humble opinion, I feel that in view of these rights, we will have to take steps to make sure that physically and sexually abused children are getting the help they need to overcome the trauma they have suffered. I am thoroughly convinced that as we near year 2000, the growth of this country will largely depend on our investments in our human resources, and this from childhood.
I have examined here only some of the steps the federal government has taken in its effort to eliminate poverty among young Canadian children. At the provincial level, non-government and community organizations play an essential role. I will mention for instance
the province of Quebec which has adopted a family policy dealing with several aspects of family life.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the family represents our main institution and our children the future of our society. I am 39 years old and childless which I consider a personal tragedy. For that reason, I love other people's children, and I just could not tolerate anybody hurting any of my nephews, nieces or any other children I know.
Within the next few months, Rix Rogers, a special advisor on sexually abused children, will submit a long awaited report. I wish to emphasize once more that I am determined to ensure that the federal government, together with the provinces, implements its recommendations, in order to deal once and for all in a fair fashion with the serious problem of child abuse.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her comments, and I agree that a number of programs have been continued, that some improvements have been made in some cases, and that a few new but rather limited initiatives have been taken.
[English)
Here is the record as I understand it. There have been 31 tax increases during the last five years. There has been a goods and services tax proposed affecting disproportionately the poor. In spite of the comments that have been made to the contrary, we get no agreement from the poor on that.
There will be a goods and services tax that taxes sports such as ringette, hockey, bowling, private music lessons, books and other reading materials, many of those very important to children and poor children in particular, non credit college and university courses, and even the simple niceties of life such as candies and other treats, as well as certain health services such as psychological services and the services of psysiotherapists. There is also the content of the last budget which a lot of people called an anti-family budget; it claws back from seniors and it claws back from families. How have these helped? If one looks at the total context, how have these helped to reduce the three and one-half to five million poor in Canada, and the little over one million children, the almost one million families, many of them single parent familiesled primarily by women, and the over one million unattached adults, most of whom are women? How has it
November 24, 1989

reduced the food banks that we are told are of the order of 150 to 160 and the soup kitchens? How has it helped the unemployed who do not appear on the unemployment list because they have run out of benefits and lost hope, or the almost 25 per cent youth unemployment in Newfoundland?
If we look at these new initiatives that my hon. colleague speaks about in the total context, can she tell me honestly that the poor in this country are not as numerous and that they are better off than they used to be?


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, incredible demands are being made on the federal government, both in the area of health and welfare and the environment. The amounts of money required in these two areas alone are astronomical.
I hope hon. members don't think that the government is particularly happy to have to raise taxes in order to achieve a more equitable distribution of the tax base. But although much remains to be done, some progress has been made. I may mention that the number of Canadians living below the poverty line has declined by more than 549,000, which means 179,000 children, 61,000 senior citizens and 198,000 women are no longer living below the poverty line. It may not be spectacular, but it is a positive development.
Personal disposable income after taxes, Mr. Speaker, has risen by $1,400 per capita, in real terms, since September 1984. Of course these are statistics, and when in our ridings we see children and families who are poor, we wonder why they can't be part of the statistics. It is clear the government has some very serious problems with the deficit, and at the same time we have a very serious social problem that we must deal with.
Of course, the only way the government can do anything is through the tax base. And although we don't particularly like raising taxes, we have to if we are to make any attempt at dealing with the problems facing so many poor families in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Cambridge.
Supply


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak to this important motion before the House today. The emphasis we in Canada place on our social programs and the intensity of our national belief in sharing and equity help make Canada the great country that it is. We take pride in the deep rooted tradition of caring for the less fortunate among us.
For these reasons, the issue of poverty is a distressing one for all Canadians; poverty in a country so richly endowed as Canada should not be happening. It is a matter of serious national concern. We are among the most concerned about those in our society least able to overcome poverty by their own efforts and we are speaking, of course, of those children who live in poverty.
It must be pointed out that there are clearly problems associated with the definition and measurement of poverty in Canada and with child poverty in particular. Thus, for example, the number of children cited in the motion as living in poverty cannot be accepted as an accurate picture of the real situation. That fact in no way diminishes the seriousness of child poverty nor the importance of seeking to reduce or eliminate it. The intent and spirit of the motion deserves the support of all members of this House.
It is an unfortunate fact that the welfare of children and the opportunities they have to life to a great extent depend upon the economic circumstances of their parents. Those children who are raised in poor families may veiy likely experience significant material deprivation. The lack of an adequate family income will very likely impose relative hardship on children in those families. Clearly, improving family income, raising the standard of living of low-income families is fundamental to reducing child poverty and eliminating the roadblocks to opportunities that it creates.
The best way the government can help raise many families out of their low-income situations is to ensure Canada has an economy that is operating at its potential. Canada needs to have a strong productive economy to generate the jobs and economic activity that translate into higher incomes and to finance our social network. In short, a key to reducing poverty among children is a strong economy.

November 24, 1989
Supply
The Conservative government has been working to build a dynamic and competitive economy that will raise standards of living and provide the means to sustain the valued programs that are part of the social fabric of this country. It has done so through an economic strategy introduced n 1984, which this government has been following ever since. There are two basic aspects to this economic plan: To ensure sound stewardship of national finances and to make fundamental changes to the economy so as to unshackle the private sector and promote competitiveness and innovation.
Over the past five years we have made substantial progress on these two fronts. The government's annual deficit has been reduced considerably below the levels of the 1984-85 period. We have also made and are continuing to make significant changes that improve the way the economy operates. By removing frictions and distortions, we are making the economy more productive. By improving productivity we are raising the living standards of Canadians and thus making headway in fighting poverty.
The actions we are taking are many and far-reaching: The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, forward-looking trade initiatives with Europe and Pacific Rim countries, the deregulation of energy and transportations sectors, tax reform, privatization, new skills training for the labour force and a new competition policy are just a few.
These changes have contributed to a healthier, more confident private sector. They are part of the new foundation we are building for a stronger, more dynamic and prosperous economy in the next decade and beyond.
This plan is working. Over 1.5 million new jobs have been created in Canada over the past five years, unemployment rates have dropped in every region of the country and, more important, Canadians have benefited from these improvements. By helping to put in place and maintain a healthier economic environment, the government has laid the groundwork for social programs, lower levels of poverty and unemployment, and a more progressive distribution of after-tax income.
Over the past five years, we have taken a number of specific steps to help alleviate child poverty by increasing child benefits through the tax system to low-income families. For example, in the February 1986 budget we
introduced a three stage increase in child tax credits and a new supplement to the child tax credit. There is a prepayment now of two-thirds of the child tax credits to about 700,000 low income families that was also started in 1986.
In stage one of tax reform, we converted the child tax exemption to a credit in order to benefit low income Canadians. The federal sales tax was increased in the April 1989 budget. These increases represent a first step to the new refundable sales tax credit that will accompany sales tax reform. Increased assistance provided through the refundable GST credit will protect low and middle-income Canadians. Families earning less than $30,000 will be better off once the goods and services tax has been implemented than they are under the existing system.
Our economic policies are designed to ensure that Canada is able to protect and strengthen the fundamental values of a caring society that define us as a nation. Our goal continues to be to ensure that Canada is economically strong and competitive, able to meet the needs of Canadians, and to provide for a better future.
All of the steps we as a government have taken to restructure the economy, to improve social programs and ensure that as a nation we can continue to afford strong social programs will count for little if we do not also ensure that our children are prepared to take advantage of the opportunities we are working to provide for them. Therefore, one of the avenues out of the vicious circle of poverty is education.
We must ensure that all Canadian children, whatever their family income background, receive the best possible education, a world class education to meet a world class challenge. Our children's future lies in our system of education. If it is to do the job we want, we must also seek ways to ensure that the school drop-out rate among poor children is no greater than it is among children who are not poor.
At the recent First Ministers conference in Ottawa, the Prime Minister outlined his concerns about education in Canada. He expressed a desire to work with the provinces, the private sector and with all interested Canadians to improve our national education systems
November 24, 1989

from coast to coast and to ensure that they match, if not exceed, those of our toughest competitors world-wide.
Education is a national issue, not a federal or provincial issue, not just necessarily a government issue. Indeed, it is an issue that affects all Canadians and demands the co-operation of all Canadians. To this end, the Prime Minister called on the provinces to join him in establishing a national task force on human resource development for the year 2000. Its objective is to assess Canada's human resource development needs and to ensure that our education system is capable of meeting the challenge in the year 2000 and beyond. If we are to meet that challenge, we will need to draw on the potential represented by the children of all families in this country, whatever their income situation.
Throwing money at the education problem is not the answer. Canada already spends huge amounts on education. Indeed, on a per capita basis we are second only to Sweden among the industrialized countries. Money spent on education is clearly a wise investment, but we want to increase the return on this investment. We want to get better results. We want to ensure that young Canadians across the country and across all income levels can take advantage of the opportunities that will be accessible to them through a better education.
We must and we will work together with all Canadians to achieve our educational goals. This is indispensable if we are to achieve our long-term goal of eliminating poverty among children everywhere. As Canadians we want a Canada in which poverty is minimized, a Canada that continues to be caring and compassionate with a capacity to maintain social programs and services Canadians need. A Canada that is economically strong and fully competitive with the nations of the world is a Canada that can best reduce poverty and provide social services and social support where it is needed.
I trust that all Canadians will join in helping to build a stronger, better Canada where poverty among children is not a present reality but just a bad memory of the past.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my witness on behalf of my constituents and my caucus to the parliamentary last will and testament that was issued this morning by the member for Oshawa in what I thought was providing an
Supply
important service to this House in not only drawing attention to an issue that troubles all of us, but also in the challenge he raised about the need to change our vocabulary, perception, the way we think, the way we act and the way we begin to absorb the harsh reality of poverty among children.
Unfortunately, after listening to the last two speeches of the spokespersons for the Conservative government, I feel that challenge is not being taken up. This is not a time for an apologia such as we heard from the member from Cambridge about how the wonderful economic record of the government is eliminating poverty.
I thought there might be the opportunity for some honesty in this House today, honesty which says that regardless of all of what he, the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Health and Welfare described, the situation over the last four or five years for children has become worse. That is the hard reality.
To have members of this House get up and tell us about the kind of neo-Conservative economic growth and all the rest of it as being the answer when it flies in the face of reality is in fact a rejection of the honest and sincere challenge raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I invite the member from Cambridge and the parliamentary secretary to look at the reality of Canada. I have had an opportunity to see it during the last three or four months. The Leader of the New Democratic Party said his conversion came in listening to a broadcast of the CBC last June. Mine started a bit earlier. It started in this House of Commons.
In 19851 was sitting in this chair listening to the debate on the government's proposal to deindex family allowances. That is part of their economic record. I was listening to members talk about the conditions of that family and I realized all of a sudden that really no one in this House knew what they were talking about when it came to the condition of the modem family, including myself.
I went back to my riding. I spoke to the churches and social agencies in my riding and asked them to tell me what was going on, to describe to me what the family was like in my riding, and what was happening there. They did not know exactly either.

November 24, 1989
Supply
We put together a consortium to study the problem. About 20 organizations were involved, churches, social agencies and others. We knocked on doors like one does during a campaign, only this time we were asking serious questions about the condition and state of the family in what was my riding at the time, Winnipeg-Fort Gariy. We talked to 12,000 families. Some tell me it is the largest study ever done at a local level in terms of family life in this country.
That was a revelation because all of a sudden I began to see that part of the problem of discussing children in poverty is that it is a different kind of circumstance. It is a more invisible kind of circumstance. Let me tell you what I found. I found young single mothers living in the downtown part of my riding in around Broadway, Roslyn Road, River Avenue who had to move every six or seven months in order to find some proper child care. They could not get sufficient, adequate, or proper child care accessibility because the day care centres were full, so they had to move around to tiy to find a proper place to look after their kids.
When you are moving around that way, there goes all your energy. There go all the resources you have simply to find somebody to look after your children. I discovered that, in my riding alone, there was at least a couple of thousand teenage kids out on the streets, not necessarily children from poor families per se but children from all kinds of families who were out on the street trying to find a place to live. Sometimes they were living with a friend, sometimes they were living on the streets, and sometimes they were just bouncing around from agency to agency.
It might be interesting to the member from Cambridge who was extolling the virtues of a government that I went to a place called Rossbrook House which is an agency that deals with poor children in downtown Winnipeg to ask what the problems were and how were they coping. They deal with 200 or 300 street kids coming in off the streets.
They pointed out that one of the really serious problems they were now facing was because of the cut-back in the budget of employment and immigration and because of the change in rules, they could no longer get job creation funds going to social agencies. That particular agency had to cut back its program by 30 or 40
per cent. They could no longer hire young street kids to work on other street kids. They could not hire teenagers to work with the young ones because your government said that that was no longer an acceptable way to spend public money which was to give money to agencies working with poor children. That is the great economic record of this government, taking money from an agency that was dealing with street kids in downtown Winnipeg.
When the member from Cambridge and the ministers and the parliamentary secretary get up and say that they are dealing with the problem, they don't know what they are talking about. They are dealing with a society that is becoming further divided, further split, and they only represent one half of it. They only represent one part of it. They do not understand the reality of the other part of Canada. They do not understand it and they do not care about it, that is the problem. They get up and read a set speech without trying to use their intellect or their energy to understand what is going on. That is the reality of Canada as it is today.
You can go into the Rousseau Indian reserve which is not too far from the city of Winnipeg and still see children having to drink water that is shipped in 30 or 40 miles and getting gastroenteritis every week as a result of that. That is a product of a policy of this government. Is that something that members on the other side want to get up and defend and say this is part of the proud achievement and accomplishment of this regime?
I ask members to shed the speeches prepared by their departments. Open your eyes and your hearts a little, start looking at the reality of what is going on, and begin to talk about what is the real vocabulary in this country.
A day does not go by in this House of Commons that we do not hear ministers or members of the Conservative regime talk about the deficit. That has become the icon of our times: The deficit.
I never hear the Minister of Finance talk about the real deficit in this country, which is those one million kids in poverty. That is the real lack of investment. That is the real tragedy. In 10 years from now those are the children who should be tomorrow's teachers, business people, politicians, or journalists. They will never get there because they are never going to get to the starting line. When you have a million children living in poverty
November 24, 1989

that is the greatest lack of investment. That is the greatest deficit we face. That is the problem, and there is nothing being done to address that kind of issue.
If this country is to be competitive, if it is to be productive, if it is to meet the international challenge, it will need every one of those children who are living in poverty today. We will need their skills, talents, brains and abilities. We cannot afford to have them on the scrap heap today, which is where we are putting them. We will need those kids to be the adults of tomorrow, to be the productive, contributing citizens of this country. This is not in the far distant future. We are only talking about something that is six or seven years away, and that is not much time.
We hear about educational forums and new task forces being set up. I do not buy that. It is simply a stall tactic. It is another way of studying the problem to death. We are going to need those children as contributing adults in a very short period of time to make this country prosperous, to make this country productive, to make this country competitive. We cannot afford in a country of 26 million people to have 1 million of its future citizens pushed to the sidelines, put on the scrap heap and told that they are forgotten. That is why it will take immediate action and a substantial change in the way we are doing things.
While we are on the question of deficit, members opposite say: "Well, maybe we would like to do more" and they use cliches: "Don't throw money at problems" and everything else. The fact of the matter is that you have to make a choice about where you are going to invest your money. Do you want to invest it in those kids? Do you want to give them a chance through decent income to become productive citizens, or are we to continue investing in megaprojects which are presently on the books for $7 billion under this government.
That $7 billion would do an awful lot to turn this country around and give those one million children a chance in this world, but this government easily will go off and sign $2.5 billion here-$800 million for Oerlikon and all the rest of those types of expenditures.
A government member said today, and I applaud him for it, that we should look at the whole gamut of business subsidies, grants, loans, guarantees, support and say that
Supply
if you really believe in the private sector it is about time that it starts doing those things for itself. The role and the responsibility of this federal government is to put the money where it counts, and that is with the children of Canada. That is where the real investment should be made.
I challenge members opposite: "Stand up for your principles. Do you want to be free enterprisers? Do you want to believe in the market-place? Then start believing in it and start saying that its time to stop the giveaways. We are going to put our money where it is really going to do some good. We are going to make sure that five, six or seven years from now we are going to have well trained citizens, because we are going to take those children and give them a chance".
That means not simply withdrawing from the programs; it means building something new. It is about time that we started looking at the inadequacy of our family programs. I am prepared to say today, without any equivocation, that the existing arrangements we have do not work. The family allowance was developed 40 or 50 years ago and was a very important program at the time. It does not meet the need today.
I will give you an example that is very clear. As I went through that family study I talked about in my riding what I discovered was that many families no longer have any flexibility whatsoever to meet a crisis. They no longer have a support system. The same kind of range of institutions and families are not there. They do not have the margin of income to meet a problem if there is a family breakdown, illness in the family, or if they discover their child has a learning disability.
Let me give one example of a couple who came to see me in my riding about two or three months ago. I think he is a bus driver and she works as a retail clerk in a department store. They found out that their child is a hyperactive kid and was then put on Ritalin. The school board said: "You can't have this kid in the school any more". They have to send him to a private school for $5,000 or $6,000 a year, and they are making a combined income of $38,000. Where does the $5,000 come from, other than going on welfare? It means giving up their payments on the mortgage on their house. It means going to the Canada Assistance Program, but they are not going to do that.

November 24, 1989
Supply
There is no capacity or ability to meet that problem, and it is what every single family faces as it goes through the cycle. There is no margin left to meet those crises. One suggestion was that we do a fundamental revision of the way in which we provide income support, to give it the flexibility to meet those crises, to create a sense of a family trust so we can provide that support to our children and their families to meet those particular problems.
It may mean that finally the day has come when we recognize that while the family is changing, and we have all these two-income families, many of them are not working because they want to but because they have to. The government loves to cite statistics about employment creation, but the fact of the matter is that much of that employment is at the minimum wage.
There is the phenomenon called the working poor in this country. There are hundreds of thousands who are in that circumstance, which again suggests to me that we have to break through a lot of the old shibboleths and the old conventional wisdom and say that maybe it is time for a proper kind of guaranteed income in this country that will provide an income base for children and families so that every time they make an extra income it is not going to be taxed away. We need some chance to move ourselves forward in our society.
That is what I think the member for Oshawa was trying to tell us this morning. I think it is about time that we expand our ideas beyond the existing paradigms and traps we have found ourselves in. He is not asking members of parliament to stand up on their feet and try to defend or apologize for what is but to try and think of what should be. Where do we go from here? That is the importance of this debate.
Perhaps I might just talk about an issue that has not been raised today. We have been concentrating, and I think rightly, on the problem of poverty of children in Canada. Let us stop for a moment, pause, think about the problem of poverty of children outside Canada and how we are contributing to a substantial decrease in the standard of living of children in the Third World.
I am not going to take a long time. I know we are Debating poverty in Canada, but for a moment I would like to draw the members' attention to a report that was
prepared by UNICEF last year called The State of the World's Children.
It is an important document. I think every member should read it because it states that as a consequence of policies that we accede to as a government and as a country, we contribute to a more serious reduction of nutrition among the world's children; we contribute to a reduction in the standard of education; we contribute to a reduction in the standard of health. What we are doing is putting the squeeze on Mexico, Venezuela and all these countries to pay their bills. They are paying them by cutting back on their schools, on their sewage systems, on the nutrition they provide their children.
The industrial nations of the world this year alone will be net receivers of $50 billion from Third World countries. In Canada alone we will receive a net of $1.7 billion. It exceeds our foreign aid budget. We are going to be taking back more money than we put out, and the consequence is that we are contributing for the first time since the end of the Second World War to the net decline in the state and condition of the world's children. We are contributing to it as Canadians.
When you ask those questions as we are studying the problem of what to do with the debt before the external affairs committee, we have the bankers coming to us and saying: "We have no choice. We have our shareholders to meet." They are running up the reserves with tax write-offs. They say that that is okay, that it is okay for them to protect their shareholders.
Who is protecting these kids out there? Who is looking after their interests? I know they do not vote in Canada. They do not have a constituency. By God, it is an awful commentary on the way we conduct our public business when we are prepared to tolerate that condition year after year and not raise a voice to say there is something wrong with us, when we allow that to happen.
I would like to add to the commitment and concern that was raised by the hon. member from Oshawa this morning and say that I think there is a broader constituency and a broader set of issues that we have to be addressing when we talk about poverty among children. I do not think it is sufficient for Canadians simply to attack the poverty of our own children, as deep, as serious and
November 24, 1989

Supply
as tragic as that may be, and leave our responsibility to range of government programs for business help chil-the rest of the world alone.	dren? The answer is no.
We cannot be an island unto ourselves, because we will not be allowed to survive in those circumstances.
The question is: How do we begin to approach this issue? We have heard recommendations for a conference. I think it is a useful idea to bring all the people from the different sectors together to begin to examine it. I think it is useful to talk about how we can begin to get the involvement of others, but I now simply want to address the responsibilities of this House.
I remind hon. members that we have a responsibility too. I remind the House of the words of George Wald who is a Nobel laureate. When he received the Nobel prize several years ago he said that while he was very pleased to accept this prize "there is not much that I can do that is going to affect my life from now on. I am who I am. I have become what I am by other people's helping so there is not an awful lot I am going to do to either help me or my generation". He said: "But I want to offer this advice: There is one simple test that I want to pass on to politicians around the world, and that is, when you ask yourself about a policy, ask yourself how it will affect children, their lives and the kind of state that they live in?"
I want to ask members of the House about how we have considered the new increase in taxes will affect children. Has the Minister of Finance really asked whether the GST, in its application in terms of the reduced standard of living of families in Canada, really helps children? Will it help them to buy their books? Will it help them to go to school? Will it help them to get the kind of music lessons that my colleague from St. Boniface has talked about? Will that tax help children? Will it really help in aiding their education? Will it help people to get out of poverty?
Let me ask how the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act will help children. Will the changes enable their mothers or fathers to get training to get into the workforce?
From the answers we heard in committee, it is going to be more difficult. There are going to be more of them on the street unless you believe in the harsh discipline of the market-place. It is not going to add substantially more investment in those areas. Will the kind of debates that we have been having over the last few days about the Federal Business Development Bank and the wide
It seems to me that we have a clear priority. My colleague, the member from St. Boniface, can talk about it more eloquently than I can because he has the facts and figures. We have to invest in people, our children. That should be the fundamental responsibility and that should be the test that we begin to apply to all our government programs.
I suggest to the hon. parliamentary secretary that rather than simply tinkering with the system, rather than looking at how you might provide another half a million dollars for a grant, to go ahead with initiatives. We have in front of us the priority of child care. Why are we waiting? It has been a year. Why is it not brought in, incorporating the incredible number of recommendations that were made by all those who appeared before the committee over a year and a half ago?
The government should not take the time to deal with the Minister of Finance's problems. Do it now. At the same time the government should look at the kind of income security program that would give sufficient base for working poor families and single parent families to meet their needs. It is not sufficient and you know it is not. I ask the parliamentary secretary to speak to her minister, so he might advise the cabinet to bring in that kind of fundamental revision of the way in which we deliver income and security. If so, you are going to get a response from this side of the House.
In conclusion, I say that we can do something important to respond to the member for Oshawa. Every time there is a bill or legislation, every time there is an initiative we must ask ourselves the simple question: How will it affect our children.


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, a brief comment and perhaps a couple of questions to my hon. colleague across the way. The annual $40 billion deficit of the government since 1984 has been reduced to approximately $28, $29 or $30 billion per year. That is a remarkable on behalf of the Minister of Finance and the government.
The people who watch our debates in the House of Commons know the cold hard facts are that we have to pay for our social programs. We have to pay to help the people that need the money the most. There are only two ways we can do it. We have implemented both of them. One is taxation and the other is by cutting the

November 24, 1989
Supply
administration of the government, which is not always popular.
I have three questions for my hon. colleague. He can answer a yes or no to the first two and I will give him the open floor for the last one. We want to see how he will balance the budget if he ever gets to be minister of finance, God forbid.
The first question concerns the GST.


Mr. Lee:: What about children?


Darryl L. Gray: We
are speaking about children. We are talking about the services because the money must come from the federal government to enhance the programs that we have.
Every Canadian has the responsibility of ensuring that we look after our children. We take that seriously on our side. Assuming that the GST goes through, if there was a new government, would my hon. colleague, as he did with the free trade agreement, tear it up? Will they wipe out GST? Let the Official Opposition party tell Canadians what they stand for today. Let them say what their option is. Will they tear up-


An Hon. Member:: What are you going to do?


Darryl L. Gray: We
have said what we are going to do. We want to have fair taxation for the people.
Will my hon. colleague do what his leader has said in the past? Will he tear up the free trade agreement with the United States that was signed on January 1, 1989? Yes or no?
Third, with the reform that we have brought in with unemployment insurance, will you, as a minister responsible in a new government in perhaps the year 2050 or later, change what we have brought in? Yes or no?
Finally, how does he propose as the official opposition party to balance the budget so that we can continue to pay old age pensions, family allowances, so that we can continue to subsidize welfare, and unemployment insurance cheques so that all Canadians can have a decent way of living?


Lloyd Axworthy: I thank the member for his question dealing with children in Canada. The fact that he was totally off target does not mean to say he does not deserve an answer. I will try to give him one.
Let us talk about what we should be doing with the economy of this country. Let us talk about the several hundred million dollars given away by increasing the capital gains tax.


Darryl L. Gray: Just answer the first two questions.


Lloyd Axworthy: Does the member want to know the answer or not? Do you want to know how you are going to pay in order to deal with children? You are going to stop giveaways like the huge rip-off in the capital gains tax. That is how you start doing it.
You begin by not giving special privileges to your friends as this government has been doing over the last four or five years. You start doing something about the high interest rates which add several billion dollars to the deficit every year.
It is about time this Parliament started taking control of interest rates and started having a minister of finance that paid attention to that high interest rate rather than simply letting it become part and parcel of the life of this country. That is how you start doing it.
You start dealing with the whole question of tax reform. The fact of the matter is that large corporations in this countiy today only contribute 11 per cent of the total revenue of the federal government of Canada. It seems to me that that hon. member might ask himself whether that is a fair contribution by the major businesses of this country who get all the benefits from this government.
Maybe he should start asking the same questions of the Minister of Finance as he has asked of me. He wants to know about unemployment insurance. Yes, I would totally rescind those because the kind of legislation brought in by the Minister of Employment and Immigration makes Margaret Thatcher looks like Mother Teresa by comparison. All it does is simply put the squeeze on the people least able to protect themselves. It does not provide incentive for training. It does not provide for the workforce and it discriminates against the poorer regions
November 24, 1989

Supply
of this country. It is going to hit the fish workers, forestry workers and farm workers, the people who work in the resource areas of this country. These are the people who will be affected by your unemployment insurance changes and they are the people whose children are presently living in poverty.
If the member wants an honest answer, yes, there is a Liberal program for economic reform and it bears no comparison whatsoever to what your government has done.


Hon. Alan Redway (Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words in connection with this opposition motion calling upon the House to express concern for the Canadian children currently living in poverty-


An Hon. Member:: Express?


Alan Redway: Yes, to express concern. I thought that was the intent of the motion.
It goes without saying that each and every member of this House is concerned about child poverty. There is no question about that. I do not think, as I look around the opposition benches, that members would deny that they have concern for child poverty. I know throughout the government caucus everyone is concerned. Certainly I am. All of the ministers are and, certainly, I know all the members of this House are. I think it goes without saying as well that Canadians generally, and likely without exception, would agree with the content of this motion which expresses concern and a wish to do something with respect to the state of child poverty in this country.
I think it goes beyond that, because it is a question of concern about poverty itself, not only child poverty. I am sure the hon. member from Winnipeg would agree that there are many other people living in poverty in this country in spite of all of the efforts that have been made over many years to try to stamp out poverty. For example, it is estimated that some 450,000 senior citizens, mainly singles, continue to live in poverty in this country at the present time. As the hon. member knows, we have made a deliberate effort and there are many programs aimed at trying to stamp out poverty for senior citizens.
What can we do with respect to poverty for children? Some of the members in this debate have pointed out a
number of the problems in relation to child poverty in this country. One in particular struck me because it was one that I had a good deal of concern about when I was a private member of this House. We see this strange and disturbing, almost obscene phenomenon of food banks and the growth of food banks.
Prior to 1979 there was no such phenomenon as food banks in Canada. Perhaps there had been in the "Dirty Thirties", but certainly not in my experience can I remember food banks in this country until the late 1970s.
Despite the fact that since then, particularly in the middle and late 1980s, we have seen the unemployment rate falling and the number of food banks increasing. That is a most concerning matter. I think it is high time that it was investigated.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that as a private member of Parliament I raised this issue many times in the House. I raised this issue before the standing committee of the House on national health and welfare and asked that committee to take the initiative and come to grips with this, investigate the problem and make some recommendations with respect to it.
Unfortunately, to date, that has not occurred. No party on the standing committee, for instance, has taken that initiative, which disturbs me greatly.
Having said all that, and I recognize that food banks are not the only phenomenon of child poverty in this country, I guess the question then is, what have we been doing about it, and what are we going to do about trying to deal with this question?
Other spokesmen for the government have pointed out a number of steps that the government has been taking to address the problem of child poverty. One of these steps is to address the problem of poverty altogether within the context of managing the economy in a way that puts people to work, trying to raise their income, and raise them above the poverty level.
My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has pointed to things like the child tax credit and the income tax reductions of last year, matters that are in the proposed goods and services tax. Although I know the hon. member from Winnipeg and others are not happy with this, there are measures within that tax system regime that are aimed at trying to assist low income people.

November 24, 1989
Supply
I know the hon. members are well aware of those measures, such as the goods and services tax credit, and, of course, there is a credit with respect to a rebate for new housing. There are many exemptions of basic groceries, medical services, educational services, et cetera; which are aimed, of course, at trying to alleviate the impact of the goods and services tax on low and moderate income people. All of these things have been done within the context of trying to alleviate poverty, put people back to work and improve the standard of living in this country.
I have always felt that one of the essential ingredients in this whole equation, however, is the question of housing. The affordability and cost of housing in this country has added immeasurably, in my view, generally to poverty, whether it is poverty of the working, those who do not have any jobs at all, child poverty, or the poverty of senior citizens. All have been impacted by the rising cost of housing. The impact either on rents or on house prices all have had the effect of reducing the amount of disposable income that people have had in order to try to get themselves out of that poverty cycle.
I do not think it is any news to this House, but somehow or other it apparently is news to at least 75 per cent of Canadians that the federal government has for a long time-and it did not just start with the present government, it has gone on now for 40 years or more- has been involved in housing and has been trying to assist people one way or another to better house themselves. At the present time we have some 600,000 housing units that have been built by various governments over the years which are geared-to-income type of housing unit homes for people who otherwise would not be able to afford it.
It is distressing to me to realize and to learn that 70 per cent of Canadians do not believe that out of their federal taxes the government will pay anything to assist in helping people to be better housed across this country. Each year, as well, the government assists about an additional 45,000 households in this country with housing of one sort or another, whether it be the production of non-profit family housing or housing for the disabled, rural and native housing, urban housing for natives, or assistance under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. All of these things are in the works and have been in the works for some time.
The question must be considered in light of the fiscal situation of the government, and I know that all hon. members of this House, regardless of their partisanship, their feelings about what should or should not be done with respect to taxes and income, realize that the government has a problem here. So what can be done within the context of that problem to try to assist and create more housing for people who need it? We have been trying to address that problem by first taking a look at surplus federal government lands to see if there are some innovative ways to utilize them.
We have already announced a couple of projects in the metropolitan Toronto area, at Downsview and at Vaughan, hopefully to be able to help in that respect. We have also been trying to involve the private sector in this process as well to use the private sector in combination with publicly-owned housing to see if we can create more housing units at the same location, some of it private, but more of it public and more of it assisted housing.
We are also looking at the aspect of getting all levels of government, including the private sector, in a co-operative phase. We have set up some 10 tripartite committees of three levels of government across the country to see if we can all come together to try to address these problems as one force rather than going off in different directions. We all know that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.
Ms Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the minister's remarks were cut off by time limits.
The Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia has found many on income assistance who must use part of their food money to pay for rent, and estimates are that about 60 to 70 per cent of the household income of poor families is spent on shelter. As the minister has acknowledged, this contributes greatly to child poverty.
Under the Co-op Housing Program which is the only separate federal program available directly from the federal government to municipalities, we have only about 100 units available this year in Vancouver. As the minister knows, the cost of housing is escalating and the amount of affordable housing is diminishing greatly. This is really contributing to the stress on families and to poverty generally. I know the minister gave his overview
November 24, 1989

of government programs. Putting that aside, deal with this problem of the high cost of shelter for poor people?


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from the hon. member, because that, in effect, is what I was trying to outline in the concluding portion of my remarks. These are some of the practical things I have been trying to do to expand, given the limitations on finances that we have, and in trying to use the resources that we have available in a better fashion.
The hon. member spoke of co-op housing. There was a discussion and agreement between the Co-operative Housing Foundation of Canada and the government some four years ago with respect to an experimental program with index-linked mortgages. That is the program that we have been applying over the last four years. It has another year to go under the agreed experimental program. One of the problems with that program was it anticipated that we could have a real interest rate of 4 per cent on ILM mortgages. But we have had a real interest rate of 5 per cent as opposed to 4 per cent. One of the ways to get that real interest rate down is to get more people investing in index-linked mortgages.
I have been going out to pension fund groups as a messenger on behalf of co-op housing and ILM mortgages to try to sell them on interest rate down to the 4 per cent level. For each 1 per cent of interest rate, the interest rate on an ILM mortgage drops, and we could increase the amount of co-op housing we produce by 20 per cent, and I have had some success.
As the hon. member knows, I was in Vancouver about two or three weeks ago and we opened a co-op housing project. This was in conjunction with the city of Vancouver which purchased the Killamey Gardens property comprising 227 units, an existing project which was about to be tom down and a condominium built in its place. In a co-operative effort with the city of Vancouver, the co-op housing movement and the federal government through the use of ILM mortgages, where we backed a $19 million ILM mortgage, we were able to save that property for co-operative housing. Those are the kinds of practical things we should be looking for and that we should be trying to do to assist in helping child poverty and in helping all poverty across this country.
Supply
I would like to have the opportunity to go on beyond the co-op housing example. There are many other things that we are trying to do in order to be innovative using the resources that we have available to expand the amount of housing for Canadians, whether it be for first-time home buyers or people spending vast sums of their income on housing who are not able to afford it, so that we can create more homes and put more people in them, still facing the realities of the existing federal fiscal situation.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me this afternoon to be able to participate in this debate, a debate that was started off this morning in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa. It struck me this morning that not only the motion but the hon. member's speech probably summed up his career in this House and the contribution he has made to conscience in this country and the thought that so many of us must have in addressing problems like this.
There is no place in Canada that sees and suffers from poverty like Newfoundland and Labrador. Like all members but I regret perhaps more than some that in my own constituency I see it every time that I am home. We all must through our efforts, not only in terms of legislation but in terms of our consciousness, move to ensure that poverty is eradicated in this country now and forever. I was particularly taken by the comments made this morning by my colleague, the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. They reflect so much the perception and reality in Atlantic Canada.
The hon. member for Oshawa reminded us that if there is anything we lack in this country, it is an awareness of the situation. It is an awareness that poverty is everywhere, that poverty is so destructive and so insipid. It is an awareness that we can, each in our own little way, do something about it. It is coming from that awareness that I want to speak this afternoon in the few brief minutes that I have about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Yesterday afternoon I had the privilege of meeting with 21 students from the Upper Gullies Elementary School in Conception Bay South in my constituency. They were a representative group of 70 Grade 6 students who came to me with their principal, Mrs. Peckham, and a teacher, Mrs. Wells, and asked me to come to the House of Commons and say that Canada has co-sponsored and endorsed through the United Nations the

November 24, 1989
Supply
convention that deals with the rights of children and that Canada should be the first country to endorse that in its own legislature. I bring that message to you, Mr. Speaker. They gave me 70 letters. I have them here and I read them this morning. They talk primarily of two things, of ratification and of peace. Ratification is something that I will come back to.
Briefly the students see the lack of peace in this world as one of the greatest crises that children face. We know that children are the victims of political violence. We know that children are the victims of war. We know that children suffer most around the world as they are pawns and as they are left by the side as we carry on in our political differences and in the interests of some great principle that we seem to have. What these kids are saying to me and to all of us is summed up perhaps in a letter from Jennifer Anthony which says: "Why can't everyone just co-operate and work together? Why don't they just try it? The world would be a much better place if people would just try to work everything out without going to war".
I think all Canadians are proud of the role this country has played in the United Nations in having the UN endorse the convention. We co-sponsored it as everyone knows and I am sure that all members will agree that the letters they received from their constituents were encouraging that we move decisively, and we have done that. Now the question is for ratification. But I think it is important to recognize that the convention while we think of it as applying to others has some very important messages for Canada and for Canadians.
Article 6 for example gives recognition to the concept of survival and development. But that is just more than the essentials of life. That includes such things as growth monitoring, oral rehydration, breast feeding, immunization, disease control, and child spacing. Article 24 talks about health and nutrition; Article 26, on the right to benefit from social security; Article 27, on the right to an adequate standard of living including access to material assistance and support programs.
Clearly considering our role in the movement of this resolution through the UN gives us an extra responsibility in terms of ratification and also in terms of compliance. The convention is a very comprehensive and detailed instrument providing for a number of important rights for the child and quite specific obligations for states. Clearly the subject matter in this convention as it applies to Canada falls into provincial as well as shared jurisdiction. Clearly there must be a continued ongoing process of consultation with the provinces and the territories. I need not remind hon. members that the provinces have played a very substantial role in the development of our position on this and our co-sponsorship.
Ratification demands that this country have the legislation in place because once we have ratified it we have accepted it. This country, and I think all members would agree that our responsibility is to ensure that we do have the mechanisms in place, that we have the legislation and regulations in place so that compliance is not something that we cannot do. Compliance is something that we must be willing to do, and do in an active and constructive manner. The provinces again must be a substantial part of that contribution.
There will be a committee on the rights of the child put in place. It will provide constructive criticism in working with states to facilitate implementation and provisions of the convention. In a sense it will be a monitor.
As we all know, and as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has indicated, poverty is not just a problem in Canada. Poverty is a tragedy in this country, particularly for our children, there is no question. I cannot help but comment as we see the atrocities in El Salvador, as we look at the violence around the world that leaves children parentless, that leaves children homeless, that leaves children without the basic sustenance of life, that leaves children hopeless. I look at the situation on the horn of Africa, particularly as it pertains to Eritrea where fighting on behalf of Ethiopia there are children carrying weapons. We see it every day in the Middle East. We see it every day around the world.
When I speak to people outside of this place I try to remind them that what happens outside of this country directly pertains to their lives inside of this country, that the welfare of people around the world matters in a material way to the way that we live today and in the

future. I come back to the awareness problem. We must be aware of those needs, those concerns as we as a country play a leadership role not only in serving the needs of those around the world that need our help but also as a facilitator, as a mover toward peace, as a country that can lead this world into the future in a more sane and more humane way.
I am not normally prone to reading letters but there are three that I mentioned. One is very simple from Paul Martin:
Please pass a law immediately about the law of the child, not to use money to make weapons but to get shelter and clothes.
There is also a poem from a lady by the name of Nancy Carter which is only four lines:
Why do people fight when it only kills? Why do they kill when it only makes people sad? Why do people have war when it makes no sense? I pray each day no more war will come. God save us from the war.
If we can tell children around the world that they have a future, we in Canada will be able to tell our children as we move to their future that it, too, will be secure and that this country will lead the war in dealing with poverty and world security.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for his very eloquent remarks.
I would like to ask him if he is aware that the Member of Parliament for Mission-Coquitlam has sponsored a private members' bill to establish a children's bill of rights that is designed, as I understand it, to conform to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I think it really relates to what he was saying and, having studied this question, I agree with him. It is important that Canada not only ratify the UN declaration but that we find a way of implementing it. It seems to me that this is one of the ways that we could.
I wonder, first, if he would consider supporting this private member's bill and perhaps even co-sponsoring it so that we could have it sponsored by people on all sides of the House. Then it would go forward as this motion has today in a non-partisan way so that there is consensus in working for the rights of children in Canada.
Supply


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I confess not to being specifically aware of the private member's bill. It is my understanding that the government, as the minister mentioned this morning, supports the concept and is doing some work on it.
I would suggest, though, that because of the timing involved we should move and move quickly with any initiative like this. It is not an accident that the convention was signed this week. It commemorates 30 years of the declaration. As well, 10 years ago was the Year of the Child.
In terms of my co-sponsoring the bill, I have not yet seen it and no politician nor anybody else with any sense would agree to anything until seeing it. However, we recognize that there is some momentum there and a real consciousness. I am sure the hon. member got all sorts of letters supporting this process and Canada's involvement. I think that consciousness is something that we should build on.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for St. John's East for a very articulate statement of fact and support on behalf of the children of Canada. Really, it was a speech that I was anticipating. The only question that I have for the member is simply what are the numbers of children living in poverty in Canada. Does he have statistics for us?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a figure. Quite clearly, there have been numbers bandied about here today. Poverty is something that is more than money in the pocket. As I see it, poverty is lack of care, lack of shelter and lack of some sense of future. I see people every day who live on nothing, but who provide remarkably loving and secure homes for their children. These children have a future because they are taught that they have one.
The answer to the question may be that if there is one, it is too many. I think all of us, whether on this side of the House or on the other, work to make sure that there are none, because children in this country and children around the world have to be the future. We mark children from very early days. They are affected by their environment from the very beginning. The more secure that environment is, the more stable health care systems are and the more able children are to cope in the world, the better they are to be functional and to contribute to whatever country they live in.

November 24, 1989
Supply
If we have one child who is not getting that anywhere in the world, our work is not finished.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Minister of State (Youth) (Mr. Charest) has just arrived, and since I was going to suggest waiting two minutes, I will yield the floor to the Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The Minister of State (Youth), on a point of order.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who led the debate so eloquently today on the government side. And I may add, we do not often have a chance to be announced by a fellow member before rising in the House. I was going to suggest, considering the exceptional circumstances and the discussions that took place before today's debate, that the House support unanimously the motion before it today, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to take advantage of this opportunity to say, on behalf of the government, that this decision was also made because the motion was presented by the leader of the New Democratic Party. We appreciated the passion and sincerity with which he presented his motion
today in the House, and I suggest that in the spirit of parliamentary co-operation, as happens from time to time, we inform Canadians that the entire House, as represented by all Parties, unanimously supports this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The House has heard the Minister's suggestion. Is there unanimous consent for this proposal?
Is the House agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the minister on behalf of our Leader and the New Democratic Party caucus. We appreciate the government's offer to have this motion passed by the House today and we also appreciate the non-partisan debate we have had by members of all three parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: It being three o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), the proceedings on the motion have expired. This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.54 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 27, 1989