1990-12-10

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS (BILLS)   PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT MEASURE TO AMEND

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Young (Beaches- Woodbine) that Bill C-225, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
And on the amendment of Mr. Funk:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-225, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of members of the House of Commons), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject-matter referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations."
["Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 1990, after Canada's Minister of Finance brought down his Budget, I decided to do my bit and take the advice given to Canadians: tighten your belts. I believe I have made a contribution towards improving the state of the economy, especially by reducing my household mailers from four to one, and by no longer mailing 2,000 Christmas cards to my constituents.\nOral Questions\nMr. Speaker, the cheapest way to send those greetings today is to speak directly to the people of Abitibi and wish them a Merry Christmas and a Happy and prosperous New Year."]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the House today on this item of Private Members' Business, a bill put forward by the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine in relation to the Public Service Employment Act.
The thrust of the bill is one which most people would be content with, that is, it attempts to provide some degree of security of employment for individuals who are employed or become employed with members of Parliament and it provides a mechanism whereby, under certain conditions, employees in the year after they work for members of Parliament, can find their way into Public Service employment.
It is worth pointing out that other employees of members, who happen to be ministers in the government or the Leader of the Opposition, now, under the Public Service Employment Act, can be hired and taken into the Public Service, with priority over others, upon their termination.
The difficulty, and it is a significant difficulty, that I and my colleagues have with this bill is that it sets up a very obvious distinction between employees of members of Parliament, who are themselves competent, and everyone else in the country who would be, who wants to be or who wishes to apply for a position in the Public Service.
What the bill actually does is to wedge or shoehorn into the Public Service those individuals who for whatever reason find themselves unemployed, including because of their member with whom they are employed not being re-elected. It shoehorns them or wedges them into the Public Service.
We in Canada take great pride in our Public Service. We have a a very professional, competent Public Service right across this country which prides itself on being non-political, very specialized and dedicated. The stream of new recruits into the Public Service stays the healthiest if that stream of new blood comes from the public at large.
What this bill does is take a competent group of individuals, the staff people of members of Parliament, and provides them with a privilege to continue on in the employment of the Public Service.
We have three conditions stated under which that could occur. The three conditions are that the staff member has worked with a member of Parliament for three years, that he or she qualified while working with him or her to be a public servant and finally, that he or she enter the Public Service within a year after the termination of employment.
We do not have a problem with individuals who are a part of the Public Service who leave it to work with a member of Parliament or a minister's office and to take a

December 10,1990
Private Members' Business
leave of absence for that purpose and then go back to the Public Service. That happens now. I think it functions reasonably well.
I do not know whether there are practical problems that exist in that field, but that particular mechanism appears to serve public servants well now. It serves MPs, ministers and other functionaries in the House of Commons, but this bill goes much further than that.
It provides an additional privilege to employees of MPs in the House of Commons to seek secure employment with the Public Service immediately following their employment with an MP.
I want to address one context in which this bill should be seen. That is the attempt by the government now to radically change and update the Public Service. It flies by the name Public Service 2000. In that process, there has been shown clearly to be a real need on the part of the government to consult more broadly with the Public Service. It has failed to do that.
I am of the view that we in the House of Commons, while desiring very much to be fair to our employees and to be fair to the Public Service, should not be undertaking a wedge mechanism such as this bill without consulting extensively with the Public Service Commission and and the employee associations and unions that operate there.
That is one significant omission in terms of this bill and within the context of reform within the Public Service. It is a shame that that has not occurred. I know there are some who would say: "Let us send this bill to committee and work with it from there", but I believe very firmly that the bill should have started with a base of consultation and then moved into the House of Commons. The New Democratic Party member who proposed this amendment has failed to do so, oddly enough, with the Public Service sector and the union sector. It is an unfortunate omission.
As a result, we commend positive consultative initiatives in Public Service 2000. Perhaps some day in the future this might be addressed. This is a mechanism which perhaps should be addressed in the future, but we on this side of the House feel that we cannot support it at this time.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned about my party's
position on this bill. I can remember when we were in power from 1980 to 1984. I can also remember many good, hard working and loyal people. They did not work for ministers. I was fortunate. I worked for a Prime Minister. However, there were many good people who worked for members of Parliament. When we were not returned to office, naturally many of these assistants to members of Parliament were out on the street.
When a new government takes power and you go and knock on the door of the member of Parliament, first you are asked for your c.v. If you said "I am Dennis Mills. I worked in the Langevin Block for four years and would like to work in your office, Mr. Paproski"-I should say you would be one of the exceptions, Mr. Speaker-I can tell you right now you would be out of business.
This bill is a good one in that it encourages people to work for members of Parliament. It is almost an incentive. I would like to see people have experience with members of Parliament before they even qualify to enter the Public Service. That is the real test as to whether or not a person has the endurance, the courage, the passion, and the commitment to put up with what is required to do the work that we have to do in this House, in committees, and in other places.
I am nervous that reverse discrimination will develop if we do not support this bill. In 1984 many of my friends were good, hard working public servants who happened to work in members' offices, providing secretarial, support services, et cetera. However, because they were with the Liberal government at that time they were not given the opportunity to work on the government side. There is a natural element of trust involved here. If Chrysler advertising uses one firm, Ford does not tend to use the same one. That is just a basic, practical fact of life.
This bill, as I understand it, relates to persons who have served members of Parliament well. Obviously members of Parliament would not keep the person around for three years if they were not doing a good job. Working for a member of Parliament, especially in opposition, is certainly not nine to five, Monday to Friday. It is a tough job. We can never thank members of our support staff enough for the extra time and hours they put in.
December 10, 1990

If I lost my seat I would hate to think that people had no other opportunity in this city after working their guts out for me for three or four years because they happened to work for a Liberal. I think they are a natural for the Public Service of Canada. It should almost be a prerequisite. I do not see it as any special wedge.
When we talk about a stream of new blood, I think the Public Service should welcome the new blood that would come into the Public Service after working in an office of a member of Parliament. When one goes to work in the Public Service, one might go to work for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Communications or the Department of Employment and Immigration and ones work tends to be singular; but when one works for a member of Parliament, one never knows from one hour to the next what issue one has to face. Assistants to members of Parliament should be supported if after an election they opt for a Public Service job. I for one think that they should be given that opportunity, so I support this bill.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the amendment since I have already spoken on the principal motion. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is certainly some misunderstanding in some people's minds about what this amendment is all about.
It refers the subject matter of the bill to committee for further study and essentially withdraws the bill. I am not sure it is entirely proper to withdraw a bill we are debating, to withdraw every single word of it and still assume that we have the bill before us for debate. Nonetheless, that is the motion, and I presume it has been ruled in order.
It is important to point out to my colleague who has just spoken what the bill does. The subject matter that he endorses is not to give staff of members of Parliament a chance at being employed in the Public Service but to give them priority over all others being employed in the Public Service.
It is important to recognize that the amendment to this bill asks that it be referred to committee. It has been brought forward with no consultations with the unions. We as a party have taken a very strong stand against the whole process of PS 2000, reform of the Public Service,
Private Members' Business
because there has been no involvement of the unions and of the front line workers in developing the recommendations of the PS 2000 amendments to legislation and amendments to administrative procedures, which will substantially affect the working lives of a quarter of a million Canadians. It would be inconsistent for us to endorse, even in principle, this bill. We are now being asked to refer it to a committee so that it can be brought forward, possibly, as a somewhat amended piece of legislation.
I appreciate the difficult situation in which people are placed to work for members of Parliament, the immeasurable skills, both personal and technical, that they bring to that kind of employment, and the immense learning that they go through in a variety of fields. That would be helpful to the Public Service if they were there as employees.
However, many of those people are hired on the basis of their political affiliation with us, the right to be appointed to the public service on a priority basis, rather than on any objective assessment of merit. I do not think a bill which gives people priority in hiring over others within the Public Service who may be looking for a promotion to a position is a just bill. It is not something that is based on liberal principles of a federal Public Service based on opportunities for hiring, for promotion, and for transfers founded on one's ability, not on who one happens to know.
The member has said that it is important that people who have come to work for us have an opportunity to be employed in this city. It is evident from that comment that he still believes that most job opportunities in this region are in the Public Service. That is not true and has not been for many decades now. Less than 20 per cent of the employment in the Ottawa-Carleton region is in the Public Service.
It is vital to recognize that in the last few years, as a result of the downsizing program of the federal government and as a result of assuming that it can make scapegoats out of the Public Service, thousands of people have lost their jobs. Some 25,000 people have been affected by downsizing. Many of those people have worked for the Public Service, not for two or three years but for 10, 20, or 30 years. They find themselves unemployed at a time when seeking a new job is extremely difficult.

December 10,1990
Private Members' Business
If anybody deserves priority over others to be put into a vacant position in the Public Service, it is somebody who has shown that kind of loyalty over decades, not someone who has come to work in the excitement and the political environment of Parliament Hill. They often come here as a political friend of a member and have not, with all respect, demonstrated the long-term commitment of many people who are now losing their jobs.
The government likes to say about people who lose their jobs that everybody has been accommodated and that mostly it has been through attrition. That is not the case at all. There are well over 20,000 people who have been disrupted, dislocated from their jobs, forced to accept a lesser job at a lesser salary, or left without a job. This is at a time when they are still paying a mortgage and they have two or three children in university. Their opportunities for re-employment are very slim, simply because of their age and their level of experience which makes them a more expensive person to employ for any other firm or for any Crown corporation, for that matter.
In light of all that, a bill that gives priority to our staff over all others is badly timed, to say the least, and is probably inappropriate at any time. We would be prepared to look at other options for providing some measure of security to parliamentary staff working in members' offices but not to disrupt career public servants, many of whom are now without a job, to accommodate our own staff.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr.Speaker, I have spoken on the bill, obviously, since it is my bill and I introduced it. I also encouraged another colleague of mine to move an amendment to the bill which would refer the subject matter to a committee. The reason I did this was for many of the reasons put forward by the previous speaker.
When this bill was first debated in 1984, it was introduced by a then Liberal member of Parliament who also happened to be the parliamentary secretary to a minister. The government at that time was not adverse to doing something about employees of members of Parliament.
Contrary to what the hon. member says, all people who work for members of Parliament are not necessarily political friends of the MP. I never met the people who
work in my office before I hired them. If you take a look at the people on the Hill, there are many who have worked for many different members of Parliament for many, many years.
The question I want to address, in just a minute or two, is the very one that the previous speaker addressed. Everyone recognizes that staff who work for members of Parliament have absolutely no rights at all. They do not have the same rights as any other employee in this country, and that is to join a union of their choice. There is no legislation to prevent them from doing that, and that is not what the bill argues. But what I would argue is that members of Parliament who have participated in this debate have all expressed a view that they are sympathetic to the position in which staff of members of Parliament very often find themselves.
What I am saying is that the House should do with this bill what it agreed to do in 1984, that is, refer the subject matter to a committee to allow members of Parliament to have a fuller discussion on the merits of the problem. It would allow staff members of MPs to have a say and to express their concerns and it would allow any pertinent union to come before a committee to look at the matter.
The principle we are trying to address concerns the rights of staff who happen to work for a member of Parliament. They should have the same rights as every other Canadian employee; that is, the right to have some say about the working conditions while they are on the Hill working for an MP. That right should be recognized by members of Parliament, and Parliament should accord to those employees the same rights as every other Canadian who works off the Hill. I do not think that is unreasonable or too much to demand. I only find it regrettable that one or two members in the House during this debate tried to raise the issue as a partisan political question. I can quote the hon. member who spoke before me in The Hill Times.
I find it strange that I have never, as long as I have been in this House, found a Private Members' Bill attacked in such a way that even the motivation of the hon. member who put forward the Private Members' Bill has been questioned in the way in which it has been. I find that regrettable and I do not think it adds to either this debate or to the relationships between MPs in this House.
December 10, 1990


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
During the ringing of the bells:


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
['Call in the members.\nDuring the ringing of the bells:']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division stands deferred until seven o'clock p.m. later this day. Therefore, I will suspend the sitting of the House until two o'clock this day.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.40 p.m.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that every time there is a budget cut, social and cultural programs are the first to suffer. What is happening to the subsidy program for community radio stations is no exception.
The Department of the Secretary of State's community radio stations assistance program, designed to establish French-language community stations in minority and Acadian communities, is the only source of federal funding on which these stations can draw for capital investment. This year's funds have been exhausted, which means that community radio stations in my riding la radio de VEpinette noire and la radio communautaire Kapnord Inc. will not be able to develop at the same rate or may have to close down altogether.
Acadian and French-language minority communities are increasingly threatened by assimilation. The people in my riding feel that community radio is the best way for these communities to counter this threat. Community radio stations have made it their objective to reduce assimilation by giving French-speaking communities in Northern Ontario a chance to hear programs that reflect their local values.


INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate International Human Rights Day, the 42nd anniversary of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As a Canadian, I am proud of this country's past record on human rights issues. We are all proud. However, recently this record has fallen into some disrepute. In October, the UN human rights committee unanimously condemned Canada for failing to live up to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Our record with respect to native peoples and refugee claimants came under particular fire from the UN.
The Mulroney government has failed to introduce long promised changes to the Human Rights Act here at home to protect gays and lesbians and disabled people against discrimination.
The government cut off funding without explanation for an independent human rights conference of equality seeking groups held each November for the past three years under the Court Challenges Program. Instead, it has organized a conference that is going on here in Ottawa at the moment by invitation only.

December 10, 1990
Surely, the present government should spend more energy preparing its long promised human rights legislation and less time on public relations exercises such as this week's conference.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, Canada's embargo on grain shipments to Iraq has eliminated our fifth largest export market. Canadians support the sanctions and rightly so. However, it is costing farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost grain sales. Farmers are paying the price.
Farm fuel prices are rapidly climbing as a result of the situation in the Middle East. This, combined with high mortgage costs, dwindling markets and low grain prices, is placing a severe economic burden on the agricultural community.
The uncertainty of the outcome of the GATT negotiations begs the question: How long will the United States and the European Common Market continue their subsidy wars? While Canadians enjoy an inexpensive food policy, farmers are paying the price.
I urge the federal and provincial governments to jointly announce at an early date new initiatives to address the plight of the farmers.


TRIBUTE TO NATHALIE GIGUERE
Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, swimmer Nathalie Giguere and her coach, Benoit Lebrun, were in the spotlight at the 1990 Athlete of the Year Gala in Quebec City. For her performance, Nathalie received the Memoris d'or, while her coach was named Coach of the Year.
At 17, this extraordinary swimmer from Charlesbourg won the gold medal for the 200 meter breast stroke in 1990 at the Commonwealth Games. At the present time, Nathalie is doing high-altitude training at Los Alamos, New Mexico, in preparation for the world championships in Perth, Australia.
A talented and disciplined athlete and a hard worker, Nathalie has always been thankful to those who over the years, helped her to develop this talent: her parents, her team and her coach.
Nathalie: Charlesbourg, Quebec City, the province of Quebec and Canada are proud of you and the Memoris d'or 1990 award which you truly deserved. Congratulations and the best of luck at the next world championships!


BILL C-21
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern about Bill C-21, the government's unemployment insurance bill.
It seems that the government did have the last laugh on Canadians after all. I refer specifically to the free trade debate. How many times did we hear that social programs, in Canada, were a sacred trust that would not be sacrificed? How many times did we hear that they would not be included in the negotiations? Did not the Prime Minister himself publicly make reference to his mother and say he would do nothing to infringe upon our social programs?
Let us look at the government's unemployment insurance bill. With this measure the government has withdrawn all together from contributing to the UI fund. This means that it is now up to the employee and employer to make up the difference. In these times of rising unemployment, millions of Canadians who genuinely need help will have a tougher time getting it. Moreover, how long does the government think it will take the business community to claim that it is at a disadvantage because companies in the U.S. do not shoulder the same costs? Perhaps our pension funds and Old Age Security program will be the next items up for bids. If the price is right, this government has shown that it will sell anything.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR THE GREEN CROSS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that an important step in protecting the environment will be taken when the
December 10,1990

International Business Council for the Green Cross meets in Moscow on January 16, 1991.
This council was created by the Global Forum of Spiritual and Parliamentary Leaders on Human Survival. The Green Cross was established in response to a challenge proposed by President Gorbachev to involve the business community in the forum's activities. It is designed to offer help to countries suffering from ecological troubles. The creation of such a body is important since it provides forward-looking businessmen a forum in which they can share ideas for a greener future.
This forthcoming meeting in Moscow will bring together prominent businessmen. It will be co-chaired by Mr. A. W. Klausen, former head of the World Bank, and leading Canadian businessman, Mr. Albert Reichman.


THE LATE SENATOR HENRY HICKS
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, early this morning we received the veiy sad news that former senator and Nova Scotia Premier, Heniy Hicks, along with his wife, Rosalie, died in an automobile accident.
Senator Hicks was a Nova Scotian of genuine passion and great intellect, who enjoyed a long and distinguished career in the arts and in the public service of his province and the country he loved so much.
Mr. Speaker, he was a Liberal early in his life and started campaigning for Liberal causes in his teens. A Rhodes scholar, Senator Hicks was first elected to the Nova Scotia House of Assembly at the age of 30. He was a cabinet minister at the age of 34 and premier of this great province at the age of 39, in 1954.
Upon leaving active political life, he later served as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science at Dalhousie University and, thereafter became president of this very prestigious university.
In 1972, he was appointed to the Senate of Canada and retired earlier this year.
The measure of this man was enhanced by his warmth and by his personal approach toward the people and the province he loved so much.
Mr. Speaker, I extend on behalf of our party our sincere sympathy to his family and all those who mourn the untimely death of both Mr. and Mrs. Hicks.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, last week in Brussels delegations from more than 100 nations witnessed the apparent inflexibility of the European Community on the question of agriculture. EC politicians appear to fear the fact that they need to change their common agricultural policy, or the CAR The CAP continues to wreak havoc with producers around the world in countries like Canada, Australia, Argentina, all countries of the Cairns Group, as well as many very poor Third World nations.
Let us hope this near collapse of the GATT talks will give EC leadership pause for reflection. Can they really afford to thumb their noses at the rest of the world over an issue of such relatively minor economic importance in their own nation states?


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance first came to power, he promised to make the tax system fair. Instead, he has padded the pockets of his rich friends and picked the pockets of the poor.
Six years later he still claims he has made the tax system more fair in this country. Is it fair that those making over $250,000 a year pay less income tax while those making under $15,000 pay more income tax now?
The Minister of Finance must have a funny notion of what is fair because over 80 per cent of Canadians say he has failed in the most recent Gallup poll. Even most supporters of the Conservative Party said in the Gallup poll he has failed to make the tax system more fair.
The height of unfairness is the government's GST which will increase the burden on all Canadians, particularly those who are poor in our country. When will the Minister of Finance wake up from his dream world which is a nightmare to ordinary Canadians, stop playing

December 10, 1990
Scrooge, withdraw the GST and give ordinary Canadians something to celebrate during this Christmas season?


INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, today we are privileged to be joining people from around the world in celebrating International Human Rights Day, as well as marking the 42nd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This year, our commemoration coincides with the National Conference on Human Rights and Canadian Solidarity being held in Ottawa at this very time. The conference is being hosted by the Minister for Multicul-turalism and Citizenship and is focusing on the importance of human rights in the nation-building process. Representatives from every sector of Canadian society, in every field of human rights, are taking part.
Canada has long been considered a world leader in the area of human rights. In 1986 we became the first nation to be presented with the Nansen Medal by the United Nations in recognition of our efforts to provide refugee relief.
The present government is keenly aware that human rights continues to be a vitally important issue for Canadians. Here at home there are many issues to address; literacy, the environment, the rights of women. For example, it was in recognition of the rights of children that Canadian signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child last May.
Prime Minister Mulroney also co-sponsored the first World Summit for Children at the United Nations in September.
Canadians have indeed made significant strides in ensuring that human rights and freedoms are the foundation stone of our citizenship.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, my constituents want me to debunk three myths being perpetrated by the NDP and their friends in the media.
The first is that there are only two sides to an issue, the right side and the wrong side, and that they are never wrong. The more we look, the less we see there.
The second is that they have all the answers on the environment. Premier Bob Rae stood at the Keele Valley landfill site and said: "No more expansion". Now, his minister says expansion could take place and without an environmental assessment.
The third is that the NDP has the only leader in the House with a smile on her face. Well, Mr. Speaker, that myth will be history tonight when the electors of Beausejour have made their choice. When Jean Chretien enters this House, the smiles on this side of the House are going to stretch all the way from here to 24 Sussex Drive.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, the recent lack of balance in television news coverage of the CBC reorganization is of concern to me and should be of concern to more Canadians. Biased reporting can harm Canadian unity by fanning the fires of regional anger. There are those in television who asked the questions: Why were the following issues not addressed and the following questions not asked.
Radio covers all communities, both urban and rural, and is an effective way of serving the regional interests. Yet I heard no mention of the conscious decision by CBC to retain these radio regional routes.
No one asked on behalf of the thousands of communities which do not have community TV service why they are less deserving. Why should the people who live in these communities be picking up the tab? Why was no one asking the representatives of the communities who do enjoy local service why they were not suggesting ways that they could pick up the tab? Too many predicted that the loss of service to these 11 communities could damage national unity. Why? How? It is not obvious to me. Why was it so easily accepted by the journalists?
Unfortunately we live in tough times, and tough times mean tough choices. I commend the CBC management for facing its responsibility and making those decisions.
December 10,1990


THE SENATE
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Senate has brought disrepute upon itself and the Upper House has hit a new low.
Last week Liberal Senator George van Roggen attempted to entertain his fellow senators by telling sexist jokes. It is disgusting that an allegedly respectable individual, a privileged man, could use his privilege to demean all women by reinforcing sexual stereotypes. Once again we have men who should know better contributing to the inequality in our society.
Sexist jokes are part of the control mechanism to keep women in their place, to reinforce the view that women are here for men's use and abuse. We are not. The women of Canada see nothing funny in this locker-room mentality. It is always offensive, but it is inexcusable coming from a Liberal senator in the Parliament of Canada.
For him to make these remarks the day after the memorial services marking the Montreal massacre demonstrates the depth of his insensitivity.
New Democrats have called on the justice minister to have mandatory gender sensitivity training for the judiciary. It is obvious that these sensitivity sessions should also be extended to the Senate. What Senator van Roggen should consider today is an apology.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has exceeded her time.


HOUSEHOLD MAILERS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 1990, after Canada's Minister of Finance brought down his Budget, I decided to do my bit and take the advice given to Canadians: tighten your belts. I believe I have made a contribution towards improving the state of the economy, especially by reducing my household mailers from four to one, and by no longer mailing 2,000 Christmas cards to my constituents.
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, the cheapest way to send those greetings today is to speak directly to the people of Abitibi and wish them a Merry Christmas and a Happy and prosperous New Year.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
We understand that tomorrow, after months and months of broken promises and more and more delays, the government will finally be announcing its so-called green plan on the environment. I predict and I know that Canadians will be disappointed once again.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit today that rather than the $5 billion comprehensive plan originally promised, the plan will be for billions of dollars less and it will not even begin to be implemented until months and months from Toronto-months and months from tomorrow.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I guess politics is something on the minds of all of us, Mr. Speaker.
Isn't this so-called green plan really to improve the political environment for this government and not the real environment for Canadians?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition will have to wait just one more day. I hope that he will be patient, because I am sure the green plan that will be announced by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, will be very well worth waiting for.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first this government began dismantling VIA Rail, then the post office, then Air Canada, and last week the CBC. Now it is clear the government is starting to wimp out on its commitments on the environment.
Why won't the Deputy Prime Minister admit that this
green plan has nothing in it on the subject of municipal

December 10,1990
Oral Questions
infrastructure, the need of cities and towns across this country to have funding from the federal government to help them fight pollution by improving their water and sewage systems?
Why won't the government listen to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and recognize that this has to be in its green plan and that we need a national program to deal with what is a national problem that needs help for solution from this government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government that had been in office for 20 to 25 years. It had every opportunity in the world to put in place an infrastructure program, and all it did was reduce spending to the provinces and to the municipalities.
We are not going to get into a debate on the green plan. The hon. member will have ample opportunity to examine and comment on it tomorrow, and I am sure he will not be disappointed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government has already misled the Canadian people about its policies on the environment. Funding for the Green Plan will be far below the $5 billion originally committed. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why his government refuses to upgrade municipal infrastructures and deal responsibly with the people of Quebec. And will he tell Canadians when his government will finally realize that the environment is important to the well-being of the entire country?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary is identical to the second question, and therefore my answer is the same as that given by the Deputy Prime Minister.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that every Canadian municipality across this country has called
upon the Government of Canada to cost share in a $15 billion program. Last night I saw and I read the green plan, and there is nothing in that plan which addresses that fundamental problem.
Why is the Government of Canada wimping out with regard to supporting our municipalities concerning water and sewer? Is that not a fundamental program of fighting for the environment?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would think that members of the opposition should join with Canadians everywhere in applauding this government for putting into place a program which will be announced tomorrow. It is a long-term environmental action plan, the first such program ever announced in this country, the sort of program that does not exist in very many countries in the world.
Furthermore, what is so important about this program is that it has been put together as a result of consultation with Canadians from coast to coast. It will be the kind of program tomorrow which responsible Canadians, wherever they may be-and maybe even the opposition will join in-will applaud this government for putting in place, the kind of long-term plan we have long needed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In view of that answer and in view of the fact that the parliamentary secretary has now admitted that there is no money for municipal infrastructure, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the green plan has nothing with regard to a 20 per cent reduction by the year 2005 of national 1988 CO2 emission levels, why it fails to have a Canadian environmental bill of rights, why it fails to have a national carbon tax, why it fails to bring western provinces into a national acid rain reduction program, and why the Government of Canada has reduced the moneys for the green plan from $5 billion to $3 billion, a 40 per cent reduction? Why?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that seems to happen around here on Monday when it has been a quiet weekend is that the opposition parties do the same thing that our friends in the gallery do: they write speculative stories about what will come tomorrow because they cannot wait in anticipation.
December 10, 1990

I would suggest, therefore, that the hon. member show some patience. We will be addressing this issue tomorrow when a specific program will be put in place. I know the hon. member will be pleased by what he sees.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
This is the government that last week offered special briefings on the green plan to select members of the media but offers members of Parliament a lockup tomorrow morning. Tomorrow is going to be a public relations exercise to try to cover up the possible election of Jean Chretien later today. We know what is going on.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am the one who had a tooth pulled this morning. It looks like the Liberals are a little nervous.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister because the legacy of this government is business profits first, environment last. Across this country our forests are falling to dear-cuts and they are not being replanted. Our air, water, and land are becoming increasingly polluted. Since the process began $5 billion of new money was promised, a promise we now know will be broken tomorrow because of the briefings given to the press last week. But some promises must be kept, and I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if they will be kept.
Would he confirm the dates for the implementation of specific targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and acid precipitation. While he is at it, would he confirm the dates for implementation of a natural resources inventory on the state of our environment and on the state of pollution of our environment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting carried away with his presumptions. I would suggest to him that he wait until tomorrow when the document is presented. He will have a chance to have looked at it, and then he can comment on it in a knowledgeable fashion.
Oral Questions
Certainly it would be premature and totally disregarding of the institution of Parliament to have the debate on the green plan one day before it is officially unveiled.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, that answer would have some value and some validity if the government had not pre-briefed certain select media last week before letting members of the House know what is in the plan.
My supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister as well.

Even if the Plan doesn't have the money that was promised and in fact confirmed-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


James Ross Fulton: Oh, I am not allowed to speak French now. [Translation]
As I was saying, at a briefing session given last week to a select group of journalists, the minister can still table a bill to protect the environment. Could the minister give the House the assurance that an environmental charter of rights will be included in the Green Plan he will table tomorrow?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think all members will have to wait until tomorrow.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows, because everyone who has studied the issue of national parks in this country knows it, that if we do not complete the national parks system by the year 2000 our opportunity to do so will have been forgone.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm what has been confirmed prior to today and prior to tomorrow, that the national parks system will be completed by the year 2000 and that two new national parks per year will be created between now and the year 2000?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that this government has made a commitment to the preservation of Canada's environment in the form of national parks, a

December 10,1990
Oral Questions
commitment which exceeds that of any other administration in Canadian history.
I can furthermore confirm that that commitment will be kept.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena and the NDP for their confidence in the candidacy of Mr. Jean Chretien today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is nice to see them on side.
I want to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture who knows that Canadian farmers are the big losers in the GATT negotiations and the suspension of those negotiations last Friday. For instance, U.S. farmers are largely insulated from the impact of these by the U.S. farm bill, whereas Canadian farmers, especially those grain producers in western Canada, have had their support programs cut by 50 per cent during the last two years.
What is the Deputy Prime Minister going to do for western producers and other producers across this country in the face of the collapse of the GATT negotiations and the suspension?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the hon. member and to all hon. members that this round of Uruguay negotiations have not been suspended. In fact they are continuing and will continue into the first part of the new year in the hope and expectation that there can be some resolution to the very difficult agricultural file. To suggest that the talks have been suspended or that they have collapsed is certainly premature.
We, as a nation, led by the Minister for International Trade, and our very competent and able negotiators, will be there to contribute to that process in every way, shape or form. We did indicate, and I have indicated before, that even if we were to succeed in all aspects of the
GATT round, there still would be the need to put in place some long-term solutions, particularly in the area of safety nets.
I did have the opportunity to meet with the provincial ministers of agriculture to advance the negotiations on the GRIP and NISA proposal, which is the long-term safety net and stabilization program. I am satisfied that progress is being made and I hope that we will be able to achieve a conclusion of all the outstanding details within the next week or 10 days.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Last year the government agreed to give the United States access to the Canadian market for ice-cream and yogurt after the GATT negotiations this fall. Now that the negotiations have been suspended, or at least put in limbo for the next several weeks, I want to know if the government plans to allow access for processed dairy products from the United States, like ice-cream and yogurt. If the government is going to do this, how is it going to see that Canadian producers survive because they do not have access to the U.S. market?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong in his assumption. We did not agree to give the United States access to the ice-cream and yogurt market. We did say that we would be prepared to sit down and negotiate, but it would have to be within the terms of the over-all objectives achieved through the MTN.
After all, we did lose a GATT panel on the issues. The hon. member is a great fan of the GATT in this particular case and I can assure him that we will not negotiate any access with the Americans until such time as the MTN is concluded. The hon. member knows as well that the position we advanced with regard to the Canadian agriculture position at the MTN was fully consistent with his goals and objectives and the goals and objectives of Canadian agriculture. It would be commensurate, and reciprocal with us getting access to the American market under their removal of the section 22 waiver.


NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last Friday, when he hoped that no one would notice, the Minister of Finance announced tax changes that have the effect of denying tax benefits worth $50
December 10,1990

million to 100,000 residents of northern and isolated communities in Canada. Fifty thousand of those citizens of northern and isolated communities live in 572 communities on the island of Newfoundland. They have lost tax benefits worth thousands of dollars per family.
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is the following. How can the Government of Canada justify a northern and isolated tax regime that pays benefits to a Newfoundlander employed in Fort McMurray but denies benefits to a Newfoundlander unemployed in an isolated community like Harbour Deep that can only be reached during the winter months by helicopter? What kind of isolated and northern benefit regime is that?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory AfFairs)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the task force made a report in late 1989 with a recommendation of a single zone across Canada for tax benefits in northern and isolated communities.
At that time, tremendous consultation went on between the Minister of Finance and the affected communities from coast to coast.
The evidence presented to the task force and to the minister in his consultations which took place with various communities affected, was that the only way in which it was fair to give these benefits was, in fact, to do it in a zone and not community by community. Community by community was completely inequitable. It did not work.
In the case of Newfoundland itself, the only way it could possibly be given isolated benefits is on a community by community basis, which was recommended against by most people who appeared before the commission.
Therefore, the island of Newfoundland itself will not receive those benefits. Labrador will.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, what the member fails to say is that when the minister set up this commission and review, he said that its recommendations should be revenue neutral.
Oral Questions
What he does not say is that the Government of Canada is saving $50 million on the backs of some of the poorest, most isolated people who live in this country.
I ask the question again, and I want the minister to consider it in the name of tax fairness. How is it fair to pay a northern tax benefit, supposedly predicated on the notion that it costs more to live in certain areas, to people who live in a low unemployment region like Fort McMurray that has an airport, hospital, educational facilities, regularly scheduled flights in and out, government facilities, and not pay a benefit to isolated communities that can only be reached by helicopter where unemployment is high and where services are non-existent?
How is that tax fairness? Fifty per cent of all the cuts nationally are in one province, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Explain that.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the people who he is talking about do not pay taxes. If you don't pay taxes, you don't get a tax benefit from this system. A person has to be earning money and it has to be taxable income before he or she receives it.
The hon. member is just caterwauling at somebody else. He is not even listening to the answer. He is showboating again.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture.
In the meeting that he referred to in Brussels last week, he promised that he would bring in the third line of defence, cash grants and other income supports since GATT had been suspended.
The prairie pools had indicated at one point that there was a $1 billion shortfall in grain income for this year on the prairies alone. Does the minister agree with that assessment of income shortfall? Does he plan on an early payout, or will he continue to allow grain farmers to be driven out of business?

December 10, 1990
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I repeat once again, this GATT round has not been suspended. It continues. Work will continue, particularly on the agricultural negotiations. It is hoped that eventually there will be a successful conclusion achieved. I say that to the hon. member, recognizing and I am sure appreciating his frustration over the fact that there was not more progress.
I indicated as well in answer to an earlier question that we are moving ahead with the establishment of a safety net and stabilization program which will provide for a gross revenue insurance protection plan as well as a net income stabilization plan. We are very close to putting that agreement in place.
It will be in place for the 1991-92 crop year. I have also indicated, and I repeat here to the hon. member, that when that is done, we will trigger the third line of defence, which will analyze the depth of moneys that are required to look at the debt situation and whatever restructuring may be required to look at inputs and a whole host of things.
But there is a mechanism for that which involves the provincial governments, the federal government and the industry itself. We will use that mechanism to determine the level of assistance that may be required to supplement the GRIP and NISA proposal.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The
minister knows full well that Canadian grain farmers require assistance right now. The minister has indicated that he intends to bring in plans soon to begin the implementation of the farm safety needs program.
Will an immediate cash payment to grain farmers be part of that implementation program?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this spring we provided $500 million worth of emergency cash assistance which was supplemented by the provinces.
We provided a cash flow enrichment program which provided interest-free loans on farm stored grain, which
cost the federal government something in the order of $95 to $100 million.
We are putting in place the long-term GRIP and NISA program. We are triggering the third line of defence to see whatever assistance may be necessary to supplement that. I think that is a pretty full agenda. It demonstrates clearly that we are working with the provinces and with the producers to try to find the best programs that will not only meet the immediate need, but will, as well, provide a long-term solution, which I am sure the hon. member would welcome very much.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of multiculturalism and citizenship. Today is Human Rights Day. This government's record on human rights is abysmal. Just ask aboriginals, the disabled, visible minorities and others. Yet this government callously ignored the recommendations from both the Standing Committee on Human Rights and those of the human rights commissioner.
On this Human Rights Day, will this government agree to reconsider and adopt the recommendations contained in the standing committee report on human rights and the status of disabled persons?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to receive the standing committee report. We did respond positively to the recommendations that were brought forward.
We have already begun a complete review of legislation. At least 12 pieces of legislation will have to be examined carefully and important amendments brought forward. We have already started that process.
We announced at the same time a post-censal survey for disabled, a very important process to help in our understanding of the gravity of the situation.
We immediately put forward a senior committee of deputy ministers chaired by the Under-Secretary of State to bring forward a strong cross-government commitment. I have a feeling that the standing committee may be saying something today. I will await their report with interest. We will respond in the appropriate way.
December 10,1990

Oral Questions


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the chair of that standing committee will probably be reporting that the standing committee would like the minister to review the report, Sir.
The minister is presently co-chairing a human rights conference in Ottawa this very weekend. Human rights is about people who do not have a voice and yet this conference was by invitation only.
Given that many groups and individuals were denied access to this conference, will the minister explain whether this was censorship by mistake or by design?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the doors were open; tickets or passes were not asked for. Indeed, there were many seats available for those who wanted to come and join us.
We did send out over 500 invitations across the country. We wanted to get a cross section of NGOs, academics, business leaders and people from the labour movement. We believe that we can do better. That is why we came together. We have important challenges facing us. They are new and emerging challenges. We are trying to build a partnership, a coalition. We are trying to build Canadian solidarity. I believe the member will recognize that, at least, today is the beginning. This opportunity to examine human rights in a very open manner will certainly mean that more people have a better understanding of what actually is taking place and what takes place around the world, as well.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Quebec has lost 80,000 jobs in the past six months. According to the economists, there will be further job losses next year, including at least 40,000 in Quebec, for a total of 127,000. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House today what measures he intends to take to find jobs for 127,000 Quebecers who will be jobless in 1991?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the full range of our job programs are available to Quebec. I am very proud to say that under Bill C-21, on which we will have some announcements to make in the next month or so, I am sure that the hon. member will be pleased to see the kinds of things we will be doing. For example, we have a number of programs for older workers, for social assistance recipients, and so on. I hope that he will applaud what we will be able to do.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Alfonso Gagliano: The following is a supplementary question, and it is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Does she realize that in the Montreal region, some schools have not given exams in the past two weeks because some students don't have anything to eat, as a result of the policies concerning poor families which this government has created in the past six years? Exactly what does she intend to do, not through Bill C-21, but specifically for poor families in the Montreal area who can't feed their children? What does she intend to do?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have many programs that deal with poverty. The program designed for poor people under Bill C-21, the Canadian training strategy, will help fight poverty in Montreal and other Canadian cities.


THE ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. About 20 minutes ago, British Columbia's Minister of the Environment, John Reynolds, resigned as a result of some statements he made when he appeared before a parliamentary standing committee here, last Jbesday. He indicated, before the standing committee, that there would be full public hearings into Alcan's Kemano II project. When he returned to British Columbia, he attempted to reverse himself and has now subsequently resigned.

December 10,1990
Oral Questions
Could the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House whether or not he is aware of the circumstances that led to Mr. Reynolds' resignation, and whether or not he is now prepared to announce that the Government of Canada will conduct full, public hearings into Alcan's Kemano II project?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the differences which occurred in the committee last week between the hon. member and the minister, and which have subsequently been debated throughout the press in British Columbia, have nothing whatsoever to do with this House.
With respect to Kemano, itself, I can remind the hon. member, as was indicated on earlier occasions, that the project itself was studied. There was a panel which examined it very thoroughly and the public had an opportunity to participate in that process. It is the opinion of the government and the opinion of the relevant authorities in the province of British Columbia that the agreement that was signed with Alcan was consistent with the spirit of the EARP guidelines order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope the government does not dig a hole any deeper than it already has. Five Ministers of Fisheries in a row promised full public hearings into Alcan's Kemano II project. The present Prime Minister, in writing, promised that there would be full public hearings into the Kemano II project.
On October 12, this government exempted the Kemano II project from full public hearings, the only project in Canadian history ever exempted.
Having learned from Rafferty-Alameda, having learned from the Oldman, and hopefully having learned in relation to the James Bay II and Point Aconi, would the Deputy Prime Minister show some justice and show some leadership on the day before the Green Plan and announce there will be full public hearings into the largest hydro project presently under way in Canada?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this project has been the subject of a detailed examination of fish, fish habitat, and other environmental issues.
I remember, as a member of Parliament, sitting in the House and seeing that member congratulate the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when he introduced the Kemano measures that were announced when the agreement was signed with the province of British Columbia. It is nice today for this NDPer to sit on both sides of the fence, but he should come clean with Canada and tell the people that he approved of that a couple of years ago.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POVERTY
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The minister knows that the new reality in Canada is that 1.4 million people are using food banks and 40 per cent of those people are children. The minister, when asked about this in the House in the past, has given a lecture on federal-provincial relations, but the Canada Assistance Plan, which the federal government operates, has guaranteed adequate assistance to those in need. That is a guarantee made by the Parliament of Canada.
Can the minister tell us today what his government means by adequate assistance when so many people cannot feed themselves, clothe themselves, or house themselves?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am pleased to do precisely that, Mr. Speaker. The commitment of the government is to do everything it can to eliminate poverty in Canada.
During the tenure of this government important progress has been made in terms of lifting Canadians out of poverty and, as long as any Canadian remains in poverty, it will not be satisfied. The government wants to see continued measures being taken to give poor people the ability to support themselves. It will continue as well
December 10,1990

to have in place a social safety net which will provide for those people who are most in need.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
As the minister knows, one of the major contributors to poverty in Canada is the low minimum wage. If a single mother with one child in my constituency in Winnipeg worked for the federal government at $4 an hour minimum wage, she would have to work 87.5 hours a week just to reach the poverty level as defined by the government.
The minister has not changed the rate of minimum wage for the federal government since 1986. What is the government waiting for? When will we hear about a new minimum wage for the poor of Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the federal minimum wage has been a focus for concern for quite some time, but we must remember that the number of Canadians effected by federal minimum wage regulations is between 1 and 1.5 per cent. We are considering the circumstances under which the minimum wage, which now applies almost exclusively to part-time employees, might have the effect of eliminating those positions instead of improving the situation of Canadians, thus making matters worse instead of better.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Agriculture). The GATT talks in the Uruguay Round are deadlocked. The Europeans don't seem to want to budge from their position on farm subsidies, and the Americans' strategy to isolate the EEC was not successful. My question is this: Considering what is at stake in these negotiations for the economy of this country, and especially agriculture in Quebec and in Abitibi-Temiscamin-gue, does Canada intend to take the necessary steps to again try and break this deadlock?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware of the fact
Oral Questions
that the Canadian government made every effort last week to have a favourable conclusion to the Uruguay Round. Negotiations are continuing. They have not stopped. They will continue in January and February.
I would like to point out that Canadian farm producers from all parts of the country, west, centre and east, have remained united behind the Canadian position. Furthermore, the Premiers and Ministers of Agriculture and International Trade of all the provinces have remained solidly behind the Canadian position, and I believe this should help us while we are waiting for future developments in early January and February, when further progress can be made. Mr. Speaker, all this is thanks to the fact that this government has always consultated with farm producers and Agriculture ministers in this country. That is how we govern and that is how we will continue to govern.


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. The minister will know that one way to break out of the poverty cycle is through improved education. In spite of that, the minister and his department are withholding funds for post-secondary education for the Inuit communities of northern Labrador.
My question very simply is: Why? Why now, when unemployment is one the rise? Why now, when education could be a passport to a new future? Why is the minister withholding funds under a legally binding agreement with the Inuit of Labrador that would help those Labrador Inuit young people?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member raised this question. I want to assure him that the government is not withholding funds. In fact, we are committed and I am delighted to say the enrolment in our post-secondary program is exceeding all expectations. This is a piece of very good news across Canada. Aboriginal young people are going on to university and seeking higher education. Our funding proposals for the coming year were not adequate to deal with the demand. At the same time, we had to have the enrolment reports

December 10,1990
Oral Questions
completed and submitted as a basis for setting the budgets.
I am assured by my officials that adequate funding will be made available to the Labrador Inuit Association and all other first nations in Canada who require adequate assistance for post-secondary education.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the problem is the question of timing. Unless the funding is available now, those students will not be able to be guaranteed their seats in this coming semester. It is a question of timing. The funds have to be there now.
Will the minister commit today to ensure that funding is there for those Labrador Inuit young people who want to enrol in this coming semester after Christmas? Will he guarantee that?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, indeed, I can do that.
In fact, the enrolment of Inuit post-graduate students and the university students from the Labrador area has doubled from 85 to over 160 in the present year. We have made commitments confirmed in the last day or two to the effect that funding to the end of January is fully committed and the balance will be available before the end of the school term.
the federal Minister of Forestry is chairman-designate of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers for the coming year. My question to him is two-fold.
Does the minister subscribe to and support the proposal from the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers to lead in developing such a vision plan for sustainable forestry development in Canada, and what steps will he be taking in the coming months as chairman of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers to initiate such a long-term planning process for both economic and environmental goals in Canada's forests?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I can report to the House that we have just completed a very successful meeting with the council of ministers in Halifax.
I can report an excellent spirit of co-operation and a very sincere commitment to the long-term plans and strategies and the principles of sustainable development. Naturally, we would want to focus our attention on the collection and building of a better data base.
As well, I can report to the hon. member that we have committed ourselves to a program last year of holding five regional forums that will lead to a new forest sector strategy by 1992.
In this connection, I would like to congratulate the hon. member and his colleagues for a report that they have just published which will be very helpful in the pursuit of these objectives.
* *
*


FORESTRY
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question directed to the Minister of Forestry.
The Commons sub-committee on forestry has recently presented its report to Parliament, entitled The Forests of Canada-The Federal Role. The main thrust of that report calls for a national planning vision for Canada's forests, in both economic and environmental perspectives, to be convened through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers in a partnership approach between federal and provincial governments. I understand that


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Quebec government announced on Friday that it wants to levy deterrence or user fees despite clear evidence that such fees serve only to keep the poor from seeking medical treatment.
Under the Canada Health Act, the federal government can withhold federal medicare payments in an amount equal to that collected by user fees.


December 10,1990

Privilege


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
[Stage Direction]
My question to the minister is this. Will the minister say that he is prepared to uphold the Canada Health Act and say no to deterrent fees anywhere in Canada, whether that be B.C., Alberta or Quebec?
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know the Canada Health Act specifically forbids extra billing.
I have asked that my officials get in touch with the Government of Quebec to seek information with regard to the proposals made last Friday by the minister of health of Quebec. We will be looking at those closely. We will be also drawing to the attention of the Quebec our determination to ensure that the principles underlying the Canada Health Act are fully respected.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to hear that the minister intends to uphold the Canada Health Act. However, the minister knows that his power to enforce national standards become weaker each day as the federal share of medicare costs decline. At the present rate, all federal cash payments to Ontario will cease by the mid-1990s.
Will the minister tell the House how he will enforce national standards when all federal moneys to the provinces cease and he is left with no means of enforcement?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is dealing with is simply conjecture. For a good deal of time yet to come there will be significant cash payments made to the provinces of Canada in order to help fund their expenses under Canada's medical care system. There is no program in Canada which has broader support from Canadians than Canada's medicare system.
It is a system that this government is determined to see remain and enhanced. We are determined to ensure as well that the principles that underlie Canada's medicare system, principles of ensuring that Canadians receive the best possible health care in Canada, continue to be enforced.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of a number of members of a delegation visiting our country from Kuwait.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege or a point of order. Without getting into a dispute as to what it is, I have given notice to the Chair with a copy to my friend on the opposite side, the Government Whip. I will try to be short and also try to exercise common sense, which sometimes is in short supply here, Mr. Speaker.
Very briefly, the point of order/privilege is the question of the status of an independent member. I want to say right at the start that this has nothing to do with the status of parties in this House and/or their status as far as the Elections Act is concerned. I know and members know that under the present Elections Act, we have to run in an election as a member of a designated official party or as an independent.
The history of this Chamber is full of parliamentary precedents, with members who, having been elected under one label, made a decision, for whatever reason, to have themselves declared another affiliation. I am not going to go through the hundred or so more who go back into interesting history. I am going to quote some.
The one I am going to quote is a fellow called Gordon Churchill. This brings back memories. I was here when Gordon Churchill stood in this House as a Conservative and made a very succinct statement to the House, and one perhaps that I should have followed, and explained why he had to in a most regretful way to dissociate himself with his then party and sit as an independent and as an independent Conservative. There have been so many that we do not have to take too much time.
Some members in this House, I would venture to say, with respect, do not appreciate that there was no such thing as a party label on a ballot until 1970.1 rest my case first on the fact that when I was elected in 1965 there was no party affiliation. I was elected as a person, an

December 10,1990
Privilege
individual, and that is my first point. Mr. Speaker, you know and I know and the government Whip should know, that the political system in this country is based on election of individuals who happen to have a party name, and only a party name since 1970.
I say for me at least, and I am not talking about other members who may want their own declarations for whatever reasons, I was elected here without a party label. I have been associated with a party for a good number of years and enjoyed that interesting experience. For other reasons, which I have mentioned here before, I earlier made a declaration that I want to be known as an Independent Conservative. Mr. Speaker, you could not tag me with a label when I came here. Even the government Whip in his earlier statements in this House on September 26 in talking about some of my friends to the left, the Bloc quebecois, started to say that it is clear parliamentary precedent, although he doesn't give any, that members themselves will decide the designation they want to be called or to withdraw the designation they were first elected under, and I totally agree with him.
First, Mr. Speaker, the premise of the political system is that we elect individuals and boy-oh-boy, I can tell you with the malaise out there, you make sure you elect individuals because people are getting pretty fed up with the political system where we all have to do and say the same thing day in and day out.
Anyway, you elect individuals, Mr. Speaker. That is the political system. Let us come to the parliamentary system. The parliamentary system, you know, Mr. Speaker, and I know does not officially recognize parties. It does not recognize parties. We have interesting groupings that have been done through an accommodation over a period of time, but officially, under in the Standing Orders and the Elections Act, you do not see political parties. You do not see any.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the parliamentary system, as distinct from the political system, what you have here are 295 members who for a multitude of reasons. For a multitude of reasons and for obvious reasons in most cases, they have associated themselves with a political party. That is fine. I take no exception to that.
But when a member wants to make a declaration and sit in another capacity and name himself, I say, Mr. Speaker, that is up to the member and he or she will be confronted with that at the next election.
Some of us were here when the member from the province of my friend the government Whip, a fellow called Jack Homer, stood in this House and said he wanted to be known as a Liberal. Did anyone one on the Liberal side stand up and say: "Hey, Jack, you can't come over here because you were elected as a Tory, and therefore you have to stay over there". This is how stupid it is and that is why I am not going to take the time to really over-debate this.
In addition to Jack Homer, you have Ralph Stewart, that peripatetic traveller. When he made the great declaration that he wanted to leave the Liberal Party and come to the Conservative Party without an election, did our government Whip stand up and say: "Hey, Ralph, you had better go back and talk to your people. You can't come with us because you were elected as a Liberal".
John Reid is a little different. He campaigned as a Labour Liberal. I talked to Jean Marc Hamel and on the ballot-and this is why it is irrelevant about the Elections Act-he ran as a Liberal. I understand that I can call myself anything in terms of an election campaign-and I have been called many things-but in terms of when the name goes on the ballot-and that is the way the law is now and I am not debating that at the moment-in terms of the ballot it has to go either in a designated party or as an independent.
Let us take Paul Hellyer and his perambulations between Liberal, Independent and Independent Conservative. Or let us take one who used to be in the cabinet of my friends opposite, the member for Joliette, a fellow called Roch LaSalle who stood up while he was a Conservative under Bob Stanfield and because of problems of language policy, made a declaration from his seat on this side that he wanted to sit as an independent. He went over there where my good friend from Pembina is at the moment, and sat there as an independent. Later he made a statement from over there, saying that he wanted to come back and join the Conservative Party. He was switching around like a yo-yo. Did any government Whip or opposition Whip say: "Hey, Rocco, you can't come over here because you got a label on your back that
December 10, 1990

is embedded into your tissue like a tattoo". These things are not tattoos, Mr. Speaker.
But let me come to the conclusion because I do not want to overtake the system by saying there is no official status for parties in this House. The political system is on the basis of individuals. You are elected as an individual. I know there is a lot of pressure. We could get computerized. We could all be ciphers in the old computer game, and forget even the names. I understand the attraction of members to a party and leaders, but the fact is we still run as the hon. member. I do not want to name my friends over there, but when they put their name on the ballot, not the party, it is because of the Elections Act of 1970 and accounting purposes that we have to put the affiliation. That is just an incidental fact and it should not be the dominant fact.
Our political system is for individuals, Mr. Speaker. Our parliamentary system is not for a block of government members of 170 or whatever. It is for 295 members. Why do we have an index in the back of the book?
I conclude with what I think is the best message of all, something which some members may remember. I do. It was during the financial crisis in the Bob Stanfield era when Mr. Pearson over an Easter break was in Bermuda and got caught in an ambush on a finance bill. There were many of us here in a caucus who thought the government had come to a halt. We thought since the government of the day had been defeated on a tax bill, in effect the government stopped, there was a loss of confidence and Parliament would not even open.
This was years before we started thinking of ringing the bells. I was in the Conservative caucus then and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there were vibrant discussions in caucus. That day, we met in Room 112-N at least once, if not after in the Railway Committee Room, but usually down there because the thing was so topical.
I can remember Gordon Churchill, Jack Homer and others who took a certain stand on one side and Mike Starr who as the House leader was trying to decide whether we would even come into the House.
Our point was that a tax bill was a vote of confidence and was dead. In actual fact, Mr. Stanfield then or later admitted that he got a call from the governor of the bank and was told if we did not meet, there would be a run on
Privilege
the dollar because it was a minority Parliament. A ran on the dollar would have been disastrous for Canada.
Therefore, with a sense of public duty, Mr. Stanfield had to take the caucus into the House and have a debate on the question of privilege that the House did not really exist. That debate lasted two days, but the House got going.
That is the time I realized the House really could be a charade. After the leading speeches of Mr. Stanfield, Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lewis of the NDP, the three main speeches on the most important constitutional question that had hit us for many a year, the whole debate was carried out in the halls. After two days of that, Mr. Pearson won the day because the public said: "Of course, this House has to sit and debate things."
Mr. Churchill, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, said, and I will conclude with this. I want to read the whole thing, because this is the state Parliament has come to.
When the statesman Mr. Churchill stood and gave a little statement on his position, there was not a person who would have dared rise and say: "Mr. Churchill, you are not allowed to call yourself that, or do what you think is right."
This is what he said at that time in the House of Commons on February 27, 1968, at page 7019, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege to announce that it is my intention to sit in the house as an independent Conservative.
That, of course, is what I want to do here.
I am taking this step after careful -


Ms. Copps:: There is no such thing as an independent Conservative.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What are you trying to say here? She sounds the same from here as she sounded from over there. It is disconcerting on either side.
I continue:
I am taking this step-
I must say this is the type of statement that I should have said rather than abuse the Chair the other day.
I am taking this step after careful and long consideration, and with deep regret. The issue before the house is so fundamental to our parliamentary system and so dangerous to our freedom that I cannot justify to my conscience to surrender now of part of our freedom in the hope that it may be regained at some uncertain time in the future. That runs counter to my experience of life and to my understanding of mankind's long and painful struggle for freedom. The decision of the Progressive Conservative party to capitulate at this time is so contrary

December 10,1990
Privilege
to the principles of the party, as I understand them, that I prefer to have complete freedom to express my views in the debate without embarrassment to my colleagues.
At the earliest convenient opportunity I will meet with the members of the executive of the Progressive Conservative party of Winnipeg South Centre and in consultation with them take whatever action is considered appropriate.
I shall continue to maintain a friendly and sympathetic interest in the Conservative party, in the hope that at some time in the future it will once again command my steadfast and unwavering support.
I rest my case with a man of the stature of Gordon Churchill who wanted to be an independent Conservative for a fundamental break with the party and was so recognized.
I can go through some 90-some names where again they were not open to challenge. That shows what state Parliament has got to when an individual member with a lot of consideration and a difficult decision makes a public declaration and lo and behold, out of the cobwebs of procedure we get someone standing and saying: "You cannot do that."
Mr. Speaker, I ran and I will be running again, whenever Elections Canada says. Right now, in this House of Commons, I want to clear up my status for the record so that the elementary political eunuch in terms of appellation can be clarified and to do what is the fact of life, that is, to be known in the records officially as an independent Conservative.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if we are in a debate, on a point of order, or a question of privilege. Certainly it was at some length.
I have no quarrel with my colleague across the way in terms of his willingness and ability to call himself whatever he wants to and to indicate what in his own mind is any political affiliation.
What we are dealing with is my intervention of some couple of weeks ago when I rose in terms of our printed record, Hansard, which is a publication that governs what we do in committees.
At the back of every Wednesday's Hansard is a section that carries the names of members, the constituency they represent, and their political affiliation. To this point in the life of this Parliament and preceding Parliaments, and I suggest going back to the adoption of the current election law in Canada which flows from the Constitution of Canada, we have designated people in this part of our written record according to the political affiliation under which they ran during an election and therefore were elected to represent the New Democratic Party or the Progressive Conservative Party. In one case in our current records, it is the Reform Party or the Liberal Party of Canada. That is the affiliation.
People have been expelled from caucus without being required to change that affiliation because their voters voted for them as an individual in a constituency with a political affiliation. What we have allowed members to do is to withdraw that affiliation. If they were no longer happy with what they were elected to do, which is to affiliate with other members with a similar label, we have allowed them to withdraw and to put the word "Independent" in our written record. The truth is they no longer affiliate with any political group.
The member opposite raises another situation where an hon. member moves from one political group to another recognized political party. Yes, there have been cases of people moving from the Progressive Conservative Party to the Liberal Party or to the New Democratic Party. In fact, we had one member in the last Parliament who I think visited every party. He was elected as a Progressive Conservative and sat with each of the other parties, and ended up finally sitting as an Independent.
If you were to accept the arguments by my hon. friend across the way, then you would have the absurdity, Mr. Speaker, and the potential in theory of 295 separate political affiliations the blue party, the pink party, the yellow party, the green party, the up party, the down party, the inside out party, et cetera.
What this is intended to be is a serious historical record that can be consulted and will help scholars and others in the future to determine the political dynamics of the place at a given point in time. If you allow people to designate their own political affiliation after they have been through an electoral process, would we have accepted, for instance, the hon. member's request, having run as a Progressive Conservative, having sought the concurrence of his voters, and having been elected that way, to emerge on the opening day of this Parliament and to stand up in his place and say: "I want to be recorded in the back of this book as a communist"? Would we have accepted that the designation of political
December 10,1990

affiliation is entirely in the member's hands, in the hands of the electors?
Perhaps we can turn our attention east to India. Its system is such that you run under a political affiliation and when, for one reason or another, you tire of that political affiliation and are not willing to support the majority consensus that is reached, then your seat is declared vacant and you have the right to run as an Independent or an independent Conservative, or whatever you will, and to seek re-election.
Perhaps this Parliament would be well served if people were to take that step and to seek their voters' approval under a different kind of label. I think none of us in this Chamber who believe in democracy would have any difficulty with that. But, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that to invent a political affiliation which does not exist under the Canada Elections Act and to request the Parliament of Canada to approve the designation of that political affiliation in its written records, when it does not exist as a label one can use in running for election in this country, would be a serious mistake. It could lead to all kinds of abuses over time where people deliberately run under one affiliation with the intention of emerging at a later time under a different one.
There are those of us in western Canada who have faced that reality, going back to the late 1970s. Some of those who presently form the core of the Reform Party sought nomination in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. There was one in my riding back in 1977 who sought the nomination to represent the Conservative Party with the intention of winning election as a Progressive Conservative and emerging in this Chamber as a member of another political group, devoted to western separatism.
That is not very democratic. It is not something that this House should allow. If people get elected under a banner, that is one thing. If they no longer like the banner under which they got elected and they can join another party in the Chamber that was legitimately elected, then that is another thing. But if neither of those two situations exist for the member, then I think
Privilege
we have no choice but to list them in the back of our book as an Independent.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the remarks of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants and also to the government Whip's intervention.
First of all, I would like to correct what I believe to be an error in the first hon. member's submission to the House concerning the fact that parties do not appear in the standing orders. I draw his attention to Standing Order 33, wherein parties are specifically mentioned. I am sure I could find others had I the time to go right through the order book.
Parties are mentioned in Standing Order 33 and they are referred to as existing in the House of Commons, and so parties do crop up in there. There are many references to parties in the Canada Elections Act, as I am sure he knows. I did not want him to create the wrong impression that parties were not in fact part of our electoral structure. There has been a significant change in the electoral structure since the 1960s, the time period of which he was speaking.
I recognize that members are free to run with a party label now in an election and that the label can be put on the ballot, but it is up to the candidate who is seeking election to choose whether he or she wishes to have a party designation attached to his or her name.
The hon. member should remember that. In other words, we are not compelled by the Elections Act to run as representatives of a party or with a party label attached. We have the option of refusing and just leaving no affiliation following the name on the ballot.
The hon. member in choosing his own designation here as a member of this House is free to make the choice that he suggests he is entitled to make, notwithstanding what the government Whip says.
I well recall the incident he referred to with Mr. Churchill, the former member for Winnipeg South Centre. I also recall the hon. member for Kenora- Rainy River, Mr. Benidickson, who for many years was a Lib-Lab member of Parliament. He would not take a straight Liberal appellation, although he sat with the Liberals in the House. He insisted on Liberal-Labour appearing as his party affiliation in the Wednesday editions of Hansard. He ran as such, but of course he

December 10,1990
Privilege
could not put that on the ballot because he was elected, for many years at least, before the party designation could be put on the ballot. It was his choice as to what he wanted to be.
I recall there were independent Liberals. I recall there were independent Conservatives in the 1960s. I am sure that the changes in the Elections Act which have allowed a designation to be attached to a candidate's name have not changed the procedures or rules of this House in respect to a member's right to designate his or her party status.
I think what the government Whip is suggesting is that because there have been these changes in the Elections Act, somehow we cannot have anything independent except Independents in this House. In other words, if you are going to withdraw from a party, you must therefore become an Independent or a member of another recognized party. I do not think that is so. The member who makes the change and withdraws has his or her choice as to how he or she wishes to be called or designated in this House.
While designation as an Independent may result in the loss of certain privileges and obligations of being a member of a designated party, it does not mean that the person cannot designate himself as an independent Conservative, an independent Liberal or an independent New Democratic, and make that perfectly proper in terms of the listing in Wednesday's Hansard. There is nothing terribly official about it, but I think the member is entitled to make that choice. I submit that the government Whip is seeking to alter the rules under which we have operated here by reference to the changes in the Elections Act made in the seventies. I am not sure it is necessary.
If Your Honour has any doubt on the matter, I think it would be an appropriate case for a referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections where the matter could be considered in detail. But I submit, on the precedents that have been established in this House for many years, that it would entirely proper for the hon. member to choose his designation, insist that it be inserted in the Wednesday listing as an appendix to Hansard, and Your Honour could take cognizance of that designation for all purposes in this House.
I do not think that such a designation on his part would be contrary to the practices and traditions of this place. Indeed it would be fully in accordance with them, in so far as they have existed over the years. I submit they have not been changed, either by design or by accident, as a result of the amendments to the Canada Elections Act in the early 1970s whereby party designations could be placed on a ballot paper.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted, at the earliest possible moment, to correct an inadvertent mistake by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. In his reference to a western member crossing the floor, I think he referred to Jack Murta.
Of course Jack Murta was and is an hon. gentleman who was loyal to his party over the course of his tenure here. I think he was referring to Jack Homer who crossed the floor to join the Liberals and was soundly defeated in the subsequent election.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, understood that the discussion was in respect of our former colleague, the Hon. Jack Homer.
I want to put a question to the House. Can any member advise me as to what legal impediment there is against the hon. member calling himself an independent Conservative in this House?
I have listened to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, the hon. member for Calgary West, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I will consider the matter and I will come back with an reasoned response.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, not to rebut but I got more interested in the submission of my friend, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, as he developed it. I am quite aware that if it is a question of political parties that name is in the Standing Orders, and obviously there is even more of a designation in the Elections Act. The name of parties does not appear in the Standing Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members. I will consider the matter. The hon. member who has raised it has been a member of this House for many years. His father was a member of this House for many years before that. In all those years he, his father, and his family were supporters of a particular political party. Certainly the hon. member receives a certain amount of sympathy in this Chamber on both sides of the House when he raises the matter.
December 10,1990

I will try to come back with an answer which is appropriate for the internal management of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-58, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code, with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members who took part in the committee's proceedings, the support staff, and especially the Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Santosh Sirpaul, who worked tirelessly, sometimes through the weekend, to prepare reports and comments for the committee.


HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I take special pleasure, since today is International Human Rights Day, in presenting the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. Our fourth report is in both official languages and is entitled Unanswered Questions.
I believe it is one of the rare times, if not the first, that a standing committee of the House of Commons has used its power to analyze a government response to a previous committee report and to request further information. This fourth report is an analysis of the recent government response to our second report, which called on the government to develop a comprehensive national strategy for the integration of disabled persons into Canadian economic life.
The committee's unanimous view is that the government response, while it contains worth-while initiatives, is not a truly comprehensive response. We are therefore calling on the government for a further contribution to
Routine Proceedings
the dialogue which our second report initiated. Clear and complete answers to the questions raised by our second report are important so that Canadians, including those with disabilities, will know what to expect from their government. More broadly, they are needed because committees of this House can only be effective if their work is addressed substantively by the government.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to this report within 150 days. We believe this response is already overdue, because it relates entirely to our second report and we are requesting the government to provide its response as soon as possible.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Amherstview, Napanee and other areas near Kingston and the Islands.
These petitioners reside in the riding of Hastings- Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, which is represented in this House by a Conservative member who, apparently, will not present these kinds of petitions in the House. However, I am pleased to present it on their behalf, because these people are opposed to the goods and services tax and particularly in so far as the tax applies to books and newspapers.
The petitioners recite that the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of our democratic traditions. Accordingly they feel that our democratic structure is threatened as a result of the imposition of this wicked tax on the printed word, and they call upon Parliament to reject the goods and services tax.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the privilege to lay upon the table three petitions signed by individuals, primarily from the province of Ontario, but also from the province of Quebec, mainly in the area of Ottawa and surrounding communities, who express their sincere opposition to the goods and services tax and in

December 10, 1990
Routine Proceedings
particular, that it applies to magazines, books and newspapers.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax. They further call upon the Government of Canada, that in view of the Canadian-made recession, it not proceed at this time with the goods and services tax which will have a very negative effect on the Canadian economy, especially Canadian consumers as well as small businesses all across this country.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions signed by almost 600 people from the constituency of Lambton-Middlesex asking this government to phase out the use of MMT in gasoline.
On December 1 this government officially phased out the use of lead as an octane enhancer in automotive fuels, but it still continues to allow methylcyclopentadle-nyl manganese tricarbonyl to be used, which is another neuro-toxic substance that has been banned in the United States since 1978.
These petitioners ask this government to act now, ban MMT and replace it with environmentally friendly ethanol. This would provide a market for millions of tonnes of Canadian grown grain.
Mr. Speaker, I also have petitions opposing the GST, opposing the closing of local post offices and petitions opposing cuts to our veterans services.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise under Standing Order 36 to present two petitions from residents of metropolitan Toronto.
They call upon the government to withdraw its plans to tax books and periodicals. The printed word is a cornerstone of our economic prosperity and our freedom of expression. These residents of Canada call upon the government to not tax these books and periodicals.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my first petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, points out that the government's cutback on passenger rail service is not environmentally
sensible. They point out that the most environmentally friendly way of large passenger travel is by train.
They are asking the government to reconsider its decision to curtail certain routes and to invest more appropriately in the movement of Canadians via passenger rail.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in Kingston and Belleville.
They point out their concern at the government's decision to proceed with the goods and services tax. They feel that this is a regressive tax which permits benefits to certain Canadians in certain regions of the country. It is particularly punitive against northerners and people living in more remote areas of Canada. They are asking the government to reconsider their decision, back off, and introduce real, fair, tax reform instead.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.
The first one is from small business people in my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby. They call on this government not to implement the goods and services tax. They say it is an unfair form of taxation because it forces small business people to carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden and that it will prove to be an implementation nightmare for their small businesses.
They also say that the tax does not address the concerns of small business with regard to the MST. Instead, it increases the tax burden for the small business community. They ask this government to reject the proposed goods and services tax, to consult with business, labour and with consumer groups to reach a broad consensus on tax reform.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by petitioners in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia as well as the Vancouver area.
This petition says that the choice to bear children or not to bear children is a matter of personal choice and not one of criminal law. The Canadian Medical Association already has guidelines and regulations in place concerning abortion. They say that criminal sanctions do nothing to address the reasons why women seek abor-
December 10, 1990

tions, and do nothing to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from imposing any criminal sanctions against abortions.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Sheila Maureen Copps: That this House regrets that almost one million Canadian children are living in poverty, that 1.4 million Canadians each year must rely on food banks and that the current recession and the proposed Goods and Services Thx will make this situation worse; and That the House, desiring the elimination of poverty in Canada by the year 2000, demands immediate programs to ameliorate the plight of the working poor, including a review of the minimum wage, discriminatory employment practices, current available children's benefits and other income support programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending December 10, 1990 the House will move through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill. In view of the recent practice, do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions. I am not sure whether there is agreement, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons as well as the House leader for the New Democratic Party whether or not there there would be a disposition in the House for the time allotted to the parties in the speaking order in which they are recognized by the Speaker that that individual party have the right to divide the time as it sees fit, namely, for our first speaker, instead of having
Supply
the 20 plus 10, we would have ten and five and ten and five.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to signal our usual co-operation on this matter and as we are such fine people on this side, we will co-operate in any way we can.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the implications in those last comments but I have to say that since this is the final allotted day and the fact that we are not beginning debate until well after the usual time, I would like to make a slight change to that proposal. I think in the interest of equity and fairness that we consider the proposal but that we simply rotate in the usual fashion, not on the basis of 20 and 10, but on the basis of ten and five. If that is the interest of the House, we are certainly willing to co-operate.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting proposal which comes from the House leader of the New Democratic Party. It is a major deviation from the practice of what we have been doing in this House for quite some time of course, but in view of the circumstances quite appropriate.
I would have thought that the hon. member would want to co-operate, in view of the fact that the subject matter is put forward by the hon. member for Hamilton East, and have more members of his party and my party enter the debate. But on the proposal which is being put forward, in view of the fact that it is unprecedented to have that kind of an arrangement, we will have to go back to the 20 and 10.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we can simply ask that our hon. friend from the New Democratic Party consider the proposal made by the Liberal Party earlier. My hesitation in accepting the proposal that he made is quite simple. The issue we are dealing with today is of such fundamental importance that many of us have laboured long and hard to compose remarks which deal in considerable length with a very important issue and one which was dealt with previously by his previous leader.
By giving to the parties themselves the ability to decide how to divide up their time, we would have a system that is equitable and fair and would enable the Liberal Party to make proposals and to organize themselves in the way that they felt was most effective but would not derogate from the ability of members to deal with this important subject in a more extensive way if they felt it was constructive to do so. I think it is consistent with the traditions of this place and if we are prepared to show

December 10,1990
Supply
sufficient flexibility, it would meet the needs of members on all sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There has not been agreement. Do we go for 20 and 10 and if the respective parties would like to designate their own party as ten and five when they get up to speak, that would be fine. I am at the disposal of the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, again, I like the idea although I have noticed when you calculate the times you have managed to freeze out the last two New Democrat speakers because we are starting late.
I am quite prepared to undertake to maximize the number of participants in this important debate. I cannot do anything but agree with the minister that this is an important debate, particularly in light of the fact that it was initiated a year ago by the then leader of the New Democratic Party.
I would agree with my colleague's proposals to have the parties decide whether they want to break their sections into ten and fives, with the undertaking to my two colleagues that prior to completing this debate there would be ample time after the first round to have two speakers from the New Democratic Party. If not, I do not see any advantage in agreeing to this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think we should just start off with 20 and 10, as proposed. Debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that 15 days before Christmas, we take this opportunity in the House today to pause and reflect for a moment on what it is that we are really here for.
Frankly, I, myself, in reviewing the package of government actions since 1984, was shocked to examine the extent to which the Tory knife has cut deep into the hearts of poor children and poor families in the country.
I moved this particular motion, not as the end to the problem of poverty, but rather as one opportunity for the House in a full and frank way to discuss a number of issues which touch Canadians living in poverty. Over the next several hours, Mr. Speaker, you will hear from
members of our caucus who will address very specific concerns bringing to bear their expertise in the area.
One of the things that shocked me-and I think it probably shocks a lot of Canadians-is that not only do we know that almost 1 million Canadian children live in poverty, but that 1.4 million Canadians must rely on food banks to supplement their daily bread.
Forty per cent of those people are children who, by virtue of the fact that they do not have enough to eat, are not able to excel in school, are 1.7 times more likely to have psychiatric disorders, are 1.8 times more likely to perform poorly in school, and are twice as likely to have conduct disorders. Poor children are the kind of children left to repeat grades more often than children from families who are not poor. Twice as many poor children fall behind in educational achievement by the age of 15. They become the drop-outs whom millions of government dollars are hopefully trying to encourage to stay in school.
We have to deal, as a government and as a political party, with how we intend to wipe out poverty. The first thing we have to do is examine what has happened over the past six years.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that the last six years have dealt a real blow to families and children in the country. I was shocked myself to learn of the kinds of deep cuts that have been brought about by the government to programs that are directed towards helping the poor and, in particular, helping children.
The very specific major cutbacks in EPF transfer payments will cut approximately $22 billion from medicare over the next 10 years. If you set aside the EPF transfer payments, and look at other federal government programs, Mr. Speaker, directed towards poor families, what you will find as a result of Tory policies is $20 billion in spending has been cut from families, children, and elderly people who most need the resources.
In constant dollars, the cutbacks of the child benefit system beginning with the family allowance in 1986 cut $1.6 billion from the pockets of Canadian families to help children. The deindexation of child benefits in the tax structure cut $3.5 billion from the program between 1986 and 1991. The clawback of the family allowance and the old age security will cut $215 million in spending this
December 10,1990

year alone, and $618 million a year by the end of the three-year phase-in period.
The Mulroney government has cut back on EPF transfers, as I have already mentioned. In fact, the cumulative effect of the cut in transfer payments to provincial governments for health, social services, and education-the kinds of programs needed to provide support to working poor families-represent a cut of $31 billion for medicare and post-secondary education. Approximately $22 billion of this will be taken out of the heart of medicare.
In 1990, the Mulroney government announced a plan to cut transfers in CAP to Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, claiming these provinces were too wealthy. This cut represents $75 million in 1990 and $80 million in 1991-1992.
The Mulroney government has also cut its proposal to spend $4 billion on increasing the number of child care spaces. That, combined with the fact that the government spending under CAP amounts to $2.6 billion, means that the government's savings of $200 million annually again is being carried out on the backs of working and working-poor families.
We have heard time and again in the House how Bill C-21 is going to do so much for the working poor. Well, we are getting the tally. In municipalities across the country as a result of Bill C-21 the welfare rolls are rising. Bill C-21 was not a measure to create jobs or to assist those thousands of workers who have gotten their walking papers over the last number of months as a result of the government's monetary and fiscal policies. In fact, Bill C-21 will see a $1.3 billion annual cut in benefits to the unemployed. These are real people who are lacking hope and the federal government's $1.3 billion cut is going to reach deeper into the pockets of those families who now currently cannot afford to support themselves.
The main impediments to families being caught in the cycle of poverty are the issues of food and housing. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that in 1989 the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney actually spent less on housing across the country than was spent in 1984? At a time when housing costs across the country are sky-rocketing and when the number of homeless has reached into
Supply
the tens of thousands of homeless families across the country, the Mulroney government is spending less in real dollars in 1989 than it spent in 1984.
For the benefit of those on the other side of the House, I would like to table a copy of a list all of the cuts that have hit poor and working-poor families since 1984. Those cuts total over $20 billion, excluding the specific amounts relating to EPF transfers. That is $20 billion taken from the hands-in fact, from the mouths-of the children of Canada.
One of the reasons we wanted to launch this debate was not only so that we could wake up Canadians to the fact that we have a country which has an increasing gap between the rich and the poor. We do not have to go to the papers to see the evidence of it. We can go into our own constituencies and to the food banks. Only last month in the city of Montreal there was a line-up down the street of people trying to get second-hand clothing because they did not have enough money to clothe themselves. The federal government's response to the situation of families in real need is to cut, cut, cut to the bare bones.
Let us look for example at a very specific area. I was frankly shocked to hear the Minister of Labour in the House today, in response to my colleague from Winnipeg, claim that he was not immediately moving to increase the minimum wage because only a small percentage of Canadians would benefit from it. Mr. Speaker, the percentage may be small but I think the federal government and the Minister of Labour should hang their heads in shame that the federal government has the lowest minimum wage of any government in Canada. My colleague pointed out the fact that a single woman supporting a child would have to work 87 hours a week at the minimum wage merely to reach the established level of poverty. Frankly, you see the real need in provinces such as Newfoundland which has a higher minimum wage than the federal government. After I have tabled the analysis of the cuts of federal spending, I would like to take some time to read into the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have permission to table the document? There has to be unanimous consent in order to have it tabled. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

December 10,1990
Supply


An hon, member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No, I am sorry. There is no agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. The hon. member has no agreement to have the document tabled. There was no agreement. Debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare is disagreeing, let him stand up and say so. The Speaker asked the question and everyone agreed. There was silence.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seeks to table, with unanimous consent, what is simply a partisan list of rhetoric. If the hon. member wants to do that, she can easily either include it in her speech or she can put out a press release.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member does not have unanimous consent. She is on debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare does not think it is important for Canadians to have a sense of just how deeply his government has cut. I can understand why he does not want to because it is a shameful record.
I was the one who was shocked when I actually sat down and read in black and white the depths and level of cuts to social programs across the country over the last six years, to housing programs and to food programs. It is no wonder that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would not want to have that information on the record. It is a harbinger of more ills to come under his government. He certainly has done very little in his new capacity to try to alleviate the situation.
Given that he is unprepared to look at the facts that the opposition wants to lay before the House, would he consider the facts about the federal minimum wage? The federal wage has not been raised in the last four years. How many members of the House would like to go four years without a pay raise? How many would like to go four years without a raise? The federal government has gone since May 26, 1986, without a single increase to a pathetic and pitiful minimum wage of $4 an hour.
Alberta has a higher minimum wage of $4.50 an hour. British Columbia, which is not known for labour enlightenment, has a minimum wage of $5 an hour. Manitoba's is $4.70. New Brunswick's is $4.50. Newfoundland's is $4.25 and we know the difficult economic conditions in Newfoundland. In the province of Ontario, as of June 1, 1990, the minimum wage is $5.40 an hour. In Prince Edward Island it is $4.50 an hour. In Quebec it is $5.00 an hour. In Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories it is $5. In Yukon territory it is $5.39.
When we asked the legitimate question in the House today of the Minister of Labour as to why the federal government had the lowest minimum wage in Canada, he actually had the gall to respond that it covered so very few people and since those people were part-time, he did not want to eliminate their jobs. That is the same kind of rationale that was originally used to buttress the rationale for slavery. The rationale was that minimum employment standards could not be introduced for fear of cutting out jobs in the cotton fields.
Even if the minimum wage covers only 1.3 per cent of the federal working population, at least the federal government should send a signal to provinces across the country that we are not followers, but rather we are leaders when it comes to providing support and, in particular, income support for the working poor.
One of the great fallacies of our generation is the fact that people who are living in circumstances of poverty are doing it because they do not want to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and work. The Macdonald royal commission on the economic condition of Canada discovered that over 50 per cent of people living in poverty in the country are in fact working.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the others who are not working outside the home are primarily women who are working inside the home and who are making a valuable and equal contribution to the state of not only the Canadian economy, but also to the psyche of Canada.
What we have on the government side is a deliberate decision to undercut the capacity of working Canadians to support themselves and their families, not only by specific cuts in programs, but also by a tax policy and a
December 10, 1990

tax strategy which is gradually killing off working families in this country.
Between 1984 and 1991, total income taxes for working poor families increased 60 per cent. Under the so-called Tory tax reform, total income taxes increased 60 per cent for working poor families, while high income families saw their income taxes fall by 6.4 per cent.


Mr. Belsher:: How many families no longer pay any income tax?


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is no wonder that the Gallup poll published today shows that Canadians have no faith in this government's capacity to equalize the tax burden, because they have seen six years of gouging of working poor families and six years of increases to high income families.
Let us look at one specific Conservative initiative. I know the Minister of National Health and Welfare is going to have a chance very shortly to bring out another recycled version of his child care program. I think it will be the sixth or seventh version of the same promise that was made in 1984.
I would like to ask the government why in the context of its child care policy does it continue to support a tax deduction system which benefits high income Canadians to a much greater degree than low income Canadians?
Surely, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about providing benefits to working families to pay for decent child care for their children, it should be important to target those finances, to target that care toward families who most need the help.
I do not understand a tax system that says if you earn $60,000 or $80,000 a year, you are entitled to more assistance to put your child in child care than a family that is earning $30,000 or $40,000.1 hope that as part of the minister's new package of reforms, he will transfer tax deductions into tax credits so that those families who really need the help will get the help when it comes to child care funding. That is only part of the problem that we will be addressing more specifically in some of the presentations that have to come.

Mr. Speaker, before going into any details, I think we should recognize the fact that the minimum wage system
Supply
is shocking. The answer given by the Minister of Labour in the House today is shocking, because it shows the federal government has the lowest minimum wage in this country. The minister explained that only 1.3 per cent of the population was affected. Mr. Speaker, whether one person, 1,000 people or 100,000 people are affected, this kind of injustice is entirely unacceptable!
Ten years ago, the federal government had a very progressive minimum wage policy. Today, we are even worse than British Columbia, Newfoundland and all the other provinces. Their minimum wage is higher than the federal government's, where the minimum wage has remained set at $4 since 1986.
Perhaps hon. members would like to consider the following: Can they afford to wait four years until their next raise? I don't think they would be prepared to wait four years. So I think we can hardly say this to people who are earning the minimum wage, whatever their numbers. I also think the Minister of Labour should clarify the comment he made in the House that this affected people who worked part-time and they did not want to eliminate part-time jobs. Do we want to make wage slaves out of women, Mr. Minister, because by forcing them to work for $4 an hour, this is practically-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired. Questions or comments?


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. I congratulate my colleague, the member for Hamilton East, on a fine speech. She made some comments with regard to minimum wage and the fact that the federal government should be leading rather than following. She was also mentioning when her time was finished that most of those persons on minimum wage salaries are women. I would ask her if maybe she could complete her statement, if she would do so, to continue enlightening us on her statement.
Also in her speech she referred to a document that she wished to table. Some members of the House preferred not to have it tabled. I was wondering whether she could divulge the contents of that document as well if she could find time.

December 10,1990
Supply


Henry Perrin Beatty: She already did. You may have slept through it though.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health and welfare says: "She already did. You may have slept through it though". He may sleep through the fact that his government has cut $20 billion from the pockets of poor Canadians over the last six years. A lot of other Canadians are not sleeping, and a lot of Canadian children are not sleeping because they do not have adequate nutrition. He may think it is funny and he may sit there and smirk over the fact that 40 per cent of Canadians using food banks now are children. He may laugh over the fact that in the city of Montreal there are children who cannot write their school exams because they do not have enough food in their stomachs. We on this side of the House do not think that is a laughing matter and one of the reasons that we want to introduce at this stage, 15 days before Christmas, a sole debate on the wide range of economic and social policy issues, including the minimum wage, is because the absolute minimum level of federal support needed to maintain the loss of purchasing power that has occurred over the last six years of Tory power strictly related to the minimum wage would require an increase in the federal minimum wage up to $5.88 an hour.
We are hoping on this side of the House that the debate today will begin to evolve not only around the areas of cuts. Believe me they are not hard to find in "slash and cut" Toryland. They can find the money to sell the GST, but heaven forbid that they should put food in the mouths of Canadian children.
At the same time, we want to see a real government solution to the very specific problem of the working poor in this country who are having to work at wages that the federal government should be ashamed of, the fact that $4 an hour has not changed since 1986, the fact that the real purchasing power of the poorest of Canadians employed under the federal system has remained stagnant since that time and the fact that they have lost in real dollars, based on the annual minimum wage rate in 1979, $1.88 an hour in their purchasing power as Canadians.
We on this side of the House want to see the government bring real programs forward to provide support to those Canadians who are trying to make it in a
very difficult economic period and we do not need smirks and rhetoric on the part of the government. What we need are very specific programs. We are asking the government for some specific commitment on the particular issue of minimum wage and on a revisiting of the children's benefits that have been butchered by this government over the last six years.


Mr. Steve Rutland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I too congratulate my colleague from Hamilton East for touching on a whole series of points that affect average Canadians and people who are suffering through this government.
We have something in common with Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie as to the steel mills, and I am making reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I ask the hon. member to comment on the 85 per cent ruling which people who have been involved in a labour dispute for, in our case 16 weeks, and even after the 16 weeks people are not automatically entitled to unemployment insurance after having lived on $100 or less for all of those 16 weeks. These are families and it is particularly difficult at this time of year.
I would ask the hon. member about the 85 per cent ruling. It seems strange to me and I am sure it must seem just totally unjust to people who are involved in this kind of dispute that the government would take a ruling that has been struck down by everyone, including the Federal Court of Canada, to the Supreme Court of the land to ensure that this 85 per cent ruling remains intact, to the detriment of the workers of this country.
I am just wondering if she has any comment to that effect. Why would the government persist in such an unjust ruling?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, obviously the federal government should have allowed the law of the land to remain the law of the land when in fact the court struck down the 85 per cent ruling back in July 1989.
The fact that it did not seems to be further indication of the fact that it wants to squeeze workers off unemployment insurance. When you look at the net result of Bill C-21, which is cutting billions of dollars from unemployment insurance, the 85 per cent rule is a further nail in the coffin of a lot of steelworkers.
December 10, 1990

What makes it really difficult, Mr. Speaker, is if you look at the lengthy labour disputes both in Hamilton and in Sault Ste. Marie as they related to the steel industry, they came at the head of a very difficult recession. The fact is that in our own community of Hamilton, thousands of workers who are ready, willing and able to work are going to spend a very bleak Christmas not being able to work because the jobs simply are not there.
The jobs are not there because of the strike, and I think this is the point of the 85 per cent rule, and why it should be struck down. The jobs are not there because we are in an economic downturn caused by the high interest rate policies of this government.
Having concluded the steel dispute, both in Hamilton and in Algoma, at the same time as the recession hit us right between the eyes right across the country, the workers at Algoma are being hamstrung or strangled effectively by this 85 per cent rule. While in Hamilton they did have a sufficient number of recalls because we raised the issue in the House, it did in fact result in a positive-at least from the perspective of collecting unemployment insurance-result for some of the workers.
The same has not been said for Sault Ste. Marie, and many of those workers will continue through the Christmas season on welfare just like the thousands of other workers who have been cut off as a result of Bill C-21.
I continue to be shocked when the Minister of Employment and Immigration constantly during Question Period in the House points to Bill C-21 as a great reform for Canadian workers.
What it is is a chance for the federal government to get out of the business of unemployment insurance and to hang a lot of workers out to dry. That is why we are seeing the welfare roles across this country swell as a result of the Bill C-21 government legislation.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of Bill C-21, the hon. member should know that Bill C-21 only came into effect three weeks ago.
Any person who was collecting UI was collecting it on the old rules. She is way out to lunch on that.
Supply
The Bill C-21 changes have not the slightest thing to do with what she is talking about.
She made another comment that I noted here, that $1.3 billion had been cut from the system. There has not been a penny cut from the system. It has been readjusted within the system. She does not know what she is talking about.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member is so out of touch that he has not been in touch with the Burlington welfare office.
If he went home once in a while and found out what the Tridon workers know, he would know that in fact the welfare roles in Burlington, Hamilton and in the area are increasing as a result of the government's decision to cut back on women.
I was in Hamilton just this weekend. I will be there next weekend and the weekend after. I am listening to the workers. The workers at Tridon in Burlington are calling me because they call their member of Parliament, and he hides behind the minister.
Here you have a community in Burlington, his own Tridon employees being told to take a hike, their jobs are being exported to Smyrna in the United States and what does this member of Parliament do? He has the nerve to stand up and defend a government program on unemployment insurance that is going to see thousands of working Canadians, in particular women, part-time workers, the working poor, cut their unemployment insurance as a result of Bill C-21. Those are the facts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of any issue before Parliament that is of greater importance than the issue of poverty, and particularly poverty as it relates to Canada's children. I think those Canadians who find themselves in low income across Canada have a right to expect from their members of Parliament a debate that was meaningful, one that stuck to the facts, and one that simply did not try to obscure the situation with partisan rhetoric.
As a consequence, I know that many Canadians will be disappointed in the presentation that was made by the hon. member for Hamilton East in that in the place of hard facts what she presented was bitter partisan rhetoric, which did not do anything in terms of painting a picture of the problems of poverty in Canada. Nor, as

December 10,1990
Supply
members will note, did she make proposals on what could be done to improve the situation. Instead, she was more interested simply in partisan denunciations of the government.
Over the course of this debate, the House will be showered by statistics of all sorts from all sides. Indeed, I will be relying on some of those myself. Statistics can be very helpful in terms of setting a context which will help us to understand the nature of poverty in Canada and what can be done by the government to deal with it. But statistics can also do damage because they can obscure the true human face of poverty. It can cause us to forget about the millions of different stories of Canadians who find themselves living in poverty in circumstances which are as different as the people themselves.
When I was preparing for my intervention today, my thoughts went to a young woman whom I met in Ottawa a few weeks ago. Though she looked much older, she was only in her late twenties. She was a single mother of one daughter and had moved here hoping to find greater opportunity, hoping to find work which would enable her to support herself and her daughter.
She received no support at all from the child's father. Nor did she seek any. She had taken part-time work which meant that she could no longer get the sort of benefits that other people on welfare could get, but she wanted to be independent and to have the opportunity to support herself and her daughter.
Talking with her was both troubling and enormously heartening in that it showed both the human cost of poverty and something about the tremendous indomitable nature of the human spirit. What she asked from us here in this House was not charity or pity, but opportunity and respect. She richly deserved both of those from all of us.
During this debate we will hear a range of statistics. As I mentioned, I will be using some of them myself, but what we should not ever neglect is the human face of poverty, one which involves the young people from one coast to another, affects their hopes and their dreams, and affects the qualify of lives of Canadians who find themselves caught in poverty. It should be these people
and not partisan advantage which should be the focus of our activities today.
I hope that in the time remaining to the House, what we will be doing is concentrating on constructive suggestions in terms of what we can do as members of Parliament and as concerned Canadians in order to deal with so important an issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are getting together and looking for solutions to the problem of child poverty. Although today's motion contains a number of partisan elements that members on this side of the House will not be able to support, and although we may not agree with the means proposed to achieve the end, I am convinced we are prepared to commit ourselves.

I have two children of my own. This starting point makes me particularly concerned about the issue of child poverty. It is difficult for me to accept, as it should be difficult for any parent in this Chamber to accept, that other children, like our own, should find themselves growing up in conditions of need and hunger without adequate food or shelter.
A few minutes ago the member for Hamilton East painted a picture of a government determined to increase poverty among Canadian children. The facts, however, present a very different picture.
Since the present government took office in 1984, considerable progress has been made on the issue of child poverty. The number of children living in low income circumstances has dropped from 1.1 million in 1984 to 837,000 in 1989. Nevertheless, it troubles me that despite these results there remain children growing up facing immediate hardship. It troubles me that poverty rates are as high as 50 per cent for native children and that low income affects as many as 59 per cent of children in female headed, lone-parent families. Quite simply, what these figures represent, in human terms, is a tremendous challenge for all Canadians.
The task of eliminating poverty, among children by the year 2000, is difficult and challenging. We must recognize
December 10,1990

the complexity of the root causes of poverty. We need to understand what keeps Canadians on welfare, and we have to help them to break the cycle of poverty.
Let us first look more closely at the nature of child poverty in Canada. The problem is founded on a range of issues including lone parenthood, welfare dependency, family breakdown, poor education, and the health status of the family, to name just a few. Over the last couple of decades, the proportion of low income families fell gradually throughout the 1970s, shot up dramatically in the beginning of the 1980s, and has declined substantially since. The proportion of Canadians on low income has declined from about 23 per cent in 1969 to about 12 per cent in 1989, a significant change. However, low income still affects 3.1 million people annually in Canada, including 444,000 elderly and 837,000 children. Only now are rates as low as before the recession of the early eighties appearing.
For example, for two-parent families with children, the incidence of low income stood at 9 per cent in 1980, peaked at 12.4 per cent in 1984, and dropped to 8 per cent in 1989. For lone-parent families it stood at about 50 per cent in 1980, rose to about 56 per cent in 1984, and dropped to about 47.4 per cent in 1989. In broad terms, the data show important trends concerning child poverty, particularly since the mid-eighties. Rates have been falling steadily and, on the whole, have dropped considerably.
Let us look at these trends more closely with respect to children. In 1984, more than 1.1 million children lived in low income families. By 1989, that number had dropped to 837,000. In 1989, 300,000 fewer children lived in low income families than in 1984. The proportion of low income among children has declined from one child in five in 1984 to one child in seven in 1989. While this is still too many, it does represent an improvement of more than 25 per cent, and this is significant progress.
Those who say that the incidence of low incomes is increasing during the mandate of this government should check their facts. I am also encouraged by the heightened public interest and attention to issues relating to children. Of course many of the references are not good news items, including child abuse, child poverty, and unmet child care needs, but this interest has sparked a wide variety of individuals, voluntary agencies and businesses as well as governments to concentrate anew on the needs of children.
Supply
The recent World Summit for Children has ignited some of this interest. The summit served as a source of reflection on the plight of children, not just inside Canada but outside our country as well. Around the world, we have learned how pervasive a problem child poverty remains. Moreover, in Canada poverty has many associated dimensions, all of which serve to complicate the response. Child poverty tends to reflect family circumstances and parents' abilities to provide for their children. Single parent families headed by women are particularly vulnerable to poverty, with almost one-half of these families living below the low income measures. Lone parents are disadvantaged by having the double burden of raising their children on their own, as well as having to provide the basic economic supports, essentially one parent performing the responsibilities of two.

Mr. Speaker, I am also concerned about the large number of single-parent families that depend on provincial welfare systems. The economic and social costs are considerable when a person cannot participate fully in society. It also worries me how children will grow up in this kind of situation. It is clear we must give serious thought to ways of breaking the vicious circle that prevents Canadians from being self-sufficient and forces them to depend on welfare, and we must speak veiy frankly about this.

I would like to move from the statistical examination of the child poverty problem to the root causes of poverty: illiteracy, disability, lack of education, corrosive family conditions, and family break-up.
These conditions can put in train a cycle of poverty which continues through generations of families. I am talking about problems faced by children from lower income families such as higher rates of high school drop out.
Studies have shown that poorer kids tend to do substantially worse in a number of measures of school performance, like failed grades, conduct problems, hyperactivity and learning disorders. Probably as a result of this weak performance, poor kids are twice as likely to drop out of high school as other kids are.
As a consequence, many children who have grown up in poverty find themselves without sufficient education and engaged in a life-long struggle to get and to keep a

December 10,1990
Supply
job. This is just one example of how the cycle of poverty manifests itself.
The link between poverty and education is incontrovertible. Eighty per cent of the heads of poor households receiving welfare have not completed high school. With the national drop-out rate in the neighbourhood of 30 per cent, we clearly have a problem of serious proportions and one which the government has taken initiatives to address.
Poverty is also associated with a number of other social and health problems. For example, poverty tends to become one of the factors which contributes to crime. As well, although Canada's rate of infant mortality is enviable by any international standards, Canadian children bom in poor neighbourhoods face an infant mortality rate almost double that of their wealthier counterparts.
I would like to move now to set out the approach taken by the federal government since 1984 in addressing this problem. As I stated earlier, the years since 1984 have seen significant improvements, with 956,000 fewer Canadians, including about 300,000 children, in low income situations.
The government's approach has recognized both the need for a healthy, well managed economy, which will provide opportunities for families to support themselves, and a variety of programs and policies for people in need.
The government has worked to develop a climate in which job creation can prosper. Families want to be self-sufficient. They want to control their own resources, their own lives, and the lives of their children. They do not want to be dependent on others. Canadians have created over 1.6 million new jobs since 1984, more than 80 per cent of which were full time and about 60 per cent of which have gone to women.
A healthy economy also helps to supports and maintain much needed social programs. Since 1984 the government has taken many steps toward these goals. We have removed 850,000 low income Canadians from the tax roles; increased the value of the child tax credit by over 50 per cent; introduced a new child tax credit for pre-schoolers, a supplement now valued at $203; doubled the allowable limit of the child care expense deduction for pre-school aged children from $2,000 to $4,000; and increased maternity leave to 15 weeks for the
mother, with an additional 10 weeks for either parent under unemployment insurance.
It is easy for the opposition simply to demand further programs. On this side we do not have that luxury. We are also forced to consider the mounting burden of debt; a burden of debt that today amounts to a debt in the name of each and every Canadian, man, woman and child from one coast to another of over $13,000. To spend uncontrollably today and to leave our children to pay the bills later would be the cruelest, most inhumane thing that we could do to them. This must be an issue that is kept before this House as this debate proceeds.
Members opposite simply propose to spend more money and to increase the debt load on our children. It steals from our children. It steals from generations yet to come. Our children have a right to expect that they will inherit a government, an economy, and a country which is well financed and which provides opportunities for them, and not a mountainous burden of debt.
We have made tough decisions but, when we did so, the most needy were protected. That is why when the 1990 budget introduced the family allowances benefit recovery, we made the threshold $50,000 on an individual income basis, a figure that was high enough that lower income recipients of family allowances would not be affected.
When the 1990 budget introduced the 5 per cent limit on the growth of Canada Assistance Plan expenditures, we made sure that only the wealthiest provinces were affected. This measure does not cut social assistance nor does it prevent increases in provincial improvements to social assistance or social services. Federal contributions under CAP will continue to increase for all provinces. They are only limited for a two-year period to 5 per cent in three provinces in the strongest fiscal position.
Provincial governments will continue to be responsible for administering assistance programs, deciding priorities and allocating resources in these areas.
The Canada Assistance Plan provides approximately $6 billion to support these programs. And over the past four years, we have worked with provinces towards more innovative uses of CAP funding. For example, we have developed the employability agreements which help
December 10, 1990

social assistance recipients in their transition to the work force.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, hon. members are also aware of the government's efforts in dealing with other causes of poverty: initiatives have been launched to promote literacy, to prevent and treat drug addiction and alcoholism, to provide better pensions and tax benefits for the disabled, and to help enforce child support orders.

Other urgent problems face Canadian children. For example, our family violence and child sexual abuse initiatives are well under way. As you know, Rix Rogers, my special adviser on child sexual abuse, recently completed a report entitled "Reaching for Solutions". In the near future, I intend to introduce a new strategy for dealing with family violence, including child sexual abuse.
One of the recommendations of the Rogers report, and of other earlier reports, was the creation of a children's responsibility centre within the federal government. As a follow-up to the world summit, the Prime Minister assigned me the responsibility for bringing to cabinet recommendations on the declaration and plan of action agreed to at that summit.
The Prime Minister also requested that I create a new mechanism, a children's bureau, within my department to ensure co-ordination and consistency in areas which address children's issues. We are moving ahead quickly on that, Mr. Speaker, and hope to make considerable progress in the months ahead.
This year the federal government will spend about $1 billion on child care. Additionally, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we will put in place a new child care program during the life of this Parliament. It will better help families manage work and child rearing. In particular, we will help those most in need of assistance, such as single mothers who require child care in order to enter the job market and to help break the cycle of welfare dependency.
I have talked at length about the situation with respect to child poverty and the government record to date. We have made good progress in Canada, but I believe that we can do more. This House cannot magically produce
Supply
programs called for in the motion before us which would bring immediate solutions. I believe the government is on the right course and we are taking the kinds of decisions that have to be made in order to get at the roots of the problem.
If the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton East are any indication, we will be hearing plenty of partisan rhetoric designed to do more to improve the status of the opposition than that of the poor today. But let us not forget the people who are supposed to be our primary concern here. They require and they deserve our full attention.
As I have pointed out, there are no easy solutions or quick fixes for poverty. No one knows that better than the poor themselves, because they know how complex and how varied the causes and the effects of poverty can be. Most important of all, we have to ensure that the economic foundations that support the social programs that we cherish must remain solid. But if fighting poverty will require well planned, long-term solutions, there can be no excuse for callous complacency based on the belief that because the poor have always been with us, they must always be with us in the future.
To those who say that Canada cannot afford to fight poverty, I say that we cannot afford not to fight it. For sustaining people in poverty can cost much more than giving them the tools to lift themselves out of it. Acting today to break the cycle of poverty can prevent generation after generation from being caught in a costly trap that inflicts its damage in both economic and human terms.
Let me conclude this way. At the World Summit on Children, the nations of the world committed themselves to giving children our highest possible priority. That is exactly what we must do here today at home as well, to give them our priority, to give them and their families the tools that they need to lift themselves from poverty and to ensure that they can share with the rest of us in the benefits of a rich and a compassionate society. That has to be our goal as a people. There is no challenge more worthy of us as members of this House of Commons.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I noted the minister made some remarks at the beginning which stated that maybe our line over here is

December 10,1990
Supply
only going to be partisan. He challenged us to put forward ideas to help this situation.
First of all, I do not think there is a member of Parliament in this House who has not had some personal experience with real poverty in his riding. In my own riding alone, 25 per cent of the children who go to all the schools have single parents. We all know what is going on in this country. I do not want to play with any of the statistics.
As I listened to the minister, I recalled what happened this summer when all of a sudden the Prime Minister, through Order in Council, sent the ships off to the Persian Gulf. All of a sudden, moneys were found and away they went.
I am also very respectful of the deficit. I would like to ask the minister, because sometimes when one is in health and welfare, one does not think of some of the various resources. However, the minister, having been a former Minister of National Defence, is well aware of the 500 to 600 armouries that exist across this country, especially in the major urban centres. Most of the time these amouries are sitting idle. There are many good men and women in the militia who make a great contribution to our community.
During this very special period of Christmas and the new year, when times are tough and the economy is extraordinarily tough, there is an extraordinary burden on the Minister of Finance, why could we not take a page out of the organization in Toronto which organizes the food bank day? It is only for one day at the CNE but the volunteers manage to gather enough food to feed people for a couple of weeks. Why couldn't the minister co-ordinate this sort of thing with the Minister of National Defence and not just sort of quote that "things are getting better and there are fewer people on the poverty line". Let us make a real two month or three month action plan and put the kind of will behind it, not unlike the kind of will that we put behind sending men and women to the Persian Gulf.
I would ask the minister what he would think of that as a possible suggestion. I am not suggesting it is long term, but it may bridge things and help ease some of the pain and create some hope.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and great attention to the hon. member's suggestion. I want to give his suggestion the seriousness that it deserves. I have some difficulty understanding exactly what it was he was proposing that we should be doing.
He made reference first of all to the Prime Minister sending troops to the Middle East by Order in Council during the summer and then went from that to some reference to armouries in Canada without specifying what he had in mind to do with the armouries.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Using the armouries to act as food banks, et cetera and support systems for the poor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, members of Canada's Armed Forces and certainly members of our reserve forces are involved on a continuing basis in contributing to their communities and to doing anything that they can to be helpful. In cases where there are programs that they can put in place using armouries, they are glad to do so, using the resources that they have available.
If there is one thing that certainly characterizes the spirit of the men and women whom I was privileged to serve with when I was Minister of National Defence, it was a very deep sense of commitment to the community in which they served. I know that their approach in every single instance when it is possible for them to make a contribution was to do everything they could to do so.
The hon. member also made a juxtaposition-and I hope he will forgive me if I pick up on that as well-between the money we are spending on the armed forces, perhaps to send troops to the Middle East, and money we are spending in other areas.
I am in this House uniquely positioned to make a comment on that as a former Minister of National Defence who is now Minister of National Health and Welfare. We in this society benefit enormously, and my children are an example, from growing up in a society in freedom and in tolerance. The men and women who serve in Canada's Armed Forces do so in order to ensure that all Canadians, particularly all Canadian children, will live in freedom from fear and that they will be protected against threats which could take away the freedom that we enjoy and consider part of our birthright as Canadians.
December 10, 1990

The legacy of freedom, the tradition of freedom we have in this country allows us to deal with that other side, the human side of ensuring we are also a society which is compassionate. I do not believe it is a choice between either defending our country from abroad or contributing to international affairs, or doing what we need to do here at home.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I never said that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: My hon. friend said that he was not making that suggestion and I take him at his word, but when he made reference to the Prime Minister sending troops off to the Middle East I was concerned that he was suggesting, as some others previously have, that we should have been holding back and not spending money in the defence of freedom on the grounds that somehow we could not afford to do it.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to ignore either the cause of freedom, or the cause of fighting poverty. Both must be a priority for us. Both deserve the attention of this House.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I think most Canadians understand and certainly everyone in this House understands that children are poor because they live in poor families. They live in a family where the parents are poor. In many of those homes it is a single mother who is trying to raise her family. Of all of the poor children in Canada, almost 65 per cent of those poor children are in homes led by a single mother.
We have to look at what this government has done over the last six years. The things that this government has done have made it more difficult for that single mother, or that poor working family to try to bring their children up. What have we seen? We have seen a government that brings in a GST which will impact more heavily on the working poor and the poorer people of this country. We have seen a government that has brought in UI cuts which will impact very negatively on women in the workforce because we all know, Mr. Speaker, that women are in and out of the workforce more frequently than men and this bill will have an even more severe impact on women.
We have seen a government that has deindexed family allowance which has increased the child poverty rate. We have seen a government that brings in a "now you see it, now you don't" kind of child care policy, a minimum wage that is miserly, and I guess the final crashing blow
Supply
in my province of British Columbia, in Ontario, and in Alberta, is this government putting a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan. It makes it impossible for those provinces, they say, to raise welfare rates. It makes it impossible or much more difficult for shelters to be built for battered women, for child care spaces to be made.
I would ask the minister what is it he is really saying to the mothers of children in this country, particularly the single women who are trying to raise their children at poverty levels. What are you really saying to them with the actions you have taken, in particular the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. minister has one minute to answer all those questions.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what we are saying to those families is that it is vital, first of all, that we ensure that those children inherit an economy that is soundly managed, that the sort of policy advocated by the hon. member opposite of stealing from our children by simply spending money, running up the national debt higher and higher, year after year, would put a crippling burden upon them and threaten the very existence of the social programs that are so important.
The hon. member refers to the GST. If she were candid with the House she would concede the fact that families earning under $30,000 a year are better off because of the GST tax credit. The hon. member refers to unemployment insurance. If she were candid with the House or with the poor of Canada she would note the fact that what we are doing is providing for better assistance to families to train to give them secure, decent jobs to be able to get themselves out of poverty.
She talks about the cap on CAP. If she did so, she would recognize the fact that what we have done is continue to increase spending. On child care, it has increased under CAP at the rate of about 20 per cent per annum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. minister's time has expired.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate. The hon. member for Oshawa.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to join in this debate, but I confess to you I am uncomfortable, as all of us should be when we are well-clothed,

December 10,1990
Supply
well-fed, and well-housed and we have gall to talk about poverty.
In my opinion, if you want to have a discussion in the middle of a Canadian winter about poverty, first of all you should have to do it outdoors, and you should have to stand around for a while in the afternoon and feel the cold. You should not be allowed to eat that day. You should not be allowed to wear warm clothing. Most importantly, you should have to do it surrounded by the poor. I would defy any of the members who have made an intervention in here this afternoon to make the same kind of a speech to those people as they have made to us. The Speaker would not be there to intervene on their behalf. The language certainly would not be parliamentary, but perhaps the message might get across.
I listened, for example, to the minister make a very finely prepared speech this afternoon. I did not hear him mention, though, that the numbers that he used are from 1989, the last year, of course, for which those numbers have been gathered. They have absolutely nothing to do with life in Canada right now in the middle of a recession.
I am as uncomfortable with the use of statistics in this kind of a discussion as I am about us having it, because the truth is in this country if one child goes to bed hungry tonight, we should all be ashamed. There is no reason for poverty in this country.
One of the things that I know is a problem for members of this Chamber is that in this town, it is pretty tough to get much of an assessment of poor people and what they are like. You really have to search them out because they are not obvious. Driving into Ottawa off Highway 416 and coming in on what is known as the South River Road, there are the kind of mansions that are rare in Canada, but they are there, and they are all around this community. There does not appear to be much poverty here, but I will put some money out that says tonight it could be found within a spitting distance of this building.
If you want to find somebody who is cold tonight, and they do not have a place to live, they will find a warm grate, I will bet within the Chambers of this building somewhere. They will find a parking garage. They will find a hallway. They will find a hotel that left the door
open. They will find somewhere where there is a delivery door that is open.
In any of our major metropolitan cities the irony is that among the luxury condominiums somebody found a way to get into a nice warm garage for the night. At our major international airports, they are not flying off to Jamaica, they are finding a hole in the wall where at least it is warm and they are there.
I will bet that within 100 yards of this building now, there is somebody who has no job and who is begging for money on the street. Tonight, they will split a bottle of wine with somebody and sleep over a heating grate. We will not see them because we probably will not get out of cars long enough to go looking for them, but someone will.
There is a great controversy in my part of Canada about where there ought to be food banks. People are saying: "Well, we want to do away with them." Yes, we do in the long run, but the problem is how do we feed people who need emergency assistance now? Our traditional ideas of who might actually use a food bank are changing immensely.
There are parts of southern Ontario that look affluent to somebody driving by, but where people have got virtually their entire income invested in a place to live and do not have any money left to feed the kids. They get to make the choice: "Do I feed the kids or do I pay the mortgage? Which do I do?" It is something that grabs you-or it.ought to grab you-that in the middle of this kind of a society, in the middle of this kind of wealth, we cannot afford to feed the poor and we cannot afford to provide them with opportunities.
There are many things about government that I do not understand. I am trying to explain at the moment to a 65-year-old woman why she has to get divorced to get a pension. What makes me even more angry is that this stupid rule is not new. This is not the first time this has cropped up. When we got looking into how could such a stupid rule exist, we found that this stupid rule has been around for a while. It has been looked at and studied by bureaucrats. Recommendations have been made and laws have to be changed. How can that be? Can our society be so dumb that it does not understand the stupidity and the cruelty of a rule like that? Is our society so stupid that it does not understand what happens when a kid does not have a proper place to live? Is this some great mystery? Do we not know what happens to a poor child in an urban centre or a rural centre, when he does
December 10, 1990

not have enough food in his belly or a proper place to live? Do we not know who breaks your windows? Do we not know who steals your hub-caps? Do we not know who causes crime?
A young guy, 26 years old, came into my office a couple of years ago. He had been in jail since he was 16. He sat across from me and he said: "I can't handle it outside, Mike. I got to go back into the slammer. That is where I have grown up. At least there, I know what it is like in a prison. I can't live on the outside." I spent some time with Randy and said: "Well, Randy, here is a support group. Here is some social assistance. Here is how you get a telephone and how you use a telephone and how to budget your weekly allowance."
He came back a week later and he said: "I can't do it. I just can't cope with this." So, I called my local cops and asked: "What can we do for this guy?" They said: "Mike, we can't do anything for him. He has not broken any laws." But Randy knew the system in Canada. He knew that if he went out the next day and robbed the Bank of Montreal, we would not be worried about money. We would know exactly what to do with Randy. And that is exactly what Randy did. He went out the next day and held a young woman hostage in a bank.
We knew right away how to handle this. The Durham Regional Police Force arrived with their 12-gauge shotguns on the dashboard. The legal system clicked into place, and there was no problem with that. If we had tried the day before to get a little counselling for Randy, there was not enough time, there was not enough budget, and no one cared enough. But the moment he knew how to hold up a bank, we knew how to deal with that situation. That is the great tragedy in this country.
One of the things that makes me very angry about Canadians is that they do not know their country very well. There are many people to whom I have talked who have said: "Well, there is no problem with child poverty in Canada. I mean, maybe there is the odd, isolated incident here and there." We should take all those people down to an inner-city school for an afternoon and put them into a roomful of 30 little kids, five and six years old, who have not been fed properly that day. We
Supply
should just leave them there for an afternoon and see how they cope with children who are hungry. They ought to try that for a while. It is not nearly as comfortable nor as easy as anybody would like it to be but it is there and it is real.
Maybe it would be a great asset to the House this afternoon if there was a single mother in here who was able to say: "I have to make some decisions about whether I go to work or not. Because, if I go to work this week, then I have to withdraw all the benefits that I get from social assistance, all the little medical cards and all of the subsidized housing. I am disqualified for one group of benefits the moment I earn a certain amount of money." How would any one of us like to make that decision? Do you want a little dignity and go to work, or do you want to rob your children of some benefits?
Well, many of our provinces are trying to work their way through some great change in the social assistance system which seems to be hide-bound into little rules and regulations and has absolutely no common sense to it. That is a challenge because there are lots of people who are extremely well paid and extremely intelligent who are there to defend the system as it is. They do not want any change because it alters their life-styles. It makes them change, instead of their clientele.
One of the good things, to be positive if I can for a moment, is that at least this House on a couple of occasions has taken part of an afternoon to talk about poverty, but it has not done a heck of a lot in the interim. I want to make some arguments that we do know how to alleviate some of these problems.
We do know, for example, that we will make the choice, as people who are participants in governments, as to whether or not we want just to hand people money- and there is nothing wrong with that-or whether we want to do something substantive such as raising the minimum wage and, in the long run, how we spend our tax money. That is really what the argument is. The argument is not about whether or not the Government of Canada gets involved in the long run in the financial impact of poverty. It does. Whether it wants to or not, sooner or later, it will pay the price. It simply is a question of when we pay the price.

December 10,1990
Supply
Do you want to pay it up front? Do you think that the public and the private sector should both share some responsibility in that? If you do, then it would seem to me that you would simply advocate one thing and that is that there should be an increase in the minimum wage, that it should happen on a regular basis, and that it ought be something like 60 per cent of the average industrial wage in Canada. This is not rocket science. This is just basic economics about how people look after their own needs.
I know that there are many members who have participated in this kind of debate and have said: "Well, look at our employment statistics in Canada." This is where I have a problem with statistics. It may well be true that there are a whole lot of people who have jobs. That is really not pertinent. What is pertinent is what kind of a job it is. Is it a short-term job? Is it a long-term job? Does it pay a decent wage? Does it have a benefit package with it?
One of the things that you have to look at when looking at the whole Canadian system of how we provide a safety net for people is that the system has all these little loopholes in it. People do learn after a while how to play the game. If the bureaucrats think they are smart about setting the rules and regulations, they should be forewarned: "Wait a minute, there is another group of people out there who are just as smart as you are. They may not have university degrees, but whether they eat or not tomorrow depends on whether they can figure out a way around your little rule."
I will bet you they will get you 99 per cent of the time. You can set up any set of rules that you want. If somebody out there is poor, starving, and will not eat next week, that is one heck of an incentive to find a way around a stupid rule. I will bet they will most of the time.
I have watched several American programs lately. In particular, 60 Minutes has been going around to different American cities analyzing poverty in America, the kind of stuff which it does particularly well. It is making the argument that the rich are going to get hurt by poverty just about as much as the poor, because sooner or later the balance will shift. At a moment in time when there are a whole lot of poor people and a small number of rich people, that is when some kind of a revolution takes
place. There are a lot of people sitting around saying: "This is not just unfair. There is no way out of this poverty trap for me except some kind of totally irresponsible social movement that nobody else likes."
In many American cities now, particularly among black groups, there are people who are becoming very militant because they have been waiting a long time for the American system to work. It is not working. They are just as poor as they ever were, and they do not have a house the same as it always was. When they once had jobs in the inner part of most American cities, those jobs have gone somewhere else.
We are seeing that in Canada. Most of us do not want to see it. In my riding in the last year, we have had about 13 of our smaller plants go down. Many of these plants were places, for example, where for the first time in their lives women were working in an industrialized trade union situation making a really good wage and they thought they had it made. They thought they finally had gotten a good, long-term job that paid well and that had a good benefit package. Now that whole job is gone.
We will argue whether that is cause and effect of free trade, recessionary period, only temporary, or whatever, but for the individual who finally thought she had her place in the system-she had stuck with the system, had gotten herself a good job, and supporting herself and her family-now the job is gone. There is going to be bitterness there. There is going to be a rancour there that we are all going to have to contend with.
I have noticed just since being a member here, having observed a lot of different chambers at work, that there is a rancour in this place that I do not like and that all of us sense. Maybe it is Parliament doing what a parliament is supposed to do. Parliament is not a gathering of the wise, and the most experienced and talented people in the nation. Look around this room. We are told this is a parliament. Parliament is just a representative group of people. If a nation is angry at a moment, its parliament is going to be angiy. This place certainly is. This is a nasty place to be at the moment.
Part of what we must realize is that it is our job sometimes to set aside the partisan stuff and to deal with the real issues of the day. On an issue like this, we have some very serious problems ahead of us.
December 10,1990

Part of it is not just that we can isolate the poor any more. We cannot. There is a whole raft of people out there who are now being called the working poor. They are going to be extremely nasty. They are unused to being poor. They do not like it, and they will not take it very long. Some of them have come to me.
One of the things that I noticed is that in things like the collection of new taxes, most people in small business do not want to collect taxes. They make no bones about that. Some of them are simply adopting the obvious. They are saying: "Why should I bother keeping records for the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, or anybody else? Give me some money. I will fix your plumbing. Game over." I think that is going to become a national trend as it is in many jurisdictions. When people think that a tax process is unfair, when people decide that they do not want to play that sport any more, they simply do not keep the records. The government does get the tax money. They pocket $10 less. Away we go. We will see that in more and more businesses now. Today I have seen notices on the wall: "If you want to pay by cheque, by credit card or if you want a receipt, the cost of this service is $30 or $20 cash". Then the taxation process becomes self-defeating. As more and more people are hit by poverty, as more and more people get crushed in that process, they will seek whatever means of redress they can to escape it.
The alternative will be for the Government of Canada, the government of each province, and the governments of all of our municipalities to say: "Wait a minute. We cannot afford in the long run to allow this to continue in that way". We know how to build non-profit housing. We know how to provide people with useful, productive work, we know how to get people so that they can sustain themselves with some dignity. We are very proud in this country. Sometimes I get very angry when people say: "No country in the world has a social assistance program like Canada". Baloney, lots of countries to do. People are very proud of the fact that our senior citizens get pensions. Sure, they do, but all of our systems are straining and all of our systems are failing a larger and larger group of people.
One final thing ought to be put on the record this afternoon. I recall when I was a member of the Ontario legislature going to Moosonee. It was a legislative committee and the members were a little grumbly because we had to ride the train to Moosonee. It was not
Supply
exactly first-class travel but they were amused that the train stopped, people came out of the bush, got on, loaded on canoes and all of that. Then we went to a motel in Moosonee and they were upset there was only one television per floor, it was black and white, they locked the doors at ten o'clock and there was not a great deal for members of the legislature to do after ten o'clock at night and so they were kind of snarly.
The next day we met with people who said things like this to us. "I know people who live in mud and stick huts, who do not have a television set, who do not have a job, who do not have a pension, who do not have an education, who do not have a future. If the future is anything it is probably a bottle of cheap wine". Most of us sat back a little bit at the end of that day because we had felt very put upon, very hard pressed that we were losing our creature comfort.
Part of what perhaps needs to happen to members of this House and people in this country is simply open our eyes a little bit and look around us and see the very real problems that other Canadians are having. Arguments between political parties, about different regions of the country, all of those arguments have to take place. They are a very necessary part of political life. However, just maybe once in a while we should set all of those things aside and get at the very real problems, the very real things for which Parliament can do things; attack poverty, talk about greater issues, about what this country is supposed to do. Do we have a plan in mind to kind of get us from a problem where we are now, to identify some solutions to see if we can resolve the problem. I think that needs to be done.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of my colleague from Oshawa. He said a lot of things that I think we, as parliamentarians, have come across and have been frustrated with. For example, rules. We all see these rules that we have to put up with in these various situations. No matter what system is set up, they set up a series of rules.
They do not set up the rules, however, for the people who need the help and who use the system properly. They set up the rules for those who abuse the system. That is the unfortunate part of the whole thing. Because some people abuse the system, all of a sudden we need to have rules to make sure that they do not abuse the system. If we did not have people who abused these systems that are set up, no matter what they are,

December 10, 1990
Supply
whether they are speeding limits or whatever, we would not need to have them.
I agree with the hon. member, it is a frustrating thing, especially when there are people who need help desperately, deserve help, and because of some rule or some regulation that government has brought in for whatever reason, we cannot help those individuals.
He talked about jobs, whether they are good jobs, meaningful jobs and so on, and 80 per cent of the jobs that have been created over the last five years have been full-time jobs. A good proportion of those have been very good jobs, long lasting jobs and so on. We are into a recession now and some people will be laid off within the work force, but of the jobs that have been created, they have been full-time, and that has been a change from the previous period. I want to comment on one final thing and ask if the hon. member had heard of it. It is time that we took a look at changing the methods of providing assistance to people. For example, in my region of Peel, the Social Affairs Department has provided a program for single parents, primarily women, who have found themselves all of a sudden without a spouse for support and with no training. They have not been in the work force for years, if ever, and find themselves on family allowance. The Social Affairs Department have a program where they give these women basic training and send them for job interviews. The department helps with finding a job. If they do get a job, the regional Peel social services pay for three-quarters of the day care. They pay for three weeks out of the four weeks for the day care which makes it better for these people to accept the job. That is what the member was talking about, that they had to make the decision of whether to get a job or to stay on social assistance.
Is the member aware of this program, and if so, would he not think that that is the type of program that they should be involved in more and more because the delivery of social services comes at the local level where people understand the problems probably a lot better than we do?


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, in the province of Ontario, as one example, and I am aware that other provinces have done the same thing, the social assistance review
committee studied all the forms of social assistance and pointed out a number of barriers to people actually breaking out of the poverty trap. A number of our municipalities have tried to provide more flexibility. The new government in Ontario is certainly aware of the cost of that and is also aware that there is great potential there.
I would make this comment, too. One of the real problems in Canada is that the structure of government is such that the level of government that comes up with this brilliant notion initially very often has nothing to do with the delivery of the service. Social assistance is one of these things. Some bright idea that someone in Ottawa thought about 30 years ago is being handled by someone in Burlington this week. The two may never have communicated and when the person in Burlington, Oshawa, or wherever, says that this is a stupid system and you have to change some of the rules, it only takes two or three decades to transmit that message because it has to go through so many levels of government.
One of the things the Thompson report talked about, and it is blatant common sense, is to try to identify the purpose of this exercise. It is not to put someone on a program for life. It is to get someone out of poverty. That is the name of the game. If there are things that must be done that hurt someone's feelings because the bureaucracy has to move around a little bit, then the bureaucracy should move around to try to identify what it is that a single mother needs to get her back into the workforce.
I bet all of the members here have done exactly what I have done. We have participated in setting up unemployment help centres, counselling and referral centres. We have all talked to people in the social service agencies who know that their system has some problems in it, who would very dearly like to bend some of those rules, and sometimes do.
The Thompson report in Ontario is one major step in trying to put some common sense into a very complicated system. In many centres it is beginning to work. The new government, I know, is very supportive of that and wants to extend it around the province. I think that needs to be done on a very broad scale all across Canada.
December 10,1990


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for a very moving speech. His reference to real life situations in his riding was what made it such a strong appeal.
I would like to refer to just one situation that I had in my riding concerning children of refugee claimants which, of course, is a federal jurisdiction. A Polish-Cana-dian doctor came to me a couple of weeks ago about a group of children who had been here for over two, sometimes three, years, and whose families were going once again to be uprooted and sent back to Poland because they did not pass the test now. They did it when they first came but now the rules have changed and they will have to go back to more poverty and insecurity in Poland.
We talked about this. There are many other children from other ethnic groups who are here in the same situation. In fact across Canada there are many thousands of children of refugee claimants who are in that backlog.
In this year when there has been a UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Prime Minister headed a summit on children, does the member think it would be a good idea, very just and humanitarian for this government to have a waiver for all those children and their families, thus saving millions of dollars as well, which might go into school food programs or something similar for poor children who have come through trauma.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I agree heartily with the idea that children should not become the object of some process that harms them. I am very grateful that when my ancestors came to this country, there was nowhere the immigration system that they have now or there is absolutely no chance I would be here.
When you identify for example a major problem, like the immigration problems we have now, there is a need to move dramatically on a large scale with things like an amnesty for children to alleviate all the illnesses in the system. Surely none of us would argue the point that a child should not become yet another problem to deal with.
The member and I have discussed this. It is quite possible that the ruling in the end will be somehow that the children will be allowed to stay and the parents will
Supply
be sent back to Poland, or probably that the parents will be allowed to come here if the children go back home.
All we ask for in all of this is just a simple little bit of common sense that where you have identified the problem, when it is children who are affected most dramatically, surely a straightforward answer, if not necessarily a simple answer is what is required.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if I could ask the consent of the House that for this next round, the round we are starting now, in other words the next 20 minutes, that it be shared by two Liberal speakers in succession, rather than one for 20 minutes. It would accommodate us as we have two members who would like to share the next round.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Dawn Black: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, do we have consent?
Mr. Speaker, child poverty is a major public health problem in Canada. We have one million infants and children who live below the poverty line. They are without adequate care, food, clothing and shelter. Their numbers are nearly equal to the total population of Manitoba. Each poor child is accompanied by the spectre of poor health, which follows him or her from the womb to the grave. That is what poverty means to the health of a poor child-the topic that I shall focus on during this debate.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that today is the 12th birthday of our youngest son, Christopher Justin. C.J., as we fondly call him, understands that I will miss this special day for him in Winnipeg. He understands the seriousness of the issue we are debating here today, and he understands that as a paediatrician and our party's critic for national health and welfare, I could and I should add a new dimension and perspective to the debate.
This member has lived through poverty during childhood and schooling. I know what it was to be poor. Hence I am pleased to debate this issue. I am pleased to be part of the Liberal Party of Canada, which is privileged today to do its duty on behalf of all poor Canadian

December 10, 1990
Supply
children whose survival depends on our fortitude and generosity, whose future we can help chart and whose future, when secure, shall determine the health and greatness of our nation.
Today we have before us the opposition day motion introduced by my colleague from Hamilton East, which I was honoured to second. This motion shall call once more to the consciousness of all Canadians, the plight of our poor children and asks that their needs be met with more than words.
Children are the innocent victims of economics. During the last recession of the 1980s, there was a jump in the number of children living below the poverty line. What will happen now, as we are once again in the grips of economic strife? I fear the worst for the children of the poor. As a father and a paediatrician, it greatly saddens me to see a child become ill. Tragically, poverty cannot pay for a clean bill of health.
On average seven Canadian babies in one thousand do not survive infancy. For the poor, that number is twice as high. For native Indian children, the death toll is not seven or eight or nine per thousand; it is 19. For Inuit, 28 in 1,000 babies do not live. Over all the life expectancy of a poor boy is five and a half years less than a rich boy, while a poor girl lives two fewer years. Poor children are involved in four times as many traffic accidents. They die two to ten times more often from fires, drowning, suicide, homicide, and respiratory infections. Cancers and substance abuse are much more likely to strike down poor children.
Why? Unsafe, crowded housing, inadequate access to medical care, poor compliance with therapy, and poor nutrition provide some explanations. Other answers are much more complex.
A high percentage of underweight babies are bom to poverty stricken parents, suggesting less than adequate pre-natal care. These infants, if they survive, often suffer from brain dysfunction, cerebral palsy, major visual and hearing defects, and epilepsy. Underweight babies also tend to have a lower than average IQ. Poor mothers breast feed less often and for a shorter time than mothers from higher income families. Their babies often become anaemic, weighing half a kilogram less than average and measuring two centimetres less in
height. Even their tiny heads are one centimetre less in circumference.
The health problems among poor children seem to be never ending, not only physical and nutritional but dental and psychological. Some hospitals have noticed a rise in meningitis and diarrhoea among them. Absenteeism at school increases. Dental records reveal more cavities, missing and filled teeth. Mental illness occurs one and a half to three times more frequently.
These Canadian child paupers are such a grave concern that in 1988 seven social service organizations banded together, forming the Child Poverty Coalition, in an effort to save them. The coalition's aim is to make child poverty a national priority.
All social conscious groups, like the National Council of Welfare and the social planning councils in many provinces, recognize the problem. So too do the Liberal Party, the soup kitchens, the media, child and health care workers, and anyone else with eyes that see reality.
Why is the government blind to the issue? Why has the government not made children a priority? Why does the government hide behind public relations ruses? I speak about the Prime Minister acting as co-chair of the recent United Nations World Summit for Children. Did his international posing help our own struggling children, or did it convince the world that a hungry child is not a Canadian child? Recently my hon. colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, told the House about his government's record on reducing child poverty in Canada.
While I am pleased as well that there has been a drop in child poverty between 1984 and 1989, is it fair to compare a recession year to a non-recession year? If we compare the pre-recession year of 1980 to the year 1989, we must admit that there was no significant change in the rate of poverty among Canadian children. It was 14.8 per cent in 1980 and 14.6 per cent in 1989. The disturbing situation remains, and we still have one million poor children.
A poor child is usually a hungry child. In fact, 40 per cent of food bank dependents are children. Food, something we take for granted, is precious to the hungry and lack thereof translates into more social and health problems for the thousands who are strangers to regular,
December 10,1990

balanced meals. A malnourished child cannot develop properly. Children need good nutrition to grow strong and healthy.
A disadvantaged child will often go to school with an empty stomach. Trying to concentrate with hunger gnawing at your insides is a difficult thing. These children fall behind. Is it any surprise, then, that twice as many high school dropouts are youths living in poverty?
Even education, the thing that could help break the cycle of poverty for a poor child, is denied. As the child bred of poverty becomes an under-educated adult, what are his or her chances of finding a good job and of marrying and raising children to a better world? The chances are very slim, very slim indeed.
Instead he or she perpetuates the cycle of poverty with low paying jobs, social assistance or more frequent and longer bouts of unemployment, with more health problems and a shorter life expectancy.
These children of which I speak are not of a war-torn or struggling Third World country. These are Canadian children, 15 of every 100, who are strangers to daily balanced meals, cheated out of a proper education, and fated at birth for a hopeless life of poverty. They do not even have their health to rely on.
Why must this government perpetuate a cycle of poverty and neglect, which will forever shackle poor families, their children and children's children?
Where is the evidence for my indictment of this government? Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read from an article that appeared in the March issue of this year's Policy Options Politiques. It entitled "Social Policy by Stealth", authored by Grattan Gray, a retired journalist and a long-time observer of the Ottawa scene who has written for Maclean's and Quest.
To indicate the basis for my indictment of this government, I quote:
I have been studying the development of social policy in this country for a number of years, from public documents, House of Commons debates and academic papers, but I have never seen the sort of development that has taken place in recent years, and which seems to have slipped by many of the professionals and academics. In brief, the Ibiy style of restraint has become what can only be characterised as "social policy by stealth".
I underscore "social policy by stealth". Why is that? I continue:
Supply
It relies heavily on technical amendments to taxes and transfers that are as difficult to explain as they are to understand and thus largely escape media scrutiny and public attention. It camouflages regressive changes in the rhetoric of equity in an attempt to convince Canadians that tax increase are tax cuts and that benefit cuts are benefit increases-confuses the electorate and so insulates itself from criticism.
This is telling evidence of the performance of this government. Let me quote another paragraph:
It also abolished universal old age pensions and family allowances in one fell swoop by means of a devious mechanism known as the "clawback" which is the crowning achievement to date of social policy by stealth.
I could continue to quote much more from this article but time will not permit me to do so. Let me just say in terms of federal and provincial income taxes that families earning $20,000 have an increase from 1984 to 1991 of 386 per cent, compared to a 4 per cent increase in taxes for those who earn $100,000.
Let us look at federal child benefits. For those earning $20,000 to $50,000 there is a drop of as much as 2 per cent to 25 per cent in child benefits. People earning $20,000, near the poverty line, still had to suffer cuts in child benefits.
I ask this House this simple question: Which cost would be lower, the cost of helping poor children now or paying to let the cycle of poverty spin? Just imagine the cost of health care alone and add to that the cost of criminal justice and lost productivity. It is indeed appalling because we realize that we are truly dealing with a government that has no heart. How can we measure the social cost of broken dreams, want, and lives lived under a cloud of hopelessness? The beginnings of an answer could be as simple as a national school lunch program, ensuring every child has one meal a day.
However, I submit that the most important government policy would be one of full employment, which policy my leader challenged this government to declare but which this government refuses to declare. Instead, this government insists that unemployment is an instrument of economic policy. For parents to be working and bringing home pay which is above a poverty line existence is the best guarantee for the healthy future of sons and daughters.
Our present social welfare system discourages the will to work. Take for example the case of a single mother. Her chances of finding proper child care are almost hopeless. If she takes a job and loses her social assistance, gone too is state funded help toward the costs of

December 10,1990
Supply
dental care, special medications, and health related equipment. Offspring of low wage earners may be forced to go without these things if the need arises, simply because parents cannot afford such "luxuries".
The life of one single mother came to light, not long ago during a court case in Winnipeg. The court heard how the woman was reduced to pawning furniture to buy food and to stealing milk and diaper ointment. Is it not tragic when furniture is swapped for food and mothers are forced to steal? Is now not the time for the government to act and provide greater support? Witness after witness who has appeared before the subcommittee on poverty of the standing committee on health and welfare in the last two years has singled out unemployment as the primaiy cause of poverty. Since child poverty mirrors unemployment, the Minister of National Health and Welfare now has a unique opportunity to take up the cause of child poverty. We are now in the midst of a recession. It is not the time to blame individuals for unemployment. The government's economic polices must not bankrupt its citizens, especially its children.
I therefore challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to declare poverty our most serious public health problem. All children by definition are entitled to the average life span, to good health and to excellent education to ensure life, liberty and happiness.
I dare the minister to table in Parliament at once a plan of action, short term and long term, to lend credibility to his ministry. I dare the minister to announce soon his long overdue child care program. I dare him to convince his colleagues in cabinet to pursue a full employment policy as the chief and long-term assault on poverty, to tell them children are not small adults warranting only small budgets.
As one subcommittee witness said: "A country which is not committed to a full employment policy cannot expect employment to be the vehicle for eradicating poverty."
I agree we should spend for national defence, but should the nation not also defend our most obvious future, our children? There are two ways to protect
future generations, and this one, declaring war on poverty, should not go unrecognized.
Let the next generation of children never know the want and pain of poverty. On behalf of poor Canadian children, I challenge the minister to make a better future more than a dream for children. I dare the minister and his government to increase the minimum wage in areas of federal jurisdiction and to require that all federally funded and cost-shared programs meet the federal minimum wage as a condition of funding.
I dare the minister and his government to revisit the newly amended Unemployment Insurance Act and to restore federal financial support for this program.
I dare the minister to institute fair taxation. Canadians are asking not only what is adequate, but also what is enough. It does not make sense that a full-time child care worker should only earn $10,000 a year, while a chief executive officer of a big corporation would be earning $600,000 a year.
I dare the minister to look into establishing a national nutrition policy to reflect the real priorities of our Canadian poor. The minister of health, towards the end of his speech said: "We cannot afford not to fight poverty." I agree.
I therefore dare the minister to move now for a better and bright tomorrow for our poor Canadian children.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate this afternoon I have listened to the comments made by various speakers, and I would like to put a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
I have here a document which says "Canadian Job Strategy-Estimated expenditures for the Quebec region". Unfortunately, I don't have the figures for Canada as a whole. I only have those for Quebec. I have a number of data here which I will not quote at length because it would take too much time.
I listened to the speeches, Everybody said that we were cutting government subsidies, established programming, budgets, and so forth. I see here: "Job Development"; for the Quebec region, the budget for youth in 1989-90 was $34 million. In 1990-91, it will be $44 million. I see another one here: "Skill Shortages", a program to
December 10,1990

upgrade the skills of people on the labour market; $12 million in 1989-90 and $13.3 million in 1990-91. And "Community Futures", $8.5 million in 1989-90 and $11.8 million in 1990-91. Total spending was $112 million in 1989-90 and will be $121 million in 1990-91.
I don't know whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North has these figures but I wish he would explain how he can talk about cuts, when these figures tell us the exact opposite, Mr. Speaker. Does he have an explanation?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to reply. When one looks at a set of figures and finds that one has spent a certain amount, it has to be related to the amount that is required for the given activity, in this instance child poverty. I am glad that the government had to spend this money. I would be doubly aghast if it had not.
My submission is that this government has not spent enough. The fact remains, it is very clear, it does not need any complex analysis. We still have one million poor Canadian children. How do we explain to these children that the government has spent enough?
The hon. member commented on retraining programs. They are good too. However, if there is no job to be found after the training, what is the training for? We just heard in the news last Friday that some 60,000 jobs were lost during the month of November, over and above the job loss in October. Do we say that this government has good fiscal and monetary policy? No.
The Minister of Finance in his last budget said we could expect a rise in unemployment, indicating that unemployment is government economic policy. I am really perplexed. Unemployment immediately translates into poverty. Witness after witness who appeared before the subcommittee on poverty of the standing committee on health and welfare have said so.
Is the hon. member telling me now and telling this House that those witnesses who work for poor children, who work for the poor of our country, are wrong? I submit that the government is wrong and those people are right. The children of Canada are lucky that we have these people who advocate for them because children cannot vote, but still also have hearts and minds to be protected.
Supply


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened with attention to the remarks of our colleague. I know he is a paediatrician and professor of medicine. He certainly knows what he is talking about when he speaks of children.


Mr. Lewis:: Which is remarkable for members on that side of the House.


Don Boudria: "Which is remarkable in a similar way to other speeches of members of the opposition", I believe is what the Minister of Transport said. I am paraphrasing here so that it can be on the record.
I want to ask our colleague, who is obviously very knowledgeable in this area, if he recalls, as I do, that just prior to the last election campaign the government produced a program of child care, not a perfect one. It was certainly faulty. The government produced that program, brought it to the attention of the House and then when the program was actually before the Senate, it called the election prior to the bill being approved by the Senate and then failed to reintroduce the same legislation after the election was over.
I wonder if my colleague recalls that, and given that he probably does, will he tell us in his opinion if he agrees with me that this government was not sincere when it said it wanted to have a national child care strategy, that it was all empty rhetoric and it was attempting to find some way of scuttling its own bill, which eventually it succeeded in by calling the election at a time when the bill was before the Senate, thereby allowing it to die on the Order Paper.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, as usual my colleague is always keen in picking up on very important issues and certainly child care is one.


Philip Derek Lewis: I know it is Christmas, but this is a bit much.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, it is the essence of Christmas that we challenge and rekindle in us the warmth of the human spirit, the spirit of fortitude and generosity. In that way we can spread goodwill and make warm friendships and cultivate the love of family. Love of family means that we should have the means with which to take care of our children.
When working mothers, particularly single parents, need child care spaces and cannot find one, what do we say to them? It is not fair. It is not fair that this government would promise to do something during an

December 10,1990
Supply
election and just drags, drags and drags after the election.
Let us also remember that children are a unique group of citizens. Unlike adults, children continue to grow. For every day of delay in attending to the needs of children, those days can be multiplied in terms of adverse effects if we fail to deliver that service.
I would challenge the government to consider establishing child development centres across the country so that we can truly address the needs of our children, our most valuable national resource.


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, before starting my brief comments on this topic, I wonder whether it would be possible to obtain the unanimous consent of the House for dividing the 30 minutes allowed the government into two periods of 15 minutes, that is, two 10-minute periods, each followed by five minutes of questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Marcel Danis: I want to thank hon. members of the Official Opposition and of the New Democratic Party.
I rise to speak in this debate as Minister of State (Youth). As you know, my mandate consists in representing Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 in cabinet and preparing national guidelines and designing national initiatives to promote their interests and well-being.
I realized that the motion presented by the hon. member for Hamilton East was about poverty and its impact, and that is why I was anxious to take part in this debate.
As the Minister of State (Youth), I saw with my own eyes, in the course of recent consultations, how poverty that affects children at an early age can later create
problems that are practically impossible to overcome when they have to earn a living and support a family.
However, this motion does not give any recognition to what is being done today to deal with a very important aspect of the problem. Mr. Speaker, I am referring to employment. The best way to break the vicious circle of poverty is to find a job, and the best way to find a job is to get an education.
Let me give an example. According to a recent study, the poverty rate was 14.3 per cent among families where the head of the family had less than nine years of schooling, and this compares with 8.3 per cent for families where the head of the family had at least finished high school. When the head of the household had finished post-secondary studies or had a trade, the poverty rate was lower, around 6.7 per cent. Finally, only 3.7 per cent of families where the head of the family had a university degree were living in poverty in this country.
To recapitulate, the family poverty rate ranged from 14.3 per cent when the head of the household had less than nine years' schooling to 3.7 per cent when the head of the household had finished university. The only variable was the number of years of education.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the circumstances of single parent families, we find a shocking poverty rate of 30.5 per cent. It is partly due to the fact that this group includes a very large number of either elderly or very young people with a very tenuous link with the labour market. This group also includes single parents such as teenage mothers.
In this case the difference is even more revealing. When the head of the family has not finished grade nine, the poverty rate is 53.8 per cent. In the case of single parents with a post-secondary education or some kind of trade, the poverty rate goes down to 20.4 per cent. If the head of the household has a university degree, the poverty rate goes down further, to 12 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, education can make all the difference. By continuing their education, young people can acquire the proper skills that will help them cope with future changes. I am sure we all realize that a child that grows up in poverty is more likely to drop out of school and thus contribute to the poverty of another generation.
December 10, 1990

Supply
One would think these figures would convince young Canadians that an education is important if they want a decent future. Unfortunately, that is not really the case. About 30 per cent of Canadian students drop out of high school. If the present drop-out rate continues, by the year 2000, one million under-educated and untrained young people will have joined the ranks of the labour force, at a time when the demands of global competition are such that we need an increasingly educated and skilled labour force.
Hon. members know that if Canada is to continue expanding as a trading nation, it cannot afford the social costs generated by an uneducated labour force that cannot compete with that of other countries. Since skill requirements in various sectors are increasing, the result will be a definite lack of productivity at a time that is critical for the Canadian economy.
Today, the number of researchers and scientists in this country is among the lowest per capita of all industrialized nations. In a survey conducted by the Conference Board of Canada last year, two Canadian companies out of three stated that among their employees they had a number of people who were illiterate and thus incapable of doing the tasks they were supposed to do. Furthermore, half of Canada's companies have trouble finding qualified employees with the requisite skills. In fact, earlier this year, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development made it clear that a lack of skilled workers was the most serious problem facing our economic growth in the 90s.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most members are aware of these facts. If we are to compete effectively in a global economy, we must take the necessary steps to provide our labour force with the skills it needs to meet the future requirements of the labour market.
That is why the government is leading the way in this area by taking steps to help young Canadians prepare for tomorrow. However, we are not alone in having to deal with this responsibility. In fact, the co-operation of industry and unions, provincial governments, educational institutions, communities, parents and young people themselves is both crucial and necessary.
Through the department responsible for Youth, the government is about to implement the Stay in School
project. To that end, we have allocated $296.4 million. The project is aimed first of all at persuading young people to continue their secondary education. Although we realize that education is first and foremost a provincial matter, we intend to take advantage of the knowledge and good will of anyone who is anxious to find a solution to this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I would be the first to acknowledge the excellent work being done by teachers in this country. However, the time has come to create new partnerships in order to help our schools and reinforce the connection between education and the labour market. I would like to point out that this objective is about to be met thanks to the Stay in School project. Our plan is threefold. First, the federal government is developing new labour market entry programs and services and expanding existing ones to create awareness among those still attending school. There are the Cooperation Education Program, career workshops, Canada Career Week and counselling services to name a few.
We have since developed an activity called Starting Point as part of the Job Entry Program, which is an element of the Canadian Job Strategy. It is aimed at providing the young people with numerous tools, such as career evaluation, adoptive school and job experience.
Second, we are mobilizing our partners at the national and local levels to get them involved in solving the problem. In the Mobilization of partners part of the program, we are bringing together counsellors and business people, labour representatives, teachers, parents, social organization officials and the young people themselves. I recently arranged a series of meetings with the young people, including young native people. Widening the scope of the labour market entiy programs is one thing, but solving the drop out problem is another. That is why a concerted effort is essential.
The best thing to do is to start by gaining the support of the young people who were confronted to the problem so that they can relate their experience.
During the next four years, the federal government, on the advice of the provincial and territorial governments, will work closely with groups interested in issues

December 10,1990
Supply
relating to the students to better connect education to the labour market.
Our objective is to support community projects and to encourage community participation. By encouraging the community to look for an answer to the problem of dropouts, we are allowing the community to come up with solutions that will have popular support.
In this way, everyone at the national as well as local level is contributing to finding ways of keeping young people in school.
Third, as part of the information component of the Stay in School program, we are preparing information packages on careers and trying to create more public awareness about the dropout issue. We want to inform potential dropouts and their parents on career opportunities and the fundamental importance of high school.

Reducing the drop-out rate is a real challenge, but not one beyond our grasp. We owe it to our young people to make a parallel effort. Since last February when the stay-in-school initiative was first announced, a range of activities has taken to promote this objective.
Last April, for example, the federal government cosponsored the Conference Board of Canada's first ever National Conference on Business Education Partnerships. More than 400 senior executives from business, labour, and education attended the conference, along with representatives of government, community groups, and young people.
We must help people understand themselves. What is required is for them to go in a direction that appeals to them. But to do so, we must give the professionals the tools they need to provide proper and meaningful career guidance to young people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the minister's time has expired. Questions and comments.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister and I thank him for his comments. There is an issue of particular interest to me, and the minister raised it. It is this whole issue of the dropouts in our school system. The Minister mentioned a number of programs. Some of
them are totally new and have a good chance of being successful, at least I hope they will, being myself the father of two teenagers. Fortunately, they are both in school. One is a bit too young to consider dropping out and the other is attending the university, Thank God, as far as I know, he has no intention of dropping out. But the same is not true for many young people. I see friends of my son dropping out of school at 16 or 17. Of course, as long as everything goes well, they have no problem, but when we face hard times-as we do now-they are the first to loose their jobs because they lack seniority, of course, and for other reasons as well.
Can the minister tell me if any of the programs in his Department provide better incentives for staying in school? Has the minister considered for instance something along the line of investing more into programs like Cooperative Education. Such programs at least teach the young people the importance of pursuing their studies by showing them that it is not always so great on the labour market.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. minister has two minutes to answer.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question. There is no doubt in my mind that school dropouts are among the problems facing Canadians today. Let me quote you a few statistics. For instance, 30 percent of our high school students in Canada drop out. The rate varies across the country. In some provinces, it is 20 percent, while in others it exceeds 70 percent. That is totally unacceptable.
When we look at Germany or Japan, where the rates of dropouts were as high as ours 25 or 30 years ago but have now fallen to 4 or 5 percent, we know it can be done. Therefore, the initiatives I mentioned earlier in my short speech are among the initiatives the federal government undertook these past few years in an attempt to reduce the rate of dropouts. The specific program my friend referred to, the Cooperative Educa-ton Program, is indeed one of the programs-
December 10, 1990



It is really one of the most successful programs that we have in place. It is certainly our intention to make sure the program continues to make as much progress as it has in the past. In my travels across the country, that is one of the programs that the kids have told me they appreciated the most.
Like my friend, I also have two kids, but at least they are in school for now. Thank God for that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments are now terminated. Debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of State for Finance.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, debating this bill is like arguing against motherhood. There is not a single person in the House-and I do not think there are too many people in Canada-who would not be happy to do something directly, not only for the working poor- which this bill addresses-but for any of the people in Canada who are in poverty today, in fact anybody in the world who is in poverty.
A person has to consider what, in fact, is in the best interest of the working poor of Canada. Is it to continue the process of spending more than one has? Driving the national debt up? Borrowing from our children to pay for today? Or, is it in fact to establish an economic program that is sound and that will take us into the future where our children and our grandchildren can look at a country where they not only have a job but they see far reduced levels of poverty in the working poor, as well as in any other category, whether it is the seniors or the children.
Whenever a Conservative in particular stands up to address a topic like this, people immediately say: "Oh, he is a Conservative. He doesn't care about people." I would like to point just a brief example.
It is not just Canadians who think this way. There are other countries around this world which also recognize that you cannot give something out unless you have the money in pocket. To take another country in America, if you look at Mexico, it has far more people in poverty than we in Canada. If you want to call it working poor, most of those people are working and they are very poor.
Supply
What is in their best interests? Is their government's approach to try to solve that poverty without an improved economy? It has tried, but it does not work. We cannot improve the plight of the working poor without upgrading our economy. That is the task that this government has undertaken.
But, in every step of the way in trying to improve this economic condition in Canada, we have been opposed. At first I thought it was just politics, but I have come to realize that many people in the opposition actually believe in what they are saying and what they are doing. They do not believe that you need to have a sound economy before you can spend the money-


Don Boudria: Yes, we do.


Dave Worthy: -that if you want to spend more, no matter what the cause, that it is okay, that somehow or other that debt does not really count.
I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker, and thank goodness a number of people in Canada do not believe that. Just as an example, the economic program that this government has established is a sound one. We believe that if you want a bigger piece of pie, you have to get a bigger pie.
That is a simple analogy. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. If you want more pie, you have to have a bigger pie in total. Our policies are encouraging that. But what has happened? Just this fall we saw nearly a year's backlog of sound economic legislation being held up by our friends down the hall. The first was Bill C-21, the reform UI bill, very important to this country. If you want to upgrade the working poor, especially the ones who need to get from a low paying job to a better paying job, you need a program that is going to work on training and education. Part of that was in Bill C-21. That was one of the main reasons for it. It was a a reform UI bill that would provide some of the help that the opposition is actually looking for.
We had Bill C-28, another tax reform, to try to get greater taxation from large corporations. That was held up. We have Bill C-69, the government expenditure restraint bill, again trying to put this economy on a sound footing. That also was held up.

December 10,1990
Supply
These, if they had not passed, would have added billions to our deficit.
Now, what is the bill currently being held up? It is the goods and services tax, a tax designed to improve our local industry, to make us more competitive on world markets, to take away the unfair competition that importers have over the producers of our own products, to try to put our exporters on an equal footing.
The bill does more than that. It adds capital initiative to the whole economy, up to $9 billion a year initiative that is in fact going to end up with a net result of more jobs and more dollars for the exact people we are talking about today.
Also, in passing, it helps businesses so that their capital and operating costs are more effective, more competitive, and of course therefore providing more jobs.
If we really want to assist the working poor, I would encourage the hon. members who proposed this bill to urge their friends down the hall to in fact pass it.
These bills are the ones we have just passed in the last year to try to improve our economy, but we have been practising economic policy for six years now. What is the result of that? It has been aimed at restraint, at tax reform, and at improving our whole economy.
Let us address restraint just briefly. In spite of the fact that 33 per cent of our government spending is for transfer of spending, there is another 24 per cent in transfers to the provinces. These are the dollars that go directly, in most cases, to the kinds of people who need it the most. It is transfers for the elderly. They get $17 billion per year. Their increases over the last five years have been at a rate exceeding 7 per cent. There are the UI recipients. There is family allowance for the young people we are talking about. There is veterans allowances. Under the transfers to the provinces, there are the hospitals, the schools and, of course, the welfare payments that are very important. All of those have been increasing at close to 6 per cent per annum. Yet, the total government spending has been at a rate of 3.6 per cent. It is obvious that we have been cutting back on many other aspects of our program. It is an example I have used in the House. I would like to repeat it one more time.
When we took office, this government was spending $10 billion per year more than it was bringing in in revenue. Currently, we are bringing in $10 billion more in a year than we are spending. That is a $26 billion a year turnaround to tiy to get this country back in shape so that we can afford the programs that we all wish we could provide for the working poor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would ask again for the consent of the House that two Liberals could be allowed to speak in succession. Unless we get that unanimous consent, our Quebec colleague from Montreal will not be allowed to speak. That would be terrible, given the tremendous state of poverty there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: In
a few days, Mr. Speaker, most Canadians will celebrate Christmas, time for culinary traditions, joy, peace, religious ceremonies, family reunions, and gift sharing. For most of them it will be a time to rejoice, yet an ever increasing number of Canadians will only be able to remember better days. What with increasing lay-offs and practically nonexisting opportunities to find alternate employment at decent wages, our population is getting poorer at an alarming rate! We are in a recession, the government promises to implement the GST next month, and chances of landing permanent jobs are getting slimmer by the minute.
Mr. Speaker, food banks, clothing distribution centres and people queuing for a bowl of soup are increasingly common. Still we lack the resources and the funds to bring a minimum of relief to the ever larger numbers of needy people.

Poverty is being felt throughout this country and some areas are touched more than others. From Vancouver's lower east side to Halifax's north end, from Winnipeg's core area to Toronto's Jane, Finch and Regent Park complexes to name but a few, poverty is fast becoming a fact of life of too many fellow Canadians.
December 10,1990

Supply

Just as an example, in one month a food bank in the Montreal region counted roughly 1,200 people, including 400 children under age 15 who were so hungry they could not wait to eat whatever they could find in the grocery bags! These children often leave for school without eating anything because there is nothing to eat at home. These children have a hard time concentrating and learning on an empty stomach.
A child with an empty stomach finds it hard to listen to what the teacher has to say.
Mr. Speaker, those children will be our next adult generation. They are the ones who will have to fashion to future of our country. And they will be our judges.
That so many children live in poverty in a society like ours is intolerable. According to the Canadian Association of Food Banks, the parents of over one million children must rely on food banks to feed their children every day.
Mr. Speaker, it also intolerable that so many young need to escape trough artificial means in order to survive in a world that has let them down. We are talking about young people who live in this very country. We are talking about our own young people. About youth who have a potential to offer, but whose essential needs are not met.
What is this government going to do about it? When will it make poverty in Canada a priority on its agenda? Poverty is not only a provincial responsibility, it is also a federal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Judge Ruffo who is well known for her stand for children: "Our children are trying to tell us something, but we aren't listening. Our children have no hope so they are destroying themselves in drugs and suicide and prostitution and committing more and more violent crimes".
We must all stop ignoring the problem. We must get involved. This government must admit that there is a crisis, that there is indeed an emergency. This government must get involved before it is too late. It might already be too late. Throwing the problem in another
camp will only delay things. Those in power must act now or there will not be a tomorrow for thousands of Canadian kids. When will this government commit itself? When will it accept to do something?

Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, the problem is here and, far from going away, it is growing, Pediatricians report that the number of cases of ear infection, pneumonia, diarrhea and meningitis among children of low-income families is increasing. Child abuse is on the rise: 36 and 35 per cent respectively among girls and boys age 14 and 15 in Canada were victims of sexual abuse. How long will this government wait before taking action? When will this government accept to face the music and realize that the problem is in its own backyard?
Mr. Speaker, poverty goes hand in hand with all the other social ills. It is urgent to find and implement ways to put an end to this critical situation.
According to Statistics Canada, one child in ten lives in poverty. The death rate among new bom babies of poor parents is twice the national average. The rate of school dropouts among children of poor families is 2.2 times higher than for other children. What a sad picture!
What will tomorrow be like if we refuse to face these facts? When will the Prime Minister make Canadian men and women a priority? In Canada, the number of poor people, among all age groups, is increasing. Unfortunately, this is a well established fact. Hardship is no longer limited to some social classes and certain age groups.
Bankrupcies plant and store closures, job losses and salary cuts are every day occurrences. Overnight, Canadian men and women by the thousand find themselves financially destitute.
How can we believe in a country which so easily neglects its own citizens? There is no longer any income security or any hope to make dreams come true. A much too large proportion of our citizens have a very uncertain future. What tragedy will have to happen before this government wakes up and implements programs in co-operation with the provinces? The situation has become unacceptable and yet, only a modicum of help is being offered. We expect voluntary agencies to do everything, but it is not possible, it is not enough.

December 10,1990
Supply
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the situation of our senior citizens, too quickly forgotten by a society moving in high gear. To illustrate what I want to say I will give you the example of the group Sun Youth in Montreal, which announced that it would hold, last November 21st, a distribution of used clothing for older people. It was supposed to start at 8.30 a.m., but at 6 a.m. people started to line up. More than 1,200 people over 60 came to get free clothing, and this during a single day. These are people who barely managed on their pension or welfare cheque. Once they have paid for rent and some food they have nothing left. Mr. Abramson, 74, who was in charge of the quality of clothing said and I quote: "Senior citizens are the most mistreated of our citizens. Governments have money for this or that, but nothing for those who helped build this country and paid for it with their taxes."
Mr. Speaker, what more does this government want? Our children are going to school hungry; teenagers struggle for survival in the street due to a lack of income and decent employment; our senior citizens line up to get free clothing to face the elements.
We are often told that: "Canada is a rich country, a caring country, but for who? When will the gouvemment acknowledge that this country is in a crisis, not just a recession? When will the government put in place job creation programs to offset all the closings and to increase the number of jobs available? When will the gouvemment invest in this country and give equal opportunities to all its citizens? When is the government going to act?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have here a document dealing with Canadian children which I received recently from Statistics Canada. By the way, I wish to congratulate Statistics Canada for providing hon. members with this very useful tool.
In this document I have found rather alarming data concerning children living below the poverty line. Here are a few facts: In 1988, 4 per cent of children lived in families where the annual income was below $10,000; 11.7 per cent lived in families where the annual income was between $10,000 and $19,999, that is to say, between $10,000 and $20,000. These two groups together represent nearly 15 per cent of the population.
What I find even more appaling, Mr. Speaker, are the following statistics: When we consider single-parent families, where the heads, in 80 per cent of the cases, are women, 23.9 per cent of children live in families where the income is below $10,000 per year, and what is even more surprising, 41.5 per cent belong to families where the income is between $10,000 and $20,000 per year. If we combine both these figures, we find the following statistics: 65.4 per cent of children from single-parent families belong to families where the income is under $20,000 a year.
I wish to in view of these disturbing figures ask my hon. friend if she does not feel that the time has come for all levels of government to make sure that former spouses-men most of the time-do their part in providing for their families after a separation or a divorce. In my opinion, these statistics are a national disgrace and I would hope that the various governments will deal with this issue and make sure than men-I say men, because these estranged spouses are almost always men-provide for their children after a marriage breakdown. May I ask my hon. friend to comment on this.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague and I am grateful to him for giving me this opportunity to speak about children that have been forgotten in the vacuum left as a result of family divorce or break-up.
For a number of years now the two government levels have been throwing the problem back and forth between themselves. They say: "Not our fault, this is a provincial responsibility. There is no federal legislation covering that aspect". I would suggest that time has come indeed for both government levels to assume their responsibilities.
I want to get back to the situation of these children, if my colleague will allow me. Earlier today the minister was telling us that the number of poor children, children who go hungry, is going down. That is quite false! On the island of Montreal the numbers are not going down.
Here is an example concerning schools. La Salle's Saint-Jean-Baptiste school ranks 70th among Montreal's poorest. If we talk about the city of Montreal it is even worse. But for the whole island the figures are dismal, 41 per cent in one school. Referring to the island or only the city of Montreal as such, we are looking at
December 10,1990

almost 40 per cent in practically every ward. The mortality rate in the poorest areas is 68 years of age, against 80 in the richest district.
One out of four Montrealers lives in poverty. These are not the figures which the minister gave us this afternoon for last year or the year before, no, these are the findings of the latest surveys made in Montreal. I think that the government has the duty to help Canadian men and women who live below the poverty level.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this very important debate. I must say, as an aside in beginning this debate, that I am a little surprised by the unwillingness of the NDP to participate in the way that we wish to participate.
It is a party that has long prided itself on cornering the market on the concern for the poor but, when a push comes to a shove, it has singularly been unable to provide speakers for this very important debate. I certainly hope it is not a sign that it puts the partisanship of a by-election, where its members are working today, over an important debate on the future of this country.


Don Boudria: Well, they are not going to win in that by-election anyway.


David Walker: Perhaps, but the people of Canada expect members to come in and debate these issue very seriously-
This has been a very good opportunity to hear different points of view on the poor of Canada. Sometimes in reciting our concerns for money, as we have heard from the government side, and some of the problems that have emerged in our economy, we lose sight of what these figures mean. What does it mean to have a reduction in funds?
Let us look at the big question of what happened in the early part of 1980s, and why a deficit was created versus what is happening right now.
In the first case, the deficit was created because the Liberal Party was too generous to the poorer regions of the country. Year after year we tried to increase the amount of moneys we gave to the provinces. People forget that. For example, from 1979-80 through to
Supply
1984-85, before this miserable government took over, we went from $1.8 billion in transfer payments to over $4 billion. That is an increase of over 100 per cent. The deficit, of course, has gone up from just over $120 billion right up to $400 billion. The government has been niggardly toward the provinces. It has increased the transfer payments by only 30 per cent.
There has been a tremendous, negative impact across the country as a result. We raise questions constantly in the House having to do with food banks. They should look at reality of 1.4 million people at various times during the year having to go to food banks and deal with the reality that by the third week of the month people are out of money.
They should deal with the reality that there is a welfare economy out there and people are pushed into lousy housing. They should deal with the reality they cannot feed and clothe their children, not make denials or say that they do not have any money. There is money in this country. They should check out the profits, the way in which people spend their money, and the charter flights to the States. They should check out their friends. There is money if we have the guts to work for the poor.
I challenge this government to work for once for the poor and not against them. The food banks have come to the Parliament of Canada, not looking for a legal argument from the Minister of Health and Welfare that it is not his responsibility. They have come with the very important desire to see that the right to eat and to have food is considered a basic human right in this country. When, since the Depression, have we had Canadians coming to this building asking to be fed as a right? We have all assumed we would feed each other. We have all assumed that volunteers could do it or that government could do it. The volunteers are tired, and the government is saying it has no money.
On this side of the House we believe that the government has a responsibility. We want the minister to step forward and begin to outline a plan of action so that Canadians can be fed, housed, and clothed.
Throughout this country it affects people from all walks of life. Nobody plans on being poor, but people do end up being poor. Let us quit blaming the victims. Let

December 10, 1990
Supply
us quit pretending that somehow people got themselves into this trap because of their own doing.
They should look at the job losses in the last month alone in Ontario and Quebec. All those ministers are sitting quietly there thinking that they do not have to worry about it because it is out there and not in their region of the country. They should check with the people at home at Christmas. This is a problem in their constituencies. This is a problem among their voters. They want to have some reassurance from this government that it understands what is going on.
I would like to talk to the House about a very important poverty problem in the city of Winnipeg. For the last 10 years, the three levels of government under the leadership originally of the member for Winnipeg South Centre brought forward a program called the core area initiative, which is perhaps the most innovative program, without exaggeration, in North America. It has been an award winning program. All three levels of government have contributed and worked hard together. They have probably generated $.5 billion in investment and expenditures in an area. Winnipeg has developed, I am very sad when I say this, into one of the poorest regions of the country. It and downtown Montreal have the most pressing urban poverty questions dealing with people who have ended up so poor that they cannot deal with that reality.
The minister of energy, who is responsible for this program on behalf of the federal government, said in the press, to the mayor of Winnipeg, and to the premier of Manitoba last week that he was not sure he could find the money. He was not sure that the program was any good. He was not sure that the accountability was appropriate. He was not sure whether he wanted to deal with the city of Winnipeg any further. He was not sure until he heard from the people of Winnipeg and therefore he wanted public hearings.
The language of public participation and public hearings is something we all generally support. We want the government to have some hearings. But what he did not say in public-and it is what every person in Winnipeg who is concerned about the future of the core will say-was that he has never shown up at public hearings. He refuses to answer correspondence. He refuses to take phone calls. He will not talk to the people until it is too late.
In downtown Winnipeg, the urban futures group headed by a very respected academic from the University of Winnipeg has just completed five months of hearings, five evenings plus private hearings. They had 95 presentations. Every major group concerned about the future of the downtown made a presentation. They were listened to and out of that came a very important report. In that report they wanted to send a message to the governments in Manitoba, at city hall and in Ottawa that the core area initiatives should be continued. They ask:
Continue the tripartite commitment to inner city revitalization. Much has been accomplished by the CAI, but much more needs to be done. The time has come to reassess direction and focus, not to abandon the undertaking and leave that which has been achieved vulnerable to erosion.
It is the absence of other programs that terrifies the people in the inner city.
We talk about refugee programs, immigration programs and the cutbacks that are hitting the new poor in this country. When we talk about cutbacks to aboriginal language programs, to aboriginal education, to aboriginal training programs, and to aboriginal economic development projects, we are talking about the same people in the core area initiative. When we talk about the lack of funding for university education, we are talking about people-


Mr. Hockin:: There is no cutback on that program.


David Walker: There are cutbacks. If the minister is willing to get into a semantical fight about whether or not this government has cut back, then I think that he should understand his estimates much better. Every Canadian knows there have been cutbacks; every Canadian feels it. Is the minister going to say that there have been no cutbacks in the CBC, in the same constituency? Is he going to say the core area initiative has not been cut back? The minister should be better prepared when he comes into debate and not be taking potshots when the sidelines.
The second thing the group was looking for was to give priority to initiatives that foster community and individual empowerment and that directly improved the conditions in which current inner-city residents lived. To accomplish this, they asked that government broaden the partnership to include a much greater planning and decision-making role for inner-city communities, second, that they provide greater support to education, training, employment, community-based economic development and social service initiatives that promote ownership, self-help and self-determination, not depen-
December 10,1990

dency and, finally, focus physical renewal on neighbourhood needs such as adequate affordable housing, infrastructure and community facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but it is a case like the core area initiative that could be used in every city in this country. Instead of cutting back, instead of pretending to Canadians that life is continuing on as normal and that there are still plenty of programs out there, if the government would face the reality that it has created a problem for itself and now for every Canadian and that we face a moral crisis, an economic crisis, a taxation crisis, and a crisis of poverty caused by the programs that the government created, and if the government would come out of today's debate understanding that one essential point that the opposition is not here to harangue it but is here to help them understand the desperate voice of poor Canadians in wanting Parliament to respond. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to join in this debate.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my hon. friend three questions.
He speaks about funding for the poor in Canada and he especially made reference to the aboriginal community. Is he aware, first of all, that the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Program, which is close to half a million dollars for the next five years, was increased more than inflation, close to 8 per cent year-over-year from the previous funding?
That program includes in it a whole host of self-help programs, including the small business start-up program which was increased from $72 million to $80 million a year. It is a program which is my responsibility. We were able to get that increase above 10 per cent year-overyear. Is he aware that that program has created 5,000 different, small businesses, on and off reserves, in the last five years? Is he aware that that program has done more than any previous federal government program for reducing dependency and creating entrepreneurship, creating jobs and creating business on and off the reserves, and that it has been increased far above the
Supply
level of inflation, far above almost any other line in the federal government budget?


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, in a debate of honesty and sincerity, one recognizes that there are always ministers who try. But the problem becomes that, for these small efforts, they expect to be congratulated. Unemployment on the reserves remains somewhere between 80 per cent and 95 per cent. In Winnipeg there are probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50,000 unemployed aboriginals. Anybody who can stand up and say that this program has made a substantial difference in the community simply ignores the reality of the depth of poverty. The problem with this government is that it gets to be defensive about these issues instead of saying that it has started but it has not really accomplished anything.
The major programming that affects the plight of aboriginal people is not only the on-reserve programs such as education. Do not forget the tremendous changes created by the people returning to reserves on issues of housing. The government is probably 15 years behind in housing programs. Just when we found out last year that young people wanted to go to post-secondary education facilities more than ever before, they are faced with a government cutback. We heard in Question Period today about the need for further funds in Labrador.
We find that at the very moment in which we see a tremendous amount of pride emerging in the aboriginal community, this minister and the minister of Indian affairs, since the crisis in the summer, standing up and saying, "Don't you understand how much we have done for them".
When people have a good working relationship, they do not have to stand up and tell people how much they are doing for each other. These people understand it. What we find is the absence of any real progress is causing tremendous frustration in a community which deserves every opportunity it can get.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, earlier, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North was making his speech, I asked him about the figures, and he told me that they could be used to say anything one wanted them to say and that they could be interpreted any way at all. I

December 10,1990
Supply
listened to what was said by the previous speaker, who also referred to a number of figures. I would like to know whether the figures he just referred to are the absolute truth. Should we bear in mind what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North or does the Liberal Party have the absolute truth on this matter, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


David Walker: On a point of order, the hon. member asked me whether or not my statistics are correct. Is he calling into question the quality of the research and the honesty with which I approached my speech? Everything was correct in my speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. Minister for Science on a point of order.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, if you are going to allow time for someone to respond to one question, perhaps he would like to respond to the question that my hon. colleague put, which he carefully avoided.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On a point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on a point of order concerning the legislation we shall be considering later this afternoon. I spent almost all afternoon reading the legislation. I found some rather strange things and I would like to comment on them now here in the House.
I looked up Standing Order 81(5) which reads as follows, in English, and I quote:

Supplementary estimates shall be referred to a standing committee or committees immediately they are presented in the House. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than three sitting days before the final sitting or the last allotted day in the current period.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that today is the last day of the period. It is also obvious that two standing committees of this House did not meet to consider the supplementary estimates. The two committees were the Standing Committee on Transport and the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
Mr. Speaker, we have evidence that this is so. On Monday, December 5, the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell said in the House that he had written a letter with three other colleagues in, the Liberal caucus to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, asking him to arrange for a meeting of the committee. However, he said that this was impossible. Obviously a committee that did not meet could not have examined estimates.
On October 18 last, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan raised a question of privilege in the House and indicated the Standing Committee on Transport had held one meeting, but that all members of the government had stayed away from it. On November 28 last, the Speaker gave his decision on the question of privilege and said the following:

I have to say to hon. members and to the public that the working of committees is very important to the working of the House of Commons. I do ask hon. colleagues to make every effort possible to come to whatever agreements and understandings among themselves which are necessary to make these committees work.

If those committees are so important, as the Speaker said, and I agree with him, it is crucial that they meet, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House, particularly section 81(5).

We were told when this was raised last week by the House leader for this party, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, that debate could take place in this Chamber on these estimates on the allotted days.
I have already indicated there are six allotted days in the supply period. Today is day number six. Day number five was on November 21. In other words, all five days had elapsed on November 21 before these supplementa-
December 10, 1990

ry estimates were tabled on November 23. The government apparently held back these supplementary estimates so there was only one day left in the House to discuss them, which is not in breach of the rules, and I cannot complain on that score. But for the government House leader to suggest, as he did, that somehow we had an opportunity to debate these estimates on supply days was utter nonsense because today is the only day we have an opportunity to debate them. These particular estimates in these two committees could not be considered in the committees because the committees could not meet because the government refused to allow them to meet in clear breach of the obligations under the rules.
The point that has to be made here is that on November 23 when the supplementary estimates were tabled in the House, the President of the Treasury Board, who I am sure took advice from his colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House-and clearly it was misguided advice in the circumstances-proposed a motion to refer these estimates to various committees.
The two that I think are worth noting are the references to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations. There were a series of votes referred there and then there were three votes referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
I have filed with the Clerk of the House a notice of objection in respect to every single one of those votes. A motion of concurrence has been proposed by the President of the Treasury Board to concur in these 17 or so votes because of these notices of objection.
My point is that the notices of objection relate to these particular items because they could not be considered in committee because the government refused absolutely to allow these committees to meet. There is ample evidence contained in the proceedings in Hansard to which I have referred on the dates that were raised by hon. members and which were not effectively refuted by any member of the government. No one stood up on the government side and said: "We have done our best to get these committees together". They, in fact, had done their best to stop these committees from meeting.
Supply
Since Standing Order 81(5) requires that each committee shall consider and shall report these estimates and since the committees could not meet to consider, I submit that these estimates should not be in this bill. The draft bill that is going to be introduced later, if the votes all carry the way they are, has these very votes in it. I was horrified to read these in here. I thought the government would have the good sense to excise them without having to wait for Your Honour to rule them out.
I ask Your Honour, in having heard my argument and having realized, I am sure, as the government House leader must realize that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member.
It being 6.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(15), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of Supply.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 17B, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Marcel Danis: That Vote 17b, in the amount of $19,496,000, under Consumer
and Corporate Affairs-Goods and Services lax Consumer
Information Office, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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

December 10, 1990
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the islands on a point of order.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, immediately before the bells began to ring, I was in the midst of making a point of order before this Elouse concerning the validity of the government's proposed supply bill. I deliberately put the point of order before the House at that time because I did not want to be met with the argument that because the House had adopted these resolutions, these supply motions, that somehow it affected the validity of this bill.
My submissions were that the bill was out of order and, with great respect, I think I am entitled to a ruling on that before the House proceeds to consider this bill.
My colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry-Pres-cott-Russell, had no opportunity to intervene in the point of order and I think he may have something to say on this important point, Sir.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House, and I will try to speak loudly so as to overcome the heckling of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: We certainly do not want a situation in which the hon. member is unable to put the argument.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to make this argument very brief and very succinct. I want the Chair to be aware that I share very much the opinion of my colleague for Kingston and the Islands that the estimates of all departments and agencies dealing with and reporting to the consumer and corporate affairs and government operations committee should not be proceeded with at this time.
I say this to the House pursuant to a letter that I tabled in the House of Commons on December 5, 1990. This is a letter from the clerk of that committee which indicated to me that the committee could not convene "until the chairman has been duly elected". I quote further from the letter, which says: "The only person authorized to convene a committee for the election of a chairman is the chief government Whip, as in the case of special committees". In other words, what we have been told by
the clerk of the committee is that the estimates could not be dealt with at that committee because the government Whip did not cause the meeting to happen, did not cause the committee to sit, enabling it to elect a chairman, thereby making us unable to consider the estimates before us.
This opinion was given to us by the clerk of a standing committee of this House and it remains unchallenged by the government. It is an opinion that comes from a committee chairman, presumably then with the cognizance of the Clerk of the House. Need I remind the Chair that the clerks work for the Chair of this House.
If the committee could not meet, as it was indicated to me, I submit to you that we cannot tonight consider a vote on those particular estimates.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I too want to submit, as have previous speakers, that proceeding with the bill before us is really out of order. I refer to Standing Order 81(5) which states:
Supplementary estimates shall be referred to a standing committee
or committees immediately they are presented in the House. Each
such committee shall consider and shall report,-
Mr. Speaker, it says shall consider, not may consider or possibly consider, but shall consider. We know that the national defence committee has not considered the $350 million expenditure for the gulf operation. We also know that the consumer affairs committee has not looked into the incredible overruns regarding the GST.
I raised it with the government House leader and actually sent a letter to the chairman of the defence committee suggesting that they do what the Standing Orders require them to do. They have not. These supplementary estimates have not been considered by the respective committees because the committees have not met.
Therefore, I submit, as have previous speakers, that proceeding with this bill at this point would be in fact out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have, of course, listened very carefully to the arguments that have been put forward. I do not think that it is necessary that I should leave the chair and reserve on this. This is not the first time this argument has been put forward. It is an understandable one
December 10, 1990

because of the rules being that at a certain point these matters will be dealt with.
I have listened carefully to the hon. members, but if it is the wish of the House to change the proceedings, then it will be necessary to change the rules. I do not find that I am able to comply with the arguments that have been put forth, although I understand perfectly well why they were put forward.
These arguments have been put forward on other occasions by members who are not sitting in the same place tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To move the evening along in terms of all of the voting ahead of us, I wonder if you would find unanimous consent to apply the division we have just taken to Motion Nos. 2, 11, 13, 19, 20, 22, and 23.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops has invited the House to apply the vote on the motion we have just taken to Motion Nos. 2, 11, 13, 19, 20, 22, and 23. Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE IB-DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved:: December 10,1990
Supply
That Vote lb, in the amount of $ 14,305,000, under the Department of Finance-Financial and Economic Policies Program, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 102B-DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 102b, in the amount of $1.00 under Industry, Science and Technology-Canada Post Corporation, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5B-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 5b, in the amount of $60,500,000, under Department of Public Works-Real Property Program, in the Supplementaiy Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE IB-DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote lb, in the amount of $15,769,000, under Supply and Services-Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5B-DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 5b, in the amount of $10,997,000, under Supply and Services-Capital expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE IB-DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote lb, in the amount of $229,200,000 under Department of National Defence-Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5B-DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 5b, in the amount of $120,800,000 under Department of National Defence-Capital expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10B-DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 10b, in the amount of $152,500, under Privy Council-
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board,
in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Supply


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is a mysterious place sometimes. May I suggest now that we have taken the vote on Motion No. 3 that the division that has been recorded on Motion No. 3 also be applied to Motion Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 21.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be known that I want to record my vote as in favour on all items except No. 7 on which I will abstain as I did on the previous vote for the same reason.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE IB, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote lb, in the amount of $59,000,000, under Department of Transport-Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10B, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 10b, in the amount of $1.00, under Department of Transport-Contributions, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE IB, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote lb, in the amount of $1,992,100, under Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 5B, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 5b, in the amount of $2,209,000, under Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Capital expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25B, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 25b, in the amount of $240,000, under Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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

December 10,1990
Supply


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 90B, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 90b, in the amount of $4,735,000, under Industry, Science and Technology-Statistics Canada-Operating expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 95B, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 95b, in the amount of $310,000, under Industry, Science and Technology-Capital expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE IB, DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote lb, in the amount of $37,644,930, under Department of the Privy Council-Program expenditures, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 15B, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 15b, in the amount of $2,656,000, under Department of Public Works-Crown Corporations Program-Canada Museums Construction Corporation, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 16B, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 16b, in the amount of $2,000,000, under Department of Public Works-Crown Corporations Program-Payments to Harbourfront Corporation, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25B, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 25b, in the amount of $104,300,000, under Public Works-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 30B, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 30b, in the amount of $300,000, under Public Works-National Capital Commission, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 25B, DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote 25b, in the amount of $799,000, under Secretary of
State-Public Service Commission, in the Supplementary Estimates
(B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


CONCURRENCE IN VOTE L15B, DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Gilles Loiselle: That Vote L15b, in the amount of $5,000,000, under Supply and Services, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, be concurred in.


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


CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B)
Gilles Loiselle: That the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1991, laid upon the Thble Friday, November 23, 1990,
except those items disposed of earlier this day, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Loiselle thereupon moved that Bill C-94, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1991, be read the first time.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to expedite the passage of this bill, I think you might find unanimous consent to apply the vote on Motion No. 1, which we have dealt with, to the first reading of the appropriation bill, the second reading of the appropriation bill, the various clauses of the appropriation bill, the report to the House of the appropriation bill and the third reading of the appropriation bill.
December 10, 1990

Supply


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Loiselle thereupon moved that Bill C-94, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1991, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board the customary question, to certify to the House that the bill is done in the usual form and style traditional to this House.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to inform the House that this Bill is similar to other bills on Supplementary Estimates submitted to this House in the past years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time, referred to a Committee of the Whole, deemed considered in Committee and deemed reported to the House without amendment.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blais
Bouchard (Roberval) Brightwell
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Chadwick
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Corbett
Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling Della Noce Dick
Domm
Duplessis
Epp

December 10,1990
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have another vote. It being 7.25 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred division on a motion at the report stage of Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment of a centennial flame research award to publicize the contribution to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: that Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities, as reported (without amendment) be concurred in.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to help, I can say that the members of the New Democratic caucus support this bill unanimously.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find a disposition in the House that if the question is put members would be unanimously supporting this bill.


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


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, on private members' bills we have a tradition around here of not applying the whip. However, I think the idea that our employees should receive this kind of treatment is worthy of examination.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, following the lead given by the House leaders of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, perhaps in this private members' matter, I might have the rare moment to speak for the Conservative Party on this and suggest that on this side of the
House, also, there would be unanimity in supporting this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. members:: Now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Patrick Boyer: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was some understanding that we would also deal with Bill C-225, a motion to withdraw the bill and send the subject matter to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is exactly what I was going to put. Merry Christmas.


PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Young (Beaches-Woodbine) that Bill C-225, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to a Legislative committee; and on the amendment of Mr. Funk (p. 15354).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 7.40 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of a recorded division on the amendment of Mr. Funk, at second reading stage of Bill C-225, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (staff of Members of the House of Commons).
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Soetens
Stevenson
Tardif
Thorkelson
Timer (Halton-Peel)
Van de While Venne Walker White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Wood
++NAYS
Members
Anawak	Anderson
Andre	Arseneault
Atkinson	Baker
Beatty	Belair
Bellemare	Belsher
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjorason
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Boudria
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Catterall
Chadwick	Clancy
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford
Cole	Collins
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crawford
Crosby (Halifax West)	Danis
Darling	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Feltham
Ferguson	Ferland
Finestone	Flis
Fontaine	Fretz
Friesen	Gibeau
Gustafson	Halliday
Hawkes	Hockin
Holtmann	Hopkins
Homer	Hudon
Hughes	Jacques
Johnson	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kempling
Keyes	Koury
Larrivee	Layton
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)	Lee
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Maheu	Malone
Marin	Masse
Mayer	Mazankowski
McDermid	McKnight
McLean	Merrithew
Milliken	Monteith
Moore	O'Kurley
Pagtakhan	Plourde
Porter	Pronovost
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.59 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 11,1990