1991-12-12

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a number of my colleagues raised a very serious point of order with regard to comments made by the Prime Minister.
I know that you have now had an opportunity to be seized with the particular issue, but due to the fact that the Prime Minister is not in the House I am wondering if we could have some indication from the Chair that perhaps your ruling could be made later this day when the Prime Minister is in the House so that we may have the matter resolved and resolved forthwith.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, since then I have had an opportunity to check with the Deputy Prime Minister who sits next to the Prime Minister. I have checked with the minister of youth and amateur sport who sits behind the Prime Minister and with the Whip, and I remember what I heard. We deny categorically and absolutely that the words attributed to the Prime Minister were stated by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we go further let me say that members were heard yesterday. I am seized with the matter, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has pointed out. I do not want further debate on it. I will indicate in response to the hon. member for
Cape Breton-East Richmond that I have looked at Hansard and I have checked the tape, watched it, and it does not assist us at all in this matter.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has suggested that the Prime Minister might return to the House at some later moment and I think that probably would be appropriate. Until I hear from the Prime Minister the matter is not completely settled.
I am indicating to the House that certainly at the moment I cannot advance the argument one way or the other as a consequence of having checked with the Hansard and checked with the tapes.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, just to seek clarification, you are awaiting the appearance of the Prime Minister before this is pursued any further. Is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously an attempt being made by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to have this matter resolved in a civilized way and according to the rules.
If the hon. government House leader disagrees, I will give him the floor. I will hear him.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in which an accusation is made by members opposite which is absolutely denied by everybody within earshot of the Prime Minister. The record was checked concerning any verification of this accusation by Hansard or by the tapes. There is absolutely none.
I dispute the fact that the allegation remains outstanding. An allegation is made without foundation or proof and it is categorically denied. That should be the end of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask all hon. members for just a moment, including ministers and front-bench members on the other side and anybody else, to just quiet down.
One of the reasons we are in difficulty is that there is too much shouting back and forth. Sometimes what is

December 12, 1991
Point of Order
shouted back and forth creates a situation that may not be excusable and it may not be right but it creates disorder because somebody responds. It is not an easy task in a situation like this to find a way through it according to procedure and according to the best sense of civility that we can muster in the House. The hon. House leader feels that it is not necessary for the Prime Minister to come into the House.
If the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond feels that the denial the Prime Minister made outside the House is sufficient, I will accept it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been raised through several interventions yesterday.
The hon. government House leader has made a proposition. He has indicated that members of his caucus did not hear the remarks. They deny the remarks as part of a tradition of this House. I will accept the word of the hon. member who says that.
When the Prime Minister returns to the House and says that on the floor of the House of Commons, we will then respect the words of that hon. member. Until such time we think it only appropriate and fair to all concerned since there are hon. members on this side who believe something different.
We will wait for the Prime Minister to return and to make a brief denial, if you will, or statement or apology.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want to simply raise one point. Yesterday, after Question Period, the Speaker was asked to review the "blues" with regard to the statement of the Prime Minister.
I heard the Speaker say this morning that he reviewed the "blues" and they were not helpful. I would like to ask the Speaker to examine those words, because I think they are very helpful in that there are no such words on the "blues" or on any records of this House.
I want to be very careful to ask that the Speaker examine those words because I think the right words are that it was helpful.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not going to get into an argument of semantics.
What I am saying to all members of the House and to the public is that neither the "blues", the Hansard, the tape, the television nor the soundtrack give any indication whatsoever that the Prime Minister said the words alleged.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we talk about tradition in this House. I am certainly one who respects the traditions and tries-


Mr. Simmons:: You would never know it sometimes.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment, please.
Does any hon. member really believe that by shouting at the minister when he is on his feet is helping us to settle this matter?


Roger Simmons: I do not believe it but he is allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's will take his seat and be quiet.


Roger Simmons: Play fair. He disrupted the House for five minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's will retract that accusation against the Chair.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the record will show that the right hon. gentleman from Yellowhead disrupted the House for five minutes with his shouting.
I retract any inference against the Chair, but I appeal to the Chair to continue its known fairness.


Mr. Speaker:: That is what I am trying to do.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to draw the attention of all of us to what I think would be quite a new practice established here.
Were it possible for an accusation or an attribution of words to be made to another member, however outrageous or however unfair that might be, and then to somehow transfer to the accused the onus of denying words that person never said, would be in my judgment a departure from the traditions of this House and not a helpful departure from the traditions of this House.
If one seeks to remove the rules of this House from the immunity from partisanship which they have by and large known, then that process can destroy order here surely and absolutely.
I as one member of this House-
December 12, 1991


Roger Simmons: Keep him in order too. What a hypocrite.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no pleasure in being Speaker and having to give lectures. There probably is a limit to how useful it is but I have to ask for the support of all members. At the moment I am asking members to comply very carefully with the best traditions of this place and let the hon. minister give his remarks. If the hon. member for Burin-St. Georges wishes to respond, he can seek the floor.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that my earlier intervention which was driven by quite an uncharacteristic loss of my temper was unhelpful to the House. I regret that. I certainly believe that we are moving dangerously close to a practice that could be disruptive to the long-standing order of the House. I would hope that both in the Chair's deliberations and in the decisions members on all sides of the House have to take about this matter that we will not give standing to a practice which might allow me to attribute to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, for example, some words he did not say and then impose upon him an obligation of denial. This has not been the practice of the House and certainly it is not one we should begin.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we can proceed with business of the day forthwith. I do not suggest in any way that members on one side are more correct than members on the other. I say to the minister for constitutional affairs, as I said to the Chair: let us proceed with the business of today. When the Prime Minister is here at three o'clock the matter can be resolved forthwith.
It is not the way to stand in the House very subtly and suggest that 20 members of a caucus are all liars. That is the inference that one could make. That is the interpretation one could take from the hon. member.
I made an offer to proceed forthwith sincerely with the business of the House. At three o'clock the right hon. Prime Minister will then take the floor and make a statement and then the matter will be resolved.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first of all I apologize for any disruptive tactic. I had difficulty restraining myself because I was doing what I do so often in this House and that is take my example from a man whom at normal times I respect very greatly, the hon. member for Yellowhead. It so
Routine Proceedings
happens I was following a terrible example of his this morning. I found a certain hypocrisy in that he could shout for 10 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: We are on a specific matter. The right hon. minister has indicated that perhaps he was over enthusiastic. Why can we not just leave it at that? If the hon. member for Burin-St. George's has some advise for the Chair on the point we are discussing, I will hear him.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, just to reinforce the point that my colleague made a moment ago, it is not a question of conspiracy in which a bunch of us contrived some words that were never said.
We sincerely believe that we heard and saw mouthed certain expressions. Our analysis of what happened is not confined to members on this side of the Chamber. It has been confirmed by other people who were in the gallery at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. We are getting into an area I felt we ought not to get into.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, speaking of insulting language, and especially on the part of the Prime Minister, it has been six weeks since the Prime Minister used insulting and degrading language in referring to me, and for six weeks, no one has done anything about it.


Mr. Speaker:: One moment, please. Yesterday we discussed the position taken by the hon. member for Richelieu.

I am seized with the matter. I will do the best I can on it. This is not the time to get into it.
I think we are going to proceed with Routine Proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official

Routine Proceedings
languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Andree Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34,1 have the honour to present in the House, in both official languages, reports on two activities of the Canadian chapter of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians.
My first reference is to the proceedings of the Eighteenth General Assembly, held in Ottawa and Calgary from September 1 to September 8, 1991. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members who attended, with diligence and enthusiasm, both plenary sessions and commission meetings. I would also like to thank the clerks and all employees of the House who helped us host this meeting of the international Franco-phonie with graciousness and warmth and, if I may say so, with superb organizational skill.
My second reference, is to the participation of the Canadian chapter of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians in the fourteenth Biennale de la langue frangaise held in Lafayette, Louisiana, from October 30 to November 6, 1991. I had the honour to represent the association at the Biennale. We discussed how French is taught, the quality of the French spoken in various countries and continents, and the efforts being made throughout the world to preserve and promote that superb instrument of communication of our civilization: the French language.



INDIGENOUS PARLIAMENT OF THE AMERICAS


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Orders I am pleased to present a report, in both official languages, on the fifth meeting of the Indigenous Parliament of the Americas held in Ottawa between November 10 and November 13 of this year.
This is a gathering of some 50 members of Parliament from Central, South and North America who were here to discuss matters of international concern like the environment, the role they will play in Brazil in the conference there in 1992, human rights violations, the fifth centenary of the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the Americas, the International Labour Organization resolution 169, and the meeting in Greenland which was held by the United Nations, a meeting of experts.
We were very honoured to host this conference.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
20TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 20th report of the Standing Committee on House Management as per Standing Orders 104 and 114 and, if the House gives it consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See today Votes and Proceedings. ]



CONCURRENCE IN 20TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Albert Glen Cooper: I move that the 20th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
December 12, 1991


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women entitled Canada's Children: Investing in our Future. This report is the result of two years of study by the subcommittee on poverty of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare Social Affairs, Senior Citizens and Status of Women which examined the unanimous motion of the House of Commons:
That this House express its concern for the more than one million
Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the
goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year
2000.
The report makes recommendations which would ensure that every child in Canada is bom as healthy as possible and that all parents have the necessary income to provide for the basic needs of their children and an adequate discretionary income to meet the educational, recreational and cultural needs of their children.
It proposes the design of a program which would provide financial incentives for people to work and ensure income security through an improvement in the federal minimum wage, a guaranteed earned income supplement and a refundable child care tax credit with maximum benefits given to low income earners.
The implementation of these recommendations would not only help poor children, but it would also help Canada compete internationally by maximizing the potential of our most valuable resource, our children.
Your committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109.



TABLING OF MINORITY REPORTS

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we just heard the report of the subcommittee on poverty.
Routine Proceedings
On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I would like to present our minority report.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not unanimous consent.
I regret that since April, minority reports are now to be heard.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a minority report because the report presented by the subcommittee in our estimation is replete with recommendations that say they should be done as soon as possible with no definite timetable. Some of them have too many exhortations telling provinces what to do without financial and regulatory incentives. In fact, some of the recommendations are futile, downright ridiculous, behind the times in terms of the definition of poverty, redundant and really a further stab at our social programs and not a cure at all for poverty, but instead will perpetuate the malignant problem of poverty in Canada.
Therefore, I table our report.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might get unanimous consent from the House to introduce, in both official languages, the New Democrats minority response to the report?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You do not need unanimous consent. Go ahead.


Chris Axworthy: The
response of the New Democratic Party to the majority report of the subcommittee on poverty is somewhat similar to that just mentioned by my colleague from Winnipeg.
This House has unanimously voted to resolve to end child poverty by the year 2000. This report will not ensure that child poverty is ended by the year 2000.
The Prime Minister made a commitment in signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child to make children the first goal in national resources in good times and bad times.
This report will not support fully that call. It appears to me that the majority response from the subcommittee will hold back both the Prime Minister's commitment

Routine Proceedings
and the commitment of this House on the motion of November 1989 to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
What we have available is the New Democrats response which will ensure that the appropriate measures are taken to prevent poverty, rather than just to respond to it once it arises.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Hon. Otto Jelinek (for the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-48, an act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and to amend other acts in consequences thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Jelinek for Mr. McDermid moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



JUDGES ACT


A. Kim Campbell: for leave to introduce Bill C-50, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Supreme Court Act and to make related and consequential amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES WATER ACT


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-51, an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Siddon moves that the bill be read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



YUKON WATERS ACT


Thomas Edward Siddon: for leave to introduce Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Siddon moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
December 12, 1991

Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



SPECIAL ECONOMIC MEASURES ACT


Otto John Jelinek: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, an act to provide for the imposition of special economic measures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Jelinek for Mrs. McDougall moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING AGENCIES ACT


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. McKnight moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a hunch that we are not going to
Routine Proceedings
get to Questions on the Order Paper today because of other items planned for Routine Proceedings.
I have a question for my friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. As was suggested yesterday, I wonder if during the adjournment as the various questions are answered they could simply be tabled with the Clerk so that we would not have to wait until the House reconvenes before the answers are forthcoming.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend that I am looking at that option at this point and will be back to him with an answer before the day is out.
I also want to indicate to him that I expect we will get to questions, perhaps after we have done some of the motions and can allow the ministers to return to cabinet meetings. Then we could answer them at that time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for me to move the following motion without debate or amendment:
That eight members and the necessary staff of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to eastern and western Europe within the context of its current study on the role of the Canadian Forces in a changing world at any time between January 26,1992 and February 16,1992 for a period not exceeding a total of 15 days inclusive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent.

Routine Proceedings




Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(l)(a), I move:
That eight members and the necessary staff of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be authorized to travel to eastern and western Europe within the context of its current study on the role of the Canadian Forces in a changing world at any time between January 26, 1992 and February 16, 1992 for a period not exceeding a total of 15 days inclusive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And less than 25 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I first of all want to make it clear that we did not stand in opposition to this motion because we had supported the motion in principle. But I do want to register strong opposition to the use of this Standing Order for this purpose.
Obviously when Standing Order 56.1 was drafted, the intention was that it would be used only when proper notice was impossible to give and action had to be taken. Obviously there was ample time for notice to be given, and I regret the use of this very Draconian Standing Order in this rather casual way.
I simply want to go on record to say that in future our co-operation certainly will not be forthcoming, and I want to say that this is inappropriate.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am also very worried about the use of Standing Order 56.1(l)(a) in this case, to allow eight members to enjoy the perks of a trip around the world for two weeks.
The fact is that a very Draconian measure is being taken for the sake of a trip that will let members travel all over the globe. My point is, that this year the government is making the same mistake it made last year by offering-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but that is the Standing Order.


Mr. Saint-Julien:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. We know how many members will be on this trip and how many weeks they will be away. However, I would like to know right away how much this is going to cost.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find that there is consent for me to move the following motion without debate or amendment:
That nine members and the necessary staff of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to
Washington, D.C., from February 9 to February 12, 1992 to study
the American auditing and accountability system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Shut up, Joe. Mr. Speaker, I listened when the hon. member for Yellowhead had something to say earlier.




The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Tis the season to be jolly. Let's not get into that now.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) I move:
December 12, 1991

That nine members and the necessary staff of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Washington,
D.C., from February 9 to February 12, 1992, to study the American
auditing and accountability system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Andre, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(l)(a), moves that nine members and the necessary staff of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., from February 9 to February 12,1992, to study the American auditing and accountability system.
Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?
And less than 25 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Rocheleau:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think it is indecent for the government to go on free trips around the world, when Canadian citizens are being asked to tighten their belts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If hon. members disagree with the Standing Orders then they should do something about that. Otherwise there is no sense debating it in the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I might have concerns about the Standing Order, but at least we should follow it. Before this Standing Order is to be used there has to be an attempt to seek unanimous consent prior to the moving of this motion.
It seems to me that procedure was not followed so what we have just done is actually out out of order.
If I am allowed to complete my remarks, I first of all want to say that the procedure was not followed here as per the Standing Order. Second, I want to register once again my strong opposition to the inappropriate use of Standing Order 56.1, to it being used for a particular initiative for which it was never intended.
I simply say in closing that had adequate notice been given on Tuesday this would not have been necessary.
Routine Proceedings
But again I want to say that this motion has been proceeded with inappropriately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As far as I am
concerned, the motion was proceeded according to Standing Orders. There is no doubt in my mind.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find that there would be unanimous consent in the House to revert from motions to petitions, thereafter completing petitions and then referring back to motions.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we may do petitions and then allow me to answer the questions as well before returning to the concurrence motions.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, before the points of order on the motion by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I rose on the motion for the trip to Washington.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and I refuse to go on this trip.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the member wishes to get any information he should check with his Whip.


PETITIONS
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by approximately 2,200 people who wish to petition Parliament with regard to the Young Offenders Act.
They have asked me to present this petition to Parliament in memory of 16-year old Anne Marie Bloskie who was brutally murdered in Barry's Bay last summer.
They make some very cogent points in here. They say that section 16 of the Young Offenders Act fails to provide to the public protection from dangerous young criminals, that the community interest should be protected by allowing the participation of the community

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
through the utilization of trial by judge and jury where young offenders are involved in offences of extreme violence and murder, and that they disagree with the light sentence that is involved with Bill C-12.
They are very concerned that once young offenders are sentenced to prison they have proper medical facilities available to treat them the moment they are incarcerated and that they be properly assessed before they are allowed back out on the streets. Therefore the petitioners recommend that psychological treatment for young offenders should be mandatory and immediate upon sentencing.
I present the petition on behalf of 2,200 very serious petitioners from across Ontario.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
The first was signed by some 350 residents of Jasper, Alberta. They are opposed to proposed regulations which would close the airstrip in Jasper National Park.
The second petition was signed by 33 residents of the city of Calgary who also support the retention of airstrips in both Jasper and Banff National Parks.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise also pursuant to Standing Order 36. I have a petition signed by 152 fish plant workers from the Meteghan, Saulnierville, Weymouth and Church Point areas of southwestern Nova Scotia. They work in the herring fishery and are opposed to the practice of over-the-side sales when fish plants have no work.
The petitioners humbly pray and call on the House of Commons to urge the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take measures to stop the over-the-side sale of herring and help Canadians process the fish for sale to the foreigners.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I also have another one signed by 1,313 people from the Yarmouth area of southwestern Nova Scotia.
The petitioners are concerned about the government's constitutional proposal to transfer the jurisdiction of housing to the provinces without compensation. They are worried that the provinces will not be able to afford to maintain the current level of housing assistance on their own.
The petitioners call upon the minister responsible for Constitutional affairs to look again at this transfer.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table with you today.
The first petition has in excess of 2,000 names of individuals from the island of Cape Breton who are opposed to the privatization of the rail line between Sydney and Truro, Nova Scotia.
These petitioners come from such communities as Glace Bay, Sydney, New Waterford, Dominion, Sydney River and Port Morien. They call upon the government to intervene with CN in order to preclude this particular privatization of a rail line which has served the industrial heartland of Cape Breton for a good number of years.
My second petition again has in excess of 2,000 names. It comes from many parts of Cape Breton, particularly rural Cape Breton. Individuals from all over the island are opposed to the government's privatization of the rail line between Sydney and Truro, Nova Scotia.
The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada, under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, to give a directive to CN in order to preclude the privatization of this rail line. It is very important not only to the industrial heartland of Cape Breton, but it has a profound economic impact in rural Cape Breton, namely on Stora Forest Industries as well as the coal industry, the steel industry and all other major sectors of our economy.
They call upon the government to act on behalf of those citizens who are opposed to the privatization of this railway line.
December 12, 1991


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present more than 100 petitions which contain thousands of signatures of citizens in Burlington, Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Dundas, Mississauga, Oakville, Scarborough, Guelph, Kitchener, and all over southwestern Ontario.
The petitioners urge the government to stiffen the penalties for violent crime and point in particular to the death of Miss Nina de Villiers who was brutally murdered on August 9, 1991.
The petitioners ask that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General continue to review all legislation that deals with public safety and negotiate where necessary with provincial authorities to ensure the laws are amended to reflect the concern expressed by the petitioners on public safety.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several Canadians from the national capital region, that is by people on both sides of the river, in both provinces. The petition asks the federal government to do something about oil prices in the area, which are excessively high compared with prices in other areas such as southern Ontario.


Mr. Al Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition signed by approximately 50 residents of my riding of Okanagan Centre.
They call upon the Government of Canada to give genuine support to the people of Ukraine by officially recognizing Ukraine's independence in establishing full diplomatic relations with the government and the people of Ukraine.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 regarding a petition related to the Atlantic Catch Failure Program.
It is signed by residents, mostly fisherpersons and those involved in the fish plants from Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay and Conception Bay, all affected by the catch failure program. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that their living depends very much on the fishery and
Routine Proceedings
1991 was the biggest failure in the memories of those who are involved.
The Atlantic Catch Failure Program which was introduced in October was supposed to be a response, but unfortunately the response was inadequate to the crisis which threatens the continued viability of the industry, the existence of communities and the livelihood of the fishermen, plant workers and their families. It is going to be a cold winter for many families.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to review the Atlantic Catch Failure Program to ensure a timely and a very adequate response and a redress for all those whose livelihoods have been so adversely affected by the failure of the fishery this year.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions I would like to table today.
The first one is from over 100 participants in Snow Show in Thunder Bay who are all calling on the government and Parliament to restore VIA Rail to its levels of a couple of years ago.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, a number of petitioners from Prince Edward Island are very concerned about the plans for building a bridge or causeway to connect it to the mainland.
They are asking for a halt to all business until such time as a direct vote of the public is held in the form of a plebiscite.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a third group of petitions from hundreds of people from Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario who are totally against the GST, the free trade agreement, the high interest rates and the high dollar and ask Parliament to do something about it.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the patrons of the Ukrainian Cultural Centre in Thunder Bay and the Holy Cross Ukrainian Church in Thunder Bay, I am pleased to table a petition that asks Parliament to advise the federal government to declare September 7, Ukrainian Day in recognition of the rich heritage and enormous contribution of Canadians of Ukrainian descent.

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would agree with that. [Translation]


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions signed by 700 constituents in the riding of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. These constituents are veiy worried about the GATT negotiations. They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to protect our supply management systems during these negotiations.
I would also like to inform the House that during the past three weeks, I tabled petitions with about 1,200 signatures, in addition to the 700 I tabled today, which means that a total of 1,900 people have demonstrated their interest in this veiy important matter.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present two petitions signed by people from my riding.
The first says that dairy and poultry farmers of Canada are concerned that the marketing systems may be in jeopardy due to the implementation of the free trade agreement and the current round of GATT negotiations.
Canadian dairy and poultry farmers have developed the most sophisticated marketing system in the world and provide high quality products to our consumers.
These petitioners are from such places in my riding as Lower Bedeque, Femwood, Albany, Crapaud and other places. They instruct the government to hold our Canadian system up as an example to the rest of the world and to protect it in the current round of GATT negotiations.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, the other petition I have concerns transportation links to Prince Edward Island.
The Government of Canada has constitutional responsibility for the development of these lines. The Government of Canada's long-term solution for the province's transportation needs, the contract for the bridge, has yet to be approved. Following the award of the contract it
may take seven to ten years to complete construction. The Government of Canada's ferry service between the province and the mainland is now being stretched beyond capacity.
These petitioners from places in my riding such as Cornwall, North River, Long Creek, Harrington and other communities. They say to the government that Prince Edward Islanders deserve and require a vastly improved ferry service.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions today. The first one has to do with the cutbacks in VIA Rail service, signed by a great many of my constituents who have been directly affected by the cuts in VIA Rail and some who have had meaningful access to their cottages cut back severely.
They call upon the government to maintain VIA Rail, Canada's present national network, to upgrade VIA Rail with new equipment, and to give VIA Rail a sufficient budget to maintain its national mandate for passenger service.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have another petition here, Mr. Speaker. I note that the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan presented a petition having to do with Ukrainian heritage.
Mr. Speaker, as you might know, the Ukrainians and the Scots share a patron saint in St. Andrew. I have the honour to present a petition calling on the federal government to declare April 6, Tartan Day, in recognition of the rich heritage and enormous contribution of Canadians of Scottish descent.
I hope this petition might find favour with the Chair.


Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 as well with two petitions.
The first one is on behalf of numerous agricultural producers in the province of Alberta. Many of them are from the riding of Macleod which I serve.
These producers are very concerned with the current multilateral negotiations at the Uruguay round on the
December 12, 1991

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, more specifically the rules regarding international agricultural trade.
The many poultry and egg producers and concerned citizens of Alberta who have signed this petition support the efforts of this Government of Canada at the GATT negotiations. They support the federal government's position on the issue of agricultural trade. They want an agreement which restores sanity to international agricultural trade.
They urge the Canadian government to maintain its position on article XI of the GATT, to maintain a position that should be clarified and strengthened to protect Canada's system of supply management.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is a very substantive one. It is on behalf of 600 citizens of the province of Alberta. Most of the signatures come from the riding of Macleod.
The petition is in support of the proposed spending control act, an important piece of legislation and one widely supported by the people of Macleod.
By signing this petition they have indicated their support for the federal government's initiative to legislate limits on government spending. They have simple message for all hon. members of the House, that enough is enough.
They want us to get the government's fiscal house in order and ask that members of the House unanimously support this legislation.
These are from many communities.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I too have a petition to present to this House. It is my honour and duty to do so and it has been certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It contains the signatures of many Canadians living in my riding of Hamilton West, right through down to Tillson-burg, Binbrook and other areas of Hamilton and Burlington.
They join the over 100,000 petitioners who have all called on this House to support the parents of Nina de Villiers and request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and
Routine Proceedings
abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of people from central British Columbia, calling upon the Government of Canada to recognize an independent and sovereign Croatia. They are calling upon the government to provide adequate humanitarian aid for those gallant Croatians defending their families, their homes and their homeland. They raised a number of other items, but I will present those at subsequent times.
I want to say that I consider it a privilege and indeed an honour to have this opportunity to make this presentation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter I have a petition from a large number of constituents, literally many hundreds of people. I have not counted all of the names.
They point out their concern that the government's 9 per cent goods and services tax is causing a great deal of economic pain for increasing numbers of Canadians and are asking the government to reconsider continuing with this tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, petitioners from Kamloops are calling upon the Government of Canada to ensure that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has adequate funding to enable it to fulfil its mandate and its role as the only visible police force for communities across British Columbia.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On the last matter, the petitioners are pointing out their concern for the plan of a Vancouver based company, in co-operation with a California based company, and their intention to dam the North Thompson River at Vavenby, British Columbia, in an effort to divert some of the water into the San Diego, California area.
They are simply calling upon the government to indicate that Canadian rivers are not for sale.

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some 1,500 people from Montreal and more specifically Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and certified by the clerk of petitions.
The petitioners are concerned and want Parliament to pass legislation now to limit government spending.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition dated November 22 which I just received very recently. The petition is signed by a number of members from the Ukrainian community in my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
They call upon the government to recognize Ukraine, to recognize its independence and to move to establish full diplomatic relations.
On behalf of the Ukrainian community in Moose Jaw and on behalf of all constituents in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I want to congratulate the government on its swift recognition of Ukraine and would urge the government to press forward with its establishment of full diplomatic relations with the government and the people of Ukraine.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 52 and 138.


Mr. Skelly (North Island-Powell River): With respect to security of the mail (a) have many letter carriers have been robbed in (i) 1990 (ii) 1991 (b) are letter carriers permitted to leave government cheques in relay boxes and, if not,
for what reason (c) does Canada Post insist that government cheques be carried at all times by letter carriers (d) are keys to relay boxes given to contractors and, if so, what effect does that have on security (e) what measures has Canada Post taken to inform the public to be more careful with valuables shipped in the mail?


Harvie Andre: A) Nationally, our incidents are as follows:
(i)	In December 1990 there was one attempted robbery and one which resulted in the loss of approximately 120 pieces of mail.
(ii)	In March 1991 there were two armed robberies of letter carriers, one resulting in the loss of official keys and the satchel and the other in the loss of keys.
No injuries were sustained in any of the above events.
B)	As a result of a number of incidents relative to relay boxes, including theft and break-ins of these boxes, we implemented an interim protective measure to have letter carriers carry government cheques rather then sending them to their respective relay boxes. This measure was implemented March 1, 1991 and remains in place.
C)	As indicated above, an interim procedure was implemented to have letter carriers carry government cheques rather then sending to relay boxes. This procedure is still in place.
D)	Relay box keys are issued to contracted personnel for the purpose of delivering letter carrier relay bags at locations where employees are not used and for maintenance purposes. All such contractors are security screened by Canada Post and the keys are signed for and returned daily.
E)	Canada Post corporation encourage its customers to purchase insurance when mailing items of intrinsic value within the guidelines of the corporation's policy.


Mr. Nunziata: Since 1988 have any members of the parliamentary press gallery entered into any contract with the government and, if so, (a) what are the names of the individuals (b) what was the nature of the contract or services provided (c) what was the individual paid?


Albert Glen Cooper: I am informed as follows:

Routine Proceedings
(a)
(b)
(c)
Debra Brown Communications Services


[Stage Direction]
Richard Inwood Participation on the Basic
Public Affairs Officers Course
$	500.
500.
Murray Maltais	Research services
Kenneth Pole	Speech writing
[Stage Direction]
$	535.
749. 1,050.
Jeffrey Simpson Preparation and presentation of a summary
session given at a seminar on the role of supply management by the National Farm Products Marketing Council.
Researching, writing, preparing and presenting of a speech, on the role citizenship plays in the current constitutional debate from a nongovernmental, non-partisan perspective.
[Stage Direction]
$ 3,938.26 (Incl. travel expenses)
Guest Speaker-Department of Finance	$ 1,500.
management seminar.
Michel Vastel Acting as an animator from outside the federal	$	500.
government to provide the context for a discussion of national unity issues at a departmental senior management meeting.
E&I
[Stage Direction]
PMO/PCO
[Stage Direction]

PRIV. & REG. AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Other departments have no information on this subject.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 137 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 137 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Breaugh: Did the government host a reception held on the fourth floor terrace of the United Nations Building in New York, during the opening of the General Assembly of the United Nations in the fall 1991, and, if so, (a) what was the cost of food served (b) what was on the menu (c) what beverages were served and what were (i) their country of origin (ii) total cost (d) what other costs were associated with this event, such as transportation, room rentals, service and communications?

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Return tabled.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to seek clarification from my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in terms of the questions that are yet unanswered and are in contravention of the Standing Orders as a result because they are long past the 45 days required.
Could I ask my friend if he would indicate whether or not he has had a chance to consider the suggestion that as the questions are answered the answers be tabled during adjournment?


Albert Glen Cooper: No, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. member last raised this issue I have been in my seat and have not had a chance to do those consultations, but I assure him I will.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Hawkes:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just before we come to motions.
Earlier I was tempted to rise when some Independents raised some questions about the costing of motions for parliamentary committees to travel.
I just want the House to know that in my riding my constituents are worried about paying salaries to those same members because they show up here so very seldom.




Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Friday, November 1, be concurred in.
We could adopt the motion now, but I believe it would be appropriate for me to say a few remarks.

All members of the House will admit that if we want to make the best use of resources we must be able to measure the performance of programs. Such evaluations enable members of Parliament, public servants and Canadians at large to check whether the rationale, objectives and design of programs are satisfactory and to compare the desired and observed results.
Thanks to the program evaluation done at the Department of Finance, Parliament and Canadians have been better informed of how efficiently bureaucrats or civil servants, if you prefer, handle their tax dollars.
These performance evaluations are particularly important when budgets are tight. Canadians have never been asked to do so much to reduce the budget deficit. Because of these many constraints, future governments, of whatever party, will have difficulty fulfilling their mandate, for lack of resources.
Therefore it has never been so important for Canadians to know that the various government policies are justified and cost effective. Canadians want to be sure that they are getting their money's worth. That is clear and I think it is justified.
Taxpayers are increasingly reluctant to loosen the purse strings. They are waiy of the excessive demands made by all governments. Never have the objectives of various tax measures been called into question so much. I am thinking of the Income Ihx Act, remission orders, tax incentives for investment and the goods and services tax, to name only these.
The public accounts committee, which I chair, was therefore very surprised to learn that the Department of Finance was reorganizing the way it evaluates tax measures. The committee expressed great concern about the cavalier way that the department dismantled the tax evaluation division. Just an internal memo announced the reorganization of the important evaluation unit. A
December 12, 1991

reminder of the events that led to the creation of the tax evaluation division in the Department of Finance is in order. As we know, this division was created in 1987 following many recommendations made by the Auditor General, the public accounts committee of the House of Commons and the Senate finance committee.
In 1983 the Auditor General already pointed out that finance was the only major department that had no program evaluation function. The Auditor General noted that the Department of Finance was the only department that apparently felt no obligation to give someone responsibility for program evaluation or to set up an evaluation unit. At the time, however, there were very clear Treasury Board guidelines which applied to all departments and agencies.
Perhaps I could give a few examples to illustrate the need for program evaluation. In 1984, the Department of Finance suggested introducing a research and development tax credit. Without an evaluation unit, this piece of fiscal foolhardiness ended up costing Canadians several billion dollars. Unfortunately the tax measure had not been evaluated by a special evaluation unit before it was introduced.
In his 1985 report the Auditor General of Canada highlighted the problems associated with the remission order given to the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited. It was after these events that the Senate Committee on National Finance and the House of Commons Committee on Public Accounts suggested the regular publication of a tax expenditure account.

In 1987 the finance department finally gave in and announced the establishment of a tax evaluation division. This new unit was to evaluate the effectiveness of fiscal policies in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Comptroller General of Canada.

The program evaluation policy, as revised in August 1991, provides that the deputy minister is responsible for reviewing all programs in his department.
He must report on program productivity and entrust a independent senior manager with the management of the evaluation process. He is also responsible for setting evaluation criteria and ensuring that all programs are evaluated periodically.
Routine Proceedings

I should emphasize that given the prodding needed to get the finance department to establish a tax evaluation division, its getting out of the program three and a half years later is rather strange. It was the last in but the first out.
Numerous reports from the Auditor General, the public accounts committee of this House and the Senate finance committee were published on the inefficiency of some tax measures.
Furthermore, commitments made by the department in the past were given to the public accounts committee. The decision to put a discreet stop to the division's activities three and a half years later without informing the Office of the Comptroller General, the committee or the Auditor General is surprising, to say the least.
The committee had commitments made in March 1988 and signed by the previous Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. I quote from the second paragraph of that letter: "I am entirely in accord with the committee's conclusion that Parliament needs information of higher quality on tax incentives, accountability and the tax system". The minister went even further and also assured the public accounts committee that the mandate of the division would: "provide evaluation of tax measures independent from line management".
The reorganization proposed by the Department of Finance three years later will not respect these commitments given by the former Minister of Finance, especially the requirements that the program evaluation be made independent from line management.

What the finance department proposed as an alternative to the evaluation unit does not meet Treasury Board guidelines. The guidelines issued by the Comptroller General's office require that these programs be evaluated independently, as I said earlier.
We think it is clear the department will no longer observe this guideline and these commitments. Furthermore, the Comptroller General requires that all programs be evaluated, every single one. Now that the division has been disbanded, the department no longer has an independent evaluation function. For instance, the government must finance, by means of various

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
financial instruments, $400 billion in cumulative debt. The government's most expensive program, debt servicing, which in 1991 will cost us $41 million, is not evaluated. No one, including parliamentarians who are regularly called upon to vote on this matter, knows whether the program is managed efficiently.
This new way of doing or, should I say, not doing things, is a matter of serious concern to members of the public accounts committee. Others are concerned as well. Although the Comptroller General argued that the finance department's decision did not necessarily endanger the program evaluation function and that we should wait to see the results before judging the department's decision, the same Comptroller General acknowledged that the new method of evaluating tax measures was not what he would prefer. This decision must be a matter of serious concern to all parliamentarians. The department reneged on the commitment it gave the public accounts committee in 1987.
What parliamentarians should understand is that the decision to reorganize the evaluation of tax measures puts at risk the independence of evaluations of those measures and the objectivity of the reporting. By giving responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of tax measures to the same managers who developed them, the department inevitably runs the risk of creating conflict situations. Human nature being what it is, officials will always have a tendency to protect the tax measures they propose after several months or years of hard work, even if they prove to be inefficient or too costly. From now on, with the new method of evaluating tax measures, officials will be asked to be both judge and jury.
The finance department told us that these managers would report to a director general who would be outside the authority hierarchy. However, it is likely that this director general will co-ordinate evaluations but have neither authority nor influence. The manager in charge of the evaluation group might not be informed if embarrassing results were discovered.
That is why tax measures must be evaluated independently. As I already said, that is exactly what the Comptroller General of Canada ordered in his directive.
The public accounts committees ask for nothing more and nothing new. We ask the Department of Finance to apply Treasury Board's directives and standards.
Why make an exception today, when it was unacceptable four years ago? Besides the question of the objectivity and independence of evaluations, which involves the validity of the results and analyses, the department's decision will also have other major consequences. For example, the Department of Finance is losing employees who developed very valuable expertise in tax evaluation.
This will all be lost because the Department of Finance has dismantled that division. It will be hard to replace. The tax evaluation division was the only program evaluation unit in the Department of Finance.
The division had to examine tax revenues of over $100 billion a year and tax expenditures of tens of billions of dollars. The Comptroller General's office wants all programs, without exception, to be evaluated periodically. When he appeared before the committee, the Comptroller General admitted that the Department of Finance was unable to evaluate all its programs, including the one we consider the most important, debt service.
The committee is concerned and parliamentarians should also be concerned about this bureaucratic decision. In fact, the committee thinks that the Deputy Minister of Finance will no longer be fulfilling his responsibilities if he does not apply Treasury Board's directives on program evaluation to the letter. As we know, these directives are from the Comptroller General. Parliamentarians must correct this situation.
This division was also meant to foster public discussion. Making information and evaluations public stimulated debate among parliamentarians and all Canadians. With this information, we were able to know whether tax measures were effective or not, whether the objectives and the ways they were reached were right and what these measures cost. With these documents giving a positive or negative assessment of various policies, we could tell whether the same objectives could be achieved at less cost to the public treasury.
The reorganization carried out by the department is therefore regrettable and could have harmful consequences, since Canadians and parliamentarians may from now on be kept ignorant.
December 12, 1991



The division has published several reports on the Cape Breton tax credit, pension plans, exploration tax credits and remission orders. These reports concluded that the fiscal policies put into place were not, these particular measures anyway, always meeting their aims. Other reports were not publicly released by the Department of Finance.
Commitments were given to the public accounts committee by the Department of the Comptroller General. We have on the record these commitments to reduce the committee's apprehensions about the consequences of this bureaucratic decision, but they do not diminish the seriousness of the problem.
The Department of Finance has proposed to table a calendar for the next three years covering evaluations of future tax measures. This will not solve the lack of independence and the lack of objectivity in the evaluations made by employees reporting to a staff manager without real power.
This is why the public accounts committee asked Revenue Canada to join the work of the advisory committee put in place by the Department of Finance. This advisory committee is supposed to establish the work plan and discuss the evaluations.
The Comptroller General has also been invited by the Department of Finance to sit as a representative. The public accounts committee expects the Comptroller General to report to this committee regularly.
Parliamentarians must be informed. Bureaucrats must respect the guidelines established by the Treasury Board. Departments must comply. The Comptroller General should make sure that these guidelines are all respected.
If we allow the Department of Finance not to respect the guidelines the message sent to the other departments will be wrong. We fear that the example set by the Department of Finance could be something that would be repeated in other departments and I do believe would lead to a very serious situation in terms of the government's control over public funds.
The Department of Finance plays a major role and has a lot of influence in the working of the government.
Routine Proceedings
A precedent could be created by this department. Other departments might be tempted, as I said, to disband their program evaluations unit.

In conclusion, if each department and agency acted like the Department of Finance, we would have confusion and chaos. There would be no more standards and therefore no more controls. Members should rise in the House and sound the alarm and tell bureaucrats and public servants that we want standards, we want controls, we want information, and we want it to be effective and efficient.

The repercussions for all Canadians could be very costly. Parliament could be kept in complete ignorance as to whether, for example, the finance department tax measures are efficient. By adopting this unanimous report by the public accounts committee a strong signal will be sent throughout the government.
I therefore want to thank the members of the committee for their co-operation in presenting the second report and I hope the House will approve of it.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier who, as chairman of the committee, does an excellent job and who this morning explained in a correct detailed way the motion before us that deals with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which made recommendations concerning the Department of Finance.
On the issue discussed this morning, I think we must go back a bit and ask why the Department of Finance decided to close something down. You will remember that in 1984, when we were elected, the government was spending $16 billion more every year than it took in, setting aside interest on the debt for now. I repeat that as far as operations are concerned, the government that preceded us spent $16 billion more than it took in. This year our government will spend almost $13 billion less than it takes in, which means that there has been a turnaround of close to $30 billion in seven years. How was this change brought about? How is it that today the government is running an operating surplus when it ran a

Routine Proceedings
deficit before? There have been tax increases, and I believe that all Canadians will agree that those were reasonable increases that account for approximately 30 per cent of those $30 billion. There have also been cuts in the federal government and the public service, which account for 70 per cent of those $30 billion. It is in those cuts, in that 70 per cent, that we find the issue we are discussing this morning.
Right now, we have the same number of public servants as in 1973. We have eliminated 12,000 civil service positions since 1984. These are all factors to take into consideration in the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. One of this government's major commitments is to cut spending and thus reduce our debt. As you would do in your own house, or my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier would do in his, reducing spending and thus reducing our debts means making cuts. In the case that now concerns us, the committee is worried about an internal committee of the Department of Finance for tax evaluation. That is the big subject of discussion this morning. I would point out to hon. members, that since his report was tabled in the House in October or November, the Department of Finance normally has 150 days to respond to my colleague's report. Up to now, as he mentioned, I know that the deputy minister has submitted his comments and the department has already put in place several of the proposals put forward by my hon. colleague in his report.
I think that the committee has done an excellent job, and its chairman too, of course. We ought to continue, in this vein, to deal with issues in this non-partisan way for the sake of all Canadian men and women.
Having said this, I disagree with my hon. colleague on one point and that is when he says that because the tax evaluation division no longer exists, all of sudden nobody will know what is going on. I think, that we should go back to the roots of the system and the people involved in it, namely the members of this House. They are the ones who ultimately, decide, tax, financial, social and cultural issues. Members of the House of Commons are responsible for tax decisions and it is also our duty to see to it that over time the tax measures in place that were
passed by Parliament are good and worthwhile for the country and for the people of this country. In the end, this is our responsibility as elected members of Parliament.
Civil servants are there to assist the elected members to make decisions. They are there to serve the Canadian public as a whole. I think this is the basic system that we should keep in mind when we look at the matter which my hon. colleague raised this morning.
One of the committee's recommendations had to do with monitoring. As my colleague explained, the Comptroller General's Office will have a representative on the committee which will be set up precisely to look at tax policies. We must not forget that the quality of the work done by the department will be maintained because there are still people there, even though a division is gone, and a review will also be done by outside experts and reports will be published. I believe these are the two key factors that will help members of this House decide on tax matters and on the review of fiscal programs put in place by the Department of Finance.
In conclusion, I want to say that I appreciate the work done by the committee, its members and its chairman. However, it may be premature this morning to make a final decision on the committee's recommendations, because the Department of Finance is still looking into the matter, although it showed good faith by implementing several recommendations of the committee.
The House must give the Department of Finance time to to complete its review and to enable the public accounts committee to keep up its excellent work so that the Department of Finance can also work for the well-being of all Canadians.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to speak in favour of the concurrence motion of my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
The motion is with respect to concurrence in the recommendations and the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report deals with the disbanding of the tax evaluation division of the Ministry of Finance.
December 12, 1991

It is somewhat a concern, certainly to myself, the New Democratic Party and the members of the public accounts committee that the department had to be essentially badgered into seeing the wisdom of a tax evaluation system and finally proceeded with that system. A division within the department separate and apart from the rest has now only after three and a half short years been disbanded very quietly by way of interdepartmental memo.
In defence of the department it has set up another system but one which I would suggest lacks the independence which certainly most of the committee and I would like to see.
We looked at what an evaluation system is and why we are talking about it. It is set up within the Treasury Board guidelines in the program evaluation policy in which in setting out the policy of an evaluation system it says: "The objective is to ensure that federal departments have relevant, credible and objective information available on the performance of their programs and they use that information for the cost effective and accountable management of programs".
The policy statement that follows says: "It is the government's policy to periodically evaluate the continued relevance, success and cost effectiveness, i.e. program performance of federal programs, and use that information to reconfirm, improve or discontinue programs".
In light of that this program within the tax department was ultimately set up. I think if we look further within that document, in table 1 as to the program evaluation issues, we see a number of questions such as: Does the program continue to be consistent with departmental and government-wide priorities and address realistically an actual need? In the basic evaluation issues are the activities and outputs of the program consistent with its mandate and plausibly linked to the attainment of the objectives and intended impacts and effects? What impacts and effects, both intended and unintended, resulted from carrying out the program? In what manner and to what extent does the program complement,
Routine Proceedings
duplicate, overlap or work at cross-purposes with other programs?
The statement further says: "In what manner and to what extent were appropriate programs objectives achieved as a result of the program? Are there more cost effective alternative programs which might achieve the objectives and intended impacts and effects? Are there more cost effective ways of delivering the existent program?"
It is within that context that all departments have been asked by Treasury Board to set up and maintain an evaluation system. It is within that context I would suggest that over an approximate eight-year period the finance department was pushed, pulled and badgered into finally in 1987 setting up a tax evaluation system.
I think it might be helpful to look a bit at the history of this pushing, pulling and badgering in getting into the context of why we in the public accounts committee looked so seriously upon the disbanding of a tax evaluation division.
It was way back in 1983 that the Auditor General pointed out that the Department of Finance was the only major department without an evaluation unit. In 1984 he again noted that the finance department had displayed negligence in proposing a research and development tax credit that had cost the taxpayer almost $3 billion.
He was pointing to the fact that had there been a proper evaluation within the department perhaps this bleeding of taxpayers' money would have been cauterized. The wound would have been cauterized and the bleeding would have stopped before it got to such an extent of depleting taxpayers' money into a program that was found wanting.
In the Auditor General's 1985 report he highlighted the problems associated in the Department of Finance by highlighting the remission order given to the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company, once again showing that had there been a tax evaluation system set up within the department it would have been forewarned and not been in a problem that cost the Canadian government so many dollars.

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
It was in this context that the committee on public accounts suggested the regular publication of a tax expenditure account. It stressed the need to introduce an evaluation function into the Department of Finance that would be separate from the department's policy function. I think we should remember that when we think of what has since happened with the tax evaluation system and how it is proposed to now evaluate the tax measures within the Department of Finance.
Continuing historically, in 1986 the Auditor General recommended to the Department of Finance that it ensure that tax delivered systems were accurately evaluated. He asked that the framework reflect Treasury Board guidelines.
Finally in 1987 the Department of Finance acted on some of those recommendations. It set up a new unit to evaluate the effectiveness of fiscal policies in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Comptroller General.
It had been a long, hard struggle but finally there was a system set up, money was set aside and the tax measure evaluation system kicked in.
It appeared that this system was working well. The people within the department, using their expertise, were able to step back from the policy of the on-line managers and look at systems set in place within Canada in the various tax measures, choose strategic ones, point out errors and mistakes, and ensure that they were properly evaluated so that things such as the scientific tax credit bleeding were not repeated again.
We have concern certainly with the way this was dismantled. In a memo from Ian E. Bennett dated July 15, 1991 he states that the purpose of this memorandum he sent around to his department was to advise that the plans to reorganize the way in which the department performs its tax evaluation function were going to be disbanded. He puts it in the context of budgetary cutbacks. I say now that I have grave doubts as to whether that was the real reason for these cutbacks. The amount of the budget for this tax evaluation division was not that great in the context of the billions of dollars spent each year.
It was well under $1 million for the staffing which had been cut back over the years. In this memo he states: "In an effort to ensure the department's limited financial and personnel resources are deployed in a most efficient and effective manner, it has been decided that future evaluation work will be performed within operating divisions of the branch. The tax evaluation division will be disbanded and every effort will be made to assist those individuals affected in finding suitable jobs in the branch".
I am afraid that is not good enough. After so many years of pushing and trying to get a tax measures evaluation system set up and finally getting one that was just adequately getting started, I question whether the department was really looking at the cost of this matter or whether it was looking at trying to ensure that embarrassing matters that could be delved into and dug up by this committee were not kept under wraps. That is not a good reason for disbanding a system that can unearth or ensure the proper value for people's money, the people of Canada's money.
In fairness, this memo stated that there would be a system set up to evaluate work: "Each operating division will incorporate a program for tax evaluation studies as part of its annual work plan. Preparation of an annual tax evaluation plan will be co-ordinated by the general director, analysis, of the tax policy branch and the completed plan will be submitted to the department's evaluation advisory committee by the senior assistant deputy minister. The evaluation advisory committee chaired by an associate deputy minister will review and approve the annual evaluation plan as well as individual evaluation studies. Finally in keeping with current practices, completed studies will be published and released to the public".
We have grave doubts as to whether this complies with the Comptroller General and the Treasury Board's guidelines. From an arm's length review of the evaluation of the programs within a department it seems to me and certainly to the committee that the independence of a tax review is lost in a system when we use the on-line managers to look at the system and make an evaluation.
December 12, 1991

Is it not human nature to ensure that things that are embarrassing for you or your department are covered up? Is it not human nature to want to ensure that policies you have recommended as an on-line manager, policies you have set up, are not shown to be inadequate, are not shown to be wasteful or ineffective? It is a reflection, I would suggest, on you as the on-line manager.
It seems to me with this lack of independence you would also get a lack of objectivity of the reporting. Even though it is to go back and be looked at by the director general who is to oversee the evaluation, it seems to me, and this is reflected in the committee report, that the information fed to the director general will be coloured by the perceptions of the on-line managers, those very people who set out the policies originally.
A system that sets out the responsibility to evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the fiscal policies of the department and the government, a system that looks to those same officials who developed the policies, runs the risk of getting us into a conflict situation, a conflict of interest as I have already set out. I think we have to be very cautious of that. That is why I believe the committee and I personally are so upset at this cavalier throwing off of a responsibility.
It has also been pointed out by the member from Vanier that it is first in and first out. First of all, it was unfortunate that they took so long in getting an evaluation program but it is worse than that now that they have taken it away. By doing that, they have shown that they can turn their back on Treasury Board and on the Comptroller General and simply say: "We do not want an evaluation program". Here is a major department with $400 million that goes through every year that has successfully been able to turn its back on the guidelines, to turn its back on the Comptroller General and say: "We do not want a system of evaluating from without. We will do it from within". What is to prevent other departments from doing the same thing?
The Comptroller General assured us that he would not let that happen and yet what power does the Comptroller General have not to? The power lies within the departments to set up their programs. The Comp-
Routine Proceedings
trailer General does not have the power to stop them from cutting out the evaluation system. That is my fear. With one of the majors getting away with it, others who decide to save a bit of money will say: "We really do not have to do that because finance has shown us we do not have to do it". They will turn their backs on evaluating their systems. I think that over all that could have a devastating affect upon government programs, upon what we get as the public, upon what we get as members of Parliament on the information of the programs set up within our various departments.
We in the public accounts committee take our job very seriously. All sides of the House have worked hard within that department. They have looked at the systems. They have looked at whether the program within the systems were valid. I have worked in concert, over the two years that I have been a member of the public accounts committee, with the Auditor General in trying to see whether the people of Canada are getting value for their money within the government and within the various programs.
When you have a department that makes it difficult for the public accounts committee to do its job, you have a department that will not work within the system and the guidelines set out. You have a department that tends to ignore some of the requests and the recommendations of not only the Auditor General, but a parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It does not bode well, I believe, for the future of the programs.
I have set out some of the concerns and the Comptroller General has said in evidence before the public accounts committee that he does not sit in judgment yet on the system that they have set out and I have outlined briefly from the memo within the department. He is willing to give it a chance.
I have set out a couple of things that have concerned me and have concerned the committee. There have been some efforts to go part way in meeting some of the concerns of the committee by the finance department.
I think the thing that would make me happiest, and I am sure that the members of the committee would agree with this, is that the policy guidelines set out within Treasury Board were followed. In fact there was set up within the tax department an independent body uncon-

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
nected with the policy makers who could look at the systems.
I implore the department and this government to look at that over the next while and reconsider where they are going. It is important when we have a department in charge and dealing with as much money as this department that we ensure as taxpayers in Canada that those systems work. They should work within the context of how they were set up to work and in the context of giving value to people for money. We should ensure that they do not cost the Treasury of this country, particularly during a time of restraint and recession, billions and billions of dollars because of some people within the system who are protecting their jobs and their backsides because the programs have been inappropriately set up.
I urge the House to pass this motion of concurrence to send a message to the Department of Finance that this House will stand by its public accounts committee and that all departments should pay attention to the recommendations of the public accounts committee.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take a whole lot of the House's time. Members may or may not know that this is the subject matter that I taught at university. I had the honour some time ago, in the first two or three years after my election, to be the keynote speaker at the founding conference of the Evaluation Research Society of Canada which brought together professionals in this field for the very first time. It is a group that has grown in terms of its influence. It is a group that has grown in terms of its knowledge. The methodology today is I believe a great deal more advanced than it was some 10 years ago.
If you want to go back far enough in my own professional career, I was engaged in evaluation research activities as a graduate student in a doctoral program in the late 1960s and subsequently in the early part of the 1970s. I did an awful lot of evaluations in this country and some of the first that were ever done for the Government of Canada, in particular for the Department of National Health and Welfare.
The Department of Employment and Immigration I guess was larger. The one I remember with particular joy
was in health and welfare, but there were some for the Privy Council Office and other bodies of government.
I guess I felt compelled to speak this morning because of the subject matter and the reality of the nature of this place. I have not heard a word of praise for the current government being in office seven years and for putting an evaluation research program into the Department of Finance. He did say it happened in 1987, but he did not say it with praise as the chairman of the public accounts committee. The place would work a little better if praise was praise and blame was blame and each was articulated according to reality.
The previous government that the current chairman served did not do it. The trigger I guess was the scientific research tax credit which was mentioned. That was a loss of tax revenue of $3 billion or $4 billion because people did not evaluate the consequences of the tax before they put it in. It happened so fast and the leakage was so great that the world has never been quite the same since.
If I were a methodologist looking at the committee report, I would see a committee which has a great deal of difficulty believing the evidence it gets from the Comptroller General as well as the Department of Finance about what it has done and what it intends to do.
It acknowledges that the evidence coming from those sources is different from what the committee report is perhaps concluding. It clearly runs roughshod over those. But perhaps it is more important that the report concluded on November 1, some five weeks ago, and that it wants government to respond in a comprehensive manner.
That is what the parliamentary reform package that our government brought in, in 1985, was designed to do. It was designed to give committees the power to conduct the investigations of their choice, to report to this House and to compel government through the rules to respond within a period of 150 days.
All that is legitimate and all that is appropriate. What is not appropriate, I believe, is that members are forced to stand in this House in December, five or six weeks after the report was presented to the House, and debate for two hours the subject matter of the report.
December 12, 1991

Routine Proceedings
The appropriate time to debate is after the comprehensive report. Then members would have the committee's point of view, the government's point of view, and we could engage in real dialogue. We are sort of blowing by that opportunity with a premature motion for concurrence.
We are asking the House to concur in something that it has not had an adequate response to. We are asking the House to vote for something that it does not know enough about. I think that is inappropriate. That is what is wrong with what is happening here this morning.
We do that from time to time. Every time we do it I think it is wrong. When we move too quickly for concurrence in a report, especially one that deals with difficult and technical subject matter, then we are cheating the Canadian taxpayers out of the kinds of concerns and considerations that we are obliged to provide them with.
This should be a Chamber of serious thought, of serious reflection and of serious debate. If we have no other point of view on a subject matter as important as this, we run the risk of reaching some bad conclusions. It is guaranteed. It is not a risk. It is guaranteed that the time we take in debate costs lots of money. Every hour this place operates is a very expensive hour. Do we spend it on this subject matter, that subject matter, or the next subject matter? It depends.
The chairman of the committee has decided that today we shall spend it on the second report. I simply say to the chairman in the future that he should reflect a little more. If he wants the House to debate the matter and if he wants to move concurrence, then he should not ask for a comprehensive government report unless he intends to not move the actual concurrence until that report is part of the House.
The report may indeed be perfectly satisfactory to all members, in which case two hours of House time could be saved and that is several hundred thousand dollars.
This morning we were talking about committee travel for the public accounts committee itself. We could not have had this two-hour debate today and there would have been enough funds saved to send the committee to Washington several times. We would still have saved the
taxpayers of this country money. We make choices and some of them are better than others.
I want to mention just a few words out of the report itself because they have not had what I would consider to be the proper emphasis. Let us remember that the report is unanimous. This is the third paragraph of the report. The opening sentence reads:
Program evaluation is all the more important in the current context
of budgetary restraint since resource optimization is now obligatory.
I have sat through Question Period in this Parliament for over three years and this is the first documented case in which the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party of Canada signed a document saying that financial restraint is now obligatory. Is that not marvellous? I wonder if we will see that in Question Period today. Get up and ask about this obligatory restraint.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I know what the answer is going to be.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You know what the answer is going to be. For instance, is the chairman of the committee going to ask the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister what the deficit situation is today compared to what it was, and then give the Prime Minister a chance to say that when the Conservatives came into office after those bad guys, the Liberals, were in office for so long the Conservatives had to borrow $16.1 billion? That was $16.1 billion simply to assist in the provision of programs and services in this country and that was in 1984.
As a result of this obligatory spending restraint we are in the position today of having a surplus of $12.7 billion on programs and services that we can apply to the interest on the public debt.
We inherited a situation in which we were borrowing $16.1 billion for programs and services, plus every penny for interest on the public debt. We have turned it around in seven short years into a surplus position. There is no other turnaround of that magnitude in the western world.
How did we do that? It was because we were attuned. Members on this side of the House, chair after chair after chair, desk after desk after desk, committee after committee after committee, brought to this House a concern for practical common sense management. That is what program evaluation is all about. It is about looking at a situation and asking: "Are we wasting money or are we spending money wisely?" It is a belief that pennies add up to dollars, dollars add up to $10, $10 add

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
up to $100, and $100 adds up to $1,000. Out of thousands of dollars come millions of dollars and out of millions come billions if you start to look at your world.
You do not waste two hours of House time on a premature motion, that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. You do not ask for a report from government that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars unless you want it because you believe it is going to have information that is worth while getting. You spend the money on a report, then you request more spending, and then you want a debate before the report comes in that would tell you whether you needed the debate in the first place or the situation was under control.
That is the Liberal-NDP way. It is all sort of show and tell, with not much practicality to it. How on earth did they get the taxpayers of this country into the mess of borrowing $16 billion for programs and services, and every penny for the debt? That is bankruptcy. This country was bankrupt in 1984. We have worked hard for seven years to change the financial situation, and it is working. You have to stick with it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: They laugh. That is their attitude to borrowing $16 billion and putting the burden of debt on their children and their grandchildren and their grandchildren's grandchildren. They have no shame about that. They live in an invented reality. We saw this invented reality yesterday at the end of Question Period, and it seized this Chamber for 30 minutes at the beginning of today. They believe it because they repeat it to each other.


An hon. member:: It was there.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You cannot hear something that was not there. What portion of the caucus are embarrassed by this whole thing? They know when they evaluate the situation, evaluate their own experience, that there are some very good people on all sides of this House, all comers of this House and they are embarrassed. They are embarrassed by a runaway mentality that goes
beyond the facts. That is how you get bad public policy and that is why program evaluation is important.
That is what I taught. I taught graduate students for a number of years at university. The lesson is simply to apply a social science methodology, the scientific principles and the scientific method, to the information needs of decision makers and evaluate to provide better quality, reliable and valid data to decision makers.
The biggest problem we have in this country, I have said it before and I will say it again, is that the media has no such standard for reliable and valid information. The media feeds on rumour and innuendo.
I saw an article in this morning's Toronto Star that began by using the words: "Angry Prime Minister" in the first paragraph. I do not know, but I will bet dollars to donuts the author of that paragraph was not in the Chamber. There were only eight press people out of the 350 that draw paycheques in this town in the whole Chamber.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is with some temerity that I interrupt the hon. member in his comments. However, I was under the impression that we were on a concurrence motion on the public accounts committee's second report. It seems to me that the hon. member has strayed substantially from the report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. government Whip is coming right back to the relevance of the motion. The hon. government Whip.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, a logical chain of evidence and illustrations of a point of view is a foreign concept to a lot of members of the NDP party. They do have trouble following scientific methods because they live in an ideological world where ideas pop out of the sky and do not necessarily have to be related. They can be disjointed. There is a kind of comfort over there.
I have been here some 12-odd years and I have watched it. I am comfortable with the notion that it happens even though it does not please me.
What I am saying is relevant. Let us go back to the portion of the paragraph I read which all members signed, including the members who spoke: "Program
December 12, 1991

evaluation is all the more important in the current context of budgetary restraint since research optimization is now obligatory".
That says that we make good common sense decisions based on accurate information. That is how to get the best bang for the buck. When we listen to headline writers who are never in this Chamber we should be warned that it is bad quality information. Every single person who writes headlines in this country is not familiar with the context. They are trying to sell newspapers, not pass on information.
When people write paragraphs about who looks angry in the context of a front-page news story, and they were not even present, they are writing fiction or hearsay information. I will bet dollars to donuts.
I read the statement of the member for Winnipeg North very carefully. I listened to him when he spoke on decorum in this House. I listened very carefully because it was an excellent, first rate presentation by a relatively new member. He never said in Hansard that he heard anything. He has never said anywhere else, as far as I know, that he heard anything. He was told. He rose on a point of order because of something somebody else told him.
You can see it visually and you can see it in his own words. Then we can get to some sense of reality, some sense of accuracy. It was impossible to hear what is alleged to have been said because it was never said. However, people listen to each other, rumours get started, and rumours get perpetuated.
It is part of our problem in this Chamber. If we are going to criticize maybe I can ask the chairman of the public accounts committee when we are going to get a report from the public accounts committee recommending that the House of Commons have an evaluation research unit to look into some things, for example, how much money some Ottawa area members spend on travel in their own constituency which came out in public accounts documents yesterday. It looks obscene on the surface. There may be a good explanation. Maybe we should have program evaluation research in this unit, in this place, if we are going to say that we need it in lots of other places.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a couple of questions to my friend and colleague. His prior incarnation was as a psychologist. I think he still practises the trade on us sometimes.
Routine Proceedings
As I listened to him today there was a mild criticism of the fact that the committee moved concurrence in that report today. The member for Calgary West says the government has not had a chance to study the report or to reply. We all know that it will reply within the required time, which I believe is 150 days.
I want to make the point to him that the government, in the person of the Comptroller General who is a public servant under the Treasury Board, came to the committee and told us that this action was taken by the Department of Finance very quietly and secretly in the summer without even telling the Comptroller General. We were quite quite taken aback by this practice.
The Comptroller General came into the committee and said: "It is not my preferred option". We thought he was speaking for the government. At least I believe he speaks for the government. I believe he acts and looks after the interests of all Canadians as a servant of Treasury Board and therefore as a servant of the government.
I do not think the criticism that this report was moved today rather than 100 days hence is a very valid criticism. I think the member should use some creative thinking here. We are trying to stop other departments from copying what the Department of Finance did. Copy-cats do exist. We do not want the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans, Revenue Canada, Environment Canada or any other important department-and there are is a whole slew of them-to avoid this controlled program, controlled by the Comptroller General and by Treasury Board, of evaluating their programs.
That is the first point. On the other, he challenged me to ask a question in the House today. He knows that I would love to ask a question in the House today because there is a very serious reservation made by the Auditor General in the Public Accounts of Canada-not by me, not by a House of Commons committee but by a servant of Parliament-to the effect that if we accepted his recommendations, those reservations that the Auditor General has in the Public Accounts of Canada, the budgetary deficit for this year would be $2 billion over and above what the government says it is.
I will quote directly from the Auditor General's opinion: "If the government adjusted the financial statements for the matters reported in these reservations, the

December 12, 1991
Routine Proceedings
reported deficit for 1991 would be increased by up to $2 billion". That is not peanuts, that is a lot of money.
As I said yesterday, the government is cooking the books. We believe it is. The Auditor General says the government is not keeping accounting procedures and methods that are used in the private sector.
Why is it possible for public persons in public life, with public funds, to do things with those funds that in the private sector, with private funds, they would not be allowed to do?
If the finance minister, in his former incarnation as a car dealer, had used the kind of bookkeeping that he is now using with public funds he would have probably been pursued by Revenue Canada and would probably have been sued and put into some kind of clink because you cannot do that in the private sector. Yet we are doing it in the public sector. That is what we are trying to bring out.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, what an opportunity. My heavens, that member stands in this place and complains about the way we keep the books after I was in this Chamber with him in the 1980s when any resemblance between what the finance minister said in this place and reality was purely an accident, coincidental and nonsense. This is the group of people who took the whole UIC deficit out of the Public Accounts of Canada and shoved it off in the corner so they did not have to report it to Parliament.
This is like the pot calling the kettle black. This goes so far beyond belief that it defies any sense of credibility. I almost cannot deal with it because it is so obscene and so over-exaggerated.
He forgot praise where praise is due. Last year the Auditor General said: "This is an accurate statement of the Public Accounts of Canada". That is the first time in anybody's living memory that he was able to do an audit without notes. This year he is saying you reported everything. That is the piece missing in what the member says. You reported everything to him and you just sort of shifted the years a little bit as to how you were going to account for it, but you gave us all the numbers. You did not take the numbers and shove them under the bed and throw them out the kitchen door. You gave us all the numbers and that is very important.
He then says: "We do not want the other departments of government to do what finance is doing". That is the Liberal way.
Do you know what finance is doing, Mr. Speaker, what got him so exercised as chairman of the committee? It is saving overhead money. It is reducing management and leaving the money for the evaluations. It is not paying so many people to push paper around and sit at desks.
We want every department of government to save money. We make no apology for it. We want them to save money and to reduce overhead. We hope they copy the finance department's move in that direction. We will even give them a little bonus from time to time if they save us $100 million or $200 million. We will give them an extra $3,000 or $5,000 on their salary cheque at the end of the year because we think that is good behaviour and we would like to reward it, and we make no apology for it.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments that were made about the way the present government has handled the finances in this country since 1984 and I had some difficulty with some of the things that had been stated. Those difficulties really come down to a basic premise of what the truth is in comparison to, I guess, what is being stated.
I can read back in the records and I can check with Mr. Wilson. I have a note from his office which stated: "We were in the area of a $180 billion debt when we took office. We are now at $400 billion". The Conservatives in fact have doubled the debt through their great management. They use a silly thing about talking about $3 billion interest. That is not true. On $160 billion or $170 billion which they inherited I agree there is no way that it was $3 billion in interest. It is $3 billion and $4 billion because of the spending they have done.
The other point that has been alluded to all the way is the fact that they have brought about at least a 40 per cent increase in taxes over their period. When we start looking at that huge tax increase they say how much better they are running this economy.
We look at tax increases which are just abominable, the debt which has been doubled, unemployment which is skyrocketing, and we are now putting caps on programs.
December 12, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the hon. member wants an answer for his question, he had better put it.


Jerry Pickard: How can he say with a straight face that he is a reasonable manager? How would he even admit to being a manager at all when he realizes the financial crisis it has put this country into?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, every time a newcomer to the Chamber opens their mouth, some of us who have been around a while are really tempted to give them a piece of history which the chairman of public accounts will know.
We were a government for nine months and we got defeated. The total accumulated debt in all of history, just for the member's interest, in the 1980 election was $68 billion. Four years later it was $220 billion.


An hon. member:: Now figure the interest on it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, do you want to just do the percentage increase that the Liberal Party managed in four years?
How did you get so quickly from the balanced budgets in 1971-72? You had the current leader of the Liberal Party who was the finance minister for a little while and, man, was that a disaster. That was an unmitigated disaster.
But $68 billion to $220 billion is an increase of 200 per cent in four years. That is a 50 per cent increase annually in the accumulated national debt of this country.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the public accounts committee report on the disbandment of the Department of Finance's tax evaluation division.
I listened very carefully to the speeches made by government members this morning and found that they were ridiculing the parliamentary system as a whole and
Routine Proceedings
in particular the principle of evaluating the work done in this House of Commons and the decisions made here.
The Minister of Finance has waited until 1987 to set up a committee-


An hon. member:: A division.


Eugène Bellemare: -or a division responsible for evaluating the department's programs. We know that the Auditor General had been recommending since 1983 that the department set up a program evaluation committee and, in fact, considered it absolutely essential. The following year, the Department of Finance introduced a tax credit system and estimated, not through an arm's length evaluation, that the loss in tax revenue would be roughly $100 million. We know that this loss in fact amounted to $2.3 billion.
I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, who says an evaluation function does exist within the department. If there is one, it is not independent. We are going back to the problems we had in 1983-84, the problems raised by the Auditor General, when individual evaluations were carried out, not at arm's length and without using accepted procedures. That is how you put the country in deep financial trouble.
The hon. member for Calgary West had fun trying to take to task opposition members, particularly the newer ones.
He tried to make fun of us. He tried to be funny. I think the hon. member is irresponsible when he tries to laugh off what is said by new members of this House. He mentioned our national debt of $400 billion. He says it was the Liberal Party's fault, and that in 1984, when this government came to power, it had a debt of about $150, $170 or $175 billion. The figures seem to change every time a minister or a government member rises in this House! The debt was certainly around $170 billion, according to the government's former Minister of Finance.
They always say it is the Liberals' fault. They say they inherited a debt of around $175 billion in 1984 and that it is now up to $400 billion because of the interest on the debt. I think the government's economists tend to forget their mathematical and historical facts.
We must not forget that if we had a debt of around $175 billion in 1984, that debt was not only a legacy of the Liberal Party but also of two previous Conservative governments. Mr. Clark's government added to the debt, as did Mr. Diefenbaker's. If you want to check, look at

Routine Proceedings
the government's financial reports since 1950. We can even go back to R. B. Bennett, who had an unsettling effect on Canada during difficult times, times when the Conservatives were in power.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and member for Trois-Rivieres said the government had to save money, which is ludicrous when we realize that when his minister introduces a program, whether it is the GST or another tax program-since 1984 they introduced 33 different taxes-we know that every time they go and see their friends.

That is in the public relations section. It establishes its public relations programs and spends on books that are sent out to the whole community which say how good it is to be taxed by the Conservative government. It spends $25 million or $30 million on publications advertising that people are going to be taxed. Is this budgetary restraint?
Is it budgetary restraint when all the newspapers in Canada, no matter what the size, explain very thoroughly what the taxation is all about and what the latest details are on the taxes and so on? All the media discuss it. The present government talks about budgetary restraints and yet it will waste millions and millions in publishing and advertising its tax. It is trying to candy coat the tax situation to the public.

I think that is absolutely incredible! The talk on the government side is about saving money and budget cutbacks, but the fact is that they are constantly wasting money.
Every time we discuss the national debt or the deficit-we were talking about this earlier-they overlook the fact that their average annual deficit since 1984 has been around $25 to $30 billion. Tory members who brag about their skills as financial administrators are on very shaky ground, considering the fact that they spend more than they collect in revenue every year. They rise in the House to talk about budget cutbacks and financial constraints, and meanwhile they are wasting money.
As a member of the public accounts committee, I have heard any number of horror stories from our Auditor General. Our two Tory members forgot to mention the $200 million that was supposed to be spent on oil exploration in Nova Scotia a few years ago, but was used instead to build two bridges. Then they realized there were no roads leading to the bridges or leading away from them. Two bridges were built. One wonders why. Next a road was built through a forest, right in the middle of nowhere. Again, why did they do that? Whose forest was it? Did this enhance the value of the forest or of the surrounding land? Good question. In any case, it was a waste of money.
The only gas exploration they could justify was when they gave research funds to the dental arts faculty at a community college. I imagine the teachers found some gas in the teeth of the good people of Nova Scotia. It is ridiculous to hear these people talking about saving money and blaming the Liberal Party and going back seven, eight or nine years, but no more. I would strongly advise the Tories, when they start looking for historic scapegoats, to stop being selective and go back a little further. Go back to Clark and Diefenbaker and maybe R. B. Bennett, and you will really be in for some horror stories.
Mr. Speaker, getting back to the report from the public accounts committee, I must tell you that most of its members are from the government side. We voted on the report because the government has a majority on the committee. The recommendations in the report were not just those of the New Democrats and Liberals. We were a minority on that committee and still are. We did not make up the stories found in the report. It was prepared as a result of the Auditor General's report. In referring to the Income Tax Act which was changed to introduce a research and development income tax credit, the Auditor General mentioned that the department had estimated a loss of $100 million. In reality, it was $2.5 billion, a much larger amount. I am sure that the two members of the party in power will agree that the difference between $100 million and $2.5 billion is not imaginary. It is a mighty big difference. A $100 million loss becomes a $2.5 billion loss. I asked the committee whether they had foreseen this $2.5 billion loss or a $100 million loss
December 12, 1991

Routine Proceedings
instead. This is what the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Gorbet, replied to me:
"I believe you are reading it correctly and the answer is that we certainly did not expect $2.5 million. I am not sure to what extent we want to relive the past. It was a very expensive past. The only thing I could say, Mr. Bellemare, if you want me to say it, is that I do not think there is any excuse for what happened in that instance and I think that has been acknowledged several times".

The Auditor General, again in the report, after the Comptroller General of Canada, who is in a way the government's senior manager of all civil servants regarding financial matters, reports directly to Treasury Board. He is a financial manager so to speak. He told the committee that the disbanding of the evaluation committee and its replacement by a self-review committee was not his preferred approach. It was a polite way of saying that it was wrong.
The general manager himself, the Comptroller General, admits that it was wrong and the Auditor General said that it was certainly wrong. I am still reading from the public accounts committee report. I told Mr. Gorbet, the Deputy Minister of Finance, this:

"Earlier you said that you were not abolishing the function evaluation. Would the Auditor General care to add some comments to that?"

And the Auditor General, Mr. Desautels, replied: [English]
"As I said in my earlier remarks it is a department's prerogative to organize the function as it sees fit. There is no doubt about that. What they seem to be doing is to be moving toward what I would call a self-review approach as opposed to having a fully independent, autonomous group to do this evaluation. This is not my preferred approach".

And he echoed what the Comptroller General had said:

"I think a move toward self-review has some validity but there has to be an element of sufficient independence in the process to make sure it meets the initial intentions".
First, I think that is definite. I think this is quite clearly a definite reduction in the independence of the process.

And the key word here is independence of process, something the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres failed to mention in his speech this morning. He said that an evaluation function currently exists, but he was wrong not to admit that it was not an independent one.
That is precisely what we are asking for.

"There are other possibilities as well. For instance there could be a somewhat reduced level of effort", said Mr. Desautels. If the independent evaluation process is discontinued, after a while, we will not want to evaluate our own programs any more. It was very interesting to hear government members this morning talk about the national debt and their expertise in management. But they never set up a debt management evaluation committee, and the debt keeps growing. They spend their time whining, moping and complaining that the debt is going up every day and it is always the fault of the Liberals in the 1970s and 1980s. As a new member, I ask them where their debt management evaluation committee is. If you are such good managers, where is the debt evaluation committee?
The two members said that money should not be wasted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired, but there will be questions and comments.


Eugène Bellemare: I will not be long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will let you finish, then.

Routine Proceedings


Eugène Bellemare: Thank you for your generosity, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it, so that I can complete my remarks.
Trying to save $250,000 by cutting this committee will not really save money. We want to avoid wasting $2.5 billion again. Do not eliminate small expenses and then not apologize for the big debts you are creating.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good debate we are having today. It perhaps would have been better if we could have done it under different circumstances.
I would like to address a matter that is in this report and which was also raised immediately after the Auditor General's report last week. It was the question of the billion dollars with regard to the public sector pension plan for public servants.
The problem is that in accounting, as in many other professions or occupations, there are sometimes different ways of doing things. We do things a little differently than in the United States. The public accounts committee, I understand, as of today is going to be visiting the United States to look at its accounting practices. It will find that the United States does not write down in its books any amount for pensions for its public service that it might have to pay in some future year. It only worries about the ones it has to pay that year. We would call that cash basis.
The Auditor General has said in previous years that his preference would be that we should add all these numbers in. We do not have to have the money this year, today, but we want it in the future. We may need it in the future and so we should add this in. As a result of that, we have deficit this year that we record as $30 billion. It is not really $30 billion in terms of what we have to borrow. It is only $20 billion. The other $10 billion are these things we write down for the future.
If we took the assumption of this year's Auditor General on the question of the tax treatment of retirement saving which is referred to in this report we are debating here today, he has said that if the money had been put in the stock exchange we would be about a billion dollars ahead. That may be true but what is also
true is that the money would have had to come from somewhere, either presumably by raising taxes during that time or by borrowing it.
The question is: Would we have been better off doing that? I guess the point is that there can be a debate. In this case I think the Auditor General is wrong. I think the other approach is better. I acknowledge that there are two approaches.
The question arose earlier in the debate by a previous speaker about why we do things differently sometimes in government than we say the private sector must do. The reason for that is that this is the public sector. I do not believe the rules for the public sector should always be the same as the rules for the private sector.
If I could just give one more example and then have the member comment, we pay our employees just like the private sector does. Then we collect income tax from their paycheques, just like the private sector.
One could legitimately ask why we bother. It is kind of going out of one pocket and into the other. We pay them a salary and then we deduct income tax. Does the money really go anywhere? The answer is no. When we do the same thing in the private sector the government collects the money and it comes to the government.
In reality, what we are arguing about is whether one way of doing things is better than another way. There is room for legitimate differences of opinion.
If the committee goes on this trip to Washington, I would ask the hon. member if it would then examine the issue of the tax treatment of retirement saving and how accounting in the United States is done for that. Presumably that is one of the things it is going to do when it examines the U.S. accounting methods and comes back with a report as to whether it prefers the Canadian way or the U.S. way.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, certainly if I am invited by the American government to see how they operate in the area of public accounts and government auditing, I will be pleased to go and find out. Perhaps the government should send a huge delegation. Many Conservative members should go for their professional development.
December 12, 1991

I noticed that the hon. member suggested to the House how the question of pension funds should be handled. I must tell him that we should use the method recommended by the Auditor General. I must say I find it interesting that every government member who has spoken has changed the subject. The subject today is public accounts and the report concerning the dismantling of the evaluation committee of the most important department in Canada, the department that handles billions, not millions, but billions of dollars. It is the same department that is often, if not always, driving our nation to bankruptcy. I would suggest that the hon. member stick to the subject, unless he has problems with that.
For the hon. member's information, I would like to read a summary of the committee's recommendations.
-The Committee recommends that Senior officials from Revenue Canada be invited to participate on the Advisory Committee, in order to have some influence on it, and asks that it be kept informed of the work plan for future years.
-The Committee proposes that the following tax measures be evaluated by the Department of Finance: The GST, the new tax treatment for retirement savings, the tax treatment of capital gains and flow-through shares, and the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program.
-The Committee would like to see the publication of an annual accounting of tax expenditures as part of the budget process.
-The Committee expects the Comptroller General to report to it regularly, in order to determine Department of Finance compliance with Treasury Board directives requiring periodic evaluation of all programs.
- In order to avoid setting a precedent, the Committee recommends that, before any dismantlement, there be more consultations between the departments and the Comptroller General, and that the process be more transparent.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on concurrence of the report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I listened with great interest to my hon. colleagues across the floor as we debate the concurrence motion for the report. However, I also listen with interest as we banter back and forth as to who is really accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. I think that if we asked ourselves
Routine Proceedings
the question, it is this House of Parliament which is directly accountable to the Canadian taxpayer.
I would like to use overhead as an example, very briefly, as I notice the time is passing quickly.
We talk about overhead, as has been mentioned by government members, for the tax evaluation function. Since I began my career in federal politics in 1984 I found and still do find it quite disturbing-and I would assume that I speak on behalf of most members on both sides of the House-that with 295 elected members across this great land of ours and with in excess of
300,000	bureaucrats I do not know who actually runs this country.
I listened with interest to the chairman of the public accounts committee. I congratulate him and his committee members for the fine work they have done. I think probably one of the main results of the McGrath commission was to give more individual members more say and power in the functioning of the government. I have some difficulty with what the report recommends- and other members have said it-that in terms of accountability and the tax evaluation function we should perhaps add more bureaucrats.
Do not get me wrong. I do not intend to say that bureaucrats are evil. Bureaucrats are not evil. They are people we need as elected members, people who must be there to carry out programs and the ordinary everyday functioning of the government.
The McGrath report recommended that we should be able as backbenchers, as ministers, as parliamentary secretaries, to speak and say what we feel and what we think and be heard. If this McGrath report is to be held in the esteem that I know all members hold it in, the public accounts committee is entitled, as it has done in the past and I would assume will continue to do in the future, to invite as its witnesses, the top management, the Auditor General and the Comptroller General. These people are and must be at the disposition of these committees, not only the public accounts committee but all committees and all departments so that the elected people can request and question information that is so vital to our proper functioning.
I listened also with some interest as we went back to R. B. Bennett. Unfortunately I have not attained the same age as my hon. colleague from Ottawa-Vanier who spoke previously. He talked about who the culprits in our national debt were. I received in my office last evening

December 12, 1991
from the Government of Canada a very interesting little booklet Where Your Tax Dollars Go. I would recommend it very highly to the members opposite, as I would to all Canadians.
If we look on page 5 as we discuss the debt treadmill we see for 1984-1985 the national debt at $206 billion; interest from 1984-85 to the present day, $238 billion; and government operating surplus since 1984-85, $25 billion. Let us just look at these three figures. There was a $206 billion debt run up by previous governments. Historical records show that the bulk of $206 billion was in the hands of the Liberal government: $206 billion plus $238 billion is $444 billion. If we subtract $25 billion in government operations or operations surplus, if we read these figures correctly, it shows that in actual fact since the Conservative government came into power the $206 billion debt is not $206 billion: it is $181 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the case of Ms. Omatee Ramganesh, a woman who came here from Trinidad under the Department of Immigration's domestics program. Her sponsors refused to pay her, insisting she get another job to pay for the privilege of working for them.

Ms. Ramganesh is facing deportation because she technically violated the Immigration Act by finding employment outside the parameters of the program. This violation was not a result of her own initiative, but as a result of the demands of her employers.
I plead with the minister not to make this woman a victim yet again. I urge that he review this file immediately and take the necessary action to remedy the situation.



NEW BRUNSWICK FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it has long been a source of pride to New Brunswickers that our province represents a model for Canada in more important ways than just one.
This week, in a survey published by Maclean's magazine, New Brunswick has again been acclaimed a Canadian leader, this time in both the policy and the practice of forest management.
With sustainable forestry development offering its own potential to be a model for developing Canada's environmental integrity, the New Brunswick experience is a valuable reference for other jurisdictions, including the federal government.
As one who had the opportunity to participate in the early days of the New Brunswick forestry program, I want to extend sincere congratulations to the ministers and the staff of that province's Department of Natural Resources who, over recent years, have been responsible for creating its success.
It is one thing to merely have adequate legislation, but much more important and difficult to transmit forest policy into effective management on the ground. New Brunswick's forestry sector has done that well.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I urged the Minister of Employment and Immigration to change the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow laid off workers to receive unemployment insurance and the training dollars that accompany it before exhausting severance pay and vacation pay and virtually declaring personal bankruptcy.
Steel workers in Labrador City and Wabush, and in similar hard hit communities all across Canada, are not permitted to draw unemployment insurance and therefore are prohibited from access to training programs because they receive a severance package. Yet it is these

very training programs that may be the key to their future.
The minister acknowledged that there is a problem and promised to consult with the business community that now controls the unemployment insurance program, but to date no action has been taken.
The effect of Bill C-21 is to place Canadian workers in a strait-jacket and to deny them the very training programs that the government is currently pushing so hard. Both government and non-government reports underline the need to push training to the top of the national agenda and yet the government's own policy is denying laid off workers access to training funds.
I call on the government to immediately amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to right this inequity.



RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the best and most important natural resource we have is our children.
Two days ago, we commemorated the International Human Rights Day. For several years, the International Organization for Business Resource Development, the Grand Council of Crees, the Four Directions Council and other NGOs with consultative status at the UN have worked very hard on a convention on the rights of the child. They worked especially hard to ensure the inclusion of aboriginal children.
It was great news that the convention drafted in 1989 has now been endorsed by all 10 provinces and by this government.
Consequently, I ask all my colleagues of this Chamber to join me in congratulating the current and former ministers of health, as well as the NGOs involved, for their work in ensuring that all children now have the rights to be protected under international law.
In particular, I ask this House to commend and thank the Prime Minister for his outstanding personal interest and involvement in Canada's formal ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.



CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw to the attention of the House the findings of the Security Intelligence Review Committee with respect to the role of CSIS in the entry into Canada of a member of the terrorist organization REN AMO.
The review committee today issued its report to the Solicitor General recommending that CSIS streamline its security screening procedure to ensure that security liaison officers have access to all sources of information available. The report criticizes the role of CSIS in the 1987 entry into Canada of Francisco Nota Moises, at that time the information officer for REN AMO.
Had CSIS conducted merely a review of the information in the public domain, particularly an 1986 documentary on the CBC The Journal, the outcome of the security screening process in this case may have been materially altered.
The report states in particular:"CSIS should re-eva-lute the current interviewing process and ensure proper research and briefing before interviews take place".
People watching The Journal knew more about RENA-MO than CSIS did.
I strongly urge the government to follow the recommendations of the committee.



DISABLED PERSONS

Allan Koury: Mr. Speaker, our government has adopted a strategy to help disabled persons become fully integrated in Canadian society. The purpose of this strategy is to remedy a serious injustice. For instance, disabled persons are among the poorest citizens of this country. The government will spend $158 million over five years to meet three objectives: equal access, economic integration and the full participation of disabled persons in our society.

Economic integration means increasing opportunities for employment and training, encouraging employers and unions to support increased participation in the labour force and providing equal opportunities for employment and advancement in the Public Service.



AIRLINE DISASTERS

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the sixth anniversary of the worst air disaster on Canadian soil. To this day, the cause of the crash is not known.
The similarities between the Arrow air disaster in Canada and the Pan Am disaster over Lockerbie, Scotland are striking. Both aircraft left from North Africa taking U.S. soldiers back home for Christmas. Both aircraft landed in West Germany. Both carried out unidentified baggage. In both instances, the eye witness accounts were identical, denoting that there was a pre-crash fire. The similarities end there.
The glaring difference is that for the past three years the FBI and Scotland Yard have been examining every minute piece of wreckage to find the cause in Lockerbie whereas in Canada no such thorough investigation took place.
I am calling on the Government of Canada and the government of the United States to end this shameless disregard for how 256 people were killed on Canadian soil six years ago today and open a new and thorough examination.



CONSTITUENCY CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, at 7:55 a.m. a faxed letter from Moosehom was waiting for me. It read:
Dear Felix:
I do not know how you put up with it. Maw and I were certain the
rat pack was dead. Does this Copps and Boudria even give up on
their smear stuff?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could turn this into a Christmas message. It should not be a personal attack.


Felix Holtmann: Oh well, times are tough and this Reform Party remind me too much like Oral Roberts or Jimmy Swaggart. Scary. Felix, we're sticken with you and Brian. Have a good Christmas. 92 will be much better.
Bill.
P.S. I like the way you have taken on the big banks. Maw and I are paying the shots and the bankers are getting rich.
P.S.S. I am not letting maw come to Ottawa. She has taken such a shine to your Speaker I am missing most of my hockey games and all-star wrestling.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, the current strike at the Royal Canadian Mint is a result of the actions of a government that has lost every sense of fairness. The international reputation of the Mint and the quality of its work are a source of pride for Canada, and this is entirely due to its employees. We must not forget that the Royal Canadian Mint makes a substantial profit every year. Despite that fact, the government managed to provoke the employees by offering them a wage increase well below what management was offered, although the average manager's salary is much higher than that of the employees now on strike.
Speaking on behalf of the employees who established the reputation of the Royal Canadian Mint throughout the world, we urge the government to appoint a mediator immediately.



OPERATION RED NOSE

Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, now that the holiday season is near, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the volunteers of the Operation Red Nose, especially those in the Joliette area.
Operation Red Nose is a service to take people who have had too much to drink safely back to their home in their own car.
This essential service, sponsored locally by the Federation of Caisses Populaires Desjardins of Lanaudiere, covers all of Quebec during the holiday period. It exists
December 12, 1991

only because of the hard work of its organizers and 350 volunteers, as well as the support of its sponsors.
These volunteers make an invaluable contribution; thanks to them, our roads are safer in this holiday season and we should all be grateful to them for that.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, for months I have pushed the minister of health and welfare to review the whole issue of the safety of all breast implants. He said we will have to wait for the U.S. to lead.
The U.S. has led. On Monday a federal jury in San Francisco found that Dow Corning Corporation misrepresented safety tests on all breast implants and led women to believe its implants were safe when it did not have the data to prove it.
The decision found Dow Coming guilty of fraud.
This is the minister's opportunity to take action to review all of the data that has been submitted by all of the manufacturers of breast implants sold in Canada about the safety of all of those implants, to review the life expectancy of breast implants, the incidence of implant ruptures, the impact of silicone on the immune system of implant rupture victims, and the health care requirements of those who became victims of failed implants.
The minister has promised to act on U.S. evidence. Here is new evidence. We are asking will the minister act now.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -StoufF-ville):: Mr. Speaker, there is still an urgent need to halt the killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Over a year ago Amnesty International issued a stinging report condemning Columbo for carrying out indiscriminate campaigns against Tamil citizens.
The report stated: "Many people have been arbitrarily rounded up, and sometimes killed, on the basis of anonymous accusations of subversive involvement".
I call upon Canada and other concerned nations to persuade Columbo to repeal the constitutional amendment that deprives Thmils of free representation in their Parliament. We must organize a United Nations sponsored commission to investigate the killings and to bring an end to the violence and tragic abuse of human rights.
Also the Thmils in the northern province, especially the Jaffna district, are in dire need of food and medical supplies. People are starving to death. We must offer our assistance.



TAXATION

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, those deadbeats in the Ontario NDP government are at it again with their morbid policies.
Not content with killing jobs in Ontario and bludgeoning people cold with tax increases, the NDP is now considering taxing tombstones. What a monumental error. It was not enough that the GST ghouls in Ottawa are taxing funerals. Small wonder our economy is moribund.
No matter how you cut it, Mr. Speaker, this policy is a grave mistake. The NDP tax vampires who plan to tax tombstones should be entombed themselves.
Come to think of it, the NDP is doing a good job at burying itself. And there is another nail in the NDP coffin.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, 1991 has been an exciting and educational year. For your patience, your guidance, your tolerance, respect for our views, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you. I want to thank all those who assist you, the deputy speakers, the table officers, the Hansard reporters, and others who serve this humble place.
May 1992 be a year filled with happiness and prosperity for all Canadians.

Oral Questions



SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's decision by the U.S. international trade commission on the softwood lumber tariff is the start of a new trade war over our forests.
The unanimous decision means that a roller-coaster trade war over our forests has started.
I am concerned that the federal government is not fully committed to fighting Americans on this issue and that it is coasting on it.
The Prime Minister should call a summit meeting of forestry and trade ministers early in the new year to ensure that the federal and provincial governments have a united stand and remain vigilant in defending the sovereignty of our forests.
The government should defend our forests and not sell them out.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES

Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party believes that a study of reproductive technologies is essential to the well-being of this country.
It is so important, in fact, that it should not be left to cronies of the Conservative government who may have received patronage appointments for no other reason than they may happen to be spouses of senior cabinet ministers.
The consequence of such patronage appointments has been absolute chaos on the part of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Not only have Canadian taxpayers been kept in the dark as to how the commission's $24.7 million budget is being spent for these appointments, but now three of the commissioners have filed a lawsuit against the chairman of the commission.
It is no wonder this government cannot get its act together to unify the nation. It cannot even get its patronage appointees to agree among themselves.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the occasion of my first question to wish you a Merry Christmas and to tell you that in your task you have our confidence.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Despite all the lively exchanges we have in this House once in a while, I would like to extend to the government members, to the NDP members and their leaders, a Merry Christmas.
I hope that everybody will take a good rest and be in very good shape come February, when we will be back.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: While we are talking about Christmas, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister: Is it not a good occasion for us to decide collectively that when we are back together next year, we should work on a program in collaboration with the provinces to permit the children of Canada, many of whom are hungry in schools, to have a breakfast and lunch?
There is a problem with food. We know a lot of children do not eat completely and cannot do their homework because of food problems. We should have a national program, beginning 1992.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition first that the Prime Minister will be in the House in about 15 minutes. He has been delayed in his office.
Second, with regard to the children's program, I believe a couple of times in the House I answered that question. I said that we are now working on a strategy for children that we hope we can unfold maybe some time in February when we will try to deal with the main problems facing children in Canada today.
December 12, 1991

Of course, it is a very complex issue which cannot be solved exclusively by programs coming from the federal level. The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that it is a provincial matter, or regionally first. We have to deal with the provinces, but I believe with the help of the provinces and with the resources that we will have at our disposal at the time, we will try to put forward a strategy which will deal the best we can with the problems of the children of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the minister's good intentions. However, I would remind him that the Montreal Catholic School Commission already has such a program and even in Montreal, children are given their exams early in the month, because at the end of the month, they no longer have the physical strength needed for their school work. I therefore ask the minister to consider these problems, and we will be ready to co-operate with them, so that the children of poor families in Canada can go to school, because these children are our country's future. We must help them train their minds in an appropriate setting so that they can take their rightful place as the next century begins, as the best prepared to face global competition.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is right to be concerned about the problem of child poverty. I think that everyone deplores that problem, but we must realize that children have many other problems besides poverty.
I believe there are problems of sexual abuse, problems of family violence, problems with street kids. All these problems are or will be considered in the strategy.
I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that the problem with children also goes beyond the issue of simply being able to deal with the problem of poverty. And I believe that the hon. member is also aware of that.
I would also like to tell the Leader of the Opposition that yesterday we talked about the rights of children and I do not think that today we can discuss the rights of children without also talking about the obligations of
Oral Questions
adults. The program or strategy unveiled by the government will also take into account some mechanisms to make Canadian society more aware of the problems of children, which go beyond the problems of poverty.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Prime Minister and concerns today's report on Poverty.
The report released today on child poverty by government members stressed, and I quote: "The federal government has a role to play in providing an economic training and job creation environment that will provide families with sufficient income to enable them to feed their children".
Will the government now admit to the total failure of its fiscal and family policies? Will it finally turn a new leaf and give Canadian families a break?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I obviously disagree with the question of total failure of policies. Of course there are too many children in Canada who are under the poverty level. At the same time I believe that when we put $15 billion into all departments of government that we manage, I believe we are doing something. It is never enough. Everybody agrees with that. At the same time, we have to put in more money.
As I said in French before, we have to take into account the the problems of children in Canada. I want to congratulate the committee which did wonderful work in dealing with the question of children and poverty. At the same time, the committee refers to much more than just the question of putting more money into the system. I believe that the money does not speak to the problems children have in Canada.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Labour.
One question which the committee refused to deal with is the question of minimum wage, yet the quickest way to address the needs of some of the poorest families in this country is to increase the federal wage.
When this question was posed in the House over the last two years, the minister repeatedly said that he is studying it.

December 12, 1991
Oral Questions
Will the minister please inform the House that he is willing to stop studying this and give an immediate increase to those Canadians covered by the minimum federal wage, which is now the lowest in the country?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague would know, there are very few people working at the minimum wage at the federal level. Most people who work at the federal level earn much more than the federal minimum wage.
In any case, I have made a recommendation to my colleagues to increase the minimum wage and I am convinced I will be in a position to do so in the new year.


CORPORATE TAXATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago Consumers Gas temporarily shifted $275 million of its debt from commercial paper into bankers acceptance notes, which for some reason are not subject to the large corporations tax.
The company's treasurer told the Ontario Energy Board that this move would save the company $500,000 in the large corporations tax.
I want to ask the Minister of National Revenue if he knows that his officials are telling corporate tax lawyers to go ahead and use this loophole. Does he know that most large corporations have their financial year end at the end of December and that they are now lining up to do this tax accountant's two-step? If he does know something about it, when is he going to make it clear to these companies that they are not able to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in this way and do something about it.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, as to the latter part of the hon. member's question, it is not a question of when I will let the companies know. I already have. In my speech to the Canadian lax Foundation last week, I made it very clear that we have accelerated revenue collections and targeting particularly on large corporations. We are guaranteeing my colleague, the Minister of Finance, at least $400 million in additional revenue which is already geared for the farm assistance program.
I can tell the hon. member that we are going to go further than that. This government is committed to making sure that every corporation in this country pays its fair share of taxes.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the $400 million he is talking about in terms of stricter enforcement is different from this question of bankers acceptance notes and the way in which many corporations are now lining up to avoid this government's flagship as far as tax fairness is concerned.
I am asking the minister today: Will he issue a directive now to make sure that these corporations cannot avoid paying their fair share of that tax while other people are lining up at food banks, the very children that we are talking about going hungry while these corporations stand to not pay $500,000 worth of taxes, just one company?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to issue any directive because that is the policy of this government already.
I want to assure the hon. member in connection with his previous question that no official from Revenue Canada, that I am aware of, gives any instructions to any business to take advantage of any loopholes. In fact, this government has taken major steps over the last years to eliminate the loopholes that existed prior to the election of this government.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Today the U.S. International Trade Commission voted three to zero to proceed with an investigation of Canadian softwood lumber. We have lost round one. The U.S. industry wants duties of up to 25 per cent.
What is the government going to do to make sure that we do not lose the second round?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TYade):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is aware of the fact that this is the preliminary injury determination. It is the first of four stages. Normally in this first stage the commission rules in favour of the U.S. industry. That is
December 12, 1991

almost invariable. In fact, in 1983, when we won the ultimate determination, we did lose the preliminary determination on injury as well.
We will be working closely with the industry, closely with the provinces, closely with supporters of our position in the United States to put forward the strongest possible case. We believe that case is strong and we believe we have the facts to support that.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, during the free trade debate the government said on many occasions and promised on many occasions also that tariffs would be abolished.
Does the minister not agree that the imposition of a 15 or 25 per cent import tax on softwood lumber to the U.S. would still be extremely unfair to us?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one thing that we did not give up in the free trade agreement, nor did the United States, was our access to trade remedy laws if we feel that there are unwarranted subsidies on either side of the border. Let us be very clear on that.
In this case we do not believe there is a subsidy. As I indicated in my previous answer, we are going to fight that one hard right to the end.
What we did not have in 1983 or 1986 but what we did get through the free trade agreement is the right to go to an ultimate dispute settlement panel to ensure, as we did in the pork case, that our rights can be upheld and that any determination of subsidy is going to be strictly according to the law and supported by that panel. If that is necessary, we are prepared to take that course.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health.
The subcommittee on poverty of the standing committee on health in its report tabled today recommends that the federal government in conjunction with the provinces and territories develop a healthy babies strategy to help reduce by 6,000 the number of low birth weight infants born yearly in Canada. This preventive approach alone will save the health care system as much as $600
Oral Questions
million a year, as estimated by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth.
Will the minister immediately announce today that he will implement this recommendation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the minister will not make any announcement today, of course, because first of all I want to read the report. I want to be aware. I know there has been a very quick reading of the report. The report is very interesting, particularly the kind of recommendations the member is referring to. We must first of all look at all the recommendations and put priorities on them. As I said before to his leader, I intend to present some strategies some time around the beginning of 1992. It is quite possible that that kind of recommendation would be within this strategy.


POVERTY
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister. The subcommittee report to which he refers, of course, is futile. It is for the most part ludicrous and it is really a snow job.
Does he not know that child poverty is a national crisis? Will he as the minister undertake to see to it that there is established a job creation program to undo some of the damage being done by the government's anti-employment policies which are aggravating the child poverty issue?
I ask him also whether he will he see to it that come next spring there is an adequate and accelerated program for student jobs during next summer, the summer of 1992?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, of course I disagree with what the member said in his introduction because I think he is wrong. The departments, particularly the department of my colleague in employment and immigration, put forward a lot of measures in terms of the way we deal with job creation. I think it works, but within the period of time where we are, the difficulty in terms of the economy, we have to face reality.

December 12, 1991
Oral Questions
Of course, increasingly we will be able to deal with the problem of job creation, which will improve the problem of poverty among Canadians. He also knows very well that it is not the only reason why we face the problem. I just gave him the example that three years ago in Toronto the unemployment rate was about 3.5 per cent, which is basically no unemployment because it is negligible. We have, however, in Toronto a lot of people who face the problem. In other words, we have to cope with the question of poverty from different angles, what we are trying to do and what we will do.
I want to say to the member that it is not just a question of job creation, it is a global problem to which we have to find a global answer.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as it is the last day of the session I, too, would like to offer season's greetings to yourself and to all members of this House on behalf of myself and my party, and to wish everyone a good family occasion and a very happy and healthy holiday season.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are still a million and a half Canadians who are not going to have a very happy holiday season, namely those who are out of work, and the almost two million men, women and children who are also on welfare. Just this week we heard that
3,000	jobs in Oshawa are at risk, another 3,000 in rail in Montreal and in Winnipeg, and as a result of today's softwood lumber decision, we heard that more jobs could be at risk in that particular industry.
There is a way to turn this around. I want to say to the Prime Minister that I know that the budget consultations are going on, and I want to ask him if indeed we can see a new direction in economic policies in the next budget.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would join my friend, the Leader of the NDP, and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in wishing you, Sir, and members of your staff and the pages and all members of the House of Commons a very happy holiday season.
In regard to the question about a new economic direction, I suppose that will have to wait for the budget pursuant to consultations that are ongoing with the Ministers of Finance.
The reason for my delay today was that I had a communication from the Minister of Finance, who is presently meeting with his colleagues in Ottawa for the first of a two-day series of meetings. He called to advise that over lunch earlier today, they had discussed with one another the feasibility and the advisability of convening a first ministers' meeting to discuss the economy.
I am advised that the consensus is that it might indeed be a good idea to meet. Some of the finance ministers had some ideas in regard to conditions, the agenda, the clear objectives, the absence of any finger-pointing exercises and so on.
I would hope, given what the Minister of Finance conveyed to me earlier today, that after Question Period we will be able to communicate with the first ministers about their availability and the possibility of holding this kind of a meeting, perhaps before Christmas if we can, if their schedules allow, failing which we will do it at the earliest possible moment. After that kind of meeting, I might be able to give my hon. friend more guidance with respect to any change of direction that may or may not occur.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. I am pleased to hear that there will be a meeting of first ministers and my question deals with that issue.
Is the Prime Minister open to a new direction for economic policies? Is he open to new suggestion on the economy, because unemployment is too high and this is tragic for many families, for the poor, for the less fortunate and for children?
I would also like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is open to new suggestions for the economy and whether he is willing to change the government's course if there is a consensus at the first minister's meeting.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my New Democratic friend asks me if I am open to new suggestions for improving the economy. Of course I am. Which ones?


December 12, 1991

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that because I am sure the Prime Minister knows there are no workers in this country who are not scared to death they are going to lose their jobs.
There are many things that can be done. The Prime Minister will agree that there are millions of Canadians without jobs and, alas, too many without hope. Today, the decision by the International Joint Commission on softwood lumber came as a blow to that industry. The Ministry for International Trade did answer, of course, that this is one in a series of stages. However, I think it is very important that the Prime Minister himself give direction that Canada take strong action now, before it is too late. Will the Prime Minister use his resources, his power and his influence to fight this unfair softwood lumber decision that we had today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will put the resources, the talents and the influence that the hon. member imputes to me in a very vigorous defence of softwood lumber. I know she only said that because it is Christmas.
I would hope that the results for Canada, given the mechanisms that we negotiated in the free trade agreement, will be as beneficial as those in the recent pork decision which brought so much benefit to Canadian farmers.
My hon. friend asked me whether I am open to new specific suggestions to improve the economy. Indeed, I am, and perhaps she might tell me specifically what she has in mind to improve the economy.


AGRICULTURE
Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister willing, with the consent of the House, to propose today a motion to show Canadian farmers his commitment to maintain farm assistance programs as we know them today, and to advise all GATT members of our determination to keep our farm programs?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the determination of the Government of Canada, the producers and the provinces has been shown to the world.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am not too sure who is muttering over there in the backbenches.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister has the floor.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would say to the hon. member that the Government of Canada, the producers and the provinces have shown their commitment to maintaining supply management in Canada. The hon. Minister of Agriculture for the province of Ontario led a delegation to Geneva along with farm leaders to express their point of view in support of the Government of Canada's negotiating position.
At the present time the Government of British Columbia is leading a delegation to Geneva, made up of farm leaders, to say that they support the Government of Canada's position. The Government of Quebec has been in Geneva supporting the Government of Canada's position.
I think the hon. member and all members of this House support the government's position in its negotiations.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, my question was clear and direct. The farmers are expecting an unconditional response. We are asking for a simple motion to show unconditional support for the farmers of this country, as other legislatures in this country did. Why can the minister not present a motion and give the response to the rest of the countries in the GATT that we are determined to support our farmers?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it is very strange to hear that coming from the Liberal benches after the farmers throughout Canada, who from 1980 to 1984 had their income decimated, were paying 22 and 24 per cent interest rates, had inflation at 14 per cent, and not one dollar of assistance to agriculture by the former Liberal government during all those difficult times.

Oral Questions


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. On October 1, Canada and the United States announced a joint program to practically eliminate all toxic substances in Lake Superior, as they put it. Much of that pollution is caused by the bleach used by the pulp and paper mills.
How will the minister reach this goal, since he refused two weeks ago to regulate toxic substances produced by these plants, except in two cases?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, since then, we have announced regulations for paper manufacturers throughout Canada that will regulate, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, dioxins and furans. That will help reduce the level of organo-chlorines getting into our waterways from
600,000	tonnes in 1988 to about 400,000 tonnes in 1993. That is a 60 per cent reduction in the level of organo-chlorines getting into our environment, less than 2 kilograms per tonne. Moreover, that initiative will cost the industry approximately $3 billion, since it will have to modernize to meet the new standards in effect throughout Canada.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. The Attorney General criticizes the environment department for not having specific goals and deadlines to stop pollution of the Great Lakes and for dragging its feet on regulating toxic substances. Since the minister refuses to regulate the entire pulp mill effluent, which he admits is a toxic substance, in its entirety, will he tell Canadians today what targets and deadlines he is prepared to set so we can meet our international obligations to stop poisoning the Great Lakes?


Jean J. Charest: For the sake of clarity, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was referring to the Auditor General, not the Attorney General. May I point out that in the Auditor General's report that referred to matters that pertained to government policy before the green plan and that pertained in respect to the Great Lakes, to a report if I
remember correctly that was published in 1988 or 1989, and that has since been corrected in terms of its approach. At least there has been some ameliorations in the way that we have done things.
We have brought forward regulations for the pulp and paper industry that will reduce substantially the amount of organo-chlorines that go into the environment. In fact, by regulating dioxins and furans to a cost of approximately $3 billion to the industry, we will create a situation in regard to dioxins and furans that will oblige the industries to produce non-measurable levels of dioxins and furans.
That meets the test of virtual eliminations.


SMALL BUSINESS
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for small business.
A great many Canadians are concerned about the reports of continuing erosion of Canadian business interests to the United States. If such a trend of erosion does exist and if it is growing among our small business interests, then indeed it is a matter for serious and time for action.
Will the minister tell us if we are losing a significant number of Canadian businesses to the United States and, if so, what are we doing about it?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the whole House will be interested in the answer to that particular question because it is a very important question as we return to our constituencies.
Statistics Canada has just released figures which indicate from October 1989 to September 1991 that 5,000 additional manufacturers have been established in Canada and 30,000 new jobs have resulted.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I ask myself why this has happened. We know why this has happened.
First of all, we have a $500,000 capital gains exemption. We have the lowest corporate rate for small business in the OECD. We have lower medical and health care costs, far lower than in the United States, plus we now have a prime rate competitive with the
December 12, 1991

United States and access to credit, thanks to the financial institution reforms that have been passed, better than any other country in the OECD.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
In the more than seven weeks between now and the resumption of this session in February, hundreds of farm families and their creditors will be reviewing their financial future. Since commercial mortgage rates are now as much as three percentage points lower than the Farm Credit Corporation rate, can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House and those families what rate Farm Credit Corporation will be charging in 1992 so that these farm people will be given realistic choices in deciding whether to continue or to quit?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to do that for the hon. member. If he would have asked that question last year, I would have given him an answer that would have had Farm Credit Corporation charging five percentage points more than it is today. The hon. member knows that farm credit adjusts its interest rates on a weekly basis so that producers are able to take advantage of the lowest interest rates that the Farm Credit Corporation could obtain for farmers in the market.
That is the policy. It is adjusted every week so that farmers have the advantage of the marketplace and the downturn in interest charges that has taken place through the Government of Canada, this government, managing the economy in the manner it has.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, our farms, fisheries, and forests are threatened by this government, in particular our forests.
The ruling today of the U.S. International Trade Commission on the softwood lumber tariff is the start of a new trade war over our forests. My question is to the Minister for International Trade. Last week in the
Oral Questions
forestry committee the minister of forests said the government was surprised by U.S. retaliation this fall.
Is the government surprised by today's action and can the minister assure Canadians and this House that it will fight with vigour to protect the sovereignty of our forests? We do not want our forest policy dictated from Washington, D.C.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why we took the decision to terminate the memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber, so that Canadian provinces would establish their own forest management practices without having to clear any of these with Washington.
As I indicated in my previous answer, we are disappointed with this particular decision. I also indicated that this has happened on many occasions before at this stage of the proceedings. This is the first of four determinations. Following that we have access to the dispute settlements mechanism system under the free trade agreement. If necessary, we are prepared to go to that limit.
If my hon. friend listened to my first answer, he would know that I said we will be working very closely with the industry, with the provinces, with our friends in the United States who support our position because we believe that the actions taken by the United States are quite unjustified.


PORNOGRAPHY
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On May 31 of this year, I asked the Minister of Justice to address the urgent issue of hard core pornography. As I said at the time, many violent crimes, including wife and child battering and the sexual abuse of women and young children, can be traced to hard core pornography.
When is the government going to act on this reality by bringing in strong legislation that will end the widespread problem of hard core pornography?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member

Oral Questions
knows, there is a provision in the Criminal Code, section 163(8), which defines obscene and is intended to address that question of hard core pornography.
The constitutionality of that provision is now before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case called Butler. That case was argued in June of this year and the decision has been reserved. We are hoping to hear soon from the Supreme Court of Canada their views of that subject. That will enable us to move ahead in this area with some kind of assurance about charterability.
In the meantime, however, as the hon. member will know, in all of the discussions that have taken place within Parliament, the Rix Rogers report and others, there has been a strong consensus on the issue of child pornography. I am prepared to move ahead in that area pending any kind of resolution of the broader issues in hard core pornography that the Supreme Court of Canada may provide.


CANADIAN CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
According to an internal memo, the minister has been directed by Treasury Board to shut down the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, unless of course business and labour can come up with over $1.7 million in just five weeks.
My question is as follows. Is the minister prepared to stand up and protect the health and safety of Canadian workers or will he abandon his responsibility as the willing hatchet man for Treasury Board?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague and all members of this House that the government is very committed to CCOHS. I know the centre is in the hon. member's riding. When the Liberal government was in office, from 1978 to 1984 it gave the CCOHS on average $3.1 million a year.
When we came into office in 1984, until now, we have given the CCOHS on average $9.8 million per year. We will continue to contribute to CCOHS. However, we feel it is fair that the other stakeholders do the same; that is the unions, that is companies and that is the other provincial governments that get services from CCOHS.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, only this minister can take a Liberal creation, the CCOHS-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ms. Copps:: We created it.


An hon. member:: When did Lincoln Alexander become a Liberal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The fact of the matter is that this government says it is very committed to the CCOHS, yet it has only released half the funding that it needs before mid-January. That is its commitment.
How is it that the government can find $26 million in taxpayers' money for so-called prosperity hearings on competitiveness and the CCOHS is already there. Forty-three per cent of all its sales go to foreign customers?
Given that the government says that Canada must become internationally competitive and given that this House has urged the government to reinstate funding for the centre, will the minister do the right thing and financially support the whole amount of money that is needed to support this national centre whose programs save the lives of working men and women in this country.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the intervention of the hon. member would be a lot more productive if he did what one of my colleagues, and I seldom say that, from the NDP and colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party did when they saw the same article that the hon. member for Hamilton West saw. They came to me and said: "How can we help to make sure the centre continues?" They have undertaken to talk to the unions and the provincial governments to make sure that the centre survives.
I can tell the member that we will go the extra mile and we will put in the money as long as the other stakeholders do.
December 12, 1991


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Two Canadians have been sentenced to 28 years in a Brazilian prison for a crime they might not have committed. Having met this morning with the Lamonts and Spencer and hearing their plea to bring their children back to Canada, will the minister now do the proper thing, pursuant to Brazilian law, and immediately request the Brazilian government to expel Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the Lamonts this morning and with Mr. Spencer. The Prime Minister had a conversation with Mrs. Lamont as well in Vancouver.
As I explained to them, we are going to take a look at the situation with regard to the severity of the sentence that was brought about on appeal.
I certainly understand how the parents of these people feel, and I have stated that in this House before. I have asked our Canadian ambassador to Brazil today to meet with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs as soon as possible, preferably today, to express our concern about the severity of the sentences. I have asked our departmental legal advisers, who met with the lawyers for the Lamonts and Spencers yesterday, to examine the information that they brought. We are waiting for a transcript of the recent judgment which gave what we consider to be an excessively severe sentence.
When that is all in my hands, I will then make a judgment as to action that we will take.


JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, a short supplementary.
Ten years ago, Sidney Jaffe was kidnapped in Toronto and abducted to Florida. As a result, his wife was awarded damages by the Ontario courts and she now seeks to enforce this damage award in the courts of Florida.
Oral Questions
My question is this: Why does the justice department refuse to issue an executive letter to help the Jaffes recover the huge expenses they incurred as a result of crimes committed against them in Canada? Why does this government refuse to come to the aid of Canadian citizens and help them obtain foreign redress?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the department and I have neither refused nor accepted. This issue has been brought to my attention and I have asked for more information.
The principle that is raised by the Jaffe case is an important one where a Canadian was actually taken by a bounty hunter out of Canada as opposed to using the extradition process. That principle is now before the Supreme Court of the United States in the context of another case. I in fact have instructed my officials to enter an amicus curiae brief to argue in that case against that principle in the hope that in the future there will be some support from the American Supreme Court against those actions by the American government.
With respect to the Jaffe case, I am reviewing it and I have asked my department for more information about it.


PUBLIC SERVICE 2000
René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, in his report, the Auditor General expressed support for the over-all thrust of the Public Service 2000 renewal initiative, but noted some concerns about its eventual implementation.
I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board, given that PS 2000 was announced by the Prime Minister some two years ago and given that Bill C-26 was tabled almost six months ago, will this government continue to pursue this reform as one of its top priorities?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

December 12, 1991
Oral Questions
It gives me the opportunity to indicate very clearly that the government supports PS 2000 and wants to proceed with debate and referral as soon as possible, which should be early when the session reconvenes.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be two more questions.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who yesterday signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I would like to commend the Prime Minister for doing that and for his leadership in organizing the convention.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Chris Axworthy: I would like to point out a couple of points in the convention and ask for the Prime Minister's comments.
The convention commits Canada to encourage the production and dissemination of children's books and yet we have the GST on books. The convention also commits Canada to make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means and yet the government has cut funding for the provinces for higher education.
I wonder if the Prime Minister could indicate when the government intends to change its policies so that it can ensure that it will be in conformity with the UN convention.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his important question and I thank him for his comments about the importance of the event that took place yesterday on behalf of all of the children of Canada.
Of all the obligations we have, few are more important than those to our children. I appreciate very much the non-partisan support we have received from the NDP on this very important issue.
Funding has been increased to the provinces, not decreased. My hon. friend raises an interesting and good question with regard to the GST. We have indicated in the past that it is going to be looked at in the light of the experience of the first year.
Also, undertaking the obligations in the signature ceremony yesterday, the document indicates that every nation including Canada must present a report which displays the weaknesses of our situation vis-a-vis children, spell them out clearly at given times so that they can be corrected.
That is the priority that we seek to apply to the problems of children. I am delighted to know that I can count on the support of my hon. friend and I am sure of most if not all members of the House in this very noble endeavour.


MANPOWER TRAINING
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday, Andre Bourbeau, the Quebec minister, announced a complete reform of manpower policies and structures. This implies Quebec repatriating all powers in that area. Such a proposal goes to show the consensus that can be found in Quebec on this issue. Both labour and management are in support of a reform. I ask the minister this: Does he intend to open negotiations with his provincial counterpart to meet the needs identified by the Quebec government in this area?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will no doubt be happy to hear that, as recently as November 21, 1991, I signed an interim agreement on manpower training programs with my provincial counterpart. In the meantime, constitutional talks are under way and I am sure that, in the end, the tools required to tackle the labour market successfully will be available to Quebec workers as well as to all other Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: I have several notices of points of order and some of privilege.
I am trying to follow them in the proper order. The first is the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. I think this is on a continued matter.


Mr. Lee:: Mr. Speaker, I do intend to raise a point of privilege. However, members on the government side are co-operating in attempting to deal with the issue I
December 12, 1991

wish to raise with the House. That co-operation is continuing at the moment and we may be able to complete the matter this afternoon. I would ask that I be able to defer raising this point of privilege until we have a chance to see if the government has been able to complete its work.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take that into account. The hon. member may want to raise it again with me.


PRIVILEGE
Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the question of the member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday in which he impugned the motivation of the Prime Minister in signing the UN Convention on the Child, the member misled the House when he stated that the Prime Minister had pre-empted the report so that he could have a photo opportunity.
I want the House to know that I decided last Tuesday morning, in conjunction with the standing committee, to table the report this morning because I felt it would be the best time. There has been absolutely no contact with the PMO. At no time did I plan to table the report on Wednesday, with the proviso that if the House did not sit on Thursday I might have tabled it on Wednesday.


Mr. Speaker:: We probably got pretty close to debate.


POINTS OF ORDER
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order arising out of statements today. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell provided information to the House that was not correct. Perhaps he can check the "blues" and find that wherever he said "NDP in Ontario" he really meant "Liberal" and where he said "Bob Rae" he really meant "David Peterson", the premier who passed that particular act.


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker's generosity is related to the fact that it is Christmastime.
Points of Order COMMENTS IN CHAMBER


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in an exchange with the Minister of the Environment I made a reference to the little hacks around the minister. That was a poor choice of words.
First, it is not true. I know a number of the people involved and they are highly qualified and very dedicated.
Second, as my own staff pointed out to me quite frostily on my return to my office, when mistakes are made they are not made by staff, they are made by ministers or, in this particular case, by the opposition critic for the environment.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the remark he made today and the generosity and the spirit in which he made it. He is quite correct in the sense that the people who work with all members around this House are usually very competent and very dedicated.
May I say on my own personal behalf that the big hack was not offended.


STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my point arises because the good feelings being exhibited in the House right now might mean that we adjourn slightly earlier than the intended hour this evening.
As all members know, the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny Of Regulations has the responsibility to scrutinize delegated legislation on behalf of all parliamentarians.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that for only the second time an order for revocation of a regulation is before this House. According to the reference in the Order Paper, the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations will be deemed to be adopted at six o'clock p.m. this day. This report includes an order for the revocation of certain sections of the Indian health regulations which have been found to be ultra vires.
My point of order is to seek clarification and assurance from the House that this order will still be deemed accepted should the House adjourn earlier than the hour referred to in the Order Paper.

December 12, 1991
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for giving notice. I can assure the hon. member that the answer is in the affirmative.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend the House this morning during Routine Proceedings at the time of tabling of petitions. I wonder if I could receive unanimous consent from the House to table a petition.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent to table a petition.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the petition concerns the one circulated by the de Villiers from Toronto on the tragic death of their daughter. The undersigned residents of Canada, in support of the parents of Nina de Villiers, request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly. It is signed by a number of my constituents.
I wish them well and hope that the government can take care of this matter soon.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, this being the last sitting day of the Christmas season, I would like to ask the traditional
question of the government House leader. Could he perhaps inform the House as to what business we might expect upon returning to Parliament on February 3?
Second, I wonder if the government House leader would be in a position to indicate quite clearly the date of the federal budget, which we presume will be in February. No specific date has yet been set. Could he give us some information on that particular point?
Third, could he indicate to us whether he will be forthcoming with enabling legislation with regard to a possible referendum?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in terms of House business, we will continue to the completion of Bill C-32 at report stage, after which we will adjourn for a needed, if not deserved, respite from this place.
Upon return, there is a considerable list of bills that I would like to consider. I would ask the hon. House leader's indulgence, as well as that of other parties and members, to get back to them well in advance of February 3 to indicate the government's priorities. It will depend on what ministers will be available for participation in debate. As for the budget, the pattern established by this government of having annual budgets at approximately the third week of February is well received by everybody in the country and it is a pattern that we will continue.
As for the question of plebiscites and so on, as I have indicated earlier, these will be considered later for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I wish to receive and study the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, which is an important ingredient, before we can even consider such legislation.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate to the House whether there are any further statements that ministers or others might be making today.


Harvie Andre: I am sure that everybody would like to stand up and wish everybody else a Merry Christmas. Beyond that, I cannot think of any other reason why members would want to start other than to complete the debate and begin a happy holiday season for everybody concerned.
December 12, 1991


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to the matter of the royal commission on electoral reform.
As he knows, the commission will be tabling its document some time in January when the House is not sitting. In the document there will be draft legislation. I had asked him and the other House leaders earlier in the week to consider having pre-study of that legislation so that there would be more opportunity and more of a chance that the legislation would be in place for the next federal election. I am wondering if he has considered that item and had a chance to consult with the Prime Minister's Office, and whether the government would be willing to have pre-study of the draft legislation that will be included in the commission's report.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, legislation of this nature obviously needs the general support of all sides of the House and of all persons concerned.
In that regard the question of pre-study of the proposed legislation may be the appropriate way to go. I want to assure the member that we will have ample time to deal with it before it is necessary to introduce it prior to the next election.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, on two points of order, one following from the earlier question on the royal commission. As the hon. government House leader knows, I have written to him about the very discriminatory features of the Canada Elections Act as it applies to the raising of money by independents. We cannot receive the donations that registered parties can. This is a blight on the whole system and it is a real problem in the pocketbook. I really hope, knowing full well the time it takes to amend the Canada Elections Act, even with pre-study, that over the break the hon. government House leader will confer with other House leaders to try to remedy this with a simple amendment, as I suggested in my letter. Then it will not be necessary to start a court action and an injunction against all political donations until this matter is resolved. I say that seriously.
That is my first question. Frankly I thought the royal commission, and perhaps the government House leader has further information on this, was intending to file that
Business of the House
report in November. Perhaps he could indicate if he knows when it will be filed.
Since I was not able to get the Speaker's eye during Question Period, in a nice gesture of Christmas I would like to extend Christmas greetings to you and your staff on behalf of the independents, who happen to be the largest group in Canada at the present time. I was going to say that when I caught your eye. However, since I did not get your eye I will say it now. Now my second point.


Mr. Speaker:: I can say to the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants that the reason he did not get my eye is that I knew he had several points. Please continue.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have only one point left and it is a serious one. I know the Prime Minister has some other things on his mind, but since we all agree that confidence is rather important for the economy and the Constitution, is the government going to clarify this confusion and the Gilbert and Sullivan act of a Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies over this break, since a cabinet order is involved? If it cannot get it in order, scrub the whole thing right now.


Mr. Speaker:: I think this is extending into Question Period. The hon. government House leader.


Harvie Andre: I hear the hon. member's representation respecting the question of tax deductions. As he knows, undoubtedly one of the questions the royal commission has been seized with is how to reconcile the kind of limits we have and the description of political contributions in terms of raising and spending within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, taking into consideration the fact that we now have experience that groups can apparently violate the Elections Act. All of those questions need to be considered, including the representation made by the hon. member.
However, I hope the hon. member is not saying that he represents all of those who say "none of the above" when people answer the question "what is your preference" in the polls.


Mr. Heap:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a petition since the order was out of order this morning.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thank my hon. colleagues. This is a petition on behalf of families who have been separated-

December 12, 1991
Speaker's Ruling


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a point of order.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind hon. members, especially the ones who have been here for such a long time, and I too have petitions, that we can simply table them with the Clerk of the House and the petitions are tabled without seeking unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the hon. member has unanimous consent of the House anyway.


An hon. member:: Yes, he has.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, let me put the question again to the House.
The hon. member for Trinity-Spadina has asked the unanimous consent to present a petition. Does he have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.




Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, colleagues.
This is a petition on behalf of families who have been separated for years and may be separated for years more. I am asking that the minister of immigration issue minister's permits for spouses and dependent children of refugee claimants who have been permitted to apply for landing from within Canada, including persons in the backlog and persons accepted under the new legislation, and allow them to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.
This has been signed by 25 residents of the city of Toronto.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a question for the Prime Minister, if I may.
I am wondering if the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to review the Hansard of yesterday and if he
would wish to make a statement with respect to the exchanges which took place yesterday at three o'clock.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought that perhaps goodwill was going to take over and prevail in the end.
As I indicated earlier, I sat here and my colleague the Minister for International Trade was not here. The Deputy Prime Minister, the minister of youth who was sitting behind the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Whip who was sitting behind the Prime Minister absolutely and categorically deny that those comments were made.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Harvie Andre: Let me finish my comments. As was quite accurately and properly pointed out this morning during debate, the supposition that an accusation can be made in this House and the accused must somehow stand up and explain or apologize is something I simply cannot accept as a precedent.
I heard what the Prime Minister said. He did not say what was attributed to him, and frankly that should be the end of it.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from LaSalle- Emard stood today and he corrected an exchange that took place. There are members on this side of the House who believe an exchange took place.
I ask the right hon. Prime Minister, and this is my final question, if he does not see fit to stand in his place and make a statement with regard to the exchange that took place yesterday at three o'clock.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has raised the matter which engaged us yesterday and also this morning. The hon. the government House leader has made his position quite clear. I am going to try to deal with the situation we find ourselves in as succinctly as I can.
Yesterday the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Hamilton East urged the Chair to review Hansard and the electronic tape, alleging that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister had used unparliamentary language and consequently caused disorder.
There were other members who wished to be heard, but I took the position that I had the point that was
December 12, 1991

raised and I undertook to the House that I would, as they say here, look at the "blues"; in other words review Hansard and also the electronic Hansard.
This morning when asked by the opposition House leader I reported that I had reviewed both Hansard and the broadcast tape and neither lend any support to the claim or the allegation that the right hon. the Prime Minister used unparliamentary language. This morning the hon. government House leader asserted the view that the right hon. Prime Minister did not utter the words that had been attributed to him.
I ask hon. members to listen carefully because I am rendering a procedural decision. There is a dispute as to what happened. There have been statements made outside the House of which I am aware, but as is our tradition the Speaker cannot and should not make any ruling based on comments outside the House or in media reports.
In a situation like this, which is not easy, the first condition is: Did the Speaker hear words or a phrase of an unparliamentary nature? I have to say to all hon. members that the first condition was not met yesterday as the Chair did not hear the alleged utterance.
Hon. members will say: "Well, why didn't the Chair hear it?" The Chair cannot hear all comments made in the Chamber. All hon. members, I am sure, can accept that and know that.
The second condition if the Chair has not heard the words complained of is to verify our records to establish if they are reported by Hansard or audible on the recording.
Having done so there is no supporting entry in Hansard, nor does the electronic Hansard demonstrate that an offending phrase was used by the right hon. Prime Minister.


An hon. member:: How about if I heard it?


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a helpful suggestion at this point. I really would ask hon. members to refrain from making comments like that.
I suggest to the House that is where we are now. I am asking hon. members to listen carefully. That is where we are now. I suggest to the House that the Chair can go no further. I have done what I was requested to do and I have reported on it. The Speaker has no power to
Speaker's Ruling
compel any member's attendance nor can I force any member to make a statement.
I want it clearly understood that some weeks ago on an unhappy day when a member was brought to the bar of this place, it was not done so by the order of the Speaker. It was done so by the order of this House after debate. There is a distinction.
The Chair is faced with a dispute and is unable to resolve it. When the official records are not supportive of the allegations, I am convinced that it is not the duty of the Chair to try to resolve it.
As far as I am concerned from a procedural point of view and in keeping with our conventions the matter is closed.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the important parliamentary decision. You indicate that neither the Speaker nor the video nor the sound records nor the Hansard monitors sitting a few feet away from me support the allegations imputed. The reason for that is because what you have just indicated is entirely consistent with the facts of yesterday.
That is why it is as it is. That being said, I have always taken the position in this House that any offence, real or imagined, deliberate or inadvertent, that might cause the Chair any difficulty of any kind is something that I as Prime Minister ought to be the first to respond to. I always have sought to do that and I do so again today.
I would say to the Speaker and to all hon. members of the House that I concur fully with the judgment of the Speaker and the reasons that he has given. They will search in vain for the offending phrase because it does not exist. That having been said, I convey to the Speaker my regrets for any inconvenience and I convey to any hon. member of the House my regrets for any offence they may have taken at any comments made by me that may have inadvertently caused them any degree of difficulty.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the clarity of your decision.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, through you on behalf of my party, we accept your ruling and we accept the statement just made by the right hon. Prime Minister.

December 12, 1991
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today I inadvertently forgot to present a petition. I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent to allow me to present a short petition at this moment?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my generous colleagues in the House for this gesture.
It is a petition on behalf of a number residents throughout western Canada. They point out that 94 per cent of the population of Croatia voted for independence, that Croatia instituted a democratic government in a multi-party election conducted in April 1990, that like all other peoples Croatians are entitled to freedom, democracy and their right to self-determination, and that Canada has an international reputation as a moral authority and as such can initiate this democratic process without compromising world peace.
The petitioners call upon the government to take the initiative to recognize Croatia fully as an independent and sovereign democratic nation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 9, consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, as reported (without amendment) from
the Standing Committee on Finance; and the motion of Mr. Langdon (p. 5964).
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak too long. I just want to review a few comments with regard to this bill.

I can say without any hesitation that I am definitely opposed to Bill C-32, a measure that demonstrates this government's failure to defend the poor in this countiy.
Faced with a situation in which more and more Canadians will have to resort to welfare, the Tory government is putting a cap on our Canada Assistance Plan. This measure will put a 5 per cent cap on funding for welfare plans in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Unfortunately the need for funding will probably be greater in these provinces as a result of the negative impact of Tory policies such as the GST and free trade on our economy.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Assistance Plan is a major component of the kind of program vision that requires close co-operation between the federal government and provincial governments. The Canada Assistance Plan is a shared cost program. We also have Established Programs Financing, which focuses mainly on post-secondary education and health care which is in bad shape and the comprehensive financing formula, under which the federal government works together with the provinces in the areas of health care and education.
The purpose of all these programs is to ensure that Canadians, especially those in greatest need, receive government assistance. However, the Tory government's policies have clearly shown us that the government has chosen to ignore Canadians and the fact that many are living in poverty.
The number of homeless people, people who live on the street and who are barely surviving, is increasing. There are young people on our streets who are getting into drugs and prostitution and who will never be able to get out of that world. Obviously this would not be happening if the community could offer them alternatives, some kind of programs and social assistance to tide them over difficult periods.
The government is acting irresponsibly by capping the Canada Assistance Plan.
According to the federal government's figures, the three provinces affected will lose $2,135 billion in federal
December 12, 1991

transfer payments over five years. However, these provinces see a worse scenario. Ontario estimates that it will lose $1 billion in the current year.
Furthermore, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the provinces affected by the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan are the only ones that do not receive any equalization payments. Since half of poor families and 54 per cent of welfare recipients live in these three provinces, it seems very strange to me that the government is imposing such a devastating measure.

I would like to just to mention a few points before I conclude. I would like to say that as a maritimer I suppose some people are wondering why I am debating this Bill C-32 since it has to do mostly with Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. I think that if we look at the statistics it will show that the Canada Assistance Plan does help these provinces. To put a cap on CAP is to punish those provinces. It is punishing the people who live in those provinces who can least afford to be punished.
We talk about child poverty. I would like to point out to the House and to Canadians in general that today there was a report tabled. I would like to review some of the recommendations tabled in the Liberal minority report on child poverty. It has to do with this legislation as well.
The title of that document is A Child Investment Strategy. I would like to go right to the recommendations rather than highlight the whole report. In the recommendations the Liberal Party recommends that there should be some type of nutritionally balanced breakfast, lunch and snack programs in schools throughout Canada.
We would also recommend that due to the hardship that some families are enduring and suffering from that we should restore entrance requirements and duration of entitlements to pre-Bill C-21 levels.
We ask the government to withdraw Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget of last February. We also ask that this very bill we are debating today be withdrawn.
I should point out that there are a number of other recommendations that have been made. One is that
Government Orders
there should be a winter job creation program to help in the short term. Obviously we need medium-term and long-range solutions as well, but I think it is very important that we develop a short-term job creation program.
We know that unemployment will be very high for students and youths next summer. The government should be ready to have an accelerated job creation program for students and youths in place for the summer of 1992.
With regard to child poverty as it concerns aboriginals, we would recommend that the aboriginal leaders from across Canada meet with the federal government and establish an immediate course of action to address this very serious crisis.
One of the recommendations tabled today in our minority report was that the federal minimum wage rate be raised to $5 per hour effective January 1, 1992. Effective January 1, 1993 the rate should be raised to $6 per hour.
While I am on the topic of youths, students and poverty, I urge the government to stop dragging its feet with regard to the Student Loans Program. A complete review of that program is long overdue. I would ask that the government not only look and consult across Canada but look at other models in other countries so that we may come up with a better student loan package.

In closing, I must again object to this regressive measure of the Mulroney government.
Since unemployment and poverty have risen sharply in the three provinces affected by this bill, as they have in all the other provinces of Canada, the Conservatives show a lack of conscience and are committing a flagrant injustice by cutting funding for essential services.
Something is rotten in the kingdom when the ranks of the poor are growing at an astonishing rate at the same time that Canada's chartered banks report unprecedented profits, as we saw last week.
This bill is just a sneaky way for the Conservative government to put the burden of repaying the national debt on the shoulders of those who can least afford it and who have nothing to do with creating the problem.

December 12, 1991
Government Orders
Finally, I ask the government to revise its policy of capping CAP so the destitute can have what they need to survive. In this holiday season, it is important to give a little hope to people who need it most, so that they can look forward to better days.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if there would be unanimous consent, without debate and without amendment, to move the following motion:
That this House take note that the 1991-92 season marks the 75th
anniversary of the National Hockey League; and
That this House take note that the long-standing role of hockey in
Canada's culture, heritage, pride and national unity; and
That this House in the 125th of our country's existence recognize
January 1992 as the National Hockey League month in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the motion?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words this afternoon about Bill C-32 because this bill, brought in by the government at this time, is causing extreme hardship in many communities in the province of Ontario certainly.
The bill itself caps assistance provided under the Canada Assistance Plan to 5 per cent per year. Of course the government has gone to the Supreme Court to force this on the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia at a time when these three provinces, which are the only ones that do not receive transfer payments themselves from the federal government, are facing extremely high welfare and government assistance demands.
In fact in the Algoma riding I do not think that we have ever faced as high a demand for welfare assistance since the 1930s. Several weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Algoma Municipal Association meeting in which the welfare officials pointed out that the cost of welfare is really going through the roof in those communities. This is mostly because there were massive lay-offs in the summer and fall of 1990 in the community of Elliot Lake
due to the downsizing of the uranium mine operations. There were also lay-offs in the fall of 1990 in the city of Sault Ste. Marie because of the downturn in the steel industry, the strike that took place at Algoma Steel and the subsequent lay-offs that occurred.
What we have in this bill is a tremendous increase in the responsibilities of the provincial government. Thke the province of Ontario which is the energy and the engine of the Canadian economy. It has been in a very prosperous situation for the past six or seven years. There was an unprecedented growth period in Canadian history from 1983 through to 1990. Suddenly the whole economy of the province of Ontario goes into one of the worst slumps in history. The federal government caps the Canada Assistance Plan funding at 5 per cent at a time when unemployment and welfare costs are simply going through the roof.
After attending this meeting of the Algoma Municipal Association I wrote to the premier to suggest that the province of Ontario should be doing the same as most provinces in this country. I believe all the provinces with the exception of Nova Scotia and British Columbia should be jointly sharing the costs of welfare and assistance to people. They should be sharing these costs with the two senior levels of government, federal and provincial, and not be loading the municipalities of Algoma and municipalities across this province of 9 million people with 20 per cent of those costs.
Clearly, when there is a district like Algoma going through high unemployment, high UI payments and many thousands of those people coming off UI benefits, it is not the time to be loading more welfare costs on to the municipal taxpayers.
I have suggested to the premier that it should be taking on this responsibility jointly with the federal government. I suspect that there will be more difficulty in persuading the New Democratic Party government in Toronto that it should assume this responsibility which has been assumed by seven of the ten provinces in Canada, because of this capping of the Canada Assistance Plan.
I am told that the losses to the three larger provinces with the greatest fiscal resources amount to some $2,135 billion over the next five years. Therefore, persuading the Ontario government to do what it should do at this
December 12, 1991

time will be made more difficult by the decision of the federal government to cap the Canada Assistance Plan.
CAP was a program that was put in place by the former Liberal government. It was a way to bring some order out of the chaos which existed before then with the multiplicity of programs in which the federal government simply assumed half the costs for people receiving welfare assistance for dental care, essential living services for disabled persons, foster homes for abused children, safe houses for abused women and subsidized child care for low income families. Those are some of the parameters the Canada Assistance Plan provides.
It certainly is not the time for the federal government to be capping that assistance when provincial government welfare costs are going right through the roof after a period of massive sustained growth. Now we see unemployment in the province of Ontario, the income to the the government dropping dramatically, and at the same time the federal government is cutting back its assistance.
The House leader for the government indicated that they would be bringing in a new budget in the third week of February. Clearly this Bill C-32 is an unctuous bill. It is unfair to the provinces which generate the wealth to provide deficiency and transfer payments to those provinces with fewer fiscal resources. Now their resources from the federal government are being capped by 5 per cent per year. To bring that in at any time I think is a most unfair move. It brings it in now when welfare costs for the province of Ontario are going through the roof and when there are many communities such as northern Ontario and the Algoma district which need a more generous arrangement.
These communities were probably not getting it from the provincial government because of the federal government's action in capping the Canada Assistance Plan which is so vital and so important to maintaining the integrity of our safety net system.
Last fall at this time we were debating Bill C-22, an act respecting unemployment insurance. At that time we said to the government that it was increasing the contributions massively. It has already increased them again. It
Government Orders
is loading training on employees and on employers across the country. It is reducing the benefits. Communities in which the unemployment was at a certain level would be receiving previously perhaps 50 weeks of UIC benefits and suddenly would find they were receiving 35 or 41 weeks of UIC benefits.
What we have is a domino effect. Those communities consist of people who have been laid off for 40 or 50 weeks and suddenly are going on welfare. Then the local municipality or the province which does not have to make any contribution to UIC benefits suddenly is being loaded with these welfare costs.
In the case of Ontario it is having its Canada Assistance Plan funding capped at 5 per cent. Its welfare costs have gone up to a higher percentage, in some cases perhaps an increase of 10 per cent over and above previous levels. It is simply an intolerable situation and this bill is a reactionary piece of legislation which ought not to be passed.
I certainly hope that if the government does force it on the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, the new budget will rescind it because it is a Draconian measure and is being brought in at an improper time.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to enter into the debate. The government has introduced Bill C-32 which would cap federal contributions to the Canada Assistance Plan for the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.
I have been one of those who have advocated that there should be environmental review assessments on major projects. I would also advocate that there should be a social environmental review process when the government undertakes major initiatives like this.
I would like to know what the social impact of this legislation is. I would like to know how much more crime would be committed because of the increased poverty that this bill would put into effect.
I would like to know how many more suicides we will see because of this bill. I would like to know how much more hunger and poverty there will be. I would like to know the effects on children that this bill will have. I would like to know the effect this will have on future generations as we see more and more people, particular-

December 12, 1991
Government Orders
ly families and children in those families, being pushed to the poverty level.
One child in six in Canada is now poor. Almost one-half of Canadians who rely on food banks are children, almost one-quarter of a million children.
In the period now of a major recession, major hardship, this government is further tightening the screws on the very poor in this country by putting a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan through this proposed legislation.
This program affects the very poor of this country by turning the screws on them even more. I think the human hardship and the human fatalities that this will create are things that Parliament should really know about.
We hear, in some ways rightly so, that we do have to control our deficit. Our deficit now is an outrageous $400 and some billion. Well over a quarter of government revenues every year go just to pay the interest on the debt, close to $32 billion I understand. I could be corrected but it seems to me it is around $32 billion a year.


An hon. member:: $43 billion.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Some $43 billion a year goes just to pay the interest on our debt. I consider that to be a transfer of wealth to the wealthy.
Who are the people who benefit from this? You have your financial institutions, your lenders, the people who have money to save and to put into Canadian bonds. You have banks and foreign investors. These are the people who get the $43-some billion. Imagine what we could do with $43 billion in this country. To blame the poor, to blame those who are on welfare, I think is disgusting. It is obscene. They are not the cause of the deficit.
We have often heard members on the right and the Tories say we have been living beyond our means. By this I suspect they mean that our social programs are too rich. I knew a number of years ago, and I suspect the statistics are still the same, that what we spend as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product on social programs such as health, education, family allowance, old age pensions, welfare, education and so forth is the second lowest of all the industrialized countries of the world. We spend less than Holland, Germany, Denmark,
Sweden, Norway, Italy and England. Only the United States spends less than we do on social programs.
Do not tell me that we are spending too much on social programs or that it is the poor who have caused the deficit. There are countries such as Germany and England that have Conservative governments, but those governments I suspect have more of a social conscience than this government.
What is the cause then of our deficit? The real cause of the deficit, and it was illustrated in the budget in 1979 which the then Conservative Minister of Finance introduced, is tax expenditures, the tax loopholes. Those were the loopholes put in by the Liberals under their former finance minister, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
These loopholes allowed, for example, a clerk in 1983 to pay actually more in taxes than the Royal Bank of Canada did. Even though the Royal Bank of Canada had over some $360 million worth of profits that year, it did not pay one cent of tax.
These tax loopholes are the cause of our deficit. We did not collect the revenues we should have been collecting. Another beautiful example is tax reform in 1971 with the notion of a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Whether one earns a dollar in terms of work or a dollar in terms of profit or a dollar in terms of dividends or an increase in capital gains, a dollar should be taxed.
In 1971 when we did away with the inheritance tax the government of the day, the Liberals, in order to help the Compeaus and the Westons and its large wealthy friends allowed them to put their wealth in a trust. At that time it was estimated that they were allowed to put their wealth in trust and not pay taxes for 21 years; in other words a deferral for 21 years.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard the member who was speaking refer to another member by that member's name.
I believe the member would more properly be referred to as the member for Vancouver Quadra. I am sure the member is aware of that rule and I am sure he would want to follow it as closely as he could.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, you have two minutes left.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I apologize to the hon. member and commend him for his brilliant introduction and for his contribution to the House.
The fact is that in 1971 the Westons and the Bronfmans said they were given a tax deferral that was worth some $18 billion then. The deferral runs out in 1993. Twenty-one years are over.
Finally, the folks who have benefited the most from deficit financing, from the increase in wealth that occurred in the 1970s and the 1980s, whose properties in downtown Toronto rather than being worth $10 million for a high rise building are now maybe worth $30 million, $50 million or $60 million, the Tories are now going to allow them to defer paying any tax until the last member of the trust dies.
Are they making any contributions to fighting the deficit? Where are the contributions of the Westons and the Bronfmans?
There is dead silence. I do not expect the Liberals to change that because, after all, they created the situation in 1971, nor the Tories who are just going to perpetuate it.
A horse in Mr. Weston's stables gets more tax deductions and tax breaks than an old senior citizen, a widow or a child living in poverty. That is the obscenity occurring today as we finish this session before Christmas.
Do not blame the people on welfare for creating the deficit. My heart throbs when we hear the Liberals complain and take up the plight of the poor. They also have some responsibility in all this.
It also does not make very good economic sense at times when there is an economic downturn to put the screws on the very poor. This does not make economic sense. It is almost Keynesian in reverse and we see that with this government.
In good economic times it introduces tax reductions and in bad economic times it introduces the GST and more taxes. In good economic times it increases government expenditures and in bad economic times it cuts down on economic expenditures.
That is more than voodoo economics. That is stupid economics. With the bill that we are debating today-
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. The time of the hon. member has now expired.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
We have before us a bill today that is linked more closely than any we have had in the time I have been in this House with extending the poverty of children in Canada.
There is absolutely no doubt that when the government reneges on its commitment to cost share in social programs and social services, the Canadians who are being hurt are our children.
A report was done very recently in Ontario called the transitions report. This was approximately three or four years ago under a Liberal government. It has seen little action under the NDP government in Ontario.
Its primary recommendations were geared to having a social services system that allows people to get out of poverty rather than keeping them imprisoned in it. The main focus of that report was on our children. We should provide the family income so that children could be cared for, housed, clothed and fed decently. That means they would also be able to be educated. It means they would also have some commitment to a future that would encourage them to stay in school. It would mean they would be healthier and cost less to the health care system in this country.
This bill before us today says the federal government is no longer prepared to pay its share to meet the needs of children. It will set an arbitrary limit and no matter how many needy children there are, or how desperate those needs are, it will not go above that.
That is not the kind of Canada that I have raised my children in. It is not the kind of Canada I want for their children. It is a Canada where the poorest in our society bear the burdens of all the economic mistakes of government and of those with money.
The government creates the economic climate and it has no right to insist that the poorest and the weakest carry the burden of its errors in doing so.
If there is any doubt about who carries the burden, let us examine what services funding will be affected: dental care for people on social assistance, essential living services for disabled persons, foster homes for abused children, safe housing for abused women and their

Government Orders
children, and subsidized child care for low income families so they can go out and Work.
This surely is the exact opposite direction from that in which a country like Canada, one of the wealthiest in the world, wants to head. Surely we want to create opportunities so that every child can grow up with a hope of being healthy, well educated, and of contributing to the maximum of their ability to their society. Yet, that is not what happens.
This bill continues the climate of envy and greed that this government has so carefully sowed among Canadians. It fertilizes it well because what is said in this bill to provinces like Ontario, B.C., and Alberta is: "You three will be selected, out of all the Canadian provinces, to have your poor, your elderly, your children, and your needy made subject to an arbitrary limit on how much they need. Even though you three provinces contribute the funds and the wealth to allow us to equalize opportunities across this country, you will not be able to share the resources this country has for looking after its most vulnerable citizens".
We are talking a lot about concurrence now, about the abilities of different levels of government to share power and share the responsibilities in a number of fields: culture and communications, the environment, management of the economic union, and society. Yet, we have here a violation of the fundamental bargain of Confederation, which was that we will share and will treat each other equally. This bill violates that bargain.
Three years ago those of us who cautioned against the free trade deal and cautioned that it would affect our social programs were told that we were scaring the elderly and the poor with no cause whatsoever. I want to examine a pattern of changes in public policy in the area of social programs that this government has taken us through since that 1988 election.
There is the deindexing of child benefits. Who does that hurt? That hurts those in this country with the lowest income. There is a steady cut in funding for affordable housing, the lack of which has been identified as the single main cause of poverty among children and among Canadian women.
There is the elimination of the Rental Rehabilitation Assistance Program, which allows tenants to upgrade
rental housing, but home ownership still gets assistance from this government.
There are caps on the contributions from the federal treasury to programs for young offenders. Yet a new Young Offenders Act has been introduced which is punitive to young offenders when there are no services available.
There are cuts to family allowances and the old age security clawbacks. There is unemployment insurance. Again the poorest are being asked to make up for the cuts in training dollars that this government has carried out since its election. I say the poorest because there is a limit on how much people can contribute to unemployment insurance. Those earning the least contribute the most.
We just dealt with Bill C-20 in which we are talking about caps on our contributions to funding our health care program. Here we are again capping the Canada Assistance Plan, which is a fundamental program of our social safety network.
I say to the government that the people who were talking three years ago about free trade, about harmonizing our social programs with the levels of poverty and human degradation of our trading partner to the south, were not the ones who were scaring Canadians. It was this government that was misleading Canadians about its commitment to our social safety net, to our social system and to the dignity and respect that we believe as Canadians every human being in our society should have.
In the three years since the free trade agreement was implemented, we have moved steadily and systematically under this government toward harmonization with a social system that is inferior to us and which creates inferior human beings out of poverty.
This bill is just the latest nail in that coffin.
Here we stand, less than two weeks before Christmas, processing the second in a series of bills, but the 20th or 25th in a series of actions by this government, to further entrench poverty and dependency in this countiy.
Here we stand, before Christmas, with more people facing more hardship in this, one of the wealthiest nations in the world. That is not the kind of Canada those who have sat in these seats before us tried to create. It is not the kind of Canada that I hope I am here to try to create for the next and for future generations.
December 12, 1991

I can only say, in the strongest possible words that I condemn this bill. I condemn the fundamental dismantling of the Canadian commitment to sharing and equality of opportunity it represents.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today to address the question of Bill C-32, an act respecting the Canada Assistance Plan.
I do so because I feel that it needs to be discussed, debated and reconsidered.
Let us just consider what we are talking about. We are talking about putting a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan. We are talking about telling those provinces in Canada that are richer on a relative basis, that is Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, that the federal government, which up to now used to share a number of social assistance programs with the provinces, will do so only up to 5 per cent.
At first glance, people would say: "Well, what is wrong with that. I mean that seems to make some real sense when we have a large deficit and a large debt". However, let us consider the ramifications of such a decision. Picking on those three provinces already contributing massive sums of money to be redistributed within Canada to those provinces that have less means that they will feel, and justifiably so, picked on again and some more.
The freeze that was put into place has now been extended. There were tensions created then because it was challenged in a court of law. It will continue to be challenged, if not in a court of law, certainly from a moral perspective, a political perspective and a practical perspective.
I abhor any kind of legislation, any kind of government action that will simply increase the tensions in this country at this particular point in time.
It is also extremely sad that these provinces that have more relatively speaking are being asked to contribute even more, even though they are already giving a whole lot as a result of a problem that has been for the most part created by the federal government itself. Much of the problem has been created by the federal government.

We know because we have been talking about it for a long time. When we discuss our country's economic
Government Orders
policies, we know that an effort has been made by the government to slow down the economy. Because of the high dollar and high interest rates, we are in a recession which started a long time ago and which unfortunately persists. How did that happen? More people are unemployed; more people rely on social services in our country. Because of a recession that was caused by the federal government and has a direct impact on people who need that help, we ask the provinces to continue to meet the needs of their population, and then we say: "up to a certain point". So, you see the contradiction. I find this really unfortunate.
I find a second thing regrettable.

When talking about control of expenditures, I mention this and I am going to mention it again and again and again, the government brags about having capped its expenditure level at around 3 or so per cent. It flaunts this. It must simply admit to the Canadian people that it has done this on the backs of the provinces, on the backs of the taxpayers.
If I were to take my debt, walk around this afternoon and simply parcel it out I could walk out with very little debt, perhaps no debt at all. How fair would it be to dump this on the backs of others?
This is precisely what has happened. I do not want to be particularly unkind because we are in that season in which one has to be even more generous than usual. There is not only a contradiction but there is an element of hypocrisy. It is simply untrue that the debt is being controlled effectively because much of that debt is in fact going to be absorbed by the provinces and by the people in those provinces.
We have particularly seen that in the whole area of education. The student debt is going right out of sight. In fact, there are fewer students who are continuing their education. They fear to do so because there are no jobs at the end, once they have completed their courses.
This action on the part of government raises a number of other serious questions. Which other provinces will be capped? If you cap some why could you not cap the others? I know that those which are capped are the contributing provinces. They are the ones not receiving assistance from the other provinces but rather contributing to it. What would prevent the government from saying: "We're going to take the next two in line in terms

December 12, 1991
Government Orders
of per capita wealth and we're going to cap them to this particular level?"
Once you have started to do that-

It is obvious, in my opinion, that we could continue to do so, that we could come up with a new formula. Given the great priority that the government seems to put on controlling the deficit and the debt, especially on the backs of the provinces and their population, that possibility should not be disregarded.

When you talk about other provinces possibly being capped, you should not forget that there might be some other programs that are also capped, reduced, or eliminated. Why? Because the government wants to try to pretend to the Canadian people that it has controlled the deficit and the debt. It will take on any measure in order to try to make that point, even though it is most misleading. As I indicated before, it is not a control of the debt, it is simply giving it to others to accept. It needs to respond to the concerns of its citizens.
Let us review veiy quickly some of the negative effects this particular bill will have on Canadians. Dental care for many Canadians will be affected, as will essential living services for disabled persons. Disabled Canadians are among the poorest of the poor and they will be affected. We know that.
There is the issue of foster homes for abused children. We have talked a great deal during the last day or two about the need to respond to children. Here we have a government program that runs counter to this. I find that terribly disconcerting, contradictory, and certainly misleading.
There is the issue of safe housing for abused women. You and I and all of us here have heard the rhetoric with respect to what the government intends to do in this area. Here is a decision that is being made that is going to affect women who are abused. It cannot simply continue to say things that sound right and on the other hand act differently or completely opposite to what is being said. It does not wash any more.
There is the issue of subsidized child care for low income families. I have spoken about poverty.

As for poverty in this country, one of the richest in the world, five million Canadians live at or below the poverty line.


An hon. member:: It is unfortunate.


Ron J. Duhamel: Yes, it is very unfortunate and there are over a million children in that group.
I mentioned the food banks that will feed almost two million Canadians this year, 40 per cent of whom will be children.

Here we have a bill that will remove the subsidization to child care for low income families. We all know that the Supreme Court decision has given the federal government the right to cut welfare transfers to the provinces, but it did not provide the government with the moral right to abandon its responsibilities to poor and disadvantaged Canadians.
While I recognize that it is extremely difficult for any government to look at what it has done and admit it has done something really frightening and fundamentally wrong, I would hope that in the spirit of Christmas and the spirit of the holiday season it might for once do the right thing.

Those are my comments. I hope that they will be given some serious thought.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke before on this bill and here I am speaking on it again. Before I proceed with that, I would like to congratulate the House of Commons committee on the good report it has introduced trying to deal with this question of poverty and child poverty across Canada.
It is my hope that the government will look at those recommendations with an open mind and try to set up some sort of a strategy to deal with child poverty in a very effective and direct way early in the new year.
There has been a lot of discussion on this question of child poverty in Canada and there have been a number of reports. The Senate committee on Social Affairs,
December 12, 1991

Science and Technology just very recently released a report on this whole question of child poverty.
I am not going to read all the recommendations, but I am going to indicate three of them because I think these recommendations are very relevant to the subject matter at hand.
First, the committee recommended that the federal government fully support the objective of substantially reducing child poverty in Canada. Toward that objective, the committee recommended that the federal government show leadership by undertaking co-operative strategies with other levels of government and the public at large to address the needs of Canada's children living in poverty.
This is the first recommendation.
The second recommendation is for a national conference involving all levels of the federal government on the subject of shared solutions to the problem of child poverty in Canada to be held within the next 12 months. This is important and timely.
Another recommendation is that the federal government in collaboration with the provincial and territorial governments set out a policy, as quickly as possible, on national child care outlining a range of child care options.
There are in excess of 16 different recommendations that came out of this report on the question of child poverty.
Why did we pick child poverty? It is a timely subject especially in light of the fact that Canada endorsed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is an excellent step in the right direction toward solving the question of poverty once and for all in Canada.
At the same time, because this debate is taking place during Christmastime, I wanted to focus on the question of child poverty as it relates to the city I represent. While many of my colleagues think we live in a fat city, in fact, as in anywhere else in Canada, we also have child poverty here. One out of every four children in the city of Ottawa lives in poverty. Ottawa is one of the largest cities in Canada.
When you look at the poverty rate for families with children in our region, it is almost double the rate of families without children. In this region alone over 12
Government Orders
per cent of families with children are poor in comparison with 6 per cent of families without children. It is almost double. Translated into numbers, there are almost 13,165 poor families with children.
Poverty hits children the hardest. When you look at children in schools, you will find that one out of six in this region under the age of five are poor. Almost 55 per cent of families with children are poor when the household maintainers are under 25 years old. The younger those family maintainers are, the greater the chances of them being poor. This is especially so when it comes to single parent families.
We have approximately 10,500 children living in 6,000 poor two parent families in this region. This is a serious problem facing not only our city but also has a tremendous impact on the schools that are trying to provide them with the education they need.
According to the latest statistics, almost 50 per cent, or 5,930 poor families with children have a household maintainer who has not completed high school. About 50 per cent of the poor families in this region, whether they are men or women, have not completed high school. This is twice the national rate across Canada when we talk about a dropout rate of 30 per cent.
When you look at the number of households where there are those who have post-secondary education, we have only 11 per cent in our region. That is only 1,200 families. It gets even worse when you look at the poor families where one of the household maintainers or supporters has a university degree. It is a very small percentage of people. It is only about 3 per cent or 935 families.
That is the kind of situation we are dealing with when it comes to poverty, especially in our inner cities.
Many of my colleagues might suggest that the reason we have poor families is because poor families have too many children. You would be surprised to learn that the majority of poor families, or approximately 78 per cent in our region, have one or two children at the most.
Also some people think that just finding a job is the answer to poverty. In fact, according to the Social Planning Council and its report on child poverty in our region of Ottawa-Carleton, many of the people who

December 12, 1991
Government Orders
even have jobs live below the poverty line. It is a fairly large percentage of those people.
A lot of people think that people on welfare are single men too lazy to work. Unfortunately and fortunately at the same time, if we look at the people who are actually dependent on welfare cheques, 41 per cent of them are children, 17 per cent of them are disabled and 16 per cent are single parents.
Because of time constraints I am not going to go over the recommendations in other reports such as the Canadian Teachers Federation, the Standing Committee on Social Welfare and the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton in its report The Other Side of Fat City.
I am going to make reference to two recommendations which were made by our caucus. One of them could deal very effectively now with child poverty as it relates to school boards. We recommend that the federal government immediately participate with provincial and territorial governments, school boards, and community volunteers to provide nutritionally balanced breakfasts, lunches, and snack programs in schools throughout Canada. The reason we suggest this is because empty stomachs have no ears.
We also recommend that the federal government start immediately to look into redesigning the tax system to make it more equitable, to help families cope with the added expenses of raising children and to simplify the federal child benefit system by the beginning or by the end of April 1992.
These are all recommendations which were made. It is my hope that the government will have a chance to look at all these reports and hopefully in the new year it will come up with a strategy whereby we can solve the question of child poverty once and for all.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the debate at this stage of the discussion in the report stage of Bill C-32, but some recent events in my constituency have prompted me to rise at this time to draw to the attention of the government and of Parliament the increasing numbers of people who are having to turn to welfare or social assistance as a result of what seems to be a breakdown in much of the UI system.
The relevance of course to this bill is that the government is attempting to do through legislation what can only be described as an act of Scrooge in the days before Christmas. It is attempting to transfer it's debt load on to our provincial governments in areas having to do with social assistance and welfare and many other financial cost sharing programs that impact directly on single parent families, on the poor and disabled, on injured and sick workers, those who are lining up at the food banks and the working poor.
There is something happening right now. I would like to quote very briefly from a memo that I just received from my constituency staff. My assistant in Nelson, B.C. says:
"People are mad as hell. I hear of fears for staff safety at the Nelson UIC office. It is taking at least six or seven weeks for first cheques in the most simple circumstances. If anything goes wrong with your claim, you face welfare until it is resolved. It is bad and we see little sign of it getting any better despite reassurances from UIC management".
This is just one additional way that at the same time as the federal government is cutting back on what should be its legitimate contributions toward caring for the unfortunate, the laid-off, the sick and the disabled in our society, the policies and management policies of this government are driving more people off work, off wages, on to UIC, off of UIC and on to the welfare system.
A few months ago the government moved to do that as well when it changed the eligibility for unemployment insurance to make it more difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance on the one hand and, at the same time, shortening the term of the benefit period during which workers could collect unemployment insurance.
This federal government has been attacking it from both ends at the same time as it has been cutting back on its contributions. It has driven people off of unemployment insurance and on to welfare. Through mismanagement in the UI system it is causing tremendous delays for people to be able to get their UIC cheques, even when they are qualified to get them. The provincial governments across the country are being stuck with the bill, at least those provinces that are affected by the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.

Apart from the human impact of this, what does it mean financially? The provinces, generally speaking, have to pay a higher interest cost for borrowing than does the federal government, and a much higher proportion of their borrowing has to take place outside of Canada than is the case for the federal government. Therefore, for a whole range of macro-economic reasons it is also suicidal for the financial and economic health of the country. It also wreaks havoc on the lives of ordinary Canadians who find themselves in unfortunate situations.
Why is the government so determined to pursue this kind of policy? We know there are debt problems here. There are debt problems all over the country for respective governments. Except for sheer partisan political reasons, why should it dump the costs on to those jurisdictions that have to pay a higher cost for money than would be the case if that money were to be borrowed by the federal authority? It just makes no sense from any vantage point, except for partisan politics.
Surely the matter of the welfare of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians deserves a secondary consideration. While this government is doing this, it is also taking other actions that are going to make the same matters worse for a number of other reasons.
Just yesterday in the press we saw an announcement that the federal government was going to be cutting off funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Some people on the other side may wonder what that has to do with Bill C-32. One of the areas of research that CCOHS has been very involved with in terms of industrial health and safety has to do with preventing the kind of sickness, preventing the kind of injuries that cause people to go on to income assistance by levels of government, by compensation boards and by social assistance. Many of them will not for one reason or another qualify for workers' compensation benefits.
Again, the government seems intent for whatever reason to take financial actions which will result in more and more people going on to the welfare rolls at the same time as it is cutting back on what in past years the government has claimed to be its legitimate share of the cost of social services.
Government Orders
It is irresponsible and it is wrong and economically and financially, it just does not make sense.
In closing, I would simply hope that over the Christmas season, regardless of what happens to the motion before us at report stage today, the government perhaps may be visited by three spirits and like Scrooge turn over a new leaf over the Christmas holidays and when we come back present all of the people of Canada with a gift, and that is not to proceed with Bill C-32.
That would be blessing us, every one, and in this pre-Christmas season that is what I would ask the government to consider.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to stand here and speak to report stage of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan.
Although I had spoken to this bill earlier I would like to speak again because today I would like to address the issue of child poverty in particular.
Through this legislation the government will cap the Canada Assistance Plan transfers to three provinces, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Obviously the federal government must believe that there is no poverty in these three provinces. I think that we can all attest to the fact that poverty exists in just about every region of this country, and certainly my province of Ontario is not any different than the others.
The Canada Assistance Plan was enacted in 1966 to assist and encourage the development and expansion of social assistance and welfare services throughout Canada. Under the plan, the federal government agreed to share 50/50 the costs incurred by the provinces and municipalities in providing social assistance and welfare services to needy Canadians. The people who benefit most from this plan are those who are the most vulnerable in our society, those who suffer from poverty, neglect, disability, the homeless, the elderly, abused children, abused women, low income families. More often than not it is the children who suffer the most. Currently there are over one million poor children in this country.
This Christmas close to 300,000 children will go hungry. UNICEF has said that Canada's proportion of children living below the poverty line has increased over the past couple of years, and yesterday we saw that the

Government Orders
Prime Minister finally ratified the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child after signing it well over a year ago.
What are the commitments which Canada must now live up to? The commitments that were made at that time were that the children of the world would get a first call on the resources of their respective nations and ultimately of our entire civilization; that mortality rates for children under five would be reduced by at least one third; that maternal mortality rates would be reduced by one half; that there would be access to safe drinking water and proper sewage treatment; that there would be primary education for at least 80 per cent of primary age children; that there would be a reduction of adult illiteracy by at least one half; and that children would be protected in situations of armed conflict.
The ones who immediately come to mind when I think of children who have not been protected in armed conflict are the children of Iraq. What is happening there today as a result of the armed conflict in the Middle East is absolutely tragic for those children.
Fulfilment of the commitments made at the summit would save the lives of some 50 million children worldwide. One hundred and fifty-nine nations signed this convention over a year ago and as of December 6 of this year one hundred and two were "states parties" to the convention either by ratification or accession. Canada's ratification yesterday boosted that up by one more.
Canada now joins countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Malawi, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Yugoslavia.
If time permitted, I probably could name all of the 102 but there are other things to talk about.
The reason I mention these countries is that most of the countries which have already signed the convention are impoverished or embroiled in violent struggle. Certainly they will face overwhelming odds to live up to the promises made in the convention. For some signatories, it will be almost impossible. Luckily for Canada living up to these commitments is not impossible.
However, it will take political will on the part of this government to ensure that appropriate and adequate
resources are channelled into eliminating child poverty here at home and abroad.
It is clear that there must be an expression of substantial public interest that these promises be kept. The hope that they represent is paramount. There is a world-wide campaign under way to ensure that all countries that have signed and ratified the convention will indeed live up to its promises. It is called the "Keeping the Promise" campaign. I had the honour earlier this week to speak about our world's children and this convention to a group of people from the city of Nepean and from all of the national capital region involved in the "Keeping the Promise" campaign.
On December 9, 1991, the Ottawa Youth Orchestra and the Ottawa Youth Choir dedicated to the children of our community and the world a concert at the Centre-pointe Theatre in Nepean. These young people presented me with a petition containing 150 signatures, their signatures, all young people from the ages of 13 up, saying: "Please Mr. Mulroney, keep the promises made at the World Summit for Children".
Canada must lead. The government must ensure that it put in place its fair share of the funds necessary to keep the promises internationally. As passed in an all-party motion yesterday, our commitment amounts to 5 per cent of the cost of keeping the promises internationally. For Canada 5 per cent comes to $350 million.
We must also set the example for the rest of the world by meeting the commitments here at home. This will be increasingly difficult if the legislation before us passes. It is the provinces and the municipalities that provide the programs to meet the needs of our children, and there are simply too many.
The children are the innocent victims of the dour economic conditions created largely by this government. Today my colleague here in the House of Commons, the member for Winnipeg North, presented to us a wonderful report called "A Child Investment Strategy". It is the Liberal minority report on child poverty. I would like to congratulate him for putting together such a very worthwhile document. This minority report calls for a child investment strategy that would have marked the begin-
December 12, 1991

ning of a 10-year campaign against all child poverty in Canada.
As one colleague said in the House yesterday, the government has yet to put forth a clear plan of action on the elimination of child poverty in Canada. The young people who signed this petition were most concerned that they had not seen a clear plan of action on the part of the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister.
This Liberal minority report, among its many well constructed recommendations, suggests that the federal government withdraw Bill C-32 because it is a very dangerous bill.
There are three main reasons for submitting this report. First, the report by the subcommittee on poverty, as accepted by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, fails to deal immediately with child poverty. Two, the report that I just mentioned fails to inform the House of Commons and Canadians of the extent to which federal government policies have directly and dramatically increased poverty in every region and city throughout Canada. Three, the government's report says there are measures that can be immediately taken to ensure that the attack on child poverty is not deferred for another decade.
Fifty per cent of the people who use food banks are children. Many of these children could be helped more directly in the school system. We believe that the federal government should participate with provincial governments, through the boards of education, in the provision of nutritionally balanced food within the school system.
Changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act introduced by this government have radically altered the nature of the unemployment insurance program and have affected many people across the country. This government should recognize the negative impact of the recent change to the Unemployment Insurance Act and immediately restore entrance requirements and duration of entitlements to pre-Bill C-21 levels.
I recognize that my time is up. There are many more things that I would have liked to have had the opportuni-
Govemment Orders
ty to say. However, I thank you for the privilege and the capability of standing in this House. I encourage the government to study the report by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and implement this recommendation and the others included within it.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak against Bill C-32 which will put a cap on the Canada Assistance Program.
Curiously enough, the year before Centennial year, in 1966, the government of the day made the social commitment to match the provinces' contribution to the Canada Assistance Program. Curiously enough, as I was saying, 25 years later, one year before the 125th anniversary, the present Conservative government has decided to cap the Canada Assistance Program. It makes you wonder. Is the Reform Party so popular that the Conservative government would want to bring its policies in line with theirs? Here is the Reform Party's policy on this problem:

"The Reform Party calls for a new social services order with government's role in social services reduced and non-governmental agencies, business, volunteers and families assuming a greater share of the responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves".

Does the Conservative government want to move in that direction by bringing its programs in line with those of the Reform Party of Canada? I ask government members whether they have any respect for the poor or for the young. Do they not have a social conscience? I am being rudely heckled by members on the other side. I know it's Christmas and that they want to go to the Speaker's party, but I would ask them to listen a bit.

"Eighty-five per cent of CAP spending falls under its provisions for social assistance which include social assistance for persons in need, including single parents, the aged, the disabled, the unemployed, the low income families and children in care, care in homes for special care such as homes for the aged, child care families and transition houses for battered women".

Government Orders

Once again I am heckled by members on the other side. They are shouting insults at me because I am reading part of my text. When we speak about women, I find it really odd that the member who shouts the loudest in the House is a woman, a Conservative.

"Certain uninsured health care costs, such as drugs and dental services and child welfare costs including maintenance costs in foster homes".

This is a most important and serious matter, and the less fortunate need a bit of love. It is not the time for government members to try to trip me up in my speech as I endeavour to explain why this proposal is wrong. We are shirking our social commitment to the poor and women. Well, that Conservative women member can go on shouting insults at me.
I must tell the hon. member, that I feel for children, elderly and women.
In Ontario several people move to the national capital region. I had the honour to sit on the committee on social services for five years, and I could see that different groups were asking help from the regional government. Some were even asking help for funeral services because they could not afford such a luxury.
When we look at the most recent reports on social services in the national capital region, that is the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, we find out that spending is increasing twofold and fourfold right now and that the national capital people would like to give more to the people really in need in the community. I submit that the conservative government is saying now to the province of Ontario: "You are very rich, so you pay more". That might seem alright if there was less unemployment in Ontario, if the economy was healthier, if people were spending more, if there was less bankruptcies. Every day on the news we hear of corporate and personal bankruptcies. That shows how bad the state of
the economy is. People are so hard pressed in Ontario. That province has the highest rate of cross-border shopping in Canada. We point the finger to free trade, to the economic policies of this government and this government says in turn: "Listen, we will put a cap on our assistance to provinces, Ontario for example". And they ignore the fact that statistics shows very clearly that in the case of battered wives and abused children-


Mr. Kindy:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Ukraine has officially recognized Croatia. I hope Canada will do the same. Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member has been in the House long enough to know that, quite apart from the importance of the matter, this is not a point of order. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester has the floor again.


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed by the behaviour of the hon. member who thinks that since we are on television he can interrupt the proceedings for a flash on something which happened outside Canada and has nothing to do with a point of order.
To conclude, I would say that our government has lost its social conscience. Up to a while ago it seemed it had a little, not very much, but a little social conscience. But now, it is moving ever closer to the policies of the Reform Party by saying: that the federal government will involve itself less and less in social programs presently shared with the provinces. We are going to ask Canadians to do more volunteer work. We are going to ask companies not to contribute and help people in need of social assistance.


Pierre H. Vincent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent of the House to table a document which should have been tabled earlier today, but was not, regrettably. I hope that in the holiday spirit, my colleagues will be kind enough to give their consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent to table that document?
December 12, 1991


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues in both parties.
I would like to table two copies of a document, in both official languages, pursuant to subsection 59(3) of the customs tariff, respecting the suspension of privileges granted under the free trade agreement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, as reported (without amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance; and the motion of Mr. Langdon (p. 5964).
Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, the debate on CAP has been going on for a fairly long time now. Many people have used their time discussing the issue and how it would affect Canadians in general, how it would affect children and how it would affect the poor across this country.
My concern comes back to two or three issues that have to do with the CAP. First of all I think a program put in place that will cause very great hardship to many people in my area is an unfair program. In this case I look at what is happening with employment rolls and the difficulties in southwestern Ontario, not only the farm community problems but also difficulties with dismantling of manufacturing throughout Ontario. I quickly realize our welfare rolls have swelled and who has to pay the bill. Very clearly there are policies in place and bills have to be paid.
Government Orders
It seems very unfair that this government through a quick act, through a stroke of the pen, would say it is no longer responsible for the policies that have occurred in the past short time. What I am referring to is the fact that many of the policies carried out in the name of management by this government have created very difficult times in southwestern Ontario.
When we look at the free trade agreement, at the great promises that were made in it and at the results of that free trade agreement, we see that there were thousands of jobs lost, thousands of people out of work. We see children having a very difficult time of it. I see that for people in every walk of life. Whether it is small business, the farm community, the factory worker or big business in my area, the dollars are not there to support the economy as there were in the past.
The wardens of both Kent and Essex counties tell me that their welfare rolls have doubled, tripled and greater than that in some cases. In speaking about the numbers of dollars they require for social agencies to operate, their budgets have just skyrocketed far beyond their ability to pay.
In my community in Blenheim we have had a tax revolt which is the voice of the people saying that the taxes being imposed on them are far too strenuous in these times.
At the same time the federal government has created many of the problems with the policies it brought forward and is now saying that it is opting out of the bottom end of this whole thing by taking away support moneys to the programs put in place to help those in dire need.
I feel that the government really has put itself in a comer. As I stop and think about that I really wonder what type of managers the Tories are. I have to say they are poor managers.
When I was speaking a little earlier I heard three members across the benches suggest that the national debt when they took over was far higher than I recall the statements being. One member from Calgary suggested the national debt was as high as $206 million. Another suggested $220 million.
I have an inquiry that was sent to the then Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. The question directly asked him what the national debt was in 1984. The answer he sent back was that the national debt

December 12, 1991
Government Orders
was $167,985 billion. The national debt in 1984 was $168 billion, approximately.
Our national debt today is skyrocketing over $400 billion which is well over 100 per cent increase. We hear week after week that it is because of the interest rates they had to pay back in 1984. Their spending was in excess of $30 billion beyond the revenues collected. They had to pay a national debt on interest of $22 billion which they attribute to past governments.
It is very clear in my mind that they not only spent $30 billion beyond the tax dollars they collected, but they did not point out at the same time that the government amounts received had increased to the point at which they have raised taxes since 1984 until today approximately one-third more than were available then.
If I were to take the government revenues in 1984 they were $64 billion. Today they are $128 billion. If I look at the government expenditures in 1984 they were $96 billion. Today they are $148 billion.
The government has spent a great deal of money on various programs and done many things it felt were directions it should carry out, but it did not consider where it was spending money or who it was supporting.
I have some real concerns that tax increases have been tremendous, that revenues have increased dramatically over the last six or seven years. At the same time the revenues increased it has built a $30 billion debt year after year on top of that. The end result is we are now sitting with an accumulated debt of well over $400 billion.
We do not have money to support programs that need to be supported and the government is saying it is fiscally responsible by cutting moneys that need to be spent on the poor in this country today, on welfare programs which are there to support most of our communities.
When I realize that it is just transferring that responsibility on to the provinces and on to the municipalities then I wonder what type of manager it really is. I believe that if it were responsible, the government would stop and look at the real basis for the programs it has.
I believe at this point that the government should start to examine how those overexpenditures are being created. We have to question whether building buildings or other projects under way are the things to do. Should
we be dealing with the poor, the weaker people in the economy, ensuring that education goes well, that lunch programs and schools go well, that those people who are having a very difficult time have the basic devices of life so that they can learn and increase their ability to be citizens in this community and are able to give as much as they can?
The direction we are moving in with this bill is retarding the ability of a great of number of people in this society to do the best that they can do. The problem is that we are not looking to the future. Presently we are looking at saving a few dollars, which create tremendous costs in the future.
Uneducated people, poorly nourished people who cannot learn, are going to be the children of the future if we do not change some of the things that are going on.
It is clearly evident that government has been very poorly managing our society. This bill is creating a tremendous disaster for the weak and the people who need support in our communities.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this bill on report stage, Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan and the Motion No. 1 to delete clause 1.
Bill C-32 was given first reading on September 18, 1991. The bill will effectively extend the limit on the 5 per cent increases in federal contributions to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario until 1994-95. These provinces are not receiving equalization payments.
This will prolong the agony even more by not understanding the call of the National Council on Welfare which says this must not happen. An advisory body of 21 members composed of present and past welfare recipients, social workers, lawyers, professors, people from all walks of life give a perspective and advice as a body to the minister of health. Yet, the minister of health of this government has turned deaf.
When the Supreme Court of Canada made its decision on August 16, 1991 saying that the federal government has a right to withhold its contribution it did not say that it should do it. The court only conferred the onus of that responsibility on the federal government. When that decision was announced the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development, Mr. Patrick Johnston, said: "The decision of the Supreme Court paves the way for the federal government to further limit
December 12, 1991

its financial support for essential social programs". This was said barely one month before this bill was introduced. The prediction and fear have happened already. First we allow the extending of the limit until the year 1994-95. It will only be a matter of time until it will be extended to the other provinces.
According to the estimate of this government, the three affected provinces were to lose $2,135 billion over the 5-year period anticipated in this proposed bill. Perhaps at this time of year this government may mellow. Perhaps in the spirit of Christmas it will see a miracle and change its heart.
I would like to review the background of the Canada Assistance Plan.
At the time of Confederation, assistance to those in need, such as the ill, the aged, the disabled and those who felt the consequences of family break-ups and were suffering, was given by charitable organizations and charities, at the time mainly in rural areas.
The Fathers of Confederation gave the social assistance jurisdiction to the provinces. However, it became clear in the 1920s and 1930s that the Fathers of Confederation were wrong. The obligation to help the poor and those in need is truly a national one. Hence, the Canada Assistance Plan was born in 1966.
A year before that, a great Liberal, Mr. Lester B. Pearson, gave his vision of how to help those in need in the throne speech. That is the Liberal vision which this Tory government is trying to erase from the map of Canada.
The Canada Assistance Plan has two basic objectives: to eliminate poverty and, at the same time and even more important, to prevent and remove the causes of poverty.
Who benefits from the Canada Assistance Plan? In 1988-89, 1.85 million Canadians benefited from the Canada Assistance Plan, of whom some 40 per cent, over 780,000, were children. Not only that, but the volunteers in volunteer organizations who help these poor children feel that there is recognition of their work if the Canada Assistance Plan is in place.
This government is trying to take that away. What message are we sending to our volunteers in the coun-
Govemment Orders
try? The Canada Assistance Plan has been described as a social bond, as the cohesive glue that binds our country together. What a better glue at this time when the forces of disunity are threatening to disrupt our country.
Through this amendment the government is violating the spirit of Canadian nationhood. It is violating the sacred trust of Canada's social programs. If this government pursues this amendment Canada would take a great leap indeed, but a great leap backward.
Also, the Canada Assistance Plan, in addition to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for low income pensioners, is the only remaining national program that explicitly fights poverty. It is a program for poor and modest income families to access child care services in the provinces.
As long as we still do not have the national child care program which this government promised in 1988, which until now has not been implemented, at least there is an escape in the Canada Assistance Plan and an escape valve for children in need of child care spaces.
This government is even trying to plug this escape valve. Where is the soul of this government? Therefore, at Christmastime I say: "Please, open your hearts. Rescind this amendment".
In conclusion, I would like to repeat that the intention of this government to amend the Canada Assistance Act is a great step backwards. Canada would make a great step forward if this amendment were rescinded. I support the amendment of the member for Essex-Windsor.
This morning the subcommittee on poverty tabled its report and the Liberal caucus decided to issue a minority report. Why is that? It is because the majority report of the government members completely ignored the sense of urgency to help our poor Canadian children. It completely ignored the witnesses that we heard over one and a half years who would like to have measures introduced for food, clothing and shelter.
We recommend a series of proposals, such as the establishment of a national nutrition-based program for breakfast, lunch and snacks and to immediately restore the entrance requirements and duration of entitlement

December 12, 1991
Government Orders
to the unemployment insurance benefits as they existed before Bill C-21.
We have asked the government to withdraw Bill C-20 and this Bill C-32. We would like an immediate job creation program this winter not next winter. You cannot postpone the temperature.
Finally we have asked that the federal minimum wage be immediately increased to $5 per hour. In the spirit of Christmas let us rescind Bill C-32 and we can go back to our provinces with a clean conscience and a conscience that we can share with Canada's poor.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House is disposed to have me speak for a very short time and I will undertake to do that.
It is seldom that I get the nod from my colleagues from the government side, but I suppose it is Christmas time and one is expecting to get some dispensation on these special occasions.
In all seriousness I did want to make a few comments on this bill. Essentially this cap affects three provinces. While they are outside the jurisdiction of my responsibilities as a federal member of Parliament I will say two things about that. While the cap does not apply to my province of Newfoundland, it does apply to three other provinces that are very close to Newfoundland in many ways. I am going to pick Ontario because as the economy of Ontario goes so does the work prospects of many Newfoundlanders who in the past would leave their homes, their residences or their towns to go and seek work in places like Toronto and other towns and cities in Ontario.
We felt the pinch of about a half a billion dollars if we total it all up in Newfoundland. This is because of a reduction in transfer payments in our case which reduced secondary and post-secondary education and hospital care. I have spoken on this frequently in the House and I am not going to repeat myself this evening. But this cap, as it applies to the province of Ontario and the other two provinces, concerns me greatly.
I do want to compliment my colleague from Winnipeg North who enunciated very clearly some of his concerns. The budget of February 26 was not the most popular
budget in the world. This is I suppose the last act of clearing up what is left.
If I could be permitted to finish in a civilized manner, I would veiy much appreciate it. I am not known as a heckler on this side of the House so I would ask the indulgence of my comrades across the way.
I think it would be worthwhile for us to remind ourselves who this is applying to and who it is going to affect the most. Who does this cap apply to? Well, I am going to just remind us, just before we close this session of Parliament, that they are the people that I come in contact with as a member of Parliament. I am sure all our colleagues come in contact with them.

Among those who benefit from public assistance and social welfare services are children in care or in need of protection because they are abused or neglected, the physically or mentally disabled, single-parent families, the elderly, the unemployed, families of persons in distress, low-income workers and battered women.

These are all types of people we have discussed in great detail in this House in the last session since we met here in early September.
I would have to be very strong in support of the amendment put forward by my hon. friend. I am not always known to support the other opposition other than the Official Opposition, but on this particular occasion I would find it very difficult in my heart to do otherwise.
On the basis of those who are affected by this I would be in support of the amendment. Before I do sit down I would like to also take the occasion to thank you indeed, Mr. Speaker, for your good guidance and judicious seating in the chair. I take this opportunity to wish that all my colleagues will put some of the things we have done in the past year behind us and hope that we can go forward with renewed vigour and with renewed purpose in the new year. Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
m

* * ~ [DOT]	
December 12, 1991

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Negatived on division.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion agreed to


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This ends our deliberations. I would be remiss if, on behalf of you all, I did not offer everyone who works for the House of Commons, from the Clerk to the humblest members of the support staff, in whatever capacity, my best wishes for a merry Christmas and happy holidays.

I would like to take a moment of the House's time to bring to the attention of hon. members the retirement of Mr. Aurele Periard, senior page, who has worked here in the Chamber since 1976.

I hope that his years in the House have not been too difficult and if his work load was heavy at times, we hope that it was made lighter by the energy and enthusiasm of hundreds of young Canadians.

I know that hon. members will wish to join me in thanking Mr. Periard for his many years of service and wish him good health in retirement.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind all hon. members that we will drink to each other's health right near here.
It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 28(2), the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 3, 1992 at 11 a.m., pursuant to the order made on Tuesday, December 10, 1991.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 13,1991