1992-09-14

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should share, in a fair and equitable manner, the assets seized from prosecutions proceeded by under the Narcotics Control Act, with all local police forces involved in the investigation and arrest of the offender.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be the sponsor of this particular resolution. As the Order Paper indicates, this resolution was moved on October 7, 1991.
In September 1991 I had the privilege of attending a public meeting in the riding of York South-Weston. The James Street Corridor Community Association sponsored a meeting to discuss the problem of crime and drugs in the community.
One of the issues of major concern to those present was how the proceeds of crime legislation was being dealt with, the fact that police forces, and in particular the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, were not receiving a share of the proceeds of crime specifically dealing with drug prosecutions. It was felt by that group and representatives of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force that it was unfair of the federal government not to share in the proceeds of crime dealing with prosecutions under the Narcotics Control Act.
To put this matter into perspective, in 1988, $10.6 million was seized as a result of prosecutions under the
Narcotics Control Act. That was before Bill C-61 was passed.
If you recall, Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we have been pressing for a number of years for the government to enact legislation which would permit police forces to freeze and seize proceeds of crime.
Finally in 1989 the government passed that legislation, but prior to the passage of that legislation only $10.6 million was seized. In 1989, $38 million was seized so we can see the dramatic jump as a result of this legislation. In 1990 I am advised that $45 million was seized and this year we should be seizing approximately $50 million.
What happens to that money? Up until now that money would be received by the Receiver General for Canada, would go into general revenues and would be lost in the national bank here. The local police forces and municipalities would not share notwithstanding the fact that largely through the efforts of certain police forces across the country huge seizures were made.
In any event, the government admits that even at $50 million it is still far short of what could be seized if the legislation was properly administered.
When the Solicitor General was in Vancouver in August, he released the RCMP's national drug intelligence estimate for 1991. The RCMP estimates that the drug trade in Canada today is worth between $4 billion and $10 billion, and to date we have only been receiving approximately $50 million as a result of the proceeds of crime legislation.
One of the reasons that the amount is so low is that local police forces have been reluctant to prosecute with full vigour. I would like to quote from a document put out by the Solicitor General. It was a backgrounder when the minister made his announcement in August which says:

September 14, 1992
Private Members' Business
Despite successes, the level of seizures and forfeitures pursuant to the legislation has fallen short of expectations. Key among the reasons for the shortfall are: (1) the absence of a coherent adequate resource asset management regime; and (2) a reluctance on the part of provincial and local police to participate in federal enforcement because proceeds investigations can be costly but the police receive no part of the forfeitures resulting largely or partly by their effort.
That is fairly astounding. There is an admission by the minister that local police forces are not pursuing with all the vigour and the resources they can muster the prosecution of certain drug offences because of the fact that they are costly and the federal government was not prepared to share.
The first reason given was the absence of a coherent, adequate resource asset management regime. In other words the local police were concerned, and the example often given was the ski resort that was purchased because of drug dealing. There was no organization that would manage the assets once they were seized prior to the police forces having the opportunity to liquidate.
I have had discussions with the local police in metropolitan Toronto including Chief of Police McCormack and others within my own constituency. They have reiterated time and time again that one of the major reasons why they have not been able to prosecute as vigorously as they might otherwise like was because of the shortage of resources. It costs money to prosecute drug offenders. It costs money to investigate.
Undercover police officers require cash in order to purchase drugs, to further investigations, and in particular in metropolitan Toronto the police force has been the subject of a tax squeeze. The municipal metro government in Toronto has cut back dramatically the resources available to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the public suffers as a result.
The police chief and others have been wanting for a number of years now, at least since 1989, a fair share of the assets that are seized and then sold as a result of their efforts, as a result of expenditures made by them.
I should point out that in metropolitan Toronto, as is the case in all municipalities in Ontario and elsewhere in the country, it is the local taxpayer, the property owner, the tenants who are footing the bill for what ought to be a federal initiative.
Following that meeting in September 19911 started a national petition drive. I enlisted the support of a
number of groups, organizations and police forces across the country and petitions were circulated. I am pleased to see that in August of this year the Solicitor General finally made an announcement, that the federal government, and I am quoting from his press release, "is planning to share assets forfeited as a result of federal prosecutions of drug traffickers".
I am pleased the minister is moving in the right direction but I am not pleased with the rate, with how quickly the minister is proceeding. He is simply planning. Rather than introducing legislation the minister is dragging his feet. Again he says he wants to consult as if there has not been enough consultation.
If I were a cynic I would suggest the minister was trying to score some cheap political points when he was making his speech before the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. He ought to have had a piece of legislation to introduce in the House this week or when Parliament was recalled last week. Instead he says he will continue to consult. He is concerned that local police forces or provincial governments might object. I have not heard of one provincial government that has objected to the federal government sending money to provincial police forces.
Under this proposal by the minister-and it is simply a proposal, there is no legislation-he proposes to set up an asset management office in Ottawa that would be responsible for managing assets that are seized under Bill C-61, the proceeds of crime legislation. The responsibility of that office would be to give pre-seizure advice to control and maintain the seized property, the management of restrained property appraisal, the advancement of moneys to preserve property, the disposal of property and allocation of proceeds, et cetera.
In his backgrounder the minister is suggesting that the sharing should be on a 90 per cent, 50 per cent or 10 per cent basis. In other words, the minister is suggesting that at the end of the fiscal year the government would look at how much money it had seized and would dole out to the participating police forces either 90 per cent, 50 per cent or 10 per cent based on the participation of the local force.
For example, if the RCMP and the metropolitan Toronto police were involved in a joint operation and were able to seize millions of dollars then they would share 50/50. In the event where one police force would
September 14, 1992

Private Members' Business
provide an investigative lead to another police force it number of people involved in trying to curb the intema-would receive 10 per cent.	tional drug trade.
What is of concern is that right off the top the rake for the federal government is 10 per cent. The minister is saying in this backgrounder that the federal government would rake-and that is my word, not the word of the minister-10 per cent off the top to help pay for the costs of running the office, prosecution and drug analysis, and all other similar costs. It seems to me that the minister and the federal government are nickel and diming the situation. The government should not be relying on its share of this money to prosecute drug offenders.
It is clear that there is considerable jurisdictional confusion and there are significant turf battles that take place among the different police forces across the country that are involved in drug enforcement or in investigating crimes under the Narcotics Control Act. It seems to me that what is necessary is a concerted, co-ordinated national effort, and that appears to be lacking.
The provincial government is responsible for the administration of justice, the federal government is responsible for federal criminal law; and local municipalities are responsible for police forces. It seems to me, from my experience as the critic of the Solicitor General for a number of years and as a resident of metropolitan Toronto, that the tax-paying public is being shortchanged as a result of this lack of co-ordination. I have been concerned for a number of years that the federal government has not really provided the necessary leadership on crime prevention and, in particular, the investigation and prosecution of drug dealers and those involved in the $4 billion to $10 billion drug trade in Canada.
I am afraid that Canada is a money laundering haven, as one American senator pointed out some time ago. He is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen as lumping Canada with Panama, the Bahamas, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Hong Kong "as a major money laundering haven for illegal drug profits". That is the opinion of an American senator, and in fact it is the opinion of a considerable
Our government, the Conservative government, has been slow off the mark. It was only three years ago that it passed the proceeds of crime legislation, and then last year it passed legislation that would facilitate the stopping of money laundering in Canada. In any event, the government has not provided the leadership, and on this particular issue it is moving a little too slowly.
The public is concerned about crime and drugs. In my riding, in metropolitan Toronto, it has to be one of the top issues. Next to the economy, crime is the number two issue. A day does not go by when you do not pick up a newspaper in metropolitan Toronto in which there is a story, or two or three or four, about a very serious crime that took place in metro Toronto. People are afraid, they are afraid to go out at night. This has only happened over the last number of years. Even in quiet neighbourhoods people now lock their doors and bar their windows because they are concerned about what is happening.
For example, on the front page of the Toronto Star today there is a story headlined "Family fears killer may win freedom". An individual who was the worst serial killer in Ontario's history is about to be released after killing seven people about 15 years ago. In my riding of York South-Weston two people were murdered last night. The headline in today's Toronto Star is "Couple found shot to death in city of York penthouse".
One of the reasons that politicians are being rendered irrelevant is that people watch what is going on here in Parliament and say: "Well, these people are not really talking about issues that affect me on a day-to-day basis. There is far too much discussion about constitutions and free trade agreements".
These issues are important, but also important is the issue of crime and punishment. This government simply has not provided the leadership necessary to help alleviate some of those fears out there, the well-founded fears of people who are concerned about their safety and the safety of their children. People just will not go for a walk any more in metropolitan Toronto without being in the company of others. They will not allow their children to go out alone at night any more. That is with good reason. People are concerned about the Young Offenders Act.

Private Members' Business
They are concerned about our immigration laws. They are concerned about judges and the courts who appear to have completely lost touch with reality.
We read time and time again that convicted drug traffickers are given suspended sentences. After being convicted of trafficking in narcotics and selling drugs to young children in school yards these individuals are given a pat on the back and a suspended sentence.
The system is failing. The system is in desperate need of repair.


Mr. Mills:: It is pretty tough on the police.


John V. Nunziata: My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood indicates that it is pretty tough on the police. Darn right it is pretty tough on the police. All too often sufficient support is not given to police forces across the country. They are waging the war on the front lines and are not getting support from the politicians. They are not given adequate funding to carry out the responsibilities they have. They are not getting support from the Crown prosecutors or the judges. Something has to be done. We are at the breaking point. Unless something is done very quickly we are going to forever lose the streets to hoodlums and criminals.
The Young Offenders Act is not working. Our immigration laws allow non-citizens to be convicted of serious drug offences or other offences and remain in Canada. Surely it is not too much to expect the federal government, through its immigration laws and the Criminal Code, to immediately deport non-Canadians. We cannot deport someone who is a Canadian citizen, but surely we should be able to deport someone who is not a citizen of Canada-and that can include people who have lived here five, 10 or 15 years-who is convicted of a serious criminal offence, of an indictable offence, especially with relation to drug trafficking. Surely it is not too much to ask that these individuals be deported.
If the purpose of criminal law is to deter criminal behaviour, then if a non-Canadian knew that he or she would be deported if they were dealing in drugs in local school yards, for example, they would think twice before they did so.
The public is fast losing respect for the criminal justice system. Another area of concern for many people is an
obscure section of the Criminal Code, section 45. It allows convicted killers to be released from prison after serving only 15 years. Life does not mean life any more. You can go out and kill somebody today in Canada and as long you are good in prison for 15 years you can then apply to be released.
We have the situation now, under this obscure provision of the Criminal Code, in which Colin Thatcher, Clifford Olson, Saul Betesh, Jon Rallo, Helmut Bux-baum and about 500 more convicted killers over the next year or so will be able to use this obscure provision to seek release from prison. Therefore, is it any wonder that-


An hon. member:: The Stevenson case.


John V. Nunziata: And the Stevenson case as well. In that case the convicted killer was murdered himself.
I am pleased to be the sponsor of this motion. I am pleased that the government is moving in that direction, but I would urge the Solicitor General and government members to push the minister to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity so that local police forces can start receiving money as soon as possible to help them combat the problem of crime, and in particular drug crime, in our communities across the country.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, I have listened intently to the hon. member for York South-Weston. I must say that I agree with many of the statements he made at the end of his speech. However, his Motion No. M-601 arose from the announcement by the Solicitor General that the federal government is planning to share assets forfeited as a result of federal prosecutions of drug traffickers.
I am reading from the news release from the Solicitor General. He said that consultations have begun with provincial governments and municipal representatives on a detailed proposal for fair sharing of crime assets when local or provincial police have participated in investigations.
What the hon. member says about the judicial system in Canada, that it is not well thought of by Canadians, is absolutely true. Some changes have been made to the Young Offenders Act. I support more changes. I know the hon. member does too. We served on the Standing
September 14, 1992

Private Members' Business
Committee on Justice and Solicitor General for seven There are also victims. Victims' rights are often years together, a committee which I now chair.	overlooked. We need to look at victims rights.
However, while all of these things the hon. member says, we need to change may be true, changes are being made. We have made made changes in the Extradition Act to make sure that Canada does not become a safe haven for murderers from other countries. We have made changes since the member for York South-Weston left the justice committee. We have put through Bill C-36, changes to the Parole Act, so that dangerous offenders cannot apply for parole until at least half of their sentence has been served. Presently it is one-third, and for some sorts of temporary absences, one-sixth.
While I agree with all of those things, what has been raised here is the issue of asset sharing with the local police forces involved in the investigation and arrest of offenders when the proceeds of crime provisions of the Narcotics Control Act result in assets being seized. The government has already announced that assets forfeited as a result of federal prosecutions of drug traffickers will be shared.
I do not know if the hon. member is referring to moneys used by local police forces for drug buys. That is something entirely different. If money is used for drug buys by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force or the Peel Regional Police Force, for example, then this money should be returned after the prosecution is finished so that it can be put to good use again.
We are talking about something different here. I support the principle of sharing the assets put forward in the motion but I have some difficulty with the specifics. The question of asset sharing is definitely not simple. A number of issues need to be addressed to arrive at an equitable sharing regime.
The mere fact that a seizure of assets occurs does not mean that those assets are available for distribution by the government. Naturally, we must wait for the court to order forfeiture, and this requirement creates a number of distinct issues. There are costs involved in every seizure before forfeiture. Not the least of these costs relates to the rights of the accused person or innocent third parties who may be creditors with a valid interest in the seized asset. If we were to seize a golf course or a ski resort someone may hold a mortgage on it. There are innocent third parties who need to be considered.
The provisions permit the accused to look to the seized or restrained assets to recover a variety of expenses, subject to the approval of the court. There are also significant prosecution costs and in many cases significant management and storage costs. The hon. member mentioned storage costs.
There are also significant questions of accountability and jurisdictional controls to be considered. Drug testing has to be considered, and so do all sorts of things. I believe that the government needs to retain 10 per cent of the share to look after these things. After that, sharing may be fine.
We must not be blinded by the uninformed demand for funds based on a theory that there is an unlimited flow of money from drug investigations. In the first place, I do not believe this is true when we talk about $4 billion to $10 billion. Most of that money may be going offshore, who knows? What we can seize in Canada may be a much smaller amount. I do not believe we are seizing what we should be seizing, however, when he talks about $4 billion to $10 billion, he may be way out of line.
Second, such a claim merely raises expectations and fails to address the real problem. A response to this claim must address each of the questions raised earlier and provide answers that will advance the real goal. The goal is not to provide an alternate source for police funds in times of tight budgets. The goal must be the continued successful attack against profit motive in the drug trade.
You cannot create a band-aid solution calling for the sharing of assets with police if a greater haemorrhage of these assets occurs because the management of the assets between the time of seizure and forfeiture inadvertently allows the assets to be dissipated. This can happen. The assets can be dissipated away and no one gets any good from them. We believe that there might be cases where restraint related costs exceed what the state could reasonably realize under forfeiture.
The simple policy choice that demands the criminal should be separated from his ill-gotten gain, in spite of the cost, may well justify the initial seizure decision, regardless of the cost. This kind of situation must be addressed before we talk about sharing.

Private Members' Business
Canada's proceeds of crime legislation, enacted in 1989, was intended to counter the growth of the drug trade by removing the profit potential of drug trafficking. The RCMP is the lead agency in Canada with respect to drug offences in general and drug related proceeds of crime offences in particular. We all know that it is working very closely in co-operation with municipal and provincial police forces, however, we all admit that the RCMP is the lead agency.
The Attorney General of Canada takes the lead in prosecuting these offences, especially since the drug trade does not recognize international or interprovincial borders, let alone municipal borders. In spite of this fact, Canada has encouraged provincial and local police agencies to participate in the investigation of drug offences.
It was brought up by the hon. member that possibly some of these municipal forces are not working to their best potential because they are not sharing. I do not believe that. I do not believe that they hold back one iota in their efforts to combat the drug trafficking trade because they are not sharing in the profit.
I have spoken to the chief of police of metropolitan Toronto who believes that if they make a drug buy with marked money, when that money goes through the court and the appeal period is past, the money should be returned. I believe that. We are talking about something different here. We are talking about forfeiture.
The scourge on the streets occasioned by the traffic in drugs has always been a significant motivater for the local police enforcement community to investigate vigorously drug trafficking. The management costs associated with the proceeds provisions have, however, operated against local police utilization of the scheme.
This may require their creation of an effective process to manage seized and restrained assets for the court, while the forfeiture application is pending. Such a process would leave police and more specifically, the RCMP, free to concentrate on their real mission, the attack on crime, while others would supervise private sector management of seized or restrained assets under the full direction and control of the courts.
The hon. member seems to not like this idea, but I feel it is the only way to operate where we have a management group who looks after the control of all this seized
material and leaves the police free. I do not believe this is a function of the police to look after these things. The question must be looked at in relation to sharing.
I agree with the principle that where other levels of government support the federal effort in eliminating the drug trade through the enforcement of the proceeds of crime scheme, they deserve to share in the proceeds, but in the net proceeds. I mention that again, the net proceeds.
Hopefully sharing will foster improved co-operation in the law enforcement community and might invite increased participation in the scheme by that community. I believe they are operating to full capacity right now to combat crime. However, this does not mean that some difficult issues do not need to be addressed to arrive at an equitable sharing.
The local law enforcement community's expectations must be tempered with a realistic appreciation that there are significant costs occasioned by every seizure. The most obvious is that innocent owners and third parties must take priority over the expectations of the police.
I notice that you are motioning that my time is up. Do I have consent for one more minute to finish?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: The most obvious of these is that innocent owners and third parties must take priority over the expectations of the police, as I said before. In other words, a dollar seized will never mean that there is a dollar available for sharing. Any proposal to share must permit the government to evaluate and determine the scope of any eventual equitable sharing.
We must always recognize that the various jurisdictions have a valid interest in the budget issues surrounding law enforcement and the question of sharing must recognize this jurisdictional question. It is easy to agree with the principle of equitable sharing but it is more difficult to agree on the modalities by which this should be accomplished. The sharing of proceeds scheme must not become a driving force for a particular investigation.
The hon. member's motion suggests that any sharing should be with the local police force. This creates difficulties since in many cases there is no separate legal entity and the local force is a department of a local
September 14, 1992

municipality. Therefore, there would be sharing with the local municipality.
Madam Speaker, you are motioning that I should conclude. I also notice that the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River wants to speak. I will conclude by saying that the forfeiture provision is part of the criminal sentence and an efficient way to attack the drug trade. It should not be allowed to become an alternative budgetary device.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the private members' motion of the member for York South-Weston who has been a real contributor in the field of justice and the Solicitor General over the last many years. He recently left the critic's spot for our party and works in another area now. However, his work goes on and this is one example of that member's contribution to the work of this House and in committees in the field of the Solicitor General.
This particular motion addresses the issue of the seizure and sharing of the proceeds of crime, more particularly in the field of drug prosecutions. I want to explore very briefly the role of seizure and sharing in the war on drugs.
The purpose of the forfeiture or seizure of these funds is to take some of the profit out of the drug business ex post facto. After the profit is in the bank, after one has bought a plaza, a Cadillac and Rolls Royce, speed boat and condominium with the proceeds of crime, the goal is to remove those assets from the convicted drug trafficker because society does not believe it is fair to permit those assets to remain in the hands of criminals. I believe society has that right.
The second thing is the purpose of the sharing itself after government and courts have seized these assets. I believe it is only fair to share the proceeds of the sale of these assets with the agencies that made them available. Therein lies some of the complexities that have prevented the government from delivering on its promise to execute some kind of sharing among governments. I am a little frustrated with the delay. I can see there is progress but we are not there yet. One thing I wanted to note is that the sharing of these proceeds does not affect the war against drugs.
Private Members' Business
If the war against drugs is going to be won, it will be won because of the things we do in society, not because we share the net proceeds of a Cadillac. Let us not delude ourselves. This is a part of the program but it is not going to win the war against drugs.
What does the sharing of the proceeds do? It does a couple of things. It injects new money back into the agencies which investigated the crime in the first place. For instance, Royal Canadian Mounted Police funding comes from the taxpayers and if it puts $1 million into a particular investigation, the fact that we seize and make proceeds available later can put back $1 million that was not previously there.
That can also happen on the municipal level where perhaps the money is not as great in some cases. One of the objectives of the current negotiations is to enable some of that money to go back to the municipal level.
A second thing that sharing the proceeds does is it provides a minor incentive to police forces. It is not a big incentive. Policemen across Canada are out there doing their job in any event. The fact that their police force, not themselves personally, but their city or their town has an opportunity to share in the proceeds, is really but a minor incentive to them. It is a tangible recognition of the fruits of their labour if their force can share and if the taxpayer that supports that force can share in those proceeds that are seized.
There are two other problems that sharing will address. It will hopefully remove a couple of problems. One is that the perceived unfairness in not sharing the proceeds may be a disincentive in some police forces. It may discourage certain police forces at certain times at certain places from actively participating in another drug investigation. We are all human and I can understand that.
If there is to be a drug investigation, in many cases it requires co-ordination among police forces. In Ontario and in Quebec three levels of police forces, the federal, provincial and local forces are involved. If there is a perceived unfairness, it may prevent the kind of co-operation we really need among police forces from the beginning right to the end in the planning, the execution, the prosecution and in the seizure.

Private Members' Business
If we exclude the municipal police forces from that whole process they may not be as active as they should be in drug investigations.
I also want to make a point. My friend from Mississauga West, who spoke very well on this subject, indicated that the lack of sharing was not interfering with the likelihood of police forces participating in investigations. But in the Solicitor General's announcement in the background paper that accompanied it, on page 2 there is a clear reference stating that there is "a reluctance on the part of provincial and local police to participate in federal enforcement because investigations can be costly". That is an impediment and hopefully we are working now to overcome it.
I want to make sure the record is very clear. We have to recognize that there are real costs involved in maintaining the seized assets. If a truck is seized or a piece of real estate, a commercial property, there are costs in maintaining them. The bills have to get paid. The ownership has to be legally altered. Someone has to pay the local taxes. There are costs and we have to realize that. In the end if a bank account with $1 million is seized, we are okay. That we can distribute. But if a truck is seized, it has to be stored and auctioned off.
You have to make a court application, you have to change the ownership and who knows what else you have to do, repair the tire on the front of the truck that received a bullet during the drug investigation, I do not know. We have to recognize those costs. They are really there, and that is why the Solicitor General has talked about taking 10 per cent off the top, to make sure that there are professionals in government who can manage these assets when they are seized and dispose of them.
Near the end here, I again want to reiterate that sharing the proceeds is not going to help us win any war on drugs. It is only a minor dance step here in what is a very significant social challenge. We have to put more effort on education, on enforcement and we may want to alter some of our laws as well.
I want to finish off by saying that I am pleased to see the government has been prepared to address this and to commit itself to sharing. I am disappointed that it has
taken at least two years, three years if I am not mistaken, and we are still not there yet. I recognize some of the complexity, but with a dedicated effort I would have thought this business could have been accomplished within a year.
The letters are still out there in all the provincial capitals going back and forth between the bureaucrats. We are not there yet. Hopefully before this Parliament rises for an election, the matter will be history and the public and the local police forces will have the benefit of sharing in the proceeds of crime, an asset brought about by the work of the local police forces.
I want to encourage the provinces to get their act together too, as we try to bring a resolution to this, bring an end to the negotiations and put the meat on the table.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, yes, I have to emphasize the public is very concerned about crime and drugs.
In the 1960s and 1970s, drug trafficking was really not as widespread as it became in the 1980s. The 600 per cent increase in the amount of cocaine seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1991 as compared to the 1987 numbers clearly demonstrates the situation.
Other police forces have also recorded major seizures of cocaine and heroine as well as other narcotic drugs, so this increasing demand for drugs has really generated a lucrative commerce. In fact, it is running into the billions and billions of dollars.
Under the provisions of the Narcotic Control Act, the Crown can only seek the forfeiture of money which is directly used to purchase drugs or conveyances used in connection with the offence for which a person was convicted. Unfortunately, those provisions did not allow for the seizure and for the forfeiture of assets obtained through legal dealings with drugs.
Thus, there really was a need for new legislation which could justly and firmly grip the criminals, and strip the criminals of their ill-gotten wealth. The new proceeds of crime legislation as my colleagues have mentioned Bill C-61. It amended the Criminal Code and the Narcotic Control Act as well as the Food and Drugs Act, and was proclaimed in January 1989.
September 14, 1992

This act does provide the courts with authority to order the forfeiture of proceeds, that is property acquired directly or indirectly from the commission of specific offences, including drug offences.
The thrust of the legislation is to increase the capacity of the state to strip the profits of crime from those people who are engaged in specific criminal activities as well as provide for an effective deterrent to any of those people who might even be contemplating drug trafficking.
The legislative amendments also include the insertion of two offences, that is the proceeds of property obtained through specific offences and laundering of proceeds. Therefore, it is noteworthy that this legislation was the subject of federal-provincial consultation before its enactment and we do have to work with our colleagues and our counterparts in the provinces to make sure we become effective in this particular area.
Forfeiture of proceeds go to the federal government or they go to the provincial governments. Provinces had the option to prosecute cases under the Criminal Code, in which cases proceeds forfeited accrued to the provincial treasury. However, undertakings must be given by provincial attorneys general to protect any assets seized. Provinces in general have been a little bit reluctant to assume these undertakings.
Some police forces have suggested that forfeited proceeds money be returned to the police force to cover investigation costs. I think that is what my colleague is discussing today with his private member's motion.
It is important to note that funding of the police forces is a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government really does not want nor does it wish to interfere in any of the existing funding arrangements between the provinces and their municipalities.
Police departments use money to buy drugs from traffickers in order to obtain evidence for court purposes. Health and Welfare's policy is that this marked "buy money" which has been seized is quickly returned to the appropriate police force. All other money seized and forfeited in accordance with the proceeds of crime provision is deposited into the account of the Receiver General and under the terms of the Financial Administration Act can only be paid out by an act of Parliament.
Private Members' Business
Similarly, forfeited money in cases where procedures were at the instance or at the initiative of a provincial government goes into the provincial treasury. Fair.
I am really pleased to inform the House that the government is presently reviewing, as my colleague from Mississauga West stated, the process by which proceeds from crime can be shared among the various levels of government that have participated in the investigations and in the prosecutions leading to the forfeiture.
As well, the government is presently considering the creation of a cost recoverable consolidated and fully accountable office in the Department of Supply and Services to manage assets seized, restrained, or forfeited under federal prosecutions and a scheme for the equitable sharing of net forfeitures with the provinces and/or the municipalities that are involved. The Solicitor General and the Department of Justice are presently undergoing consultation with a proposal to oversee that matter.
Others have suggested that proceeds money that is received be used to fund programs dealing with substance abuse. I believe the concerns for drug related education and treatment programs can most effectively be addressed through the Canada Drug Strategy program.
As you know it was last spring in the House that the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced the renewal of the Canadian Drug Strategy program with $270 million over five years. This strategy was developed after considerable consultation with the provincial governments, the police forces, and treatment agencies as well as other interested parties right across the country.
Canada's drug strategy was formulated to address concerns identified during these consultations that we had. The strategy provides for co-ordinated initiatives which deal with supply reduction, and more important, programs which aim at diminishing the demand for drugs.
Funding will be made available to treatment programs for rehabilitation as well as to community groups and government organizations to raise the awareness of the problem of drug abuse. The strategy was renewed with the emphasis on aggressive forfeiture programs in fund-

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
ing, and it provides funding to assist police right across the country in their efforts to apprehend drug traffickers.
I am pleased to report that the level of asset seizures has indeed increased significantly since 1989 as a result of the proceeds of crime legislation. Assets seized include such items as money, vehicles, houses, and so forth. The amount seized and forfeited increased from $300,000 in 1989 to $1.1 million in 1990, to $2.7 million in 1991.
I know the hon. member who put forth this motion today used the amounts of $38 million in 1990 and $50 million in 1991. Those were gross figures. Indeed, as the member for Mississauga West pointed out, there are third party commitments, there are victims, there are costs related to this specific issue, and indeed the net proceeds that come out of forfeiting the drug money comes down to $2.7 million in 1991.
While I do agree with some of the proposals put forth in my colleague's private member's motion, I must say that this government is acting upon it, and indeed we will be coming forth with a specific new department. I thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to participate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Thx Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act, as reported (with amendments) by a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are 72 amendment motions on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Thx Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act.

Motions Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 34,
39,	41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 and 71, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing will be grouped for debate, with a vote on Motion No. 1 applying to Motions Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 and 71.

Motions Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 33, 35,
40,	42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70 and 72, all standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will not be selected because they are identical to Motions Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 and 71.

Motions Nos. 23, 25, 26 and 27, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, and Motions Nos. 28, 29, 30 and 31, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will be grouped for debate but voted upon as follows: An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31. A negative vote on Motion No. 23 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 25. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motions Nos. 26 and 27.
A negative vote on Motion No. 25 necessitates the question being put separately on Motions Nos. 26 and 27.
Motion No. 28 will be voted upon separately.
A vote on Motion No. 29 will apply to Motion No. 30.
Motion No. 31 will be voted upon separately.
Motion No. 24, standing in the name of the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre, will not be selected
as it is identical to Motion No. 23.
September 14, 1992

Government Orders

Motion No. 36, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, and Motion No. 38, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will be grouped for the purposes of debate and voted on as follows:

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 36 obviates the necessity of the question being put on Motion No. 38. A negative vote on Motion No. 36 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 38.

Motion No. 37, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, will not be selected because it is identical to Motion No. 36.

I shall now propose to the House Motions Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 and 71.


Mr. Milliken:: In view of the very large number of amendments, I think there might be agreement to treat them as having been put to the House at this time so that Your Honour will not have to read them all. I know they are all very short, but I do not think we need to hear 30 amendments.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Chair to dispense with the reading of the motions and consider that they have been put to the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is very grateful.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) moved:: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 4. Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 5. Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 6. Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 7. Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 8. Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 9. Motion No. 19.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 10. Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 11. Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 13. Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 14. Motion No. 39.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 16. Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 17. Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 18. Motion No. 45.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 19. Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 20. Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 21. Motion No. 51.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 22. Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 23. Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 24. Motion No. 57.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 25. Motion No. 59.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 26. Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
Motion No. 63.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 28.
Motion No. 65.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 29.
Motion No. 67.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 30.
Motion No. 69.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 31.
Motion No. 71.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting the Schedule.
He said: Madam Speaker, there is nothing which characterizes more the approach that this government is taking to children and to the problems of children in poverty than contrasting the government's commitment to spend over $4 billion on helicopters and to put only $400 million into improving the position of children living in poverty.
The approach being taken here in Bill C-80 is to amend the Income Tax Act, to get rid of family allowance, the final ending of what is left of universality in family allowance and to replace it with a system of child benefits which will add nothing, as the government's own officials have indicated, to those who are the poorest of the poor. Those who are living on social assistance will receive not one penny more than they receive at the present time. We know across the country in spite of efforts by some governments to increase social assistance rates, in particular the governments of Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, children in Canada live at about 60 per cent of the poverty line. Children who are unfortunate enough to be born to poor families live at about 60 per cent of the poverty line. We need to ensure that those children have adequate resources, adequate nutrition, adequate money for their schooling, that they can attend school in a way enabling them to obtain a good education and go on to gainful employment, making a contribution to society and maintaining some dignity for themselves.
Instead of taking that approach, this government has taken what is another mean-spirited approach to the problems of children living in poverty. The poorest of the poor will receive not one penny more from this government as a result of the rejigging of child benefits.
The suggestion by the government that more money is going into child benefits is difficult to understand, bearing in mind the comments which have been made both by finance officials and health and welfare officials suggesting that not one penny more will go to the poorest of the poor.
In addition, those families that work but remain poor will receive $500 more each to help maintain themselves. What this means for those children living in poor families that do not work is that they will be less well off than those who live in poor families that work.
Here the government is continuing in its trend to distinguish between the deserving poor and the underserving poor. A poor child living in a family in which one or more parents work but remains poor is deserving of some extra money, whereas children living in families in which the parents do not work is not deserving of extra money. To explain that to poor children would take an enormous amount of clever arguing and I do not think in the end those children would accept it.
Nothing is being done for those at the very poor end, and for those who are a little less poor there is little being done for them. In contrast, because of changes to the child care expense deduction, benefits are being handed over to richer Canadians. Therefore we have a continuation within this legislation of the gap between rich and poor growing year by year.
The government has made a number of arguments to sustain this legislation, all of which were contradicted by all of the witnesses in the legislative committee. The government has said that the system is simpler. It is only simpler because of the reduction from five categories to four categories and the government and government officials have already indicated that the government will calculate the benefits because it will be too complicated for individuals. It is not simpler, although that is one of the claims that the government is making.
The government says it is fairer. It is not fairer when you consider, as I have just mentioned, this categorization of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. Even if we consider that adding $500 a year to those families that work is a good idea, how can that possibly begin to cover the expenses of looking after children when child care can cost anywhere between $6,000 and
September 14, 1992

$12,000 a year? Clearly $500 is not going to do anything to help those families.
As I have said, it is not more generous, even though that is one suggestion that the government has made.
If we look at other countries and if we put Canada in the category of countries that concern themselves with their children and with poverty among their children, we see that only the United States has a worse record than Canada of all the developed nations.
If we look at other countries, in particular European countries with a social democratic tradition, we see that not only are child benefits higher than they are in Canada, but also the gap between what a child needs, what a family needs and what a family receives in order to meet the poverty line is smaller in those countries.
As witnesses at the committee indicated, no matter which mechanism for deciding and gauging poverty one follows internationally, Canada shows up very badly in contrast to these other countries.
To suggest, as this government is by proposing legislation like this, that a 20 per cent child poverty level in Canada is acceptable-over one million children living in poverty-is simply not a tenable point when one looks at other countries such as Norway in which the child poverty rate is somewhere around 5 per cent.
If we were committed to our children we would be moving toward providing adequate benefits to them, not the system proposed here which will really make no difference at all to the poorest of the poor.
We cannot just criticize this legislation. We have to propose alternatives. If we look at the cost of poverty in Canada it is a question of whether we can afford not to provide adequate benefits to Canadian children rather than what we can afford to provide.
One estimate suggests that as a result of poverty in Canada-the 1.6 million people unemployed, the over three million on social assistance and the over one million children living in poverty-the total cost to the economy in Canada is over $60 billion. In other words, this country is losing $60 billion in production each year because of these extremely high poverty levels.
Government Orders
Lest we think these proposals are accidental, we know from both Liberal governments with six and five guidelines and this government's obsession with inflation that unemployment has been created in order to respond to the particular economic problem of inflation.
As we know, other countries around the world do not create unemployment in order to reduce inflation. There are other ways to approach that problem and we should be thinking of that rather than putting more people out of work and making more poor as a result of a particular economic agenda.
We must consider that $60 billion of lost GNP. We must consider that it costs the government an estimated $17,500 a year for every person not working in terms of lost taxes and in social payments. We have to consider that and ask: Is it not absurd to continue this loss without providing adequate funding to children and people living in poverty? In this case we are particularly concerned with children.
The cost of having so many children living in poverty is enormous and we must address that in the only way we can, by providing more money to people in poverty situations. In the short term we have to make sure that our children are well fed and can go to school with full stomachs rather than on empty stomachs and not being able to learn. We have to make sure that poor children are given a fair chance.
We find that children unfortunate enough to be bom to poor parents will have a lower educational level, will be sicker and more likely to be unemployed.
The solution must be a commitment to full employment, to making employment the number one economic objective of the government. The commitment has to attack the problem from the point of view of ensuring that high quality, good paying jobs are available to Canadians to enable them to work, feed their families and stay out of poverty. That is the solution to the problem, not a proposal of this sort which does nothing to improve the situation of Canada's poor children.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam. Speaker, I join in this debate in support of the motion which has the impact to delete the piece of legislation commonly known as Bill C-80, dealing with the child benefits legislation.

Government Orders
I would like to thank my colleague for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for supporting the same series of amendments. In the ruling of the Speaker, the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing's were accepted.
I want to put this on the record because the Liberal Party is so convinced that this is the wrong approach to social policy that starting in June just about every one asked for an opportunity to participate in this debate and has time after time been told by the government that this debate must be hurried or that this debate must be closed down. When the legislation was first introduced back in February as part of the budget no time was set aside to analyse and to discuss the child benefits package. It was introduced by way of the shortest white paper in the history of the Canadian government. A $2 billion expenditure was explained in 14 short pages with no details, no reference to research and no reference to consultation.
In late June we were offered the opportunity to speak about it in the House and the government immediately moved time allocation. Only seven members had the opportunity to discuss it. It was then brought to committee for two days-one of the most important pieces of legislation in the social policy area-and then three days were set aside in June. When we asked for more time because of the many witnesses who had written us, we were told: "Yes, come back in early July".
Every time there has been a national crisis dealing with the Constitution or the referendum this government has used that opportunity in a very sneaky fashion to try to slip Bill C-80 past Canadians. Here again, in the House, when most of us are concerned about the referendum and the new Constitution-we spent last week debating it-we are brought back here, while the rest of the country is preparing for the debate on the Constitution, to very quickly look after Bill C-80.1 hope it is not the intention of the government this afternoon or tomorrow to again move time allocation and remove the opportunity to debate from the many members who have tried again and again to stand up in this House and question the assumptions and the advisability of Bill C-80.
The government has taken a premise that every Canadian would agree with, that children in need are deserving of more help than they are currently getting. One of the reasons they are deserving is because since the mid-1980s this government has taken $3.5 billion out of this system that supports those children. Having taken away $3.5 billion the government has come back with a
package in which it has tried to appeal to Canadians so that instead of helping all children it would only help those who are poor.
Many social policy groups are concerned about this legislation. When they first heard about it over the news on budget night they said: "Hurrah, somebody is finally listening to us". By the weekend, when they had an opportunity to look at it in more detail, they found that it was just the opposite of what they were looking for.
When we had hearings, when the government did let us have hearings, the government could only find one witness, a junior academic who obviously had done no research in the area, to support the proposition of this legislation. No matter whether people were flown in from Vancouver, Halifax, or Toronto, or drove across the city here in Ottawa, nobody but nobody, with the exception of this one young academic, was the least bit supportive of the legislation.
Here you are dealing with a group that represents groups across the country who are working with many poor families, many low-income communities, and many regions that are very depressed. It would love to be supportive of anything that puts more money into the child benefits system in this country. The goodwill is naturally there for a government that cares because people want to see something done for children. When this group decides that it has to walk on a $2 billion expenditure because it is not suitable to those they have been advocating it is time for the government to understand that it may be on the wrong track.
It is time for the government to use the opportunity of this debate, not to push through a faulty piece of legislation, but to support this motion which has the intent of deleting the legislation. It is time for the government to go back to the drawing board and to ask the basic questions about day care; to ask the basic question as to why people on social assistance are not getting more help; to ask how working families can get more assistance; to ask what to do about women who, in abusive relationships, depend on the small cheques to have at least some cash of their own. The government should ask itself why it did not deal with these issues? Why has the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who historically has been the biggest advocate of change in the national government in favour of health care, child care and the promotion of social programs, refused to debate? Why has the minister refused to appear in front of the committee? How can we have a sophisticated and responsive social policy system if the minister responsible for it declines to participate? Is it really true
September 14, 1992

that social policy is now the domain of the Minister of Finance?
I can remember the Ministers of Finance in the 20th century and, notwithstanding the fact that they share the same party as myself, I would not want many of them to be responsible for social policy. That is not their job.
The job of the minister of health is to be an advocate for children. In the course of this debate, in which many members from the Liberal Party will be participating, and pursuant to other motions that are presented to try to improve this piece of legislation we want to impress upon the government the need to not proceed quickly, the need to not wrap up debate in a few days and the need not to push forward simply to have a January 1 deadline met so that cheques can be in the mail for families, so that we do not give the appearance that we are trying to gain the attention of voters with their own money, and so that this House considers very carefully the uses of moneys for children.
Many of these details have been brought up by the various speakers from across the country who have listened to groups in their communities. I wish that the government would take the time, go into deliberations and withdraw this legislation.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, having spoken to Bill C-80 several times, I welcome this opportunity today to speak once more- this time at the report stage-to a bill that is so important to Canadian families, especially those on low incomes.
I must admit I am a little surprised at the kind and number of motions tabled by the opposition, which unfortunately do nothing to improve the circumstances of Canadian families with children who need support from the federal government. These motions want to reject an investment of over $2 billion the federal government is prepared to make over the next five years. These motions tell Canadian low-income families they should not accept the $2 billion the government wants to give them.
Government Orders
The government proposes to get rid of a system that provided three ways, each with different criteria, to get money every year from the federal government for children. The government would like to consolidate these into a single option. The opposition motions say: "No, let us keep the complex system with its three different ways for the government to send us money." I am very disappointed to see that the opposition ignores the concerns of Canadian families with children and especially low-income families that would benefit enormously as a result of the proposed amendments in Bill C-80.
The current system provides for family allowance, child credit and a refundable child tax credit. Many groups, parents and people generally across this country have said repeatedly: that this does not make sense. There are three ways to get money from the government, with different criteria for each one. Often people have to wait for up to a year after the child is bom, the income tax return is filed, and so forth, to receive the money to which they are entitled.
The government is proposing one monthly cheque, paid in advance. The three existing programs would be consolidated into one, with advance payments made every month. Who would benefit? Mainly Canadian families with children, with an income of less than $40,000.
That is the purpose of Bill C-80, which is an excellent piece of legislation because its goals are, first of all, to help low-income families and also to make things easier for these families and reduce government paperwork. We will have one instead of three, and I think the opposition should be able to understand that. We are simplifying the system and investing $2 billion more. Not $200, not $2 million or even $200 million but $2 billion more, to help low-income families in this country. So as I said before in the House, we have a duty to adopt this bill as soon as possible and ensure the system is ready to go by the beginning of 1993. The opposition ought to co-operate and help expedite this bill, because they are the ones who keep criticizing our tax system for being too complex.

Government Orders
Bill C-80 would simplify our Canadian tax system and ensure that low-income families can have access to these funds more readily and in advance, for the benefit of their children.
My colleagues in the government and the Progressive Conservative Party support this bill unreservedly. They wish the opposition parties would realize the importance of adopting this bill as soon as possible to ensure it will come into force by the beginning of 1993.
In conclusion, as I pointed out before, this is an excellent bill because it is fairer, more equitable and more straightfoward and gives Canadian low-income families an extra $2 billion. I hope my colleagues on the other side of this House will get the message and do what is necessary to have this bill adopted as soon as possible.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill. I want to do so from the context of working for many years with poor families, and particularly with poor children.
I think back to the statement made by the Prime Minister calling universal social programs a sacred trust. Over the last few years we have watched how his government has now systematically eroded all of the sacred trusts.
This bill introduces a number of elements that are steps backward in history. The whole concept is based on the idea of deserving and undeserving poor. It is designing a child support program that deliberately and systematically provides more funds to parents who are working, or to children whose parents are working, to the deserving poor and denies any increase in funds to the very poor, those whose parents have no funds and no income and must rely on public assistance.
People should go back and read the Elizabethan poor law of 1601 because it was based on the very same concept of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. The deserving poor were those who would go into a workhouse and work in poverty, in deplorable conditions, and they would receive some assistance from the state. Those who would not go into a workhouse to work
were considered undeserving poor and would receive no assistance.
That is the same concept that is now being built into this legislation. It says that if parents will take some job below the minimum wage or some job that does not pay them enough to earn a decent living, to meet the needs of their families, they will consider them worthy and provide them with money.
In many ways it is an indirect subsidy to low-wage payers in this country. It allows them to keep their wages low, knowing that they can entice a worker to take the job. The government will give them the money that should have been lawfully theirs for work.
This legislation is deliberately aimed at those who are on income assistance. There will be no increase for them at all, and that represents a large number of children in this country.
Many of us who have worked in public welfare have been worried that frequently income assistance families move from generation to generation to generation. One of the reasons for this is that as the children are growing up they drop out of school. It is very difficult to keep a 15-year old child or 16-year old child of an income assistance family in school because the incomes are so low. The kids do not have adequate funds to participate in social activities at school, to belong to the band or to go on the trips. They do not have money to be able to buy clothes of the calibre of their friends so they seem left out.
They also think that a job paying $4 an hour is a marvellous job. When a mother is looking after two teenage kids and getting $700 or $800 a month on income assistance the kid says: "My gosh, I can go out and earn $4 or $5 an hour and make that tremendous amount of money". They drop out of school to take a temporary, poor paying $4.50 or $5 an hour job. They are doomed always to be marginally employed because they cannot secure good employment with a grade 9 or grade 10 education.
We perpetuate income assistance families from one generation to another generation. Clearly we should be providing more resources to that family, raising the level of income assistance, making sure that programs like this are targeted to them so that the children have enough
September 14, 1992

money coming into those families to feel they can continue to participate in the school environment, to make sure they have enough food on the table so the children do not go to school hungry so they can learn and to make sure there is enough income in those families that the children know $4.50 an hour is not adequate to support themselves let alone support themselves and a family down the road.
The children of members of this House know that $4.50 an hour does not even take them to a movie these days. They know that to buy a pair of running shoes costs $100. Our families know that. Income assistance families have been so pushed down that even minimal wages under terrible working conditions may appear to be beneficial to them.
Another thing upsets me about this bill. It cannot be seen in isolation. This bill is a part of a companion attack on the poor. This government is the one who curtailed Canada Assistance Plan moneys to three big provinces: Alberta, Ontario and B.C. Those are the provinces in which 50 per cent of all children live. They have said: "We will not only make sure there is no additional money available under this bill for families on income assistance. We will make sure that the provinces are in a financial squeeze where they cannot provide any additional funds because we will stop any transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan to those provinces".
The provinces are in financial difficulty with rising unemployment and rising demands on public assistance because of changes to the unemployment insurance legislation that have curtailed the number of people who qualify for unemployment insurance in this country. They are under pressure because of the reductions in the Established Programs Financing. They are not then in a position to try to assist to the maximum of their will families on income assistance.
We must understand this is part of a social policy package in which the government has said that the poor are undeserving, that the poor are unworthy, that it is going to go back to the concept of the Elizabethan poor law of 1601, and that it is going to make it even more difficult, more punitive, more restrictive to anybody who applies for public assistance. It tries to help the working
Government Orders
poor, but it really subsidizes employers so they can get away with paying poor wages.
Canada is a wealthy country. There is no excuse for child poverty in this country. This bill does nothing to alleviate or end child poverty.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate in support of the amendment by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for the diligent and intelligent way in which he articulated the concerns of poor Canadian families in Canada by leading our party's opposition to this legislation.
At first glance this new integrated child benefit legislation seems innocent enough, even positive. It proposes to consolidate the family allowance program, the refundable child tax credit and the non-refundable child tax credit into a single, targeted monthly benefit.
This pamphlet which described the child benefit and which was released with the February budget said: "Low income families with one child will receive a monthly payment of up to $144, significantly more than the monthly payment of $35 they now receive. Approximately two million families with incomes below $50,000 will receive larger monthly payments than they do now".
We are told that the new consolidated child benefit will increase the federal government's commitment to child assistance, which was projected to be $4.5 billion in 1992, by another $400 million and will concentrate more of this assistance to those who need it.
Unfortunately a glance is all the government would like the opposition and other Canadians to have at this legislation before it is made law. This government delayed introduction of Bill C-80 until June. It immediately tried to rush it past second reading into committee where every effort was made to deny experts in the field such as the anti-poverty groups and the social policy research organizations any reasonable chance to study and comment on this legislation.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare, whose name appears on this pamphlet and who is the author of the new child benefit, refused to appear before the committee studying this legislation.

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
Patrick Johnston, executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development and one of the leading authorities in our income security system in Canada, was given four days in mid-summer to prepare a presentation before the Commons committee. Too bad it was not time enough to study a bill that fundamentally changes the entire edifice of child benefit legislation in Canada since the Second World War; that was all the time he was going to get. Too bad if nearly all of the social action groups in this country panned this legislation as soon as they had a chance to see it and asked for more time to study its implications before it became law. The government was determined to proceed into its agenda regardless of the concerns that these people may have expressed.
Now we are told by the finance minister that this legislation has to be approved as soon as possible because 4,000 bureaucrats have to be hired and trained at Revenue Canada in order to administer this new system.
Why the indecent haste to rush this change through Parliament? Why is the Minister of Finance so insistent that these benefits begin on January 1, 1993?
The answer becomes a little clearer when one notes that the old and new child benefit regimes will overlap during the first six months of next year. During the anticipated period of the next federal election Canadian parents will be receiving double benefits. It is merely a cynical election ploy. It is a way for this government once again to bribe Canadians, this time poor working Canadians, with their own money right before they go to the election polls.
After the election in late 1993 and when Canadians complete their tax forms for 1993, they will find that their child credits and the refundable child tax credits no longer apply. That is okay to the government; by then the election will be over and the child benefit law will have achieved its political objective. It will have temporarily put extra money in the hands of a large number of Canadians and given them the illusion that when it counts this government is concerned about them.
Never mind that over the past five years between 1986 and 1991 this Tory government has taken more than $3.5 billion out of the child benefit system. Never mind that
the government has completely reneged on its promises to institute a national child care program. Never mind that the GST has taken millions out of the pockets of poorer Canadians. Never mind that cuts and transfers to the provinces for health care and education have been consistently slashed. Never mind that the poorest members of our society, those on social assistance and living far below the poverty line, will not receive one extra penny from this new system as opposed to the old. This new child care smoke and mirrors bill is designed to make us forget all that.
Canadians will recall the government's tax reform measures before the last election. In 1987 the government announced measures that would lower income tax rates for millions of Canadians right around the time of the 1988 national election. It was only after the election that the government dropped the other foot, the GST, and slashed programs to deal with a burst of inflation and an increase in the government deficit created by its pre-election tax cut goodies. These measures have led directly to the current recession which is impoverishing millions of Canadian families. Now the government is trying to get away with this stunt once again.
I am reminded when I consider this legislation of a colourful local politician in Cape Breton who was campaigning in a closely fought late winter election. Just before the election there was a serious snowstorm which plugged all the driveways in the riding. He was trudging along a long driveway in the wake of this snowstorm to visit a poor but large family of voters. The family welcomed his visit but told him they could not afford to get their driveway ploughed in order to get out to vote.
"No problem," he said, "just leave that to me". Sure enough, before the election a snow-plough came and cleared the road. Naturally the family was very grateful until a few days after the election when they received the bill.
That is what happened before the last election. Tax reform was the snow-plough and the GST, high interest rates and the recession were the bill. That is what the government is trying to do with this child care bill. It offers superficial, short-term help to poor working families in Canada, but it very quickly erodes into insignificance.
September 14, 1992

Lack of full indexation makes the long term equally bleak. As Dr. Ken Battle of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy told the legislative committee:
The federal government's proposal to change child benefits is seriously flawed. It does little in the short term and virtually nothing over the long term to make a dent in child poverty. Clearly this is a pre-election reform, since the larger monthly payments will come on stream during the election year. The new child benefit and earned income supplement will be paid monthly and so will look much bigger than the present system since the current refundable child tax credit is paid annually, or for poor families, twice a year. The White Paper proposals are designed to pretend to fight child poverty.
If this government is serious about addressing the growing scourge of child poverty in Canada, which is amply documented in the recent report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women called Canada's Children: Investing in our Future, it would go more slowly and introduce a more comprehensive program to deal with child poverty and the problem of the working poor in this country.
It would implement a child care program that would enable the growing number of single parent families to get out of the welfare trap and be productive members of our society. At the same time, it would begin to properly value the social contribution women make in their child bearing and child rearing roles. It would offer women who choose to stay home to raise their children themselves access to real child benefits to enable them to do so.
This suggestion, which has been made to me by Mrs. Verna MacIntyre of Baddeck, among others, is one of the many suggestions that could be adopted in a comprehensive program to deal with child benefits that may also include the kinds of consolidation measures that are in the child benefit bill.
It is important for the poor to receive the kind of comprehensive treatment of their social situation that is lacking in this legislation. That is why this side of the House recommends the government not proceed with such haste. We recommend the government withdraw this bill to give us more time to study this whole area of social policy and present a program of child benefit legislation that actually addresses this growing problem in Canada.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise to make a few comments with respect to this legislation.
Back in 1944 Parliament unanimously passed the Family Allowance Act. It was the creation of J. S.
Government Orders
Woodsworth and the former CCF Party and was adopted by all parties in the House.
At that time it was seen as one of the most progressive pieces of legislation in Canada. It was passed not to help the poor in this country but to recognize the value of children in our society and the importance of parenthood.
Over the years the family allowance has become an institution in this country. Now the government is proposing to remove that act in the guise of helping to eliminate child poverty in this country. We have heard the parliamentary secretary for the government side make comments about how it will help poor people in this country. I find it very odd that having made that statement, the Minister of National Health and Welfare chose not to make any statements in this House regarding this bill. The Minister of National Health and Welfare chose not to answer questions with respect to this bill at committee.
I also find it very strange that virtually all the witnesses who appeared before the committee to review this legislation did not agree with the government. In fact, I believe some 25 witnesses appeared before the committee and almost all condemned this bill and said it was not going to help alleviate child poverty. This bill is not going to help the poor in this country. It is not going to benefit the people the government says will benefit from this legislation.
We have heard this government talk about the need to bring in a universal child care program since it came into power in 1984. It has talked about the need to maintain so-called sacred trusts which include universal programs such as the family allowance. We have seen this government renege on those promises.
In 1989 a resolution was passed by this House to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. It is a very important problem that has to be dealt with. It has been documented many times in many areas that child poverty is a growing problem in this country, as is poverty of all types.
One way to eliminate child poverty is to provide jobs and training. A couple of years ago the government made some changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act which it said was going to help with training. It is true money was put into training. However money was also removed for training those who needed it most. If you are eligible for unemployment insurance in this country then you are eligible for training. If you happen to be one

Government Orders
of the needy people in this country on social assistance, it is very difficult to get training.
Some people following this legislation do not understand it or the moves the government is making to eliminate child poverty. There are two funds under the Unemployment Insurance Act. One growing fund is just for people on unemployment insurance with some exceptions. The other fund is the old Consolidated Revenue Fund which is there to help others.
In my riding there are single mothers looking for training who cannot receive it because they are not on unemployment insurance. Counsellors from the Canada Employment Centre have privately told me they are very frustrated having to tell people they do not have a place for them in training programs, but if they were on unemployment insurance they could find training for them.
I had a situation in my riding where a single mother was taking a two-year nursing program. She received funding for the first year but was cut off in the second year because of cuts in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is simply unbelievable when the government says it is eliminating poverty. It is a myth and pure fabrication.
One thing this government can do to eliminate poverty and child poverty in this country is to implement a universal child care program. It is certainly very difficult for single parents and even the working poor parents when they do not have access to universal child care.
I know all members in this House can cite examples of people who have been unable to take jobs or have been denied training because they were unable to either afford it or find child care because the institutions were overcrowded. This is the government that promised a universal child care program. Now it is telling us this proposal is going to be a replacement for child care.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee with respect to this legislation were not fooled. Members on this side of the House obviously are not fooled and Canadians are not fooled. This government has ignored
the needs of the poor in this country. It is not following its own commitment to eliminate child poverty in this country. It is telling the poor of this country it is going to help them and then it does nothing at all.
I find that very, very tragic and disappointing.
What ever happened to those sacred trusts the Prime Minister promised he was going to maintain? Where did they go? What happened to them? They are being destroyed one by one by the very Prime Minister who said he was going to protect them.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am
pleased to have an opportunity to speak once again in opposition to this bill. I want to support the amendment put forward by the member for Saskatoon-Clark's
Crossing.
When I talked about this bill last May or June one of the things I did not like about it was the $500 maximum supplement for people in the work force at the lower end of the income spectrum. I thought it was terribly misleading. For someone making only $14,000 or $15,000 a year with one or two children, $500 averaged out over an entire year works out to under $10 a week. That is not a lot of money. That was the part of the legislation I found misleading at the time.
When I went home to my riding over the summer I could not believe the number of women who came to my constituency office and thought I had not spoken out as aggressively as I should have on this bill, and I spoke about four or five times. So I had to go back to the drawing board. I had to go back to my research, my work and my colleagues to get a better grasp of what was really happening here. So often this happens in this place. These bills are a couple of hundred pages long and filled with complicated legal text. Quite frankly, you vote for something and the next thing you know you do not even know what you voted for. We do not ask enough of the right questions on some of these bills.
One of the things that was brought to my attention by some constituents who were obviously very familiar with the legislation was the fact this was really going to affect women who were in abusive relationships. Right now,
September 14, 1992

the baby bonus cheque is the only source of income for many women. It comes to them directly. It is a feeling of comfort. It is a feeling of security and it is a feeling of ever so modest independence, but it is something that is theirs. It is a national program, it is a national institution and it is something that women in this country have counted on for many years. The fact that we are scrapping the baby bonus system does not appeal to them.
When we get beyond that we also see that really even though this bill is represented as something that is supposedly helping low income families, we see that it is really a shifting of the figures. It is like doing gymnastics with figures. It is saying it is doing that but when you tear away the tinsel that covers up this bill, you get right into the substance and see that it is not really doing that.
A lot of women got into analysing this bill because of previous actions by this government. Actions of social assistance in things related to housing and other regressive measures or cutbacks which have been happening vis-a-vis families in this country have regenerated that distrust, that we are going to have to really go through any piece of legislation that this government puts forward.
That is precisely what has happened on this particular piece of legislation. The government's idea of trying to help low-income and disadvantaged families in our country is a good idea and it is a noble idea. When we say we are going to do those things, we really have to do them in substance as well. In this particular case, this bill does not pass that test.
I will continue to speak out against this bill. One of the members on the government side said earlier today that Canadians are going to wonder why the opposition is against helping low-income families in our country. They are going to look at us and ask why Liberals are against helping low-income families. Canadians will not believe that accusation put forward by the government side. If we are here and we are saying that this bill is not fair, it is complex, it is inefficient, we have to have the substantive reasons for backing that up.
We are not alone on this. The Caledon Social Policy Institute has spoken out against this bill in legislative committee. Joan Smallwood, the minister of social services for British Columbia has spoken out against this
Government Orders
bill. Citizens for Public Justice in my own city, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, the Child Poverty Action Group and Trevor Williams from Family Services Canada have all spoken out against the flaws in this bill.
On an important piece of legislation like this when we are talking about families and children, we should not let it go through when it is not living up to what Canadians think it is going to do.
I support the member's motion that we delete the bill completely and that we go back to the drawing board.


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, bill C-80 deserves to be run out of here altogether. It is almost an insult to the poor of this country that we are even debating it. At a time when the poor are facing very rough times, we are here seriously contemplating a bill that does nothing whatsoever to deal with their situation. I do not know what is wrong with a government that would even draft a bill like this.
Philosophically, we can understand that it will have a certain philosophical bent, a certain ideological twist that will want it to do this instead of that. I do not agree with the philosophy in this bill. I have told the government that before and I will keep telling it. That is one issue and we will come back to the issue of the basic ideology, the basic mind set that allows the government to come to this point. Surely part of that mind set can never be to sock it to the poor even more. What kind of a warped mind would have that as part of its philosophy to deliberately, overtly sock it to people who are completely defenceless? That is what this bill does.
It does many more things, most of them very negative and disgusting, to the poverty stricken of this country, many of whom live in my riding of Burin-St. George's, many of whom live in my province of Newfoundland, many of whom live all across this country. Poverty is not a respecter of regions, provinces or communities. We have very poor people in literally every constituency represented in the House here today. I find it curious and I find it mind-boggling that many of the people who sit here representing the poor of this country are so willing to ride roughshod over the poor in ramming this bill through the House.

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
Let there be no misunderstanding. This bill, this piece of legislation, is a bad bit of business. I said a moment ago that there is no new benefit here for people who are trying to get out of the poverty cycle. There is nothing for them. In addition, this bill is the final nail in the coffin of universality. Before we get too far along in this debate, remember what the Prime Minister was saying about universality not so very long ago. On August 18, 1984 he was fighting an election and was looking for some votes at the time from the poor and the rich. In an effort to reach out to the less well off, here is what the Prime Minister said at that time: "Universal social programs are a sacred trust not to be tampered with".
That quote is from eight years ago. Anybody with an IQ of 18 or more will know that in the eight years since on just about everything that Prime Minister has said he has contradicted himself a few weeks later. It is no accident, that he is here today with a piece of legislation that rides roughshod over his very own commitment of eight years ago. That is no surprise to us. The fact that it is no surprise does not make it any less cowardly or any less disgusting. That quote from 1984 goes back to a time when the Prime Minister was perceived as a man who could be taken at his word. People were still at the point at which they believed what he was saying because they had not tested him. It was before the September election of that year. He was not the Prime Minister then. He was the leader of the party, aspiring to be Prime Minister.
People all over this country engaged in effect in what was an electoral sweep to put this man in office because he had said such brilliant stuff. He said universal social programs were a sacred trust not to be tampered with.
Within the fairly narrow purview of this bill I give many other examples. In the shipbuilding area which alfects my riding he had a similar graphic quote about how he was going to have a shipbuilding policy or how he was going to protect our fish from foreign overfishing, et cetera.
These are all examples of a man and a team of people who stuck with him and have to share the shame, because he does not take the blame alone, who were prepared to say anything to get elected. He is not the first to have done that. Many people have been known to say all kinds of weird and wonderful things to get elected.
He has gone further. Having said those things, he has shown no concern and no interest in making himself
appear to be consistent with the electorate, and that is his crime. He will not now govern on the basis of the principles on which he was elected. Certainly one of the most sacred principles, as he said at that time, is the universality of social programs.
I am not the first person in this Chamber to make the argument about universality. It is an old argument but do not let the Tories think for one minute we are going to stop making it for that reason. It is not only an old argument. It is still a very sound argument.
It is a principle that has served this country very well, particularly in protecting the poor of whom I spoke earlier, and even the not so poor, because this bill if we look at the fine print is also an attack on the middle class. The only people who will benefit at all from this particular legislation in terms of dollars in their pockets are the very well to do, people who have fairly adequate incomes.
Another aspect of this whole discussion which we need to talk about is what happened to the Prime Minister's fond words about a national child care strategy. There was no talk of that here. Another promise has gone out the window; another need, a real need out there for a proper approach to child care across this country. This umbrella package that it is paraded to be does not mention the issue. It ignores another need of people across this country.
Much has been made in the debate about how much the government is going to be pumping into this new scheme. It throws around figures in the order of $2.1 billion. There is going to be a $2 billion increase over the next five years because of this new legislation it is proposing here today.
Why does the government not tell the whole story instead of just one-half of it, the half that is convenient for it, the half it hopes will make it look good in the eyes of the electorate coming up for the election, $2.1 billion
more in the next five years?
Let me give an example. If I have an employee and I am paying him $10,000 and then reduce it to $5,000 and then offer him a $3,000 increase, I look awfully magnanimous to give him the increase, bearing in mind that I took it away from him in the first place. That is what this government has done. The $2.1 billion increase it is talking about has to be weighed against the fact that it took out of this system, this child benefit or this family
September 14, 1992

allowance as it was called, $3.5 billion over the past five years, almost twice as much as it is now proposing to put back in. Bully for the government.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-80 today. In my opinion it is a bill that is going to finally destroy what started out as the baby bonus, which is now known as the family allowance.
My understanding of family allowance or baby bonus, as it was known when it started, was that it was a recognition by the government of those people who decided to have children. It was an assistance and a recognition that it cost money to raise children. The government wanted to take part in that process, wanted to indicate to Canadians that it had family values, that it valued children.
How ironic today that we are now trying to save and preserve our family allowance. It is not any easier today to raise children than it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. Parents face the same problems that existed then.
Today we received from the Minister of Supply and Services a commemorative coin. I congratulate the minister and his department for striking this coin and for offering it to us as a memento. Part of the inscription states: "Children as our future and as our source of inspiration". It recognizes that children play a very important part in our society. They are our future.
What bothers me is that if we are not going to help them to get a proper education, if we are not going to help them to be properly fed, properly nourished and properly housed, what kind of a message are we sending to them? Are we really recognizing them as part of our society and part of a society that we want to help prosper and grow in this country?
In my riding, as a result of lay-offs and as a result of mine closures, hundreds and hundreds of people have been put out of work. There are hundreds and hundreds of people whose unemployment insurance has run out. For a lot of them the only means of support that they had, along with the welfare system, was the family allowance that they got once a month. It helped to instil a little pride in them so that they could be part of the
Government Orders
community, that they might be able to go out with their children and buy them a new pair of shoes. For the most part, that is what the family allowance is all about. It is to assist those families in raising those children.
The charts clearly show that for those families that have no income, no earned income as it is termed, the benefit to them is zero. Yet at the other end of the scale, those people who are earning $120,000 per year will benefit by about $2,000 as a result of loopholes that this government has allowed them. This is absolutely absurd and ridiculous.
There is something wrong with the system. We are not going forward; we are going backward. What this government should be doing is looking at the realities and really concentrating on the poor people in this country.
The way to do that is not by destroying our family allowance system, which is there to help and assist those families with the most need. We look at the figures, we look at the formula, and we are told by this government that this is going to be a very simple formula.
It is going to be a formula designed and proposed by the Minister of Finance, and not even supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare because he did not even appear before the committee.
I have never yet seen a proposal by the ministry of finance or by this government that was simple. To prove that, in this case they have already said that the general public will not make the calculation. The ministry will make the calculation.
The finance department and the ministry of revenue will make the calculation. Is that simple? If it is that simple why not let the people figure it out themselves? I will tell you why. It is because then the people who do the figuring will see very clearly that they are getting shafted.
This bill must be defeated for the benefit of those people who need it most, those people who earn less than $120,000 a year, who earn less than $70,000 a year. If this bill really did put some extra money into the hands of those who really need it I would support it. It does not do that in my opinion. The calculation is shady and the presentations are shady. I do not trust this government and I do not trust this bill.

Government Orders
Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I certainly hope that members will come to their senses and see to the defeat of this bill.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-80 today with very mixed feelings indeed.
I was just starting high school when the Hon. Paul Martin, who was then Minister of National Health and Welfare for Canada, introduced and Parliament passed his bill introducing family allowances. I can remember in those days what a great thing that was for mothers and fathers across this country.
My mother was elated to think that she was going to receive something like $8 a month, which was a lot of money in those days, and we certainly used it throughout the school years. It was put to very good use indeed.
Today there is an article in The Ottawa Citizen that is very apropos to this debate. It is headlined: "BUI expected to pass this week ends famUy allowance system". As I read this article over this morning I could not help but think how ironic this situation is.
If the government insists on pushing BUI C-80 through the House this week it will end for this time the system of famUy allowances that was brought into this House by the Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, back in 1945. Is it not sad to think that this great social legislation which meant so much to all Canadians is going to die on the legislative books of Canada along with its great author, the Hon. Paul Martin.
We cannot help but have this debate today without paying a tribute to him and to those great governments of King and St. Laurent and on to the days of Mr. Trudeau and Lester B. Pearson.
Mr. Martin served in all those governments and was looked upon, to a large degree, as the social conscience of Parliament, and particularly of the Liberal Party, in those days.
It is sad to see the passing of it, but I want to read this article from The Ottawa Citizen by Mark Kennedy, which I think is an excellent one. It reads as follows:
"Universal social programs are a sacred trust, not to be tampered with" -
This is attributed of course to none other than the current Prime Minister, on August 18, 1984.
This solemn pledge was made repeatedly during a summertime election campaign by a politician who was not yet prime minister.
It's a pledge that will come back to haunt Brian Mulroney.
We all remember very well that famous election campaign of the summer of 1984 and the great promises that were made across this country not only about social packages but about looking after the economy, and managing the finances of the nation in such fantastic ways as they outlined. It has been all downhill after the election of the government of today.
The writer goes on to say:
That's because MPs begin final debate today on a bill tabled by Mulroney's Tory government. Bill C-80 would kill one of Canada's oldest universal social programs-Family Allowance-and make official what has been apparent for at least three years: universality is no longer a sacred trust.
But we will remember. The writer continues:
The government is billing it as a way to help children in low-income families. But families living on welfare would not get a penny more under the new legislation, and the so-called "working poor" would only get an extra $42 a month.
Now those are the facts of life about this bill. I compliment the writer on that article.
However, even in the attempt to rewrite the Constitution of Canada there are some things under the social and economic union package in the new Constitution which we must question at this time and determine whether they are really going to happen. Section 4 says that the policy objectives set out in the provision on the social union should include but not be limited to a series of objectives. One of these is "providing adequate social services and benefits to ensure that all individuals resident in Canada have reasonable access to housing, food and other basic necessities".
This very bill today deals with that sort of thing, and the government is doing away with family allowances. It then talks about its child tax credits. You do not get any money back if you do not owe the income tax department. That is a very important factor about the tax system. You have to owe money before you get the deduction on the child tax system. If you do not owe anything you get nothing back.
Another part of the new constitutional proposal under
the social and economic union packages is "providing
high quality primary and secondary education to all
September 14, 1992

individuals resident in Canada and ensuring reasonable access to post-secondary education".
This year in my own province of Ontario alone over
95.000	students applied to go to university and only
54.000	of them were accepted because there were no facilities to handle any more. At a time when there is a great urge to go on to university the facilities are not there for our young people.
Family members today are being hurt by this new tax measure being brought in by the government which will do away with family allowances for all time as far as they are concerned. It also affects the transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces which have been reduced considerably and consistently by this government over the last few years. Therefore it affects what the provincial governments can do for their people under social programs under their jurisdiction. It affects what the provincial governments can do in the field of post-secondary education and brings about the very situation of those statistics which I mentioned a moment ago.
Surely it is time in this Parliament for a renewed social conscience and a realization of what is happening out there to families today.
There is another one here that I want to mention. It is under section 5 of the same part on Canada's social and economic union: "Parliament and the Government of Canada are committed to making equalization payments so that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation".
If you are going to provide comparable levels of public services, I suppose that one can be achieved. If you are going to cut back on the funds and provide fewer services, then you are cutting back and providing everybody with fewer services. That is not a good policy. The next issue is that there is no way you can meet the other commitments of comparable levels of taxation because if provinces are going to be cut short on finances by transfer payments from the federal government, they are going to have to make up the differences or the services are not going to be there.
Government Orders
There has been some tremendous legislation that has gone through this Parliament over the years of Canadian history, particularly in the last 50 years, to assist families on low incomes and middle incomes in this country. The bill that is before us today is a backward step and some members say it has to be defeated. Unfortunately, the reality of it is that this government is going to force this bill through in spite of all the complaints it has had about it, in spite of all the representations it has had, in spite of the fact that it cannot find witnesses to come in to even defend the bill before the parliamentary committee. It is going to push it through regardless. That is the history of this government: full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. That is the way it is going to be with Bill C-80.
I just want to end by saying that I think it is a sad day with the passing of the Hon. Paul Martin, the author of the family allowance system in this country, going back to 1945. It is an even sadder day to think that this government is going to destroy the family allowance system of which he was the author. It is attempting to do it today on the very day that he has passed away.
I want to pay a great tribute to that man who was such a great social conscience to Canada and to extend our appreciation to him for his long public service in Canada.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate because since it began at 11 o'clock this morning, I have heard all sorts of things and many accusations about our intentions that I wish to correct.
To repeat what the previous speaker said about the Hon. Paul Martin who set up this system, I must say that I also admire the Hon. Paul Martin for what he did, but I am sure that he was open-minded enough to believe that if he had to set up the same system today, it might be somewhat different from the one established in the 1940s. That is the important thing.
What is important in a bill is to keep up with the times. I wonder what twisted thinking would lead one to say in this House that the only way to eliminate poverty is to

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
pay universal allowances. One of my colleagues from the NDP said that just now.
We have to live in 1992: To eliminate poverty where I live-I am not poor, but I do not boast of being rich either-I do not need the waste of energy and time involved in sending me money which I will have to pay back to the government at the end of the year when I file my income tax return.
What does this bill do? It is quite simple. We are removing three measures, one of which was universal, and replacing them with a single one, at the same time adding $2.1 billion to help those in need.
One of my colleagues from the Liberal Party just said that it was a most unpopular measure and electioneering. The party in power is not so stupid as to use an unpopular measure to win votes. You must be logical. It is a popular measure because we are seeking the same objectives. We want to transfer wealth to those in the greatest need and add $2.1 billion to the pot. That is important.
We are told that it has to do with the fact that women are automatically the victims. The only women who will no longer receive a cheque are those whose family income is over $40,000. Try to tell me that they need such an allowance. Family allowances will not solve family communication problems where the woman does not work and the man makes $70,000 a year and does not give a damn cent to his wife and children. The bill will not solve that problem. It will continue just as it is now and will even be increased.
The GST was just attacked. One would think that this House is in a world apart with no idea of what is going on outside. When we passed the GST-and you will recall, Mr. Speaker, how it was attacked-they said that there would be a frightful storm of protest over it. The first people to contact the office were in fact those with low income, because they wanted to know when they would get their cheque.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the 80 per cent of women who now receive family allowances with tax credits only at the end of the year and another cheque three or four times a year will be very glad to get a cheque every month, in advance. Something else we know about poverty is that those poor people who had to
get an advance on the family allowance around the middle of the month because they were in difficulty will no longer have to do so.
I disagree with my colleague that it is an unpopular measure and electioneering. Do not doubt that those who need their cheques support this measure.
But we are said to be attacking the Prime Minister's famous "sacred trust", universal pensions. We have to keep up with the times. When the old age pensions and family allowances were established, not many people had money. Before the advent of computer systems and income tax returns, we had no information on people. I remember the discussion when the time came to pay old age pensions. People had to make a sworn statement that they had no more than a certain income, which was absolutely humiliating. We went back and agreed that pensions would be paid to everybody. Today, if anyone wants to find out how much money I have in my bank account, he can. I thought it was confidential, but anyone can find out.
One of my friends who works at the credit union in Valleyfield told me: "Mr. Hudon, we can find out what your credit margin is and how much money you have". I said: "Really?" She said: "You want me to find out?" I said: "Sure".
Two hours later she called back and said: "Mr. Hudon, your credit is good,"-so far so good-"but you owe $572 on your Mastercard account which is due in two weeks time"-or something like that-"and you will owe a certain amount on your Visa account which is due in three weeks".
Today all this is possible, thanks to modem technology. But at the time the program was introduced, this information was not available, so we had to trust people and either oblige them to make a signed statement or else make the program universal. We opted for universality, but today, we do not need that any more.
Why should I get money for my children if I earn $70,000, $80,000 or $90,000 annually? What for? To get a cheque from the Canadian government every month? I do not think it makes sense. We should update our management methods so we can help the people who really need it.
September 14, 1992


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in starting my remarks I would like to respond to some of the comments that the previous speaker from the Conservative caucus made.
Government Orders
He made a reference to old people who are afraid of some of the changes that the government is bringing about. He also implied in his speech that we have to live in modem times and therefore we should be using modem technology.
The government should realize that it is not just senior citizens who are against this change or other changes that the government has brought in. It is not the people who are against technology who are against this legislation. In 1985, one year after the Prime Minister promised universal programs would be a sacred trust, this government started a systematic attack against old age pensions and the family allowance. Every year and in every budget we have seen some change which has destroyed the universal nature of programs in this country. It is not technology that people fear. It is not their age that turns them against some of the legislation the government brings forward. It is the government's own track record.
People in this country are afraid of this government. They are afraid they are going to lose their old age pensions. They are afraid the family allowance system will disappear. These are not false fears. They are based on what the government has been doing over the years. We know the government has partially deindexed pensions. We know the long-term effect of that is to make it less and less possible for those in need to rely on the old age pension. As inflation goes on year after year the relative value of the old age pension will decrease. That is a fact.
A member of the government may get up and say they are false fears or we must use new technology, but he is ignoring the real fact that this government has been attacking universal programs on a regular basis. He infers those of us in this House who oppose government legislation are living in an ivory tower. His own example was the GST. There are people right across this nation who know the GST has been bad for the economy. It has been bad for tourism. It has been bad for small business. It has helped to destroy the faith Canadians used to have in our economy. It does not take polls, but we know the polls tell us people are afraid for their economic future in this land.

Government Orders
This government has been in power for over eight years. It has been the captain of our ship. It has been in charge of the economy, but more Canadians now fear for their jobs than in 1984. More Canadians now are concerned about our social programs. More Canadians now do not believe their children will have the same standard of living they do at the present time. This government, which is now taking us into a referendum on the Constitution, has destroyed the faith Canadians have in our economy. It has destroyed our faith in the government assisting us in terms of old age pensions in the future. It continues to destroy that faith.


An hon. member:: Right.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is one of the reasons selling the referendum will be very difficult for those of us willing to undertake that task. There are a lot of negative feelings in this land that exist as a result of past government actions. I refer to that because I am afraid Bill C-80, which is going to destroy family allowances in this country, is only going to further create a difficult situation for those of us who would support the referendum.
I would suggest to the government this bill should not be going forward at this time. As a measure of good faith, it should not be rushing this bill through Parliament. We have been told it is going to try to get this bill through all stages before we adjourn. What is the rush? The public should have the chance to be really informed about the nature of this bill. We had quick hearings at the clause-by-clause stage. There was a quick debate in the House earlier and now we have been told this bill is going to be guillotined in the final stages. That is not acceptable because the one thing this government needs is the trust of the people of this land. It has not earned that. It does not have that at the present time.
This legislation is not going to give a lot more money to the working poor. It is not going to give any more money to those on welfare, but it is going to take away the universal approach to family allowance. That does not create trust. That does not give Canadians a sense that this government is going to play fair in the future.
The government talks about technology and says it is the reason it makes these changes. That does not make any sense to ordinary Canadians. It tells people the family allowance program is dated and no longer applies
because it was brought forward in 1945 but that does not make sense to people.
Canadians know as long as the family allowance is universal, the government is saying it is the responsibility of our nation to help with the finances of bringing up our children. They also know when the family allowance program is no longer universal there will be less and less political support for the family allowance as fewer Canadians receive it.
They know in the long run the family allowance, just like the old age pension, is being threatened by this government. Do not talk about technology. Look at your own government's record. Look at the fears you have created out there. The actual record of the government is creating those fears, not the opposition.
The whole economic program of this government is creating fears. With regard to the free trade agreement, we were promised we would have adjustment programs which never appeared. We were promised more money for those in need which has never appeared. We were promised the GST would not hurt the economy and it did. We know the free trade agreement cost us jobs in this country which the government still denies.
We know jobs are leaving Saskatoon to go to Mexico at this very time because it can get away with cheap labour and environmental standards do not exist. That is the proof Canadians have. Those jobs are disappearing. They are leaving this country and going down to the states. There is no way this government is going to sell this program or free trade until it starts being honest with Canadians.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, I have been looking forward to commenting on this legislation for some time. We have listened to some very encouraging commentary earlier today.
One almost gets the impression there is a certain amount of legislated manipulation going on here today. The government wants to slip legislation through quickly while attention is being focused on the referendum campaign.
Here is a program that will dismantle one of the programs that has elevated Canada to the top status in the world in terms of providing for its people. We are all proud of the fact the United Nations has named Canada up there with some of the western European countries
September 14, 1992

for having some of the most caring and thoughtful social programs anywhere on the planet.
One of those programs is family allowance. It says if you are a citizen of this great country raising children, we place value on those children. We want to help raise those children so they can play their rightful role in society.
All of a sudden this is going to change. The government members are now saying with Bill C-80, if you are poor enough and can convince us your family income is low enough, we will give you some charity. It is back to the old charity routine. Is this the kind of country Canada is becoming? Is this the kind of Canada that is now turning its back on the children of this great nation?
What kind of manipulation is going on? I do not expect there is a single Canadian who woke up this morning and read his or her newspaper who was not shocked at what he or she found.
My friends across the way smile because they know that there is a propaganda machine now cranking out misinformation and manipulating statistics to influence Canadians on buying the North America Mexico-Cana-da-U.S. free trade agreement. Secret meetings are taking place. Phone calls are being taped. Lists are being kept. The East German secret police threw out their secret lists. The KGB threw out the lists in the old Soviet Union. But now this government is instituting computer lists of all those opposed to NAFTA.
That is what we found out this morning. There is a secret organization at work scheming across the country to manipulate information. They even said in the transcripts: "We are taking Statistics Canada information and manipulating it for our political purpose to brainwash in the most sophisticated propaganda campaign this country has ever seen in order to fool people into supporting NAFTA".


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but it is my obligation to say that it being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
1992 TRIATHLON WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, after planning for two years, the town of Huntsville in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka hosted the 1992 triathlon world championships this past weekend. Over 1,700 athletes from some 50 countries competed, cheered on by more than 5,000 spectators.
Canada did very well. A Canadian men's elite team placed first, the women's elite team placed second and the junior women's team placed third. We should all be proud of the outstanding performances given by our athletes.
This event was an overwhelming success, thanks to the dedication of 1,500 volunteers. The enthusiasm for the world triathlon was clear last Thursday evening when an estimated 6,000 spectators lined the streets of Huntsville for the parade of athletes.
The organizing committee, the many volunteers who helped ensure a smooth-running event, the spectators who came out to support our athletes and the athletes themselves who gave their best for Canada are to be congratulated for making a world-class event an overwhelming success.
The federal government made a generous grant to this
event.


CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday a memorial service was held at Concordia University for three professors who were senselessly shot to death on August 24. They were Matthew Douglas, Michael Hogben and Jaan Saber. A fourth professor, Dr. Phoivos Ziogas, is recovering in hospital.
I am sure that all members of the House would want to join me in expressing to the families, friends and colleagues of the deceased our deepest condolences and to Dr. Ziogas, our wishes for a full and speedy recovery.

September 14, 1992
The university has been overcome by sentiments of grief and horror, confusion, anger and deep concern for the future. Yet at the same time, there has emerged the resolve to protect, improve and develop the university to which these professors had committed so many of their efforts and so much of their lives.
As the rector of Concordia University, Dr. Patrick Kenniff, put it, if a collective effort by all in the university were to produce such a result, there could be no better tribute to these men and the ideals they stood for.
I would add that the university is circulating a petition which calls on Parliament to remove any opportunity for people to acquire hand-guns and to use them against their fellow human beings.


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the recent meeting of maritime cabinets in Halifax concluded several agreements eliminating or reducing trade barriers between these provinces.
Agreements were completed in the areas of transportation, community colleges and government procurement. As well, it was determined to move forward in areas of exports and tourism as well as regional agricultural strategy, tax simplification, regional energy projects and employment mobility.
As the federal government observer at these meetings, it was clear to me that the federal government can play a big part in helping to reduce barriers to trade and encourage economic unity in the Atlantic area. Many federal programs are not transferable from province to province and many programs have different criteria in each province.
All federal programs available in the maritimes should come under scrutiny to identify differences that could be eliminated in order to provide uniform rules for the region.
The provinces are going through this process now and the federal government must play its part as well.


IX SUMMER PARALYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the closing ceremonies of the IX Summer Paralympic Games take place today in Barcelona, Spain.
Over 3,500 athletes and officials from 94 countries were represented at these games which are a remarkable tribute to the power of human spirit in overcoming adversity.
The Paralympic Games, while given only limited media attention, are indeed very entertaining and exciting. Furthermore, the dedication and performances of our athletes provide strong encouragement for the one out of seven Canadians who have some form of disability.
Canada's contingent at the games included a total of 218 athletes and staff. In the over-all standings, Canada finished seventh with 75 medals, 25 of them gold.
I want to congratulate our athletes on their performances in Barcelona. I also want to recognize the work done by the disabled sport associations throughout Canada and especially commend the efforts made by the Canadian Federation of Sport Organizations for the Disabled in co-ordinating Canada's participation at these games.


INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, if Canada is to prosper, provincial economies expand and our standard of living continue to grow, barriers to growth and opportunity must be eliminated.
A step in this direction was taken last week when the maritime premiers met in Halifax. Co-operation agreements were reached that will not only improve service, but could provide some future tax relief as well.
The three governments agreed to create a single harness racing commission, dismantle barriers to government contracts, harmonize business taxes and jointly promote exports and tourism. Could it be that the federal and provincial governments are finally beginning to sing from the same hymn-book?
September 14, 1992


THE DISABLED
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, aboriginal people with disabilities living on reserves face challenges that few of us can comprehend.
This summer, I visited a number of reserves in northwest Saskatchewan and talked with people who have eye or ear impairments as well as people with physical disabilities who are confined to wheelchairs.
One of those people was Velma Iron of Canoe Lake, Saskatchewan, a strong and articulate spokesperson who wants the off-reserve population to understand the challenges that she faces every day.
Mrs. Iron believes there must be greater attention paid to concerns in four priority areas: health care, education, housing and transportation.
I agree with Mrs. Iron. There must be greater attention paid to the needs of the physically challenged on reserves where access is limited and mobility is restricted.
I urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to accept the challenge put by Mrs. Iron and others to become more personally involved, and to take immediate steps to adequately address the concerns that they have raised.


CANADIAN NATIONAL
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to draw attention to a matter of great concern not only to railway workers in my riding, but to all Canadians living near CN rail lines.
Very disturbing practices are taking place at CN affecting the safety of rail cars. Carmen regularly inspect rail cars and as needed, put bad order cards on those that have maintenance problems. It has been brought to my attention that it is a common practice of management to rip bad order cards off these rail cars so that they are not repaired and so that unsafe cars continue to be used on Canada's railways, risking the safety of Canadians living near the lines.
S. ft 31
In addition to tearing cards off these defective rail cars, management has told workers not to enter the bad orders into the computer system, thus ensuring that no record exists of the problem or of the whereabouts of defective cars.
These unsafe practices by management increase the risk of dangerous goods spills, thus endangering the safety not only of rail workers, but of those Canadians who live near CN rail lines.
It is time the government ensured that the safety of Canadians is not threatened by unsafe practices by CN management.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, on October 26, all Canadians will be asked to pronounce themselves on the constitutional agreement reached in Charlottetown.
This exercise in my view, and in the view of the Liberal Party, will effectively give the Constitution back to the Canadian people.

The August 28 constitutional accord is not perfect, but it reflects a broad consensus among Canada's provincial and regional representatives. This accord is the best possible under the present circumstances.

I want to take this opportunity to let my constituents in Carleton-Gloucester know that I will assist them with any concerns that they may have with this package.

From now until October 26,1 urge all Canadians to set aside their regional interests and to think of our nation's higher interests.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as of January 1, 1993, Canada Post may again raise its basic letter rate by one cent. The price of a stamp will thus rise to 43 cents, but to mail a letter in Canada, it will in fact cost 46 cents, GST included.

September 14, 1992
The Canada Post increases are a nightmare for the people of remote areas in Abitibi. These constant increases are unfair, because they are not matched by improved services in our regions.
If the Canada Post rate increases serve neither to maintain nor to improve service in a region like ours, I ask the corporation to postpone its decision to raise the cost of postage in Abitibi and in Canada.


125TH BIRTHDAY


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Canada's 125th birthday, the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans, Lambton Unit 212 in the riding of York South-Weston, unanimously endorsed the following message which they asked be presented to Parliament. "Happy birthday, Canada, on achieving 125 years of great nationhood on July 1. We, the members of Lambton Unit 212, army, navy and air force veterans in Canada, love you with a passion and do solemnly swear and rededicate ourselves to your service and preservation. God bless Canada. God save the Queen."
I would like to thank the members of Lambton Unit 212 for their patriotic message. This is simply another indication of the affection which the veterans who fought for a free and united Canada have for our country, and how through their selfless contributions they continue to make Canada the finest country in the world.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, three years ago the House of Commons consumers affairs committee recommended that the federal government impose a floating cap on credit card rates. The idea was to limit the rate on bank cards to the prime plus 8 per cent. If that floating cap was in effect today the banks would be charging their customers just over 14 per cent on outstanding balances. But today the banks are charging almost 17 per cent, while department stores and others levy an incredible 28 per cent on those unpaid balances. Obviously this is costing Canadian consumers millions of dollars in extra interest. While it may be good for bank profits, it is not good for consumer confidence,
consumer spending or the recovery of this fragile economy.
These interest rates cannot be justified except in the name of corporate greed. I call first on the banks to do the honourable thing, drop credit card rates to acceptable levels. If the banks fail to do that, I ask this government one more time to rein the lenders in and impose a floating cap on credit cards. Canadian consumers are being hosed, fleeced and gouged. They now need the protection of their government and they need it immediately.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of this House to the brave actions of Deborah Scott of Barrie, a mother whose daughter was the victim of a brutal and violent beating and rape this summer by a group of teenagers. She is putting her personal tragedy aside to work for the protection of other Canadians.
Mrs. Scott is collecting signatures on a petition to have the Young Offenders Act changed to reflect the difference between violent and non-violent offenders. Society has the right to be protected against violent offenders of any age, and this begins with amending the laws that keep the names of young violent offenders secret.
My constituents have often stressed the need and their right to have the names of violent offenders released. Mrs. Scott's daughter's attackers have been released into the community on bail and remain unidentified to the public. In the eyes of Mrs. Scott and many of my constituents, this is truly and simply not acceptable. Barrie is not the only community whose safety has been jeopardized in this way.
It is time that the act be changed to protect the victims and to stop making excuses for the offenders.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is in the midst of preparing for a referendum vote on October 26, a vote that will respond yes or no to the question: Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada
September 14, 1992

should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28.
The agreement is not perfect, however. I recognize that the first ministers have developed an agreement that contains considerable promise in terms of maintaining Canada as a single great nation. We on this side of the House have always stressed that constitutional reform must meet certain criteria: It must not make Canada more difficult to govern; it must facilitate adaptation to economic realities; it must not paralyse the role of the national government; and, it must adequately and generously reflect our fundamental values.
We are satisfied that these principles have been reflected in the accord. A Nepean constituent committee has been formed which is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the voters are familiar with all aspects of the consensus document. Hopefully, we in Nepean will respond with a resounding yes to the question and to Canada.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the entire developed world is in a very serious recession. Some call it a depression. This is caused by massive technological and psychological change.
The Government of Canada ought to be congratulated for its ability to handle change as it has handled change with tax reform, trade agreements, recognition of the need for industrial and commercial training and retraining, and programs designed to improve research and development.
We cannot bury our heads in the sand. We must recognize the world is changing, markets are changing, economies are changing and we must change with them. While change causes hardship and unemployment, we must recognize change and learn to cope with it. Our government is doing better in this regard than other governments throughout the world.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians were shocked and horrified to learn that rather than trying to sell the Mexican-U.S.-Canada
trade deal on its merits, the federal government plans to resort to a smear campaign reminiscent of Nixon's dirty tricks campaign.
Those who oppose the deal, in an effort to discredit them, will be called little people, left-wingers, small potatoes, crypto-communists, empty heads, loonies and cons. Anyone who opposes NAFTA will be targeted as the enemy. Big brother will keep computer files on those opposing NAFTA and Statistics Canada information will be altered in Orwellian style to suit the government's propaganda campaign.
How far will this government go in its free trade campaign based on manipulation and misinformation? This government has to learn that opposition is okay in a democratic society and must not only be tolerated, but encouraged.
If the government cannot sell NAFTA on its merits, it should forget it, listen to the people of Canada and scrap it.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the request of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the establishment of an environmental assessment review panel for a proposed incinerator in my riding of Fraser Valley East. This decision indicates his support for the principle that government rules and regulations must apply to all projects whether large or small.
Earlier this year indian affairs officials approved without public notice a lease between the Sumas Indian Band and Bennett Remediation Services to construct a special waste incinerator on band land in my riding. Adjacent municipalities have by-laws banning incinerators within their boundaries.
This was unacceptable and I made my objections known quite clearly to the minister in late July. Approvals for projects such as this should not be done in a covert manner without considering local laws and the concerns of the public in the area.
On September 1,1 publicly requested that the minister establish an environmental assessment review panel under the government's EARP guidelines. On Septem-

September 14, 1992
Oral Questions
ber 11, the minister listened to the concerns that I and the people in Fraser Valley East raised and formally requested a full review. Again, I applaud the minister for his decision.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I have listened to the hon. member very carefully. I guess, come to think of it, that neither point of order should have been allowed.']
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister is certainly aware of this transcript of an August 26 conference call among 12 senior ministers of the government, including the minister's own deputy chief of staff.
These advisers are co-ordinating a multimillion smear campaign to discredit people who oppose this government's policies and they are using the machinery of government to help thousands of PC Party workers get ready for the next election.
The transcript makes clear that taxpayers' dollars were used to send tens of thousands of propaganda kits, and I quote, "to party supporters, field organizers right across the country, key party associations and campaign chairs". Taxpayers' dollars are also being used to keep lists of names of crypto-communists, people like George Proud, Peter Milliken and Maude Barlow. This tactic smacks of McCarthyism.
I would like to ask why the Prime Minister has authorized the use of taxpayers' money to launch a smear campaign against thousands of legitimate Canadians and to grease the wheels of the Conservative Party effort in such a low-grade way?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. friend is way off base when she says the range of things that she has just outlined.
We have simply put forward here a statement of the facts of the NAFTA. That is what is in the documentation my hon. friend refers to. Some of that documentation, she would be surprised to find out I am sure, is agreed upon between the United States and Mexico as being the elements of the agreement so that people can understand the elements and nature of the agreement and how it will affect them as individuals.
Our intent is to get these facts out to Canadians so that we can then have a rational, objective and less emotional debate on the question of the NAFTA than was the case in the 1988 election campaign.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the minister's answer certainly does not dissociate himself personally from the McCarthy-like tactics-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member of course can put questions. Perhaps she would want to put the question directly to the minister.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Does the minister deny the statement made by his chief of staff at an organizational meeting for the smear campaign in which he said: "Nevertheless, we are seeing articles and letters starting to come out by what I will call the old, left wing crypto-communist, anti free trade Liberal-NDP con group. They are starting to write letters alleging plots, the dollar and everything else. I see where George Proud of P.E.I. has slashed it, Peter Milliken, and other great minds, Paul Dick, a Humber West Liberal legislative member"-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The minister and his colleagues may think this is funny but we take this very seriously. I would like to give the minister the opportunity now to stand to dissociate himself from the remarks of his chief of staff and to fire the man.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend is quite sensitive to these things and I know the great minds she has spoken of, Mr. Milliken and Mr. Proud, are also sensitive to these matters.
Let me try to put the point in the words of one of the leading commentators on the NAFTA, Mr. Peter Cook. In The Globe and Mail this morning he said: "It has also become a fact of life in Canada that when partisans of the left reach for something to bash that something is now free trade". Indeed my friend from Etobicoke North
September 14, 1992

said some two or three years ago that every sparrow that falls we will blame on the free trade agreement.
In a private conversation among political staffers one expects this type of language because these are political people talking among each other.
I am sure my hon. friend would agree that when Liberal staffers get together they use a few slang words to refer to the likes of myself and my friend from Calgary Centre, which might also offend the ears of my hon. friend.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think that the minister's answer is a defence of McCarthy tactics that we thought had gone out in the sixties. I will give him a chance to reply. He claims that it is only a few conversations among some assistants. In fact, we have proof here that it is the policy of the Prime Minister's Office, the office of the Minister for International Trade and the offices of twelve ministers in the Mulroney cabinet to use the agreement to try to promote their own policies and even to silence opponents of the government's policies. Does he support and endorse the use of millions and millions of Canadians' dollars to boost his own party's policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has talked about McCarthy-ist tactics. These are not McCarthyist tactics. They are efforts designed to get the facts of the NAFTA on the table so that Canadians can debate the issue in a rational, unemotional way on the facts that are presented.
I would be very pleased to sit down with my hon. friend and discuss the merits of the agreement.
The conversations referred to in the Maclean's article have registered that if there are facts misstated by opposition parties or other opponents to the NAFTA we are not going to smear, using my hon. friend's words. We are going to take those people on and fight this agreement on the basis of the facts. I think Canadians will support this as a very good agreement for them.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand why the minister is consulting the gospels. If I were in his situation I would too. He refers
Oral Questions
to the Gospel of Matthew. I would refer him to the Gospel of Luke: "Every tree that fails to produce good fruit is cut down".
I was interested to learn as one who has occasionally criticized aspects of the North American free trade agreement that I am now presumably "an old, left wing crypto-communist, anti-free trade NDP-Liberal groupie". My wife will be surprised.
More seriously, instead of spending the taxpayers' money on the compilation of computer lists of those who have misgivings about some or all aspects of the North American free trade agreement, why does this government not spend the taxpayers' money, its scarce funds, on adjustment assistance to those who are inevitably adversely affected by freer trade?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when I hear my hon. friend referring to quotes from the Bible, I am sure he has been waiting a long time to be able to put another quote on the table. Perhaps we might have another book from him and could get some real quotes. I am looking forward to that.
My hon. friend has asked a sensible question unlike the previous three that have been put on the table. My hon. friend asked a question about adjustment. I refer him to what we have done on adjustment following the FTA with the United States. We have increased the amount of funds for training. We have introduced the concept of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board where business and labour working together in partnership advise the government on the uses of these funds.
We were advised by the de Grandpre commission not to introduce an adjustment program that was exclusively related to the free trade agreement, but to increase the adjustment funds to help people in the economy as a whole rather than just as a result of the free trade agreement.
These programs are under review on a continuing basis and there may well be some changes we will have to make in response to changing circumstances in the economy as a whole.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is quoted as saying: "If we have got to go out in an election we need enemies". I agree with the minister that this government will go out

September 14, 1992
Oral Questions
in an election, but I would have thought the last thing that this government needs is more enemies.
Instead of spending money on costly advertising programs such as the government has launched on the free trade agreement, can the minister say why it is this government has consistently failed to implement the broad range of recommendations of the de Grandpre commission which he so often quotes? For example, why does the government not spend its money on assisting Canadians to develop high value-added industry? Why does it not promote programs that would encourage business to help those adversely affected by freer trade? Where is this government's adjustment assistance?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the essential approach of the prosperity initiative is to bring about a broad range of change within the economy, possibly changes in programs of government but also changes in the way business and labour approach the changing nature of the economy today.
We have had an extensive consultation process under way at the community-based level with 186 communities involved and with some 28 or 30 industry sectors involved. The report on this will be coming forth some time this fall and following that the federal government will be responding.
I would also encourage strongly that provincial governments, municipal governments, business, labour, educators, everybody who will be affected by this action plan proposal, also respond because it will require not just the federal government doing things but the country as a whole responding to the huge change under way in the globalized community we live in.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Today, according to a survey, nearly half of Canadians and more than half of Quebecers are afraid of losing their jobs. People are really scared. This morning, we also heard that the government's strategy for selling the three-way free trade agreement is to discredit its opponents. Why does the government not discuss this agreement and explain its benefits, instead of launching personal attacks? Is the government losing confidence in its own free trade agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has not read the information that we have been putting out. The information is based entirely on facts.
We are quite prepared and want to debate this matter, the NAFTA, on the basis of facts, on the basis of the composition of the agreement. If my hon. friend wants to do so, I would encourage her to present a motion on the NAFTA and \ve will have a good debate on that. Parliament will be seized with this later on this year or early next year and at that time we will be setting out in a veiy clear way what the agreement does provide for Canadians.
It provides in principle access to a market of 85 million people with a growing middle-income group that has been heretofore closed to Canadian manufacturers, Canadian service providers and Canadian investors.
We have an agreement that results in some significant improvements to the existing free trade agreement. We also have an agreement that continues Canada as one of the most favourable places in the world in which people both within Canada as well as international investors can invest.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, and particularly unemployed Canadians, that the Canada-U.S. trade deal cost this country
360,000	manufacturing jobs and that we continue to have 1.6 million people unemployed in Canada.
Again the government is trying to sell the deal by promises and, further to that, by intimidation. The government, through the article we have read today, says that it is going to use further intimidation tactics by asking multinationals to sell the deal to their employees. Yet these same multinationals are rapidly moving to Mexico and moving their jobs to Mexico. Workers are afraid of losing their jobs. They saw what happened during the Canada-U.S. trade deal. The minister has
September 14, 1992

done nothing to show that there will be jobs created in Canada but only that there will be more of the same.
When will the government start having a campaign to get Canadians back working and stop a campaign of over $300 million to intimidate the workers of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, no one is trying to intimidate the workers or anybody else in this country. Let me again remind my hon. friend, when she starts whistling around these large numbers of job loss, of what Peter Cook said this morning: "It has also become a fact of life in Canada that when partisans of the left reach for something to bash that something is now free trade".
When my hon. friend uses the number 300,000 she forgets to mention completely the fact that we have been in a world-wide recession which has affected Canada and that we are in a period of tremendous change internationally which is affecting Canada as well as other countries. In fact 300,000 people in New Jersey lost their jobs. Is she going to blame that on free trade as well?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister for International Trade that rather than citing a second party on whom the New Democratic people are partisans of, we are partisans of the working people of this country. That is why we are saying that NAFTA is a bad deal for Canada.
It is clear from the information out today by the senior strategists of the minister's department, as well as the Prime Minister's department, that the strategy to sell the trade deal is going to be calling Canadians empty-headed little Canadians, and otherwise simply entering into name calling rather than on the basis of the deal. On top of that, the senior strategists for the minister say that they will be holding back Statistics Canada data in order to wait until it is the right time for public opinion.
Will the minister, on behalf of his government, ensure that all Statistics Canada data is released now untampered with to all parties and to all Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is really astounding to me that my hon.
Oral Questions
friend could call the release of a secret transcription of a private conversation name calling.
No one was calling names. I am sure that if she were sitting down with Bob White or some other people in the labour movement they might not use the tenderest language in the world on myself or other members of the Conservative Party. I would not call that name calling if that is what they talked about in a private conversation.
My friend talks about the free trade agreement. If she says that the free trade agreement has been such a damaging thing, how is it that the free trade agreement has also allowed Canada greater access to the United States market so that we have been able to increase our exports to the United States market by some billions of dollars? I remind her that every billion dollar of increase in exports represents 15,000 new jobs. The free trade agreement has helped us get through this recession, not hurt us as my hon. friend would say.
The question she has asked was: Are we withholding Statistics Canada information? The simple fact is that Statistics Canada decides when it releases the information and that is not influenced in any way by the Government of Canada.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister for International Trade fully understands what is at stake here.
We have a government that is prepared to spend millions of dollars on compiling computerized lists of its so-called enemies. It is prepared to spend millions of dollars to send out kits to its own party field organizers, but it has no money for adjustment programs and it has no money for impact studies to tell Canadians what jobs are going to be lost and what sectors are going to be impacted.
In all seriousness does the minister not see a clear, moral responsibility to say that this kind of smear tactic is wrong, or is the fact of the matter that he will not say it is wrong because it is his tactic they are using, not his advisers', and they are simply doing his dirty work for him?


Mr. Speaker:: I have been listening very carefully to these questions and I am asking hon. members to be very careful about making personal imputations that may give us some difficulty.

Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, any amount of huffing and puffing is not going to change the fact that the NAFTA is going to improve the economy of Canada by giving Canadians access to a market of 85 million people, one of the fastest growing markets in Latin America, a faster growing market than either that of the United States or Canada, a market with a large middle income group that is growing larger every day, and a market that is going to provide jobs to people in Canada.
That is the essence of the messages that we have been getting out on NAFTA. No amount of huffing and puffing by my hon. friend from Winnipeg is going to stop us from getting those messages out.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let us see if we can come at the minister another way.
In this transcript that was recorded the adviser to the minister and to several other members of the Crown admit that they are spending public money to do focus groups on so-called enemies of NAFTA. They are compiling files on people so that they can use retaliatory tactics. They are particularly targeting people for attack under this program.
I want to ask the minister this question. At a time when the government is supposed to be reaching out-at a time of crucial importance in this nation-to bring people on board to say yes to the renewal of Canada, does he think it is the right tactic to be trying to smear the people that he wants on board to support the yes side in this referendum? Does he not think he is simply destroying the whole fabric of this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if we are targeting anything, we are targeting inaccurate statements.
If anybody writes a letter or if anybody, such as my hon. friend, makes an inaccurate statement about the NAFTA or the free trade agreement, such as he has done, such as his colleague from Hamilton has done, such as his colleague from Etobicoke has done, such as the Leader of the Opposition has done today, then we are going to answer those inaccurate statements with the facts. The facts are based on a reading of the free trade agreement with the United States. The facts are based
on a reading of the NAFTA agreement and based on the facts in those agreements we are going to respond to the statements that are made by my hon. friend.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not understand that the debate today is not about the substance of the trade deal. It is not about whether the deal is great or whether the deal is bad. The debate today is about the process, whether it is appropriate for the taxpayers of Canada to be paying-and I want to quote the minister's own chief of staff-to send out 30,000 kits to party supporters across the country, including kits to the campaign chairs of the Progressive Conservative Party appointed by the Prime Minister, to the field organizers in all 10 provinces, to key riding associations.
The debate is not about the substance of the deal but whether or not it is appropriate for the taxpayers to pay for PC Party propaganda.
Does the minister believe it is appropriate? Did he give his authority for that use of public money? If he did not, will he see that the taxpayers' purse is repaid, because it is not a PC Party piggy bank.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the information that has been sent out is available, and was sent out to many, many people. It was sent out to business leaders, it was sent out to union leaders, it was sent out to academics, it was sent out to-


Mr. Andre:: To members of the opposition.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -a range of people.
If my hon. friend would like some information to send out on government policy, he is perfectly free to call my office, get the information and send it out.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is coming close to realizing what the discussion is about here this afternoon.
I ask him the question again. Does the minister think the action of the 10 chiefs of staff, 10 disciples of a tactic of another era, who have not realized that the cold war is over and have declared a war on truth, appropriate? I want to quote directly from the transcript. This was not in the Maclean's article; it is on page 17 of the full transcript that will be released today by this party. Does he think it appropriate that it was sent to "field organizers right across the country, as well as our key party associations, as well as our campaign chairs"? They all received the full kit. If the PC Party of Canada received
September 14, 1992

the full kit, why should taxpayers pay the full cost? Answer that, minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to a war on truth. The fact is that this is a war with the truth. It is based on a use of the facts that are in the free trade agreement. My hon. friend has singled out some people who got the kit-


Mr. Speaker:: This is an interesting exchange. I do not know whether the country would be better off hearing it or not hearing it but I will let the minister complete his answer if he so wishes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me just remind my hon. friend that some 40,000 or 45,000 of these documents went out to members of the business community across the country, to leaders of business associations as well as small business people.
It is an effort on our part to let people know what is in the agreement so they can respond with a sense of certainty when people such as my hon. friend make the outrageous statements that he has been making today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade.
What we are hearing in Question Period today is a very dark and sinister process that is being unveiled through questioning-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to put a very clear question to my hon. friend, the minister.
The transcript of this meeting says of those that oppose NAFTA, "we are watching all the opposition, opposition members and others across the country and we have them all on computer".
The KGB threw out its lists long ago. The secret police in east Germany threw out its lists. Is this government keeping lists now on computer of all those Canadians that are standing up in opposition to the NAFTA deal?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend makes a statement that is purporting to be fact which is factually wrong, yes, we do keep a record of that and yes, I do respond to it when I can to make sure that Canadians understand what is in the NAFTA and what my hon. friend alleges is in the NAFTA in his effort to twist the truth. Those are the things that we are ensuring.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that hon. members, in pursuing this line of questions, would want to stay within the bounds of propriety in the House.
I have to say to the minister that was a straight accusation and it was inappropriate. I do not want to have to deal with any other statements that are made, or preambles that are made in the next minute or two as being inappropriate.
I would ask the minister to withdraw, and I would ask members who are putting questions to be very careful to stay within the proper bounds.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was putting that in the subjunctive but if there is any offence, I would be happy to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. minister.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let it be clear that the minister has just admitted on the floor of the House of Commons that the government is keeping lists of citizens who are in opposition to the deal.
In this government's effort to misrepresent what is going on, to conduct a campaign of disinformation, what did his chief of staff mean when he said: "We are doing some minor changes to StatsCan information before we decide to send it out to Canadians"?
Can he explain what he meant when his chief of staff says that they are making some changes to StatsCan information as part of their propaganda campaign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me again correct what the hon. member has just said.

Oral Questions
We are keeping track of statements that we believe are incorrect and we want to make sure that the correct nature of the statement is on the record.
If my hon. friend or others make statements, maybe it is because they have not read the agreement or are misinterpreting the agreement that their statements are not accurate. We want to make sure that Canadian citizens are given access to the accurate information and not the misstatements.
As to the question my hon. friend has just put to me, I answered his leader by saying that we do not control in any way StatsCanada. StatsCanada has its own information. It has its own basis on the release of that information and that is the basis on which StatsCan operates.



Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I do hope the minister of trade will later confirm to me that I am on his list, but I would like to go to the Minister of Transport who last Thursday said that destructive competition between our airlines was "a main cause" of the difficulties that our transportation sector is now in.
I would like to ask the minister whether he will adopt the proposal put forward this weekend by the Leader of the Opposition to halt the merger proposed between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines until October 30, assist the airlines during this period with an abatement of transportation taxes and meet with the two carriers and with the competition bureau and seek a return to healthy, stable competition in Canada's skies?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have helped the PW airline to get through the present period by purchasing three aircraft.
We also helped the Canadian aviation industry last year by making changes to the excise fuel tax and modified the depreciation and capital cost allowance. No, we will not listen to Mr. Chretien, because as this thing is unfolding the rest of the world is not going-


Mr. Speaker:: I know that hon. members will, as I asked the other day, want to refer to each other in the appropriate way.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the government's transportation policy used to be entitled "Freedom to Move", now it would be better known as "Failure to Move".
The government has a choice in this and if the minister will not adopt the rational, cautious approach put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps he will tell Canadians what his plan is in the face of a privately owned, unregulated monopoly of Canada's air services.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the government's position was clearly explained on several occasions. Recently, two proposals were considered by the airlines. After examining one of the options, PWA preferred to continue discussions with Air Canada, while reserving the right to revert to the other option.
As soon as a deal has been finalized and we have been informed of the deal, two entirely independent agencies will examine the provisions of the deal. The Bureau of Competition Policy will concentrate on maintaining the benefits of competition for Canadians, while the National Transportation Agency will determine whether the proposed deal is in the best interests of Canadians.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I too am somewhat disappointed that he would not follow the suggestion made by our leader as well as my colleague for Ottawa South.
The Minister of Transport will know that when the government introduced its deregulation package, the then Minister of Transport and the present Deputy Prime Minister said: "Canada's transportation system is the physical bond that holds together the diverse regions of this vast country".
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport what specific plan of action do he and the government have to ensure that regions like mine, Atlantic Canada, will remain linked to the rest of the country?
September 14, 1992


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. No deal has been finalized so far. What we now have in the negotiations taking place between the two airlines is a proposed merger, and Air Canada has announced that if the proposal is accepted, both companies will continue to exist and operate as such.
I repeat that as soon as we have a deal, the National Transportation Agency will examine it and the Bureau of Competition Policy will examine it as well, to ensure that it will be in the best interests of Canadians and that the benefits of competition are maintained.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. I want to remind the minister that for Canadians in parts of Quebec, Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and western Canada, air transportation is not a luxury, it is an economic necessity.
On behalf of Canadians in Charlottetown, Sydney, Moncton and other regions of this country, I want to ask the minister what unequivocal guarantee can he give to those Canadians so that they will not have an inferior air service and monopoly prices against them as Canadian consumers?


Jean Corbeil: The best guarantee we can give, Mr. Speaker, is that since deregulation, service has improved across Canada. I repeat that the competition watch-dog will have to examine the deal as soon as it is finalized-if it is finalized-and will comment and make its recommendations at that time.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International
Trade.
The European Economic Community recently proposed very restrictive regulations which will effectively curtail all shipments of softwood lumber from Canada to
Oral Questions
Europe. It will interrupt a $1.4 billion industry if it is not corrected.
I know the minister made some recommendations and proposals to the community. Do we have an update and are we any closer to a solution?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has pointed out, we are very much aware of the threat of community action on softwood lumber exports.
We made veiy strong representations to the community and will continue to do so. However, at this stage I do not have anything further to report. It is something we will be following very closely in the days and weeks ahead. There may be a ministerial meeting with the representatives of the community in the next week or so.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for International Trade, whom I understood a moment ago to have said that his government respects the independence of Statistics Canada and its numbers are its numbers.
I wonder if the minister would explain why it is that on page 4 of the pamphlet the government claims that manufacturing employment is rebounding up to 113,000 from a March low, but if you look at the StatsCan statistics the increase was 43,000.
It would seem to me that the government is following the words of Mr. Ramsey: "We will change it before we release it". What is the minister's answer to that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is the same as the answer I have given to his House leader and to his leader.
By law, Statistics Canada information is its information. It releases the information and the government has nothing to do with it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be having a great deal of intellectual difficulty today.

Oral Questions
Nobody said that StatsCan would release the information. Mr. Ramsey says: "We have got the StatsCanada information. We will do some minor changes in it".
Would the minister consider the difference between
43,000	and 113,000 a minor change? Is that not evidence of manipulation of Statistics Canada by this government to manipulate the people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have just stated what the policy of Statistics Canada is, which is the policy by law. That is the policy this government respects.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for agriculture.
The western grain situation has worsened again because of bad weather, yet the government has not responded to farmers' pleas for a new cash advance program.
We now know that the government has millions of dollars of taxpayers' money for a NAFTA propaganda campaign and plenty of time for its staff to work on a political smear campaign, but it has no time at all to answer farmers who have been devastated by this terrible weather.
Will the minister recognize the farm crisis today and announce an interest-free cash advance program for the new crop year?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance answered a question about the programs that are in place, which we have initiated together with the farmers and the provincial governments to provide help for farmers. So far there is more than $535 million under crop insurance and maybe $1.35 billion under GRIP programs.
The interest-free program that was in place before is under consideration now, but I think it is too early to make any final answer because we already have put in
place programs that will trigger when the parameters are met. We should wait for the assessment that our people are doing in the field now to know what is the real damage. As we have done in the past, obviously the government will look at this closely and make the decision when the time comes.


John Harvard: I take it, Mr. Speaker, the farmers will have to wait. They will have to wait more. Clearly the government's priorities are out of whack.
As we now know, a member of the grains minister's own staff is busy working on a NAFTA propaganda campaign. The minister allows time for that political hanky-panky, but there is no time to answer farmers who are in desperate need of an extension to the interest-free cash advance program.
I ask this minister again if he is prepared right now to announce a new interest-free cash advance program for western farmers?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, we must at least recognize that if some members of this House and ministers are trying to open the doors to international trade for Canada, they are surely on this side and not on the other, because the opposition tends to say no to free trade, no to NAFTA and no to eliminating interprovincial barriers.
This government has acted dynamically over the years to ensure that not only farmers but all Canadians can be competitive internationally, because there lies the future. That does not seem to be the future as seen through Liberal glasses, but it is obviously how Canadians, Canadian youth, Canadian fanners and Canadian producers see the future.
I told the hon. member that this year we had implemented several programs that will provide about $2 billion for farmers. For two existing programs, that is an awful lot. We will look at the other proposed suggestions with interest when we have the actual damage figures in our hands.
September 14, 1992


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the Eastern Caribbean States.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Chief Emeka Anyaoku, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, some information has just been given to me. It pertains to the question that was just put to me by the member from Windsor in relation to unemployment figures.
There was an error in the tabloid. The seasonally unadjusted figures for March were compared with the seasonally adjusted figures for July. I think if one compares the unadjusted employment figures that the actual numbers show an increase of 181,000 from the lows to the period in July.
I think that the figure that is in the tabloid itself is lower than the actual increase in the unadjusted figures.


Mr. Plamondon:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have a technical problem. There is no simultaneous translation and the minister's statement could be heard only in English. Could he repeat it so that we can hear the interpretation?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member would just be a little patient, we will check to see what happened to the simultaneous translation. The written translation will be available in the next few minutes anyway. Perhaps the hon. member could wait a few minutes.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, if we do not have simultaneous translation, I presume that I could obtain
Tributes
unanimous consent from the House to suspend the proceedings until the system is working again, so that we can start over in both languages.
I do not feel that I am a second-class member and I believe that I have as much right to have the debates interpreted in my language as everyone.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am assured that the simultaneous translation is working very well now. Someone is looking after it.
If we can wait a moment, we must also move on to a special item before proceeding to the Orders of the Day and the Speaker of the House is indicating to me that he would like to occupy the Chair for that. I am sure that the other technical problems can be solved in the meantime.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I have the honour to table a Notice of Ways and Means Motion to amend the Excise Tax Act. I ask that the motion be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of the House that there have been some discussions and it would be the disposition of the House, as I hope it would be, to go immediately to tributes to a former colleague.


THE LATE HON. PAUL MARTIN
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we were deeply saddened to learn early this morning of the passing of the Hon. Paul Joseph James Martin, surely one of the outstanding people in public life in this country in modem times.
Bom in Ottawa on June 23, 1903, the son of Philip Ernest Martin and Lumina Marie Chouinard, he grew up in the Ottawa Valley in very modest circumstances. After an outstanding academic career at the University of Toronto, Osgoode Hall, Harvard, Cambridge and the Geneva School of International Studies, he came to

September 14, 1992
Tributes
Windsor, Ontario, to practise law and lecture at Assumption College.
Paul Martin was first elected to the House of Commons in 1935, when he was only 32, for the riding of Essex East which is now the riding of Windsor-St. Clair. The people of Essex East re-elected Paul Martin as their member of Parliament for 33 years without a break. There was an admirable friendship, a special rapport between the people of Essex East and Paul Martin. Factory workers, farmers, people of every origin and walk of life, to all of them he was simply their Paul to whom they could turn with their needs and problems, no matter what else he did as a figure of national and international renown.
Paul Martin first entered the cabinet of Mackenzie King in April 1945. He went on to develop an outstanding record of achievement as a minister in both national and international affairs. His work provided the basis for much of what we consider today to be the fabric of social policy and identity that defines the Canada we are striving to preserve.
As Secretary of State in 1945, he was responsible for the first Canadian Citizenship Act. Before that initiative, the status of Canadian citizen did not exist.
During his years as Minister of National Health and Welfare from 1946 to 1957, in the government of Louis St. Laurent, Paul Martin was responsible for national health legislation which was the forerunner, the basis, of today's medicare system. Even while serving in this capacity he often represented Canada at meetings of NATO and the United Nations. In the 1950s he was responsible for a breakthrough at the United Nations which, for the first time, enabled many of the new countries of the Third World to become members of that organization.
As Secretary of State for External Affairs in the government of Lester Pearson, from 1963 to 1968, he had many achievements, for example, the creation of the peacekeeping force on the island of Cyprus. He played a role in the negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty. But he was especially proud of his role in negotiating the Canada-United States auto pact, the agreement which did so much to build the modern industrial base of my own city and large parts of Canada.
I am sure Paul Martin could have been re-elected for the rest of his days to the House of Commons by the people of Essex East. But in 1968 he left the House and entered the Senate where he served as government leader until 1974 when he went on to represent Canada as our high commissioner to Great Britain until 1979.
Even in his subsequent years of so-called retirement, he remained remarkably active, writing three highly acclaimed books about his life and times, serving as chancellor of Wilfrid Laurier University, providing a source of advice and guidance to Liberals and to many in public life generally.
For generations of young people like myself who were interested in achieving a career in public life, especially through the Liberal Party, he served as adviser, mentor and example. He was one of the leading builders of the modem progressive liberalism which marked Canada's post-war years.
Paul Martin looked on public life as a very high and noble calling, in spite of its stresses and difficulties. His life and achievements prove the validity of this approach. He was able to combine to a remarkable degree a life of ideas with a life of electoral and constituency politics. He combined a high degree of empathy for individuals and their concerns with a national and, in fact, an international outlook.

He was veiy proud to be a Franco-Ontarian. He was very proud of his Francophone heritage, but he always fought for a Canada united from sea to sea.

To the end of his days, Paul Martin believed in and fought for a bilingual and multicultural Canada united from sea to sea to sea, with equal opportunities for its people of every origin.
He was disappointed on three occasions in his search for the leadership of the Liberal Party. However, he accepted these decisions with good grace and went on to serve the leaders who were chosen with unswerving loyalty and support.
Paul Martin was a speaker of remarkable skill and power. He had a warm outgoing personality that brought about a very friendly response from people of every walk of life. Especially proud to be a citizen of Windsor, for many years everywhere he went in Canada and abroad as
September 14, 1992

minister and later as high commissioner, one of the first things he said when he ran into Canadians was: Is there anybody here from Windsor?
Windsor will miss Paul Martin. I will miss him, as will all Canadians who know of his role in building Canada as a modern country.
Along with his public life, his family was very important to him. He was devoted to his wife Nell, to his children and grandchildren. To Nell, to his son, our very distinguished colleague Paul, to his daughter Mary-Ann, to his grandchildren and to his entire family, I express on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of our caucus and on my own behalf our deepest sympathy.
[ Translation \
I wish to extend our sincere condolences to his family. [English]
Paul Martin's passing is a loss for all of us. However, we can respect his memory and pay tribute to him by the way we strive for a Canada which reflects the values of concern, compassion, generosity and unity, the values for which Paul Martin fought throughout his long and distinguished life.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, very few people leave an indelible mark on this Parliament and on this country. Paul Martin was one who did. I do not know that either one of them would welcome the comparison, but I always thought of him bracketed with the former right hon. member from Prince Albert, Mr. Diefenbaker. They were both very fierce partisans. They were both parliamentarians. They were both champions of people who were in need. They both had a sense of the history and the potential of this country. That is about where the comparisons stopped between Paul Martin and John Diefenbaker.
As I heard the news this morning of his death, it struck me that while he was a fierce partisan for the Liberal Party, he also had a very strong connection with those of us in other parties, particularly with leaders of other parties, perhaps with leaders of other parties who had lost conventions because he knew that experience.
Tributes
It is not well-known that Mr. Martin's talents as a young man were recognized and encouraged particularly by R.B. Bennett. His relationship with Mr. Diefenbaker is well-known. I had the great, great privilege of knowing him when he was high commissioner for Canada. I can say that he was one of the people whose conduct in public life and in this House was very much a matter of inspiration to me personally.
Everyone has their Paul Martin stories, such as the story, as my friend from Windsor said, about "is anyone here from Windsor". When he was Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am told-I could never keep up with that-he used to take the time in every city he visited to pick up postcards and go back and write notes to people from Windsor saying: "Wish you were here".
There is really only one Paul Martin story and that is a story of a man of uncommon energy, vision and conscience who changed his country profoundly for the better. He embodied Canada's commitment to peace and development abroad and embodied its commitment to a better life at home. In many ways, as my friend from Windsor has just indicated, a country we are fighting now to keep was the country that Paul Martin did so much to define in that extraordinary and long career.
Mr. Martin served on Parliament Hill for 39 years. He held cabinet office longer than any Canadian since Mackenzie King.

In his capacity as a minister, first of all as Secretary of State, Mr. Martin tabled and was responsible for the adoption of the first Canadian Citizenship Act. As Minister of National Health and Welfare, he had a profound influence on the development of social programs in Canada and, in his work with the provinces, prepared the advent of universal medicare.
As Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Martin helped develop our country's peacekeeping role. He negotiated an end to the hostilities in Cyprus, sent a peacekeeping force to the island and expanded Canada's peacekeeping role in the Middle East.

September 14, 1992
Tributes

Paul Martin knew the difference between convenience and conviction and he always chose the latter. He knew the status quo could always be improved and he set out to do it. He knew that the standards of the day were always standards to be made better. He did that more often than almost any other Canadian leader of his or any other generation. He demanded excellence of himself and he acted on it. He had a vision of a better Canada and he worked for decades to bring it to pass. He knew we had a special role in the world and he helped to mould it. He was convinced that to be Canadian meant something special and that we owed it to ourselves to always strive to make it better.
When he introduced the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1946 he said the following:
One thing from which we in Canada have suffered, to the detriment of this magnificent country, is from a feeling of divisiveness-lack of that conviction that the welfare of all is the goal of their effort. It is not good enough to be a good Ontarian or a good Albertan - Citizenship means more than the right to vote; more than the right to hold property; more than the right to move freely; citizenship is the right to full partnership in the fortunes and in the future of the nation.
He was a man of really remarkable accomplishments: a minister in several portfolios through decades, leader of his government in the Senate and a very active senator, a high commissioner. All of those things together would make you think that he embodied the definition of an insider. In a sense he was but in the real sense he was not. If there was a quality to Paul Martin it was that he never became blinded by the offices he held or the honours that were bestowed upon him. He was always very much an individual who was open to people who sought and sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed, to ordinary people who had needs across the country.
I saw one of the newspaper articles today that said he finished his active political career in the Senate-not by a long shot. I could never understand the holiday schedule of high commissioners and ambassadors for Canada until it suddenly occurred to me when I was briefly Prime Minister and Paul was carrying on one of his endless public occupations as high commissioner that there was some relation between his vacations from London and Canada House and elections or by-elections in Windsor.
I am told on good authority that while he always was an active and a practising Catholic, he went to mass with particular regularity during these vacations, and at home during by-elections and just happened to be seen, usually with one or another Liberal candidate in tow, at the steps of a church or a cathedral in Windsor.
He did not finish his political career in the Senate, he finished it today when finally that great heart failed and Canada lost one of the leaders of our time, one of the people who defined and made valuable the nature of this extraordinary country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, our caucus and our party I want to say how saddened we were this morning to hear of the passing of Paul Martin Senior.
If one were to go into the libraries of members of Parliament, I suspect that in a prominent place on their shelves would be the two volumes of A Very Public Life. Those of us who did not have the good fortune to serve with Mr. Martin had the opportunity to learn about his accomplishments and his dedication and service to Canada.
Previous commentators have mentioned a funny story attached to Paul Martin Senior. Just the other day I was in the hallway with my leader and a friend of my leader who was a Liberal and who was explaining how she first came to be a Liberal. It started when she was 15 years old and she had won an essay contest. Part of the prize was to have lunch with Paul Martin Senior, in the parliamentary dining room. At that time he talked her into becoming a Liberal and she has been a Liberal ever since. I think that story helps us understand how Paul Martin could be re-elected over a 33-year span in his constituency of Essex East. He was an outstanding parliamentarian with a long record of achievements, a dedicated public servant, an outstanding academician and a diplomat for many, many years with outstanding accomplishments.
Many people come and go from this place and I suppose all of us in some way or another-some small, some large-leave a mark. When one looks at the long lists of accomplishments of Paul Martin Senior, one begins to appreciate how much this man did to make Canada a better place.
September 14, 1992

The fact that we have progressive legislation that distinguishes Canada is in no small part because of the contribution that Paul Martin made in this place and the other place over many years.
We were sad when we heard the news this morning and today our sympathies go out to his son, who shares this place with us, to his wife, his daughter, his family and his friends. Our hearts and our prayers are with them today.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that we have to pay tribute to the Hon. Paul Martin on this day after a very long and distinguished public career in Canada.
He was born in Ottawa in 1903 but at five years of age his parents moved to the Pembroke area where his father worked for years in a local sawmill. As a result, Paul came from very humble beginnings up the Ottawa Valley. He came from a family with a strong faith and a strong caring attitude.
His father was a great source of encouragement to him and his mother was always there to give him some veiy wise advice. He always told me she played a tremendous role in moulding his life.
He attended schools in the city of Pembroke and then went on to an outstanding academic career. He moved to Windsor where he had a long and distinguished political career, as outlined so well by my colleague from Windsor West.
In 1928-this is a story that is always told with a great deal of humour in the Pembroke area-the Hon. Paul Martin was away at law school, a very bright young law student. The Liberal Party met to choose a candidate for the provincial election of that year and it ended up with no candidate. At the end of the meeting one of the good old-timers got up and nominated someone he considered to be a very bright young man from Pembroke by the name of Paul Martin who was at that moment a student at law school. Everybody agreed Paul should be their candidate.
The next morning they phoned him at university and told him he was the candidate for the provincial election. His father also learned the next morning that his son Paul had been nominated to run against none other than his own employer and that created a little bit of difficulty for a while. The Martin family in its entirety was very proud of and loyal to Paul Martin.
Tributes
I want to express the condolences of all the people from the Upper Ottawa Valley today, and particularly from Pembroke where he grew up, to his son Paul, his daughter Maiy-Ann, and his wife Nell.
Particularly, I want to mention three of his sisters who are still living in Pembroke: Lucille Martin, Anita Martin, and Mrs. Claire Guay. Our hearts go out to them today because they were always there, they were very proud of their brother Paul. They worked hard, particularly Lucille, to give Paul some help in his education.
We need not talk about his great career in the latter days of the League of Nations, his work in the United Nations on behalf of Canada or his work in this Parliament on the social legislation of this nation. He was a strong person, the social conscience of the Liberal Party of Canada.
I want to thank, on behalf of his three sisters who were so proud of him, the people who have risen in this House today and paid such a very fine tribute to him. We will always remember him as a great Canadian. May more Canadians of his calibre come forward to keep this nation together and make it great, as Paul Martin would want it to be.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I first saw Paul Martin when I was 14 years of age in London, Ontario. My father had taken the family to the London arena to see the Right Hon. Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and Paul Martin. The arena was even more filled than for the London circus. We had come to see the Prime Minister, but we had come to hear Paul Martin who time and time again brought that tremendous crowd to its feet.
I had a very personal experience with Mr. Martin. In 1968, when I was a student, I was asked to work full-time during the leadership campaign with Mr. Martin. It took me two seconds to say yes to have the opportunity to work with this lifetime student, this rare politician, one of the few anglophones in Canada who was bilingual at that time, this person who had brought national health insurance to Canada and who, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, had given us measures such as the Columbia River Treaty, the auto pact and the peacekeeping forces in Cyprus. What an honour to have worked with him.

Tributes
I have two vivid memories of that four months when I worked with him, living with him night and day. The first was that Mr. Martin was incredibly demanding of all those around him, but he was even more demanding of himself. When we could not organize delegates to be with him and talk to him, he organized himself to meet with those delegates on the phone from six in the morning until after midnight every day. I can assure my colleagues that he was no respecter of Canada's time zones. Through his work, his character and his qualities, Mr. Martin inspired tremendous loyalty and friendship from all those who worked with him.
My second vivid memory of that leadership campaign in 1968 deals with Tom Hazlitt, now deceased but then a reporter with the Toronto Star. The previous year he had won the award for being the top reporter in Canada. I asked him: "Tom, why did you choose to follow Mr. Martin full-time during this campaign? You had your pick of all the Liberal candidates". He said: "Jim, if Mr. Martin wins, it is the biggest story of this year. If he loses, it is the biggest story of this year".
Mr. Martin did not win that leadership. I remember that we were at the Ottawa civic forum when the results were announced. I was walking with Mr. Martin by the seat of Tom Hazlitt. This seasoned, hardened political reporter was weeping.
Maybe Paul Martin did not win the leadership, but Paul Martin was a real leader. He made a real difference to the lives of all Canadians.
Our sympathies go out to Nell, Mary-Ann, Paul, the grandchildren and the rest of the family.


Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with those who have spoken words of appreciation on the scope of the life of Paul Martin.
In the midst of the riding of Waterloo, at Wilfrid Laurier University, is the Paul Martin Centre, appropriately, a reminder of Paul Martin's association with Wilfrid Laurier University. He served as chancellor and during that period became very close not only with the administration and faculty, but with the students.
He was one who found time to regularly come down and talk with people about public life and about the life of our nation.
Shortly, we will plan an appropriate Canadian celebration for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. Paul Martin was a part of the delegation to the founding of the United Nations. Paul Martin had a dream of Canada's role in the post-Second World War. He was one who committed Canada. That commitment and that leadership has transcended party lines to this day.
I recall, as president of the National Union of Students, Paul Martin's response to the student idealism of the early 1960s. At that time there was a Commonwealth volunteer program. There were other opportunities. It was the Kennedy period. It was the period when there was an opportunity to serve internationally.
I remember when a number of us in student political life came up with the concept which led to CUSO. We were looking for ways and means to have young Canadians serve overseas. We had no budget. We had the support of churches and non-governmental agencies. He was among those around us who persuaded the government that we should use the Canadian forces, the RCAF as it was at that time, to take young people and move them.
We moved together because of that kind of leadership. At the time when I was in Nigeria we grew from seven Canadians to 90 CUSO volunteers. Every time one of those Canadian flights arrived with more young people I thought about that particular contribution.
I join, on behalf of those of us who caught some of his dream and are grateful to him for opening doors, in paying a tribute to him and expressing sympathy from those of us who were a part of that dream to his family.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I occupy the seat that was Paul Martin's, therefore it is appropriate that I should have this opportunity to say these few words. That is not the only reason. I am also one of those whose experience of Paul Martin was chiefly as a resident of Essex county, not as a politician.
He was a man who dominated much of our area, but his was always a friendly, concerned presence. Even though I lived quite some distance from the riding during my childhood and my teenage years, hardly a significant event in my growing up was not responded to by some
September 14, 1992

kind of indication in the form of a card or a call from his office that Paul Martin took note of that fact.
He was, in our area, known as Oom-Paul. As a New Democrat that had rather negative connotations as we suffered defeat after defeat. To most, and certainly that includes my family, that was a rather pleasant term of respect of the power that he expressed.
I think it is important to understand what the source of that power was at this time when there is so much discrediting of politicians and when politics is falling into disrepute. Paul Martin was what a politician should be, a man brought to office not because of ambition to occupy a space or a place, but to make things better, to change things for the benefit of people.
So he did, and he did with a sense of concern and love for his constituents that they all could recognize. It could be recognized in his unfailing ability to remember the name of virtually every family in Essex county and to indicate in the briefest of discourses that he was aware of the significant things going on with those constituents to whom he spoke.
Those of us in the New Democratic Party might have resented our constant defeats but we must respect his accomplishments in the field of social justice. We may have, in a sense, blamed him for stealing our thunder. But we could not have failed to recognize that he was motivated by what should motivate politicians, and that is the pursuit of justice, especially social justice. For that he will always be remembered, and deservedly so.
Throughout my experience in politics, while occupying Paul Martin's seat I was termed by him "his member of Parliament" and he would say: "and I want to talk to you". When I was his alderman he said with pride, at least to me, that I was his alderman and he wanted to speak to me, and he did. He was always ready to proffer advice that never indicated even to the slightest degree that we might have differed philosophically or in terms of our partisan alliances.
Paul Martin was a great Canadian, but to Windsorites he was Windsor and Essex county. We will miss him dearly. I would like to express my condolences to his family as well.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank hon. members for their comments.


POINT OF ORDER
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, just after Question Period the Minister for International Trade, on a point of order, rose to pretend to be setting some figures right that I had quoted during Question Period. Unfortunately he was as wrong then as the government documentation I quoted from was wrong. In fact, he quoted two sets of unadjusted figures in an attempt to refute statistics which I had cited. He was wrong, dead wrong, as any statistician would know, and in fact I stand on what I understand is an appropriate point of order to point out that not only was his point of order inappropriate, but it was entirely misleading.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member very carefully. I guess, come to think of it, that neither point of order should have been allowed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, and pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I would like to lay a document before the House.

Routine Proceedings
I am tabling now, in both official languages, the Order in Council dated September 8, 1992, No. PC-1992-2006, which places members of the Canadian forces on active service for the United Nations operation in Somalia.


PETITIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I have petitions today with some 700 names concerning the policy of Petro-Canada in cutting back its gas stations across the country. Some 1,000 are to be closed in the next few months.
This petition comes from a group of petitioners in communities in the Algoma district: Desbarats, Bruce Mines, Echo Bay, Hilton Beach and Richards Landing. It contains 700 signatures of people who are calling on the government to encourage a policy where if there is only one service centre in a community, arrangements would be made to maintain that service. It is especially important in remote communities where citizens have to drive some 10 or 20 miles to have service for their vehicles, especially in the cold winter months of the year.
I hope Mr. Hopper and other officials in Petro-Canada will take into account these representations and this petition.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition with some 100 names on it concerning Christine Lamont and David Spencer who were convicted in a court in Brazil and sentenced to 28 years.
The petitioners call upon the government to take action through the Secretary of State to request the Brazilian government to expel Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer and return them to Canada. They point out the miscarriage of justice in that case.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I have another petition with some 150 names on it from constituents in Espanola, Little Current, Webbwood, Nairn Centre, Mindemoya and other communities
throughout the eastern part of my constituency in the Sudbury district concerning the Rosalynn Dupuis case pointing out the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act and the need for protection of people and young people.
The petitioners call upon the government to take action in the criminal justice system to protect people and provide a better parole system, a better psychological assessment system and the judicial arrangements and medical, psychiatric and psychological reports for nonpartisans with regard to the Young Offenders Act.
I hope the government will take action with regard to these petitions as well.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table today. Both of them urge the minister of immigration to issue minister's permits automatically for spouses and dependent children of refugee claimants as soon as they have been granted the right to apply for landing in Canada.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions. The first petition is signed by a large number of residents from my riding of Surrey North and the adjacent ridings of Delta and Vancouver.
It points out that family-class and assisted relatives-immigrants have always been a historical and important part of Canadian immigration. The relatives are able to assist in finding employment, housing and learning Canadian language and culture. It points out the government's current proposals will downplay assisted relatives and family-class immigrants.
The petition is asking that this government set aside its proposals and make sure family-class immigrants are always given first priority in immigration in Canada.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, my second petition deals with the introduction of Bill C-91 and points out that both new and existing drug prices have been raised dramatically since the introduction of Bill C-22. It asks the government to not proceed with Bill C-91 and to roll back the patent protection that was granted under Bill C-22.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour of presenting two different sets of petitions this afternoon.
The first petition draws our attention to the continued and increasing illegal drug trade that is rampant across our country and specifically in my own city of metropolitan Toronto and specifically the Narcotics Control Act that permits the Government of Canada to seize all assets following a drug seizure.
The petitioners call upon the government to amend the Narcotics Control Act quickly so the cash and assets seized from these drug busts can be split. They should not be exclusively the domain of the Government of Canada, but could be split with the municipalities as well as local police forces and local organizations that are on the leading edge of trying to combat drugs in our communities.


Sergio Marchi: The second petition while related is somewhat different. It still deals with the proliferation of drug abuse in Canadian families and communities, but it also talks about the solution to help, care and renew the lives of individual addicts and families.
The signatures from petitioners in my riding of York West were collected by individuals who were addicts and are now rehabilitating themselves. The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to continue to provide strong financial support to the Caritas project, a community-based volunteer organization which has a proven track record in rehabilitating individuals and families ravaged by the effects of drugs.


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to present a petition with 62 names from my constituency of Okanagan Centre.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government.
Routine Proceedings
The acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments are to be determined by the majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with a majority vote of the majority of the provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first comes from the residents of Petit de Grat, Nova Scotia, in my constituency. It concerns the Petit de Grat post office, which was placed under review by Canada Post. The post office was subsequently closed and the postal service turned over to an RPO.
This petition opposes that decision by Canada Post and reminds Parliament this post office serves 449 households and almost two-thirds have signed the petition. The petitioners remind Parliament the residents of Petit de Grat want their rural post office and do not want Canada Post to proceed with this action without their consent.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: The second petition is also from my constituents and concerns the co-op housing program. It decries the federal decision to end the co-operative housing program and calls on Parliament to urge this government to reinstate the federal co-operative housing program, which has served so many in the Antigonish area from which this petition comes.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): The final petition is on behalf of seniors and others who live below the poverty line. The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure Canadian Old Age Security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadians.
They remind the House of Commons that hundreds of Canadian citizens live below the poverty line and 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty. The 37-cent increase in Old Age Security pensions in 1992 is inadequate to meet the many needs of Canadian seniors, and it is the desire of all Canadians to provide senior citizens with the necessary support to live their lives as independently as possible.
[Stage Direction]
September 14, 1992
Routine Proceedings YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have over 10,000 signatures on a petition to present from people who, in memory of Ryan Garrioch, request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated Juvenile Delinquents Act with a lower maximum age of 13 years.
These are but a small number of the signatures so far collected.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a petition from a number of Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-91, the proposed drug bill, which will move the period which generic drugs are prohibited from entering the market from 10 years to 20 years. The petitioners are concerned such a move will further increase the price of drugs in Canada. They call upon this government not to proceed with this legislation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of my constituency of Kingston and the Islands.
These residents are opposed to the goods and services tax on women's sanitary products and call for its immediate removal.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 312, 351, 354, 362 and 365.


Mr. MacDougall: With respect to the CBC coverage of the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, (a) what were the costs in detail (b) what were the detailed revenue generated from sponsors and advertisers?


Hon. Henry Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Parliament has not, as a matter of custom since the corporation's creation in 1936, required CBC to supply, in answering parliamentary questions, certain details of its internal management and administration. Parliament has had two reasons for following this custom: first, the independence of the CBC as a Crown corporation, established for the purpose of producing and broadcasting, independently of political or commercial interference, programs for a national program service; and second, the competitive nature of many of CBC's activities.
The appropriateness of the CBC providing certain categories of information has been considered on many occasions by various parliamentary committees and when the CBC has suggested that such information should not be made a matter of public record, its views have been accepted by them. The names of employees and their functions in relation to specific programs, their salaries or expenses, the costs of individual programs, or business arrangements are examples of details which it has not been customary to require the CBC to supply. It is open to Parliament and its appropriate committees to discuss the policies it and the CBC have followed in this regard.


Mr. Boudria: Since November 21, 1988, what is the total amount of funds approved or distributed in grants, loans, contributions and otherwise by the Community Futures Committee of Charlevoix and what are the names of the recipients and the amount involved for each such grant, loan or contribution?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: This information is not held through Employment and Immigration Canada. It belongs to the Business Development Centres. To obtain this type of information, the request will have to be addressed directly to the BDC of Charlevoix.
September 14, 1992


Mr. Shields: With respect to neurological diseases, how many people have been diagnosed; what is the annual medical cost for treatment; what is the annual cost of disability pensions paid to them, how is the government involved in its medical research and in the introduction and approval of new drugs for its treatment?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned, the administration of health care services is basically a provincial and territorial responsibiilty. The federal government does not gather statistics on the number of patients or the direct costs for patient care.
There exists a number of national voluntary health organizations dealing with neurological diseases that receive funding from Health and Welfare Canada to carry out their national activities. These are: Alzheimer Society of Canada ALS Society of Canada; Canadian Association of Friedreich's Ataxia; Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation; Huntington Society of Canada; Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada; Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada; Parkinson Foundation of Canada; Schizophrenia Society of Canada; SleepAVake Disorders of Canada and Tourette Syndrome Foundation of Canada.
These organizations are providing information, raising funds for research and patient services, and organizing local support groups for patients and caregivers. They also collect statistics on the number of persons affected and the costs involved.
Together, these and other groups dealing with neurological disorders have formed the Canadian Neurological Coalition, which can be reached at: c/o Banting Institute, Suite 126, 100 College Street, Toronto, Ontario. M5G 1L5.
Specific or detailed statistics on the number and amounts of Canada Pension Plan disability benefits being paid out to persons suffering from neurological diseases are not maintained by officials of the department's income security programs branch, which administers the CPP. However, fairly accurate estimates have been calculated from the available data. The results have revealed that approximately 7,600 of the persons receiving a disability benefit have a neurological disease. These persons currently receive disability benefits of approximately $4.9 million each month.
The National Health Research and Development
Routine Proceedings
Program of the Department of National Health and Welfare supports public health and health care research relevant to national health issues.
The NHRDP provides support for research related to neurological diseases.
Within the budget allocated to NHRDP, there is no ceiling set for any specific research area or disease.
Research expenditures on neurological diseases depend on the number of meritorious research projects received.
The government is involved in the approval of new drugs for the treatment of neurological diseases when the manufacturer submits a new drug submission.
In addition, the health protection branch, drugs directorate has announced in information letter No. 804 that priority evaluation would be accorded to a new drug submission for a new active substance for a major therapeutic gain. This policy would include breakthrough drugs for neurological diseases.
In so far as the Medical Research Council of Canada is concerned the Medical Research Council is the largest single agency supporting research in the neurological sciences. Fully 85 per cent of all Canadian support is derived from the MRC. In 1990-91, the MRC expended over $26 million, or 16.5 per cent of its grants on neurological science research. This represents the largest single category of expenditure by the council.


Mr. Pickard: With respect to the lowering of duty free and tax-free limits on postal imports effective July 1, 1992, has the Canada Post Corporation contracted out to consulting firms work such as data processing, and if so, what firms and what is the value of such contracts?


Harvie Andre: Canada Post Corporation has entered into a contract with Livingston International Inc. to provide services integral to the creation of custom's postal invoices in the customs postal screening centres across Canada. The primary service provided involves the data entry of the importer's name

September 14, 1992
Routine Proceedings
and address, the exporter's name and address and origin, and the transaction number. Canada Post Corporation is required to provide this service in fulfilling its agreement with Revenue Canada-Customs and Excise. However, details of the contract are considered proprietary information between the corporation and the contractor.


Mr. Karygiannis: With respect to the Canada 125 compact disc Listen to the LandIRassemblez les coeurs, (a) what was the total cost incurred in the production, packaging and distribution of this disc (b) what is the breakdown of these costs (c) how many copies were produced (d) where were these discs distributed?


Henry Perrin Beatty: The cost of producing, packaging and distributing the recordings related to this project was $38,036.
The breakdown of the costs for was as follows:
Sound recording	production	$23,945
Manufacturing	4,183
Distribution	5,689
Administration	costs	for	FMC	4,219
Packaging costs were paid by Canada 125 Corporation.
The number of copies produced was 2,000.
Copies of the recordings were distributed to the following:
All members of Parliament and the Senate394
Station managers of all CRTC licensed radio and television stations in	Canada	951Factor musicaction Canada	(FMC)	150Canada 125 Corporation	75Department of Communications Headquarters and Regional offices	100Launch	200
Miscellaneous requests from media etc. 50


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Would you be so kind, Madam Speaker, as to call starred Questions Nos. 282 and 375.
Due to the length of the answer to Question No. 282,1 ask that it be printed in Hansard as if read.
[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Rideout: Since April 1,1990 to the present, with respect to the department of National Defence, for each province (a) what are the capital expenditures authorized or incurred by the department (b) what were the capital budget cuts incurred by the department?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: a.
Capital expenditures for the fiscal year 1990-91 totalled $2,764 million and are detailed by province. Capital expenditures for fiscal year 1991-92 are not available as accounting for the fiscal year is not yet complete.
The question cannot be answered because the Department does not assign capital budget by province. Instead, capital projects approved are recorded into the Defence Service Program, which covers 15 years. The total dollar value of projects recorded into the DSP that were postponed or cancelled, because of reduction in projected spending following the budget cuts, totals $2,926 million.
%of Population	Personnel $M	O&E $MOntario	36.6	1,821	1,534Quebec	25.4	773	538Nova Scotia	3.4	793	237British Columbia 11.7	545	198New Brunswick	2.7	233	68Alberta	9.3	476	185
Summary Fact Sheet Department of National Defence Estimated Expenditures by Province Fiscal Year 1990-91 (Ranked by Total Spending)
Grants &
Capital $M	Contr. $M	Revenues $M	$M723	171	(151)	4,097737	107	(18)	2,13667	14	(23)	1,089123	52	(20)	898461	12	(14)	760104	40	(53)	751Total Spending	per capita% of Total	% Canada only	% Prov GDP	TOTAL DND $33.4	38.7	1.5	42017.4	20.2	1.4	3168.9	10.3	6.4	1,2177.3	8.5	1.1	2876.2	7.2	5.8	1,0506.2	7.1	1.1	304
September 14, 1992

Routine Proceedings
% of	Personnel	O&E	Capital	Grants & Contr.Population	$M	$M	$M	$MManitoba	4.1	254	223	41	18Newfoundland	2.2	120	39	12	9Saskatchewan	3.8	79	24	5	16P.E.I.	0.5	39	7	1	2Yukon & N.W.T.	0.3	16	4	8	1Total in Canada	100.0	5,149	3,057	2,282	442Plus Outside Canada	N/A	575	465	482	172Total DND Spending	5,724	3,522	2,764	614


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I would also ask, Madam Speaker, that the answer to Question No. 375 be made an order for return. If so, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 375 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Saint-Julien: Did the government make payments to mining companies under the Canadian Exploration Incentives Program in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 or 1992, and if so, (a) to which companies (b) what amount was paid to each company?
Return tabled.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, I am requesting leave under Standing Order 52 for the adjournment of the House to deal with the crisis in the airline industry.
		Total Spending			per capita
Revenues $M	$M	% of Total	% Canada only	% Prov GDP	TOTAL DND $(21)	514	4.2	4.8	2.1	471(31)	149	1.2	1.4	1.7	260(3)	121	1.0	1.1	0.6	121(2)	46	0.4	0.4	2.3	356(1)	28	0.2	0.3	1.0	353(337)	10,589	86.4	100.0	1.6	397(23)	1,672	13.6	(360)	12,260	100.0	
It is our view that the proposed merger between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International which will result in an unregulated, privately owned monopoly in Canada, the possibility of many thousands of jobs lost and the prospect of a need for financial assistance from the Government of Canada in the near future constitute a crisis which is deserving of debate pursuant to the Standing Order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no doubt this matter is of importance, but the Speaker and I believe it would not be appropriate to put aside the debate before the House today to have this emergency debate.



INCOME TAX ACT


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I will be moving that in relation to Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Tkx Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the family allowances act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted for the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day for the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted for the report stage consideration and on the day allotted for the third reading stage consideration of the bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The minister is giving notice of this motion?


Monique Vézina: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Notice received.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13,15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 and 71.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: As we resume debate, the hon. member for Kamloops had the floor. I will recognize the hon. member for Mount Royal.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I just listened to the hon. Minister of State for Employment and Immigration deposit before this House a closure motion as a hanging motion.
I must say I have had a great deal of respect for this minister and her integrity and her interest in the society and for the constituency that she represents. I found her to be among the more sensitive and caring ministers.
I guess she must have swallowed veiy hard to have to bring that kind of a closure in on a bill of such importance that has such incredible impact on the life and the times of a family, particularly poor families, when she knows there are over a million children living in poverty, when she knows about the number of working poor in this society, when she is aware of the numbers and the increasing numbers on social welfare.
When she learned today of Statistic Canada's figures in Quebec, I imagine it would have been extremely painful and for her I hang her head as well as all the
other members across this floor for the insensitivity they bring to the closing of a very important change in the structure and the life of this country.
Is it not ironic that we move the closure for this debate on the very day that one of the most important figures in political life and political history of this country passed away? We paid tribute to the Hon. Paul Martin, who brought a sense of humanity, a sense of concern and a sense of consideration to the well-being of all Canadians, not just the well to do, not just the upper middle class, but to the working class people and the poor of this society. It is too bad the ministers and their friends across this floor did not learn how to write a postcard or ask if you are from Windsor.
There was another man of stature. It is ironic and it is within this past year that he passed away. I am talking about Senator David Croll, the other voice that called for understanding and a sense of commitment on the part of politicians to the needs of a fair and equal society.
It is also quite ironic that it is the week we deposited before this House the Charlottetown conference results in which we called for a social policy of fairness and equity and equality for all people across this land. There is no fairness in this bill; there is no potential for equality in this bill and it is unfortunately a shell game.
I am not going to deal with the facts, the figures and the numbersper se because I have outstanding colleagues in this House, including the member from Winnipeg who has guided us and this caucus in a study and evaluation. Some members of the general public have been good enough to appear in the very short period allowed for appearance, including the director of the Council of Social Development, Patrick Johnston, and Ken Battle. Others have pointed out the fallacies and the holes and the errors in the way this bill was cobbled together to look like it was a fair and good proposition to deal with poverty and to have more effective social programs. That I will not talk about.
I will talk about what I consider to be the lack of ethics, the poor timing and the unseemly speed with which this bill is being requested to go through this House. It is not being done in the sense of political expediency so that a cheque will arrive at the doors of constituents, the single parent families, low income families, families on welfare, families earning minimum wage. They are being made to -believe that they are getting a gift from this government. It is trickery and it is wrong. It is a sad comment on the ethics of this government.

I was not going to use the expression that the Prime Minister used because it has become almost trite to repeat it. When I heard that closure call, it came back. It is going to come back to haunt this government. It can send out all the documents it wants and try to change people's minds, but there are a few things that are going to remain in the minds of the people of Canada.
When the Prime Minister stood up and talked about the fact that the universality of our social programs was a sacred trust, I assumed that he understood that the people when they put trust in him trusted his word and trusted that process would help that word become a reality.
The process is wrong. The process has been wrong on most major bills that have been brought forth by this government from the time it came into office in 1984. It has not been straight and candid with the people about the clawback that it has done under old age pension.

I want to thank Mrs. Denis for what she did on behalf of the elderly.

I will say that the clawback has come into effect, whether it is the capping of CAP, whether it is on the family allowance and its clawback, whether it is on this new social program which over a period of five to 10 years will erode significantly in its worth and its purchasing power.
I remember as well when family allowance came in. Just after I had my children in the early fifties, I can remember receiving that cheque. I thought it was fun. I thought it was nice. My husband said to put it in the bank and give it to the children when they got to university. I was a very fortunate woman. Little did I know how many women did not have access to a single solitary cent they call their own from their husbands or from their partners so that they could buy an ice cream treat for their children or a pair of shoes if they wanted for themselves or for their children because they were in receipt of money that came in their name. That is one of the things that the government has removed.
When there is no state left in a policy or in a program, then it diminishes its value over time. If the government wants to tax it back because at a certain level it considers that it is not necessary to receive it, fine and dandy. Tax it
Government Orders
back fully, but let it be universal in its delivery system and tax back.
I will never understand this government's mentality which does not understand that when it removes the universal principle it is no longer a worthy program. As the rich and the richer and those who are getting richer do not feel that they have any ownership, they do not support it. That is a very serious charge.
The irony of Senator Croll and the irony of Paul Martin that these things are happening today is really sad. The rolling together of family allowance, the refundable child tax credit and the non-refundable child tax credit is no great big bonus.
It will come as a pleasant surprise to many people starting January 1, because this government is going to have its way, and it will be foreseen as a big windfall. But wait until the end of 1993 and everyone will realize that this windfall is far from that.
I feel that when things are targeted to the Consumer Price Index, and there is a 3 per cent cap, if you are paying for bread, butter, eggs, milk, shoes or schoolbooks today, next year the same goods are worth 2 to 3 per cent more. Let us say they are not more than 3 per cent more, one still has the same $10 bill for buying. It is not going to buy $10 worth of merchandise. Thke that and extend it over five years and 10 years. It is pretty obvious that one is not going to have the same kind of buying power.
The other thing this government has tried to have us forget is the fact that it removed $3.5 billion over the last five years and then put $2.1 billion back in. I think most people came out with a negative value, not a positive value.
For all those reasons, I think that one should support the amendment that has been brought forward. Drop this bill, go back to the table and come up with a design that is going to really help poor children in this country and our future.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-80.
I would like to start out by reviewing a little bit of the background as to why this bill has been brought in. I think it is very important for people to understand, and I

Government Orders
think people do understand, that in the present system there is a terrible amount of confusion.
We have the family allowance which is paid out usually to the mother, often taxed back in the hands of the father, not based on family income. We have the refundable child tax credit which is distributed under different rules and the child credit. We have three different programs being delivered to the Canadian people in support of families with children.
I cannot understand how the system can work, how all these different plans delivered in different ways can have a cohesive objective. Most of the Canadian people feel exactly the same about that. We also have the equivalent to married credits and the child care deduction which support families with children.
Originally, when the Conservative caucus committee on family issues was asked to look at this issue, the thing that most concerned and really upset us was the patent unfairness of the system, particularly in terms of how common-law couples were treated under the tax system and how married couples were treated. That was one of. the first things that we were determined to fix up and I am very pleased that the Minister of Finance in other actions that he has taken has now ensured that the tax system will be fair in that regard.
This leads into this program of revising the delivery of the family allowance and family support programs because a key element of this new program is that it will be delivered based on family income and that all families will be treated fairly. I think that is something Canadians will rejoice at and applaud.
The other important thing, as I have said, is the issue of simplification, the delivery of all these different programs and one program with one set of rules. I have a lot of my constituents, and I am sure the same is true for hon. members in the opposition, who want the government to be more efficient and deliver programs in more realistic and understandable ways.
This has been another driving force behind the motives for bringing this legislation in. We have heard a lot in committee about how this program does not deliver more money to people on welfare. It is important to understand that as it is designed, it does not plan to do that.
This is because of the problem that we had and still have in the constitutional negotiations and the overlap of
jurisdictions there. In our recommendations to the minister we felt it was much more important to keep clear of areas where we might be accused of intruding once again on provincial jurisdiction at this time. I personally see great opportunities to use the model of the plan that we have here in this bill for future modifications and development, but this is not the time to deal with that. It is, however, important that as we consider the problem that people who are on assistance have as they try to go into the work force, the additional cost of lunches and bus fares and so on, that we signal that we want to help in this transition. I am very pleased that this new benefit does that by adding up to some $500 a year for those families who are in that position of transition between assistance and the work force to help them in an admittedly small but still significant way to make that transition.
I am particularly pleased that although the Minister of Finance when he first agreed to have us look at this project indicated to us that there would be no new money available, in fact when he brought the program forward because of the cuts in spending that our government had made in many other areas he was able to bring some $2.1 billion over five years, or approximately $400 million a year, into the program to support the funding that it requires and to ensure that most people with family incomes of around $66,000 or less will do as well or better under the present system as they did under the old system.
Just to summarize some of the key points of this program, I think it is important that instead of coming, as the present program does, in dribs and drabs and sometimes in big lumps that are difficult to manage, that the program will be delivered in a monthly payment and it will be generally delivered, as is the family allowance system, to mothers. All families with children under the age of 18 will be eligible. We will have a simpler tax form because of the elimination of calculations for the dependent child credit and the refundable child tax credit, and the elimination of taxation and recovery of the family allowance.
This is an issue which has been of some concern to the people in my constituency. They have never quite understood why the government should go to all the trouble of sending money out and then taxing it back, and not always taxing it back from the same person. So that confusion will be eliminated and we will have a much more straightforward system.
September 14, 1992

We will have higher benefits for children under seven, and benefits for larger families will be maintained. All two million families with incomes below $50,000 will receive larger monthly cheques. Increased benefits for low and modest income families with children, especially low-income working families, will be available. Federal child benefits will increase, as I said, by some $2.1 billion over the next five years.
As far as the operation of the child tax benefit is concerned, there will be two main factors which will determine the amount of monthly child tax benefit payment. The recipient of the child tax benefit will generally be the mother, as I have said. A parent will be eligible for a child tax benefit for all children who are under age 18 and are dependent on the parent. To receive the child tax benefit, a parent must generally reside in Canada and have the required legal status, that is, be a citizen, a landed immigrant or a convention refugee.
As in the case of family allowances, parents need to inform Health and Welfare Canada about a new child in the family, that is, a birth or a change in custody, in order to receive the child tax benefit for that child.
The level of the child tax benefit depends on family net income, which is the sum of net income of the recipient parent and spouse, if any. As I mentioned earlier, this is a very important change and it reflects this government's concern and recognition of the family in all its circumstances.
The annual payment cycle runs from July to June. Each July monthly payments are revised to reflect indexation of benefit levels and the updated information on family net income and earnings obtained from tax returns which have just been filed for the immediately preceding year.
At this point I would like to speak a little about indexation because the previous speaker had a good deal to say about the fact that the program is not fully indexed. If she and other hon. members will recall, this government has made a commitment to review non-fully indexed programs from time to time. If we look at the history of the last few years, the indexation which has actually occurred has kept up very well with inflation as it should in the future with this program.
Government Orders
In closing, I just want to say that I think this is a very positive move the government is making. For the first time in Canadian history, a major social benefit will be delivered through the tax system according to income, universally available to every one, recognizing that not every one will get it in every year. But it will be a program that is universally available. Every one who needs it will get it automatically without application or having to beg for it. This is a very progressive move on the part of our government. I fully support it.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I find some of the language used by my hon. colleague who preceded me a little bit perplexing. I say perplexing because one of the things that we hear too often is the fact that some of this legislation is designed to help those of us in our society who are greatest in need. The concept of universality that is always there, the accessibility that is always there and as well the concept of helping those in greatest need seems to be repeated over and over again.
The facts do not bear that out. As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has pointed out, those who require the assistance the greatest are those who are likely to receive the least. When one takes into consideration the fact that the packages in their combination will not provide for a typical Canadian family the kinds of benefits it currently relies upon-and I did not want to say benefits from but relies upon because of the economic circumstances of the day-then we are faced with the inevitable conclusion that the legislation is inappropriately directed.
One might say perversely so because of one very basic fact. Over the course of the last seven years, the government through its cutbacks of social programs has removed in excess of $3.1 billion from the social assistance programs upon which Canadians had come to rely for basic sustenances. Some of those sustenances we take for granted and we put forward as an indication of the success of the Canadian economy and the energy of the Canadian people in establishing a society that treats all with the opportunities of equality that we claim to be our own.
One cannot withdraw those kinds of funds from the typical packages of family assistance. At a time that seems to be most opportune, I hate to be a little bit sceptical or cynical in my projection, here we are already beginning to enter into an electoral period and we are going to introduce legislation that combines all of these

Government Orders
packages. As government speakers say, it is going to put back some $2.5 billion into the hands of those in need.
Other members have already indicated that still represents a shortfall even if it were true. Those who have studied this legislation well and who have studied it objectively, not coloured by partisanship, the Caledon Social Policy Institute, for example, will show that under the old system, the old system being the current one, those families in greatest need would profit most, if profit is the word to use, today under the current system and in fact, suffer a decline in excess of $500 over the course of the next several years.
One cannot suggest that families needing this assistance most today withdraw many of their funds. For example, with the new system in 1993, while the balance seems to stay the same, over the course of the next seven years there will be a decline from $2,253 to $1,861 as a net benefit to those families greatest in need, families on a typical welfare income.
Those who seem to profit most are those whose income is highest. There is no sense of equality in that kind of a system. It makes no sense at all to reward those who can supply their own sustenance with additional revenues from consolidated general revenues, that is from the Canadian taxpayers.
What is really at stake here is the way the government is presenting this legislation. I am reminded in this of a presentation by the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs who the other day in presenting a position on the Constitution closed by saying: "The question today is"-and I think I am quoting him correctly-"either we let each other down or lift each other up". This legislation does not allow us to help each other up. In fact, it lets us all down. It is the same kind of rhetoric that the government applied in promoting a constitutional package that members like me would vote yes, with the right to reserve a series of observations that leave vacuums that an ordinary Canadian has to consider before voting yes or no to the government initiative.
What are some of those vacuums? At the table on that constitutional package were representatives from various provinces whose interests were the promotion of their provinces. That is fair. At the table were those who were interested in representing the interests of various jurisdictions and the whole Canadian context. That too is fair.
I am reminded in fairness that there are those who would probably have said as they watched the debate, what little they could glimpse of it since it was behind closed doors, that there were 17 such individuals talking about maintaining a semblance of Canada without being concerned about Canadians.
There was a very large group of Canadians that was not at the table saying, as many of the members of those jurisdictions and the premiers of those provinces appeared through the press and the media, with their hand out eveiy single day: "Gimme, gimme, gimme. Let me take something from the system that will be good for my province".
There was a very large group of Canadians that felt ignored by those kinds of representations. I refer specifically to those Canadians of the last generation, a generation who came to this country and saw themselves only as Canadians, not as Ontarians, British Columbians or Newfoundlanders but who have a stake in this package.
I dare say they are going to be very positive in their response. However, their voice is unheard. Not once in this package did we hear of any provincial premier nor, in fact, our own Prime Minister say this country is represented in its demographics by about 40 per cent of people who are neither French nor English in origin.
They see themselves being represented not by the various provincial premiers but by the Government of Canada, a government that is there to ensure that all peoples have equality of opportunity to develop the great potential that God bestowed upon this country.
I am reminded that StatsCanada produced immigration statistics only two weeks ago which indicate that of the total Canadian population, some 12.5 million-I am using round figures-from Confederation to today are either immigrants or direct descendants of immigrants. That is better than half the population of this country and yet, in these debates, we have ignored a basic element of our society: those that do not identify themselves with hyphenation. They do not see themselves as anything but Canadian and want only to have a debate that is centred around how we best relate to each other.
September 14, 1992

As the minister for intergovernmental affairs said in French:

Our success depends on our ability to work together, but we did not have the ability to work together.

The fact is that all Canadians have a stake in that kind of constitutional package because all Canadians need to have a government that would produce legislation that is equitable for all Canadians. This kind of legislation unfortunately reflects the vacuum that the constitutional package would present to Canadians.
I urge not only this minister, but the government, even in accepting a positive response by the Canadian public to infuse again into the discussions on the new Constitution all of those vacuums which we will raise and at the same time to listen very carefully to the concerns of this part of the House on this kind of legislation, legislation that does not do what the government says it intends to do. Perhaps it should at the very least listen to our amendments if it wants some support.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton East-Westray Mine; the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau-Per-ley bridge; the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier-Official languages; the hon. member for Surrey North-Tobacco products; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-Child poverty.


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, I have come to the House this afternoon to speak in support of Bill C-80.
I do so with the belief that this is important reform legislation. I would say at the outset I regret to be holding a copy of this bill in my hand and seeing in it yet another statute that is written in algebra. The formulas that are used in this to compute the entitlements and so forth represent the state of legislative draftsmanship
Government Orders
that now affects all tax statutes and all legislation emanating from the Department of Finance.
In an age when we are trying to find a plain expression of words to convey the meanings, it is unfortunate that a statute we are going to enact has, as I say, to be written partly in French, partly in English and very much in algebra. This is not to say anything against the mathematicians in our country, but it is an unnecessarily complex formulation of what is intended.
It is good legislation because it does six basic things that are quite important with respect to the families of our country, and their ability to support and raise their children with financial security. The first beginning point for this really is the whole question of whether we can have economic competitiveness and social justice.
All governments at all levels in Canada and elsewhere, are finding their budgets constrained, their deficits still large and the need to be more competitive economically putting a great deal of pressure on social programs that were developed in more prosperous times.
The hallmark of Canada is our commitment to social justice. It is a defining difference from the Americans who I think often tend to see issues as having economic solutions, whereas in our country we see issues very much more in political terms and quite often with political solutions.
This summer the Couchiching conference on public affairs held an excellent conference dealing exactly with this theme about economic competitiveness and social justice, whether it was possible to still have both. This legislation is a fine answer to that question. It is basically saying yes, we can streamline, we can be more efficient with programs and still see at the end of the day the dollars spent are producing better benefits than they did before and more appropriately, they are being aimed at the sectors in our society most needy and most deserving.
I wish to highlight six points that appeal to me in saying that this bill merits the support of the House of Commons. First is the one that I have already mentioned about streamlining. A patchwork of different legislative provisions has developed over the decades in Canada, in the tax act, in the family benefit, and many other provisions. Each in its own time was a breakthrough, an advance, a measure of greater social justice in our country, but cumulatively represent now a real hodge-

Government Orders
podge of arrangements. The administrative costs are too high.
The instances where Canadians fall between the cracks of these programs are too numerous and the loss of money through such a diverse set of programs simply has been too great. That is a reason why combining this child benefit into a single monthly benefit which generally will be paid to all mothers and for which anyone under age 18 in Canada will qualify, is an important step forward in streamlining our commitment in this area.
Second, the increased funding shows that the benefits truly will be widespread. I go back to the comments made by my colleague, the member for Calgary North, who gave a very thoughtful analysis of the detailed way in which this new program will be working.
The additional funding as a result of this, some $2.1 billion over five years of Government of Canada funds, goes for the benefit of children in our country. That is a very significant development. Over 80 per cent of all the families in our country will be affected beneficially by this. In other words, the 20 per cent that are not will be those high income families that do not need to have that kind of benefit from the country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The rich get the rest.


Patrick Boyer: Altogether, about two-thirds of the families in our country, 2.4 million families, will be receiving higher benefits, notwithstanding the interjections from the member from Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The lowest paid get zip.


Patrick Boyer: The third point, and this directly answers the outbursts from the member for Kingston and the Islands, is that there is a targeting here of benefits to the advantage of families who are at lower income levels in our society.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is false.


Patrick Boyer: If the member is going to sit in his seat and say that what I am saying is false, I would like him to-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: If it is false, it is false.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is presuming to read my mind. This was not at all what I was about to say.
What I was about to say is that whenever comments in the Elouse disturb someone who has been recognized by the Chair it is the Chair's duty to ask the hon. member who is speaking when not having the floor to please allow his or her colleague to complete his or her speech and then I will be happy to recognize the hon. member when his turn comes. The hon. member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore.


Patrick Boyer: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that the member for Kingston and the Islands, very good lawyer that he is, is better at reading law than algebra. I have looked at this bill and what I see in it is that on average, families with incomes below $50,000 will receive an additional $250 a year in benefits. I also see that all families with incomes below $50,000 have either increased benefits or the same level of benefits. I also see in that bill that 80 per cent of the increase in child benefits will go to families with incomes below $40,000.
Those are three of the points that I see when I read Bill C-80, are three of the reasons why I am going to support it and three of the reasons why, what I was just saying before the member for Kingston and the Islands got into an exercised state, I support what I was saying.
The fourth of the six reasons is that I see this bill is much more responsive to people who truly need it. The monthly payments in advance will eliminate a lot of the current delays in delivery that people are experiencing. I must say that it has always bothered me in the eight years I have been a member of Parliament to see people from low-income families going to the tax discounters, the people who will discount cheques they get in advance, living off of this kind of system and causing the low-income people in our country to be strung out unnecessarily. This is an important reform at the street level where it affects people.
The monthly payments can also respond quickly to changes in family status, as the member for Calgary North very clearly demonstrated, and is also going to be a further measure of fairness. All these changes, whether through death or divorce or remarriage or custody
September 14, 1992

change and so forth, require timely response and this bill provides that.
Fifth, there is something innovative in this legislation and that is the way of providing a measure of wealth for working families in Canada. Certainly in Etobicoke- Lakeshore many people are working and supporting their families by going out every day to their jobs and finding that the low income they are able to earn is almost exceeded by people who are drawing welfare benefits. This has created great consternation in the community. Here we have a measure where the earned income supplement of up to $500 provides extra help to low-income working families. In the past, this has been a group that certainly has fallen in between the cracks of the present system.
The sixth reason why I am supporting this bill has to do again with the simplicity and fairness of the processing. These monthly payments will be tax free, therefore there will not have to be any recording of this in the tax returns of these recipients. The tax return is therefore shorter and simpler because of the elimination of the existing calculations for example for family allowances and the child credit and the refundable child tax credit. All of that is going to be much simpler.
In a word, this is a formula for having better value for dollar spent by the Government of Canada. Above all, it ensures social justice and real concern for the future generations of Canada that they can be well maintained in financial security within their own homes and families.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I would have resisted the urge to participate in this debate but for the misleading effect of the hon. member's speech. I want to correct the impression immediately that this benefits the poorest in our country. It does not. The hon. member has clearly been bamboozled by the government's own publications on this issue.
If he had read any of the testimony that was given by the less biased witnesses that appeared before the parliamentary committee, which got such a short time to study this bill and got to hear so few of the people that might have made useful submissions to it, he would be aware that what he has said was false.
I maintain what I said from my seat. I will say it now. The statement is inaccurate and false because the people
Government Orders
who are not working in this country, who have the lowest incomes, and situations in which child poverty is most severe get absolutely no increase in benefits under this bill.
The section he read, that people earning less than $50,000 will get an increase in benefits, is accurate if you are working and earning the money. However, if you are not working and are relying on social assistance or some other means of support to maintain yourself and your children you get absolutely zero under this system.
The hon. member should go to the minister and tell him to correct this little pamphlet he put out which is so false and misleading because it leaves out that very important fact which is vital to any understanding of this bill.
This government has put more people on the welfare rolls than any other government in years and years. Therefore, it has a direct responsibility for those people and it has done absolutely nothing for them in the course of this bill.


An hon. member:: They are covered by other programs.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: There are no other programs with any increase which are being brought in to assist child poverty. This is the child benefit package that the government has said is to alleviate child poverty in this country and it is sorely lacking for the most needy children in Canada. It is a serious omission and the hon. member should be ashamed that he had the nerve to stand in this House and tell me that what I was saying was false when he said it was benefiting the most needy. They are left out. They are omitted from this whole program.
The most wealthy people in Canada derive the greatest benefit from this program.


Barbara Greene: Not from this program.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, they do from this program. Yes, they do because it is a package. This is a child benefit package. Under the arrangements the child care expense deduction is increased by $1,000 so that in a family in which both spouses are working and earning in excess of $60,000 a year the child care expense deduction is increased by $1,000 for those people. It is an additional benefit for the most wealthy.

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
This is part of the child benefit package that the Minister of Finance trumpeted about so much in his budget. That is what is being foisted on the Canadian public, and we are being told that this is fair. This is the kind of nonsense that is being spouted by the government members because they are bamboozled, completely bamboozled by the rubbish the government publishes in its white papers. It is inaccurate, it is misleading and it is false. For once, the government should come clean with Canadians and put all the facts on the table instead of selected bits, as it has tried to do throughout its efforts on this bill.
This bill is nothing but an effort to buy Canadians off in the forthcoming election. We now know why this bill is being rushed through this House of Commons. In June this was introduced in great haste. It was rammed through the committee.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was a member of the committee. He tried to have other Canadians who wanted to be heard appear before the committee. However the Tory majority in that group shut the committee down in an awful rush. They did not want to sit all summer listening to groups rail against this legislation, to social groups that know something about child poverty in this country and who might have made some useful contribution to it. This was cut and dried.
The reason it was cut and dried is because this bill is going to have cheques going out starting in January, and guess when the next election is likely to be? With a referendum campaign on we know it is not likely to be this fall but-


Patrick Boyer: There are cheques going out now.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says that cheques are going out now. However, he knows that these cheques are going to be larger because they will combine some of the previous tax breaks with the previous payments. By lumping the two together the amount of the cheques will go up although the actual cost to the treasury of Canada will not.
What it is doing is piling money into Canadians' hands in order to convince them that what it has done is beneficial. Canadians in most cases will not be any better off, except for the most wealthy and some of the middle-income workers who I agree will get increased benefits. A large number will be no better off yet they
will think they will be because the cheques will be larger than what they have been receiving hitherto.
That is what is going on in this bill. It is an attempt to buy off Canadians with their own money just before an election campaign. If this government had introduced this bill at the beginning of its term, one might have sympathized with it a little bit because we would understand that it is not really interested in helping with child poverty. However, to introduce it near the end of its term and announce that it is going to solve the problem in Canada and then bamboozle people with this kind of cheque writing exercise amounts to a complete fraud on the people of Canada.
This government knows that it could have done something to help the most poorly paid but, as stated in the testimony before the committee, the government failed to go to the provinces and negotiate any arrangements with them to ensure that any benefits paid to those on welfare would not be counted as benefits received by those persons and result in a reduction of their welfare cheques.
Again, the minister failed to do this. The government says: "We did not have time". Guess why. It wanted to rush this through in time to have those cheques go out in January 1993, just in time for the election campaign.
Finally, the manifest unfairness of this arrangement must be apparent even to the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. As he has finally realized, this bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, for the persons not who are earning the lowest but who are receiving the lowest amounts of money in this country.
Those are the people whose children are poorest. Those are the people who need this kind of assistance most, and they benefit in no way whatever from this bill. Even the hon. member for Don Valley North who was yelling from her seat a few minutes ago and heckling me-I am not a cry-baby, I am not objecting to this- knows that what I am saying is correct.
Those people get nothing under this bill. She should not be supporting this bill. She has some social conscience. She should be opposing this and saying: "This is not good enough". Canadians expect better from their govemment. Canadians expect fairness from their government. This is not fair.
September 14, 1992

It is taking away a benefit they now have and giving nothing of substance in return. This benefit should be improved for the poorest, not for the most wealthy. She says that the point I made about the deduction for the child care expenses is not in this bill.
I do not care whether it is in this bill or not. It is part of the budget package introduced by the Minister of Finance at the same time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows that. The hon. member knows it, too. She should admit that it is part of the package. It is unfair. It should have been better. The whole package should have been better.
To give these kinds of benefits to the most wealthy and give nothing to the very poorest is-


Patrick Boyer: Nonsense, it is not.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Nonsense, nothing. It is absolutely right. The most wealthy are doing the best and the poorest are getting zero. Those are the facts in this case.
The hon. member says it is not. I do not know what I need to do to convince him, but I wish he would read the transcript of the committee's proceedings. There are volumes of material from the committee before which members of the public appeared and gave their views and expressed their reservations about this bill.
I personally attended a convention, a meeting of economists at Queen's University in Kingston. It was a post-budget commentary and all the papers that were delivered there spoke of this. They spoke of how it failed to benefit the lowest paid in our society. It gave them zero and the greatest benefit was for the most wealthy.
One of the participants at the conference, himself a university professor, said that under this legislation the only thing that made sense for him was to send his wife to work. He was working and she was not, but if she worked and added her income to his they would get an extra $1,000 deduction. They could do better than the best could do under the payment system that is going out to the people between $25,000 and $50,000. That is the fact. That is what he said.


Patrick Boyer: I would like to see that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says that he would like to see it. I wish he had come to the meeting. I would have been delighted to have him hear all this, but that is what is going on in this country.
Government Orders
This government is setting out to line the pockets of its friends at the expense of the very poorest. Tliat is what is going on.
I say that this bill is bad, and I will be pleased to rise with my colleagues to vote against it.


Barbara Greene: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to correct some of the misleading remarks that have been placed before this House of Commons by the opposition.
In order to malign this bill they are including the child expense deduction, which is not part of this bill. This bill is $2.1 billion. Eighty per cent of Canadian families gain from it and those with a high income do not benefit from this particular bill at all.
If you added the child care expense deduction, did a computer model and looked at what happened to Canadian families the fact of the matter is that with the child care expense deduction people in the $120,000 income range would be getting very little benefit on average because it is such a small amount of money.
The whole amount that is being added in a future bill for the child care expense deduction is $140 million. The child benefit is $2.1 billion. No, there is nothing in this bill for welfare but the minister is reviewing national standards for welfare with the ministers across the country.
One of the recommendations of the poverty committee was that there should be national standards for welfare. I think that is where we need to help welfare recipients. This child benefit should be discretionary income for all Canadian families, including welfare recipients, so that children have the opportunity to participate in some of the many things in society that enrich their lives. It should be for educational expenses and recreational expenses. This money should not be spent on food or basic necessities in this country. We must all work to get welfare reform in order to address that very serious problem.
There is no doubt that one of the big problems with poverty in this country is that for many families it is not worth while for them to work. In fact, they are worse off if they go out to work. That is why we recommended an earned income credit, which this puts in place through

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
the child benefit system. That will help make it more worth while for families to go out to work.
There is still a long way to go. We need to ensure that they do not lose any of the supplementary benefits that are currently provided under welfare. We need to ensure that all families who go out to work are better off working. In the long term, in order to escape poverty in any meaningful way, that is the most obvious way and the best, and I am sure all welfare recipients agree. Certainly in my experience welfare families have the same values that all Canadians have. They want to have good jobs and they want to have the opportunities to work and so on that other Canadian families enjoy. One way is to make it worth while for them to go out to work and to help them with these supplementary benefits.
This benefit is carefully targeted toward the low-income working poor. It starts at a fairly low level of income and builds to a maximum around $6,000. It stays in place until after the poverty line for a family and then it drops off. In my experience, and I have certainly informed my constituents very much about this benefit, there is overwhelming support in this country for a program of child benefits that focuses on those who need the money most.
I come from a relatively high-income riding. I have not had a single complaint from my high-income families about this child benefit. Overwhelmingly across Canada families want their money to go where it is going to help the most. Other important areas have to be addressed with respect to poverty. Clearly, the welfare area is one of the most pressing, and so is child support. Child support should be like paying taxes, and that is really important in helping people work. If a family knows they can get child support, which is usually deductible from welfare, that is a greater incentive for them to go out and work as well.
As well, I would like to see an effort made in that area. For example, one proposal I have heard is a child support insurance scheme. We know we have tried various measures in Ontario, B.C. and in other parts of the country to improve the child support system but a lot of work has to be done there. We need a national child support system.
This is major progress. It is a good bill. It is not perfect. It can be improved. I would like to see it added onto in later years. It is certainly a very good start which Canadian families will welcome.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the
question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed of the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Chris Axworthy: Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 12 by deleting lines 21 to 30 at page 10.
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 12 by deleting line 26 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"income for the year ex-".
Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 12 by deleting line 30 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"year exceeds $51,000 and".
September 14, 1992


David Walker: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 32 and 33 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"A/B".
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 23 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"end of the twenty-third month following the par-".
Motion Nd. 30.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 48 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"end of the twenty-third month following the par-".
Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 12 by striking out line 19 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"the amount that would otherwise be".


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we have been discussing today the merits and demerits of the government's child benefits package.
It is worth while just stepping back a little to see the government's commitment over time, at least rhetorical commitment over time, to the plight of children and to resolving that plight because this amendment basically is to strike out the new child benefits package.
We all remember the Prime Minister's commitment to social programs as a sacred trust, committing himself to ensuring the continuation of those social programs that Canadians have held so dear for so long. He mentioned that in 1984 before the election. Canadians remember that very well and are more than cognizant of how that sacred trust has been broken by the Prime Minister.
We also remember the resolution to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000 put forward by the former leader of the New Democratic Party and how that resolution was unanimously supported in this House. It was supported by every member on the government side and every member on the opposition side. It committed this House to eliminating child poverty by the year 2000.
We will also remember the Prime Minister's signing of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child just last year, committing the Government of Canada and indeed Canada as a country at the international level to working toward protecting children, improving children's posi-
Govemment Orders
tion, and improving the opportunities that children have to education, to health care, to social services, to a future.
On a number of occasions this government has made sweeping commitments to eliminating child poverty, sweeping commitments to addressing the concerns of the over one million children living in poverty in Canada.
Yet recently the Minister of National Health and Welfare, whose responsibility it is to administer, to propose social programs in Canada, has announced that the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000 is an unrealizeable dream. In other words, the government has gone back on all the commitments it made to Canada's children, to Canada's families.
The reality of the matter is, as we all know, that over one million children are living in poverty in Canada. Over 1.6 million people are unemployed in Canada. Over three million people are living on social assistance in Canada. That is the reality of Canada. That is the reality of this government's economic and social programs, and these realities are getting worse. The problem is getting worse, not better.
The Minister for National Health and Welfare, by saying that the elimination of child poverty is an unrealizeable dream, has made it quite clear this government is not concerned, nor prepared to deal with child poverty in a meaningful way. This bill confirms the fact the government has reneged on those promises made earlier to Canadians and their children.
The elimination of child poverty is not an unrealistic dream. Other countries have done a much better job than Canada has done in dealing with this issue. Only the United States has done a worse job. Other countries can do it, other countries have the political will to deal effectively with the problem of child poverty. It is unfortunate that the Government of Canada does not.
Whatever money might be going into the child benefits package that we have here-and it is a very small amount, $400 million for each year over a five-year period-for over one million children living in poverty, it is not very much money. In contrast to that, billions of dollars have been taken out of social programs since the beginning of this government's term. Taking out billions and putting back a few million, although they seem like

Government Orders
large sums of money, is not helping but rather hurting which will finally end universality and which will give not Canadian children.	one penny more to the poorest of Canadians.
It is not that difficult to see the results and to see how we might turn this whole situation around. If we were going to deal effectively with the problems of child poverty, if we really cared as a country about children, we would ensure that adequate family benefits were available, not a bill like this which will give not one penny more to those people who are the poorest of Canadians, those living on social assistance. If you happen to be a child born to a family on social assistance, you will be no better off as a result of these changes.
We need an adequate level of family benefits to ensure that Canadian children are not hungry, that Canadian children have their basic necessities met. We need a national child care program, another promise on which this government has reneged, to ensure that Canadian parents can work, to ensure that their children are well looked after while they are out earning a living. The $500 suggested here for those who work, added to the benefits for those who work over those who do not work, is not going to go any distance at all in dealing with child care, costs which could amount to $6,000 or even $12,000 a year.
We have to have in this country a commitment to full employment, as all the witnesses at the legislative committee on Bill C-80 suggested. That is the only solution that is going to solve this problem. This government has talked very much about full employment and even the constitutional document talks about full employment and yet at the same time this government has created unemployment in order to attack inflation. That is not full employment strategies; that is the old way of dealing with inflation, cranking up unemployment.
We also need to ensure that we have fair taxation in Canada so we can pay for the programs we need. As we all know, there are many wealthy Canadians and profitable corporations paying little or no taxes and we need to address that.
Perhaps the most telling point about this bill is that while it is clearly a bill about social policy, about what we are going to do to sustain our children and to provide children with their basic needs, it is not being presented as a social policy bill but as a finance bill. In other words, it is quite clear that social policy is being run out of the finance department in Canada and not out of the department which is responsible for social policy, the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In addition to that, we are seeing this bill forced through this House. We saw today that the government is prepared to go to any lengths to make sure that this bill is through this House very quickly. We had through the summer inadequate time for witnesses to present their findings on the legislation. Some witnesses could not appear because they did not have time to prepare their presentations. The government side still forced the committee along.
Why is it so urgent to pass this bill which will not give one penny more to those Canadians who need it most? In the next year we are expecting an election, which could come quite soon, and in the month of January through to the rest of 1993, the benefits available to Canadian families will be slightly larger than they are now. This is nothing more than a cynical ploy leading up to the election to persuade Canadians that they are getting more when once the election is over they will begin to see their benefits erode as the impact of the deindexation will take place.
In closing, and dealing with this aspect of the amendments suggesting that the whole child benefit package should be dispensed with, it is worth pointing out that all of the witnesses working with children and all of the academics working in social policy areas who appeared before the legislative committee advised the government to withdraw this bill and start again.
Not one change has been made. Not one change of Instead of making a full-blown commitment to dealing approach, change of attitude or change of heart is with child poverty, this government has introduced a bill indicated on the government side in spite of the fact that
September 14, 1992

all those working and knowledgeable experts in the field have advised the government that this is the wrong way to go.
If this government did care about children it would have listened to those witnesses and it would have changed its mind.
Throughout the period during which this House has discussed child poverty, we have had witnesses come to committees and one in particular asked a question which was unsettling to everyone and it is a terrible indictment on this country and on this government. The question I have in mind is that one of the witnesses at the subcommittee on poverty asked why this government hates children. Why indeed?


David Walker: Madam Speaker, at this point in the debate we move away from the general criticism of what is wrong with this bill. We do hope that the House accepts our motions presented earlier in the day, that is to say, to delete this bill from the legislative agenda.
I somehow doubt whether the government is willing to face the truth of the weaknesses within this bill and it will carry on in a slavish fashion to support the wrong piece of legislation and the wrong approach to dealing with child poverty.
The four motions I am presenting to the House right now, along with my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso are motions in which we have tried to deal with some of the fundamental flaws in this bad piece of legislation. In particular, in Motion No. 28 we ask that the government, in clause 12, strike out lines 32 and 33 at page 12 and substitute a different formula.
This may sound very dry, very boring and very esoteric, but the heart of what the government is doing and what it is doing wrong is found in this particular clause; namely, that it is setting in the famous 3 per cent solution every year for the recalculation on July 1, which accepts that the first 3 per cent of inflation does not apply to any change in benefits or in thresholds.
The government has a short memory. In dealing with another important client group, the opposite end of the age structure but not the opposite end of the need structure, seniors, several years ago a woman from Montreal travelled to Ottawa to tell the Prime Minister personally: "Goodbye, Charlie Brown". I am sure if the
Government Orders
kids across Canada could get themselves equally well organized and if they understood the stealth with which they are being dealt, they would come to Ottawa to say to the Prime Minister: "Goodbye, Charlie Brown".
I was struck by the contrast today, and I must be very direct with this, that in this party and in the whole House we are thinking about the contributions of Paul Martin to the social policy fabric of this country and how over the last 47 years the framework which he developed as minister has done a service to many Canadian families, albeit small, but nevertheless a service to so many. As we can say honestly, every Canadian family since 1945 to the current year has benefited in some way from the benefits struck in that original deal of family allowances.
Also, ironically from the same city with the same commitment, a few months ago we were saddened by the passing of Senator David Croll who also committed his life to social policy and justice.
I wonder how they would have participated in the House of Commons and in the Senate and in a debate as fundamental to the structure of government and the structure of a society as this.
In this government the only contribution made by a representative of the minister of health, the minister of the government in this debate, has been time allocation. If we stop and think about it, the only time a minister of the Crown has participated in the debate was to announce that the debate is about to end.
Compare that with the lives we have honoured in the last few months in this House for what they saw as the role of government. In those two patterns we saw the differences in the approach and why Canadians do not trust the government. In this package are the elements of the good things that we need to do on behalf of the children.
In Motion No. 28 we asked that the House remove the 3 per cent solution and recognize the slow but steady erosion and value of benefits. Although this year we are very close to the 3 per cent limit in inflation, historically speaking a 3 per cent insert in the legislation compounded would cause over a 30 per cent decline in true benefits for families in the next decade. That is an enormous amount in terms of real dollars. Any economist will tell you that is a slow, steady and sure way to erode the buying power of families dealing with children.

Government Orders
That is one of the anomalies. Starting on January 1 next year there will be what looks like a new benefit. On July 1 it will be reduced downward before Canadians get used to it. This is one of the interesting ways the government steals from people while appearing to be giving to them. I do not think it is a misuse of language. In the social policy community and in reports done annually by Carleton University, a group of academics has made a good contribution to this debate. It talks about social policy by stealth, by the fact that a little is taken away each time.
It was interesting to hear government members defend this piece of legislation. They have not read it very carefully but they are trying to defend it. They are not recognizing the fact that $3.5 billion has already been taken out of the system. That is a phenomenal amount of money which groups, individuals and provinces are trying to replace. It is in that context that we cannot be generous in our response to this legislation because it does not acknowledge the money that has already been taken out of the system.
Motion No. 29, dealing with clause 12, as well as Motion No. 30, dealing with the same clause, extend the period in which individuals can inform the government of changes in their status, either by death or separation. It is a small point but one in which we wish the government should be more flexible in its review of the legislation. Many times people's circumstances can be very traumatic and they do not get around to making changes until later than we think they should. On the other hand, there is no doubt that once a deadline has passed, you get into a legal system and you are too late and it causes complications. Why not extend the period for 23 months? It will capture those people who for whatever personal reasons were not able to get things together at first and at the same time not cause tremendous wrangles.
Motion No. 31 deals with what I think is one of the most controversial and dangerous areas of this legislation and one which we have asked the government privately and publicly to address. As has been debated several times by all parties in the House, this legislation does not deal directly with those people on social assistance and it does not deal with federal-provincial relations in the field of social policy.
When the amounts start being delivered on a monthly basis, there will be a great deal of concern among a lot of the advocacy groups that this money will be taken into account by provinces and municipalities. Instead of moving closer to national standards, which the member quite properly referred to in a recommendation coming out of the subcommittee on poverty, we run the risk of moving away because we have not given ourselves an institutional framework for guaranteeing that there will be no cutbacks. The amendment in Motion No. 31 proposes to protect families so that the same level exists. There is more than one province in this country, I believe there are at least two, which have different mixes outside of the family allowance package right now. These provinces will be asked to guarantee that there will be no change in the status of the amount of money that people receive by the federal government because of provincial arrangements.
We have been assured by ministers that this has been opened up for discussion. On the other hand, there has been no written correspondence, nothing that has been presented to the House, nothing that has been tabled. I think for those who know the social assistance system, particularly where the media is not watching and the politicians are not watching, there is a tendency to say to people on social assistance: "Look at the whole package that you are getting and there are no guarantees for it, so this is the way we do it in this town. If you do not like it, move on". That has certainly been the case in western Canada on more than one occasion.
I would like to present to the House that it would be a much more positive approach if we had as part of this legislation a guaranteed federal-provincial arrangement whereby the government's guaranteed present and future levels of financing of families will not be changed by this way of doing things. Given that the government has not yet done it, it is one more reason for Bill C-80 to be withdrawn from the House at this time.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate what my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre has brought to the attention of this House and the importance of being open as a government to constructive and well-thought-out amendments. The amendments are not capricious. They are there to enable a better set of legislative rules and laws so that the people who will be affected particularly
September 14, 1992

as found under Motion No. 28 will not be as disenfranchised as is presently perceived by the government.
I do not know where this whole idea-I call it the deindexation bug-has snuck into the mentality that we have seen in all the legislation that has come down since 1985. It strikes me that in the 1984 Speech from the Throne not only were universal social programs a sacred trust, but the whole question of social justice was at play at that time.
I recall thinking that if the government is going to bring in social justice and if it will maintain and improve the way of life, so be it. The people's voice has spoken and we will see how this government which had a bad reputation-Conservative times are bad times, et cetera-may well be put to rest and we will see a new approach with a new thrust. Certainly little did we expect what we have before us.
That deindexation bug which has been implanted is hidden. It is in a sense, sneaky. I do not like to use words like that. It is very much behind the scenes. It really shows the base of conservatism in a way which I do not know it is what they really would have preferred. It does not show the caring and compassionate society that they would like.
Yes, the first blush may well show that, but in reality it may not take people much more than eight or nine months to recognize that they have been duped once again.
Starting in January at the government's will, people are going to receive monthly cheques, those on welfare and at the low income level. This monthly cheque is going to be a wrap up inclusive of the family allowance that they used to receive, the child tax credit and the refundable child tax credit. A very amazing surprise is going to come in the month of November. Many of these families expect a refundable child tax credit to come back in and they will buy the winter clothes, the needed boots and shoes.
Now that it is all rolled into one, little do they realize that they are not going to get that. It is going to be a very rude awakening, but what I think may be the nefarious planning behind this whole bill will by then be history. It has become a political act and that is playing with the saddest cases in our society.
Government Orders
The reality is that you are reducing, you are draining. It is social diminution of programs by stealth in a sense and it is reduction through the back door. It reminds me somewhat of the GST discussions and arguments that we had that it was not open and above board.
I guess the GST was not open and above board. The fight over the free trade agreement was not open and above board. Now this change to family policy and to social policy, and the changes that are inherent in here because of the deindexation bug has become rather a sick picture in the whole structure.
I just would like to quote what Ken Battle had to say. He is the former director of the National Council of Welfare. He said that the new benefit will be eroded by inflation, but only after the next election is over.
He said: "Welfare and working poor families will go deeper and deeper below the poverty line under the child benefit. The system will leak steadily. Partial deindexation is a fiscally powerful and politically invisible mechanism that allows the government to siphon money from social programs. The child benefit proposals are designed to pretend to fight child poverty".
I wonder, if each and every one of the members of the government recognized and did the figure crunching, in the light of the new harmony that is supposed to reign with the new Constitution, if they would not like to reconsider and go back and consult with their constituents while they are talking about this new Constitution and see if they would not like to realign so that, as I believe the hon. member for Don Valley North acknowledged, we are not dealing with people who are on welfare, the poorest in society. The government intends to do that at another time.
If we are not going to do that now as we are dealing with family allowance, child tax credit and the whole thing, why not do a whole social policy re-evaluation and put it into place at the same time rather than allowing first of all the government to be seen as being cynical and, second, being a disservice to the one million poor children who are out there?
I think that would be a fair assessment, so I would really like to go back to that motion. I hope the government side will agree to vote on the first motion that we debated earlier, that is to put the bill to sleep, to

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
bed, to rest for a little bit and revise and review the undertaking.
With respect to Motion No. 28, which is the deindexation of anything over 3 per cent, just think about it. Your rent is going to go up, your food is going to go up and you are not going to get any money.


Patrick Boyer: What if inflation goes down?


Sheila Finestone: If inflation goes down, yes. What happens if inflation does not go down?


Patrick Boyer: We are holding inflation down.


Sheila Finestone: You are holding inflation down, but it can still go up to 3 per cent and you do not get any money, I would just like to remind my friend from Etobicoke over there.
For Motions Nos. 28, 29, 30 and particularly Motion No. 31, I found my colleague's research into the interprovincial disparities, the municipal disparities between the cities across this country, a very interesting and a veiy disturbing observation.
Think about what the government did with capping CAP with respect to education and social services in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. We know for certain that the economic situation in Toronto and in southern Ontario has become dramatic. Because you thought you had rich cats and were going to tame them, you put a cap on CAP. You put the 3 per cent in there and now you have people who are suffering for no reason of their own.
Poverty is poverty wherever you live in this country and hunger is hunger. I think there ought to be some very serious rethinking about the discrepancies that are going to be found between people who are moving to look for work, who are trying to improve their skills and trying to get out of the poverty gap so that they can have a decent life. Do you think people like to live this way? They do not but they need a helping hand and this is no way to help them.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to have another opportunity to talk about this particular bill.
First of all, the issue of the inflation protection clause is something that we considered at the poverty committee as well and our recommendation was that the benefits should be indexed to the growth in family incomes.
If you look at it historically, inflation protection in Canada has meant the child benefits themselves have not grown with family incomes. The proportion that families receive in benefits from the federal government has dropped as a percentage of family income.
The reason the department of course has deindexed not only this but the other parts of the tax system as well is in order to give it discretion so that the minister at budget time can in fact allocate funds where he thinks they will have the greatest benefit.
In the case of poor children, since 1985 the government has increased the refundable child tax credit four times and introduced a supplement of $213 for children under seven where child care expenses are not claimed. In fact, poor children are better off as a result of our policies.
It is wrong to say that $3.5 million has been taken out of the child benefits system. That is an artificial calculation which ignores the benefits that have been put into the system and the benefits that have been put into the system have in fact been put in for low income children.
As I stated earlier, the benefits that we are getting through this bill will be directed at the working poor. In fact, the minister is speaking and is having discussions. Indeed, if you look at the recent constitutional negotiations, there seemed to be a consensus of all the ministers' in this country that something has to be done to ensure that the poorest of the poor in this country have some kind of standard, a standard that meets the basic needs.
I happen to have a copy of Maclean's here. It gives the example of a woman with two children who gets $486 a month in Nova Scotia from the municipal welfare assistance program. I think that is outrageous in a country as wealthy as this. We have to look specifically across the country and establish national standards.
Clearly it is not as expensive to live in Nova Scotia as it is in Toronto, so you need a system that has sliding scales that base it on the actual costs in a particular community and what in fact is reasonable. I think that is definitely something that has to be a priority.
September 14, 1992

No society in this competitive global world that is emerging and that is in existence can afford to be directing its resources toward the rich, subsidizing the rich and increasing taxes so that the marginal rate of taxation for work rises higher and higher.
In order to be competitive we have to spend our money better and we have to spend it on those people that need it the most. We are talking about a society in which there is rapid change going on, in which people are going to have to be retrained, in which it is unacceptable to have a 30 per cent drop-out rate.
If you look at those kinds of statistics, it is the poor in this country that are not achieving, that are not participating in this society. We as a society have to direct greater resources toward these people and soon, really soon.
This is why we have the child development initiative which is targeted again toward the very needy and toward the high risk children in our society. I think these are very progressive programs.
I was shocked when I chaired that poverty committee to find the low level of contribution from the opposition. Some of the social agencies that I spoke to were equally amazed at the shallow, shallow reports that were presented, the lack of seriousness with which the opposition addressed this issue. I am not a very partisan person. I have been in politics since 1972 and I was willing to consider anything. But the number of concrete proposals that the opposition brought forward were insignificant.
We had good attendance while we had witnesses, but notice at the beginning of the report I put in the attendance. Once we started to get into the issues and examined them in any kind of detail, opposition members ran for shelter. They ran back to their parties where they could sit on the fence and criticize, instead of helping the children in this country.
I say shame on you. Shame that you have not come up with any concrete and acceptable proposals. Shame that you are relying on old programs that have not been effective, a family allowance that has given amounts of money to high income people and done nothing to address the real problems in our society. Shame.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I rise again to speak on this bill. I would first of
Government Orders
all like to congratulate the member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing for his hard work and effort along with other members in the House on this legislation and the proposed changes.
I find it somewhat amazing that the member for Don Valley North, who has been quite involved in this campaign, says that the opposition parties of this House have offered nothing, and the fact that it is her government that is offering so much to the children of this country.
We have a million poor children in this country. We had something like 25 witnesses before the committee. Almost every one condemned this legislation, said it was regressive, said it was not going to help poverty in this country. Yet the member can stand there and say that her government is going to rid us of poverty.
People in this House have been bragging about how Canada has been named the number one nation in the world, and of course a lot of that is due to our social programs, our social legislation, but this government is systematically removing those programs one by one.
In the city of Moose Jaw we have a food bank, along with a lot of other cities across this country, and every day there are people going to that food bank and a lot of them are children. A high percentage of people using the food banks in Moose Jaw and other areas are children. It is heart-rending to see these things happening, to see families being forced to go to a food bank.
In a country where minimum wages are so low, in a country where the working poor are struggling to survive with many of them living below the poverty line, this government is taking a piecemeal approach to this whole area of social legislation. Other comments made in this House would suggest that we should be looking at our social programs in a broad fashion. It makes a lot of sense, and is, in fact, what we should be doing.
For example, the federal minimum wage is $4.85, or in that vicinity. Someone working at that wage level, if he or she has any size of family at all, is going to be living well below the poverty line. The first thing this government could do is pass legislation so that people living below the poverty line do not pay income tax. Why is it that people living below the poverty line in this country are paying income tax? It is incredible.

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
They are contributing money to this government that they do not have, in situations where they cannot afford to live themselves. Yet government members can stand in this House and say how much they are doing for the poor in this country. We in this House who live so well, who have incomes that are way above the average, with perks and so on, can stand here and say how much we are doing for the poor.
There is no doubt that social problems in this country are growing and they are not being resolved. Until we take an approach that is going to look at all aspects of social legislation, we are not going to solve the problems.
I have to make a couple of comments because there is some hypocrisy in this debate today. The government is saying that it cannot deal with the economy until this constitutional referendum is dealt with. "Forget it. The economy is important but we cannot deal with it. We have to deal with this referendum".
We can keep the House working for a few extra days and ram through this bill which received a few days of hearings during the summer. It is going to receive a couple of days of debate with closure, yet we cannot deal with the economy. There is something hypocritical about that. Anybody watching this debate will notice the hypocrisy.
This week we are dealing with this bill and then we will deal with the drug patent legislation which will further hurt people in poverty. We are going to increase the period of time of patents from 10 years to 20 years, eliminating the ability for generic drug companies to produce drugs. That is going to hurt people on fixed incomes, seniors and others.
As I have heard often from seniors in my riding, drugs are too expensive. The House is sitting for a few extra days to deal with two pieces of legislation that are going to adversely affect poor people and those on fixed incomes. At a time when the Prime Minister says that we do not have time to deal with the economy but we can take money away from the poor people is nothing less than hypocritical. I find it quite unsettling.
The other comment I want to make on this legislation has been made before but is worth repeating. We have heard the comment about the working poor: "We are helping the working poor". In fact benefits are being
given to the working poor as opposed to Canadians commonly called "those most in need", the ones that are not even working.
There are many Canadians who are not working, not by choice but because they are victims of circumstance. We are discriminating against Canadians who are most in need. We are doing it with this bill and we have done it with changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is hypocritical. To encourage this division between people living in poverty is divisive to this country.
In Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, which is typical, we have working poor and people that are most in need. It is not because they do not want to work. Of course there will always be those who will take advantage of the system. Most want to work, get an education and get on with their lives. I see them in my office. Other members see people in their offices all the time who are struggling to get ahead and who simply do not have any options and what little opportunity they do have the government seems to be consistently taking away from them.
It is all very well for the member for Don Valley North and others to stand up and make glowing comments. It is the same as when the government passed the unanimous motion on eliminating poverty by the year 2000. It passed that motion and then completely ignored it. The comments about sacred trusts and helping the poor and that the only thing wrong with this country is the need for jobs, jobs, jobs and the Tory government will correct it are hypocrisy. This piece of legislation shows that hypocrisy and shows this government for what it is.
In closing, I just want to say that I wish the government would take a look at the social legislation and the social problems that exist in this country and do it in an all-encompassing fashion. When the government makes that commitment then we will be getting somewhere. We will be moving to assist people in this country who are less fortunate than ourselves and deserve more than what they are getting.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again this afternoon to debate this second group of amendments to Bill C-80.
Where this morning I argued with other colleagues that this bill should be withdrawn and that the government set its mind to a comprehensive and thorough
September 14, 1992

Government Orders
approach to improving the child benefit system rather than simply rearranging certain aspects of that system to make them look more attractive around election time, this afternoon I would like to concentrate my remarks on a specific motion in this group. It is Motion No. 28 which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and which I was pleased to second.
Motion No. 28 would amend clause 12 of the bill to replace the partial indexing of benefits under the legislation with full indexing for these benefits. It would do this by removing the minus 1.03 which follows the indexing formula.
Under the present legislation the benefits would be indexed using the ratio of the Consumer Price Index for the two preceding years. The ratio of the CPI would then be subtracted by the number 1.03 which has the effect of reducing the real value of the benefits or the income stream for these benefits over time to those targeted recipients of the child benefit.
I would like to explain a little bit about the CPI because this lack of full indexing of these benefits is one of the most sinister aspects of this legislation. It will erode these benefits over time. It also reflects a pattern which has been employed by this government in dealing with social programs in other areas in the past.
Therefore I would like to focus on this particular aspect of the deindexing that the government is using for this child benefit and which it has used in other places. To explain, the Consumer Price Index attempts to measure the amount of inflation that takes place in Canada or in different parts of Canada. It does this by taking a basket of goods which reflects the consumer pattern of most Canadians and includes such items as food, housing, clothing, transportation, health and personal care, recreation, reading and education, tobacco products and alcoholic beverages, and attempts, on a month to month basis, to estimate the prices of these goods and how these prices evolve over time.
The Consumer Price Index is a very central number which we use to measure inflation and the indexing which appears in pensions and in various other income streams. Over time it is used to attempt to correct for the decline in the real value of income which takes place as a consequence of inflation.
Indexing is very central when it is applied to social benefits in order to maintain the real value of these benefits over time. It has come to be applied in taxes. It has come to be applied in pensions, family allowances and various forms of income which are made available through the government.
This government has been adding a little negative factor to indexation on this legislation and other forms of legislation and programs which involve distributing income or benefits to various Canadians. This little negative factor has been this government's way of allowing what it is nominally making available to those people to whom it makes payments, to erode.
It began this practice very early in its mandate with old age pensions until the government was embarrassed and forced to back-pedal in shame after Madam Denis from Montreal confronted a red-faced Prime Minister on the steps of Parliament Hill. She essentially pointed out to him exactly what his government was doing and how this government was secretly and sneakily taking away the real value of their pensions. It forced the Prime Minister to turn and back-pedal and restore the real value of those pensions.
Since then the government has continued this practice and has been determined to apply it in other contexts. It has placed a cap on certain payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, partially deindexed family allowance payments and applied other clawback features.
Now the government is applying this negative factor to full indexation of child benefits destined to the poorest and most defenceless of our society.
It is doing this to guarantee those benefits will go down over time. If we have a very low rate of inflation they will go down in nominal terms and if we have a high rate of inflation, they will go down in real terms. In any case, they will steadily go down. In the future, the poor who will be receiving these payments will receive less and will be able to purchase less of the basic necessities of life from the income that will be made available to them under this program.
This will happen without any further legislation. This is buried in the legislation.

September 14, 1992
Government Orders
What does the government gain by insisting this simple adjustment formula be changed in order to have these benefits, which are not very great to begin with go down over time?
The government is asking the poorest members of society to bear the first burden of its efforts to reduce the size of the government and its expenditures. It is interesting to contrast this practice which has become characteristic of this government's way of doing things with another aspect of government policy, registered retirement savings plans. One of the speakers I referred to this morning, Mr. Patrick Johnston, was a witness to the legislative committee considering Bill C-80 this summer. He mentioned the contradiction between the government's stinginess with respect to child benefit payments and the way it has treated the legislation increasing the RRSP limits for those wealthy enough to put money aside to save for their retirement and at the same time receive a very generous tax consideration.
When the government increased the RRSP limits from $7,500 to $15,000 per year, Mr. Johnston reminded the members of the committee this simple change would cost the government billions of dollars in forgone tax revenues because the government provides a tax shelter for those people who make RRSP contributions, which costs the government tax revenue. Beginning in 1995, the amount is some $10.7 billion annually. The whole child benefit program is not even going to be half that, yet this government is chipping away from the beginning on the real value of those incomes.
There is an anomaly and a contradiction in these two facts which speak volumes about the philosophy inherent in this government's approach. That is why we would like this government to approve the full indexation of this formula, eliminate this tag and accept the motion that has been proposed by my colleague to allow the full indexation for these benefits at least to be made.


John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I believe I have about five minutes.
I would like to read into the record some comments that have been made about Bill C-80. These are comments made by so-called third parties when they appeared before the legislative committee. I think it is important to read some of the statements into the record
because it is quite easy for government members to go around and say: "Do not take comments from the opposition on this side of the House seriously. After all, it is just politics and they just oppose for the sake of opposing". That is hardly the case.
Take, for example, what Patrick Johnston of the Canadian Council on Social Development said before the legislative committee:
I believe one of the real shortcomings of the bill is that it does not recognize the insidious damage that has been done over the last several years to the range of social benefits because of our failure to index them fully to the cost of living. This is just a seepage year after year.
Here is another one from Martha Friendly of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
She said:
We believe this legislation and other government policy initiatives lead us away from the kinds of children's benefits and programs Europeans enjoy, toward which we think we should be moving. It moves us toward the targeted and rather mean-spirited programs of the United States-we argue that Canada's role in the development and promotion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should lead us as a nation in the direction opposite to that in which we are moving.
Here is one from Richard Shillington, co-author of the
Canadian Fact Book on Poverty. He said:
The white paper was written, one can only conclude, by people who thought the more you understood the program the less you would like it. I have been doing policy research for a long time, both as a civil servant and as someone who does word research for groups who appear here. This is a new low.
That is pretty devastating stuff. These are not words made by politicians who are perhaps trying to do something just to exploit legislation, to take some political advantage. These are coming from third parties who are neutral, who are objective and who are coming at this in a serious and responsible way.
This is what Trevor Williams of Family Services Canada said:
-without indexation this program will continue to slip year after year. It may potentially in the future have no real value whatsoever to the families who are receiving it.
To me, that says volumes.
Here is what Michael Goldberg of the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia said:
September 14, 1992

What we're disappointed in is that the bill and the contents don't meet the objectives the bill is intended to achieve -
In 1989 the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion to achieve a goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000. We are unclear how this 30 cent solution contributes to that noble goal.
This comes from Lise Corbeil of the National AntiPoverty Organization. She said:
We believe that Bill C-80 is flawed and dangerous-we therefore ask your committee to recommend rejection of Bill C-80. The extra $400 million is little when compared to the $3.5 billion siphoned from child benefits since 1985 when partial deindexing of benefits was first introduced.
It is important those comments be put in the parliamentary record.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, the awful truth about the Westray disaster is that we will probably never know the whole truth about the Westray disaster.
The Nova Scotia inquiry now under way will determine with clinical precision the chain of events leading up to the tragic and horrible blast that killed 26 miners. Contrary to repeated claims by the federal government, federal aspects of the Westray disaster may never be examined by that provincial inquiry.
The Nova Scotia government order establishing the provincial inquiry and the provincial statute authorizing that order specifically restrict the inquiry to matters "in relation to which the legislature may make laws". That means every aspect of the disaster beyond the jurisdiction of the Nova Scotia legislature is beyond the scope of the Nova Scotia inquiry. As a result, many matters within federal jurisdiction but nonetheless crucial to an understanding of the disaster may never get the attention they deserve.
Adjournment Debate
These matters include questions like the following: What information regarding both finances and safety did the Mulroney government solicit, receive and consider before the mine was commissioned? What role did the federal government play in making the mine possible and how were the decisions leading to the investment of taxpayers' money made? What are the federal government's current fiscal responsibilities to the mine, its owners and creditors?
None of these important issues can be investigated by the provincial inquiry. Even inquiry commissioner Justice Richard said that: "I have no jurisdiction as a provincial inquiry over documents outside the province". Yet the minister of state indicated in this House people should not worry about this restriction because the government sent certain federal documents to the provincial inquiry anyway. Oh, frabjous day. The government has forwarded documents, lots of them.
Consider the government itself shows which documents to send. It may send more, it may not. It may respond to specific requests from the provincial inquiry for further specific documents, it may not. It may agree to allow members of the government and of the public service to testify before the inquiry, it may not.
In fact, what the Nova Scotia provincial inquiry may learn about the federal government's role in the Westray disaster is precisely as much or as little as the federal government itself chooses. Put another way, those of whom culpability is suspected will have absolute control over any aspect of the only accident inquiry which may confirm or refute those suspicions.
In place of the age-old doctrine of innocent until proven guilty, the government substitutes the wondrous new doctrine of innocent until guilt is admitted. This is macabre and a shameful affront to the memory of those 26 men whose families hoped for simple truth from the inquiry process.
If there was negligence, let it be divulged. If there is guilt, let it be assessed. Most of all, if there is doubt, let it be resolved. If there is confusion, let it be settled. If there are crucial facts, provincial or federal, as yet in darkness, let them be brought forth to the full and cleansing light of day.
We owe it to those who died. We owe it to the families who mourn. We owe it to the communities of workers in the dangerous industry towns that speckle our nation to discover the truth for it is only the truth that will enable

Adjournment Debate
us to take the measures necessaiy to prevent it all from happening again and again and again.
I again ask the government whether it will now stop trying to hide its own actions behind a provincial inquiry which cannot investigate them and call a federal inquiry which can?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's call for a federal inquiry into this tragedy is entirely unnecessary.
Both Judge Richard and inquiry counsel have stated they are satisfied with the mandate of the provincial inquiry. Indeed, Judge Richard addressed this question directly in Halifax on June 17, 1992 when he said:
There are no constraints on my perception of the terms of
reference. To reinforce that, I had some input into the framing of the
terms of reference.
It is clear that those charged with conducting the official inquiry are satisfied and that alone should address the hon. member's concerns. Since it apparently does not, I would draw to his attention the fact that there are two other parallel inquiries going on as well. The Nova Scotia Department of Labour is conducting an inquiry, as it should in circumstances where there is a loss of life in a project for which it has regulatory jurisdiction. Furthermore, the RCMP is conducting its investigation of this incident from the criminal justice perspective.
If all this is still not enough for the hon. member I would remind him that the government has repeatedly stated its intention to co-operate with both the inquiry and this House to the end. We have tabled thousands of pages of documentation outlining the federal government's role as the financial guarantor for the project.
Indeed, we will continue to review the documentation for further release and officials have been available to respond both to the public and to the media since very early on in this particular process.
This project was regulated, licensed and inspected by Nova Scotia provincial government authorities. It would be an inappropriate public policy and a wasteful duplication of effort if we were to interfere in their jurisdiction. The member's claim that the Richard inquiry cannot look into federal involvement is simply wrong. I know when he realizes that he will withdraw his call for further inquiries.


PERLEY BRIDGE
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I do not know if you ever cross Perley bridge between Hawkesbuiy and Grenville to go to your riding. Many people and members of this House use this bridge occasionally. I can tell you that the bridge needs to be replaced as soon as possible.
In April 1992, I asked the Minister of Public Works a question, but in his absence, the Minister of Supply and Services answered me to the effect that discussions concerning work on this bridge, which involves the governments of Ontario and Quebec and of course the federal government, were about to conclude. In June 1988, four years ago, the then minister, Hon. Stewart Mclnnis, said that the bridge would reach the end of its useful life around 1992. Imagine the anxiety of my constituents who are wondering whether the bridge will be closed, whether it is safe and so on.
Since then, we have worked very hard. Plans and a prior environmental review show beyond any doubt that the public need have no concern for environmental safety and that a new bridge could be built along the present route.
On May 1, 1992, not so long ago, the minister wrote to me to say that with the change of government in Ontario, in particular, the new deputy ministers had to meet to ratify an agreement in principle on cost sharing, project management and the start date so that our constituents on both sides of the river, in Hawkesbury and in Grenville, could know what to expect. It is well-known that building a new bridge of this kind involves many factors. Many business people who had shown interest in the past in coming to spend or invest in our region have put that on hold pending developments on the Perley bridge.
I hope that the minister's parliamentary secretary will be able this evening to give us specific dates on when this work will begin and everything surrounding the building of this new bridge. In closing, I would like to add that huge amounts are being spent to maintain the bridge and keep it open to traffic. In spite of that, the people who use it are always afraid of going down with it one day. This is practically impossible, because the federal gov-
September 14, 1992

eminent, which is a good government, ensures every day that this bridge is completely safe for users.
So I eagerly await the response from my colleague, the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, as our colleague from Argenteuil-Papineau pointed out so well, this issue is a concern for the federal Department of Public Works. The minister has mentioned how remarkably the hon. member has worked to see this issue through and we have spoken of it several times.
Of course, the bridge was built in 1931. There have been consultations and studies, in particular on its life expectancy and on the amounts that the department spends to maintain it, almost a million dollars annually. As our colleague pointed out, it is the only bridge on the Ottawa River between Ottawa and Montreal. It connects Quebec and Ontario. As the hon. member said, there have been discussions between the three governments, namely those in Quebec City, Toronto and Ottawa.
Our colleague also mentioned that meetings were held in early May. Apparently, agreements in principle were reached. I think that my colleague will be pleased that the issue is well on its way to resolution, not only on paper but in actual fact. The minister asked me to reassure the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau that real results should come within a time frame that will be respected.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, on May 4, 1992, I raised a very important question in this House with the Secretary of State, namely whether the federal government had finally reached agreements with the provinces on the minorities' constitutional right to manage their educational institutions.
Although these are legal, constitutional rights, the provincial governments' political will to implement them is non-existent in many cases.
According to the 1986 census, there were nearly 393,500 school-age children who had at least one parent whose mother tongue was English in Quebec, or French
Adjournment Debate
in the other provinces and territories of Canada. A breakdown of this figure shows that Ontario had the most with 34.5 per cent, or 135,600 students, followed by Quebec and New Brunswick. However, Ontario has still not passed legislation giving full control over educational institutions to the minority and thus assuring its young people a French education.
The Ontario Minister of Colleges and Universities, Mr. Allen, told the latest assembly of the French Canadian Association of Ontario, ACFO, in June, that a new agreement in principle between the federal and provincial governments for funding French-language colleges would be concluded. The official announcement has still not been made and I raise the question today, in response to the expectations that Ontario's minority community has already expressed.
In answer to the question that I asked him on May 4, can the Secretary of State tell us today whether he has in fact met with the Ontario Minister of Education and whether agreements on education have been concluded between Ontario and Canada? Have bilateral agreements been signed with British Columbia, for example, or Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba? As we know, these agreements should have been the subject of a fairly important announcement, but they are slow in coming.
Where are we today? That is what I ask the parliamentary secretary. Are the federal government and the provinces still negotiating? Has nothing been signed yet? Has no agreement been concluded to date? Is it possible that, nearly five months after giving the minority groups hope that an agreement was imminent, we are still waiting today?
We are about to go into a referendum campaign; a constitutional agreement was initialed or actually reached in Charlottetown. The francophone communities outside Quebec and the English-speaking communities in Quebec must know the government's position on federal support for education. Is the federal government, which participated in the Charlottetown agreement, ready to say today that it promises to ensure the development of official-language communities in Canada and to help the provinces, which are always reluctant, always hesitant, always lagging behind, to set up education systems made for and managed by the minority? The

September 14, 1992
Adjournment Debate
question is straightforward. I would like to have an answer that is as straightforward and direct.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and to Minister of Multi-culturalism and Citizenship):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer my hon. colleague. I will try to do so as briefly and completely as possible, with the little time available to us.
We have been questioned about our commitment as a federal government to the concept and principle of two official languages in Canada. I can say categorically on this point that no other federal government has been more attached to this principle than ours, and our commitment remains as firm as in the past. Of course, the other governments also have an important role to play in this field.
In the constitutional debate of the past several months, as the hon. member said so well just now, the federal government's position has remained the same. The Canadian Constitution should contain a clear and precise clause calling on the governments to promote the official-language minorities and their development. We must all do our part, of course. We want the other governments to co-operate, but we have no intention of imposing on them essential responsibilities which are ours as the government of all Canadians.
I now come to the question of lack of teachers in some French-language schools outside Quebec. Our government is aware of the problems in this regard. We have shown our interest by ordering a study on it through the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada. The study by the firm of Pageau, Skuce and Vezina identified some areas where the problems are particularly acute. The authors concluded that an unequal distribution of teachers and not an over-all shortage accounts for the real shortages in some regions, especially in some parts of Ontario and in western Canada. There are also shortages in some specialized subjects like science and music.
The study also shows that the distribution of teachers leads to another problem. Given the local shortages, teachers were naturally brought in from other parts of the country. This can create two difficulties. First, these teachers may not want to stay away from their region of origin for very long. Second, they might be unfamiliar
with the realities and cultural needs of the local francophone population.
The government is very concerned with this whole issue, and we are now considering with great interest ways to co-operate in seeking solutions with several provinces and territories, but without infringing on their jurisdiction over education.


TOBACCO PRODUCTS
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, last April I raised a number of issues with this government concerning its lack of leadership in preventing the consumption of tobacco products. Canada at one time used to be the leader in the world in its program of health education, labelling and taxation, as a threepronged approach to reducing cigarette consumption. Elowever, the government has abandoned its plan to raise the legal age of smoking to 18; it has forestalled its plans to insist on more effective warning labels on cigarette packages; and it has reneged on its commitment to stop the smuggling of Canadian cigarettes back into Canada by the implementation of an export tax.
In looking at the first two issues, we know increasingly from the documentation in other countries, the World Health Organization, and the tobacco industry that they must recruit cigarette smokers before they reach the age of 18. If they do not recruit them before they reach the age of 18, people normally will not start smoking. We are asking that the age be increased to 18.
We have also been able to document that warning labels are one effective method of reducing cigarette consumption. The government has the opportunity to ensure that warning labels are more effective, that they are colour contrasted and are sharp to the eye, but it has backed off on this. It has the power to implement it regardless of whether there has been a court challenge.
I would like to contrast this with what Australia has done. Australia has banned all advertising for tobacco. It has stopped the promotion of tobacco products by all tobacco companies so they cannot promote cultural events or sports events. It has been determined that all of these are designed to recruit youth into the tobacco smoking market.
September 14, 1992

The same information has been presented in this House by myself based on memos supplied by the tobacco companies about their advertising campaigns being directed to young people below the legal age limit.
The government's flip-flop on the export tax is very obvious. It brought in the export tax. Sales of cigarettes for export, which are basically smuggled back into this country, dropped from 730,000 to 146,000 and then to
252,000	cigarettes a month. The government removed it, saying the companies had decided they would have a way and it jumped up to 958,000 cigarettes and the next month, June, to over one million.
In fact, even in the month of July in which there was a slight reduction it was still four times the amount of cigarettes that it was in 1986 and 100 times when compared to cut tobacco. This government is going to lose $800 million in lost tax revenue because of the removal of the export tax. Provincial governments are probably going to lose a like amount. The World Health Organization has had to revise its figures on the number of Canadians who die each year from tobacco products. Each year, 38,000 to 48,000 Canadians will die from the use of tobacco products. The increase has been caused because more and more women are using tobacco products.
Why is this government abandoning this world leadership? Is it because it is under the influence of that good friend of the Prime Minister, Bill Neville?


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, I thought my hon. colleague would stand up and congratulate this government on what it has done with regard to tobacco.
As a member of Parliament and a non-smoker today, I could say to my hon. colleague that a lot of people in my area lost their jobs in the tobacco industry. I feel very sorry for them, but I will not smoke for any reason.
We were the first government to do something about non-smoking on aeroplanes. World-wide after six months they all accepted our law on which we are a leader in the industry.
Adjournment Debate
In response to the $8 per carton export tax that was removed on April 8, the Minister of National Revenue announced the additional measure to counteract tobacco smuggling, including the new marking and identification code on products, warning labels, sales limit for dutyfree shops, enhanced government industry co-operation, deployment of additional customs and RCMP resources, and higher penalties for smugglers.

At the same time, the minister stopped collection of the export tax, convinced that these measures and the initiatives he had announced on February 12 were a better way to deal with the problem.
I believe that once these measures are fully implemented, we will have largely dealt with the smuggling problem. Of course, putting all these measures in place takes time, and it will take even more time to get concrete results.
This fall, new labels will be put on cigarette packages for the duty-free market. These changes will be implemented gradually during the next few months, starting with the major brands. The new labelling will make it much easier to deal with smuggling on the Canadian market. Tobacco companies are willing to share all information on tobacco sales with excise officials who will then be able to make sure, with the co-operation of the RCMP, that exported tobacco products are delivered only to bona fide customers in the United States.
Officials at the Department of National Revenue are working closely with their counterparts at the Department of Finance. For instance-the hon. member gave a number of figures earlier, but I want to correct them- Customs and Excise officials estimate that in 1991, up to one-third of tobacco products smuggled into this country came from ships and aircraft stores.
The changes announced by the minister in February have had the effect of tightening supervision of warehousing, distribution and sales of these products. The results have been immediate and very conclusive.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I will have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary to give five minutes to his colleague. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Adjournment Debate


CHILD POVERTY
David Walker: Madam Speaker, I rise today to continue a discussion started in the House in early May on the question of child poverty. At that time when I asked the Prime Minister a question I became concerned about what had happened in the area of child poverty since last December.
The child poverty issue is one that we are all committed to in this House. It dates back a few years to when all the parties endorsed a motion in a debate led by the former leader of the NDP, Mr. Broadbent, on the question of child poverty. We all made a commitment in this House that by the year 2000 we would be making a full effort to eliminate child poverty.
Subsequently, there has been an incident in which the issue of child poverty has been intertwined with the issue of public relations and partisanship and the momentum of a few years ago has been lost in this House.
I raise the question to remind the House of the commitment we all made and to make sure that the government understands the frustration made at the community level by the lack of action on child poverty.
For example, a simple indicator which is sometimes deceptive but is nevertheless an indicator we should listen to and follow is the number of children using food banks. If there has been one overwhelming shift in our cities since 1990 it is the number of children who have to rely on food banks each month.
When I visited the food banks in my constituency, particularly the one at Knox United Church in Central Park, I was struck by the number of people lining up three hours before the official opening on a Tuesday morning to get food and how many had to bring their children to help carry the food home. It is a tremendous and sad change.
I asked the government to explain why it was not consulting with the stakeholders and why it was not consulting more with the social policy groups that had concerns about Bill C-80 and why it was not discussing this more with the provincial governments. To my surprise, I found that the government could not present to
the House what its consultation plan had been nor did it feel that it had to be any more extensive.
Subsequently, we find ourselves in a debate on child poverty without knowing why the stakeholders are so opposed to it and why the provincial governments have remained silent.
I hope to use this opportunity through the parliamentary secretary to get more information as to what the strategy of this government is to deal with child poverty.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind all members that child poverty is a major concern for this government and children are our most precious resource. Anything that affects the children of this country affects all of us.
In the recent budget the federal government proposed a new child tax benefit which is going to consolidate the existing family allowance, the child tax credit and the dependent child credit into a single monthly benefit beginning January 1994. It is targeted, it is simpler and it puts an extra $2.1 billion in the hands of Canadian families. It builds on existing federal programs which total $15 billion annually for children and families. Brighter Futures is another integral step that was recently announced, and within it the child development initiative which is going to address the needs of children at risk. This is $500 million that is going to be put forth by the government.
We will work in consultation-and I am glad my colleague brought that up-with the provinces, the territories, native groups and key community leaders on initiatives that will be specifically targeted at helping young children at risk. We will also be dealing with poor living conditions, ill health, abuse, family violence or neglect.
Canada's action plan for children was another step in Brighter Futures and it fulfils Canada's commitment from the world summit, which was co-chaired by the Prime Minister in September 1990. The action plan for children provides a framework for action for children in Canada, and indeed all around the world.
In February 1991 the federal government made a
four-year commitment of $136 million to help eliminate
family violence.

Therefore, while social assistance and social services are a matter of provincial jurisdiction this federal government cost-shares eligible provincial expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan. Annual federal expenditures currently amount to $6.5 billion.
We all have to recognize our duty to find innovative and new solutions to address child poverty. No, the momentum has not been forgotten. Indeed, we are
Adjournment Debate
utilizing the financial resources that we have to the best advantage and targeting the children in poverty.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 15,1992