1992-06-09

Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the right hon. Joe Clark, President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, I am pleased to table in this House today, in both official languages, a copy of the report of the Northern Pipeline Agency for the period ending March 31, 1992.


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


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-49, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault), with amendments.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me one moment to say how very pleased I am to report this bill. We had quite a number of meetings on it as it is a very technical bill. I want to commend the members of the committee for getting along so well in getting this bill through.


[Stage Direction]
44TH AND 45TH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 44th and 45th reports of the Standing Committee on House Management.

Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), these reports are deemed adopted and laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

June 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings HOUSE OF COMMONS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 24(1) and 30, on Friday, June 19, 1992, the House shall meet at 2 p,m. and proceed to Statements by Members, Oral Questions, Routine Proceedings, followed by its usual business pursuant to the Standing Orders;
That the address of His Excellency Boris Yeltsin, President of Russia, to be delivered in the House Chamber on Friday, June 19, at 11 a.m. before the members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House;
And that the address of the President of Russia, together with all introductory and related speeches be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcasting service.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), I move:
That the hours of sitting and business of the House commencing on June 10 to June 23, 1992 shall be as follows:
(1)	Wednesday, June 10 and 17, 1992, 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. Private Members' Business from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.
(2)	Thursday, June 11 and 18, 1992, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Private Members' Business from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Standing Order 38 proceedings from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
(3)	Friday, June 12, 1992, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Private Members' Business from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.
(4)	Monday, June 15 and 22, 1992, 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Private Members' Business from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. Standing Order 38 proceedings from 10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
(5)	Tuesday, June 23, 1992, 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Private Members'
Business from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. Standing Order 38 proceedings from
10 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.
(6)	Friday, June 19, 1992, 2 p.m. to 10 p.m., Private Members'
Business will be cancelled.


Mrs. Marleau:: Mr. Speaker, for the record, could the minister tell us what legislation the government aims to bring forward and what it will be calling during these extended hours of debate in the House of Commons?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is on the Order Paper. We have been having discussions with the offices of the House leaders of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party concerning the scheduling of business.
The desire is, as is customary this time of the year, to look at that legislation which it is expeditious to have passed and put in place. Some is time sensitive in that there are implications in terms of taxing policy, benefits coming at an appropriate time and so on.
It is certainly my intention to discuss this with the opposition parties and other members in the House to facilitate the treatment of this legislation and also to make it possible for the appropriate critics to schedule their time so they can be here to participate in the debate on the bills that are of interest to them.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, can I have it confirmed there will be no motions, other than those presently on the Order Paper, discussed.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give the hon. member an absolute assurance. There is the possibility of bills being introduced that may require some treatment before we adjourn, but that is not the intent of extended hours. The intent is primarily to deal with the current Order Paper.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 9, 1992

Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present to the House this morning concerning the holding of a referendum.
The Government of Canada put forth proposals for amending the Constitution earlier on. It established a citizens forum to ascertain the views of Canadians on numerous matters. Committees were set up to consult with the people of Canada concerning the proposals.
It should be noted that the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution of Canada belongs to the people. My constituents believe that consultations should extend to and include approving or disapproving constitutional amendments.
I would hope that the government would take this into consideration when it is bringing forth these proposals in the days ahead.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition concerning gasoline prices.
Gasoline prices are significantly higher in the Ottawa region than in other parts of the province. To that extent my constituents are calling on the government to take whatever action possible to correct this injustice to Ottawa motorists.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that was circulated by Give Life Canada on the issue of abortion.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to formulate and legislate a law to protect life from conception, a law which seeks to save the lives of both mother and child.
This petition is signed by several hundred petitioners.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 36 of my constituents calling for the presentation of a referendum on the Constitution and requiring a majority of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority of the
Routine Proceedings
provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker,
I also have a petition signed by several hundred of my constituents criticizing the government for promising to freeze unemployment insurance premiums for three years and then reneging on that promise.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to request that the government immediately act to freeze unemployment insurance premium rates for both employers and employees for no less than one year.
They also request that the government forgo any further cuts to unemployment insurance benefits.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present three petitions from British Columbia stating that the Canadian race relations foundation is a federal government initiative passed by the House of Commons as Bill C-63 almost two years ago and demonstrates its commitment to eradicating racism.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to urge the government to consider the advisability of establishing the Canadian race relations foundation this fiscal year.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition which requests that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society. It asks that the Parliament of Canada amend the Criminal Code, the Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act accordingly.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by a number of people from my riding asking that Parliament enact legislation that would protect the rights and the dignity of victims of sexual assault and counteract the prejudice and sexism surrounding the crime of sexual assault.
Government Orders GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House today under Standing Order 36.
It is a long-standing opposition by residents of northern British Columbia to the goods and services tax. This petition is signed by residents of northern B.C. in a number of communities, in particular Fort St. James, Prince George, McBride, Mackenzie and other communities.
They continue to call upon Parliament to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from constituents living on the coast of British Columbia.
They ask that the federal government not proceed any further with the de-staffing of west coast lighthouses, that it implement the terms and conditions of the FURL report, The Future Role of Lightstations report, that it restore the person-years that have been removed from this program, and that it restore the budget cuts that have been put in place in anticipation of the de-staffing.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition, again from residents of northern Vancouver Island who are extremely concerned about the cuts for rural and remote communities removing the isolated tax benefits.
They would ask that the government restore those tax benefits to people living in rural and remote areas as soon as possible.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That, in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allocated to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and
That, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the second reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Dionne
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
TUrner (Vancouver Quadra)
[Stage Direction]
Charest
Crosby (Halifax West)
Dobbie
Karygiannis
Martin (Lincoln)
Rompkey
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
*
* *


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest has one minute remaining in the debate.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude my speech with regard to Bill C-80 and the new child benefit package which puts $2.1 billion into the benefit package for families right across the country.
Not only is it going to be fair and more efficient, it is going to target funding at those who really need it. We will merge the family allowance program, the refundable child tax credit and the non-refundable dependent child tax credit into this new package.

Government Orders
I certainly look forward to the debate for the rest of the day. This is a move forward to streamline the government package and indeed put the moneys where they are most needed.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question. The new bill deals with some sort of increase when it comes to the working poor as well as when it comes to middle income families. Elowever, there are certain aspects of the bill when it comes to families on welfare.
According to a study which was done by Ken Battle, president of Caledon Institute of Social Policy, it was indicated that the current legislation in terms of indexation would cost welfare families up to about 17 per cent of their-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is just a point of clarification. Are you in the period for questions and comments?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it is a question I would like to pose to the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You have the floor.


Mac Harb: Could we get some answers to the statement made by Mr. Ken Battle when he referred to the fact that the new legislation would kick in when it came to increases in allowances only if the inflation rate was over 3 per cent a year? In other words, families on welfare would not receive an increase at all unless the inflation rate was over 3 per cent.
If that were the case and if the inflation rate were below 3 per cent we would see a decrease in benefits when it came to welfare families rather than an increase.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this particular statement. In fact it is a valid analysis.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of good points that my colleague from Ottawa Centre put forward.
One thing I want to make perfectly clear with regard to families on welfare is that they will not have any of their benefits cut under this new program in Bill C-80.
As I mentioned in my closing remarks, it will be $2.1 billion of new funding that will go into this particular program. Actually, there will be 2.4 million families that are going to have their annual child benefits increased.
With regard to Mr. Ron Bell, I do believe he did come out initially with some negative comments, but it will be noticed that there has not been anything later with regard to comments. Once he has reviewed the program and taken a specific look at those families on welfare, he will be assured that there will be no cutback.
On CPI, the indexation for most government grants, contributions and the benefit packages are over the 3 per cent. This is not knew. Even the family allowance was cut back on the indexation back in the years of, I believe, 1974 to 1976. That is not to say that the government is not aware of the escalation of inflation, if there is one. It would be taking a yearly look at the benefits going to all Canadian families, not just specifically those on welfare.
In conclusion, I have to say that over the last couple of years, fighting inflation and getting it down to the lowest rate that it has been in 20 years-I believe last month it was 1.7 percent-is something that all people should be working toward. It means that a dollar today is worth a dollar tomorrow.


Mr. Garth Hirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in many of the town hall meetings and other public meetings I have had in my riding my constituents consistently over the last couple of years have been asking me: "Can the government please take an initial step to end universality of social programs?" People have said that it makes little sense to them that the government provides social programs or provides cheques to families only to turn around and tax it back.
It seems in a common sense mode for a lot of people in my riding that the government should change this. Yet the Government of Canada has been on record as saying that social programs or universality has been a sacred trust.

I am wondering if the member can address that. Does she see this move in this new program to a more common sense attitude toward social programs, in other words a targeting of precious government resources to those who need them and perhaps an end to this concept that we must be all things to all people?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for actually putting a very straightforward question: Can the government be all things to all people.
With regard to the precious revenues that we do have, there is only one taxpayer in Canada. Whether he or she is paying the municipal tax, the provincial tax or the federal tax, that taxpayer is the one who appears to get nailed.
What we are doing in this particular child benefit package is combining many family benefits into one monthly cheque that is non-taxable. It will be based solely on last year's tax return.
The hon. member is quite right that those in need, those who do need assistance from the government will receive it. It is actually over $76,000 a year on total income that it will be completely phased out. Those under $50,000 will lose nothing. Those over $50,000 will be slowly phased out, directly proportional to the income for that year.
I want to thank the hon. member for his assistance in working with the family caucus and the finance committee to see how we can become more streamlined in making sure that the funds we have go where they are needed.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about this $500 added credit that a single parent would receive.
The purpose of this particular $500 credit described in the bill is to encourage mothers to move off welfare and back into the work force. They have actually been given another $500 credit. Is this what the legislation reads?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Yes.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Yes. Do you really think $500 is a sufficient enough incentive to encourage people to stay in the work force, especially those at the lower income end of the spectrum, when they receive all of those medical ex-
Govemment Orders
penses and all other expenses are basically covered while on welfare?
In other words, I am hearing from many single mothers in my community who would like to get back into the work force that it does not pay them to go back to work and that $500 over a year works out to less than $10 a week. That is hardly enough incentive to really put them back into the work force.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, if I can interpret the question put forward, my colleague for Broadview- Greenwood feels the incentive should be larger.
There is no doubt about it that what we are trying to do here is to assist those people who are in the work force. Indeed, people on welfare are very needy people. Of course they will lose nothing under the child benefit package. Those people who have jobs will receive a tax incentive.
This should be combined with the program the Minister of Employment and Immigration put forward a few weeks ago. It is a pilot program dealing with single mothers in New Brunswick and British Columbia to top up their salaries. That is, for single parents on welfare who go out and find a job, we will top up their salaries so they can come closer to living within the community and be able to sustain not only their home and children, but also lift themselves out of the welfare system.
With these two programs in place, we will see a far greater incentive to get people off welfare. Obviously, it is a step in the right direction.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-80 and to start, I would like to make a simple comment.
When it comes to the impact of Bill C-80 on the poorest family, there would be no increase. A family on welfare under the old system used to receive approximately $120 per month per child. Under the new benefit program, that family will receive the same thing.
When we are talking about those who are hit the hardest, there will be no extra money coming in from the proposed government bill. When we talk about those poor families, for example, when we look at single mothers on social assistance, they also will receive absolutely no additional funds as a result of the proposed legislation.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
I had the pleasure of attending an annual meeting in the Ottawa area of the Our Kids organization. This organization has a mandate to build a better future for the children of the Ottawa-Carleton region.
It has a few purposes. One is to raise the priority for children in the eyes of the community. Another is to fund projects which meet children's basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, and education. As well, it encourages like-minded groups to work together on behalf of the children of the Ottawa-Carleton region.
I would like to commend this organization. It is two years old. It just elected a new board of directors. For the record, I would like to commend Janis Machin, who was elected as the president, Denise Mattok who was elected as the vice president, Diane Blenkiron as the secretary, Uttra Bhargava who was a member of the board and decided not to run again this year, Louise Allard, Stephan Klovan and Bernard Muzeen.
Last year these very capable people in consultation with the corporation and about 35 national and regional children's organizations managed to raise the profile of children in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Over 20,000 people visited the displays and facilities in an effort to create awareness in the community.
This is not the only thing that has taken place in my community. There is also St. Andrew's Church which in consultation with other community groups, business organizations, and church groups has embarked on an excellent partnership against poverty. As well, they are working collectively in order to promote awareness and do what they can as members of the community to deal with the subject of poverty in our society.
Recently, Our Kids sent a letter to the Prime Minister inviting him to attend one of its events some time in October 1992. In its letter it asked that Canada, or this House, designate a special day for children in Canada. We have Father's Day; we have Mother's Day; we have Canada Day. We have all sorts of days designated for special purposes. I want to echo those sentiments and add my voice to this organization in calling for the establishment of a national day to acknowledge our children, a child's day in Canada.
It would be appropriate to have that day on the anniversary of the meeting of the international community in New York on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I would like to congratulate Our Kids and all the different organizations in my community that are working tirelessly in order to do what they can to help solve the question of poverty.
We hear a lot in the media about the city of Ottawa being a fat city. In fact, that is absolutely untrue. Simply put, just a few blocks away, child poverty is no different from any other part of Canada.
In fact, in excess of 24 per cent of the children living in this city are poor. In excess of 55 per cent of all families under the age of 25 with children are poor. One out of every three single mothers in this community is considered to be poor. In excess of 78 per cent of all poor in this region have children.
It will be seen that while many people call our city a fat city, there is another side which is the poor side.
Why do we talk about child poverty? Why are we interested in child poverty? It is part and parcel of a bigger problem and that is the health of the nation as a whole.
When a child is poor, more than likely the health of that child is affected. In fact the impact of poverty on child health is that there is two times the normal risk of dying before the age of 20. Simply put, based on mortality, a poor child has twice the normal infant mortality rate. These deaths are from injury, fires, drowning, pedestrian traffic accidents and so on, as well as an increased rate of chronic illness, particularly between the ages of four and 16 years.
There are other problems associated with child poverty, such as increased psychiatric disorders and physical and mental disabilities. These are all problems associated with and resulting from child poverty.
While we are dealing with poverty, the health of those children is also affected. Children have poor health simply because they have a poor start in life. For instance, women in low income groups have twice the risk of having a baby bom too soon or underweight. Therefore, the baby is doomed even before he or she is bom.
June 9, 1992

The cause of this is maternal stress, substance abuse, poor nutrition, and lack of social support. The result is children with physical and learning disabilities, as well as developmental delay.
As well, the child's housing situation may not be adequate or safe. Child care arrangements may not be as appropriate as they should be. In our national capital region there is approximately a two-year waiting list for subsidized day care. In Toronto, there are in excess of 7,500 people on the waiting list for child care. Obviously that is part and parcel of the over-all problem that must be addressed.
When discussing child poverty and what the government is trying to do to deal with it the first thing to do is take the legislation to those who are experts, those who deal with child poverty, to get their reaction to the government's proposal. The child benefit program proposed by the government has not been given much encouragement by the different groups involved with child poverty.
For example, Sue Wolstenholme of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association said: "This and other examples from the budget indicate once again that either the federal government still does not grasp the problem of child poverty and child care which Canadian families face or they really do believe they can trick the public with yet another illusionary tactic".
Mr. Gerard Kennedy from the Canadian Association of Food Banks had this to say about the bill: "It is the most deceptive and cruel thing coming from government that we have seen in a long time, and a tremendous blow to the hope of low-income people".
Patrick Johnston from the Canadian Council on Social Development had this to say on the bill:
There's no question that the potential benefits will be completely
offset by the lack of indexation. And it's done invisibly-that's the
worst part of it.
Ms. Lise Corbeil from the National Anti-Poverty Organization criticized the proposed child benefit because it is inadequate as an anti-poverty measure and it favours the working poor at the expense of the nonworking poor. She called the proposal a discriminatory package.
There are at least another seven or eight different organizations that deal with child poverty and every one
Government Orders
of them has opposed the proposal and said it is inadequate in dealing with child poverty.
The media has also not reacted very favourably to the government proposals. A report in The Globe and Mail on March 10, 1992 said: "Report blasts child benefits. Says new system lowers incomes". It goes on to say:
Single parents and other low income families will eventually lose
as much as 27 per cent of their income as a result of the new
program, the analysis shows.
The key element, which referred to the fact that there will be a loss in revenues, was indicated in the question that I proposed to the hon. member. Mr. Battle, who analyzed the proposals, indicated that if the inflation rate is at 3 per cent, for instance, there will be no revenues coming to welfare recipients and poor families.
In fact they will see a decline in their revenues. He indicated that if the inflation rate is 5 per cent the child benefit would only increase by 2 per cent. By the year 2000 many of the families who are now right at the poverty line will fall way below the poverty line.
Mr. Pierre Fortier, who is a senior official in National Health and Welfare, acknowledged that there will be slippage in the value of the child benefit. He said: "There is a loss in each year where the inflation rate is greater than zero. I do not dispute that".
I could not understand why the assistant to the minister would refute these comments in stating that the working poor in this country would see a decrease in their benefits from this bill rather than an increase. There is a correlation here. I am trying to build a case to demonstrate that we must do more if we are to deal with the poverty of our children.
This is true particularly in one area, which is education. Simply put, if we examine parents and their children who live in poverty it is more likely that the parents will not have a high educational level and that the children will have difficulty with school teachers and those who are assisting them in the community.
Let us examine the Ottawa-Carleton region and its people who are under the poverty line or may not be in a position to help themselves. Based on the 1986 census 25 per cent of poor families with children had less than grade 9 education.

Government Orders
That means that one out of every four people who are poor are poor because they have a lower level of education. Twenty-two percent of poor finished between grade nine to 13, 11 per cent have a diploma or certificate, and 9 per cent have a trade certificate or diploma.
Approximately 67 per cent of the people who live on or under the poverty line do not have a high school diploma or degree. There is a direct correlation between the level of poverty and the level of education.
These figures are for the national capital region and are no different from the statistics provided to us by metro Toronto, for instance. In metro Toronto 75 per cent of those who are going to food banks do not have a high school diploma.
The problem clearly is quite alarming. In order to deal with child poverty we have to attack it on not one but a number of fronts. I would like to move on to make some of the recommendations that my party has been putting forward.
First, we must deal with the heart of the problem. In many of our inner cities in Canada children are going to school hungry. Those children are not in a position to learn. Empty stomachs have no ears.
Therefore, our party has recommended that the federal government immediately participate with provincial and territorial governments, through their boards of education, in conjunction with community volunteers, in the provision of nutritionally balanced breakfast, lunch and snack programs in schools throughout Canada. That must become part and parcel of our educational system and it must take the form of a partnership with the community, both the business and the voluntary sectors.
We have also made a proposal that the federal government re-design the tax system to make it more equitable to help families cope with the added expense of raising children, and that it simplify the federal child benefit system as soon as possible. We are obviously not talking about the kind of simplification or complication that the government has done in Bill C-80.
We have called on the government to immediately announce its intention to create an accelerated job
creation program for students and youth so that it can be put in place for those who finish their school term and are looking for some sort of job for the summer period.
We have also called on the federal government to increase the federal minimum wage from $5 to $6 an hour by January 1, 1993.
These are some of the many recommendations that my caucus has put forward. I want to echo those sentiments in saying that we cannot really afford to ignore this problem because children are our future. Only through a proper strategy to deal with the educational system, to deal with a proper child care program, that goes right to the heart of the problem and that is a system of taxation, that addresses the question of housing for many families in inner cities across Canada and in some cases in rural Canada, can we say that we are dealing with the problem and that we are finding solutions to it.
It is really a shame that we live in one of the richest countries in the world and yet we still have child poverty at the rate that we are seeing. There is no reason that this government, along with provincial governments and municipal governments, cannot put together some sort of national conference at which all the different partners could sit together and try to set up a strategy to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. After all, it was a decision of this House to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000.
On a final note, Mr. Speaker, despite the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was ratified by this government, we have yet to see tangible proposals and strategies to attack child poverty right at its roots.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre madle a great point about expecting people to absorb the first 3 per cent of indexation, as set out in the Income Tkx Act.
I want to put on the record of the House, before I ask him a question, the information that when this government took over, the child tax credit was $384 a year. In 1985-86 it was increased to $454 a year, to $489 a year in 1987, to $524 a year in 1988, to $559 a year in 1989, and it is presently $601 a year. The turning point, or the point, when the threshold would change, was changed back in 1985.
June 9, 1992

What has happened is that notwithstanding the provisions of the act, the government has successively changed the child tax credit proposals by changing the amount of benefit to more than compensate for inflation.
So much for all of the criticism this government has received from the hon. Ken Battle.
If he would pay attention to what has happened since 1985, he would find that the government has always honoured the requirement to look after children.
What has he got against an increase of $500 over the $1,020 presently available to those earning over $10,000 a year? Has he got something that he finds distasteful that a monthly payment should be made to parents? Does he think that is wrong or does he think that parents ought to get the benefit to support their children out of filing income tax deductions so that they will have to discount those tax deductions to a tax discounter? Does he think a tax discounter is the way people ought to get their money or does he think that a cheque coming monthly is more appropriate than the present system of redistribution?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, for the record, if you look at the family income since this government took office in 1984 up until now, and if you draw a curve, you will see how simple it is to realize that the incomes of both middle-income as well as lower-income families have dropped substantially.
While the Minister of Finance has claimed that the new system will increase the total federal child benefit by $400 million per year, a Senate committee report has indicated that since this government has taken office, there has been in excess of $3.5 billion taken out of the child benefit system between 1986 and 1991.
If the hon. member is telling me that with Bill C-80 a mother who is on welfare is getting more than she was getting before Bill C-80 was introduced, I think he is mistaken. Simply put, she is not receiving any extra benefits. A mother on welfare still receives the same type of benefits.
When we talk about the other increases of $500 or so for those who meet a certain threshold or are below a certain threshold, that is something different. That is when you divide it by the number of months or by the
Government Orders
number of days. I can assure hon. members there is nothing one can say. It is enough to solve the ongoing problem. What needs to be done is that the over-all system of taxation has to be reformed in order to help both those who do not have enough and those who do not have at all.
If the hon. member is telling me what is the best way of doing this, I would say that we have to go right to the heart of the problem, and that is our system of taxation.
Just recently, it was clearly indicated that in this country, the middle-income and the lower-income earners are perhaps paying more taxes than in any other industrialized country anywhere in the world. If we are to deal with the heart of the problem, that is an area that we can tackle.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80 will implement the new child benefit announced by the government in the throne speech. It is part of a program of improved benefits for children and one of the results of a considerable amount of work by the Senate, the House of Commons subcommittee on poverty which I chair, our caucus committee on family issues, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Finance.
It is not a new idea to roll all child benefits into one benefit in order to rationalize and simplify child benefits. But the method by which this one has been accomplished is quite creative and will make the system more fair, particularly in the long run.
The subcommittee on poverty recommended the rollup of child benefits with the transfer from other personal tax credits. The subcommittee also recommended a guaranteed earned income supplement which would ensure that income received from employment would be greater than that received by social assistance recipients.
The department has been able to introduce a benefit which establishes structure which will achieve this objective for some families now, but also sets a framework to achieve this objective for more families in the future.
The majority of our subcommittee agreed that it was important to have a social assistance framework that helps people to work. That is the best way to escape poverty and that is the way most social assistance recipients also think. I think it is fundamental, and I am certain most Canadians agree to that.

Government Orders
I once participated in a survey of social assistance recipients with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and found that almost 100 per cent of social assistance recipients have the same values that all Canadians have. They too want to work and really appreciate help in achieving that objective.
I am very disappointed that there is not some more money in this program for welfare recipients who are unable to work. However, there are benefits for welfare recipients. They will receive their benefit monthly and will not be resorting to tax discounters.
It should also be noted that the child benefit is discretionary income and should not be used as a substitute for an adequate social assistance income.
Our committee also recommended that there be standards for basic social assistance and supplementary benefits that would ensure that the basic needs of children and adults are met. Only Ontario and Prince Edward Island currently have systems that provide such standards. However, under the current structure of social assistance in Canada, this is provincially initiated.
I understand that the minister is having discussions with his provincial counterparts. It seems to me that issue has to be pursued. I think that if in fact we cannot get provincial agreement that we should seriously look at some kind of guaranteed annual income across the country similar to the system in place for senior citizens that would ensure that there is a national standard for social assistance. I think it is a shame to this country that in fact we do not have that now and that in some provinces the gap between basic needs level assistance and what they are getting is enormous. It is quite unacceptable.
This particular benefit should cover discretionary needs. The earned income supplement should recognize the additional costs of working and compensate for the fact that earned income does not consider the number of children in the family, unlike welfare income. There needs to be that kind of support in order to, at least in the long term, ensure that the people are better off financially working.
I am, therefore, pleased to support this bill as major progress on two of the recommendations of the subcommittee on poverty. I have already mentioned the social
assistance standards. I think that is the key in order that children in Canada have an adequate opportunity to develop and participate in the many benefits of this society. Improved minimum wages, education, retraining programs, job opportunities and programs specifically targeted at high-risk children as well as more subsidized day care are other things that must be pursued in order to improve the situation of poorer children.
The opposition has raised a number of arguments against this particular benefit, some of which other members have already answered. I would just like to make a comment on the arguments about universality. I would rather have universal opportunity for children in Canada. My riding, which is a fairly high income one and will have a substantial number of families that will lose benefits, I believe supports this benefit. I have circulated a lot of information on it. We have had a lot inquiries and I have only had positive response.
I think the vast majority of Canadians who are well off want to see a dramatic improvement in the lot of the poorest children.
In addition, the opposition has slammed many of the recommendations of the subcommittee on poverty. I noticed the NDP opposition critic on television Sunday night after Venture again slamming us on these particular issues. I find that rather extraordinary because the response to the subcommittee's report from the social community, the social issues community, the many agencies that have appeared, has been overwhelmingly positive. I have had letters from various agencies that appeared before the committee. They support the recommendations.
I often think surely if these agencies supported these recommendations, and if in fact the opposition really cared about children, they could have been far more supportive on that particular report. What in fact has the opposition offered? First of all, it wants all transfer payments to the provinces restored as if it were feasible to continue on the spiralling expenditure increases that have been occurring, principally in Ontario. That is nonsense. We have to live within our budget and spend our money better on those who need our help and in such a way that we do not encourage long-term dependency.
June 9, 1992

Recommendations of the opposition include a national school lunch program in schools throughout Canada, a huge expensive program that gives to everyone whether they need it or not. I will tell you in my community we do not want it. It has been discussed thoroughly at metro council and so on. Local communities do have programs and I think that is fine. I think where the community wants to put in a program in a particular school, that is great, but a massive nationally run program I do not agree with at all.
I know for example in the schools in North York we have a great number of people from different ethnic communities who do not eat the same and do not want their children to be provided with food at the school. However, we strongly encourage things like nutrition programs where the children learn about proper nutrition. That is basically what the poverty report encouraged.
I think helping people who need help rather than helping everyone is the much more effective and much more sensible way to proceed, rather than creating dependency.
On the issue of the food banks, if you speak privately to some of the NDP members of the provincial government in Ontario, they are not too crazy about food banks at all. They create further dependency and that does not help people in the long run. The whole prospect of people lining up for food is in fact something that is very shameful in our society. Eliminating food banks is the way to proceed.
Winter works programs, public sector youth employment programs, universal broadly targeted programs that dramatically increase taxes result in little improvement for the neediest members of our society. Having been in municipal politics previously, I am very much aware of these winter works programs and who goes out to get those particular jobs. They tend to be men. If we look at poverty, it is predominantly women who are affected. They are also short-term jobs. They tend to increase municipal costs because of the supervision and they are
Government Orders
not long term. They stop people from working because in fact they are not available to go out and get real jobs.
Then there are the pie in the sky policies, like the critic for the NDP who spouts his full employment policy and who cannot tell us how he would accomplish this. Every government has a full employment policy. Unfortunately, the NDP one in Ontario is not working any better than ours at the moment.
One thing is for certain, our government will not follow the model of the Liberal Party, which in 1981 to 1982 tried to spend us out of a recession, which resulted in the enormous deficit and debt treadmill that we are currently battling with some success. There are no magic answers and very few people are fooled by such propaganda.
Long-term, sensible economic policies, controlling debt, spending within our means and targeting our social spending to really help those in need is the way to proceed.
This child benefit and the child development initiative which will allow many of the community-based prevention programs targeted at high-risk children between the ages of zero and seven will make major progress on this most important issue of child poverty.
As a member of Parliament, I will continue to pursue other measures such as improved access to day care, particularly for high-risk children, standards for social assistance, improvements in the minimum wage and indeed, improvements in this program over the long run. We have to recognize there are no magic solutions to these problems. There is a need for hard work to endeavour to try and solve, to work at some of these areas, to make progress.
I have been associated with these issues in Toronto since 1972. I do see a lot of progress in Toronto and I hope to see a lot more progress at the national level.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Don Valley North. I agreed with a lot of what she said in her speech and I support the attempt to try and simplify the system.
I am having great difficulty with this $500 a year added credit for those people who are in the work force. I will tell the member for Mississauga South why I am having this difficulty.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
I have in my riding 25 per cent who are single parents and most of those people are women. A lot of them are working and a lot of them are not. Last week I had a number of them say to me that $500 or $10 a week is not really that great an incentive to move them off the welfare rolls and into the work force.
The problem is there is no incentive to stay in the work force because $10 a week does not really cover their drug problem if they have a child or two. In other words, when you are on welfare all of those costs are covered.
My question to the member is whether she really believes that $500 is a sufficient enough credit. Does she not think maybe we should do something that is a little bit more dramatic in terms of providing incentive to move people from the welfare rolls into the work force where they can not only regain their dignity and become retrained? Under the current system they are almost entrapped in poverty and I am not sure this is enough.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, first of all this is not a panacea. This is a start. It is $500 worth of help for the working poor. It is not intended to cancel out any of the existing programs, such as the Step program in Ontario that does provide supplementary benefits until the income of the family is above a certain level associated with the poverty line. Those programs will still be in place but this provides additional help. The combination of this program plus the Step program is very positive. We have improved things a bit.
In the long run I would like to see a more careful analysis of this because I think it will lower the number of people in poverty. If you look at the statistics, they are income related and it will take a few more people off the poverty rolls who are working.


Dennis Joseph Mills: How does it?


Barbara Greene: It does because if you look at the poverty line in the poverty report, it explains how it works. It is basically the amount of money required depending upon the area, whether it is a large city or a small city, to cover basic needs, plus about an additional 40 per cent to cover discretionary needs.
This $500 per family will remove some people. I am not sure how many. You would have to get Statistics Canada to actually work it out, but it will drop a number. They will be people who are working that are poor and
under that line. It seems to me that it is an achievable objective to at least get people who are working full time in this country above the poverty line. The amount of dollars necessary varies by province. It varies by the minimum wage in a particular province. In Ontario they are at the poverty line for an individual right now. They are not at the poverty line for an individual with children. The single parent, of course, is confronting the issue that there is only one income. If you had two incomes you would probably, at the minimum wage, be at the poverty line for a family with one child.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to comment on one of the points the hon. member raised in her remarks having to do with school lunches. I gather that she is not that close to some of the school lunch programs because she certainly characterized them very differently from my experience.
In Vancouver East, a multicultural community with a very, very high percentage of poor children, our schools in co-operation with the community have developed excellent school lunch programs. We work very hard to try and get federal interest in them which, unfortunately, has not happened. We do now have some provincial subsidies.
The results of this are quite astounding. I would ask her when she is in Vancouver to come and visit these programs. In a relatively inexpensive program there have been remarkable changes in the way that children can remain in school. Their interest span has increased and their achievement in school programs has also improved. Many of them, of course, were kids who came to school with no breakfast and perhaps went home at night to maybe just a bit of junk food if they were lucky, and were simply not getting the kind of nutrition they needed. By supplying a simple and not terribly expensive but very nutritious hot meal at noon, these children have shown remarkable improvement in health and in their school participation.
The point I want to raise is that the member gave the impression that these were very expensive programs. The families who can pay the full amount. Those who cannot, pay when they can or do not pay at all. It is all done in a way so there is no stigma attached because nobody knows what any other child is paying. It is an excellent program.
June 9, 1992

When you add to that the kind of ethnic outreach that is done from the school, the kind of public health programs that are added to it and the head start programs that should be there at the pre-school level, it is a tremendous investment in anti-poverty measures as well as measures that are healthy for all children. It does not cost very much per child.
I would like to commend all the teachers and people who work on these programs, the many volunteers and many parents in Vancouver East.
My question, however, is related to child care. I know the member has done a lot of research on the needs of children and she cares about this very much. But I wonder if she shares my concern, having been on the child care task force which documented over and over again in communities across Canada and with extensive research the need for child care across this country, the urgent need. This was a number of years ago and it has increased since that time, I am sure she would agree. The Prime Minister twice promised Canadians there would be a national child care program in 1984 and 1989. Now the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Finance say we will not have this program. Therefore, it is a complete denial, both of need and of the Prime Minister's promises.
I would ask her to honestly say that in caring for Canada's children, does she not feel this is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order please. Your time has expired. You have one minute left on the question.


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, first of all on the question of the school lunch program, while I think a community based program with people participating is terrific and I think if it is something that community decides to do it is great, I do not think it should be done at the national level. There are many, many families that want to send their children to schools with lunches they have prepared.
On the question of day care, I am very disappointed in the decision of government, which quite surprised me. I think the program as recommended in this report, which was endorsed by the national day care lobby group, is one that is affordable. In the long run, it will develop the kind of system that we need.
Government Orders
I still intend to pursue the matter, particularly the refundable child care tax credit because that is a benefit which could go directly to families to enable them to access some of the licensed day care. Only 8 per cent of children in Canada have access to licensed day care.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-80, whose purpose is to merge family allowance, the child credit and the refundable child tax credit into one monthly benefit, will also end the universality of family allowance.
According to the government, its motives are entirely honourable. And on the face of it, the proposed legislation seems quite acceptable. We are talking about simplifying income tax returns, maintaining more generous benefits for children under 7 and for large families, increasing the incomes of families with an income of less than $50,000 and increasing federal benefits by $2.1 billion over the next five years.

It does seem that the government is trying to do something decent, but when one looks closer, something is wrong. Under this great plan of the government lies quite another reality. Nearly one million Canadian families work very hard to make ends meet on incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 each year. If the amount seems reasonable, let us keep in mind that this revenue is much smaller, net, thus giving minimum leeway to face the everyday needs and demands of a growing family.
The government will offer these families a fantastic amount of $4 a month more under the proposed child tax benefit. Is that not great?

The Conservative government, the same government that keeps repeating that children are the future of this country, forgot to tell us that between 1986 and 1991, it withdrew more than $3.5 billion from child benefit programs. And today? It is still taking money out of the pockets of Canadians who have trouble making ends meet.
This is a government that ignores 2.5 million Canadians who are on welfare. This is a government that watches as plants close, stores go bankrupt and people are laid off. Then, like in the Christie commercial, says: "Whoops", hoping a miracle will happen to save the day.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
Let us face the facts. The government must take the bull by the horns and do something to save the human potential our children represent before it is too late.

Where is the so desperately needed national day care program? Once again, this government has found an answer: Place it on the back burner. The reason given this time: The government wants to help abused and hungry children.
I must admit I do not understand its way of functioning. For the past seven years, this government has cut back on every support for these same abandoned children, and it wants us to believe today that it is working toward making their future more secure and bright. What a joke.

The fact that in 1992 we are still talking about national day care proves the Conservative government cannot be trusted. It proves the government cares very little about the real needs of Canadians. And it proves above all the government certainly does not want to get involved in a program that will not reap political benefits in the short term. This government is afraid of investing in the long term. It does not understand that child tax benefits do not deal with the problem of poverty, drop-outs and illiteracy. How can we expect children to pay attention in class if they come to school with empty stomachs? How can we expect children to go to school without shoes? How can we expect young people to have a trade if we do not remove these barriers?
I would like to quote the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration who said on March 10 of this year: "Must I repeat for this House that we believe our children represent the future of our country and that through this budget we are helping families who need social and economic assistance, particularly one-parent families who need additional help. Too often we forget to mention that this budget contains benefits for families and children and that day care services will be maintained through other programs and other measures".
Is that not interesting? What the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration forgot to say was that the net child benefits for a family with an average income are
worth barely half of what they were worth seven years ago.

If the government thinks it can fool Canadians with a bill like C-80, it is mistaken. It may make a few people happy and give the impression it is being fair by taking money from higher income groups and giving some crumbs to the less fortunate in this country, but this is just a drop in the bucket.
The need for national day care, a program promised so long ago we have almost given up hope, is becoming increasingly critical. We must face the fact that for so many of our young people the future looks very grim indeed.
Not long ago, for many people it marked the beginning of their education. Our society felt it was essential to develop a healthy mind in a healthy body. Today, for many children a healthy body is something they cannot afford.
National day care is not a frill but a necessity. The money this government makes available to families in need is no guarantee that children will find space in a day care centre. In some cities there is a three-year waiting list.
Children need to be loved, nurtured and fed properly and to grow up in a healthy environment. Parents-often there is only one-know that today, those who have trouble making both ends meet need help. Promises for a better tomorrow are useless because it will be too late.

This government, by offering so little, is trying to clear its conscience. This way it can try to sell the notion that it has done all it could to help families in need by giving a few bucks more.
What people need is dignity. That comes through work not hand-outs. What children need is an introduction to society through security. That comes from day care centres, not because the home cannot provide it, but because the fact is that in 1992 most parents must work to make ends meet. What teenagers need is a future. That comes through an education adapted to the 21st century and an economy on the rise.
Those are the priorities this country should have. Those are the priorities that must be addressed soon. Time is against us, and if we do not act now, tomorrow will be very grim.
June 9, 1992



Although it may look good to give families a few dollars more, let us not forget what this government spends on public relations and advertising. I realize the two are necessary, but perhaps some spending restraint would be in order.
A truly responsible government that tries to deal with the fundamental problems and save our young people would be willing to tighten its belt, review its priorities and act accordingly.
I think it is high time for us to take a close look at the system of pension benefits available to members of Parliament and paid for by Canadians, because there is a double standard here. I agree everyone is entitled to a pension, but always payable upon reaching retirement age. This is really the icing on the cake. Other Canadians have to work long and hard to earn a minimum of pension benefits, and they have to wait until they reach a certain age to receive those benefits.
This is just one example of the government's lack of conviction in looking for other ways to get this country out of its financial mess, to create national day care centres, stress retraining and get the economy back on track. A responsible government is not afraid to cut certain non-essential benefits enjoyed by a chosen few.

I am convinced this country can be pulled together again and that we can get the economy up, but it is essential that our 292 food banks disappear. The government must start making that a priority today. It is unacceptable that in 1992 in Canada so many people must rely on food banks to survive.
This government keeps telling Canadians that it has great training programs. It keeps announcing how many jobs have been created. It keeps forgetting to say how many jobs have disappeared for good.

If the present government is at all serious about economic recovery, it should act. It should start at the
Government Orders
bottom with day care, to ensure that all children have a fair chance. It should invest in education so that all Canadians have the tools they need to make a living and can do without the financial crutches offered by the government. It should establish a short-term and effective action plan to wipe out poverty.
Is this not the same government which announced that by the year 2000, in less than 8 years, child poverty would be a thing of the past? Today, at this very moment, nearly one million children go to food banks. Is that normal? If the children have reached that stage, it means the parents have as well. What is being done in concrete terms to deal with the problem? How can these people believe things will get better? Is Bill C-80, which will give them a few dollars more, going to make a difference? I doubt it.
A country is not built on poverty and desperation but on faith in the future and hard work. Canadians are not afraid of hard work, but first they must find work. This country was built, and it is still growing, thanks to the labour and sacrifices of people who thought it was worth while to invest in Canada. Today, now that times are particularly hard for people at the bottom of the ladder, it is up to the government to do its share. It has received a lot from its citizens. Now it is up to the government to cut its profits and tighten its belt. It must act now to put back some of what it has received.

There are at least 2.5 million Canadians who depend on social welfare. This is not a choice but a necessity. The number of homeless who do not collect any other revenue than what they get from begging is growing day by day. Violence is on the rise. Drugs are the escape. Suicides occur daily among people of all ages. The picture is grim.
The government does not want to see it. The government does not want to address it. The media barely mentions it but it is a fact. Canada does have problems. Canada has a major problem if it has so many of its citizens in need.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
A bandage answer like Bill C-80 will not help solve anything. It might add a few dollars, but with inflation and taxes you cannot go very far on that.
In a country as rich as ours how can we accept the fact that so many children live in poverty? Where are the grassroot programs to give people the tools to make it? Of course there are some training programs, but how do you get there when you cannot find a babysitter or, even worse, you cannot afford one?
This government has to get its priorities in the right order or this country will simply not make it. People need a sense of value. They need to know that they are doing something worth while. They need to earn a living. No one wants a handout. It is when no one believes in you that you fall apart and cannot contribute to society. Too many have already fallen into this trap.
This government must get the country working again. It must make the citizens of Canada proud of themselves again.

The Conservative government must understand what is happening in this country. There are some very real problems and the government must act now. If it has not yet understood what Canada's priorities are, the people of this country will be glad to remind the government of those priorities in the next election.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The member in her remarks, Mr. Speaker, made a comment about the fact that the benefits to children in the Income Thx Act had been reduced by this government. I was wondering if she could spell out what the benefits were in 1984 and what they are today, bearing in mind that under this bill a family earning $25,000 will receive $211.66 a month tax free? That buys a lot of babysitters, a lot of lunches and other assistance as well.
I was wondering what tax-free allowances she could tell us about that were paid in 1984 because I do not believe there were any. But maybe she has some and she can tell us how much better the former Liberal government was with respect to children.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the member for Mississauga South has not had to require the services of a babysitter lately.
Is the member aware that it costs $800 a month for a babysitter in the metro Toronto area? Mississauga is part of that. Most of the families earning $25,000 could not afford $800 a month for a babysitter. Let us hit them on the head. Let us give them $4 and make them feel that this government is doing something. It is a farce and the hon. member knows it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Saint-Laurent-Cartierville for her remarks.
I want to continue to pursue this feature of the legislation that the government seems to be so proud of, this $500 credit that it talks about for people at the lower end of the spectrum. In the papers the government released, it is suggesting that this $500 will be an incentive for those people in the work force to stay in the work force. I am talking about people making $14,000 to $16,000 a year. The government thinks that this $500 credit is sufficient to maintain their interest.
There are many single parents in my community who are out of work right now because of the economy. If they were on welfare they might receive around $10,000 to $12,000. If they went into the work force and made $16,000 or $17,000 by the time the taxes were taken off they would probably receive the same amount as they would on welfare.
Yet the government thinks that this $500 tax credit is really sufficient to keep them motivated to stay in the work force. Five hundred dollars in a nice glossy brochure looks like something. We do not emphasize the fact that it is not going to kick in until 1993. We are talking about legislation today but it is not going to kick in until 1993.
That is $10 per week or to be more specific, about $1.50 per day. What happens if all of a sudden there is a medical bill and a person needs prescription drugs? I just cannot understand why the government thinks that this $500 credit is a meaningful sum of money to those who are at the lower end of the income spectrum. I was wondering if the member could take a little time to elaborate on that particular issue.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Broadview-Greenwood.
I was present when the civil servants presented this child benefits program to us. I looked around the table and tried to figure out roughly how much money these
June 9, 1992

fellows were making. I thought that they might have salaries of $80,000 per year. They were saying that they had income tax problems as well, while discussing the pros and cons of this bill with us. I wonder how many of them had got to the point at which $1.50 a day became important in their lives. It was as though by giving this $500 they were doing a wonderful thing for the single parents of Canada.
I agree with the member. When a child is sick one week's medicine is not covered by the $10 parents are getting for a week. Actually it is not $10 per week but about $9.50.
There is no incentive for them to get back in the work force. The $500 is not going to mean a thing. Most of them are better off on welfare. Five hundred dollars is not enough to pull them off the welfare rolls or to keep them off the welfare rolls. It is all very well to say that a lot of women are making $14,000 to $16,000 a year but the jobs they are in are jobs that will very soon be affected by a new free trade deal. It is going to hurt them even worse and then the government will just sit back and say: "Well, we gave you $500". I hope that answers your question.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak in support of this landmark legislation to strengthen Canada's income assistance measures for children and families. Bill C-80 recognizes our commitment to financially assist with children's needs through a child benefits system that is fundamentally fair, simple and generous.
It contains the most sweeping improvements in federal benefits for children since the child tax credit was created in the 1970s, and arguably is the most important change since the first family allowance was paid in 1945.
Bill C-80 has three major elements. It amends the Income Tkx Act to create the new child tax benefit, it introduces the Children's Special Allowances Act and it repeals the Family Allowances Act.
This initiative is part of the federal government's over-all strategy called "Brighter Futures", a preventive and multi-faceted program directed primarily at intervention in the early stages of the lives of children who
Government Orders
are faced with greater than normal risks of poor health and nutrition, mental problems, mental health problems, disability or injury, abuse and neglect.
"Brighter Futures" is composed of four main program areas: prevention, promotion, protection and partnerships. Through this strategy the federal government will spend another $500 million over five years in the fight to protect Canada's children from poverty, neglect, abuse, ill health and unsafe living conditions.
The bill before us today is a very important component of this call to action on behalf of Canada's children.
To discuss and examine the new child tax benefit it is necessary to understand our present child benefits system. Currently, the federal government spends $4.5 billion each year on three major programs for children: family allowances; the refundable child tax credit; and the non-refundable dependent child credit.
Family allowances are delivered in monthly payments of $35 per child to all eligible Canadian families. They are taxable and must be declared by the spouse with the higher income. Payments are then partly or completely recovered if one parent has a net 1992 income above $53,215.
Under the family allowance program a special allowance is also payable on behalf of a child under 18 years who is institutionalized or in foster care.
The second component of our present child benefits system is the refundable child tax credit. This consists of an income tested benefit claimed through the tax system. The maximum payment of $601 per child is reduced for families with incomes above $26,000. Two-thirds of the credit may now be prepaid in November, depending upon the family income.
The third component of our present child benefits system is the non-refundable dependent child credit, also administered by Revenue Canada. This non-refundable credit is a reduction of taxes for the parent who is the higher income spouse. Its annual 1992 value is $71 for each of the first two children and $142 for each additional child. The dependent child credit applies only to families with sufficient income to pay income taxes.

Government Orders
One may ask as to what is wrong with the current child benefit system. Let me explain what I consider to be the key problems. The most important is that the system provides inadequate support for low income working families. These are the families who are most often faced with employment related expenses and the possible loss of provincial social assistance benefits by choosing to work.
The present child benefits system does nothing to reinforce their incentive to work. Families with children receiving social assistance and services may actually be getting thousands of dollars more than families with children who are surviving and yet working at low wage jobs.
It is true that the current system directs more benefits to low income families than to high income families but it still does not do enough to target child benefits where they are really needed the most.
There are two problems here. The first is that wealthy families continue to receive child benefits even though they have relatively little need for such benefits. If we are to provide increased assistance for children in low and modest income families then we can no longer afford to pay benefits for those in high income brackets.
The second problem is that family allowances are directed on the basis of individual income instead of family income. This is true both in their taxability as income and in the repayment required for higher income individuals. This means families with similar total incomes may receive different levels of child benefits. As a result, children with similar needs may be treated differently. Family income is a much more equitable basis for directing assistance to children, and the new program is aimed exactly in that direction.
The delay in delivery of the benefit under the current system is another key problem. For many families the refundable child tax credit represents more than half of their federal child benefit, but being an annual payment it often fails to meet their immediate needs when those cash requirements occur.
The full amount of the credit is paid only after tax returns are assessed. This delay in payment is difficult for families with modest incomes. They must pay for
their children's needs every month but they frequently have to wait more than one year to receive the full credit.
This was partially addressed in 1986 by introducing a prepayment of a portion of the credit in November each year. This advance payment provision was brought about to assist families in need, especially those who required the money so much that sometimes they even sacrificed their pending credits to tax discounters.
Even with this small improvement the system is still too slow to address the changing dynamics of family structure. For example, a child bom in January or February does not receive a child tax credit until more than one year later.
The current system is a patchwork system. Benefits are delivered in various ways. There are different eligibility requirements for each program.
For example, family allowances are based on individual income while the refundable child tax credit is based on family income. It is confusing to have a different income system for each benefit. As well, having to fill out all of the calculations on the child tax credit form, which is effectively a new application each year, adds complexity to the system.
Furthermore, the government continues to pay family allowances to all high income families although they are subject to repayment of those benefits through the tax system. Many are asking what the purpose of paying these benefits is if they are only taxed back.
This policy was designed to ensure that the benefits of the family allowances program would be better targeted to lower income groups and it did achieve that end. However, of course we continued to consider whether a better way could be found, one that would not require any repayment and one that would avoid the additional administrative costs generated by first making payments and by then recovering them.
I point out these weaknesses not to undermine the value of the programs that have existed up to now. They have done a valuable job in helping Canada's children over many decades, at a cost of billions of dollars that were largely spent. Now we must recognize the need for fundamental improvements to that system.
June 9, 1992

There is no question that the new child tax benefit put forth in this bill before us today is a significant advance over our current system. In light of today's complex society this bill proposes an enriched benefit which is streamlined, responsive and better targeted. It is one that incorporates suggestions from two recent parliamentary committees, one here and one in the other place, from many non-governmental social policy groups and many individual Canadians.
For the benefit of my colleagues I would like to repeat the key features of this child tax benefit. The proposed benefit will be a single monthly payment for children under 18. It will generally be made to the mother. This new benefit will be based on family income rather than on individual income. These single monthly payments will neither be taxed nor recovered at tax time so that what families receive they will get to keep in full.
There are two major components of the proposed child tax benefit. The first is a basic monthly benefit that replaces the present family allowance. It also replaces the dependant child tax credit and refundable child tax credit, and includes extra benefits for children under the age of seven and children in larger families.
The second is a new federal earned income supplement that will increase the basic benefit by up to $500 per year for low income working families with children. The actual benefit payable will depend on family earnings and income, as well as the number and ages of children in the family. Entitlement will be calculated automatically based on the previous year's income tax returns, eliminating the need to fill in a special form every year as is now required by the child tax credit.
It will be composed of a base amount of up to $1,020 per year for each child, with a $75 supplement for the third and subsequent children. The base amount is increased by a further $213 per year for each child under seven if child care expenses are not claimed at tax time. The basic child tax benefit amount will be paid in full to all families with incomes up to $25,921. The benefit will gradually reduce for those with incomes above that amount.
In addition, there will be an earned income supplement of up to $500 a year for working families. The earned income supplement will be phased in for families
Government Orders
earning above $3,750. This supplement will reach its full amount of $500 when family earnings are $10,000 or more and will only begin to reduce over an upper threshold of $20,921. For families making a total of $25,921, the upper threshold, or more the earned income supplement will be eliminated.
What does this mean to a Canadian family? A single mother with two children over the age of seven with a family income of $30,000 would receive $153.25 a month beginning in 1993. She would be better off, compared to present circumstances, by approximately $300 per year.
Another mother with three children over the age of seven with a total family income of $22,000 in 1991 will be eligible for a basic amount of $261.25 plus an earned income supplement of $32.68 per month. This means that she will receive beginning in January 1993, a total of $293.93 in benefits each month. She will be better off, compared to her current circumstances, by about $400 per year.
This new system is intrinsically more fair. It is based on family income and not individual income. It is targeted at those who most need it so that assistance is focused on low and middle income families. The child tax benefit will be gradually reduced for families with incomes above the designated thresholds. The entire benefit will be paid monthly, making it vastly easier for families to budget properly. It will also be much less likely that when there is a change in custody the benefit will be paid to the wrong parent.
It is not only the fundamental design of the new system that demonstrates the government's commitment to the social well-being of families with children. This new system will be more generous than the current one. Over the next five years the government has committed an additional $2.1 billion to assist families with children through this program. Over 2.4 million families will have increased child benefits. Over two-thirds of them will be families with incomes of less than $50,000. No family with an income below $50,000 will lose any benefits.
The new income supplement will provide special protection for some of the most vulnerable members of our society, families with low earnings. The new earned income supplement will help these families stay in the

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
work force and meet the needs of their children. This new supplement will also help families on social assistance to deal with the loss of those social assistance benefits as they move into the work force. It is one step toward, maybe not as generous as we would all like to see, dismantling the welfare trap.
Single parents have the greatest need for child assistance because they bear the combined responsibility of earning a living and caring for their children. In addition to the new child tax benefit single parents will retain the present equivalent to married credit for their first child. For many this is worth an average of $1,445 in reduced federal and provincial taxes each year.
Overall, this new child tax benefit will be much simpler and more efficient to administer. It consolidates three current programs into one. The child tax benefit will be jointly administered by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Revenue Canada taxation. National Health and Welfare will be responsible for receiving initial applications and providing general information about the program. Revenue Canada will determine entitlement based on family income to calculate the amount of the tax credit each month and will authorize the payments.
I would like to turn for a few minutes to another aspect of Bill C-80, the introduction of the Children's Special Allowances Act. Currently, the Family Allowances Act has a provision to assist with the care of children in foster homes and other institutions. It is most important to this government that we continue to provide for these children, many of whom are being cared for in this way, because they are children at risk. Any department, agency or institution that is entitled to apply for a special allowance under the existing Family Allowances Act will continue to receive that benefit under the new Children's Special Allowances Act.
However, we have gone further. From a point of view of equity the government feels that it is important that payments on behalf of these children in care are equivalent to those for all other children. Therefore, the monthly special allowance payment will increase from the current $52.03 to $85.00 per month. It is not a great increase in dollars but nonetheless it is an increase of 60 per cent in the support we are providing for these 30,000 children.
The bill before us today underscores this government's commitment to social and fiscal responsibility. The child tax benefit is the end result of an extensive review which stressed the need for considerable change. Consolidation of three programs into one represents a sound and socially responsible solution. The improvements will be greatly appreciated by most Canadians.
With this new child tax benefit families with low and middle incomes will gain. The earned income supplement will provide extra support for those with low wages and will reinforce incentives to participate in the work force. Virtually all single parent families will enjoy increased benefits.
The dedicated staff of both of these government departments charged with the implementation of the new program are already deeply involved in their work, switching some 3.7 million files into the new program structure. Of course their work can only progress to a certain point, pending the decisions of this Parliament.
I am sure that hon. members in their deliberations on this bill will bear in mind how important it is for Canadians to receive their first monthly payments on time in January 1993, especially since most of these monthly payments will be significantly larger than they would be under the current legislation.
In closing, I am pleased with the new directions we are taking to assist families with children in low income circumstances. In total there are approximately 6.6 million children in Canada and it is a staggering fact that over one million of them, 17.5 per cent, are presently at some form of risk because of poverty, ill health, poor living conditions, abuse or neglect.
With this bill we are taking an important step forward in maintaining and improving the well-being of many of those children. The child tax benefit is one measure among a wide range of initiatives being developed for the children of Canada.
The future of this world belongs to our children. Let us work together in this House to ensure that the future for Canadian children remains the brightest in all the world.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit concerned about the timing of this initiative. Perhaps the hon. member who has just spoken can assist me.
June 9, 1992

His government has been in office for some eight years. I am wondering if he can explain whether it is pure coincidence that this initiative is taking place now on the eve of a general election campaign. Can he indicate why it took this government eight years to realize that Canadian families and Canadian children were in desperate need of assistance from the national government?
Can he explain the coincidental timing of this particular initiative? Would he not agree that Canadians could be justified in concluding that this government is more motivated by its desperate desire to be re-elected than by a sincere concern for the children of Canada?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the obvious answer, which every Canadian knows, is that when this government took office in 1984 it was saddled with a quarter of a trillion dollars in debt that the former Liberal government had left behind.
It left deficits ranging close to $40 billion a year and a recession brought about by those circumstances. That made it absolutely impossible to find any flexibility for the kinds of initiatives that are being introduced at this time.
It has only been through the fiscal management of this government, through the reduction of government program spending from 13.5 per cent for 15 years of Liberal rule to 3.9 per cent over the last eight years, through the realization of a program surplus in our operating account that we are able to contemplate the kind of expenditures over the next five years that are set out in this bill.
If the hon. member had stopped to think about the real cause that has inhibited our government and our country in serving its citizens as they deserve he would be embarrassed to have asked that question.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke referred in his remarks to the needs of children. He particularly mentioned the high priority needs of single parents raising children on their own, most of them single mothers.
When he talked about those needs did he not mention the need for child care? Does he not realize that this is a burning need for most parents, that when both parents are forced to be in the work force they need reliable licensed child care? Even greater is the need of single mothers for child care.
Government Orders
The child benefits program that he is talking about gives a special incentive, a special bonus, which is really a two-tiered philosophy that is rather regressive. The good working poor will get an extra bonus if they go to work but those who are forced to stay on welfare will not.
In particular the single mother will have very little opportunity to get off welfare and seek employment, even in the minimum wage jobs that are probably the only ones available. A mother cannot go to work if she does not have reliable child care for her children. Why did he not take this into account and what does he feel about this?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the issue of child care is a complex one and certainly one of the great social questions that we face. This bill, in the structure of the child tax benefit, in the structure of the earned income supplement and in the structure of the tax credits available to single parents, does attempt to take cognizance of the fact that the single parent is charged with the responsibility of both caring for the child and of earning the family income.
It is always desirable that we should want to do more. However, in addressing the issue of the child through this child tax benefit and in increasing the benefits to low and middle income families, and particularly to single parent families, we are inherently addressing the subject of child care. We have maybe not done so to the extent that we all would wish but within the circumstances and resources available to us. I think it points in the direction that will serve Canadians, particularly those who have child care expenses to bear.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I was wondering if the member could explain the supplement on top of the very generous payment that will be paid to people with children under seven. It is my understanding that for a family earning $20,000 a year with one child under seven the payment would be $1,733 a year. That is quite a bit more than the basic. For two children it would be another $426 a year, or nearly $3,000 a year in total.
Would the member confirm that those arrangements are the way they are? This payment on a basic basis for a family with two children earning $20,000 a year is $211.66 a month tax free. If the children happen to be under

seven the total amount spread out over the year is increased by $213 per child for each child under seven.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the precise calculations that the hon. member has corrected. However, the notes that I do have indicate that this new special allowance will be paid monthly and the institution must use it for the benefit of the child. Also, the net benefit in dollar terms will increase from the current $624 per year to $1,020 per year.
There may be a provision that he is addressing that I have not properly understood or for which I do not have the information. I certainly will endeavour to seek him out following this debate and provide him with the information he has requested in full.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member would want the record to stand when he mentioned that this government inherited a debt of a quarter of a trillion dollars when it was actually $180 billion. I know that a 30 per cent exaggeration is not his custom.
My specific question concerns those people at the lower end of the spectrum. We are not dealing with the credits for those who are advantaged and who have a higher income. I would like to focus on this $500 credit.
I am hearing from many single mothers that the $10 a week credit on the lower income spectrum is really not going to change their lifestyle. It is not a great incentive when they have a choice between either a welfare cheque or a work cheque for approximately the same amount. In other words, $500 is not that great an incentive. I know that in the hon. member's province there is a special pilot project going which will perhaps give some added training to those single parents at the lower end of the spectrum.
Is the member satisfied with that $10 a week? Does he not think that for that sector we should have been a lot more generous to move them from the welfare side of the equation?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member previously in his questioning demean this $500 earned income supplement. What he fails to recognize is that this is a new and additional benefit for people who are working, for people who insist on maintaining the dignity
of employment rather than receiving and accepting welfare. This $500 is important. It represents 5 per cent of income for a person making only $10,000 a year.
No, it is never enough. If you boil it down to a dollar and some cents a day or $10 a week or whatever, it is not enough. It is not a significantly large amount of money, but it is more than has been paid up to the present time. It is more than his government has ever done. It is moving in the direction of doing away with the welfare trap, of giving some recognition, however small, to those who prefer to work rather than living on welfare.
I think it is important as a symbol, if nothing else, even though I admit it is modest.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I see we have only a few minutes but I would like to really-


An hon. member:: Call it one o'clock.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent for the Chair to call it one o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being 12.58 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the CJSS-CFLG radio station strike in Cornwall, Ontario has been in progress for nearly seven months. The strike has caused considerable hardship for the station and its employees, and it is in no one's interest for it to continue any longer.
June 9, 1992

In any strike, conciliation and compromise are required from both sides if a resolution is to be obtained. I call upon the Minister of Labour and officials in his department to use every means at their disposal in order to bring management and labour together to begin constructive negotiations aimed at obtaining an acceptable and equitable conclusion to this labour dispute.
It is clear that the employer and employees of radio station CJSS-CFLG need outside assistance if they are to end this debilitating strike.
It is my hope that Labour Canada can bring the two parties together and help them reach a mutual acceptable agreement that will put an end to this damaging strike which has gone on far too long.


TRIBUTE TO FEDORA AND FLORENT FORTIN
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to my constituents Fedora and Florent Fortin and their 13 children, who were just honoured at the 93rd provincial convention of the Knights of Columbus as family of the year in Quebec.
The reputation of Florent Fortin and his wife Fedora goes far beyond their native village of Launay. In Taschereau, Amos or Val d'Or, from Temiscamingue to the northern tip of Abitibi, many remember spending a happy evening at the home of Florent and Fedora, this couple whose hospitality is legendary.
In my region of Abitibi, no association, initiative, community undertaking or celebration has not benefited from the enthusiastic contribution of the Fortin family.
Mr. Speaker, congratulations to Fedora and Florent Fortin for their dedication to community service and their exemplary success in family life.


HOUSING
Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the federal cabinet is to spend $4.3 billion on helicopters
to combat a Soviet threat that no longer exists. The government also plans to spend $100 million for a referendum whose answer will not be binding. The same government is spending millions on a PR campaign that says Canadians can do it.
One thing the government has not been able to do is to deal with the disgraceful shortfall in housing aboriginal people.
A 20,000 unit backlog is responsible for social problems which take an enormous toll on aboriginal families who often live 20 at a time in houses without indoor plumbing or clean water.
For example, $1 million was recently spent in Arviat on Hudson Bay to treat the health effects of an epidemic related to poor sanitation. One million dollars spent on housing in that community could have eliminated that problem.
Canadians are asking: "If Canada can do it, why can this government not get its priorities straight?"


SAFE BOATING WEEK
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, this is Safe Boating Week in Canada.
This campaign by the Coast Guard and the Safe Boating Council is an attempt to emphasize the importance of boating education, the prevention of drinking and boating, and over-all safety on the water. I commend this effort.
However more needs to be done. Boats on the market today travel at ever increasing speeds. All one has to do is head down to the local waterfront and witness the tremendous danger that can be involved in pleasure boating.
Over 50 per cent of search and rescue efforts by the Coast Guard are in response to pleasure craft accidents. Yet, unlike automobiles, a person does not have to be licensed in any way to operate one of these craft. Anyone from the age of one to 100 is permitted to drive a pleasure boat regardless of experience or ability.
I call on the Coast Guard during Safe Boating Week to establish new regulations governing pleasure boating that include mandatory licensing for all operators.

June 9, 1992


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women has called for a complete restructuring of the blue ribbon panel on violence against women. This is neither practicable nor possible at this late date.
It may well be that the membership of the panel was not as representative of the diversity of Canadian women as it should have been. However the members of the panel themselves are tried and true workers in the battle against violence. To blame them for the shortfalls in the terms of reference goes against principles of fairness and seriously jeopardizes the good work that has been done.
NAC makes the mistake, as does the government, of thinking that the panel is the only vehicle in the fight against violence. We in the Liberal Party want to see its reports before we make a judgment. We also want to remind all of those engaged in the battle against violence that we must stand together and that we must continue to press for mandatory training of judges, appropriate police protocols and emergency courts for women in crisis. We do not serve ourselves or Canadian women in general by fractionalizing our own movement.
The panel has made some mistakes. Surely we are all human. I call on national women's groups and all women to stand together in this battle. Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water.


JOBSTART PROGRAM
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, among the many valuable job training initiatives which the Government of Canada has been taking in recent years, few would appear to be more uniquely successful than the Jobstart Program which has been conducted by a volunteer community organization in Oromocto, New Brunswick.
Over the past several years the continuing track record has been maintained of all young citizens who have completed Jobstart training. The results indicate that employment stability of more than 70 per cent has been maintained by Jobstart graduates during that time.
The special features of the Jobstart concept are those that teach the work ethic in a full-fledged employment
scenario. The participants are not called students but rather employees and they learn the disciplines of holding a job on a first-hand basis. In addition, of course, they receive general training in the fundamental skills and habits necessary to survive in the work force.
The innovative training program is also very cost effective for society because it has a high record of helping people break out of the welfare trap.
The Jobstart Program deserves a continuing place in the training structure of the Canada employment system.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, on June 4 of this year the right hon. Prime Minister received a letter from the premier of the province of British Columbia, the hon. Michael Har-court. I will quote three paragraphs from this letter. It starts by saying:
After much consideration, the Government of British Columbia has determined that Canadian interests would be best served by Canada withdrawing from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations and not signing a NAFTA.
It is clear from the actions of the Government of the United States over the past few weeks that it is not willing to live by the spirit of the commitments made in the Canada-U.S. Free Hade Agreement (FTA). These actions include the recent softwood lumber dispute and the Honda case, both of which are clearly politically motivated trade disputes that violate the commitment to fair trade between the two countries.
Therefore, I believe strongly that it is premature to consider entering another preferential trade agreement with the United States given the problems associated with the FTA.
I want to congratulate the premier of the province of British Columbia for taking this position. I want to say to the federal government that it should either pay attention to this letter or suffer the peril in the province of British Columbia.


CANADA POST
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post first tested supermailboxes in my riding of Fraser Valley East. Through a good communications campaign and a willingness to consult, supermailboxes were a success.

Now, to the surprise of many, in the municipality of Matsqui in my riding Canada Post seems to have forgotten its own secret to success. In a veiy high-handed way Canada Post has decided to locate supermailboxes in the middle of people's lawns. I am not kidding.
A simple notice to say it is coming was issued. No consultation took place; no recourse was available. The next thing we know, trees were ripped out, holes were dug, a water main broken, Canada Post's reputation was shot, and 300 people were signing a petition.
Things are moving fast here, but what we really need is some common sense and some understanding. Residents and Canada Post alike want to get rid of the old green boxes and want some improved service.
I encourage Canada Post to stop its high-handed and arbitrary actions in the McMillan Heights area of Matsqui and meet with the residents affected to reach an amiable agreement suitable to all parties involved.
I have now been assured by Canada Post that it will meet with the people affected.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, for quite some time the government has been telling Canadians they have to be well trained to compete globally. However it seems the Tories are unwilling to take their own advice.
Thousands of Canadians across the country are looking for training assistance. The government says it has poured millions of dollars into the UI fund to help provide training. Sadly for those many Canadians whose UI has run out they are ineligible for help.
For our young people in universities learning the skills of tomorrow, the Conservatives have cut funding for post-secondary education. The resulting higher tuition has forced many youth to give up on a university education.
The government should listen to its own advice and help Canadians get the job training they need to enter the 21st century.


S. O. 31 PENSIONS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a subject that is very dear to us in this Chamber, perhaps too dear. I am referring to the pensions that you and I will receive as members of Parliament. I believe there must be some changes to the pension rules.
First, no one should be eligible to receive a pension until they are at least 55 or 60 years of age. Second, no one should be permitted to draw an MPs pension and also receive a salary from a government job. Third, I believe MPs should be eligible after four years of service but should not start drawing the pension until they reach retirement age.
My constituents want to know where we stand on this issue. This is where I stand and have stood there since I was elected. I ask all members to consider what I have said very carefully.


ELLIOT LAKE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the Elliot Lake Retirement Living Caravan is stationed on Parliament Hill. It is located near the west members' entrance.
The caravan is a travelling information display which tells all about Elliot Lake retirement living, a non-profit housing program offering rent to seniors from just $285 per month. Since its inception in 1987 the program has attracted over 2,000 seniors to this beautiful city on the north shore of Lake Huron.
More than 1,100 housing units in Elliot Lake are now occupied by seniors in the retirement living program and there are some 400 more units available for rent this year.
Over 2,000 senior citizens from many parts of Canada have discovered the enjoyment and economic freedom of living in this friendly city of 13,000 with excellent community facilities and low housing costs.
The caravan is funded through a grant from the FEDNOR program. I invite all, including all MPs and senators, to visit the Elliot Lake Retirement Living Caravan today on Parliament Hill to learn what an excellent opportunity this is for affordable housing for our senior citizens.


VICTORIA CROSS
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton - Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that our government should Canadianize and restore the Victoria Cross medal as the highest accolade for an act of valour in the face of the enemy.
In 1972 when the previous government brought in the new Canadian orders of bravery the Victoria Cross was omitted. I believe it is time this policy was reversed. The Victoria Cross should be reinstated and awarded by the Governor General on the advice of the government of the day.
After listening to the many views of many veterans on this issue, I strongly believe the Victoria Cross should once again resume its position as a distinguished part of Canada's awards for gallantry.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to my leader, the Minister of National Health and Welfare implied that provincial New Democrat governments were no better than his when it comes to child care. This is unfair, insulting, and shows the minister's inadequate knowledge of child care in Canada.
In my home province of British Columbia the New Democrat government chose to add $17 million for child care support programs including additional funds for infant and toddler care.
In Saskatchewan, a province reeling from debt left by the previous Tory government, the New Democrats chose to create a child care advisory board and chose to allocate over $14 million for child care.
In Ontario the New Democrat government chose to create a child care task force and $75 million has been targeted over five years. Knowing it is essential for individuals seeking training to have access to child care, Jobs Ontario includes the creation of 20,000 new spaces.
The New Democrat government in Yukon also chose to bring in child care reform.
What have the Tories done? They chose to cap the Canada Assistance Plan for B.C., Ontario, and Alberta, and have limited the funds to child care.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, recently I asked my constituents for their advice and suggestions. I would like to share some of the responses with the House.
Dave Cannon of Caledon East has this advice: Keep interest rates below 10 per cent; keep inflation low; reduce taxes, especially the GST) fund public works projects; reduce unemployment; and increase funding for education and retraining.
O. Schewchun of Campbellville writes: The Canadian future I believe will improve when we elect people who truly represent the majority view of constituents and do not blindly follow and support their political party line. Politicians must remember they are elected to represent, not elected to lead.
Elaine Lawlor of Palgrave writes: We want to stay proud Canadians. We want the tops in education and medical research. We want to work for our future. We want our children to know how to work rather than to be handed too much. We want safety in our cities. We want our children to be able to play in the parks again. We want alcohol advertising prohibited and we want French in Quebec and English in the rest of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the voices of my constituents to be heard in Parliament.


ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, the government wants to keep the Canadian family as the basis of this country, but is demolishing everything that could help it get out of hard times. This Conservative government denies that many families are headed and financially supported by single women. One parent families are a reality in 1992.

Eliminating tax breaks for common law couples, killing a national day care program, introducing a targeted system of child benefits are not what is needed to help
June 9, 1992

those who care but struggle to keep their families as an entity.

This government is doing nothing to help create a future for the thousands of children who survive thanks to food banks. It believes only in the traditional type of family and forgets about the others.
If we want a strong nation, it is high time to stop living in the past and to face today's reality of the very large number of broken families that are asking for the help promised by this government. This situation must change.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Speaking to mayors from all over Canada on Sunday in Montreal, the Minister of Transport told them that the government could not participate in a program to rebuild the cities' infrastructure and create jobs immediately, because it did not have money. Today, we learn that the government is preparing to spend $4.3 billion to buy 50 helicopters for the Canadian forces. These helicopters will not even be made in Canada; they will be made in Europe.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister why the government is considering spending $4.3 billion to buy military equipment when the government does not have a single dollar to help unemployed Canadians.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is mistaken. The government must make decisions on Canada's national security and national defence on the basis of recommendations from the military authorities. We shall see if it is necessary to buy this particular equipment. If so, the Minister of National Defence will report to the House of Commons in due course.
As for the statement made by the Minister of Transport in Montreal, he stated the obvious fact that we do
Oral Questions
not have $14 or $15 billion to spend on municipal infrastructure. As the hon. member for Halifax said yesterday, you in the Liberal Party do not have the money to finance a national child care program. That is realistic. Our position is rather like that. We cannot spend money we do not have. But in his budget, the Minister of Finance spoke of government involvement in road infrastructure, and we are looking into it with the provinces. I have the impression that within a few days or weeks, there will be an important statement about it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister does not want to create a bad impression.

But it is not a program of $15 billion by the federal government. It is a program of $1 billion per year for five years. The provincial government will pay one-third, the municipalities will pay one-third and there will be jobs created right away.
Coming back to this question of buying 50 helicopters for $4.3 billion at this time, this program has been under discussion for 10 years. The government should know that the world has changed a lot in the last 10 years. I would like to know if the Prime Minister would reconsider this decision and make sure that other priorities come first, like the creation of jobs and having money for programs and the training of the unemployed so they will be ready when prosperity returns to Canada.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Leader of the Opposition that the only decision which has been made in this regard was made by his government about fifteen years ago, and that was to replace our frigates.
Now, those frigates will require helicopters, since those in use at present are nearly 30 years old and need to be replaced. The government has the matter under advisement. A decision will be made and the House will be apprised of it in due course, as the Prime Minister has said.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.

Oral Questions
As I said earlier, that decision may indeed have been under consideration for 10 years, but it is the normal result of a situation which, at the time, made new frigates necessary. But the world has changed completely during that time.
That is why I would like the Minister of National Defence to tell me whether those billions of dollars might not be better spent meeting urgent societal needs now that the cold war is over.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, if I am to take the Leader of the Opposition literally, we should cancel the frigate building program now, including those under construction in New Brunswick and Quebec. I do not think that the government, in its wisdom, will make such a decision.
Second, as far as on-board helicopters are concerned, we are aware, just like the Leader of the Opposition, that the world has changed. That matter will be among those raised by my cabinet colleagues, as the minister does himself in his department, and in due course a decision will be made and the population will be informed.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there is a big difference between the frigate program approved by the Liberals and this program. The frigates are made in Canada and these helicopters will not be.
I understand that in fact the jobs created by the Sea King replacement program will be 3,000. I understand that the same amount of money spent on public transportation would create 40 times as many jobs and if spent on education, would probably create 75 times as many jobs.
Can the minister stand on his feet and tell this House and the Canadian public that, given the state of the world, the Canadian economy, the state of our infrastructure, education and public transportation, that the government's priority is right at this time?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member that it was decided 125 years ago that one of the reasons
there should be a Canadian confederation was to defend our territory together.
That in my view is one of our basic responsibilities under confederation. The government equips our Armed Forces in accordance with recommendations made by professionals in that field, and this is what the government is going to do.
The honourable member may rest assured that the government will not make any decisions without consulting the experts nor without having asked all the essential questions, including details regarding this important project.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the minister had to say. It did not really address the question that I asked though. If I could ask a supplementary. This works out to $1.4 million a job. That is a pretty expensive job creation program, if you look at it that way.
I want to remind the House and this government that there is a likelihood of tens of thousands of Atlantic Canadians being out of work if the northern cod catch program is going to be shut down, as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans suggested it might have to be.
The government is looking at $45 million for those who may be unemployed because of this, $45 million for over 30,000 Canadians. That is going to be very hard to explain in Atlantic Canada. Can the minister tell this House that the government can truly afford the Sea King replacement program and at the same time afford adequate compensation for those Canadians who will be unemployed in the not too distant future in the fishing industry?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the honourable member that Canada allocates 1.8 or 1.9 per cent of its gross domestic product to defence, whereas other western countries earmark 4 per cent for this purpose, or even 6 per cent in the case of the United States. To what extent can we avoid providing for the defence of our territory and still remain an independent country?
June 9, 1992

Oral Questions


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the submarines, the threats these helicopters are designed to meet according to all reports is a threat that has collapsed, in case the government has not noticed. It has collapsed along with the Berlin wall. It has collapsed along with the Soviet Union. It has collapsed along with the Warsaw Pact. In fact, the government is inviting Boris Yeltsin to lunch over at the Museum of Civilization next week.
Will not the government concede that the Hunt for Red October was last year's movie?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with the enumeration of various threats that had disappeared by the NDP. They ticked off a threat that had gone here and a threat that had gone there and a threat that had gone somewhere else. It was very impressive. Yet, when a real threat emerged in Iraq, the NDP did not see it.
When it came time to take a position on a real and genuine threat that existed, the NDP did not see that threat. As the minister of defence is pointing out, Canada cannot afford the kind of imprudence suggested by the NDP. We must be ready to meet legitimate threats when they occur, threats that affect the national interest of Canada or alternatively threats that affect our obligations as members of the United Nations.
When the United Nations called and asked for democracies to respond to the challenge, the NDP said no. The Liberals said: "At the first sign of gun-fire, we are calling the troops home". Well, that is not what Canada wants.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is an expert, not only on Red October but red herrings, because on the whole issue of Iraq, of course, he has missed the point.
The issue here is, first of all, the Prime Minister is saying this is a necessary purchase and then minutes later the Minister of National Defence is saying they are going to consult experts and make a decision. I think it is important for the government to be absolutely frank with the Canadian people here. Has a decision been made to proceed with this atrocious and ludicrous expenditure of public funds or has it not?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet arrived at a decision in this regard. The Minister of National Defence has not reported to his colleagues, nor has he submitted any proposal concerning the acquisition of helicopters. A proposal will be made by the minister in due time and cabinet will take it under advisement and make a decision. This is not the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister has said. The government has a national defence policy and we implement it.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that before the government makes a decision it can agree that there should be a full public discussion with the experts involved coming before a committee of this House. It finally boils down to a question of priorities.

How can the minister explain to hungiy children in Montreal why he has decided to spend $91 million for a single helicopter and $4 billion dollars for the entire project?

How can he explain it to a battered woman seeking help in Victoria or families out of work all across Canada? Is it not the time for all parties in this House to come together to achieve a real peace dividend for Canadians as other countries are doing all around the world?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, if we consider the professionalism of our troops and their dedication, Canada's peace dividend for the past 20 years has been the highest of any country in the world.
The percentage of Gross National Product spent on national defence in this country was the lowest of any country in the world.
In any event, the peace dividend has been paid for the past 20 years, and you are already cashing in on the interest.

June 9, 1992
Oral Questions


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.
Twenty-six men have lost their lives at the bottom of the Westray coal mine. Taxpayers are going to lose millions of dollars and certain other persons will benefit handsomely as a result. Now the Government of Nova Scotia is about to flaunt the Westray coal mine.
Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House as to whether or not he is prepared to have a parliamentary inquiry into this particular matter and if not, why not?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of the letter from the House leader of the Liberal Party in respect of that. I am sure he is aware that the main issue of safety is the provincial responsibility of Nova Scotia and there is a judicial inquiry going on. I am sure he would not want us to prejudice that inquiry.
The member recognizes, as he acknowledged in his letter, that the government has been forthcoming with all of the background documents necessary for people to examine what has occurred and reach their own conclusions. I am also sure he would recognize that having another separate so-called study would not really serve any useful purpose at this time.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister who responded.
The minister knows and I know that what I am suggesting will not interfere one iota with the judicial inquiry in the province of Nova Scotia. In fact it would buttress and facilitate that process.
Week after week we have heard from the minister of state for small business who sounds like a broken record: "Don't ask me. Ask the people of Nova Scotia." He is right. There are certain answers the provincial government can give, but there are also certain answers that ministers of the federal Crown ought to give.
I ask the Prime Minister again. Is the Prime Minister not prepared now to proceed with a parliamentary
inquiry to get to the bottom of a national disaster which has caused the loss of 26 lives in this country?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House was very concerned and hurt when news of this disaster occurred.
There was an accident. We do not know at this point in time whether there was laxity in terms of safety precautions or whether in fact the regulations were appropriate or inappropriate. These are the fundamental questions that are being examined by the judicial inquiry in Nova Scotia which will ascertain and undoubtedly produce recommendations that will reduce the possibility of that kind of thing happening again.
If the member has concern about establishing the facts behind how this accident occurred, I think he would agree that the judicial inquiry going on in Nova Scotia is the proper vehicle for making that determination. We ought to await that rather than try to interfere with it.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
One month ago today, 26 miners lost their lives in the Westray disaster. One month later, we still have not received a straight answer from this government as to how it could have financed this unsafe project. What this government has done instead is to throw up road-blocks in the path of the truth. Enough is enough.
Will the Prime Minister not now agree to our call for a special parliamentary inquiry to look into its role in this tragedy?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, we really do need some perspective on this. Over the last 30 years, most of it under federal Liberal governments, over a billion dollars have been poured into coal mining in Cape Breton. Tragedies have occurred there.
The hon. member is a member of Parliament from Cape Breton. He thinks that the only place where coal mining is dangerous is in fact outside of Cape Breton. The fact is that it is a dangerous occupation generally. The federal government has supported it in Cape Breton as well as elsewhere.
June 9, 1992

In answer to his question of yesterday, I hasten to tell him that last week we tabled 2,000 pages of evidence. The answer to every question he asked yesterday is in that evidence.
I ask him not to call for a parliamentary inquiry but to read what we have tabled.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, the Westray mine would not have opened and the lives of 26 miners would not have been lost if Clifford Frame and Curragh Resources had not received a generous deal from this government. That is the deal we want an inquiry to look into.
Canadian taxpayers now stand to lose up to $80 million as a consequence of that transaction. They want answers. Why is this government refusing to call this inquiry? What has this government got to hide?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member and his colleague from Cape Breton made these allegations about a so-called deal for Curragh Resources and perpetrated very serious misunderstandings first of all about the consulting contract.
It was true that Curragh Resources received a consulting contract of over $6.1 million. That was to be spent over a series of years and it was. It was used by a group of engineers, accountants and managers to plan the mine, to operate the mine and to put it in place.
The hon. member wanted to make this contribution look like it was just money in somebody's pocket. In fact, those were the funds used by the consulting firm to plan and operate the mine. Dozens of people were hired and worked under that contract so he is perpetrating a very serious misunderstanding when he says that it was anything other than an ordinary transaction.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is in regard to the priorities of his government.
Oral Questions
While attention is recently being focused on child sexual abuse in Martensville, Saskatchewan, the government's special advisor on child sexual abuse estimated that across the country some one-third of males and over one-half of females have been sexually abused at some time in their lives. He recommended new cost-sharing programs with the provinces to deal with this problem.
The government has ignored this advice and the plight of thousands of Canadian children. Instead, it has off-loaded billions of dollars in social programs and transfers to the provinces.
I ask the Prime Minister how much more evidence does his government need before it takes adequate and effective action to protect Canadian children from the horrors of sexual abuse?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the allegations regarding the sexual abuse of children in the Martensville, Saskatchewan area are absolutely reprehensible, unacceptable and devastating.
There is not one person sitting here in this House nor indeed anybody in Canada who is not absolutely taken aback and disgusted with the situation.
Children are a natural asset and one of our best resources. The interesting thing has to do with regulation and child care centres across the country are under the strict jurisdiction of the provincial governments.
We have worked toward solutions for the problems with sexual abuse. The Minister Responsible for the Status of Women with her new task force on violence against women takes in problems with senior citizens as well as children. The $136 million that we brought forth in January 1991 will go toward this area.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary deals with the need for a national child care strategy. Most experts have agreed that this is what is necessary to best protect children at risk.

Oral Questions
The Minister of National Defence when he was talking about defence policy and the purchase of helicopters said that he was listening to his advisors and experts when it came to the purchase of helicopters.
I wonder why this government does not listen to its advisors and experts when it comes to child care. The National Council on Welfare, the government's own advisory agency, said: "Child care is an essential service for the majority of Canadian families with children. No strategy to combat child poverty can succeed without an adequate and affordable child care system." Why does the government not listen to its experts on child care?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the regulatory responsibility for child care is a provincial jurisdiction. It is a provincial responsibility.
I must say that the government has acted over the last few months. It ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on December 11. Also there was the announcement by the Minister of Finance of the child benefit package on February 25, which we are taking through the House today. It will put $2.1 billion into the hands of families. It will put new money into the hands of families over the next five years. The Brighter Futures program is another $500 million.
We care about children and we are putting the money where it counts.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who is about to leave to attend the UN Conference on Environment and Development.
Yesterday in Rio the environment minister of Germany publicly committed his country to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which are responsible for the greenhouse effect, by 25 per cent to 30 per cent by the year 2005. Yet our own government's only stated commitment is to stabilize C02 emissions even though this country emits more carbon dioxide per capita than virtually any other country.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Will the government follow the initiative of Germany and commit to a significant reduction program of carbon dioxide emissions beyond the year 2000?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may have missed an editorial in The Financial Post this morning. The headline is "Canada is a Leader on Greenhouse Gas Issue". It indicates that Canada's commitment to sign the climate change convention at the Rio summit puts reduction in gas emissions firmly on the political agenda.
It is generally recognized that for the last number of years beginning with the Montreal protocol, Canada has played a pretty progressive role in this area. Minister Charest has indicated in Rio our intention to maintain quite an impressive record for Canada.
There are things that we can do more quickly than others. This is a very important point. We are going to try to make sure that we are in the forefront of resolving the problem.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister would know that the convention on climate change that Canada said it will sign is devoid of any timetable. It does not require the obligation of signing any firm measures. In other words, it is just generalized, vague statements with no strategy and no program attached. It is now up to individual nations to take the initiative.
I want to ask the Prime Minister again: Under his leadership, will the government initiate immediately consultations with industry, with NGOs, with other interested parties and with the provinces so that a concrete national strategy and timetable on carbon dioxide reductions can be put in place at the earliest opportunity?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we would like for the convention on climate change to be viewed in the way that the green plan is for the following reasons.
I quote Mr. Tolba, the executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program who said: "Canada's green plan is a model for the whole world to study. What I really like are the goals and targets that are costed over specific periods of time. I thought the green plan was a most courageous move".
June 9, 1992

We want the same kind of thinking to go into the convention on climate change. Indeed, the Government of Canada was prepared to sign a much stronger convention on climate change. In the course of negotiations among some 175 countries, some of the provisions were diluted.
We are in the process of putting in train a program immediately post-Rio that would have the effect of building on what we will have achieved, imperfect though it is, so that some of the ideas to which the United Nations director made reference can be incorporated into the convention on climate change to give it more teeth.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
While he was perusing the editorial in The Financial Post he may have noticed the front page headline which states that Dofasco in Hamilton is about to shed another 2,250 potential jobs, added to the 937 people who last year took voluntary retirement in an industry that was supposed to be a big winner under the trade agreement.
The Prime Minister is no doubt aware that in six days the Americans are about to declare war on the Canadian steel industry. Yet yesterday his Minister for International Trade said that the Canadian government does not plan to launch its own investigation into U.S. steel even if Canadians are named in the anti-dumping investigation.
Will the Prime Minister overrule the ridiculous statement made by his Minister for International Trade yesterday and will he at least be willing to put the muscle of the government behind the fight to save the Canadian steel industry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of answering the question simply because my hon. friend asked me if, as Prime Minister, I would overrule the minister. It is not needed.
Oral Questions
If my hon. friend will consult The Toronto Star article, she will see a faithful restatement of what the minister said in regard to this very important issue.
It is the intention of the Government of Canada, with the stakeholders and with the industry, to fight what we consider to be a pernicious side-swipe action against the interests of Canada and the Canadian steel industry. We hope to carry that fight on to victory as we have under the free trade agreement in a growing number of cases.
The free trade agreement is beginning to throw off an important number of victories for Canada. We believe that this will be another one.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, what are being thrown off are the victims of free trade who are on the scrap heap of the Canadian steel industry.
The Prime Minister met with the President of the United States weeks ago and he said that he had a direct line to Washington.
If the Prime Minister has a direct line to Washington, and if he raised the steel issue with the President of the United States, why is it that as of last week according to the chairman of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, not a single American steel firm had even been contacted by the U.S. government on this issue? Who is actually telling the truth on this one?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, there is not much I can add to the Prime Minister's very pertinent response but I would like to tell the hon. member that in this particular field, counteraction against U.S. steel companies has always been a decision for the industry to take. The Minister for International Trade has made it clear that he will support the industry and the decision it takes.
More important, when the hon. member speaks about knuckling under to the Americans, we have just been informed that we have won a chapter 18 binational panel unanimous decision just rendered an hour ago on the CAMI mortgage interest question.
This was a unanimous decision in our favour, proof once again we have equality with the United States when we have a dispute and we are winning in the free trade agreement.

June 9, 1992
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
As I mentioned earlier this afternoon and as the minister knows, there is a very successful training program conducted by a volunteer community organization in the town of Oromocto called the Jobstart Program.
It has been designed primarily in an employment scenario to teach the work ethic on a broad basis and to provide a basic level of general employment skills to young Canadians.
The Jobstart concept has been uniquely successful with the continuing employment record of more than 70 per cent since its inception. Although the Canada Employment Centre has continued to support Jobstart, unfortunately the nature of this unique program apparently does not meet the present criteria of a national program curriculum.
Does the minister and the department support the Jobstart concept of general skills training in an employment scenario and, if so, will he initiate measures to have the Jobstart criteria included as an eligible and continuing program in the general Canada employment training structure nationally?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member points to a very important aspect of the training requirements in Canada. That is why under the prosperity initiative we have included this topic for discussion by Canadians and by stakeholders in the whole economy.
As soon as these discussions are completed and we get the action plan of the steering group I hope that my department can make these programs intended for Canadian youth even more relevant.


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment has nearly doubled since 1989
among youth in this country. The rate of poverty among those living alone is over 55 per cent. Drug convictions have risen by 96 per cent since 1984. Since 1984 property crime among youth has gone up 158 per cent, violent crime committed by youth by 239 per cent.
My question for the Prime Minister is this. Is it not a pretty stupid policy to be even thinking about buying more helicopters to hunt Soviet submarines in view of the real crisis in the cities of this country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member, if he is not familiar with national defence policy, that there are plans to purchase submarines as well as helicopters, as part of our national policy. The government has various responsibilities and one of them is national defence. Another responsibility is social policy. Yet another is economic policy. The government is responsible for allocating taxpayers' money to these various priorities. I believe Canada's defence policy is a fair response to our allies and to Canadian taxpayers.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is simply this. In view of the serious crisis among young people in this country, is it not about time that this government gave up its $5 billion helicopter fetish in favour of the kids in this country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the program also contains a search and rescue component, since some of these helicopters will be used for that purpose. I suppose a few years from now, the same member will accuse the government of shirking its responsibility to Canadians if it fails to acquire the necessary equipment to provide for research and rescue operations in this country.
The government cannot afford to bow to the pressures of the media. It must have a sound policy, and it does.
June 9, 1992


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Many Albertans are deeply concerned with the application of the Young Offenders Act.
Is the minister, perhaps with the Solicitor General of Canada, prepared to undertake consultations with provincial governments on the application of this act? Briefly the objective would be to have provincial governments issue clear instructions to Crown prosecutors and judges to deal with these serious crimes in a firmer manner. Would the minister be prepared to consider that kind of initiative?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in recognizing that the implementation of the Young Offenders Act regime requires the co-operation of three levels of government. We have ongoing consultations with the provinces now with respect to further amendments to the Young Offenders Act.
As the hon. member will know, the Government of Canada prosecutes young offenders only in the territories. I have developed a prosecutor's desk book which I will be discussing with my federal prosecutors in a couple of weeks precisely to put into place the kind of guidelines that the hon. member would seek in applying the law in this area and others.
I will be pleased to review the nature of the consultations we are having with the provinces. The deputy ministers will be meeting in a couple of weeks to prepare for the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers this fall and I will ensure that that subject is dealt with at those federal-provincial meetings.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the steel issue raised in the United States, the minister has said that there is a dispute settlement mechanism in place which will ultimately resolve the issue.
Oral Questions
He knows that in the meantime Canadian steel producers will be seriously harmed by U.S. trade actions while the panel decision is awaited and the prospect is that Canadian producers will lose further market share during that time.
He knows also that under the existing agreement it pays U.S. steel producers to launch trade remedy actions even if it is likely they will lose under the dispute settlement mechanism.
Is the government taking the occasion of the negotiations of a North American free trade agreement to correct the anomalies in the free trade agreement with the United States? Is it taking the occasion of the NAFTA talks to renegotiate those anomalies in the free trade agreement?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do find it very disturbing. The hon. member admits he thinks this country could not win a dispute with the United States on the steel matter. I do not know why he is so defeatist.
Essentially what I was saying in response to the steel matter was that the Minister for International Trade will support our steel industry with regard to that dispute.
I did not say, and he has not said, that we are going to go into a chapter 18 or chapter 19 mechanism. However, he has not ruled out "initiating an anti-dumping or countervail claim".
What I was speaking about was another chapter 18 decision which was just tabled about an hour ago. It indicates that non-mortage interest is now to be included in the CAMI instance and it will have a very good influence on the upcoming Honda decision. All of this is positive proof that the free trade dispute settlement mechanism is working and the over-all agreement is working.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, that was not what I was asking. I was not asking about an automobile dispute resolution; I was asking about the steel issue. Let me try it once more.
Back in 1988 the Prime Minister said that his highest priority in the trade agreement was to end "the threat from U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our imports through the misuse of trade remedy law".

June 9, 1992
Point of Order
If anything exemplifies the misuse of trade remedy law it is the threatened U.S. action against steel exports. We are not talking about CAMI. We are not talking about Suzuki. We are talking about steel exports. Yet there is nothing in the existing free trade agreement which prevents this kind of protectionist harassment.
I take it from the minister's answer that that is the reason he does not foresee the government will go to the binational panel. What then is the government proposing to do in the case of the steel issue? It says it is not going to the binational. It has no policy on how to support the Canadian industry and does it not acknowledge there are serious-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, this is the strangest line of questioning. The hon. member stood up and said in a defeatist tone that we could never win a chapter 18 or chapter 19 dispute with the U.S. on steel. That is what he begins with, and then he asks us to do it anyway, or asks us not to do it anyway. What is the hon. member asking for anyway?


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In his budget last February the minister bragged that the communications budget was to be reduced by some $75 million this year. Canadians now find out that the TV ad budget alone for the first six months of this year will be $24 million.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance why is it there is no money for training, no money for youth, no money for Court Challenges, but all kinds of dough when it comes to rewarding Tory advertising companies?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely shocked to hear that the advertising budget for the first six months is only $24 million. That is one-third of what was spent in a full year
when the Liberals were in power. That is one of the lowest ones we have had in the last eight or ten years.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, too bad the minister was not listening. That was the cost of the TV ads alone, not the advertising budget. The TV ads were referred to as "an electronic monument" by a government official. It is a monument all right, a monument to Tory waste and patronage.
{Translation]
I wish the minister would tell us when the government will stop its futile exercise in patronage and propaganda and finally put its money where it is needed, by helping young unemployed Canadians and training the Canadian labour force, not by rewarding Conservatives.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are struck with a gale of wind on this side of the House from across the way. Advertising has been a part of government activities for a long time. I even remember when the government used to fly geese across the screen and put out millions and millions of dollars. Remember? That was the Liberal Party that was doing it then.
If you have any accusations, make them; other than that, it is good government.


POINT OF ORDER
Don Boudria: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Some two weeks ago the Minister of Supply and Services promised in this House-actually it was on May 11-to table documents in relation to another answer. On page 10516 of Hansard he promised to give details about government contracts. He said, and I quote:
I will put it together and have it tabled.
He gave that commitment to the House. I want to know if the documents have been tabled and, if so, when.
June 9, 1992


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member was prepared to do his homework he would have found out that that will be tabled on Monday.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that I did not bring this matter to the attention of the House sooner, but in our gallery today is Miss Chu Chen, celebrated human rights activist and member of the National Assembly of Taiwan.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that 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, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on 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.
This government's record in support of Canada's children and Canadian families is abominable. While extolling family values, the Conservatives have dramatically and repeatedly cut family benefits since they were first elected in 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It is agreed on both sides of the House that people who watch our debate should also be able to listen.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to be heard.
I would like to review the various steps that this government has taken in eroding family programs, particularly programs for children.
Government Orders
First of all, when first elected, you will recall, it killed the child tax exemption, an exemption which was an income tax deduction of $710 for those taxpayers who had children under the age of 18.
This change in the tax policy penalized middle-class families particularly. It was unfair to those families because those are the families who did not get the child tax credit. It also meant that taxpayers who did not have children were in effect paying the same amount of tax that those families paid who had very high child rearing costs. I ask, was this fair? I do not think it was.
The second step was that the government introduced the child tax credit. Of course, as it is wont to do, it said this was a way to transfer benefits to those most in need. We heard that theme again today. It is a theme we have to watch out for because if you look underneath that rationale, what it is saying is: "We are going to take money out of general funds and give just a little bit of token money back to the very poorest people so we can say we are do-gooders".
Only a part of the savings from the child tax exemption, which as I said really penalized middle-class families, went to the new child tax credit which was directed to poorer families, and it was not all that much money either.
During its first term the government also began its policy of partial deindexation. This has proven to be a very insidious, secret way of reducing the value of family benefits and also, I might say, of old age pensions. It applied this vote to the family allowance and the child tax credit. Over the years this means that the child tax credit will go down in value each year. By the year 2000 these credits will be quite insignificant in terms of that they can buy for a child or a family.
The third Conservative government anti-family policy was to destroy Canada's basic universal social program for families. Of course, I am referring to its action which in this bill will take away the universal family allowance program. First it did it by stealth and now in Bill C-80 it is having the final execution of family allowances, the final termination.
Canada's family allowance program has been a progressive social program that made us proud to be Canadians. It was recognized the world over as a very progressive kind of family program. It treated all children equally and it really recognized the importance of children to all Canadians, whether we had children or

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
not. It recognized that as a society we had a social responsibility to help care for the next generation.
My party I am proud to say pioneered this family allowance program. We felt very strongly that the family allowance originally should have been higher and would have been a very good way to compensate families who had children.
The family allowance went to all children. We know also that this is the only program where the cheque when it existed went to the mother. It was often the only cheque that many women received in their own name. In 1986, when the government tried to deindex and tax back the family allowance, we put up a big fight in this House. It was very, veiy difficult. I will be frank about that. Children, unfortunately, do not vote. Therefore, children do not count in the political scheme of things with this government.
When the old age pensioners came to Parliament Hill and objected to deindexing and were worried that there was a threat of universal programs being removed, in particular the old age pension, they fought very hard and won their point of view. It will be recalled that at that time the Prime Minister said, and he repeated it later, that universal programs are a sacred trust and his government would never affect universal programs. Unfortunately, as I said, children were the victims and he betrayed our families once again.
The government introduced the budget this year and Bill C-80 which we are debating today. It will terminate altogether Canada's wonderful family allowance program. It was not quite so wonderful this past few years because the government was taxing it back. We felt that also was an unfair measure because again families with children were being penalized, whereas those families without children were not treated in the same way.
Once again the government used the same rationale and would not admit it was doing this partly because of the deficit and partly because of its philosophy which is definitely against universality. It said once again: "Oh, never mind. We are just doing this so that we can put the money in for the poor, for those who need the most benefits".
I want to say that we certainly do not object to special child benefits that are targeted to low income families. They are always welcome and always needed. But I want to say that we object very strenuously to the termination of the universal family allowance program which was there for all of Canada's children and was a basic, solid social benefit as part of our social security system in Canada.
The new child tax benefit which is also proposed in this bill provides $1,020 per child for families earning under $25,921. It offers an extra incentive for parents who are working. This supposedly is to encourage people to go off welfare and seek work. It is rather a patronizing point, but it is also extremely impractical.
The government, for example, fails to say how these parents who have been unemployed, not through choice but because they could not find work or could not find work that would bring in enough money to feed their families, are going to find jobs. Also, how can these people even begin looking for work when no child care is available? This is the very government that has, over and over again, promised a national child care program and now refuses to do anything about it. It completely abrogates its responsibility.
Doing away with the family allowance means that all children of Canada, both now and in the future if we think to the years ahead, have lost a precious family allowance program, a universal program that the Prime Minister himself said was a sacred trust. So much for the word of our Prime Minister.
Conservatives also refuse to recognize that today the situation in most families, if it is a two-parent family, requires that both parents work. The number of singleparent families in Canada has greatly increased. This government refuses to acknowledge that there is a tragic lack of licensed day care homes or day care programs for young children. This means that many children are at risk. Many are in inadequate babysitting arrangements and many have no care at all. We know that latch-key children are still coming home from school to empty homes.
In both 1984 and 1988 the Prime Minister in his election campaigns promised faithfully-I can just see that solemn expression on his face-that he would bring in a national child care program for Canadian families.
June 9, 1992

He acknowledged to the women of Canada in particular that this was a priority need and a priority of his government. However, once elected of course each time the promise was broken and this was the lowest priority.
We now hear from the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the government will do nothing, it is not important, it is not needed and we are not going to ever have a child care program under this government. That is why of course we must change this government and change it to a party that has a long record of supporting universal, non-profit quality child care.


Mr. Milliken:: The Liberal Party.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Liberal Party unfortunately, my friend, does not propose that.
Most working families will have to continue to use unreliable babysitting arrangements. Let us look at those who have higher incomes and who are paying taxes. What happens to them? Of course they are the ones that government recognizes and will give special advantages to so that they can hire nannies. The wealthier families now have had the child care expense deduction doubled twice. It is now up to $4,000 to $5,000 that can be deducted from their taxes for any of their child care expenses for children under seven and between $2,000 and $3,000 for children a little bit older, under 14 years of age.
In contrast of course many single parent men and women have little choice when they have young children but to go on welfare because there simply are not the adequate reliable child care services available. If they are available, they are not affordable. The fees are far too high.
What does this government provide to parents that stay at home? We understand there is a new-maybe it is not so new-family caucus now that is reinventing the traditional old family values. They are fine and were fine in our parents' time but do not really recognize the real situation of families in this country today and the great diversity of family groupings as well.
The government did make a token gesture for a parent that stays home to care for children. This is extremely important work that should be highly valued. What do
Government Orders
they get? They get a token $213 a year for children under seven. I say it is a gross insult.
Millions were spent on two child care reports, first the K. D. Cooke report and then the all-party child care task force under the Minister of State for Transport. Both of these reports documented the very urgent need for adequate quality care for children.
We travelled this country many times and heard from so many groups the stories of what was happening to kids and the tremendous stress on families, particularly in the poorest provinces of Canada.
We recommended specific suggestions for a comprehensive national child care program. It was not as rich as I would have liked, but it was a lot better than what we have now. I see the former minister is in the House today. He took a long time to look at these suggestions and eventually he came up with some very modified proposals. Even those have been refused by this government.
Community groups across this country which are experts on child care have continued to advocate that we simply must get on with a program for Canada's children. This week the National Action Committee on the Status of Women made this one of its priorities.
I would like to go back to one of the main points of focus of Bill C-80 which is to establish the new child tax benefit. When it was proposed in the 1992 budget, it was said that this tax would be simpler, fairer and more generous. It is none of these. The child benefit is supposed to help low income families escape from poverty by providing a child benefit which will supplement the minimum wages if they should go off welfare and find a job that pays minimum wages.
How can this goal be achieved when there are no child care services available so a parent can start looking for work or perhaps get into training programs? We know the Canadian Jobs Strategy program has been cut by $100 million. How can this goal be achieved when parents on welfare really cannot find a job?
There are very few jobs around and most of those only pay minimum wages which gives the parents practically no advantage over their present situation. I do not have to say how much it costs to raise children today.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
The child benefit is based on what I would call an 18th century philosophy of welfare, which is of course the typical Tory philosophy on social welfare programs generally. It establishes two classes of the poor.
First of all, we have the working poor. They are the deserving poor. They are the poor who will get an extra $500 for their children if they go out to work. Then there are those who are on welfare. They are the second class poor. They are the poorest of the poor. There is no recognition at all of what their real needs are or why they may have no alternative but to be on welfare or why they are caught in the welfare trap which will go on from generation to generation because of inadequate social programs and few alternatives.
At the same time that this government is taking the family allowance away in this bill, we have to remember it is also taking away from low income families co-op housing programs which are desperately needed to have an affordable quality shelter for Canadians. It has terminated federal transfer payments to provinces for health care, for post-secondary education and for social services under the Canada Assistance Plan, which has been cut for three provinces. One million dollars was cut from the Canadian Jobs Strategy. All these moves will contribute to the poverty, the hardship and stress on children and youth in this country.
The Conservative philosophy of partially deindexing social programs, which incidentally has already reduced increases in old age pensions, also applies to these child benefits. It means the value of benefits will go down each succeeding year. Deindexing is a secretive Tory plot to gradually reduce the value of benefits. By the year 2000 many of these benefits will be practically out of existence or they will have very little value.
As New Democrats, we would have a very different approach. My time is almost up so I do not have time to outline this in detail. We believe that the first thing we must do to counteract poverty is to make every effort to create jobs. Full employment should be a major priority of government.
This means we must have government intervention. We must have government leadership. We cannot tie unemployment to the rate of inflation and interest rates and allow the unemployed to be the victims of a reverse
economic situation. It means that we must have not only jobs but we must have jobs with decent rates of pay and pay equity. Along with that must be quality, affordable child care, non-profit child care. This is the best antidote to poverty and to chronic welfare dependency.
We must maintain our universal social programs. We must reinstate family allowances so that children of all families will be recognized and so all of us who pay taxes will be contributing to the next generation. After all, these are the children who will be paying the old age pensions for their parents as they get older.
Children must have the care, love and opportunities to grow and develop in health. Children may not vote, I tell the Conservatives, but they must not be ignored. Canada must eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. This is not going to be done with platitudes and words. Jobs, decent family incomes and quality child care are the pillars to a better future for this and future generations of Canadian children.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some care to the hon. member for Vancouver East and in particular when she mentioned that her party was in favour of increasing family allowances. I wonder if by that she means they would increase them right across the board, for people earning above $70,000 a year as well as for those earning less. If so, I wonder how much she would increase them.
There is only so much money available in any pot and particularly the present pot. If she was not thinking of increasing them across the board, would she have increased them more for lower income people than for higher income people? If she did that, her party would have arranged a system of graduated benefits, not that much unlike what we have.
I was also a little confused by the comment that one of the reasons she deplores the family allowance having been eliminated and replaced with this very progressive system was that under the family allowance the money was paid to the mother. Does she not recognize that under this new system there is a much more significant transfer of money within families to usually the mother, the responsible adult under the family allowance system, because the new proposed payment will also be paid through the existing family allowance system.
June 9, 1992

Would she not celebrate that move because it is a very significant transfer of the refundable child tax credit to mothers usually from the father in the family?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for allowing me to elaborate on those two points. If he looks back at the "blues" he will see that when I mentioned it we had been-it was in the past tense-in favour, or would have liked to have seen family allowances raised. I was talking actually in past history terms.
It was Stanley Knowles who was one of the earliest activists and advocates for family allowances. Initially we saw this in those times and that is what I was referring to as being one way that you could share the burden, if you like, or the cost of raising Canada's children.
I do not happen to have children but I feel very strongly that I would like to contribute through the tax system to the raising of all-I cannot afford all-of Canada's children but certainly we should be contributing just as much as parents who are paying for their own children. That, I think, is a social responsibility. I was referring to that really in conceptual terms.
Over the last two platforms that we have had, we realized it was not possible at this time to raise family allowances. We have always said that any universal program is balanced out a bit through our tax system because those who pay more taxes, and the same goes for the old age pension, get the universal payment but they are taxed more for it.
I think the other point had to do with the cheques going to the mother. I know there were many women who spoke to this point a few years ago when we had hearings on child and family benefits. In a way I thought it was a bit sexist because there are many fathers who are also the main parenting person in families.
Perhaps we should not necessarily hold to that virtue. There is one thing I do agree with in the proposal for the present family benefit proposed under this bill and it is that it is monthly payments. I think that is a sound way because people have to pay the rent every month and they have to feed their kids. Waiting until the end of the year does not solve that problem.
Government Orders


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-80 which proposes to merge the family allowance program, the refundable child tax credit, and non-refundable dependant child credit into the new child tax benefit program and the children's special allowances program.
As members will recall, the proposed child tax benefit program was announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in his February 25 budget speech.
There is no doubt that benefit programs for children and their families touch all of us in one way or another. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare said when introducing Brighter Futures a call to action on behalf of Canada's children: "We can only build a brighter future for Canada by cherishing all our children".
I am very pleased that these two ministers and colleagues of mine have recently taken the type of actions they have, not only in developing this program but in developing other programs that support and benefit children.
These two ministers have been especially cognizant of the needs of families and they have listened very carefully to their colleagues in caucus. All of us appreciate very much the way they work with us to bring these changes about, particularly the ones we are talking about today.
In assessing the importance of this legislation I believe it would be useful to take a few minutes to look at what has gone before, to reflect on the evolution of federal child benefit programs, which began modestly after the First World War and took a considerable step forward with the family allowances program in the 1940s.
We will see a logical progression which brings us to the new child tax benefit program.
The concept of a family benefit related to children goes back as far as 1918 when an amendment to the Income War Tax Act introduced the child tax exemption of $200 for each child under the age of 16.
The importance of this step lies in the fact that it recognized in principle the income needs of families with children.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
In 1927 the child tax exemption was increased to $500 and extended to all children under 21. It was also at this time that the equivalent to married exemption was introduced.
These tax measures related to children continued to evolve in the twenties and thirties and were converted to tax credits in the early forties. At the same time the idea of family allowance began to surface. It was first raised in this House in February 1929 when a member made a motion to the effect that: "The question of granting family allowances should be studied".
The House of Commons select standing committee did consider the question of family allowances in 1929. Unfortunately the Depression of the 1930s, followed by World War II, postponed further consideration of such a scheme until the early 1940s when it was studied by the House of Commons reconstruction committee.
The work of the committee was guided by a policy which fell into three broad divisions: demobilisation and re-establishment, economic and employment aspects, and human well-being and health. The notion of a family allowance was seen to relate to all three of these areas. It would provide cash regularly to families who needed it most, creating a continuous demand for basic necessities which would encourage production and steady employment.
The federal government also began to think about a long-term social security plan for the country. This had been spurred on to some extent by the release in November 1942 of a report to the British Parliament by Sir William Beveridge titled Social Insurance and Allied Services. The Beveridge report proposed, among other things, a children's allowance to counter what its author saw as the failure of the wage system to take account of family size.
In December 1942 the Canadian ministers of pensions and health asked Dr. Leonard Marsh to develop a plan on social security. Dr. Marsh's Report on Social Security for Canada, popularly known as the Marsh report, was presented to this House in March 1943. Dr. Marsh believed that one of the major causes of poverty was the fact that wage earners with large families had insufficient earnings and that since wages took no account of family size the state had a legitimate role to play in adjusting disposable income to reflect family size.
We must remember that there were few social welfare programs in Canada in 1943. Assistance for needy families most often came from churches and private organizations. Although all provinces had introduced mother's allowances programs for women and children who were alone and in need these programs were so restrictive that they often excluded the very people that they were supposed to help.
Over all, the payment of a benefit on behalf of children was seen as an investment in the future of the country and particularly in the country's most valuable asset, its children.
The government announced its intention to introduce a family allowance in the Speech from the Throne in January 1944:
The family and the home are the foundation of national life. To aid in ensuring a minimum of well-being to the children of the nation and to help gain for them a closer approach to equality of opportunity in the battle of life, you will be asked to approve a measure making provision for family allowances.
Although the family allowance program was payable to all families with children regardless of income its main focus was to improve equity by assisting children in lower income families. This is clear in the statement made by the Prime Minister of the day in introducing the bill to Parliament. He said:
The adoption of family allowances means the recognition of the right of children of poor parents to what is already recognized as the right of children whose parents are in more fortunate circumstances -
Already this Parliament has recognized that, with respect to families, there is an obligation upon the state to assist in the upbringing of children. This has been done in the interests of the parents and the family itself, but more particularly in the interests of the children. But, up to the present time, that obligation has been recognized only with respect to the more fortunate in our country, those who already have an income large enough to be taxable to entitle them to exemptions according to the number of children in the family. In other words, where the need has been least it has already been recognized. The purpose of this bill is to recognize a similar obligation where the need is obviously greater than it is in the other cases.
It is interesting to note that although the debate was lengthy, and a look through the Hansards of the day indicates that it was also rather spirited, when the vote was finally taken there was not a single dissenting voice. Thus, in 1945 Canada had established a program by which the federal government could provide a supplement to family income. This was seen as a necessary and positive step forward in spreading the cost of raising children more equitably over the whole population.
June 9, 1992

Furthermore, this new benefit was intended to help equalize opportunity for all children insofar as the state was justified and obligated to do so.
The family allowance was established as a universal program. It was believed that providing the allowance to all children was the simplest and cheapest way of providing a supplementary family income. However, there was to be no duplication with the child tax credit. Therefore, higher income families who were eligible for the child tax credit would return some or all of the allowance at tax time.
At the same time, the family allowance provided a measure of equity to families whose incomes were below the tax paying level and therefore did not benefit from the tax exemption for children. In essence, we had a system of tax credits for dependants that gave equivalent benefits to all income classes, supplemented by family allowances which were income tested through the tax system.
However, the system that was required to adjust the family allowances to the income tax allowances for children proved to be unreasonably cumbersome for everyone-taxpayers, employers and tax administrators alike-in an era when computers were still the stuff of science fiction. Therefore, the tax on family allowances was repealed in 1947, tax credits were abandoned, and tax exemptions were reinstituted.
Over the years, further changes were made to the tax system with respect to families with children. In 1972 the child care expense deduction was introduced, recognizing the child care costs incurred by working parents. However, the Family Allowances Act was not changed significantly until 1973.
Interest in a new direction and emphasis for the income security system in the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted from a growing dissatisfaction with what was seen as a large and costly social security system co-existing with a disturbing incidence of poverty. A number of studies revealed a high degree of inequality in the distribution of income.
For example, the Senate committee's 1971 report, Poverty in Canada, emphasized the plight of the working poor who it said numbered close to two million in 1967. The report denounced the existing social security system for not providing more assistance to, and I quote, "that
Government Orders
vast army in the labour force whose income is grossly insufficient".
Thus, on second reading of the 1973 bill on family allowances, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare said:
The original family allowances program was introduced for the purpose of giving a maximum measure of income support to families to help ease the financial burden of bringing up children and to provide a measure of equal opportunity for children regardless of a family's economic situation. The objective of the new family allowance program is to provide a supplement to the income of Canadian families in such a way that those with the greatest need will receive the greatest benefit.
This approach provided the direction for subsequent child benefit measures adopted during the 1970s and 1980s and the greater focusing of efforts and benefits on low income families. I believe it is important to take note of the fact that while the new Family Allowances Act of 1973 maintained the broad concept of universality the selectivity of taxing the benefit was fully supported by this House.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare of the day acknowledged that the new program was designed to provide greater benefits to families with the lowest income. He said:
By taxing family allowances we will bring about a substantial degree of selectivity in the amount of the benefit because a large part of the allowance will remain in the hands of those who need it most -the lower income families who do not earn sufficient income to pay taxes or who earn just enough to be taxed at the lowest marginal tax rate. On the other hand, families in the higher income tax brackets will receive a benefit that progressively reduces as income rises.
Child benefits were again restructured in 1978 in response to the concern that there continued to be a disproportionate benefit to higher income families. For example, tax exemptions and deductions were of little or no value to low income families, many of whom had no taxable income.
To address this concern a new child tax benefit, the refundable child tax credit, was introduced and the level of family allowance benefits was reduced. The child tax credit program was designed primarily to provide assistance to low and modest income families. It provided a maximum benefit of $200 per child per year and the benefit was reduced for families with income above $18,000.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
During the 1980s a number of measures were taken to better target benefits to lower income families who needed them most. For example, the child tax credit was increased in 1982, 1987, 1989 and again in 1990, bringing it to a total of $559.
In November 1986 the government began prepaying two-thirds of the child tax credit to lower income families. In 1990 an additional $200 supplement was provided for children under seven years whose parents were not claiming the child care expense deduction. The limit on this deduction was raised by $4,000 for children six years and under and for children with special needs.
I think my hon. colleagues will agree that we can see a certain progression in the development of children's benefits in this country. When the family allowance program was introduced in 1945 it was done in recognition of the need to provide equality of opportunity to all Canadian children. It was introduced at a time when families were expected to deal personally with almost every contingency, no matter how serious.
If assistance was required in desperate circumstances it was expected that relatives, friends, neighbours, the community and the church would provide it. It was only after all these avenues had been explored and exhausted that a family received carefully rationed public charity, which incidentally was rarely in the form of cash.
The introduction in 1945 of family allowances, together with the unemployment insurance program, marked the beginning of the planning of a comprehensive social security system in Canada. With the creation of this new family benefit the state recognized and accepted its role and responsibility in sharing more equitably across the whole Canadian community the cost of raising our children.
We must continue today not only to share this responsibility but to ensure that those most in need receive the most assistance. This is the direction in which child benefit programs have been moving in Canada, and the proposed child tax benefit is a major step along this path.
The new child benefit addresses the changing circumstances of Canadian families in several ways. It simplifies the present patchwork of programs and benefits. Mr. Speaker, if you were following the long list of complicated plans we have in the present tax system you would agree that simplification should be a major goal of this government in every part of its endeavours.
The new benefit provides a supplement to the earnings of low income working families and it provides a greater responsiveness to individual family situations.
The key element of this program that makes it so different from all other programs we have had is that it is the first time in Canada that a social support program is delivered through the tax system according to income and is universally available to everyone. I admit that not everyone gets it every year, but it is available without application simply by filing an income tax form.
I would also like to add that a number of speakers on this bill have suggested that families with incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 will receive an increase of only $4 a month or $50 a year. These comments are misleading. Under the proposed child tax benefit families with incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 will receive an average increase of $250 a year in child benefits. This is five times more than the increase suggested by some members.
Under the child tax benefit a typical two-parent family with one child and a total income of $40,000 will receive an additional $300 a year in benefits. A single parent in the same situation will receive an additional $400 a year.
The child tax benefit will increase assistance to children by $2.1 billion over the next five years and about 80 per cent of this increase will go to families with incomes below $40,000. The proposed child tax benefit builds on Canada's social policy tradition. As a matter of fact, I believe that it is founded on values and principles very similar to those articulated when family allowances were first introduced in the forties. Such fundamental values and principles are the recognition of the interdependence of Canadians, commitment by the state to help families in the care and nurturing of their children, recognition of children as the future of Canada, the need to assure Canadian children of greater equality of opportunity.
I have no doubt that all members of this House will, upon reflection, agree that this is the only reasonable and just direction to take.
June 9, 1992


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for a rather comprehensive and in-depth address with respect to this bill and its background.
My concern is as follows. Yesterday I addressed Bill C-78, the omnibus bill that dealt with disabilities. While I was pleased to say publicly that there were pluses with respect to that bill, for example in the area of elections it will now be easier for people with disabilities to participate, there were also minuses, for example the direction to the CRTC with respect to closed captions was not clear and was not precise and had no timetables. I raised a more fundamental question. If you look at that bill again, I want to draw a comparison of Bill C-78, and the pluses that it brought forward in relation to what has occurred in that whole area. If we look at housing, for example, it has been seriously affected by the government's last budget, as well as a number of other areas. Are there really over-all pluses?
My question would be very similar with respect to Bill C-80. If we look at the pluses, there are some obviously. We had a family allowances program, we had a non-refundable tax credit as well and we had income tax deductions for certain child care. While we have retained the latter in this new legislation, my understanding is that we now have collapsed it. We have made it a bit simpler, if you wish, in that there is a program that replaces the other.
I applaud that because it is complex out there, not knowing exactly what you are going to be getting. I know that it will be paid monthly and that is going to be helpful. If we look at the last five, six, seven or eight years and the reductions in transfers to programs that affect children, and I am not even talking about the reductions in transfers for health and education or the caps on social assistance to provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, if we look at it over all, if we control for inflation as well, my understanding is that there is not an over-all gain for the children of Canada.
If I am wrong, I would very much like to be corrected. I wonder if my colleague could answer that question.
Government Orders


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the hon. member's question. I have a considerable difficulty with it, considering the role that his party when it was in government played in bankrupting this country. When we were as a caucus committee working to develop this program to find ways of making the government's contribution to families more effective and so on, we were extremely limited.
The first instruction we had from our hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, was that we should do this without any additional money. Later on, when he brought the program forward, he was able to sweeten it with some $400 million, not by any means as much as we would have liked to have seen in terms of redirecting funds to families in need.
My hon. friend talks about our having to hold the line. Our government has for over seven years now held its expenditures below the rate of inflation, year after year after year. When his party was in government, over a 10-year period I believe the rate of spending went up an average of 14 per cent a year to the point where we were $200 billion in debt.
Now he is trying to suggest that when we are trying in a very constructive and careful way to make things a little better for families, because throughout the system we have had to tighten up in so many different places that somehow there is not a positive benefit. Certainly since our party formed the government in 1984 there has been no benefit to Canada of having been saddled with what was a $200 billion debt and from interest, additional loan has increased to well over $400 million now, despite the fact that our government has managed to improve the operating accounts so that there is now a surplus of some $12 billion a year as opposed to the $16 billion of operating deficit they were running under when they formed the government.
For him to be trying now to discredit this very positive action by relating to the stress that our country has been in in trying to cope with the debt and the size of the deficit that his party left us with I think is inappropriate in the extreme.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to be supportive. I am sorry that my colleague may have misunderstood my remarks. In fact I was trying to be sensible and sensitive and as supportive as I could be under the circumstances.
My colleague did not answer the question as to whether or not if one looks at the advances that have been made here, and I noted some of them, there is over all more money if one controls inflation and other factors if one goes back seven years. He simply did not answer the question.
I am rather disillusioned that my colleague should use facts that are inaccurate. I would have thought that coming from government, he would have access to the information.
I have a letter from the then Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, indicating that the deficit at the end of fiscal 1984, and they came into power on September 4, 1984, was less than $168 billion. Now either the member knew what in the world he was talking about or he did not. I have that written document. I would like to point out that $168 billion is less than $200 billion.
If they are trying to suggest that they would have been more generous if the Liberals had done a better job is just not good enough. That was not what the issue was. He is trying to make political hay out of this. If he wants a political debate, I would be delighted to have a political debate on this or any other issue.
Is there more money now over all if one looks at the last seven years as a result of these changes? Yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty straightforward question, and I would like an answer. I do not want to know the total deficit or debt before 1984. If he wants to use those figures, then he should at least make sure they are accurate.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would not argue with the member as to what the debt was when his party left power or what it was not. When expenditures are increasing at the rampant rate of 14 per cent a year, it takes some energy and will on the part of any government to turn it around and bring it under control and
certainly to drop it below the rate of inflation, which is what we did.
He asked the question as to whether or not there is more money or less money. In my own personal circumstances I would say that considering the increases in taxes that we have had to bring in and the cuts in expenditures, I have the gut feeling that I am less well off today than I was in 1984. I do not think there are many people in Canada who would disagree with that. How that is distributed certainly has a very severe effect on the family. That is why we brought this program in to tiy and make things better for families, particularly families with children.
I think that the real issue here is that we are focusing our efforts on improving the lot of children. I think that he and other members should applaud that in what are in fact very difficult circumstances due, in my view, entirely to the legacy of debt which his party left us.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on 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.
Yes, it is, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act and at the same time to repeal the Family Allowances Act as though the child is not part of the family, as though child poverty is not the consequence of family poverty.
Indeed Bill C-80 is an incredible act of sleight of hand. It is dishonest and mocks Canadians, especially the neediest Canadians.
The government is spending $500,000 to say this government package is simpler, fairer, more generous and more responsive. In fact many needy Canadian families will not see any increase in benefits at all.
This bill sells us something that was ours to begin with. It sells us child benefits and convinces Canadians they are getting a bargain. It pits the working poor against the poor who cannot find jobs. It pits child care against child poverty, oblivious to the fact that lack of adequate child care breeds child poverty. The government, through this bill, has turned its back on universality, a principle woven throughout our social assistance system to ensure there is no stigma attached to it, to ensure there is continuing universal support for it.
June 9, 1992

Since 1986 the Mulroney government has stealthily eroded the value of the family allowance by refusing to index it to inflation. The allowance lost ground and will continue to lose ground through the new child benefit package. These benefits will only be indexed for inflation over 3 per cent.
When the increase in the cost of living is lower then 3 per cent they lose benefits, getting no increase in family allowance. When inflation is higher than 3 per cent they will only receive the amount over 3 per cent. In times of inflation, high or low, they are clearly the least able to cope. Canadian poor are at the mercy of inflation.
The government adds another insult. It claims the benefit package is worth $400 million a year or $2.5 billion in five years to Canadian poor. Yet in the past seven years-and the figures speak very clearly-over $3.5 billion have been stripped from social programs by this federal government.
One of the best analyses of the dishonesty of the federal government's package comes from The Catalyst, a publication of citizens for public justice. It states in its April 1992 issue:
Under the current system the poorest Canadian families, those families receiving social assistance or unemployment insurance payments will not receive an increase in their benefits. Under the current system, these families receive annual family allowance payments of $419 per child, and a refundable tax credit of $601, for a total of $1,020 per child.
The new child tax credit will give them $1,020 per child, exactly the same benefit as the current system. The only additional funds are in the form of an earned income supplement for families who are employed and earn more than $3,750 annually. For every $100 earned over $3,750, these families will receive an additional $8, up to a yearly maximum of $500. Once annual earnings reach more than $20,921, the earnings supplement will be decreased and will disappear completely at the point where annual income is $25,921 or more.
Obviously this scheme does not give benefits to those families receiving social assistance or dependent only on unemployment insurance payments. What a sleight of hand.
The new package gives $1,300 less per year for the average family than if this federal government had not
Government Orders
whittled away the existing programs over the last seven years.
I submit the proposed child benefit package is not a bargain. The money it gives back to Canadians is essentially the same money the government has hoarded by hidden cuts since coming to power.
Through this package the government only provides a conveniently timed, camouflaged surge of benefits, no doubt to be eroded again immediately after it has served its electoral purpose.
The Mulroney government has proposed a new plan that looks good on the surface, just in time the government hopes, to dupe many families into re-electing the very people who have cut back their family support consistently over the last seven years.
The government has spent thousands, up to half a million, to advertise the child benefit package, making a key claim that the new plan is responsive. It will include immediate changes of benefits for the birth of a new child or other changes in family status. While this is commendable, it will not respond however to reflect the rising cost of living when under 3 per cent.
And not only is the amount of the benefit not fully indexed to inflation, the threshold income above which no benefits will apply is equally as unresponsive. Not only will the amount of support available to families decline constantly from the time the plan is instituted, but the number of families eligible for it will too. The new plan also does not take into account tragedies like job loss in the middle of a year.
The lack of indexation of the new benefit package shows that the government has ignored one of the key recommendations of the December 1991 report of the House of Commons subcommittee on child poverty.
The majority of membership in this subcommittee, I should remind the government, came from its own side. Thus the government ignored even its own members. I wonder how these government members of the subcommittee, including its Chair, will finally vote on this bill.
The government also flouted a second key concern of the subcommittee, that the regressive child care expenses deduction be replaced by a more responsive

Government Orders
credit which would actually benefit all needy families working or unable to find work.
The subcommittee proposed that the child care expense deduction be replaced by a refundable tax credit of 50 per cent of child care expenses, which should be payable in advance. But for those unable to put out that money in the hopes of a tax deduction a year later, there is no improvement. The approach recommended by the subcommittee would help the needy, the needier and the neediest.
The proposed new system is commendable-and I give credit where credit is due-in its component that provides income supplements for work related expenses. However, let us not forget that there are over two million Canadians who cannot find jobs. Many of them live below the poverty line.
The government has given more to those who have something but neglects to pull out of poverty those who are most deeply embedded in it.
This raises the question, naturally, of the government's aims in this new child benefit package. Is the government's concern the welfare of children, the support of parents, or the redressing of poverty problems resulting from failures of its social programs, or the ideological elimination of universality of the family allowance program?
Shall I remind the government that the family allowance program stemmed from a shared Canadian conviction "that parents with children should pay less tax and should receive greater benefits than taxpayers without children, precisely because of the service they in the future render to society as responsible citizens and workers"?
The universal family allowance program already assures the most benefit will go to those most in need of it because it is taxable. In addition, it allows mothers a regular cheque which, for some women, is the only cheque they will receive during their lifetime.
If poor children are the true focus of this proposed program then why has this government failed to adopt a comprehensive plan of action to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000 as earlier resolved in this Chamber, in this House of Commons?
To sum up, Bill C-80 admittedly is simpler. But is it more fair? No. More generous? No. More responsive?
Again, no. This bill fails the test of fairness, generosity and responsiveness. It is at best a half measure.
May I give this government a prescription. If it truly aims to be fair, generous and responsive, the government should amend this legislation to index benefits fully to the cost of living, to include an increase in benefits for families on social assistance and unemployment insurance, to convert the child care expense deduction into a tax credit and at the same time retain the universality of the family allowance program.
Our nation's children deserve more than half measures. They do not deserve this sleight of hand. They are innocent and honest, wanting only to grow up safe and secure. Canada's children, the future of our nation, deserve our full commitment.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very strong and comprehensive address on this particular question. He is obviously very knowledgeable.
I want to raise three questions if I might. I have some notes here and I want to make sure they are accurate. I am sure that my assistant who prepared them for me would like to have that assurance as well.
The notes read as follows: "The government claims that child benefits will increase by $2.1 billion over the next five years". Then there is an addendum: "It is estimated that the government slashed child benefits by $3.5 billion between 1986 and 1991".
My first question is: Are those the correct ballpark figures? If they are, they answer the question that my hon. colleague just a few minutes ago refused to answer by attempting to become rather political.
The other question I want to be absolutely certain about, because it seems rather contradictory to me, is it would appear that the program totally ignores the poorest children, those whose families earn less than $3,750 a year. I just cannot understand what the rationale for that would be.
The third point is that the government always-and lately more frequently-talks about controlling expenditures. My own thesis is that that those expenditures are controlled as a result of serious off-loading to the provinces. It simply transfers fewer funds for health, education and social assistance. Therefore, yes, the government controls its expenditures but it turns them over to someone else. It is as if I were to give my debt
June 9, 1992

away this afternoon and all of a sudden stand up and say: "I am debt-free" or "I have less debt than you have".
I wonder if my colleague would make a comment on that as well.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words and his usual perceptive analysis of the issue, as well as for noting to this Chamber that the member who spoke before me had failed to answer the question that was raised.
It is understandable the previous member did not address the issue of the difference between the $2.5 billion in five years that this new program will provide to the Canadian poor and the $3.5 billion that this government has-I use the word advisedly-stolen from the Canadian poor. When Canadians are told of this basic analysis they will realize there is nothing new in this program. In fact, there is less.
On the question of whether, in fact, when one receives $3,750 annually, yes, when that income is reached by those receiving benefits from this program, there will be a decrease in benefits for every $100 more earned. In other words, the benefit will disappear from the benefit package program when the ceiling of $25,921 or more is reached.
That component is acceptable providing there is incentive to work. I must add and keep emphasizing there are many Canadians who cannot find jobs. They want to work and they will not benefit from this benefit package. That is a very fundamental question this government must address if the government truly cares for the children of our country.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, occasionally in this House we debate legislation that touches the very fabric of Canadian society. Bill C-80, an act to implement the proposed child tax benefit is just such an act. It reflects the fundamental Canadian tradition of redistributing scarce resources for the general benefit of Canadians, particularly our children.
In the white paper on the child benefit, the Minister of National Health and Welfare noted that Canada's future well-being and prosperity depend on our children. They
Government Orders
are our greatest asset. It follows then that we must attend to their current well-being to ensure they lead happy and fulfilling productive lives. We must strengthen our efforts now.
Assistance to children is a continuing priority of the Government of Canada. This past December, the Prime Minister announced that Canada had formally ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention is aimed at protecting the rights of children around the world.
The Brighter Futures initiative announced recently by the Minister of National Health and Welfare further confirms this government's commitment to children, their parents, and care givers. The initiative is a series of steps we can take now in order to achieve a brighter tomorrow for Canada and our children.
The child tax benefit is one of those steps. When implemented, it will simplify the tax system and streamline and substantially enrich the government's support for families with children. Over the next five years the child tax benefit will provide $2.5 billion in increased child assistance.
This is a substantial amount especially given the pressures on the government's fiscal position. As a result, Canadian families of low and modest means will be better able to meet the challenges of their daily lives.
Let me emphasize that Canada's assistance to families with children is already among the best in the world. Indeed, assistance to children has long been a cornerstone of Canada's social commitment to its people.
Currently, the federal government spends $4.5 billion a year on the three largest and most direct forms of support to families with children. Those include the family allowances, the child credit and the refundable child tax credit.
Moreover, additional federal support to Canadian families is provided through the goods and services tax credit, the child care expense deduction and maternity and parental benefits under the unemployment insurance program. Under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government also cost shares expenditures by the provinces and territories on social assistance and services, including subsidized child care.

Government Orders
To provide the context for the child tax benefit, I want to explain briefly the three major federal programs of support for Canadian families.
The family allowance, introduced almost 50 years ago in 1945, is familiar to most Canadians. Often referred to as the baby bonus, it provides $1.9 billion a year of net federal benefits to about 3.7 million Canadian families with children under the age of 18. Payments are about $35 per child a month for a total of $419 per year and are generally paid to mothers. To assist the government to control expenditures and better target resources, the payments are taxable and are partially or fully recovered from high income Canadians.
The child credit is an annual deduction from the federal tax owing of $71 for each dependent child 18 years or under at the end of the tax year. For third and subsequent children the credit is increased to $142. The accumulated net benefit of the child credit to Canadian families is $400 million. The credit has existed in one form or another since 1947.
Finally, to increase assistance to families with low and modest incomes, the refundable child tax credit was introduced in 1979. The credit has a maximum value of $601 and is provided for each dependent child age 18 or under at the end of the tax year. As well, a supplement of up to $213 per child under age seven is provided to families not claiming child care expenses. These benefits are reduced for families with incomes exceeding $25,921 per year. Total federal payments under the refundable child tax credit amount to $2.2 billion per year.
The 1992 report of the United Nations Development Program ranked Canada first in the world on a range of factors assessing a country's human development and quality of life. The federal programs I have outlined have contributed significantly in this regard.
Nevertheless, difficult living conditions remain a fact of life for many low income Canadian families. For these children we must do more to ensure that their parents have adequate resources to meet their basic needs. We must enhance our support to ensure that these children are raised in conditions that promote healthy development.
The child tax benefit will assist us to provide that enhanced support. In a moment I will explain how. However, I first want to focus briefly on the problems that necessitate its implementation.
As Canada's major programs of assistance for Canadian families have grown over the years, shortcomings have appeared. Accordingly, the government has been urged to improve this patchwork system of child benefits. In particular, two parliamentary committees, social policy groups outside the government and many individual Canadians have identified the following faults with our current system.
First, benefits are delivered piecemeal in three different ways and at different times of the year. This delivery patchwork is confusing for many Canadians because each program has different eligibility criteria. As well, for
600,000	higher income Canadians, family allowances must be partially or fully repaid to the government when they file their income tax returns.
Second, benefits are not targeted adequately. In particular, because family allowances are recovered on the basis of individual incomes, families with similar total incomes may receive different levels of benefits. Family income is a better basis to direct assistance to children most in need.
Third, independent support creates barriers to work for low income families. These families are faced with employment related expenses and a possible reduction in social assistance when they choose to work.
Finally, the delay in the delivery of the refundable tax credit is difficult in many modest income families. While it represents more than half of the federal child benefit, for many families it fails to meet their immediate needs. For example, although they must pay for the child's needs every month, parents may have to wait a full year to receive the full credit. As a result, many families sacrifice part of their benefits by resorting to tax discounters to obtain badly needed cash.
The proposed child tax benefit is designed to address these structural faults and strengthen the federal support for Canadian families. It responds to the recom-
June 9, 1992

mendations for change that have been urged upon the government.
The benefit is streamlined, responsible and better targeted. It provides enriched benefits that will be delivered on a more timely and less complicated basis. The increased benefit is a social dividend financed by the spending cuts the government announced in the 1992 budget.
Canadians believe that fiscal progress should result in increased assistance to Canadian families. Our government agrees. Over the next five years, the proposed child tax benefit will increase assistance to Canadian families by an average of $400 million a year from $4.5 billion to $4.9 billion.
Under the new system, the basic amount of the benefit will be $1,020 per year for each child. The current annual supplement of $213 will be continued for each child under the age of seven. Where no child care expenses are deducted, a $75 supplement will be provided for the third and additional children.
Low income families will also be eligible to receive an earned income supplement of up to $500. This means that low income families will receive up to $1,733 for their first child and up to $1,233 for each subsequent child. The child tax benefit will be provided to all families with annual incomes up to $67,000 per year.
For families with three or more children, the benefit cut-off will be higher than $67,000. The basic benefit will be reduced at a rate of 5 per cent of family net income over $25,921 for families with two or more children, and at a lower rate of 2.5 per cent for families with one child. The average annual benefits for families with incomes below $50,000 will be $250 higher.
As with other elements of the tax system, the child tax benefit will be automatically indexed to changes in prices in excess of 3 per cent. However, as in the case with the child tax credit which has been enriched five times since 1984, the benefits will be reviewed over time and adjusted as fiscal conditions permit. These previous enrichments have ensured that the level of federal child benefits paid to low income families have more than kept pace with inflation.
Clearly under the new system these benefits will be more fairly and effectively targeted than under the current system.
Government Orders
The greatest benefits will go to low and modest income families. About 80 per cent of the total increase in benefits will be directed to families with incomes below $40,000 per year.
Single parent families face particular difficulties due to their combined responsibilities of earning a living and caring for their children. To further assist single parents the equivalent to married credit will be continued for their first child. This is worth an average of $1,445 in reduced federal and provincial taxes for many single parents.
The government designed the child tax benefit to reinforce the incentives for low income parents to participate in the work force. Often they face financial barriers, such as employment related expenses and possible reductions in social benefits, which preclude them from seeking employment. Accordingly, a new earned income supplement of up to $500 will be available to working families who receive little or no social assistance.
I want to emphasize that the new child tax benefit will be progressive. Benefit limits will be determined according to family income not individual income. This means that families at a given income level will be treated the same regardless of the number of income earners. This will better ensure that the assistance be directed according to family needs. The new approach will also be simpler.
The three major programs of assistance to families will be consolidated into one benefit. This means that the three sets of delivery systems and eligibility criteria will be reduced to one. This will be much less confusing and time consuming for Canadian families.
To further simplify the system the payment levels will be calculated automatically. Parents will no longer be faced with completing separate schedules on their tax forms for child benefits, nor will they have to calculate the recovery of child benefits when they complete their tax return.
In addition, the new system will eliminate the waste and inefficiency of the current system. High income families will no longer receive payments that currently have to be recovered by the federal government at tax time. I am sure that all Canadians will be happy to know that this will simplify the basic income tax form.

June 9, 1992
Government Orders
The new child tax benefit will also be more responsive to family needs. Changes in family status, such as the birth of a child or the breakup of a marriage, will be reflected in adjustments to the monthly payments. This will be particularly beneficial for low income families who now resort to tax discounters to get an early payment of their year-end benefits to meet their immediate needs.
For example, the up to 16 month wait they currently endure to receive their child tax credit after the birth of the child will be reduced to one month. Benefits will also be quickly extended to newly arrived immigrant families with children.
The child tax benefit is a major advance in federal assistance for children. Members will be interested to learn that over 175,000 Canadians have responded to the government's public information campaign on the child benefit white paper.
Most comments have been quite favourable, especially concerning the targeting of money to children who need it the most. The government proposes to implement the child tax benefit on January 1, 1993, at which time the monthly cheque will be made to eligible Canadian families.
Monthly payments for the first six months will be based on family income reported for the 1991 taxation year. In July 1993 and each July thereafter payments will be updated to reflect information from the previous tax year.
To summarize, the monthly payments will provide assistance as it is needed to help with the expenses of caring for children. Approximately two million Canadian families with annual incomes under $50,000 will receive larger monthly payments.
Unlike the family allowance the new benefit will not be taxed or recovered at tax time. The single monthly payment will mean a system that is simpler, more efficient, and more responsive to the family's immediate needs than the current system.
To help ensure a more adequate standard of living for Canadian families of low and modest means I fully support this legislation and encourage all hon. members to do the same.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on the proposed Bill C-80 dealing with the child tax credit.
The proposed bill is intended to replace the current social welfare benefit system-including family allowances, the child tax credit and the non-refundable dependant child credit-by providing a single monthly payment to the recipients of family allowance.
In eligible cases the amount of the benefit will depend on the earnings and income as well as the number and age of children within the family. The benefit is to consist of two elements. They are a base amount of $85 per month and an earned income supplement which is not to exceed $40 a month per family up to a maximum of $500 a year per family, both of which are non-taxable.
The intention in creating the benefit was to target more generous financial assistance to low and moderate income families by allotting an additional $2.1 billion toward assistance programs over the next five years.
This proposal sounds too good to be true, because it is. I would like to know, where has the $3.5 billion that was snatched from the child benefits over the past five years gone? The government benevolently claims that: "The poor people on social assistance will continue to get family allowance". What has it done with the other benefits it was receiving? Are they all to be slashed?
In Canada today over 2.5 million people have been forced onto social assistance. This is a matter of crisis proportions. What will happen to them? What will happen to the assistance which provides the most basic necessities for the nearly 60,000 students who are parents?
Where do the refugees, new immigrants, and aboriginals on reserves fit into this bill? How will they be affected?
Moreover, the economic model proposed as a basis for Bill C-80 completely omits single parent households which rely on some form of social assistance. I would like to know why. I ask this question: why?
I draw the House's attention to page 4 of the research report, the Financial Implications of Child Support Guidelines. One of the methods used to estimate the costs associated with children was to ask: "How much do parents spend on their children?" How can anyone put a price on a child? All children are different. There is no norm by which to classify them.
June 9, 1992

The report indicates on the same page that the Department of Justice participated in the contribution to a group of specialists tasked with producing an independent review of the proposal. However, the results of their work have not been included in the report due to time constraints and fundamentally disparate views on the subject.
Forgive me, but I thought that the reason these specialists were chosen was to express their different views. Why then have their views not been published in the report? Why have the expert views of the department's legal specialists been stifled on the basis of time constraints? This proposed bill should not be a quick fix when dealing with such vital matters, when dealing with the future of our children.
Why does it hold back? Did the specialists produce a review so unflattering of government policy that the family law committee chose not to allow it the light of day? It is curious that while the views of the three economists chosen by the committee were included those of the legal specialists were not.
The government stresses that its social programs and priorities are committed to families and children, but the only priorities I can see are the ones set on the spending of another $500,000 on public relations to promote its image and longevity in government. The government places a high priority on creating a legal loophole for the wealthy. Yet on the other end of the scale it would have us believe that through its gracious benevolence it is providing more income for low income workers, claiming that families will have an additional $2 billion to spend in the next two years.
However, the grateful $3.67 extra a month will certainly vanish within the next 12 months due to inflation. The supposed long-term miracle the government is trying desperately to peddle is, if anything, a short-term fix only as far-sighted as the next election.
I draw the House's attention to page 4 of the white paper report, to an article that states, and I quote:
In choosing to work, low income families with children are faced
with employment related expenses and possibly a reduction in social
assistance benefits.
Government Orders
Why then does the government insist on burdening ordinary Canadians who struggle to build a better life for the family, to add insult to injury, with a lower standard of living for choosing to work? With all the money the government is reaping from here and giving there why does it not have the wherewithal to contribute at least some of it to the food banks? That is where more and more Canadian children are finding themselves.
It is due to this government that Canadians find themselves in want of the basic necessities of existence. When this government took office there was one, and I stress one, food bank in Canada. Today there are 292. It is time for this government to bear the responsibility for the impact of its destructive economic policies and put its support behind Canadians.
I see this bill as another quick-fix scheme that serves no useful purpose in resolving the growing incidence of Canadian poverty.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into this debate. I believe there is just a brief amount of time left before this House has the opportunity to pass judgment on this legislation.
We are debating a very important measure here today that was introduced by way of Bill C-80, which the government introduced as part of its budget procedures. It has been sold by this government to a large degree as an attempt to ease and simplify a very important component of many of our social programs in the country, namely the child benefit program.
It has been clear from many of the questions and comments raised in this House, as early as Question Period today, and from the comments from members on this side of the House, that this debate is about more than just a piece of legislation to arrange the regulatory and financial measures to provide the kind of benefits to families in this country that people have rightfully come to expect from the Government of Canada. It was brought on by the approach this government has taken in this legislation and in terms of many of the comments members of the government have made over the past little while.

Government Orders
If we examine some of the background of this particular legislation we can see that since the Conservative government came into office in 1984 it has cut family benefits dramatically. It killed the old income tax deduction of around $710 per child under age 18 and brought in a tax credit worth far less. It is now worth around $71 per child.
In the 1992 federal budget, the most recent one, the government announced an end to the existing family benefits, to be replaced with an extremely targeted so-called child benefit. The new benefit consists of a basic benefit of $1,020 per child with benefits being reduced at a threshold of net income of around $25,000. The bill and the measures that the government introduced went on to deal with a number of other issues in that regard.
What is wrong with the Conservative approach on this? We heard recently of what they call the family caucus or the family compact as it is more likely called. The vision of Canada that we see coming from some members on the government side is very right wing. What we are starting to see is that some members on the government side do not like the direction their own government is going. This is causing some dissent and members are obviously lobbying to try and have their agenda met.
While the Conservatives argue and want us to believe that this new child benefit is simpler, fairer and more generous, it is none of the above. The system means an end to universal family allowances and thus the end to the principle that the task of raising children is recognized in all families regardless of income level. The family allowance recognizes that all children, rich and poor-an important point-are of equal value to our society and its universality ensures that it is non-stigmatizing.
In the whole debate we have had from time to time in this country, this government has very surreptitiously, most people would argue, eroded the concept of universality in Canada. It would rather have us line up at the welfare offices and go down to the United Way to try and get help for our families. That is not the approach that we want to take in this country. It is a vindictive, nasty approach in a particularly sensitive and important field:
the whole question of the family support and support for children across this country.
For many women the family allowance was the only money they received in recognition of their unpaid work and valuable contribution to society. For many women the family allowance was their only independent source of income.
As well, the government is suggesting that the new system of child benefits is a simplified system that would make low income families better off. It always sounds good, does it not? The new system is comprised, it says, of four sets of benefits as opposed to the five in the old system.
The new system is so complicated that the government, not the individual families, will have to calculate the benefits. What is created, I suppose, is an additional bureaucracy for administering many of these programs. The government has gone about developing this, as I have said, in a vindictive and backward way in the delivery of these programs.
Let me quote from a document prepared by some of my colleagues. It is a very revealing document in terms of just what is behind this question. It raises the point of fairness. It states:
The new system is the first government benefit which distinguishes between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. The $500 earned income supplement will add $500 to working poor families earning between about $10,000 and $20,921. This was described as an added incentive for social assistance recipients to "get out of the welfare trap". However, with child care costing between $6,000 and $12,000 per year, an extra $500 will not go very far.
That is an important point which was made by a previous speaker. All of us see it in our ridings, single parents, in particular women, attempting to get jobs. Who is going to take care of the child at home? We need day care programs as well as other programs. This government made a commitment at one time for a national day care system which it is now backing down from. We have seen many single parents attempt to get jobs, but how can we blame them if they do not when we add up the whole cost of day care and transportation. They cannot afford it.
In conclusion, this is legislation we do not need to see in this House. I am proud that our party did so much work on this issue. Let us make sure that the government members on the other side get the message tonight during this vote.
June 9, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised this evening at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Immigration; the hon. member for Willowdale-Publishing; the hon. member for Malpe-que-Employment; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Small Business.

It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, in accordance with the provision of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg- St. James.


Mr. Harvard:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was a couple of minutes late. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here I would have voted with my party.
*
* *


BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 8, 1992, consideration of report stage of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereofy, as reported with amendments by the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House will now proceed to the deferred divisions on the motions on report stage of Bill C-22.
The first vote is on Motion No. 29, standing in the name of Mr. Foster. The result of this vote will apply to Motion No. 30.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Dionne
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
Tbmer (Vancouver Quadra)
C hares t
Crosby (Halifax West)
Dobbie
Karygiannis
Martin (Lincoln)
Rompkey
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare Motion No. 29 lost. Therefore I declare Motion No. 30 lost.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find the unanimous consent of the House to apply the result of the previous vote to Motions Nos. 31, 32, 35 and 42.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next vote is on Motion No. 31, standing in the name of Mr. Rodriguez.



[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West) Dionne
Charest
Crosby (Halifax West) Dobbie
[Stage Direction]
June 9, 1992
Government Orders
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
Timer (Vancouver Quadra)
Karygiannis Martin (Lincoln) Rompkey Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 32, standing in the name of Mr. Rodriguez.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Dionne
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
Tlirner (Vancouver Quadra)
Charest
Crosby (Halifax West)
Dobbie
Karygiannis
Martin (Lincoln)
Rompkey
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 35, standing in the name of Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth). The result of this vote will apply to Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38, standing in the name of Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth).
Whittaker	Wood		
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-68	The House divided on the motion, which was	NAYS	tived on	the following division:Members	Anderson	Andre	Atkinson Beatty	Attewell Belsher	(Division No. 187)Bernier	Bertrand	Bird	Bjomson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais	Blenkarn Bourgault	Bosley Brightwell	YEASBrowes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff Chartrand	Champagne (Champlain) Clark (Brandon-Souris)	MembersCole	Cook	Corbett	Couture	Althouse	AnawakDanis	de Cotret	Arseneault	Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)Della Noce	Dick	Barrett	BelairDo mm	Dorin	Bellemare	BergerEdwards	Epp	Bevilacqua	BlackFee	Feltham	Blondin	Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)Ferland	Fretz	Boudria	BreaughFriesen	Gibeau	Brew in	ButlandGuilbault	Gustafson	Callbeck	ChretienHalliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Clancy	CrawfordHawkes	Hicks	Dingwall	DuceppeHockin	Hogue	Duhamel	FergusonHomer	Hudon	Flis	FosterHughes	James	Gagliano	GardinerJelinek	Johnson	Gauthier	Grey (Beaver River)Jourdenais	Kempling	Harb	Harvard
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Kaplan
Kindy
MacAulay
MacLaren
Maheu
Marleau
Milliken
Mitchell
Parent
Prud'homme
Riis
Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Vanclief
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Hopkins
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan
Mar chi
Mifflin
Mills
Pagtakhan
Proud
Rideout
Robinson
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Taylor
Venne
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-68
++NAYS
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 39, standing in the name of Mr. Rodriguez.



[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West) Dionne
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
Timer (Vancouver Quadra)
Members
Charest
Crosby (Halifax West)
Dobbie
Karygiannis
Martin (Lincoln)
Rompkey
Walker
++YEAS
Althouse
Black
Breaugh
Butland
Gardiner
Mitchell
Robinson
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Venne
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-21
Anawak
Andre
Atkinson
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Belsher
Bernier
Bevilacqua
Bjomson
Blais
Blondin
Boudria
Brightwell
Callbeck
Cardiff
Chartrand
Clancy
Cole
Corbett
Crawford
de Cotret
Dingwall
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferguson
Flis
Fretz
Gagliano
Gibeau
Guilbault
Halliday
Harvard
Members
Barrett
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Brew in Duceppe
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Riis
Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Taylor
Whittaker
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Arseneault
Attewell
Beatty
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkam
Bosley
Bourgault
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Champagne (Champlain) Chretien
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cook
Couture
Danis
Della Noce
Domm
Duhamel
Epp
Feltham
Ferland
Foster
Friesen
Gauthier
Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson
Harb
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Hawkes
Hockin
Holtmann
Horner
Hughes
Jelinek
Jourdenais
Kerapling
Layton
Littlechild
MacAulay
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacLaren
Maheu
Marleau
McDermid
McKnight
Mifflin
Mills
Monteith
Nicholson
Pagtakhan
Plourde
Proud
Redway
Reimer
Rideout
Saint-Julien
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sparrow
Stevenson
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt Van De While Vien Weiner Wilbee
Hicks
Hogue
Hopkins
Hudon
James
Johnson
Kaplan
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) Lopez
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacKay MacLellan Mar chi Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's)
McLean
Milliken
Mitges
Moore
Oberle
Parent
Porter
Prud'homme
Reid
Richardson	.
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Soetens
Speller
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Rimer (Halton-Peel)
Vanclief
Vankoughnet
Vincent
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) Winegard	Wood
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-147

[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West) Dionne
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
Rimer (Vancouver Quadra)
Members
Charest
Crosby (Halifax West)
Dobbie
Karygiannis
Martin (Lincoln)
Rompkey
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. The next vote is on Motion No. 42, standing in the name of Mr. Rodriguez.



[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Dionne
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
Timer (Vancouver Quadra)
Charest
Crosby (Halifax West)
Dobbie
Karygiannis
Martin (Lincoln)
Rompkey
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, you may find unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to this motion.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Kindy:: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to be applied against the concurrence motion.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I think the vote taken on Motion No. 39 applied in reverse would be appropriate. We would certainly concur with that.



[Stage Direction]
Boyer
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Dionne
Duplessis
Keyes
Nault
Timer (Vancouver Quadra)
Charest
Crosby (Halifax West)
Dobbie
Karygiannis
Martin (Lincoln)
Rompkey
Walker
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity to confer with my colleagues in the other parties, but since this is Private Members' Hour and we have now used up half of that one hour, could I seek the unanimous consent of the House, and again I make the point without consultation, to extend the time for Private Members' Business to allow at least one full hour for debate? In other words, I am asking to extend the time until 6.30 today.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I think in the spirit of co-operation and in view of the fact that it is Private Members' Hour and a half hour has been used with regard to votes that have been taken, our party would have no difficulty in giving unanimous consent to extending the time for an additional half hour and go until 6.30 this evening for the purposes of Private Members' Hour.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it appears we are on a roll here. I would not want to obstruct it. I would agree with
the suggestion of the hon. New Democratic House leader.


Mrs. Venne:: Mr. Speaker, in order to show our good faith and cooperation, the Bloc Quebecois will also accede to the hon. member's request.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie) moved: that Bill C-327, an act to assist employees to purchase a controlling shareholding in the corporation that employs them and to amend the Income Thx Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concurrence of the House to proceed with the full hour. It was much anticipated, therefore, I would prefer the full hour to just a half hour of debate.
The bill is C-327 and if I could read it into the record:
An act to assist employees to purchase a controlling shareholding in
the corporation that employs them and to amend the Income Thx Act
in consequence thereof.
It takes a long time for a bill to get to this point. It is particularly gratifying and I feel very happy and privileged to be able to speak to the bill at long last at second reading.
I believe the ability of employees to not only work in an environment but to perhaps own the working environment would be a step forward for the country. It is a much delayed step forward for the country since many other countries in the world already have legislation in place that allows employees to become majority shareholders in the company for which they work. We believe it is a democracy that can stretch from the shop floor to the boardrooms of the company.
In order for the bill to get to this point, it is indeed a trying circumstance. Certainly there have been several members who have written me personally and suggested that the bill would be out of order since only a government can propose a tax bill. Fortunately the legal counsel has indicated to me and to all those who might care that
June 9, 1992

the bill does not in fact increase income tax. It may in fact decrease income tax and therefore it is perfectly legitimate for a private member's bill to come forward as it has done.
May I suggest that this bill was supposed to be a forerunner rather than an after-runner to the Algoma Steel Corporation employee buy-out that has now been consummated and hopefully will lead to a positive future for Algoma Steel.
Given that fact it is unfortunate but nevertheless it points out that a corporation the size of Algoma can be purchased by the employees not without the consideration of, in this case, a parent company without the consideration and the spearheading by the United Steel Workers of America, not without the involvement of the Ontario government, not without the involvement of the banks of this country, and I must say not without the involvement of the federal government.
I will say in their participation in this restructuring and reprofiling of Algoma Steel, the federal government was reticent and hesitant and came in yelling and screaming, but in the end it did participate and I salute it for that. We do appreciate the fact that the federal government was an integral part in the final restructuring of the plan and I think the community of Sault Ste. Marie would also send out that thank-you.
Nevertheless, I want to say that this type of legislation has come its time. Rather than dealing with the issue on a crisis by crisis situation, or putting out a fire here in Ontario, or one in Manitoba, or one in British Columbia as there is every possibility that the governments of this country will have to face, rather than doing it in a piecemeal way, let us have a strategy in place so that we can deal with companies on the verge of closure, on the verge of bankruptcy, or in other cases where sometimes the parent company says: "This company that we own is not making enough profits and we wish to cut the ties with the company". In all of those cases and all of those scenarios it would be much better if we had legislation in place so that we can deal with it in an orderly fashion, rather than dealing with them on a one by one situation as in Algoma.
I want to point out, that this bill will give tax credits to the employers, to the employees, and to the lending institutions so that all the participants can become involved and form a partnership in the new company. It
Private Members' Business
does not pit one individual versus another. I think that is a key instrument of this bill.
In speaking to the cost of the bill, I want to say that if you deal with a situation like Algoma, it has cost the Ontario government millions of dollars. It will cost the federal government millions of dollars. It will cost the employees, collectively, millions of dollars: $2.89 per hour for every employee in the corporation.
There are sacrifices to be made by individuals and governments, and in this case so too for the banks. If the government were to say that this bill would be too costly, I suggest that the alternative is not acceptable to anyone. The alternative, if Algoma were to close there would be 5,500 to 6,500 affected, depending on the employment level at any one time. The cost to all levels of government-federal, provincial and municipal-would be astronomical. First of all, everyone would go on UI, and afterward, unfortunately, many would be on the social assistance program, which would be very difficult for the municipality, under terrible duress already. They just could not handle it, the impact upon a community like Sault Ste. Marie with that number of people being laid off in one fell swoop.
It was pointed out that a city of 80,000 population would decrease by 20,000. I think you can apply this scenario to any community, any constituency, any industry, small, medium or large across this country. May I suggest that from day to day to day we read in the newspapers that "another company is on the verge of", "another company has already closed".
This legislation would allow the people who work within that company-the owners, the employers, the employees and everyone-to get involved together, to take one last crack at making a company viable yet again. It is proven in the United States, Italy, Israel, Germany, and many countries across the world that employee ownership can make an unsuccessful company viable, successful and profitable.
All of us may be faced with that scenario in our constituencies. That is why I hope that all parties will set aside whatever differences they may have and see fit to support this bill that again speaks of new partnerships, really unknown to this point. In our community the unions, the two levels of government, the banks, the employer, and the employees, got together and made it

Private Members' Business
work. We are hopeful for the future. May I suggest once again that it was an ad hoc dealing with the situation rather than a strategic plan that can deal with the situation right across the country.
We suggest that government has to have a role. If it is to have a role, why not in the best form that we know, and that is the form of legislation? Put it in a legislative form.
The provincial governments in Manitoba and Ontario have what I believe is legislation in place or about to come into place whereby rather than acting against what I am proposing would be complementary to what I am proposing. This federal legislation could be put into place and not seriously take away or detract from provincial legislation. I think that should be pointed out here.
The corporations in the province can opt in or can opt out of the regulations in Bill C-327. I think that is important to point out as well. We are not stepping on jurisdictional toes by putting this forward.
If the company is allowed to proceed with this, it gives not only the community new life, but it also gives the company new life. It gives the community new life as it did in our community. It brought people together. It gives time for the community to, hopefully, diversify. It is a lesson for Sault Ste. Marie and it would be a lesson for many other communities. Kapuskasing is another recent example that was dealt with by the Ontario government, the employer and the employees. It was a totally different set of circumstances, handled totally differently by the governments. Why not standardize it? Getting back to my point, it gives an opportunity for the communities to realize that you cannot depend on one industry for your future. You must diversify. I do not want to paint this as a time-buyer, but it does serve that purpose.
I want to say that six or eight months ago when I was pursuing this without any bill in place, I asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology in Question Period if they supported the concept of employee ownership. They both replied that they did but "it was up to him as to whether or not this government would support that. We do not
know what you want us to support. We like the idea, but we do not know what you are asking specifically".
The specifics are now there. We are asking for changes in the Income Ihx Act. I think everyone puts their arms up in a bit of trepidation about taking on the Income Tax Act. I want to say that in the United States the handling of this legislation is much more convoluted than I am suggesting in this bill. It impacts on a whole series of statutes, regulations and income tax acts which I will not bore anyone with by reading, but I want to assure you that this is a much more simplistic way of dealing with the problem rather than the American style. I want to say that what the American Income Tax Act does is it facilitates and motivates people to participate.
I am sure the government will suggest that we have some legislation in place that will assist, but there is no facilitator and no motivator. It really gives no one the impetus to go forward and really pursue it.
With regard to Bill C-327, it would not be my first wish to have ministerial override, but I do not want to be politically naive. Perhaps it is a good idea in a private members' bill to say: "The minister has to be convinced that this is a viable option for this small, medium or large company". I think it is important that the government has that option. As I said, it would not be my choice but, under the circumstances, I think it is appropriate that I put that in.
I should also suggest, and I have mentioned it once before, that it should not be only for companies that are in dire circumstances like Algoma with $800 million in debt. Those are the most dire of circumstances. Perhaps we can address small, medium and large corporations, industries or businesses that have not reached that stage yet, where there is potential for addressing situations before they reach that degree of severity of economic hardship. The bill suggests a way of getting that under way is that at least 50 per cent of the employees have to sign a petition saying: "Let us take a look at this possibility". That is the way of getting it started. It starts on the shop floor with the employees and it ends with the minister. It runs the whole gamut, I suppose, of the political or non-political spectrum from grassroots to the people who make the decisions in this country.
June 9, 1992

I hope that it can appeal to employees and I hope it can appeal to the government.
How common is employee ownership in the United States? As of 1987 it was estimated about 7,000 to 8,000 U.S. companies had employee stock ownership plans with approximately eight million worker participants. About 1,000 to 1,500 of these companies are 51 per cent to 100 per cent owned by their workers, who probably number around one million. Perhaps as many as another million workers are in firms that are 20 per cent to 50 per cent employee owned. About 100 to 250 employee stock ownership plan firms are the result of worker buy-outs of failing companies or successful subsidiaries of large concerns.
As far as political endorsation and non-political en-dorsation, I am glad to say that our local chamber supports it. I am glad to say the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is actively looking at the bill now and I hope to get the financial institutions to take a look at it because, as members know, this bill will come before us again in the fall. I hope in the summer months to build up some national support because I think it is a cause that can be readily supported by all areas and sometimes provide a new direction. I think everyone knows a new direction is required because perhaps what we are doing right at this present moment is not that successful.
Far be it from me to read endorsations from the United States, but I want to say in the United States as unlikely an endorser of this motive was ex-President Ronald Reagan. I am not so sure I should say this but I can use it to my own advantage. I quote:
Could there be anything but widespread misery where a privileged few control the nation's wealth, while millions laboured for a pittance, and millions more were desperate for want of employment? It should be clear to everyone that the nation's steadfast policy should afford every American of working age a realistic opportunity to acquire the ownership and control of some meaningful form of property in a growing national economy.
I think the ex-President is saying: "Yes, I endorse employee ownership".
A more likely endorser was a gentleman now deceased on the opposite end of the spectrum, Hubert Humphrey.
Capital, and the question of who owns it and therefore reaps the benefits of its productiveness, is an extremely important issue that is
Private Members' Business
complementary to the issue of full employment... .1 see these as the twin pillars of our economy: full employment of our labour resources and widespread ownership of our capital resources. Such twin pillars would go a long way in providing a firm underlying support for future economic growth that would be equitably shared.
In closing, this bill is social democracy in action. It does empower the workers. It empowers the workers though not at the expense of anyone else. It is a shared ownership of a small, medium and large corporation business industry and I would encourage that the government side and the Official Opposition support this.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the member on his decision to introduce a bill to promote employee shareholding in the corporation that employs them.
I agree that in some cases such participation may lead to increased productivity and as a result help strengthen our global economy. However, although enhancing cooperation between company management and its employees is praiseworthy in itself, I do not think it would necessarily be wise to adopt Bill C-327.
I would like to take this opportunity to give hon. members my views on the bill and help them decide whether the bill is acceptable in its present form.
Perhaps I may clarify the contents of Bill C-327. The purpose of this legislation is to help employees purchase shares in the company that employs them.
To that end, the bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to provide that employees and the employer may include in deductions from taxable income 50 per cent of their investment in an employee share purchase plan and 50 per cent of the interest paid to a financial institution for the purposes of such plans. To take advantage of these tax incentives, employees must purchase a controlling shareholding in a given corporation.
Hon. members may recall that in 1984 the previous government, in a document entitled Gain Sharing for a Stronger Economy, proposed a program that would provide a tax credit, shared between employees and employers, for the percentage of the profits allocated to employee compensation.

Private Members' Business
The purpose of this program, like most employee ownership plans, was to improve labour management relations and increase employee productivity. Further analysis of the proposal raised some doubts as to whether those objectives were realistic. The proposal, which was not well received by labour and management circles, was dropped by the government and replaced by other policies.
At this point I may add that the Income Tax Act now includes provisions that provide incentives for employee investment. More specifically, the government encourages employee investment by giving preferential tax treatment to employee share purchase options and the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation plan, which was enhanced in the last budget.
Combined with the lifetime capital gains exemption, these programs offer employees a strong incentive for investing in Canadian corporations, without introducing a bias in investment decisions.
I may add that the provisions relating to national labour-sponsored venture capital corporations restrict the percentage of the assets of such corporations that may be invested in a single business, thus reflecting the old adage that warns against putting all one's eggs in the same basket.
In the case of Bill C-327, the eggs include not only the employee's investment but also his job. I think hon. members will agree it would be inappropriate for the government to urge individuals to take such risks.
I would also like to point out that a number of provinces already have programs under which employees may purchase shares in the corporation that employs them. The federal government provides passive support for these programs by administering them under the tax collection agreements and by not counting the province's contribution as taxable income. In some cases, investments under these programs may be eligible for RRSP treatment.
Eliminating initial tax incentives like the ones proposed in Bill C-327 was one of the main thrusts of the 1988 income tax reform. One of the primary objectives of the reform was to encourage decision making in terms of economic merits as opposed to specific tax benefits. Achieving this objective involved eliminating a number
of special tax benefits that were only available to a small group of individuals.
The resulting broadening of the tax base made it possible to reduce income tax across the board. In addition to introducing greater fairness, this approach, with its broader tax base and lower tax rates, has the advantage of not influencing investment decisions and thus encouraging long-term economic growth.
Bill C-327 does the opposite, in that it would encourage the use of public funds for the benefit of a small group of individuals who wish to acquire a controlling interest in the corporation that employs them.
There was another reason for restricting the use of initial tax incentives like those proposed in Bill C-327. Experience, both in this country and abroad, has shown that a considerable share of the tax credits used in this way is applied to activities that would have taken place even if the tax credits had not been available. The activity directly due to these incentives is often insignificant. Furthermore, such tax incentives often tend to have a poor cost-benefit ratio, in terms of achieving the desired objectives.
This brings me to my other point. The adoption of Bill C-327 could have a major impact on the deficit, since this generous tax treatment might encourage many businesses to restructure their employee compensation plan so as to take advantage of this incentive. Given the importance of controlling the deficit, it would be necessary to raise the taxes of all other Canadians to support the stock acquisition plans.
In this regard, it is important for my colleagues in the House to realize that Bill C-327 proposes income redistribution, to some extent. I wonder whether such redistribution is appropriate, in view of the lack of evidence to support the alleged benefits that would flow from the bill, if adopted.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate my colleague on taking the initiative to present this bill in the House. I believe that I speak for all Canadians when I say that increasing the productivity of our workers and improving labour-management relations are important factors in helping this great country to succeed.
June 9, 1992

Nevertheless, I really fear that Bill C-327 would not necessarily do much to achieve that. Not only would it be costly and unfair but it would not reach the objectives for which it was designed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to discuss this issue in the House and I hope that my colleagues can use this information to make a justified, fair and equitable decision when the time comes to vote on this bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-327 which is sponsored by my colleague and friend from Sault Ste. Marie. The bill deals with the whole question of employee ownership, which in Sault Ste. Marie and in the Algoma district we see as the only solution really to the Algoma Steel problem which faced us one year ago last February.
On that cold winter morning we were notified that Dofasco had a debt amounting to some $800 million at Algoma Steel. I must say there was great concern. We had just been through a long and costly strike in the summer and fall of 1990. We faced the prospect of the company going into receivership and the complete destruction of the economic viability, not only of the company, but of Sault Ste. Marie and the Algoma district.
As we look back at it now, in some ways it is miraculous that the working together of Dofasco and Algoma Steel personnel with United Steel Workers of America, the banking institutions and the two senior levels of government, a new Algoma has arisen out of that situation with everybody suffering, as the member has said, massive losses. The workers lost some $2.82 an hour in wages. The banks have had their equity or their investment chopped. Dofasco has lost most of its equity position.
It is hard to know whether this was inevitable or whether it was just a combination of circumstances. Clearly if there is any way for this company to survive, it is with worker ownership.
The steel industry is in a terrible situation. It went through great hardship in the United States during the 1980s when it went from about 500,000 employees to 180,000. We are going through that dramatic restructur-
Private Members' Business
ing now. The only thing is that if the governments in this country get involved in the direct financial support of the steel industry, it means that those companies will be subjected to a countervail by the United States steel industry. They are probably going to be subjected in the next couple of weeks to an anti-dumping duty just because the United States companies want to protect themselves.
The kind of massive financial assistance by all levels of government in the United States has not been provided to Canadian companies. That is not to say that the Government of Canada will not lose hundreds of millions of dollars in the Algoma case because all the losses will be written off against the taxes of the main financial banking institutions that have massive profits against which to write them off.
It does seem to me that for many industries the idea of employee ownership is very desirable. I do not presume to suggest what that exact mechanism is. Clearly government incentives are one idea.
I look back at the budget that was delivered here in the House of Commons on February 15, 1984 by Marc Lalonde. In that budget he said: "I am therefore proposing today to encourage this process with tax assistance for a new employee profit participation plan. The government will provide a tax credit of 10 per cent of the profits shared under the plan; 60 per cent of the tax credit will go to the individual workers, 40 per cent to the employer. The employee profit participation plan is designed to complement the collective bargaining process, not replace it. Experience has shown that to succeed, profit sharing cannot be a substitute for competitive wages".
We are talking about profit sharing. Mr. Lalonde proposed a whole series of tax incentives to encourage profit sharing.
The ultimate objective is to lower the tension, lower the adversarial situation which exists in many industries between employers and employees. Surely there is no way to do this better than through employers and employees owning the company.
If you cannot make the company competitive when the employees own it, you probably cannot make it competitive anyway, assuming you have good management in each case, and it is an industry which is properly capitalized and modem enough in structure.

Private Members' Business
A few weeks ago we had a conference in Sault Ste. Marie on the future of Elliot Lake. One of the principal speakers at the conference was from Tembec which is a diversified forest products company in northern Quebec. I was very impressed with not only the employee ownership in that situation but the attitude toward training and retraining of the workers. Its average training amounts to some 84 hours a year where the Canadian average is only some two hours.
It was the company that stepped in in the Kapuskasing situation where there was an employee buy-out. I was very impressed.
I think profit sharing has a long way to go in Canada because we do tend to have very adversarial relationships between employers and employees, although I do think that the hard, tough economic times that we face right now perhaps reduced that to some extent.
Employee buy-out is one mechanism. Employee participation in profit sharing is another way. Assuming that the Tory government will allow this bill to go to committee, it would be a very worth-while experience to review exactly how the incentives would be provided, whether they would be adequate or perhaps how costly they would be. I think that is the kind of thing we would learn in a committee study of this bill.
I hope the government will support the bill going to committee. I think it is an area that must be further explored.
I do not expect this government to be very generous in encouraging employee ownership or employee participation but I think it is something that is going to happen. There are many industries in this country that are going to have great difficulty surviving in the kind of modem global economy in which they are competing with low-cost producers in other countries. We must have the very maximum of co-operation between employees and employers.
There is a great value in this bill going to committee to see the details of how it could work and how well it would work. I hope that enough government members will support it to see it studied in committee. Perhaps this is the final solution and it can become the law of the
land. If that happens and it is judged by the committee and the House to be the solution, that is great. If it is not perhaps it can be amended, or perhaps the government will ultimately see that there needs to be a mechanism for employer ownership so that it is necessary to operate with the ad hoc arrangements which we had in Kapuskasing and Algoma.
The bill should get the support of the House to go to committee for a very thorough study. We are going through a change in industrial relations in this country and in the world. Employer-employee ownership is one mechanism to ensure that many of our companies, especially our resource companies, survive in this country.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on this private member's bill, Bill C-327.
This bill proposes a 50 per cent tax deduction for investments made by employees, employers and financial institutions to finance employee takeovers of the businesses for which they work.
When assessing this bill we should examine it from various perspectives. Is the proposal good for the employees? Is it good for business? Is it good for taxpayers? I have asked myself these questions and have come to the conclusion that on the whole the proposal would not represent a clear step forward.
I shall now elaborate on why I have reached that conclusion. First, consider how this proposal would affect employees. Canadian employees work hard for their money. Out of their pay cheque they must provide for their current needs, such as food, shelter, clothing, transportation and, if they are lucky, perhaps some entertainment. The remainder of their hard-earned pay, when set aside in the form of savings, provides for the future. Employees must decide where the best place for that nest egg is.
Each individual is different in that respect. Some are prepared to take substantial risks in making investments, knowing that high rewards often accompany high risks. Others place a premium on security, sacrificing a little return in order to sleep soundly at night in the knowledge that their money will be there when they need it.
June 9, 1992

Neither the government nor I can tell these employees as a group where it is best to place their savings. That decision depends on the individual's own experience, character and perspective.
However, a 50 per cent deduction sends a strong message that the government views a particular investment, acquiring a controlling interest in the employer company, as the preferred alternative. The bill suggests that the program is intended for cases in which the financial viability of the employer is in some doubt. Such turn-around situations constitute high-risk investments, not necessarily bad investments but certainly not everyone's cup of tea.
The government should not lure employees into a risky investment with a 50 per cent tax deduction when the employees' instincts and analyses would lead them in a safer direction. Even in the absence of a tax inducement many employees may find investments in their employers to be a good home for their savings. Clearly, the government should do nothing to stand in the way of such decisions nor discourage them through punitive tax treatment.
Just as clearly the tax system should not favour a particular risky type of investment, as this bill proposes. The tax system should play a neutral role if it is to serve the employees of Canada well.
I would now like to turn to the question of whether this proposal would be good for business. The idea of employees acquiring control of their employer's business is in vogue at the moment. A recent Globe and Mail article dealt with what it described as the largest experiment in worker ownership in North American history, which is the employee acquisition of Algoma Steel Corporation Limited. Therefore, it is understandable that this bill is sponsored by the member who represents Sault Ste. Marie, the home of Algoma Steel.
When the results of this experiment are in it may turn out that employee ownership was the ideal business solution for Algoma Steel. Certainly the employees' union representative held out high hopes. Mr. Leo Gerard, the Canadian president of the United Steelworkers of America, is quoted as saying that the Algoma restructuring "shows what imagination and a willingness
Private Members' Business
to take risk can accomplish. High value-added production and a well-trained labour force need not be unrealized dreams or academic exercises". Cuts in wages and benefits were necessaiy to make the package work and this may well have been facilitated by the involvement of Algoma's employees.
Employee ownership may turn out to be the ideal business solution for Algoma Steel. It will not be so in all cases in which businesses are faced with a decision as to change in control. Existing owners may be best placed to continue operating the business given their experience and the stake they already have in making the business work. Alternatively, an outside group constituted of neither employees nor existing owners may bring fresh ideas and new business connections and therefore offer the greatest opportunities for success.
The very complex question of who is best placed to control a business so that it works well for its employees, customers and shareholders is usually answered in a simple fashion. Existing owners when faced with an offer for acquisition of control will consider whether the terms of the offer are attractive. When considering multiple offers they will decide whether the most attractive one is sufficient to convince them to relinquish the control they have. Generally, the most attractive offer will come from the source that has the best plan for the business. If existing owners have the best plan they will accept no alternative offer.
If one group is provided with tax support for their offer while others are not the decision will be tilted in a direction that is not necessarily best for the business. For example, if employees are provided with a 50 per cent tax deduction available neither to existing owners nor to outside groups, employees' offers will be attractive even if they do not make the best business sense.
We all wish to ensure that the best business decisions are reached when questions of corporate control arise. When a business thrives Canadians benefit, as employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders or simply through participation in a prosperous economy. Therefore, we should all agree to avoid using our tax system in a manner that would lead to bad business decisions in the important field of acquisition of control.

June 9, 1992
Private Members' Business
A level tax playing field is essential if we are interested in business success. Unfortunately, this bill would tilt that field.
Finally, let us consider what is best for the taxpayers of Canada. Certainly, a 50 per cent tax deduction sounds very attractive but it would be available only to a select group, the employees of target companies and others who helped finance the take-over. There are millions of Canadians who are not in the labour force, who are unemployed, self-employed or employed in the non-corporate sector. There are millions more who lack the means or the desire to invest in their employers. None of these Canadians will benefit from the proposed tax deduction. Yet these same Canadians will be called upon to foot the bill when it comes to replacing the lost revenue from this new tax deduction.
Is it fair to ask the large majority of Canadians to pay higher taxes so that a select few can benefit from a 50 per cent tax deduction on investments that may pay off handsomely? I would say no.
In summary, whether this House considers the bill from the perspective of the employee, the business or the taxpayer it will find some problems. I am confident that the House will display its usual good sense in disposing of this measure.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to participate in this debate, which is limited in time, on an excellent initiative from one of my colleagues, the member for Sault Ste. Marie.
This is an example of initiative taken by a private member. As most people who follow the proceedings of Parliament will know, one way that private members, members not in government, have an opportunity to present proposed legislation and to develop some ideas is by way of a private member's bill.
This is one particular bill where there is reason enough, I would hope, from the government side and all members of this House to vote on favourably when it does come to a vote and to send the bill to committee. Given the nature of the subject of this bill, it would present an excellent opportunity to review a very exciting and interesting subject matter.
Of course I am referring to the bill presented by my colleague, Bill C-327, and I will read the title which will explain it further. It is an act to assist employees to purchase a controlling shareholding in the corporation that employs them and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof.
Basically, it is an opportunity for us to develop in Canada a formal and structured process for employee buy-outs or to provide incentives that would make it viable as an attractive option.
This bill presented by my colleague would be the first federal legislation to specifically encourage or facilitate employee ownership. That is an important concept for us to look at.
I could go on, as some members probably have, given the difficulty that our economy is facing in Canada, and particularly in the manufacturing sector, given the pressures of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which many have labelled a failure, and of course the plans by the government to get our country into a trilateral free trade agreement.
But leaving those arguments aside for now and just talking about the whole nature of the development of industry and business in Canada, and indeed throughout North America, it is clear that those modem and progressive corporations are taking a look now at being successful. And how is it that they are successful?
One of the ways they are successful, and we all know this, is to ensure they have a valuable and trained work force and given the future outcome of this particular bill, an opportunity then for those employees to share in the ownership of a particular industry. It is those innovative and new ideas that are the kinds of proposals that really do make for a successful and progressive economy in North America.
We do have some examples across North America and here in Canada on employee ownership. One of the examples cited by my colleague is a company by the name of Weirton Steel in Ohio which was to be closed in 1982 by its parent company because of low profits. The employees decided to purchase the plant which accounted for one-third or 8,400 of the total employment of that local community. Since the buy-out the plant has performed relatively well, especially in view of the depressed market for steel. We all know, of course, about the debate between Canada and the United States now on that whole particular field.
June 9, 1992

In raising that specific example, the point is that it has been demonstrated that a decision to close a plant or a facility does not necessarily mean that the operation is economically non-viable.
Business decisions are made for a vast number of reasons, not always because the plant is not profitable. We have seen a number of such transfers given our branch plant economy in Canada. We have seen the closure of branch plants in Canada and movement to the United States. That is clearly an example where employee ownership might play a role in terms of the development of industry in Canada.
Mention is made in the notes about Kapuskasing. There is a very recent success in an employee buy-out and of course in my colleague's riding, there is Algoma Steel.
It is important for us to think about that because it gives workers the opportunity to share in the development of that particular plant or industry in that sector. One comes to mind. In Saskatchewan I believe there is a brewery owned by the workers which has had incredible success, if I recall from one of the business programs that was on. It is an example of the kind of ownership route I think we ought to try to take our industry in giving the employees an opportunity to have that share in the ownership and in the direction of a firm.
I might add that in my mind it is probably the subject of another bill, legislation or debate about Crown corporations. In many ways we might need to take a look at how to get our Crown corporations to be responsive to the needs of consumers. It has been a tool that really has been accepted by all parties in Canada. It has been a tool for economic development, much abused I would say by Liberal and Conservative governments. It is an abused model that can work.
We have to ensure that when we use the services of either CN or Petro-Canada we are getting something out of it or that there is a clear return to the public treasury. I do not know if at times we have been successful at showing that. In any case it is along the same lines, I suppose, of employees having some say in the development of those particular operations.
This bill will go some distance toward dealing with the issue. It deserves the support of the government, at the
Private Members' Business
very least, to vote and pass the bill. Then we could get it to committee where there could be a fascinating look at the whole concept of employee ownership. This bill could spur that discussion. In committee there could be very reasonable discussion. There could be witnesses from a number of these plants and facilities where it has worked.
Let us hear from the opponents of the idea who do not think it will work. Let us hear from the chambers of commerce and the trade union movement as to their views. It would be a very interesting study. That is reason enough for the government to tiy to move this legislation through and into committee.
Let me just mention a few other points in the bill just for detail so that the people who read this debate later will have some background. Part of the bill's plan is for half of the employees' or corporation's contributions plan to be deducted. Borrowing by a plan's trustees to purchase shares would be made easier by allowing lending institutions a tax deduction of half the interest earned.
The bill requires-and I think this is important-that the plan be agreed to by all parties involved: the management and the shareholders. Of course the Minister of National Revenue must agree in terms of the implications on the Income Tax Act in this case. Most important, we are seeing some support of initiatives in this particular case.
This particular initiative brought forward by my colleague has been endorsed by many groups including the Sault Ste. Marie Chamber of Commerce and various labour groups. Obviously there is the work here. I hope members of the public after hearing, will write their letters of support to the member for Sault Ste. Marie urging government members and other members of the House to support this legislation.
It will be a real opportunity for employee ownership whose time has come and for Canadian employees to be given the opportunity to save their jobs and work together to keep Canada strong.
I would encourage the government to offer its support to this bill, to send it to committee where all these issues could be surveyed and to say yes to a good idea from the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

June 9, 1992
Adjournment Debate


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as has been noted, the subject of debate before us today is private member's Bill C-327, recommending that this government encourage the financial participation of workers in the firms in which they are employed.
I begin by thanking the hon. member for raising the issue of improving the relationship between management and labour. This government shares the hon. member's concerns that to remain competitive we need increased co-operation between labour and management. This will be critical in the long-term growth of the Canadian economy.
As members may be aware, Bill C-327 recommends that the Income Tkx Act be amended to provide a 50 per cent deduction from taxable income for employee and employer investments in employee share purchase plans and on interest income earned on loans by financial institutions to such plans. It is important to note that the purchase of shares is not enough. Under this proposal employees must in fact acquire control of the target firm.
Mr. Speaker, as you will no doubt recall, a similar proposal was put forth by the previous government in 1984. That program would have provided a tax credit shared between employees and employers for employee remuneration paid in the form of a percentage of profits. Like the current proposal, the objective of that plan was to enhance worker productivity through improved relationship between labour and management. You may also recall that both labour and management groups expressed dissatisfaction with that proposal. After careful study by this government the plan was rejected.
This should not come as a surprise to anyone who is aware of the objectives that this government espoused in tax reform. As members are aware, one of the primary objectives of tax reform was to encourage decisions based on economic merit rather than special tax preferences. This was accomplished by the elimination of numerous preferences, preferences that in many cases were available to only a small group of people. At the same time many deductions were either eliminated or replaced by credits.
The combined effect of this base broadening permitted the reduction of tax rates. As a result many Canadians,
particularly low income recipients and seniors, enjoyed a reduction in their tax liabilities.
Most important of all was the fact that tax reform was a major step in reducing the distortions in economic decision making through the income tax system. This broad based, low rate approach to income taxation left savings decisions undistorted thus encouraging the longterm growth of the economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I apologize for interrupting the member but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped from the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly today on Canada's printing industry. As we know it is Canada's fourth largest industrial employer with 78,000 employees working today in Canada.
This industry is comprised of 4,300 different establishments, which means that the average work force in each one of these establishments is under 20 employees. This industry is really a Canadian industry. It is 96 per cent Canadian owned. A lot of them are family owned and have been in business for many years.
What has happened recently is a disaster. Like many of our other industries the printing industry has been hit very hard by the recession, but even worse by free trade.
Last year my province of Ontario lost 5,500 printing jobs. There is 14 per cent unemployment among printers themselves. In the rest of the country we lost 4,700 jobs in just one year in this industry which is quintessential^ Canadian. In just one year, last year, we lost 10,200 jobs. The people who work in this industry are proud and fine people.
June 9, 1992

What has this done to our trading relationship with the United States? We do about $750 million annual trade both ways with the United States, but our deficit in trade with the United States in 1988 was $106 million. Last year it was $332 million. This was an increase in our trading deficit of 213 per cent. This is not good for Canada. The loss of jobs is not good for Canada. There is the loss of foreign exchange.
Now why has this happened? The printing industry has analysed its plight. It cites the high Canadian dollar. It says that under free trade because the industry is small, under 20 employees per firm, the industry needs it more than the five year phase-out of tariffs under the free trade deal. The printing industry asked for the 10 years and did not get it. So consequently, it has been left at a competitive disadvantage. The higher taxes in Canada are cited, including lower capital cost allowances to invest in new machinery and equipment.
One of the interesting facts is the actual working of the free trade agreement itself under the country of origin markings. Since free trade, because of this factor alone $160,000 in sales and 1,700 jobs have been lost.
The U.S. laws are more stringent. They are enforced with greater zeal and there is a buy American program. Our printers simply want a level playing field. They are prepared to compete but they are not getting it from our laws or from our enforcement of the free trade.
We have to support our industry. It has come up with its own buy Canadian program, a printed in Canada logo, proudly Canadian. This is the industry's answer to the buy American program. Let us get behind our printers and give them the support that only government can and which they so richly deserve.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly answer the hon. member for Willowdale by telling him that Revenue Canada Customs and Excise is in charge of enforcing the marking of imported goods
Adjournment Debate
order requiring that the country of origin be marked on some imports when they come into Canada.
As regards the marking of printed material, requirements are as stringent in Canada as in the United States. Generally, there should be a country of origin marking on all stationery items, lithographic prints and printed matter.
In response to the concerns of the Canadian Printing Industries Association, our officials have undertaken a review of how we enforce the marking of imported goods order.
We are working in particular on administrative directives regarding the size and location of the country of origin markings as well as on amendments to current exemptions for printed matter.
We expect these guidelines to strike a balance between the Canadian requirements and the American ones. We met with the Canadian Printing Industries Association in April to give a progress report on this.
Before any change is implemented, the importing community and the printing associations will of course have to be advised of the changes we plan in terms of the enforcement of the marking requirements.
As far as the enforcement of the program by Customs is concerned, I can assure you that our officials enforce the order most cleverly.
Moreover, complaints from the Canadian Printing Industries Association have been investigated and, when required, corrective measures have been taken.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, June 5,1 asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration a question regarding the dismal unemployment statistics released that day.
I received a very unsatisfactory answer. It was unsatisfactory not only to myself, but also to many Canadians across this country and especially people who are unemployed.

June 9, 1992
Adjournment Debate
The figures announced that day gave the unemployment rate at 11.2 per cent for the month of May. Now the prospect of finding a job in my province of Prince Edward Island is even worse because the unemployment figures there are 19.1 per cent. That is the highest monthly unemployment rate ever reported by Statistics Canada in my province. There is a personal face behind all these statistics.
People need jobs. They need jobs for their self-respect and for their dignity. Certainly these people are looking to the federal government to change some of its economic policies because these policies simply have not worked. Although inflation is important, job creation must also be a part of the federal government's economic strategy.
Perhaps more than anyone else in this country, Canadian youth is paying the price of this government's economic policies. The unemployment rate among youths in this country is 17.8 per cent. There are 114,000 fewer young people employed this year than in May of last year. Right now many students are looking for work and they have little or no hope of finding summer jobs.
In Atlantic Canada the youth unemployment rate is 30.3 per cent. That figure is unacceptable. I am astounded that this government does not recognize the need to act on this very serious situation.
Many of these students were planning to work this summer to pay for their expenses at college or at university next year. This government has simply let them down because it has not taken any action to provide the much needed jobs.
At the same time this government is hurting students in other ways. It has not recognized that the cost allowance for students under the student loan program has not been increased since 1984 even though tuition fees and other expenses continue to go up every year.
I want to end by saying there is no question that we need a change of leadership. We need new economic policies. We need policies that will create jobs.
For the sake of all Canadians, let us hope that this change comes sooner rather than later.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I am pleased to provide the hon. member for Malpeque with some more information on the questions she herself raised here in this House on June 5.
The government cares about the difficult situation in which Atlantic Canadians find themselves. That is why the government commits $425 million on average every year for regional development projects in the Atlantic provinces.
Furthermore, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency continues to draw up and implement programs that promote economic development in the Atlantic region. By the end of March 1992, a net amount of $745 million had been committed in grants and contributions under ACOA's action program.
The government developed strategies to rebuild and diversify the fishing industry in the Atlantic region. Under the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, the Government of Canada will commit a total of $584 million to the fishing sector; $120 million will be allocated to a program to help fish-processing plant workers adjust; $146 million will be spent to help diversify the region's economy; $150 million will be used to reconstitute the fish stocks; $130 million will be allocated under the Labour Force Development Strategy to community development programs and projects intended to help older and aging workers adjust.
Finally, under the Labour Force Development Strategy, unemployment insurance funds for labour market programs have increased 280 per cent, from $500 million in 1990 to $1.95 billion in 1992. These funds will be used to help the unemployed acquire new skills and to encourage the private sector to provide more training for its workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 10,1992