1992-09-16

[Stage Direction]
[English)

Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to invite Canadians to celebrate the first annual Women's History Month this October as declared earlier this year by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Throughout our history, women in Canada have shaped our society in countless ways: in the home, in the work place, as volunteers, reformers and leaders. However, all too often their contributions have been overlooked.
Coinciding with the annual commemoration of the women's rights victory know as the Persons case of October 1929, Women's History Month offers all Canadians a chance to explore women's lives and accomplishments, past and present.
This is an opportunity not to be missed, particularly for young Canadians. A knowledge of the strong and purposeful women in our lives broadens our visions of life's possibilities and inspires us to future action.
In this year of our 125th anniversary, women can continue to be nation builders. I urge women to participate in determining Canada's future by voting in the nation-wide referendum on constitutional renewal on October 26.


INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY HALL OF FAME
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to the
International Hockey Hall of Fame located in Kingston as it has just been sanctioned as an official museum for international hockey by the International Ice Hockey Federation.
The Hall of Fame will now display items from all 40 member countries of the federation. It will also receive the rights to reproduce federation sports memorabilia for sale locally and internationally. Plans are in hand to develop world-wide tours to the museum and to create an archives and research centre.
The directors of the Hall of Fame are to be commended for their diligence and hard work over many years in achieving this distinction. I wish them every success. Their efforts will ensure that the international history of Canada's game will flourish. Canadians will always remember those immortal words of Foster Hewitt, so sweet to our ears, which were spoken 20 years ago this month: "Henderson has scored for Canada".


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge the media to provide a balanced and qualified debate on the national referendum. To begin with there seems to be a trotting out before the media an onslaught of no experts. I ask the media: Are there not any yes experts?
Why are provincial premiers not forced into the spotlight of public debate with the same effort as the saviour of the Canadian women's movement, Judy Re-bick? Why are members of Parliament not forced into debate with the same vigour as Deborah Coyne, whose claim to fame seems to come more from her social activities than her public achievements?
It is my opinion the media is either lazy or incompetent because I believe there are two sides to the coin of this debate. It is unfortunate that all we seem to get today is the tail side.


OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise a government program, the older worker adjustment program, better known as POWA. This program provides permanently laid off older workers 70 per cent of their UI benefits from age 55 to 65; but there are problems with the program.
The economy is sour and the unemployment rate is at historically high levels. People can wait for two years before their applications are reviewed. Many of these people put their lives on hold, anticipating a positive response which may in fact not materialize.
The backlog in Ontario alone constitutes over 700 companies, affecting thousands of individuals. Current funding provisions address only about one-third of those laid off older workers.
Finally, the criterion that must be changed is the one that states the lay-off must be large relative to the size of the community. This discriminates against the smaller firms and their employees. Whether the lay-offs are 45 at a bakeiy, 20 at a dairy, 100 at a veneer mill, or 1,000 at a large industrial giant, all are laid off and should be eligible for POWA.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada round of constitutional talks has been a fair and open process in which every Canadian has had the chance to speak about their vision of Canada.
The last segment of this process will end on October 26, 1992, with a national referendum where all Canadians will have the opportunity to show their support.
The constitutional proposals reached in the Charlottetown agreement on August 28 serve as a reasonable compromise and as the basis for renewed federalism. No one present at these discussions left the table with everything they wanted. There were compromises made on all sides.
I feel these proposals represent the best possible solution to a very complicated and very serious issue. I am pleased that on Friday of this week the two provincial members of Parliament, the chief of the Chippewa band
and the mayors of Sarnia, Point Edwards, Moore Township, and myself will be making a joint public statement of support for these proposals and a continued united Canada.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is being stubborn and arrogant by refusing to co-operate and act on a request by the municipal council of Tracadie-Sheila that residents be able to address their mail so as to reflect the new municipality formed by merging the village of Sheila and the town of Tracadie.
In response to this legitimate and reasonable request, Canada Post insists that mail addressed to Tracadie-Sheila must be rejected. This attitude and this lack of sensitivity have increased the frustration and dissatisfaction of customers in my riding who see the closing of the Bas-Caraquet and Bertrand post offices as part of a strategy that is making dramatic inroads in the quality of service offered in the Acadian peninsula.
The Government of New Brunswick legislated the merger of the two municipalities of Tracadie and Sheila, and Canada Post should take steps to clear up the confusion it caused and observe the wishes of the residents of Tracadie-Sheila.


WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, the first annual Women's History Month to be held this October was announced earlier this year by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, and I now wish to pay tribute to a number of French Canadian women who helped build our country.
As nun and teacher, Marguerite Bourgeoys founded the Congregation de Notre-Dame de Montreal in 1671, to educate young girls. She was canonized in 1982. As the owner of a sawmill and administrator of real property in the 18th century, Louise de Ramezay was one of the first business women in New France.
September 16, 1992

At the beginning of this century Marie-Lacoste-Gerin-Lajoie worked hard to improve the legal status of married women in Quebec. She was also a co-founder of the Federation nationale Saint-Jean-Baptiste.
Emilie Fortin-Tremblay was the first white woman to cross the Chilcoot Pass during the Klondike gold rush.
And Therese Casgrain led the struggle by Quebec women to obtain the franchise, which they did in 1940.
These are only a few examples of French Canadian women whose lives are an inspiration to us all. The women of Canada, whatever their ethnic origin, have made their mark in the past and they will continue to do so in a modem and prosperous Canada that is making its influence felt throughout the world.


JIM BODDEN
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, a very difficult situation has arisen involving a Canadian citizen who plays professional hockey in Italy. Jim Bodden was playing a regular season game on January 15 of this year in which a player from the other team died. The players were in front of the net, the other player punched Jim in the head and Jim reacted by shoving him away with his stick. Shortly thereafter the player died of a heart attack. The deceased player had suffered from epilepsy.
Jim is 29 years old and has played in Italy for the past 15 years. He is known to be a real gentleman on the ice. The Italian authorities are now saying that Jim will be charged with homicide. In that Jim and his family are Canadian citizens, I call upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to contact our embassy in Italy to make certain that Jim Bodden's rights are being protected and that he is being treated fairly.
I would like to ensure that the Government of Canada's full resources are behind him and his family.


BROADCASTING OF HOCKEY GAMES
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, the National Hockey League season begins in 23 days in Ottawa, but sports lovers on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River are very concerned about what seems to await them with the Ottawa Senators' threat to black out hockey on TVA and TQS during the week.
I have received many calls from sports fans in the Outaouais who ask me to intervene with the Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. In a letter that I sent him today, I ask him to intervene with Molson Breweries and the Ottawa Senators so that the people of the Outaouais are not hostage to such a decision and deprived of the television coverage of some 50 games of the Montreal Canadiens and Quebec Nordiques. While pressure is being put on Molson's and the Senators, I trust that action by the minister will bring results.
In closing, we must keep in mind that not everyone can afford hockey tickets.


SALMON FISHERY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, as the Atlantic salmon season in eastern Canada draws near a close, it is important to recognize the constructive conservation measures that have been achieved during 1992. To be sure, there will always be management challenges to face on behalf of this precious resource, but a firm foundation has now been laid for the regeneration of future salmon stocks in the years to come.
Foremost among the measures introduced this year was the minister's difficult and forthright decision to extend the closing of commercial fishing in the offshore waters of Newfoundland. This has dramatically amplified the impact of previous such closings in the maritime provinces and there was clear evidence of significantly increased salmon runs in almost all of the rivers on Canada's Atlantic seaboard in the past summer.
An equally difficult and comprehensive initiative has been the development of the aboriginal fishery strategy for Atlantic Canada which was announced just one week ago. This plan to fully involve native bands in management and guardianship of the resource as well as in the

September 16, 1992
rational economic exploitation of it should prove a most constructive approach in all respects. Not only does it point to improved sharing of the salmon harvest among all user groups, it emphasizes new harvesting directions to eventually eliminate gill-nets and to replace them with methods that are consistent with the catch and release conservation practices.
Along with these two major achievements, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans deserves the genuine appreciation of all Canadians for the spirit of environmental responsibility which he has demonstrated through the over-all policy of his department for its sound salmon management in Canadian rivers.


ERNST ZUNDEL
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Ernst Zundel is a leading Nazi apologist and propagandist. He has promoted the lie that the Holocaust is a hoax, the gas chambers a matter of the imagination. Zundel was brought before Ontario's courts and was twice convicted for his pamphlet Did Six Million Really Die. He has been fined in his native Germany for hate crimes. When the Supreme Court struck down the Criminal Code section under which he was convicted, he hailed the decision as an affirmation of freedom of expression. We must ask: What sort of freedom and for what sort of expression?
The extreme right has already been aided and abetted by the decision. This week, on a new Klan hate line operating in Toronto, B'nai Brith human rights activist Ian Kagedan was denounced for stands taken in defence of human dignity.
For this and other racist fronts, freedom includes freedom to vilify and expression includes the dissemination of lies.
The message must come through loud and clear. We will not tolerate the promotion of hatred against any identifiable groups which will fray our social fabric. The cost of racism is incalculable. We must devote all our efforts and energies to eradicate this scourge.


SALMON FISHERY
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. salmon industry is in trouble.
Yesterday, the minister said that the disappearance of salmon from the Fraser River could have been due to the water being wanner than usual; warm but not warm enough to cook into oblivion 1.2 million sockeye salmon.
He said the count could have been wrong. His staff told me for three weeks they could have been 10 per cent or 15 per cent out, but to be 1.2 million out they would have to have been 80 per cent wrong. They denied any possibility of that.
This same minister said that B.C. salmon is not in trouble. The same person in a previous capacity three years ago said that the Atlantic cod was not in trouble. Look where we are today.
Three hundred fishing boats with hundreds of fishermen turned out yesterday to blockade B.C. harbours to prove that the minister is wrong and to draw attention to it. We need the committee to go out there and get a first-hand report. We need a judicial inquiry that will us what is wrong so that we can correct things for next year.
The B.C. salmon industry is in trouble.


CAMBODIA
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask that Canada turn its eyes to a small nation in southeast Asia, Cambodia.
In 1975 the Khmer Rouge came to power in Cambodia, and before they were ousted in 1979 by the Vietnamese they had killed one million of their own people.
The United Nations is now in the middle of a delicate negotiating dance with the four political factions which want to govern Cambodia, including the Khmer Rouge and the present Vietnamese backed government.
The UN is starting Cambodians down the long road to democracy. Nation-wide elections are supposed to take place next spring under the guidance of the United Nations Transitional Authority of Cambodia. The Khmer

September 16, 1992

Rouge are once again threatening the life of this small nation by blocking the negotiations.
Canada must support the United Nations in its efforts and encourage Cambodians to resist the threats of the Khmer Rouge. The lives of seven million Cambodians hang in the balance. Canada can do no less.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a Canadian woman to voice my disagreement with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and its constitutional stance.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Catherine Clancy: We have looked at the Canada clause. We have examined the charter and we have consulted with some of the top constitutional lawyers in the country, lawyers who are, may I add, committed feminists.
The result? We fail to see just how the gloomy scenarios for women depicted by NAC will be the product of this reform. We do not see how the Canada clause will endanger women's equality as guaranteed in sections 15 and 28 of the charter. We do not believe that women will be losers in a renewed Canada.
With the greatest of respect for the legal skills and capabilities of those advising NAC, I and many Canadian women simply cannot subscribe to this theory.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
On Saturday I had the occasion to meet 500 employees of Canadian Airlines in Vancouver who are willing to make some sacrifices in order to make sure that they preserve their jobs, the company and at the same time help to maintain competition in the air in Canada.
Oral Questions
I would like to know from the Prime Minister if this government has any policy to help them to maintain their company as other employees have succeeded in doing in the United States.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, several months ago, the two airlines had already begun to consider various proposals to ensure their survival. Canadian Airlines is now holding discussions with both Air Canada and American Airlines to see which of the two options would be more profitable and more likely to give the travelling public an efficient, competitive transportation system and at the same time to keep job losses in the aviation industry to a minimum.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase my question for the minister. I asked a question about the proposal from employees who are prepared to make sacrifices to keep their jobs.
In his reply the minister made no reference at all to the employees' proposal. Is the minister interested in the employees' proposal or is the government's pjolicy already made, that there will no longer be two airlines in Canada but only one?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, since the proposed agreement between American and Canadian is based on the new proposal made by the employees, Canadian has stated publicly that it was still examining this position in order to keep job losses to a minimum. We have already shown our interest in this proposal by completing the purchase of three R-310 Airbuses as quickly as possible so that Canadian Airlines has the funds it needs to continue to negotiate, safe from any surprises.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister.
According to the employees that I met in Vancouver, the Governments of Alberta and Manitoba, were ready to put some money on the table but that the Government of British Columbia, the province where most of the jobs are, refused completely to help in the situation.

Oral Questions
Was the minister in touch with the NDP Government of B.C. to do something for the 6,000 employees in British Columbia?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again, in case the Leader of the Opposition did not hear, that when this proposal was originally presented to the various governments, the Government of Canada was the only one that agreed to invest in the purchase of three Airbuses, precisely to give Canadian Airlines all the breathing room and time it needs to examine all these options.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport.
In 1991 the Conference Board of Canada produced a study entitled "The Tkx Competitiveness of the Canadian Airline Industry". In that study it concluded:
The principal reason for the uncompetitiveness of the Canadian airline system is the higher commodity sales tax on fuel.
How can the minister say that the government has done everything it can for a competitive airline industry when its own tax policies have undermined the ability of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines to compete?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, it is very well known that if the taxation level of Canadian corporations in Canada is at its present level, it is because of the huge deficit, the national debt that we have inherited from the previous Liberal government.
Last year we did in fact move in the taxation field by reducing the excise tax on fuel for the transportation industry from four cents to one cent on a temporary basis. We have changed the depreciation, the cost allowance configuration. This has helped the airline industry. We are continuing to examine the situation, not only for the airline but for the whole transportation industry.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to be examining the situation until there is no situation left to examine.
The Canadian Airline employees council has made major efforts to save its airline. It has proposed and been
willing to accept sacrifices and concessions. Five of the six unions at Canadian Airlines have indicated that they are willing to help. Provincial governments have indicated that they are willing to help.
What is this minister willing to do for the thousands of Canadian Airline employees and Air Canada employees who are concerned about their jobs being lost?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that I did not say we were only studying. I said that we had already taken action to reduce the tax burden on airlines, as well as on all other transport companies, in particular by reducing the excise tax on gasoline and, among other things, by introducing the GST which has saved the airlines $250 million.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, all members of the House, and indeed all Canadians, will realize what a delicate and sensitive position our country is in at the moment.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister who will know that the three political parties of Canada have called a political cease-fire in their partisan activities in the best effort to work together for the yes campaign in an effort to keep our country together.
The Prime Minister will also know that NAFTA as a trade deal is divisive, is controversial, and has major political overtones. We already know that a major government advertising program is under way to promote NAFTA throughout the country.
In the best interest of ensuring a yes vote at this veiy critical time, would the Prime Minister be willing to pull the government's aggressive advertising campaign until after October 26 to allow the minimum amount of divisiveness and the minimum amount of political overtones attached to this and to allow us to get on with encouraging unity in our country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question.
September 16, 1992

As I understand it, the ads in regard to NAFTA are largely explanatory. They are trying to set out the advantages that might flow from the new trade agreement.
My hon. friend knows that almost 80 per cent of Mexican products presently enter Canada duty-free. If this agreement is ratified by the three Parliaments it will not have a perceptible effect, for example, on Canada's trading relationship. It will however open a new export market to us in a very considerable way. For every-


Mr. Barrett:: That is propaganda and that is where the problem is. You are making it worse.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that it is propaganda. I was just about to say that for every billion dollars of exports Canada is able to realize 15,000-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor in answering a question. I know that hon. members would want to restrain their remarks.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I was going to make an observation before I was so rudely interrupted by my friend from Victoria. If my hon. friend would care to point out to me anything particularly objectionable or unacceptable, as I have not seen anything to which he refers, I would be happy to take a look at it.
Obviously, without trying to offend the great degree of unanimity that has been brought about in respect of the unity file, the operations of the Government and the Parliament of Canada continue to function within the normal constraints. However I would be happy to look at any objections my hon. friend has.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that the House is planning to recess to allow all members to participate full time in selling the yes campaign, or almost all members. He will also know from the transcript that was leaked a couple of days ago that the campaign is aggressively under way, a massive advertising campaign is under way. He will also know that the other day his House leader said: "In order to win the NAFTA campaign we have got to create enemies".
I ask the Prime Minister this: Is this the time-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps there were others as well who indicated the need to create enemies in order to win the NAFTA advertising campaign and convince people of the best interest of NAFTA.
In all seriousness, and to the Prime Minister, we know that as the days progress this gets to be a more challenging issue for the yes campaign. We also know-there is no question in this House-that the more we discuss NAFTA and the more the government forces NAFTA on to the front burner and on to the agenda there will be aggressive reaction across the country from those opposing it.
Surely the Prime Minister cannot believe that at this sensitive moment this is in the best interest of the unity file, as he refers to it. But for the future of our country will the Prime Minister pull back on his aggressive campaign to allow all members to work together, shoulder to shoulder to shoulder, in the best interests of our country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working very closely with my hon. friend-I am going to British Columbia on Sunday and Monday-with regard to this great question of national unity.
My hon. friend made a statement I found quite startling, that our House leader said we had to create enemies. That is the one thing this government does not have to go out and create. I will have to talk to the House leader after this. That would be overkill.
I see the point my hon. friend is making and it is a serious point. A few weeks ago his leader said that when she undertook her national unity campaign she planned to campaign very actively against NAFTA and other things while she was giving her national unity message. I did not complain. If she chooses to do that, that is fine by me, but I do not plan to campaign in terms of national unity in favour of NAFTA or anything else. I am just going to campaign in favour of Canada and I will look forward to doing that in British Columbia with my hon. friend who has campaigned very hard on behalf of national unity in the past.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friend, the Prime Minister, that there is a world of difference between political leaders articulating their parties' views on critical trade issues and the government

Oral Questions
launching a massive, aggressive, brutal campaign and using taxpayers' money on a divisive issue.
I know the Prime Minister will be out there promoting this unity campaign. Across the street there is a whole organization that is out there now contacting companies across the country, aggressively encouraging them to support this divisive trade deal.
If the Prime Minister really believes that we must work co-operatively, if he really believes that all parties must set aside their political differences, create a political cease-fire until October 26-


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question has been put.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend referred to a massive, aggressive and brutal campaign. I think I can give my hon. friend the assurance that there will be no brutal campaign. There will be no aggressive campaign. There will be no massive campaign. There will be a campaign designed to provide the Canadian people with some basic information regarding this deal.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister should be aware that just this morning the Canadian steel industry had to initiate yet another anti-dumping action against the United States because this government has failed to protect Canadian steel workers.
In fact the Canadian vice-president of Dofasco said yesterday:
If NAFTA does not improve, and in fact weakens, what we got under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we would be deceiving ourselves by supporting it.
Why has this government failed to protect Canadian steel workers and agreed to a deal which ignores the concerns of Canadian steel companies in anti-dumping and unfair pricing?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of trade I will reply to the question that was posed.
First, the comments the hon. member raises are not accurate. We still have provisions in chapter nineteen to provide for a continuation of our consultations with the United States on the steel issue. More important, in addition, under the new agreement we have a new provision which will allow work to take place on the issue of replacing the anti-dumping laws with competition laws. That is exactly what the steel industry has been after for a long period of time.
We are answering their concerns. I might also say that anti-dumping charges are in fact brought by industries, not by government. It was the right of the steel industry to bring that charge.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, in fact it is the Canadian steel industry that is saying this.
Not only Dofasco has criticized the deal. Stelco said:
NAFTA essentially abandoned the commitment that was made
under the free trade agreement. We're very concerned that the
negotiators have overlooked something that is very important.
I want to ask the Prime Minister again: Why has the government agreed to a deal with the U.S. and Mexico that leaves tens of thousands of Canadian steel workers out to dry?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said. We have not. We have in fact responded to the steel industry's concerns in this agreement. It is there and the objectives are exactly the same as they were in the free trade agreement which it supported. It wanted change from anti-dumping law to competition law. Those clauses are contained in the NAFTA agreement.
We are doing what the steel industry has requested, exactly. I might add that we also have worked very hard in the multilateral trade negotiations in changing from an anti-dumping law to a competition law as well. We are very active in those negotiations as well.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister for International Trade to table all the impact studies the government has prepared on the North American free trade agreement. What the
September 16, 1992

minister tabled yesterday is certainly not that. It is little more than propaganda financed by the taxpayer.
How can the government make its blanket assertions about the North American free trade agreement, the benefits to Canada, let alone design the adjustment assistance programs that Canadians badly need if what was tabled yesterday constitutes all the impact studies this government has prepared?
My question is a simple one. Is what was tabled yesterday the full extent of the government's impact studies of the North American free trade agreement? Yes or no.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member's permission, I am sure he will understand that I cannot respond to that.
The Minister for International Trade is away on government business today but will be back in the House later this week and will be able to answer that question specifically.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, that answer seems to me quite unsatisfactory because the minister knows whether he is the minister of trade or not.
The minister will recall that earlier this year, as a result of the utilization of the Freedom of Information Act, copies of preliminary impact studies, prepared for example by the Department of Agriculture, Investment Canada and Energy, Mines and Resources, were obtained.
Why does the government not table its final impact studies? Is the government saying in the answer from the minister: I cannot table anything; I do not know whether there is anything?
He knows there are impact studies. He knows he can table them or, in refusing to do so, is he merely leaving the Canadian people to utilize once again the Freedom of Information Act to obtain basic information, as the Prime Minister says, about the North American free trade agreement?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is accusing me of something, I believe unfairly. The hon. member has been around here a very long period of time
Oral Questions
and understands that a question that specific should be directed to the minister responsible and not asked when he is out of the House.


CHILD BENEFITS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is answering on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Today in St. John's he said he wishes he could increase child benefits to $1,000 a month, but he said the government does not have the resources to do so.
Yesterday information obtained under the Access to Information Act shows that the government has spent $50,000 for a logo for the Brighter Futures program for children at risk. That is just one part of the $8 million budget for advertising and public relations for this program.
If the government is really serious about improving benefits for poor children, would it not be better to stop wasting taxpayers' money on logos and propaganda and start spending the $8 million on children instead? Why not stop feeding advertisers and start feeding children?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House would want to have more money to spend on children.
One thing we are debating today in the House is a bill on the child benefit package which was announced last February. It puts $2.1 billion of new money into child benefit programs.
We are putting a monthly cheque that is non-taxa-ble-and this is the first time that a child benefit program has been non-taxable-into the hands of parents. The money is targeted for those that really need it, and I think the hon. member should be very pleased.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first the parliamentary secretary did not answer the question about the waste on advertising instead of putting money into government programs.
Just to put this into perspective, the $50,000 for this logo would feed 2,000 people at the Saskatoon Food

September 16, 1992
Oral Questions
Bank, 56 per cent of whom would be children, for a year. Maybe that is a priority the government should put first.
My supplementary question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. The minister will know that the Canadian Child Day Care Advocacy Association was denied $23,000 under the women's program of the Secretary of State for a national child care conference, part of $300,000 of worth-while projects turned down this summer.
I wonder if the minister would not agree that Canadian women and children would be better served if funds were allocated to supporting worth-while projects instead of using taxpayers' dollars to promote the government's re-election program.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague is aware, the women's program comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, who is not here today.
I would like to remind my hon. colleague that under the women's program there are many applications for excellent projects. The program, while it has had increased funding over the past several years, is not able to fund them all and decisions on priorities must be made. Priorities have been established to provide particular focus on women who are especially disadvantaged and those are the major projects that are being funded this year.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In Quebec today more than 400,000 people are unemployed, more than 423,000 are on welfare and nearly
350,000	people who live alone are poor. It seems 53 per cent of Quebecers are afraid of losing their jobs, and meanwhile this government refuses to launch an economic recovery program.
How will the Prime Minister explain to millions of Canadians who are suffering as a result of his erroneous policies that he has no money for a program to modernize infrastructures, as proposed by the Leader of the
Opposition, but can afford to spend million of dollars on selling free trade which is losing us jobs?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that in the February budget the Minister of Finance spelled out very clearly that he was prepared to discuss with the provinces a program to improve the national highway system. Those discussions are ongoing.
The ministers of transport of the provinces and of Canada will be discussing how that might be carried out at a meeting, I believe, within the next few days.
Thlks are going on to improve our national highway system and also to provide employment.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition proposed modernization of the infrastructure of the country in January. It is now the middle of September and time the government stopped discussions and started acting. People want jobs. They want to work today, not in two months.
When will the government announce a program for Canadians to work? Do we have to wait another six months?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that when the Government of Canada announces programs which will create employment, such as purchasing helicopters for the armed forces, purchasing armoured cars, purchasing trucks from the west which preserve and create employment. They object to them.
Those purchases create employment in this country and it is the taxpayers' dollars being spent to create employment. It is billions of dollars. They object to that, and yet they want a make work project that will only provide jobs for a short period of time. What we are trying to do is create meaningful employment on the long term.


ATLANTIC FISHERMEN
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries. On June 2 the minister announced the northern cod moratorium response package which would look after roughly 19,000 plant workers and fishermen. Yesterday
September 16, 1992

the minister said that since June 2 he has looked after 19,223 fishermen and plant workers.
I find that very strange because in the first week of September alone, my office responded to 1,000 calls and the records show that in fact on the toll free line, 10,485 calls came through. This is quite a discrepancy.
I would ask the minister to explain this discrepancy and perhaps tell the House what he plans to do about it.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am not functioning properly today, but I fail to see where there is any discrepancy.
There are 19,200-odd persons, fishermen and plant workers, in the northern cod area in Newfoundland and Labrador who are receiving assistance at the present time under the northern cod program. I cannot remember the exact figures, but there are a number of hundreds in Quebec who will be eligible, 1,000 or thereabouts in Nova Scotia and a certain number in New Brunswick as well.
There are at least a thousand cases in a grey area that we do not think are eligible but who will probably go through an appeal process. There are two appeal boards set up. They are staffed and ready to go to hear appeals from people who feel that they are eligible and who have been refused.
I do not know where the discrepancy is. There are
19,000	and several hundred people on the program at the moment.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister knows there are trucking companies and smaller fish buying companies that are directly affected by the northern cod moratorium. In addition, there are vessel owners who have invested tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in the fishing industry this year, in the belief that there would be one, who are really out of pocket. I do believe, as most others, that they deserve special compensation.
Oral Questions
Could the minister respond and tell me if he is giving special consideration for more compensation for the vessel owners and consideration for the fish buying plants and the trucking companies to be considered under this program?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it should always be remembered-and sometimes it is difficult to remember it-that there is a provincial government in Newfoundland and that government has full authority to contribute to assist people who are in poor economic straits as well as the federal government.
With respect to processing plants, the responsibility for the fish processing industry is clearly with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador which licenses fish processing plants. Under the property and civil rights section of the Constitution there is just no question as to who has the responsibility for fish processing plants. The people that license them to operate do.
With respect, there are some grey areas the hon. gentleman mentioned, such as what I would call fish handlers, who are not employed in the fish processing plant. I am looking at that now as a matter of fact and I hope to have a decision in the next few days because there are some persons there who I think might well be included.
Generally speaking, we can only look after those who are directly engaged as fishermen or fish processing plant workers.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the finance minister, I will put my question to the Prime Minister.
Credit card expenditures represent over $40 billion a year in Canada. The Bank of Canada rate now stands at 5.14 per cent and the average current credit card interest rate is 17 per cent, a spread of 250 per cent.
The Minister of Finance has repeatedly stated that the fundamentals are right and that consumers will get the economy out of the recession. Today Stats Canada data show that department store sales are down by 3 per cent. Clearly consumers do not think that the fundamentals are right.

Oral Questions
Will the Prime Minister explain how this government can expect consumers to open their wallets and rescue the economy when they are being gouged by usurious interest rates on their credit cards?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the hon. member raise this matter again. The vast majority of credit card holders in Canada pay their credit card bills on time and do not pay interest. I think we should remember that.
People who are unable to pay on the due date have other options which were pointed out not long ago by the media. I remember a report on CTV, wherein they said it was important to shop around. If one buys a set of bedroom furniture, for instance, instead of using a credit card it would be better to go to a bank or credit union and borrow at rates which, as the hon. member just said, are the lowest they have been in 30 years. These are the best rates that have been available to Canadian consumers in 30 years, including personal loans and mortgages.
I think if the hon. member considers all the facts involved he will realize it does not make sense to interfere with credit card rates.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Yes, I am back with the same question and I will keep coming back with the same question again and again as long as consumers are allowed to be gouged by banks.
The minister pointed out that 50 per cent of those that carry credit cards pay off their balances every month, but that leaves $11 billion to $12 billion a year that are carried on payments. These consumers are unable to go down to the bank and get a loan to pay off their credit card debt. These are the ones that are being gouged.
I want to point out to the minister that the Consumers Association of Canada has made exactly this point; that consumers are loaded with debt and the rates are too high.
Is the minister prepared to call in the heads of all the financial institutions in this country and explain to them that he expects some action with respect to reducing those usurious rates?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member that, as I mentioned before, I personally met the Canadian Bankers' Association and those responsible for other areas of the financial sector, and the fact remains that credit card rates have dropped to their lowest levels in years.
The hon. member knows perfectly well it is his duty and mine to tell consumers that they have various options for borrowing money. I know that the New Democratic Party makes a specialty of borrowing money. They are always after the government and everybody else to borrow. However, we must make sure that consumers are able to borrow at the best possible rates, and we owe it to consumers to inform them properly. I suggest the hon. member follow my example.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I direct my question to the Prime Minister.
While the referendum is a vital issue in this country, the lack of jobs is dominating the lives of Canadians. There are 1.6 million Canadians looking for work. Many Canadians are losing hope. In August, 85,000 Canadians gave up even looking for a job.
Why will the government not come forward with a new economic plan, as it is obvious the present policy is not working?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for a very important question. We have a serious problem of unemployment that all governments, provincial and federal, are working on it.
In light of her interest, she would be encouraged by a report out today which says the International Monetary
September 16, 1992

Fund is giving the Prime Minister's economic policies the thumbs up sign. The IMF predicts the Canadian economy will grow 4.5 per cent next year.
More important, I think it is probably worth while, given the significance of my hon. friend's question, that the International Monetary Fund, which is generally accepted as the leading international analyst, says: "For real GDP growth, of the G-7 countries, Canada will lead the G-7 in 1993". Our employment growth is scheduled to be 2.9 per cent, which again is number one in the industrialized world and inflation rates will be at 2 per cent, which is the lowest in the industrialized world.
These three factors should inspire confidence in my hon. friend so that we can work together to bring down the unemployment rate which remains unacceptably high.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can read all kinds of statistics but the fact is that the growth in the second quarter has remained stagnant. With lower than expected growth in the United States, Canada will require a domestic push to get us out of this recession.
Why has this government not come forward with an infrastructure program that could give Canadian businesses and consumers a boost of confidence? Why does the government refuse to take effective action to get Canadians back to work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend may have missed the comment made a few moments ago by the minister of state when he indicated that governments had been coming together to devise an impressive national highway development plan which is an important contribution to our national infrastructure.
My hon. friend should know of the very productive conversations between the premier of Prince Edward Island and myself in regard to the fixed link, which is a tremendous contribution to infrastructure development in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, in particular.
This, I think, will probably arrest her attention in a significant way. We have been doing all of these things while maintaining inflation at the lowest rate in the industrialized world. That combination is very encouraging for durable economic recovery in the future without
Oral Questions
the burden of further debts on our children and grandchildren.


AIRLINES
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
If the Canadian airline companies merge, will the federal government take the necessary steps to ensure that the cost of a ticket to fly between Val-d'Or or Rouyn-Noranda and Montreal or Quebec will not increase? Indeed the residents of our region are already paying too much for the services provided by Air Alliance and Air Canada.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform my colleague that the issue of prices and competition in the field of transport has already been referred some time ago to the Competition Bureau. If a transaction takes place between Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, the Competition Tribunal will complete its work and make sure-in fact this is one the main reasons of its existence, if not the only reason- that there exists a fair competition between the companies.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I have an article here which shows that youth summer employment in the summer of 1992 was the worst ever. It costs roughly between $9,000 and $11,000 a year for a student to have a year of post-secondary education away from home.
Given the fact that most students either had no jobs or very few low paying jobs this summer, what is this minister going to do to make sure that these young men and women can get back to and stay in school?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looked at what Canada and the provinces do for education, to keep Canadian youth in schools, in community colleges and universities, he would find out that we are surpassed

September 16, 1992
Oral Questions
by no other country in the world except maybe by the Americans on a per capita basis.
What he is saying about the employment situation is true. It has been difficult because of the world-wide recession and the economic impact it has had. Last summer, during the usual period that these young students can work, the government spent the same amount of money it did last year, notwithstanding the fact that the over-all budget of my department was reduced by some $200 million, which shows the dedication we have to students in Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Secretary of State.
For several months the Secretary of State promised to bring about changes to the program to help students. He has received recommendations from a number of sources, including the Canadian Association of Students, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, as well as from myself.
Given the problems experienced by our young people in trying to find work this summer, and given the fact that very few jobs were available, and these often did not pay well, when will the government make changes to its programs, so that our young people can go back to college and university and prepare their future?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State is out of town today, I will bring the hon. member's question to his attention and I am sure that the Secretary of State will provide an answer at the earliest opportunity* * *


GUN CONTROL
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responding for the Minister of Justice.
At midnight on October 1, just two weeks from now, the new gun legislation imposes registration requirements on many Canadian gun owners which if missed for
any reason will place them in default of the law and will result in prosecution, seizure and destruction of their firearms.
It was a commitment of the Department of Justice that a comprehensive public information campaign would be conducted to inform and remind Canadians of this important legal deadline. I understand that such a household mailing has been prepared but not yet released. In the time remaining it is clear that many Canadians will not receive that mailing until after the critical date for registration.
Is it possible to provide an extended period of grace for the registration of these firearms until the public information program has been released or, alternatively, will the minister ask his colleague to consider an expeditious method of serving that public notice through other means?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the deadline of October 1 for registering converted machine guns was fixed by an act of Parliament that was passed in this House last December. It could not be changed unless we passed another amending act through Parliament to change it. The deadline date has been widely publicized since the proclamation of the gun control legislation last December. The minister has no authority to extend any deadline established in the law.
There has been widespread publicity. I think 40,000 copies of the communications materials in support of the gun control package have been distributed since July 27. This coming weekend 11 million copies of a tabloid explaining the entire legislative and regulatory package are going to be delivered to every home in Canada. I should think that the information will be widespread and that those who have converted machine guns will be in a position to know just what they must do.
* *


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Mark Lennox-Boyd, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
September 16, 1992


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Swedish Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Insurance and Immigration.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stans-tead):: Mr. Speaker, as you surely know, there is an issue which yesterday in the province of Quebec brought an injunction by the Superior Court. I am referring to statements presumably made by the deputy minister for intergovernmental affairs of the province of Quebec, Mrs. Wilhelmy.
Following the threat made by a Quebec radio station to air the comments made by the deputy minister, an injunction was granted. The injunction prohibits all the media-


Mr. Speaker:: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member but this is clearly not a question of privilege. He may raise a point of order, but this is clearly not a question of privilege.


Mr.   Guerin@: I was coming to my question of privilege. I realized this morning that the Library of Parliament, which comes under this Parliament's jurisdiction, published on pages 2 and 3 an article which was banned by the Quebec Superior Court.


An hon. member:: We are in Ontario.


Mr.   Guerin@: In that case why not say that Canada is not Quebec?
Anyway this article was published-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is complaining that the Parliament of Canada has published some report. If that is, and I am not saying that it is, some breach of civil or other law it is not a question on which I can intervene.
Point of Order
Coming back to the hon. member's point of privilege, it is very difficult to see how, whether the Parliament of Canada publishes this report or not, it has made it more difficult for any single member of this House to carry on his or her duties, which is the test of privilege.
It would also seem to me that if it is pursued as a point of order I do not have any particular capacity to intervene. I have to ask the hon. member to accept the suggestion of the Chair that I cannot go further on the matter.

Mr Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member on a question of privilege.


M. Plamondon:: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of privilege since my privileges as a member from Quebec are not-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.
I made a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead. After all, according to the Standing Orders, the Speaker of the House must be given due notice, which was done. I was given due notice and I made a ruling. It is obvious that the matter is closed.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period I believe the Leader of the Opposition inadvertently provided information to this House that was not correct. In his question to the Minister of Transport he indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: I have been receiving some assistance from members. It would seem that it is a question of debate, and perhaps it should be pursued in that respect.


Iain Francis Angus: Is it not the tradition in this House that if a member imparts information that is not correct-and I

September 16, 1992
Routine Proceedings
am not talking about opinion; I am talking about correctness of information- this House has a responsibility to ensure that it does not remain on the record?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a matter of some interest. There is a great deal of exchange in this House on a continual basis, on both sides of the House, that is challenged as incorrect, not accurate, or sometimes worse by other members. That is a matter of debate and is not a matter of a question of order.
I am sure the hon. member would want to accept my response to his question. There are other ways the hon. member can pursue the matter.


PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know why the Library of Parliament is allowed to publish a text which the members from Quebec cannot comment on outside of this Chamber because it was banned from publication, while the other members could do so.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is raising a matter that is not in the jurisdiction of the Chair to interfere with. It is maybe a question for the courts, but it is not a question that can be resolved in this Chamber.
I listened to the complaint. I will certainly pass on the intervention to the Library. It is clearly not a matter on which I have any jurisdiction to interfere.


IMMIGRATION ACT
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave the Chair notice of this point of order, and I also gave notice to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Subsection 65(2) of the Immigration Act imposes on the Minister of Employment and Immigration a legal duty to table in both Houses of Parliament a copy of any rules made by the chairman of the Immigration and Refugee Board within 15 sitting days after their approval by the Governor in Council.
I am informed that the minister has failed to comply with that legal obligation with respect to two items.
They are the rules approved by Order in Council 89.151 on Februaiy 5, 1989 and the immigration appeal division rules approved on October 25, 1990.
Officers of the Journals branch of this House have confirmed that there is no record of these rules having been tabled in this or the last session.
The minister's failure to table these rules means that members of this House have yet to be officially informed of their adoption. More important, it means that the committee of this House to which they would stand ordinarily referred, in accordance with Standing Order 32, has been and continues to be denied the procedural opportunity to examine these rules and to report thereon to the House.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I previously submitted that a failure to abide by statutory tabling requirements involves a contempt of the House. This minister has been in default for three years in one case, and almost two years in the other case. It is a default that perhaps borders on negligence.
In any event, if the minister does not promptly fulfil his obligation to table these rules, I am prepared to restate that claim in regard to the present default.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having raised this matter with me yesterday.
I have brought this to the attention of officials in my department. I can undertake to this House that either later this afternoon or tomorrow I should be able to comply with the statutory requirement that the hon. member refers to.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
September 16, 1992

Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
[Stage Direction]
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 three petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is a special honour for me to inform the House today of the plans for dedicating Canada's peacekeeping monument. It will take place in Ottawa on October 8.
As many hon. members know, Canada's servicemen and servicewomen have a distinguished record in peacekeeping, spanning 45 years. In fact, Canada has participated in every peacekeeping mission mounted by the United Nations, and in seven non-UN missions as well.
That is a record unsurpassed by any other nation. Almost 90,000 Canadians have served in these missions over the years.

There are now more than 2,000 members of the Canadian Armed Forces involved in peacekeeping activities in 14 regions around the world, not to mention the 750 military we promised to send to Somalia and the 1,200 peacekeepers we offered to post in Yugoslavia.

Peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations have made such a profound mark on the world that in 1988 all UN peacekeepers were honoured with the award of the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.
From this great tribute came the inspiration for a national monument in Ottawa to honour the contributions of Canadian Forces to peacekeeping. A national design competition under the auspices of the Department of National Defence and the National Capital Commission was held, and an independent jury comprised of prominent Canadians was appointed to make the final selection.
The jury received eight excellent submissions, and I am told that any one of them would have served the cause well. It is with some pride that I note that the winning design team is from British Columbia.
"The Reconciliation" is a most appropriate name for this winning entry, which was submitted by sculptor Jack Harman, urban designer Richard Henriquez and landscape architect Cornelia Hahn Oberlander.
The monument, which is now almost completed on Confederation Boulevard in front of the National Gallery, consists of two converging limestone walls-representative of opposing factions. The debris of war lies between these walls. Three cast bronze figures, representing the peacekeepers, will stand on an elevated wall.
The first of these, a communication servicewoman, recognizes a key role that Canadians often play in peacekeeping missions. The second figure, an officer wearing the traditional blue beret, portrays a United Nations military observer. The third bronze figure is of a sentry carrying a rifle, illustrating that peacekeeping is often a precarious and difficult job.
Just beyond the walls is a grove of 12 oak trees, a reminder that our peacekeepers come from all 10 provinces and our two territories. The grove will also serve as a symbol of our future and of our hope for peace.
On October 24 the whole world celebrates United Nations Day. What better month to be unveiling this

Routine Proceedings
unique Canadian monument to our peacekeepers? I hope that this year all Canadians will join in celebrating our own very special national peacekeeping day when we unveil our peacekeeping monument on October 8.
Beginning on October 1 all Canadian forces members who have served on United Nations peacekeeping duties at any time will begin wearing their blue berets. They will do so up to and including National Peacekeeping Day on October 8. This will serve as a positive sign to all members of the forces, and to all Canadians, that peacekeeping is an important facet of our defence policy and of Canada's commitment to world peace.
I am sure that the peacekeeping monument, located on Confederation Boulevard with such landmarks as the Parliament Buildings, the Supreme Court, the National War Memorial and the Canadian Museum of Civilization, will soon be recognized as a national symbol of Canada's dedication to peace.
Canada is the first country to dedicate such a monument to this important cause. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree that our peacekeepers should be first in our hearts and minds not only on October 8, but every day throughout the year.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, it is a special honour for me today to rise on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to respond to the fine address given by my colleague, the hon. Associate Minister of National Defence, giving tribute to peacekeepers and informing the House of the details of the peacekeeping monument that will be dedicated on October 8.
In my remarks I would like to reflect a little on what peacekeeping has meant and means. Despite the end of superpower rivalry the world remains a very dangerous place, and Canadians must, and should be, ever aware of this.
One of the pillars of our way of life is that we be secure. Total security involves not just military defence, but the social, economic, environmental and other factors for a secure and stress-free life.
Today Canada's primary concerns with defence involve not just sovereignty. They include concerns with the defence of the values, the institutions and the processes that define free societies. These now more than ever demand vigorous protection.
An ideal world that abolishes famine, disease, poverty, the environmental degradation that we see every day in less fortunate countries and nuclear weapons and war can only be achieved through enforceable international co-operation and agreement.
In his Sermon on the Mount, Christ declared: "Blessed are the peacekeepers". Today the Canadian forces are among the most blessed people on earth as they prepare to undertake yet another peacekeeping operation, this time in Somalia.
Over the past 45 years more than 85,000 of our young men and women in uniform have participated in each of the peacekeeping operations under the auspices of the United Nations, Canada being the only country in the world to do so. In addition, as the hon. minister said, we have participated in seven non-UN missions.
As an aside, while traditionally our forces stationed in Europe for 40 years were not there as peacekeepers in the traditional sense, they were in reality our front line peacekeepers, unheralded and often questioned over their presence there. They helped preserve peace for 40 years until the iron curtain disintegrated and the Soviet empire vanished.
Today there are more than 2,000 Canadian peacekeepers serving in Cyprus, Syria, the Sinai, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, the western Sahara, Angola, El Salvador, Cambodia, Yugoslavia and soon Somalia. They also have other ongoing UN commitments in India, Pakistan and the Middle East.
The word peacekeeping does not appear in the United Nations charter. In the previous 45 years the UN has undertaken 25 such missions at the cost of more than 800 lives. In the past three years alone the UN has undertaken 10 new peacekeeping operations. In the previous 32 years it undertook 15; the trend is obvious.
Given world instability, ambitious nationalism, growing tribalism and a seemingly endless supply of weapons in the hands of even the most modest of nations, the likelihood for a coalition of like-minded nations to combine to use force in the interest of peace is growing, not diminishing.
Many of these new missions involve much more than simply placing the UN blue helmets between combatants. In the post-cold war world national sovereignty is no longer considered an absolute. Certainly it will not take priority over the right of the starving and the suffering people in a battle zone to food or medicine, even if there is no cease fire, even if the collapse of
September 16, 1992

government authority makes it impossible to obtain clear consent.
In Cambodia the United Nations will technically run the country until elections can be held in 1993. In Iraq and Kuwait it is mopping up after Operation Desert Storm. In Somalia there is effectively no government. Its job is to ensure that food gets through. In Yugoslavia the job is to keep the peace where there is no peace to keep.
I would like to remind the House and my colleagues that it was in Yugoslavia that a young soldier who happened to be from my riding, Master Corporal Dennis Reid, lost his foot in a land mine and shortly thereafter Sergeant Michael Ralph from St. John's lost his life.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but time is running out. The minister spoke for four minutes and the member has spoken for six minutes. I ask for your co-operation, please.


Fred J. Mifflin: I will wrap up. I appreciate your indulgence.
There are those who say that we are spreading our forces too thin. This is not the time to address that. The important thing for us to do as politicians is ensure that when we are asked to participate in a mission our men and women are properly trained and equipped to undertake it. Otherwise, we should not promise to participate.
I consider it a distinct honour and privilege today to be asked by my party to speak in tribute of Canadian peacekeepers. Peacekeeping and peacemakers are a part of Canadian history of which all Canadians can be very proud. This magnificent monument will serve as a lasting and poignant reminder.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I would like to welcome the minister's remarks and welcome the dedication of this peacekeeping monument in Ottawa on October 8. Certainly peacekeeping has always been a dimension of Canadian foreign policy and for that matter Canadian defence policy on which there has been a great deal of tripartisan and partisan agreement is something we have all taken a great deal of pride in regardless of our political persuasion.
Routine Proceedings
The minister mentioned in her remarks that over
90,000	Canadian military personnel have served in these missions over the years. It is incredible when you think about how many Canadians have had this experience and the benefits and the insight that experience brings to their participation in Canadian life and the formation of Canadian policy.
I also noticed recently that Canadian peacekeepers are going to be forming an association, analogous to a veterans association and I certainly wish them well in that because I think they could also play a useful role in days to come.
I intended to mention, as the member who spoke before did, how dangerous peacekeeping can be. The member referred to the death of Sergeant Ralph and the injury of Master Corporal Reid. One of the things we might look at in the future would be in some way or another, in the way we have recognized those who have lost their lives in war, to recognize in an individual or collective way those who have lost their lives in the course of peacekeeping. Surely no less than others who lost their lives in various conflicts, these people have put their lives on the line, not only for Canada but for the peace of the world. We should find some way to acknowledge that.
By way of political comment, I want to say two things. As we get more involved in peacekeeping and as we find ourselves sending troops to Somalia and Yugoslavia, we need to find a better mechanism for involving Parliament in those decisions so that we do not get more and more into a kind of executive order regime for the dispensing of Canadian peacekeeping capabilities.
Although I do not disagree with anything the government has done in this respect, there could have been ways to involve Parliament, either by way of some kind of debate or whatever, not to hold things up but to provide an opportunity for Parliament, as a representative of the people, to reflect on just what Canadians are being asked to do.
Finally, as people who have an international reputation as peacekeepers, we have to reflect on our own responsibility to keep the peace here in Canada. God forbid that we who have been involved in all these peacekeeping operations should arrive at a point in our

September 16, 1992
Routine Proceedings
own political future at which we would be faced with walls and we would be faced with conflict and somebody might have to send peacekeepers here. I say that with respect to the possible division of the country which is being advocated by certain people.
To those who are peacekeepers everywhere else, let us keep that in mind and let us do our very best to reconcile differences among ourselves and make sure we are able to keep the peace here at home.
I welcome the announcement and I look forward to being able to look with other Canadians at the monument when it is finally dedicated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the first report of the subcommittee on arms export of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
Pursuant to the mandate established by Standing Order 108(2), the subcommittee considered the future of Canadian military equipment production and export. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Committee requests that government table a comprehensive response to that report.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report deals with the requirement of Health and Welfare Canada to table in the
House of Commons an annual report on the Canada Assistance Plan.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. I would also give notice in order that this report be debated and concurred to in the House.


PRESENTATION OF NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present to the House the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The report deals with letters of intent issued by the Department of Finance.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that government table a comprehensive response to that report. I will also have a notice published in order that a debate be held on that report and that it be adopted by the House.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings for the above reports.]


AIR SPACE OVER NIAGARA FALLS ACT
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-361, an act respecting the air space over Niagara Falls.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Rob Nicholson: I am pleased to introduce an act respecting airspace over Niagara Falls. This bill is designed to make the airspace over Niagara Falls a restricted zone. It means that helicopters, planes, blimps or any other apparatus wishing to fly in the restricted zone will require a permit from the federal government. This act is to control congestion, noise pollution and to protect the aesthetic qualities of Niagara Falls.
I have had many residents of Niagara Falls recommend the Government of Canada take control of the airspace over Niagara Falls. I agree with them completely. I trust members of all parties will support me in this initiative.


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


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-362, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act (approval and reporting of salaries).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to require prior approval by shareholders of salaries paid to officers of corporations and also it provides for their disclosure. This would also include the golden parachutes that officers of companies set up for themselves and in effect democratize the operation of a corporation.


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


EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-363, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (Limitation on rebate).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, as a way of explanation, when the Government of Canada in 1990 cancelled the
Routine Proceedings
manufacturers sales tax, provision was made that during 1991 all businesses would be eligible to apply for a rebate of that sales tax in their inventories. My bill would extend that rebate period into and including all of 1992 to make provision for those companies in Canada that for one reason or another missed the filing deadline to have another year in which to file, which is this year.


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


HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: That, in relation to their study of the economic integration of
disabled persons, eight members and nine staff persons of the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled
Persons be authorized to travel to Halifax, Nova Scotia for three days
in November.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. government House leader.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for that introduction as the government House leader. I think it is a little bit premature. However I appreciate the offer.
My colleague from Manitoba was wondering if there was a disposition within the House to have unanimous consent to revert to Private Members' Business because he has a bill that he would like to have introduced and read for the first time today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the suggestion of the motion tabled by the hon. opposition House leader. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

September 16, 1992
Routine Proceedings ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT


MEASURE TO ENACT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-364, an act to provide for the conversion to civilian uses of technologies and skills used in the defence industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your courtesy and the courtesy of the members of the House to give me unanimous consent.
This bill is being introduced at an appropriate time because today we tabled the report of the subcommittee on arms exports. It has been a matter of major agreement among all three parties that we have to move into the whole area of looking to convert our industries from defence purposes into peaceful civilian products and technologies.
This bill puts forward a number of proposals building upon that report, particularly the whole idea of a conversion commission that would help our private sector to develop these skills and to get some assistance in using its base of high technology to start developing civilian products and to start looking at how we can develop products that would be particularly appropriate for many of the peacekeeping, peacemaking activities that our Armed Forces are now engaged in. I recommend this bill and again I thank members for their courtesy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on behalf of the Canadian Vietnamese community to present a petition in this House concerning the situation in Vietnam.
The Canadian Vietnamese community is calling upon Parliament to use diplomatic means to demand that (1) the Vietnamese government abandon its inhumane policy and restore civil and human rights in Vietnam; (2) all Vietnamese regulations, codes and constitutional provisions prohibiting free expression or denying the freedom of association or religious worship be eliminated; (3) that the Vietnamese government make a formal commitment to permit free and fair elections under international supervision so that the citizens of the country may determine the future leadership and orientation of their government.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: I have two petitions to present today. The first one is from a number of petitioners in Ontario and Quebec which notes that the people of the Stoney Point Indian Reserve near Sarnia, Ontario had their homes seized under the War Measures Act back in 1942 for the efficient prosecution of the war.
Half a century after the end of the war, the Chippewas of Kettle and Stoney Point are still demanding that Parliament return their homeland to them. Their claim is supported by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but unfortunately the Minister of National Defence still refuses to do the right thing.
The undersigned, your petitioners, therefore call on Parliament to fulfill its responsibilities to the Stoney Point First Nation by returning the land at Stoney Point to its aboriginal inhabitants and their descendants.


Robert Evans Skelly: This second petition is from a number of people engaged in the
September 16, 1992

automotive industry who petition that they are faced with an unjust tax system which prevents them from deducting the costs of purchasing, maintaining and insuring the tools and equipment essential to their employment.
They note that the Income Thx Act allows self-employed professionals and business people to deduct the cost of entertainment, including food, liquor and even prostitutes, as business entertainment expenses and yet these people cannot even deduct the cost of the tools they need to do their job.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to request that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue take action to amend the Income Tax Act to allow Canadian automotive workers deductions for purchasing, maintaining and insuring the tools and equipment required in the course of their employment.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: I have three petitions here, all on the same subject, signed collectively by approximately 150 senior citizens of my riding. These petitions were prompted by the 37 cent increase in the Old Age Security pension in April which they found to be not only insulting but embarrassing.
The petitioners therefore pray that the government be called upon to ensure that Canadian Old Age Security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by a number of Albertans, most of whom are resident in my riding, wishing to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Three Gorges Dam on China's Yangtze River will displace over a million people from their homes, will destroy the existing river system upon which millions of people depend for subsistence, as do several rare and endangered species of animals, and will increase the risk of catastrophic floods for millions of people currently not at risk when less expensive and environmentally ruinous alternatives for electricity, navigation and flood control exist.
Therefore the petitioners call on this House to refuse to participate in or provide technical assistance, loans,
Routine Proceedings
grants, guarantees or subsidies in any form for any aspect to the Three Gorges Dam project from this day forward.


Fred J. Mifflin: I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition, duly certified by the clerk, concerning education.
This petition is signed by 50 Canadians who are concerned that Canada should have a skilled labour force to participate internationally in competition and they are asking Parliament to urge the government to promote and encourage the institution of a national education standard in consultation with the provincial governments, education professionals, industry and labour and all those involved in education.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to file. The first petition is from a large number of people in British Columbia who point out that family class and assisted relative immigrants have historically been an important part of Canadian immigration. They also point out that the government's present proposals for immigration will make it more difficult for family class and assisted relatives to obtain immigration visas.
The petitioners ask that this government give first priority to all immigration, to family class and to assisted relatives.
The second petition is again signed by a large number of British Columbians, mostly from my own riding.
These petitioners point out that about 75 per cent of all visitor and immigration cases in New Delhi, India come from the Punjab. They point out that the centralized services in New Delhi are increasingly overburdened and that it is difficult for people to travel from the Punjab to New Delhi.
The petitioners ask that the government immediately open a consulate service for immigration and visitor visas in the Punjab.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston, Ontario, who are concerned about the goods and services tax. They like you, Mr. Speaker, and thousands of other Canadians are appalled that the government introduced this tax and

September 16, 1992
Routine Proceedings
decided in the course of it to tax books, magazines and newspapers.
Of course we in the opposition fought this tax valiantly. We objected specifically to the inclusion of the tax on these products at the time the goods and services tax measure was introduced in the House. We continue to oppose it. The government has ignored all pleas that have been filed hitherto to remove this iniquitous tax.
I know that the parliamentary secretary probably received similar petitions and probably wishes he could file them in the House to object.
I am pleased to present this petition today objecting to this tax and supporting these people who have filed this petition with me saying this tax is wrong and should be withdrawn.
3|C 3fC 9k


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 356 and 361.


Mr. Whittaker: Since January 1, 1992 has the National Transportation Agency
disbursed any amounts for travel undertaken by its chairman and, if
so, on what dates, between what locations, and for what purpose?


Jean Corbeil: The National Transportation Agency of Canada advises as follows:
Yes, see attached annex.
Settlement made on January 3 and 6, January 1992 for travel between Ottawa and Kamloops, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Squamish, Port Moody, New Westminster, Roberts Bank, Victoria, B.C., Seattle and Tacoma in the state of Washington for the purpose of meeting with government and industry officials.
Settlement made on February 3 and February 7, 1992 for travel between Ottawa and Kauai for the purpose of
attending an International Conference on System Sciences.
Settlement made on March 18,1992 for travel between Ottawa and Vancouver and Whitehorse for the purpose of attending meetings at regional offices.
Settlement made on April 1, 1992 for travel between Ottawa and St. John's, Newfoundland for the purpose of chairing the Road to Accessibility hearing in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Settlement made on April 24, 1992 for travel between Ottawa and Victoria for the purpose of chairing the Road to Accessibility hearing in Victoria, B.C.
Settlement made on April 30, 1992 for travel while in Vancouver for the purpose of chairing the Road to Accessibility hearing in Vancouver, B.C. and to attend the international conference closing the, decade of the disabled, independence 92.
Settlement made on May 14, 1992 for travel between Vancouver and Winnipeg for the purpose of chairing the Road to Accessibility hearing in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Settlement made on June 3, 1992 for travel between Winnipeg and Regina for the purpose of chairing the Road to Accessibility hearing in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Settlement made on June 3, 1992 for travel between Regina and Ottawa to attend an agency meeting.
Settlement made on June 4, 1992 for travel between Regina and Calgary and Edmonton for the purpose of chairing the Road to Accessibility hearings in Calgary and Edmonton, Alberta.
Settlement made on June 5, 1992 for travel between Edmonton and Whitehorse for the purpose of chairing the Road to Accessibility hearing in Whitehorse, Yukon.


Mr. Angus: With respect to the Canada 125 Gold song competition and related activities (a) what was the total cost of this program (b) what was the cost of producing and distributing the recordings related to this program (c) how many free copies of the recordings were distributed and to whom (d) what is the cost of the launch ceremony scheduled for June 18, 1992 (e) what companies or individuals received contracts in relation to this ceremony and for how much (f) what other costs were incurred regarding this competition?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am informed by the Depart-

ment of Communications and the Secretary of State of Canada as follows:
(a)	DOC cost for this project to date is $164,142. Once final invoices are received projected total costs should not exceed $177,000.
(b)	DOC cost for producing and distributing the recordings related to this project is $38,036.
(c)	Free copies of the recordings were distributed to the following persons:
-all members of Parliament and the Senate =394 -station managers of all CRTC licensed radio and television stations in Canada -Factor Musicaction Canada (FMC)
-Canada 125 Corporation -DOC headquarters and regional offices -Launch
-Miscellaneous requests from media, et cetera = 50
= 951 = 150 = 75 = 100 = 200
(d)	The Canada 125 Corporation contributed some $8,000 toward the launch ceremony including the travel costs of the winnig artists.
(e)	The sole DOC contract was to First Satellite Communications ($4,500) to broadcast the launch and music video.
(f) Other DOC costs that were incurred regarding this competition not included in (b) are as follows:
-prizes to contest winners	=$10,000
-prizes to semi-finalists (nine @ $500) = 4,500 -production of two music videos	= 89,570
-administration and legal costs for FMC = 22,036
Also the Canada 125 Corporation contributed $3,400 toward the artwork for the CD cover.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
Routine Proceedings
of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers on the Order Paper asking for details of costs of a trip undertaken by the Prime Minister some time ago. This request has been outstanding since May. The parliamentary secretary has undertaken on about four occasions to look into the matter. Last week was one occasion and at least once before that in last June. It is now September and we are going to adjourn, certainly before next Wednesday, for an extended period. I fail to understand why the government cannot deal with this request in an expeditious way.
I can only say that it appears to me to smack of cover-up. The option open to me, just so it is clear, is to transfer this for debate and then it goes on a list of hundreds of items where my chances of getting drawn is likened to finding a needle in a hay stack. The parliamentary secretary knows that. He is hoping, I am sure, that I will transfer it for debate to avoid the embarrassment of having these documents produced.
I have to protest this outrage. The government is under an obligation to deal with these requests in an expeditious manner and either refuse the information or give it to the House. I think it is unfair for the parliamentary secretary to keep asking week after week that this matter stand over.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the hortatory and jussive nature of the rhetoric of my hon. friend, but I can assure him that, as I gave him an undertaking last Wednesday to look into these matters, I looked into these matters. I can report to him that his Notice of Motion P-17 is being acted upon and we ought to have that information shortly.
There is a second one standing in his name, and I will take the liberty of responding even though he did not ask about it. He did ask last week, I believe. That is motion P-20.1 can assure him that it is within sight. It is in the process of being translated from the original and should be ready shortly. I gave an undertaking I discharged the undertaking; and I will stay with it until we satisfy the requests of my hon. friend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall all motions stand?

Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am requesting leave under section 52 of the Standing Orders for the adjournment of the House to deal with the crisis in the airline industry.
As we have already had allusions today, it is expected I suppose by all of us that the House will not be sitting much longer with the upcoming referendum. In view of the fact that this crisis which has been ongoing through much of this year and has been coming to a point of culmination will likely arise during the adjournment during the referendum campaign, I would urge Your Honour to consider the fact that items of transportation policy, competition policy and jobs in many parts of Canada are at stake in this important industry and that members of the House of Commons should have an opportunity to debate it before we go on any extended leave.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa South is a very important one, but upon consultation and considering the particular constraints of our Standing Orders, the Chair regrets it cannot comply today with the hon. member's request.

I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(8)(c) the total number of allotted days in the supply period ending December 10, 1992 shall be increased by one day.
Consequently the total number of allotted days in this supply period will now be six.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Horton McDermid: that 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, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the members of this House about Bill C-80, legislation which I believe represents a very important step in social policy for families in Canada.
In September 1990 the Prime Minister joined with leaders of over 70 nations to sign a declaration calling for national plans of action on behalf of children. Last December, with the support of all of the provinces, the Prime Minister ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. These were fundamental building blocks for this government's agenda for Canada's children, the Brighter Futures initiatives which the Minister of National Health and Welfare had the great pleasure to announce in May of this year.
Together with the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, there are three major elements of Brighter Futures.
The first element is the proposed child tax benefit which is before us today, a new, simpler approach to children's benefits which provides additional financial support to families with very modest incomes.
The second element is a long-term action plan for Canadian children, describing where we are today and outlining the challenges that the future holds.
The third element is a child development initiative designed to address the conditions that place some Canadian children at risk, especially in their early years. This is a multi-faceted program supported by a five-year allocation of $500 million and ongoing funding after that of $170 million annually.



I believe, -and I am sure all members will agree- that we build the future daily through our children. We are aware of the pressures on parents, and the government believes it is important to support them.

This was one of the underlying principles in developing the proposed child tax benefit program. It increases child benefits by $2.1 billion over five years and better directs benefits according to need. Furthermore-and this is something I intend to come back to because I think its real importance has not been fully appreciated the child tax benefit provides innovative support to low income working families.
I do not think that it is necessary at this point to reiterate the details of the proposed new child tax benefit. However, I do think it would be valuable to look, at least briefly, at the shortcomings of the current system and how this child tax benefit will overcome them.
First, the existing system provides inadequate support to lower income families, especially low income working families. Under the child tax benefit, families with incomes below $50,000 will receive an additional $250 a year in child benefits on average. Moreover, low income working families will receive up to $500 a year in additional benefits through the new earned income supplement.
Second, even though the present system directs more benefits to low income families than to high income families, more can be done to better direct child benefits where they are most needed. There are two aspects of this particular problem.
First, family allowances are directed on the basis of individual income instead of family income. As a result, families with similar total incomes may receive different levels of child benefits. There is no question that family income is a more equitable basis for directing assistance to children.
Second, high income families continue to receive child benefits even though they have relatively little need. I
Government Orders
have been told many times in my constituency by a myriad of people: "For heaven's sake, do not send me these these family allowances cheques, we do not need them in our family. Redirect them where they are most needed". We believe it is more responsible to target benefits to low and modest income families than to continue to make payments to all families.
The child tax benefit will be based on family income. Accordingly, it will be more effectively directed on the basis of need. It will better target assistance to low and modest income families by enriching over-all benefits and redirecting existing benefits from wealthy families to more modest income families.
Delays in the deliveiy of child benefits under the current system has also been identified as a current problem. I remember, for a considerable amount of time, debating in this House both when we were discussing income tax matters and during Question Period, individuals who had to, in order to get their child tax credit, go to tax discounters to get their money immediately. This was causing great problems for some families. The refundable child tax credit, which I am talking about now, represents more than half of a family's federal child benefit. However, it often fails to meet the needs of the child as they occur. They have to assess the tax returns before they can pay the credit.
This delay can be difficult for many families. They have to pay for the children's needs as they arise, but have to wait for more than a year to receive a full credit.
Delays in the delivery of benefits have forced low income families, as I have mentioned, to resort to the tax discounters for earlier payments of their benefits. Tkx discounter's fees average about $80, which represents a substantial amount of money for a low income family.
The child tax benefit, with up-front monthly payments, will provide assistance as it is needed to help with the care of children. Two million families with incomes below $50,000 will receive higher monthly payments and I am very pleased to say that low income families will no longer have to resort to the tax discounters.

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
Finally, the changes to child benefits over the years have gradually led to the present inconvenient patchwork system. Benefits are now delivered to families in different ways and with differing eligibility criteria. For example, family allowances are based on individual income, while the refundable child tax credit is based on family income. In addition, many higher income families question the cumbersome process of receiving family allowances only to have them taxed back at year's end.
The child tax benefit will simplify the current system. How often have members had people in their constituencies say: "For heaven's sake, try to simplify that tax form". This will do it. As I mentioned, three sets of eligibility criteria and delivery systems will be replaced by one benefit delivered in tax-free monthly payments. The new benefit will be calculated automatically for parents. The tax return will be shorter and simpler and high income parents will no longer have to repay benefits at year's end and figure out on the tax form what they owe.
I think we all agree that while the current child benefit system has much to recommend it, a number of problems have crept in over the years and it is time for a fundamental improvement. Too often we in Parliament create programs and let them run ad infinitum without taking a look to see if in fact they are truly effective, if they are doing the job that we intended them to do, or should they be changed. It is time for this major change to come because a number of problems have crepted in over the years and the child tax benefit is that fundamental improvement which we are debating today at third reading.
I want to take a few minutes now to address some of the myths which have developed during the debate and the discussion of the child tax benefit. I read with some dismay some of the headlines in the papers and some of the stories that give part of the story but not the entire story. Today, with my colleagues' permission, I would like to present some facts as they stand to dispel some of these myths.
Some critics have suggested or hinted that the child tax benefit is cutting back on our assistance to children. There is some vague suggestion that benefits for most families are reduced or eliminated in order to provide credits to a few working families. This is absolutely wrong. The child tax benefit will increase assistance for
our children by $2.1 billion. That is with a b and a lot of zeros behind.
While the new benefit is better targeted, 3.1 million families in Canada will receive benefits. That is 85 per cent of all families in Canada with children. Furthermore, all families with incomes below $50,000 will receive either increased benefits or the same level of benefits as under current programs. On average, these families will receive an additional $250 a year in child benefits. It is absolutely clear that this new program is a major enrichment of child benefits for Canadian families.
My colleague over there smiles when I talk about $2.1 billion. I want to emphasize again that it is new money. We talk about old money and new money around here. I am not quite sure that the people who watch us on television are quite sure what we are talking about but they know it is their money and their tax dollars that we are talking about. However, this is new money being injected into this program to help the children of Canada. The increase will be over and above the benefits that would be provided if the current programs were to remain in place. Furthermore, as it has done with the child tax credit, the government is committed to reviewing the level of payments over time and to increase them as fiscal conditions permit.
I would like to remind hon. members that this government has a strong record of increasing child benefits. It is one that I am very proud of and I will stand up on any platform on this country and talk about it. Since 1985 this government has increased the refundable child tax credit four times. We have also introduced a supplement of $213 for children under seven where child care expenses are not claimed. These enrichments have ensured that the average level of federal child benefits paid to low income families has more than kept up with inflation.
Another myth I am hearing is that the child tax benefit leaves social assistance recipients worse off. As a matter of fact, I spoke to a young woman yesterday at the Owen Sound campus of Georgian College. She is a single parent who is receiving social assistance and is back at Georgian College taking courses and trying to get herself off the social assistance roll and back into the work force. She had heard the rumour that because she was receiving social assistance that this new system was going to make her worse off. The suggestion is false. I explained



to her that social assistance recipients will be better off under the child tax benefit in three very important ways.
First, since their child benefits will be consolidated and paid on a monthly basis, families on social assistance will see their monthly payments increase from $35 per child to at least $85 starting January 1993.
Second, those families on social assistance with three or more children and more than $3,750 in earnings will also receive extra benefits.

Third, welfare recipients will no longer have to resort to tax discounters to receive their benefits in advance. They will no longer have to wait a whole year to get all their child benefits, as was the case under the present system. These long waits will now be history.

Also important is the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has met with his provincial counterparts and has urged them to ensure that no social assistance recipients are worse off as a result of the new child tax benefit program. All governments recognize the importance of providing for children. All the provincial governments together with the federal government, as I mentioned earlier, signed the United Nations agreement for children. I am confident that the provinces will not take any action which might be harmful to social assistance recipients. [DOT]
Some people have erroneously viewed the earned income supplement as unfair by providing benefits to those in low wage jobs that are unavailable to those on social assistance. Low income workers often support their families while receiving thousands of dollars less in total government assistance than families on social assistance. How many times have you heard that it is more beneficial for people to be on social assistance than to be out working. They can get more money that way. There is no incentive really to get them off the social welfare roll and into the work force.
Government Orders
In fact families now moving from social assistance to the work force in many instances end up worse off because of employment related expenses and of course the loss of the social assistance.
That is why we brought in the earned income supplement because that helps offset some of these losses that are incurred on moving from social assistance into the work force. By helping these low income working families that often fall through the cracks of existing social programs, this earned income supplement is a first step. I do not say it is the only answer and I admit that. It is not the entire answer but it is the first step in dismantling the welfare trap that so many people find themselves in.
There has also been some suggestion that the new benefit system will not respond to sudden or unexpected changes in family needs as well as the current system does. First let me say that other government programs, such as unemployment insurance and provincial social assistance, respond immediately to changes in family income which occur during a year.
The fact is that the proposed child tax benefit is more responsive than the current system. This is again another advantage for these changes. For example, with the new monthly child tax benefit, payments will respond immediately to the birth of a child, a change in custody and a permanent drop in family income due marriage breakdown or the death of a spouse.
I would like to remind hon. members that in spite of these misunderstandings about the child tax benefit there has been support for it. There has been very good support. There are a lot of questions about it out there, but when those questions are answered, the support is there. I am finding that people are generally supporting these changes because they like to see governments assess programs, streamline them and bring them into the modem day. It makes it more of a rifle approach than a shotgun approach to these benefits.
Some witnesses before the legislative committee pointed out advantages to the new system. First, it is fair since it is based on family income as opposed to individual income. Second, the earned income supplement is a significant advance in social policy. Third, consolidating three benefits into one makes it a simpler system.

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
Fourth, it concentrates benefits on low and modest-income families.
Over all what we are looking at today is a better child benefit system because of those advantages and also because it will provide benefits on a timely basis and the assistance will be more on target. It also enriches the child benefit system by $2.1 billion over five years with 80 per cent of this new money going to families with incomes below $40,000.
As members know, the proposed date of implementation is January 1, 1993, which is just a few months away. It does not seem possible that 1993 is just a few months away. In the interim, as I am sure you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, we must prepare for the substantial task of switching over to the new program. We must also ensure that Canadians know what the new child tax benefit entails for them. To that end we will need the co-operation of my colleagues on all sides of this House.
In closing, I am confident that this is a program which will benefit Canadian families with children. It is a program which will be supported by Canadians. Over the past several years, Canadians have indicated that they are increasingly in favour of targeting social spending and they have clearly stated that increased family income supplementation is one of the most important social policy issues facing the government.
This program will put money where it is needed most, which is in the hands of families to support them in caring for their children.
The new child tax benefit is one of the four key elements of the Brighter Futures initiative for children. It represents new resources delivered in a new way to meet the changing conditions of Canada and Canadian families. It is a significant investment in the future, our children, their parents and our country. I recommend this bill to all in this House.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks let me through you express to the minister first my appreciation for the help given by his officials at any time they are asked by the opposition. The briefings provided to us are greatly appreciated.
Second, we appreciate his participation in this debate in which he has again clearly outlined a reasoned
response to the criticisms made on this side of the House. Although we share different perspectives, we certainly share the same purpose of doing more for children in this country.
I would like to use this opportunity to summarize the criticisms made by this caucus on this piece of legislation. This has been a hastily held debate and in many cases many members in the national Liberal caucus have not had an opportunity to speak. The list of speakers is long and many people have expressed concern about not being able to speak.
On behalf of the House, I would again like to register my complaint to the government for not allowing a full debate. Though it has a deadline it would like to meet, Canadians have an objective to make sure children are helped in the best possible way. We are not at all convinced that the use of time allocation at each stage of the debate was of any help to Canadians in understanding the fundamental changes taking place.
As is so often the case when one is faced with a major debate and a major shift in public policy, one goes back to the roots in trying to understand what it is that has been attempted in the past and where we should be going from here.
As you well know, the Liberal Party of Canada is very proud of its tradition in social policy that began in the 1930s and carried right through almost uninterrupted to 1984. There were several stages of progressive legislation that did more and more for the average Canadian.
I would like to speak of the late and wonderful Senator Croll. He used to admonish us in caucus by saying: "Never forget the working man. Never forget why you were elected. Speak out for those who are paying the bills of this country". Surely Senator Croll's last comments in caucus, before he passed away, were exactly along those lines.
As I stand here today I am reminded of the lives given to this countiy by people who felt this commitment.
In many ways, the basis of the modem state for social policy can be traced back to 1943, almost 50 years ago. As the minister said, 1993 is just around the comer. That will mark 50 years since a royal commission was chaired by Professor Leonard Marsh from the University of British Columbia on social security for Canadians and the requirement for post-war planning.
September 16, 1992

It is very interesting that at the very time the Liberal government of Mackenzie King was fighting the Second World War it also had to plan exactly what should be done during the reconstruction period.
Marsh set out the conditions which drove many of the programs that came after the war in the reconstruction. He concluded his royal commission with the following statement that I think should be read into the record and serve as a benchmark as to what we try to do as Canadians to this day. Some things we do have to be reminded of.
He concluded:
Finally, the obvious but vital point must be made that social security payments are not money lost. The social insurances, and even some straightforward disbursements like children's allowances, are investments in morale and health, in greater family stability and from both material and psychological viewpoints, in human productive efficiency. They demand personal and community responsibilities; but in the eyes of most of the people who are beneficiaries, give a more evident meaning to the ideas of common effort and national solidarity. It has yet to be proved that any democracy which underwrites the social minimum for its citizens is any the weaker or less wealthy for doing so.
It was research such as this and thoughtfulness such as this that led to the establishment of universality and the treatment of every Canadian as being equal, whether they became unemployed, sick, or needy. It led to dozens of programs which, I agree with the minister, have become very confusing in some Canadians' minds but nevertheless have fundamental principles that have to be plucked out, defended, and reinforced.
This week is not only a time to think of Senator Croll as we go through changes in social policy but also the Hon. Paul Martin, whose funeral is tomorrow. It will be attended by many people on all sides of this House who have a fond memory of him.
I was reading through his autobiography, A Very Public Life, in which he discussed what it was like to be involved with these programs. His reference point was the Marsh commission:
Marsh called for planning to reconvert industry, to maintain jobs and to retrain the work force. Public employment schemes and a well-financed works program would counteract the expected postwar recession. The report went on to recommend a national health program based on universal health insurance and with levels of assistance that depended on individual income-the Marsh report also recommended both children's allowances and a universal,
Government Orders
contributory old age pension of $45 a month for married couples- as a clear part of the policy of providing a national minimum standard of living.
Mr. Speaker, if you think that we are broke today can you imagine the reaction of a cabinet coming out of the Second World War. I will continue reading what the hon. Paul Martin wrote:
The cost of these changes disturbed some in the cabinet, including C. D. Howe and the conscientious keeper of the public purse, Jim Ilsley. Ilsley's objection was that the report, having been released prematurely, did not carry the official sanction of government and therefore could not be accepted as the basis for legislation. While Ilsley might have based his official objections to the proposals on these grounds, I knew that philosophically he did not favour spending the government's money in this manner. One night he and I talked long into the wee hours arguing the pros and cons of state measures for social security. He honestly felt that the government could not afford these measures and that some of them should be undertaken by the family, the church or the provinces. Ilsley kept asking me: "Why do you want to saddle us with these things?" My answerwas: "Because of my liberalism".
That is the benchmark from that side of the House to this side of the House. Governments are always without money. Governments are always concerned about deficits. We share those concerns. It is also the responsibility of governments, one generation after another, to move ahead and provide for a more secure society.
Last night I was watching television and there was a discussion about rising crime rates in the Ottawa region. An academic from the University of Ottawa was on. He said: "What do you expect? You have done absolutely everything possible on the public side to increase crime rates. Why are you surprised? If people do not think you care about them, as a government, why should they care about their neighbours, why should they care about their communities? Why should they not be crime ridden? What is there in the way you are treating them that would cause them in return to feel part of a state system that was looking after them?"
The situation is obviously more complicated than that but within those words he had the truth of our responsibility as a government to people in our society. From the time of Paul Martin in the mid-forties straight through to 1984 there was a series of measures that reinforced universality and reinforced the commitment of the national government to all regions of the country whether they be individuals or families and whether they be young or old. I count among the accomplishments of

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
these years the Canada Assistance Plan, regional development and medicare.
Since 1984 there have been a number of measures that have begun to achieve just the opposite effect and have undermined the foundations that we set out to put together in this country. There are many examples, but I include here as highlights of these measures: Bills C-20, C-32 and C-69.
During his remarks the minister looked at me when I had a bemused look on my face as he was talking about the accomplishment of finding $2.1 billion in the system. What he failed to mention in the course of those remarks was that the government had taken $3.5 billion out of the system previous to that. As responsible politicians and members of Parliament we must take that $2.1 billion into account.
However, it is obvious to everyone that the undermining of the system has been so fundamental and I would say -I do not use this word frivolously -terrorizing to people that they need to see the government make a greater and greater commitment to the children.
We come now, after these negative changes in the system of Canada from 1984 to 1991-92, to the budget of 1992 in which the government presented us with Bill C-80, an act to amend the family allowances and related legislation dealing with payments to children.
Our caucus has opposed this at every opportunity it has had, which as I mentioned has not been very many. The purpose of this legislation is to move away from the concept of universality and look at the children of the country with a more targeted approach. The defence of this has been at various times: "The poorest of the poor are now looked after and that there is sufficient support now for middle income families that the payments will look after their children better than they were before".
As the minister has pointed out, there has been some cutting of comers in this debate and I would suggest to him that the cutting of comers has been as much on the government's side as on the opposition side. The gains, where they are, are minimal. Most families earning between $30,000 to $50,000 a year will make perhaps as little as $4 a month more for their children.
At first the sums will appear to be very generous because of the wide-ranging tax changes not fully understood by Canadians. Many families do not realize the impact of reporting family income, and I agree with the government that this is a fair system. The impact of changing the reporting of income from as an individual to as a family and the fact that the average Canadian income is slightly less than $53,000 means that many people will receive fewer benefits than they are anticipating.
In other words, the defence of the legislation is that the poorest of the poor will be better off, but the government has not yet explained how the absence of increases for social assistance families will in any way help the poorest of the poor.
Second, by defining families between $30,000 and $50,000 as being not in need of much extra money how does the government explain, particularly to families in urban Canada, how they should be able to look after their children just fine in these economic times, leaving aside the more than 30 tax increases that have taken place since this government was formed?
The average Canadian in this income level has been taxed again and again and again in small ways and big ways. Suddenly, at the end of this whole taxation process they are offered an extra $4 a month for their family, and the government describes this as a major step forward.
I beg to differ and I think that the average Canadian family would beg to differ that they will see major improvements in their way.
I would like to go into more detail about our criticisms on two fronts. First, I would like to deal with process. Today we finish up the debate in third reading in the House under time allocation. The government has done all it can to fast-track the bill and limit public debate.
Bill C-80 was debated for the first time on June 1. The government forced a closure motion on the bill on the second day of debate on June 9. The bill was then referred to a legislative committee under the Finance envelope. Few witnesses were able to appear due to time constraints imposed by government members.
Of the witnesses who did appear, all but one presenter, a junior academic brought in from British Columbia, expressed serious concerns over the many shortcomings
September 16, 1992

of the bill. Most witnesses were also critical of the process used by the government to try to force the bill through Parliament.
I want to read a letter into the public record that was sent by one of the witnesses, Barbara Blouin from Halifax. She wrote: "The whole experience was most disheartening. I am beginning to understand increasingly that democratic process under the Mulroney government is nothing but a sham, a charade, when virtually all the witnesses called for Bill C-80 criticized it. I had already read about it in The Globe and Mail. Nevertheless the bill was rammed through the committee process by the majority of its Tory members.
There can be no other conclusion than this. They do not listen, they do not respond, they are not answerable to the people. They will do what they want because they have the power to do so.
I have not felt so powerless in all my life. To actually have an opportunity to speak to some of Canada's leaders, to have worked very hard to write a brief and then to realize that it meant nothing and even that I and others were being used to uphold the propaganda that this is a democratic process, is hard to swallow".
This is a very severe criticism. I must tell the House that it is from someone I only met at the committee and I have no idea of her background or whether she is involved with politics or not. It is simply that she is a very serious researcher.
In the meantime, the government is busy on its so-called communications strategy. The minister alluded to the fact it was to make Canadians more aware. One of my associates in Manitoba wrote to me. He has a letter that he received from a F. D. Kealey, program manager, child tax benefit, dated August 27 so he received it before the House came back.
"Dear respondent, due to a very high response we have not yet processed all the coupons we have received for information on the proposed child tax benefit. In the meantime, please find enclosed two brochures which will give you some background on these issues".
The interesting thing is that this friend never sent in a coupon. This letter came to his law office and he has no children under the age of 21.
Government Orders
We should ask ourselves: "What is the mailing list? What are you doing? How much money do you have to waste? Did you write to every lawyer in the country, every law firm? Did you write to every business on Broadway Avenue in Winnipeg? What is it that you have to communicate seriously when you use form letters, mail that has no relationship to the people receiving it". It also has nothing to do with the child benefits program but in fact Brighter Futures which is another propaganda program.
The government may argue its need to communicate but it must do it more honestly, with less waste of government funds and more directly to the point of what the real, modest benefits to any family will be under this program.
I do hope the House leaders for the government will instruct the leaders of the Senate to have full and open hearings and that the January 1 deadline is manufactured. We learned through the constitutional process that manufactured deadlines are deadly. There is nothing magical about January 1. People want a real program and they want their money spent wisely.
All those witnesses which had no opportunity to appear before the House of Commons committee should be given every opportunity to appear before the Senate committee.
In addition to objections about process, we have several objections to the substance of this legislation. I would like to outline them quickly.
First, assistance to the poorest families, namely those on social assistance, will not increase.
Second, the partial deindexation of a benefit and complete lack of indexation of the threshold amounts will result in the gradual erosion of the benefit amount as well as lessen the number of families eligible for the benefit. This is a crucial fact. The 3 per cent solution this government has stuck into the legislation and after defeating the motions moved yesterday, means an erosion of up to 30 per cent in the next decade. With the threshold not being properly indexed, people will also lose real income opportunities.
Third, the lack of a proper mechanism to ensure that dramatic changes in family income are reflected in the monthly benefit amount. As it now stands, it could take up to 18 months for the benefit to be adjusted.

Government Orders
Fourth, the lack of a federal-provincial arrangement could result in the provinces capping welfare payments.
Fifth, the estimated $2.1 billion increase over five years to the child benefits system must be measured against the $3.5 billion already taken out of the child benefit system between 1986 and 1991. On that point, several witnesses were incensed about the reality of how little new money was actually going to be put into this program. When I was willing to concede with a couple of witnesses that perhaps the government's $2.1 million was the correct figure, they were even willing to challenge me on that and in fact presented documents to the committee that were ignored by the government members showing that the $2.1 million figure was not real.
The long-awaited and promised child care strategy, which is a significant deterrent to child poverty, has been completely abandoned, creating additional financial hardship on low and middle income families, especially single parent families.
In addition, this government has brought forward several initiatives which negatively affect poor families, such as cutbacks in funding for social housing, the cancellation of funding for co-op housing, the cap on the Canadian Assistance Plan and changes to UI. There has been no increase in the federal minimum wage since 1986, one of the fundamentals for guaranteeing family income.
The bill signifies the end of universality and the recognition of the higher expenses parents incur. Some women in abusive relationships will lose their only form of income, however modest it is, the family allowance. This was mentioned explicitly by witnesses, including a woman from New Brunswick who was very eloquent on the need to protect women in abusive relationships by giving them at least a monthly allowance.
There was lack of consultation both before and after the release of the white paper. The Conservative government is trying to drive this legislation through Parliament totally unamended. As a matter of fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with the exception of his brief intervention yesterday, did not appear before the committee to defend this proposal which supports a disturbing trend by the Conservative government of transferring social policy to the financial envelope.
The question we have is: who is making social policy for this government? Is it the Finance department or is it the health and welfare department?
I go back to the commentary of Paul Martin, remembering his life, when he said that it is the role of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to promote the need of the average person. It was the role of the Minister of Finance to protect the public budget. That was a necessary and natural conflict in a cabinet, but you do not blend the two roles together because you need an advocate for people.
During this whole debate, the silence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is supposed to be an advocate on behalf of people in need, is absolutely amazing. The government is treating this bill as one of its major initiatives, yet we have not heard from the department which is most responsible for seeing it through.
There is also the regressive nature of the increased child care deduction. In the same bill there is the emergence of the RRSP tax deduction which will cost the government millions in unclaimed revenue and could be of assistance to people in need for programs such as this.
We also have other problems. It is not only ourselves who have raised these concerns, but people as diverse as Ken Battle from the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, a representative from the End Legislated Poverty group, the Minister of Social Services from British Columbia, Professor Shelley Phipps from Dalhousie University, the Citizens for Public Justice, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Child Poverty Action group, Lise Corbeil from National Anti-Poverty Organization, Trevor Williams from the Family Services Canada, Michael Goldberg from the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia, Terrence Huns-ley from Queen's University, Martha Friendly from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Dr. Robert Glossop from the Vanier Institute of the Family, Richard Shillington, co-author of The Canadian Fact Book on Poverty, Marcelle Dolment a Reseau d'action et information pour les femmes and Patrick Johnson from the Canadian Council on Social Development. These are some of the witnesses who came forward and consistently pointed out the problems of this legislation and this

government, in return, consistently refused to acknowledge them.
Earlier this year Queen's University hosted a conference in its public policy forum on the February 1992 budget at the John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy. I would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands who mentioned this report in the House in the middle of the debate on the report stage and asked me to bring it to the attention of the House in more detail.
During that conference Martin Browning of McMaster University presented a paper on the child benefit package. He asked the question: "Do the new proposals move us significantly closer to the goal of eliminating child poverty?" His answer: "The above analysis suggests not; indeed, taking into account the fact that the benefits are only partially indexed, it is probable that unless there is some new initiative in the next eight years, poverty among families with children will be even higher in the year 2000".
This government is not only presenting us with a new initiative, but in fact it is presenting us with the foundations of worse conditions in the future.
Mr. Browning also addressed directly the question of the earned income supplement. Again he asked the question: "What, then, are the likely incentive effects? First, I am sceptical that most unemployment is a matter of choice so that policies that make full pay work even more attractive are likely to lead to increased frustration rather than higher participation rates. In knowing this, my guess is that the new EIS will not make much difference".
There is one academic interpretation of the much touted $500 earned income supplement in this program.
As a result of our criticism of this program, the Liberal caucus introduced four amendments earlier this week as part of our package of 72 ways that the government could have changed this legislation and made it better. We first asked for the deletion of the entire bill. Second, we asked for the full indexation of the benefit and of the threshold amounts.
The government should always remember what happened in the fight with the pensioners when they tried to index the pensions, with the famous scene on television
Government Orders
across this country of the pensioner from Montreal saying "Goodbye, Charlie Brown". If the children of this country could have the same understanding of their rights and of the obligations of this government as the elderly have, we would see a children's crusade coming into this Chamber saying, "Do you not understand how fundamentally you are moving away from a program of helping all children?"
Children do not make the distinction as to whether they are rich or poor, or whether their dad is working or their mum is working; children only know whether or not people care for them. When legislation is passed saying that we in this House only have to care about certain types of children because the family will look after the rest, or the church will look after the rest, or the province will look after them, or somebody will feed them at the schools, as soon as that is said as a principle, as soon as that is recognized, as soon as it is stated in public that some people who are two years old should be able to look after themselves because their mum or dad makes a lot of money, then there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens in family life in this country.
I think this government is going to pay a price for that.
I know that I cannot wait to stand up on any platform with anybody from this government who thinks that you can make the distinction between rich kids and ordinary kids, and say: "You have to look after yourself as soon as you are bom and if your family makes a mistake, so be it, we are not concerned".
Once you move away from the principle of universality it does not matter where the lines are. It does not matter where the margins are at first. It does not matter whether you are looking after 85 per cent at first. The point is that you have made a decision that 15 per cent does not count. Therefore, someone else like your buddies in the Reform Party can come along and say: "It should not be 15 per cent, maybe it should be 30 per cent", and someone else says: "Maybe it should be 35 per cent" and then someone else in 10 years says: "Maybe we cannot help any of them because we do not have any money".
What happens when you go home to your family and you say: "I am really sorry we do not have enough money; we are going to skip on the kids this month". Can you imagine a conversation like that? That is what this government has just said through the minister: "We do

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
not have the money; we are going to skip on 15 per cent of the kids next month". Nice.
Will the next Minister of Finance stand up and say that he is going to skip on 30 per cent? You did not mind the first 15 per cent? Do you mind the next 15 per cent?
That is why this party has fought this measure every single step of the way. We will continue the struggle in the Senate and we will make sure that Canadians understand that the principle behind this legislation is terrible, is destructive and is contrary to every principle of fairness that we have here.
We also asked in our third amendment for the inclusion of a mechanism, possibly a child benefits adjustment board, to deal with a responsiveness problem. As the bill now stands, if you have a significant loss of income, it can be up to 18 months before the government will change the amount of money you receive for your children.
I used the example earlier in debate which I think is a worth-while one. It is entirely possible in some of our industries for an engineer in the petrochemical industry earning $70,000 a year, for example, to be part of a wide spread lay-off of 2,000 or 3,000 people, which is happening in Calgary, and find himself on UI receiving $22,000 and then on to social assistance. It is not until July of the next year that he can pick up money for his children.
In the meantime, instead of making it available for, say, three children, $273 a month which they parade out here as being so responsive and so fundamental, that which would provide food for these children, they turn around and say: "It is too difficult to make these adjustments. This is so flexible already. We cannot possibly consider this".
If you are serious about poverty, you must know the literature on poverty. You must know the reality is thousands and thousands of people pass through temporary poverty. It is at that moment in which their family is facing a crisis that you have to help. It is not 18 months later. Most families come and go in this cycle. We are in a terrible terrible cycle in this recession and it is time we designed programs and helped people adjust to it.
The Minister for International Trade totally denies the reality that he has no adjustment programs, the government has no adjustment programs, for free trade. On
social policy they are committing the same error. There are no adjustment policies for people who need help when they get laid off and when they have to provide food.
Your mortgage payments do not stop for 18 months. You still have to maintain a house. There are stories, for example, in Calgary of people having to re mortgage their house upward to get cash to buy food for their children. Yet this government says under this new program it can provide lots of cash for families in need. That is substantially wrong. The way the government designed this legislation it should be embarrassed for ( a) introducing it (b) not amending it and (c) standing up here at third reading and denying it. It is not responsive and for that reason alone it should be defeated.
Last, we are very anxious that this government in a more public fashion commit the provinces to not changing the levels of social assistance if this program is enhanced. Several speakers have stood up and shared the view that with the new monthly payments many social assistance families in poorer provinces are going to be made vulnerable as to what their total income is, based on these calculations.
We have been assured privately and informally by the ministers of the Crown that this is nothing to worry about. They have assurances from the provinces. Put it in writing. Make sure we have agreements on this new program to ensure that nobody will be hurt from social assistance.
There are thousands and thousands of Canadians who never thought before they would be on social assistance. It is a very tough life. It is a very cruel relationship with government. Do not make it any worse by people sitting there and staring at you and saying I know you have more money. You have this child benefits package and let us take a look at your total income package. Those who know the social assistance program understand this very clearly.
By way of conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the House to a former Canadian still proud of being a Canadian originally, John Kenneth Galbraith, who in his Culture of Contentment wants us to understand just how dangerous this situation is across North America.
September 16, 1992

Let me read a couple of paragraphs: "The present and devastated position of the socially assisted under-class has been identified as the most serious social problem of the time as it is also the greatest threat to long run peace and civility. Life in the great cities in general could be improved and only will be improved by public action, by better schools with better paid teachers, by strong well financed welfare services, by counselling on drug addiction, by employment training, by public investment in the housing that no industrial country has provided for the poor, by private enterprise, by adequately supporting health care recreation facilities, libraries and police. The question once again, much accommodating rhetoric to the contrary is not what can be done but what will be paid".
Although Mr. Galbraith is writing more directly about the United States, his comments apply to this country and we wait and we wait at great risk.
It is not just one program. A whole number of things have to be set in motion again. If this government does not understand it, it will be replaced by a government that does.
On a very final note, there is a relationship between what we do for children and the Constitution. In the rhetoric associated with the Constitution and this Charlottetown agreement, there is a social and economic union. The Constitution would contain a statement of key social and economic policy objectives shared by all the governments in the federation.
The social policy objectives would include comprehensive, universal, portable, accessible, publicly administered health care, adequate social services and benefits, education, and so forth. I want to stop there.
Adequate social services and benefits: Does this legislation stand the test of being the first piece of legislation introduced in the country under the new Constitution? Is it adequate? Does it provide for the well-being of all Canadians? Does it provide for the well-being of all families? Does it provide for the well-being of all children?
By the very tests that this government has agreed to in this accord, the first step forward is maintenance, contrary to all the principles that it has been boasting about. I would suggest to the government in good will that this
Government Orders
piece of legislation be removed, that this House recommit itself to fighting child poverty by the year 2000, our original recommendation and agreed upon by all parties of the House two years ago, that we stake out the turf and honestly admit to each other that this is not sufficient, that we begin again and produce a better piece of legislation for all of Canada's children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As indicated in the Order Paper, the first two speakers have 40 minutes maximum. There are no questions or comments. There are after the third speaker.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion in our country lately on family values and family issues.
The right wing in this country has attempted to hijack the word family and give it an elitist and twisted definition. New Democrats do not try to exclude people from the definition of family. Families come in all shapes and sizes. People will always define their own family groupings: Dual career families, what is considered by some the traditional family with a male breadwinner and a mother at home, single-parent families, same sex couples with or without children, or middle-aged people looking after elderly parents.
Who is to declare that a middle-aged woman or man caring for aging parents cannot define themselves as a family? The Conservatives have a family caucus which believes that the family is deteriorating, and they set themselves up as the judge of Canadian families.
They want to decide who is in a family and who is not, who is deserving of family benefits and who is not. This so-called family caucus is made up of mainly middle-aged men and, not surprisingly, the idea of family that they have come up with fits them exactly.
I will quote a family caucus member, the hon. member for Mississauga South. This is a direct quote:
It-
Meaning all federal legislation.
-should define a family as a male and a female living together to raise
children and that is the only kind of family that ought to be defined.
Therefore, widows with children, orphans, children of divorced parents, children who live with parents of the same sex, these children according to that family caucus model are to be excluded from family benefits and have no rights to family services under Canadian law.

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
This is a horrifying and unacceptable view of Canadian families. Canadians in fact will be shocked to know that we have our own Dan Quayle in Parliament. They have elected people who do not understand what Canadian families are about today and who want to reach into a past that in fact never really existed.
The proportion of single-parent families has not risen significantly over the last 50 years although the cause of single parenthood has changed. In the past widowhood, primarily after each war, was the primary cause of single parenthood. Today it is divorce. Thirteen per cent of Canadian families are single parent families. A happy life for children with one parent can often be better than an unhappy or an abused life with two parents.
One in ten Canadian families is headed by a common law couple. Sixty-two per cent of all husband and wife families are dual earner families. In fact, only a minority of Canadian families are comprised of a husband breadwinner, wife at home, and children.
These families deserve to be protected, but so do other families. A discussion of the family caucus is, in fact, very relevant here because its chair has taken credit for the bill that we are discussing today, the elimination of the family allowance.
I want to point out how anti-family that family caucus is, and how it is made up mainly of people who are catering to their own special interest group. Although I will be talking about family policy, I also want to remind members of this House that 23 per cent of all households in Canada are made up of people who live alone, and they are important too.
NDP policy on families is geared to helping all families survive economically and emotionally. It involves measures to fight poverty. One in six Canadian children is living in poverty, while government policies on social assistance and child support exacerbate the situation.
For example, the bill before us today, Bill C-80, eliminates the universality of family allowance. This bill will give family benefits only to the eligible poor. It will set up two classes of poor. This bill is an attempt by this government to identify the deserving poor and the undeserving poor, and in fact is a back to the future kind of bill, back to the Victorian times when people were classed according to whether they were deserving of help or not deserving of help.
The new family benefit will give more money to those already earning an income in the paid work force than it will give to families in which the adults have been laid off during this recession, whose jobs have disappeared because of the trade deal, and who are not trained for any industry where there are jobs available now; people who are having problems finding a job with an unemployment rate in this country of 11 per cent; homemakers who are finding it necessary but difficult to reintegrate themselves into the paid work force; all of those who are on unemployment insurance, social assistance or are receiving no help at all.
The people who are made to suffer the most through this bill are the children in those families. The children who need the money most will get less of it. The children who are going to school hungry and relying on food banks will get less money for food and clothing than children of those parents who are in the paid work force.
The government is saying that some children deserve food and clothing more than other children. I think that is a horrible legacy of poverty and disrespect to put on to the backs of children.
Children who go to school hungry do less well at school. They are hyperactive and they cannot concentrate. There are long-term physical, emotional and intellectual consequences to growing up without adequate nutrition. These problems start in pregnancy with poor women who do not have enough nutritious food. When one child suffers from poverty and abuse, all of society suffers in the long run with a work force that is uneducated and ill-equipped for the types of employment available, with health problems and with an increase in crime.
Child poverty and abuse is a problem for all Canadians, and this bill does nothing to solve it. In fact, it may even exacerbate it. Bill C-80 was discredited by almost every witness who came to speak before the committee that examined the bill. One witness to the committee, Professor Phipps, compared Canada's treatment of poor families with that of other countries and he said, and I will quote from his testimony: "Canadian public transfers leave families with poor kids still 15 per cent below the poverty line, whereas in lots of other countries such as Norway, Germany, the U.K., public transfers raise them to at least the poverty line". Actually in Sweden,
September 16, 1992

they were raised to substantially higher than poverty income levels.
Witnesses to the committee pointed out that the proposed child benefits available to low-income families are exactly the same as those available in the current system. They are just juggled about so that it appears that one is getting more in the mail but one also pays more in taxes. What is eliminated is the family allowance which had been given to everyone regardless of family income. If the family income was high, the family allowance was taxed back. However, at least the family allowance came and it was in mother's name.
In some families, even high income families, this was the only money that some women received in their own name. This is particularly important to the women who are battered both physically and emotionally by the men with whom they live. That income, as small as it was, could make the difference between being able to get out of an abusive relationship and having to endure it because there is nowhere to go and no funds with which to leave.
This proposed child benefit is not indexed to inflation so it is going to be worth less and less and less every year. The bill also enhances the deduction for child care expenses which puts far more money into the hands of upper income families than middle and low income families. In other words, those who are well off get a tax break because of this bill and this tax approach to child care is really ludicrous and ineffective.
We live in a country now where 1.3 million Canadian children need child care because both parents, or their only parent, are in the paid work force. Perhaps they are at university and are studying full time. Licensed care is only available for one quarter of these children.
This government has already limited funding for child care through its spending limits on the Canada Assistance Plan for British Columbia, Ontario and for Alberta. If the federal government was serious about child care it would have brought in a national child care program which it has been promising, promising and promising for almost a decade now. Tax measures do not create child care spaces.
Government Orders
Contrary to the twisted justifications of the family caucus of the Conservative party, this bill provides no choice to parents in terms of raising their children. The benefit is so little that it does not allow women or men to stay home to raise the kids. It cuts off all help to middle-income women who do wish to be full-time homemakers. It does not create the necessary child care spaces for those who wish to use child care outside the home.
There is no choice in this bill for parents or for Canadians who, despite the protestations against the bill, are being forced to swallow bad legislation. The bill proposes a complex child benefit system to replace what was the simple and straightforward family allowance program. Under this new system, parents must almost be accountants to figure out how much the government owes them. It increases the likelihood that mistakes and underpayments will go unnoticed.
The proposed benefit means more bureaucracy because each individual family will have to be looked at every year in order to determine its eligibility. More bureaucrats will be hired to deal with this at a time when this government talks on and on and on about downsizing government. It increases the chances of delays in getting cheques because it is individualized and not automatic.
The child benefit does not even come close to the actual cost of raising a child and it is about time that the government recognized how much Canadian families are subsidizing tax breaks to profit making corporations through their own personal taxes. Canadian families are overtaxed and the work of mothers in raising children is neither respected nor recognized.
The family allowance was a recognition of the contribution that all Canadian parents make to Canadian society by raising children. That recognition will now be gone. It is replaced by a benefit which amounts to an ever decreasing scrap to the poor. A witness from the social planning council of metro Toronto pointed out that evidence from European countries shows that the countries with universal programs have the lowest child poverty rate. Services and benefits directed to the poor become poorer programs because the middle class no longer sees itself as having a stake in the program and in defending it. How long will middle income earners

Government Orders
continue to pay taxes to support benefits which they will no longer receive?
The Conservative government has invoked closure on this bill to eliminate the family allowance which means that it has undemocratically limited debate on it. This is in order to pass it as soon as possible and according to its own agenda and not that of the Canadian people.
This bill is a major shift in Canadian social policy. It is an Americanization, if you will, of Canadian social policy. The Tories wanted to pass it in one day but we did not co-operate and we have stretched out the debate as long as possible to give groups and concerned Canadians an opportunity to talk sense to this government.
Another shift is that social polity has been commandeered now by the Department of Finance which obviously does not understand anything about children or their needs. Social policy should be developed in consultation with Canadians and community groups and be handled by those with a deep understanding and commitment to the well-being of children and Canadian families.
Thanks to successive Liberal and Conservative governments, the Canadian record on family and child poverty is dismal. In Canada, 75 per cent of men default on their child support payments. This leaves single parent families with the worst poverty rate of any Canadian family. Of all single mother families, 57 per cent live in poverty and this figure has not changed since 1974. In Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Germany there are guaranteed minimum child support payments.
Families need financial and emotional support in order to be strong. New Democrat policies include effective anti-poverty measures such as fair taxation, raising the minimum wage and adequate pensions. Our policy includes family support measures such as child care and parental leave, the valuing of women's work in the home and the valuing of women's work in the paid work force through pay equity and employment equity.
Our policy is to establish a national program of non-profit child care which is accessible, affordable,
flexible, of high quality, culturally sensitive and developed with community input. We believe that aboriginal child care should be run by aboriginal communities.
There are other policies that could be put into place. Maternity and parental leave must be part of a comprehensive child care system. Our parental leave system lags far behind that of most European countries. They have grasped that most workers are also parents and have personal needs as parents. In the short term, parental leave should be extended to 26 weeks. In the long term, we should be aiming for a system of 9 months for paid parental leave. Ten days of paid leave should be available to workers to tend to their family responsibilities.
There are examples in Canada of governments that, even in this recessionary time, have put an emphasis on these kinds of policies. The Ontario New Democratic government has refined its pay equity system and it is now the most advanced in North America. My British Columbia New Democratic colleagues are also introducing pay equity in my province. Pay equity is an important family issue because many women must work outside the home in order to support their families. Unattached older women are more likely than their male counterparts to live in poverty. This situation will continue as long as women are not paid their worth on the job and have less of an opportunity than men to build up a pension in their own name. Employment equity is also necessary to ensure that women and their families are getting a fair deal.
Women do paid work outside the home in 71 per cent of families in which there are children under the age of six. It is an absolute crime that we have no child care program in this country. Policies should include family support services to help families and the individuals who comprise them when faced with problems of abuse, alcoholism or ill health.
What this government is not telling us is that programs to eliminate violence in the family and to heal those who have survived it is an essential part of any family policy. An accessible, high quality health care system is also an
September 16, 1992

essential party of family policy to ensure the health of families and future generations.
All families are deserving of respect and support regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or class. White, middle class families deserve to be healthy and happy and to have every chance in life as do aboriginal families, black families, mixed families, same sex couple families, poor families and all of the families that make up our country. Human rights protection is an important part of family policy.
We need a Court Challenges Program to ensure that the rights of all Canadians are defined and enforced.
I went on the radio with a family caucus member the other day on CBC to talk about family values. He said that some families should be favoured over others because: "It is a matter of priorities". I agree, family issues are a matter of priorities. His government priorities include spending $4.5 billion on 50 submarine-hunting helicopters, more than $1 billion on a low-level defence system to protect troops in Europe against a Soviet attack now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, $250 million to purchase anti-tank guns and $1 billion in tax breaks to the rich through an expected trust legislation. It goes on and on.
There was a $25 million cut in affordable housing and a $200 million cut in training for workers who need to train for jobs to support their families. Support for families and child care through the Canada Assistance Plan has been cut. There is the scrapping of plans for a national child care program and now the elimination of family allowance. Obviously these people do not have their priorities straight.
Family policy is more than the narrow and restrictive vision that this government presents. It attempts to glorify the family while cutting almost every service that helps our families to stay strong.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled after listening to the opposition members talking in this House for the last couple of days about how dreadful this piece of legislation is. They make it sound as if we are cutting money out of the budget. This
Government Orders
is totally false. There is more money going into families from this piece of legislation than is provided now.
We are consolidating three different programs. We are adding $2.1 billion over the next five years in additional moneys to go into these various programs. We know that over 80 per cent of all families receive these benefits. Eighty per cent of the increase will go to families below the $40,000 mark in their income. All families with incomes below $50,000 have either increased benefits or will be at the same level. On average, families with incomes below $50,000 will receive an additional $250 in benefits.
I have never heard any of the opposition members ever giving out this factual information. I can tell you that the people will have to judge for themselves in the new year when the benefits start going to them when they see just how beneficial this will be for them. It is a simpler form of getting the money to the people who need it. This is not something that we are trying save money from.
The earned income supplement of up to $500 provides extra help to low income working families. This is a group, by the way, that has often fallen between the cracks. The monthly payments are tax free. They no longer have to report this income on their tax returns. I did not hear the hon. member opposite telling people this. She was doing nothing but condemning this.
The tax return in the future will be shorter and simpler because of this very important ingredient that has been put in this. This is money that goes to individuals and they do not have to report it.
I would ask the hon. member opposite if she does not think that this is a benefit for the people of Canada and for the families that we want to target money to.
Ms. Black As I said in my remarks, this legislation is creating two classes of poor. This is not a new and forward looking type of legislation. This is an old Victorian idea of there being the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.
What I said very clearly today is that the children who live in those families should not be penalized because folks on that side of the House figure that the children of the working poor deserve a bit more, but those children

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
whose parents are on assistance or on no kind of government support are not deserving of assistance.
This program is not indexed to the cost of living. It is the beginning of the end because you have broken faith. You have broken faith with the Canadian people on the universality of the family allowance.
The Prime Minister said in 1984 that universal social programs were a sacred trust not to be touched by his government. I would ask the Prime Minister to live up to that pledge he made to the Canadian people and stand up with the members on this side of the House and vote no to Bill C-80.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that I was quite simply appalled, in a sense insulted, by the attempt of the hon. member from the New Democratic Party who tried to mischaracterize in her opening remarks the family caucus in our party.
I want to make a few comments about the family caucus, how it is composed and how it works. In the House we do not usually hear or speak about the workings of caucus. It is very important for all members and the public to understand that this is not a group in any way designing against the interests of families.
The members of this caucus committee consist of men and women, individual members of Parliament, mothers, wives, grandmothers, single mothers, widows, men who are fathers and husbands, divorced parents, widowers and single parents; people with complex personal interest in families, who sit together at a table and try to look at laws that are in existence in this country or are being proposed. They try to develop better ways of supporting and helping families.


An hon. member:: Men and women.


Al Johnson: I am particularly incensed that the hon. member would suggest that because the majority of the members of this committee are men, it somehow denigrates the work of this committee. It is as if to suggest that because the majority of members of this House are men, it denigrates all the work of this House.
I am appalled and insulted by those remarks.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: She says that too.


Al Johnson: Yes, she may say that too and I would not be the least surprised.
I would also like to comment on some of the remarks she has made about this bill's setting up two classes of poor, the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. This is totally wrong. What the bill does is say that those people who are on assistance and are trying to get off assistance should be given some additional support. Those families need that kind of support. They are the ones losing their medicare. For example, when they are off welfare they are losing their dental care, their bus passes for the children. These are significant losses as they try to move into the work force.
This bill has in it a small effort. I am sorry that it is so small but we all know the problem of the availability of money right now. Up to $500 a year is given to those families to assist in that transition. This is certainly not the creation of two classes of poor.


Dawn Black: Obviously my comments hit home. I can quote the MP for Calgary North who said "as for national day care we did not kill it. It was done in by a $420 billion debt that resulted from rampant overspending previous to 1984".
This government has set out its priorities very clearly for all Canadians to see. Its priorities continue to be $4.5 billion for 50 Soviet sub-hunting helicopters. Does it not know its geography and recent history? The Soviet Union no longer exists.
It is a matter of priorities. On that I think the member and I agree. It is a matter of priorities and a national child care program which was flaunted as one of the government's major promises to Canadian families for almost a decade now has been scrapped in favour of 50 helicopters. That says it all quite clearly.
In terms of the other comments that he made, there is a lot of evidence on the record of exactly what the family caucus of the Conservative caucus has had to say about women and families. I will quote the member from Delta, British Columbia: "With the rise of special interest groups and their influence in Ottawa, the last people being considered were the families. You have the feminists, the gays and lesbians and all the alternate lifestyles that are demanding attention. We feel that the family is a basic cornerstone of Canadian life".
There are a lot of feminists in this country who will be surprised to know that they are not considered part of their own families. There are a lot of gay people who will be surprised to know that according to the Conservative
September 16, 1992

family caucus, they are not part of their own families. My children will be surprised to know that somehow I am not part of my own family because I am a feminist and proud to be one.


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak in the House on Bill C-80. In particular, I wish to reaffirm the advantages of the integrated child tax benefit over our present family support system. I also wish to refute some erroneous criticism made by opposition members and statements circulating in this Chamber and in the media.
Canada's social programs are something our country and its people are very proud of. They are one of the things that put Canada ahead of other countries and are envied throughout the world. Nevertheless, we cannot avoid the fact that the present family benefits system has serious problems that can and must be solved.
As was pointed out to us in this debate on Bill C-80, the integrated child tax benefit will significantly increase the aid given to families and improve the mechanism for delivering this assistance. The new benefit will strengthen the existing programs, better meet the needs of Canadian families and better respond to changes in their situation. That is why we must ensure that this bill passes. Given the difficulties with the present regime, our constituents, especially low income families, would suffer if we did not pass it.
Let me present these problems succinctly. Clearly, the present benefits do not provide enough support for low-income families to raise their children properly. Furthermore, these benefits are provided separately through three different mechanisms and at different times of the year. Each of these programs has different eligibility criteria, which are confusing to many Canadians.
In addition, the benefits are not well targeted. Families with similar incomes can receive different levels of support, since the benefits are taxable and reclaimed on the basis of individual income.
Furthermore, the system fails to provide adequate support for families who get off welfare to join the ranks of the labour force. These families are often penalized financially when they decide to go back to work, because
Government Orders
of unforeseen job-related expenses and the loss of welfare payments.
Benefit mechanisms may also be a source of problems for many low-income families. As my colleagues have pointed out, the refundable tax credit always comes after the fact, which means the cheque does not reach recipients at a time when they really need it. As a result, money that was supposed to help families goes to tax discounters who are prepared to pay these benefits in advance in return for a certain percentage of the cheque when it is cashed.
The government is not making this up to justify introducing the integrated tax child benefit. Hon. members opposite preferred to ignore these problems in this debate, but they are a major part of the concerns raised by a large number of Canadians and national interest groups. These Canadians want solutions and the integrated child tax benefit is the solution.
During the next five years, the integrated child tax benefit will provide an additional $2.1 billion in support, as well as the current benefits enjoyed by families in Canada. Opposition members should welcome this development.
The integrated child tax benefit will also ensure that these improved benefits are paid to the families who need them most. For instance, 80 per cent of this new money will be paid to families with an annual income of less than $40,000. The new benefit will include an earned income supplement of up to $500.
This new supplement will help ease the transition for low income families who are getting off welfare to enter the labour market. At the present time many families that enter the labour market are often faced with financial problems caused by job related expenses and a potential reduction in their welfare payments.
Furthermore, there will be no more delays in child benefit payments. The integrated child tax benefit will take the form of a monthly payment, thus providing a more practical response to the needs of Canadian children and their parents, and tax discounters will no longer pocket a percentage of these benefits because parents are desperate for cash.
Furthermore, the integrated child tax credit will better reflect changes that occur within the family. Monthly payments will take into consideration any changes in the

Government Orders
family such as the birth of a child or permanent loss of income as a result of marriage break-up.
The integrated child tax benefit will treat all families equally. Benefits will be targeted on the basis of family income rather than individual income. Accordingly, families with similar incomes will receive similar benefits.
Finally, the confusion caused by the present system will be eliminated. The integrated child tax benefit will be delivered by a single mechanism, instead of by three as for the previous one, and only one eligibility criterion will apply, compared to three before. The benefit will be paid in a single monthly non-taxable cheque. The government will automatically calculate the amount of benefits on the basis of income and family situation. To receive benefits, parents will no longer have to do special calculations on their income tax return. And parents with higher income will no longer receive benefits that they will have to pay back when they complete their income tax return. As a result, the income tax return will be shorter and less confusing.
In summary, the integrated child tax benefit is the answer to the changes that interest groups and individuals have been demanding from the government. For example, Canadians have been calling for a simpler tax system, and that is just what the integrated child tax benefit does. They have also been asking for a streamlining of government aid for families and a substantial increase in the amount of this assistance; the integrated child tax benefit meets these objectives.
That is why I have trouble understanding why my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House do not give this bill unanimous support. It makes me think that some of their criticisms are more politically motivated than real objections to the bill.
On universality, in particular, I cannot see how they can object to redirecting benefits from higher income families to those with low and modest incomes, since these families are in greater need. Is that not the real purpose of redistributing wealth? We must keep in mind that 3.1 million families, or 84 per cent of all families with children, will continue to receive benefits. All families with incomes under $50,000 will receive the
same level of benefits or more than they do now. On average, these families will receive $250 more a year per child.
Opposition members were also quick to criticize the indexing of the integrated child tax benefit, because like all other components of the tax system, indexing will be limited to price increases above 3 per cent. They claim that for this reason families will receive less and less aid from year to year.
In making such statements my colleagues on the other side of the House have decided to ignore the facts. In particular, they say that this government has cut $3.5 billion from the Canadian family support system since 1986 as a result of partial deindexation. That is incorrect and misleading. They deliberately fail to mention that this government increased the refundable child tax credit on four occasions since 1985. Such tax breaks have ensured that the benefits intended for all low income families increased at the same rate as inflation. Add to that the $213 supplement for children under seven years of age for whom no child care expense deduction is claimed, and the rate of increase of low income families' benefits actually was higher than that of inflation.
In closing, I urge all the members of this House to support this bill. We should not allow political considerations to foil any plan to try and ensure that every child in Canada can lead a healthy, productive and satisfying life.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for the many positive comments he made about this important piece of legislation.
I want the House and those who are watching us to know that our government has great concern about the whole area of human resource development in our country. This ranges from the health condition of the pregnant mother to children to education that is carried on through to retraining and that whole area. Children are of great concern and are greatly studied by our government.
September 16, 1992

Government Orders
Reflecting on the patchwork of child allowances and tax credits and so on, we have great concern with all of that. This is certainly so with lower income people who had to fill out tax forms to receive those moneys. Some were subjected to tax discounters. That is sad and inappropriate. They should not have had to resort to that. It was a result of needing those moneys on a monthly basis and not some time later after filling out complicated forms. Again, they went for this to the tax discounters.
People have come to me, as they probably have to my colleague who is the member for Hochelaga-Maison-neuve who just spoke. They asked: "Why are we receiving child allowances when they should go to people who are more in need".
I want to make those comments and ask him if he would relate some of the conversations he had with his constituents. I know that that is where it is coming from. I feel very confident, as I know he does, with this legislation. It is something Canadians want.
I guess the opposition will always take exception to whatever legislation is brought in. That is the adversarial political system we have in Canada and it is something that has always been there and will continue.
I know we are all here today to make sure that accurate statements and information about this bill is brought forward.
I just make those comments to my honoured colleague and ask for his thoughts.


Allan Koury: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make. I have been working with the public for a number of years and discussions were reported to me on several occasions by industrials, lawyers, solicitors, all that crowd. I keep in touch with them and recently they were telling me how insane it would be for people of their standing to receive that kind of money. They would rather that it went to the low and middle income families.
This confirms what people have been telling me all along. The main thing is for Bill C-80 to go through as quickly as possible.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate at the outset that I shall be sharing my time with my colleague who is the member for Davenport.
I want to make a couple of corrections, though. I know my colleague had no intention of not recognizing this. There is co-operation on occasion in the House. It just so happens that when we feel there is legislation that has not been presented in a forthright kind of way, we feel an obligation to correct the facts. The most recent event, of course, is the co-operation that was displayed with the constitutional proposals.
My colleague also mentions human resources development. I want to talk about that during the few minutes that I have at my disposal. Let us look at the financial facts of this particular bill.
The government continues to refuse to admit that it has reduced child care benefits by $3.5 billion over time. It is now returning, it is true, $400 million. However, that is roughly 12 per cent of what it has removed.
Look at it this way. Supposing I hired you for $100 a day and for a number of reasons I reduced that to $50. You would probably be somewhat unhappy as are some of the people here. Lo and behold, three months, six months or perhaps a year later I come back and say: "I want to give you a 12 per cent raise". Using the figures that I have just utilized that would be $6.
I could claim that I am really a great guy, a great employer and generous. I have just given you a 12 per cent raise. I forgot to remind myself that I had already cut your salary by a substantial amount.
This is the kind of game that is going on over here and that is why some of us are upset. Let us look at the process as well. There were a few hearings. When were they held? During the summer. When is the legislation being presented to the House? It is at this particular point in time and with time allocation. We are being limited in terms of time today.
It is being pushed through at a time when Canadians are really quite concerned about the economic health of this nation, about keeping a job, about the future for themselves and their children and about our great

Government Orders
constitutional crisis. The propaganda machine has much more opportunity to function.
The government has had some success in making people believe that there is more money. That is what really angers me a great deal. It is also an election strategy. Anyone who does not see it that way should really go to an optometrist or some other person to check out their insides. This is an election strategy.
The government is pretending that there is a lot more than there really is. There is a lot more. It is stacking the money at roughly election time because the system currently in place will continue and then the new system will come in. It will give the illusion that all of a sudden you have a lot more money than you had.
By the time one realizes the reality. Zap. It will be a little bit like the Canada-U.S. agreement. Hey, everybody was going to be better off and richer. It was going to be great. One can talk to those 1.6 million Canadians and ask them how great that was.
There is the goods and services tax. It was going to make us more competitive. It was going to do wonderful things for us. One can talk to Canadians and ask them what kinds of wonderful things it has done for them.
The government is creating an impression of more when there is not any more. There is actually less. It is trying to create an impression that it cares. I have no doubt that there are members who care. I do not want to suggest that that is not so.
I have no doubt that most care. In fact, I have no doubt that most of my colleagues on the government side do not understand this legislation. That is why they are getting up there with so much enthusiasm and being so upset when we criticise it.
If one doubts what I am saying, let me just remind my colleagues about a few broken promises. Child care was promised. It is no longer promised. It is gone. There are cuts to education. It was the Prime Minister himself who said he would not tamper with the transfer formula. He did not tamper with it. He smashed it with a 2 per cent reduction, a 1 per cent reduction, and a freeze. In over 10 years that will mean 10 billion fewer dollars for education. By the way, that same tampering with that formula will produce 20 billion fewer dollars for health during that period of time. It seems to me that health
and education are a couple of crucial, critical, fundamental programs of our country.
Not only has the government reduced these benefits that we are talking about in Bill C-80. It has reduced the funding for education by $10 billion over 10 years and reduced the funding for health by $20 billion over 10 years.
What about youth employment? I have talked about youth employment today. This summer was the worst summer we ever had with 17.9 per cent of youth unemployed. There were few jobs. Those who got jobs, and there were many who did not get any, got short-term jobs and they poorly remunerated jobs.
Thming to the GST on books and reading materials, most of the people I know who are paying GST on books for educational purposes are children and youth, young men and women. What does that say about the government's sensitivity toward young people, toward human resource and development?
What about student aid? I have not talked about student aid yet, have I? There is a 3 per cent tax on the people who need to borrow because they are poor. That is quite a record, is it not, and another six months' interest? We were promised that with the six months' interest the 3 per cent tax would be removed, but lo and behold the 3 per cent tax is still there.
The government became a little nervous and thought it had better not start fooling around with six months more of interest until it had removed that 3 per cent tax. It also forgot to tell us-and that is my own estimates and of course no one would deny them when I raised them-that six months more of interest would produce roughly twice as much money as the 3 per cent tax did. What a game.
I can see all those colleagues who are business people on the other side really coming forward and appreciating the significance of their business acumen when they start giving us those kinds of things.
The government says it is attempting to control the deficit and the debt. The deficit this year is over $30 billion and the debt is roughly $425 billion. The government loves to say that it was the Liberals who did it. A former finance minister, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, told me-I have a letter in writing-that it was $167.8 billion at the end of 1984. Now if we take the interest from that time to now we find there is no way
September 16, 1992

that it becomes $425 billion. Another smoke and mirror scheme. It offloads to provinces and tries to tell us that it controls its expenditures.
Let us look at this. I have $100,000 worth of debt. I walk into my family and say to my wife that I have $10,000 for her and $10,000 each for my three daughters.
I am now down to $60,000. I give my brothers each $10,000 and all of a sudden I have $10,000 worth of debt and I say: "I am a great manager. What business acumen I have. What tremendous insight I possess".
This is what is happening here. The government talks about controlling expenditures. It has controlled them, but off the backs of whom? The children, the students, the health care system and the educational system. That is what has happened.
We talk about the deficit and the debt that are out of control. I have many other things I wanted to mention.

I wanted to talk about the Canadian tax system which penalizes the poor. I wanted to talk about how the rich benefit from it. There are still quite a few profitable corporations that do. That is most unfortunate. I did not get to talk about the unemployed, the social assistance recipients and the food bank users.

I want to close with a plea. It is in a letter from the Canadian Federation of Students. It refers to Bill C-80 and reads as follows:
This legislation will seriously affect student parents, especially those who are also users of the Canada Student Loans Program.
Under the current situation, student parents receive family allowance which counts as income when they apply for a Canada student loan. They also receive child tax credits, either in the form of a prepayment in November, or in the spring after submitting their income tax form. The proposed new program will hurt student parents in two ways.
First, instead of receiving the two types of assistance described above, student parents will receive one monthly cheque only.
It continues:
For student parents, the timing of the prepayment provided necessary funds for the period of time between the end of the first term and the beginning of the second term, and very necessary funds for the Christmas season. Timing is also a serious concern for those student
Government Orders
parents who currently receive their child tax benefits during the summer.
This time of the year is also one in which many students find themselves crucially short of funds. This situation is especially problematic in times such as these when student unemployment rates are at record highs.
They make a plea for a full examination of this program because they realize, as I do, that it will hurt many Canadians in spite of claims to the contrary from government. In spite of the claims to the contrary, it will hurt many individuals.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I have a rather simple question but I think it is important to get some clarification. The opposition has said many times that because of deindexation $3.5 billion has been cut from child benefits. However it ignores all the enrichments to the child tax credit over the last seven years.
Since 1985 the government has increased the refundable child tax credit four times and has introduced a supplement of $213 for children under seven years where child care expenses are not claimed. These enrichments have ensured that the average level of federal child benefits paid to low income families has more than kept pace with inflation.
The child tax credit will increase child assistance by $2.1 billion over five years. This increase will be over and above the benefits that would have been provided if the current programs had remained in place.
In addition to this $2.1 billion increase in benefits, the government is committed to review the level of payments over time and increase them as fiscal conditions permit as it has done with the refundable child tax credit.
I wonder if the hon. member would not be a little more forthcoming and honest with the Canadian public and not compare apples to oranges. He is taking numbers spread over many years and comparing with one year and shuffling the deck on people. If he wants to criticize what the government has been doing, would he give a clear and precise accounting of what he is saying?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I believe that I am forthright and honest. Actually I do not believe that anything I have said here was misleading.

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
I would like Canadians to decide whose figures they trust more. I indicated that not only was $3.5 billion taken out and $400 million reinstated. I talked about their supposed reformed tax system that is not helping the poor. I also talked about the reductions to health and education. It will be $30 billion.
If my colleague wants to talk numbers, let us look at the totality of it. Let us look at what has been added and what has been taken out. I assure my colleague that if I am wrong I will apologize publicly in his home town before the largest audience he can find for me. At the most critical time possible for him, even if it was on his nomination night or his election night I shall displace myself to be with him.
I wanted to make another point. Let us look at the totality of what has been removed in health, education and other programs and let us look at what has been put in because I know there has been a serious reduction. Let us also look at the need today.
Depending upon whose figures, and they vary, from four million to five million Canadians are at the level of poverty or below. That is what we have currently today. I will go with four million; frankly it makes me feel better. There are one million among those four million or five million who are children.
We have to look at the need. The need is greater today than it has ever been. We cannot simply look at resourcing in a vacuum. We need to look at it from a need perspective.
If we look at food banks today, as I mentioned before over two million Canadians will be fed at food banks this year. I believe and I stand to be corrected, and I want to be corrected if I am wrong, that 40 per cent of those are young people and children.
Just to summarize, I know my colleague is well intentioned and I know that he believes a lot in what is being done here. The reduction in the number of the programs is a positive one. The targeting has some merits. I acknowledge that. Where we have some difficulties and some differences of opinion is in the amount of funding that has been removed for health, education and child benefits over time. I did not even talk about the capping on social assistance and the impact it would have.
If my colleague wants to challenge me to a public debate I will go to his riding and I will talk about these reductions. I will do so with a great deal of enthusiasm.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset thank my colleague from St. Boniface for his generosity and congratulate him on his impassioned speech. I also congratulate our critic, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, on his very fine intervention earlier this afternoon.
We as Liberals have a very long and fine tradition of focusing our attention and speaking up for the cause of the poor, of the unemployed and of the defenceless. We have done that over the decades under several prime ministers and in opposition.
Therefore the House will understand why in this debate in the last three days we have focused particularly on that part of the bill which abandons and overlooks the situation of poverty as experienced by children and their parents. There is no doubt that is the weak point of this particular legislation.
This is not just a partisan consideration. May I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the view expressed by Dr. Ken Battle of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy when he said: "The federal government's proposal to change child benefits is seriously flawed. It does little in the short term and virtually nothing over the long term to make a dent in child poverty. Clearly this is pre-election reform since the larger monthly payments will come onstream during the election year. The new child benefit and earned income supplement will be paid monthly and so will look much bigger than the present system since the current refundable child credit is paid annually or for poor families twice a year".
This is a statement from someone who has no particular axe to grind, so to speak.
In addition to Dr. Battle, at committee stage the minister of social services for British Columbia, Joan Smallwood, spoke in a very critical manner of this bill. So did the Citizens for Public Justice from my own city of Toronto, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, the Child Poverty Action Group, and Trevor Williams from Family Services Canada.
September 16, 1992

We definitely have here a serious shortcoming which we in the Liberal Party, with our tradition, must and will continue to address.
What strikes a listener to this debate is the fact that the present emerging phenomenon of child poverty in this country is attributable to two major factors. One is unemployment among youth and the other one is the fact that wealth is not redistributed the way it should be distributed in our society. Therefore there is a need to look at tax reform that would better achieve distribution of wealth among the Canadian population.
At the present time it is extremely disturbing to leam that in metro Toronto, Ontario, and I suspect in other parts of the country, youth unemployment is around 19 per cent to 20 per cent. This is an historical high, unfortunately, and it is a figure that ought to send a shiver down the collective spine of this government in terms of a profound preoccupation with a phenomenon that ought to be dealt with on the basis of an urgent matter that requires urgent action. Instead, we have seen a reduction in job creation programs for youth over the last two summers. We have seen a sense of indifference to various demands being made from the opposition benches to improve the employment situation, particularly in the summer months for the unemployed youth from coast to coast.
Bill C-80 somehow inevitably prods us to raise these factors or these questions because in a way child poverty is related, as I mentioned a moment ago, both to the fact that employment is so hard to be found and that we have reached a point, through tax measures introduced over the last eight years by the Progressive Conservative government, in which the taxation system considerably favours high income earners and disfavours the lower income earners. In that respect we find the plight of those who are struggling with poverty, and particularly our younger people.
It is interesting to note that in this House of Commons, and the member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso reminded us of that two days ago, a resolution was passed in 1989 calling for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000. Therefore it is understandable that we should be asking the government why it did not take advantage of this measure, Bill C-80 before us, to introduce or include the elements that would permit moving toward the elimination of child poverty. Obvious-
Govemment Orders
ly this would have been and is the natural vehicle to tackle that particular social issue.
The goal of the elimination of child poverty cannot be resolved only by way of benefits. We are the first ones to recognize it. However, certainly it is a very important instrument in the arsenal of measures and programs that the federal government can develop to tackle this particular problem.
In reviewing the way that this measure was received one might also want to add, as some of my colleagues have already done, the fact that of the witnesses who appeared before the committee in studying this legislation only 1 out of 25 was in a position to speak in support, and in favourable terms, of the measure itself. Does that not say something? Is that not indicative of something that does not meet the requirements of Canadians at large who are preoccupied with the problem of child poverty? Obviously it is an indicator that something is missing from this particular legislation.
I believe very profoundly that the absence of measures that would address child poverty is a reflection of a lack of political will. This measure has been drafted by civil servants, but on instructions from their political masters. If the political masters had indicated very clearly from the outset that the question of child poverty in Canada ought to be addressed through Bill C-80 we would not be today debating its shortcomings in this respect.
We are now heading for a winter. We are heading for not only seasonal high unemployment but by all forecasts for high unemployment that will unfortunately last for a year or two. This bill offers us, once again, the opportunity to raise in this House the damage caused to the social fibre by high youth unemployment and by the fact that we are in a way borrowing from the future at their expense, and the necessity to once again and further press the government to introduce the necessary measures to specifically deal with youth unemployment if it wants to gets to the roots of the question of child poverty.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: I listened with interest to my friend from Davenport, who I have a great deal of respect for, and I was wondering why he would support avoiding this bill. After all, the bill eliminates the family allowance, which is $36 a month, and the small $65 deduction people get off their income tax toward supporting a child and amalgamates it all in a new child tax credit system in one payment that comes to people every month. It gives them spending money every

September 16, 1992
Government Orders
month, and it is not the kind of spending money that can be taken away by a tax discounter.
This is obviously a far better bill than the current present system. Is he saying that he and his party want to defend the current system, or are they not prepared to look at a new system that puts more money in the hands of people with kiddies? This bill puts $400 million next year and $2.1 billion over five years into the hands of people with kids in Canada. Why would they not want to do that? Why would they object to that?
I agree that there is child poverty and we should possibly do more. Why would the member criticize what we are doing? Why would he not vote for what we are doing and say do more? Why would he want to throw it all away? Would he rather have the existing system and forget it all?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South is usually very incisive and provocative in his interventions, and I welcome them.
Time did not permit me to deal with the second reason that we find this bill objectionable. That reason is that this bill begins to erode, if not eliminate, the concept of universality. The concept of universality is one which the Liberal Party of Canada introduced and still cherishes today because it is the better approach. It treats everybody in the same manner at the moment of distribution of wealth but it then retrieves the funds that have been given to those who are more fortunate in society through the income tax system.
The income tax system, as the member for Mississauga South would confirm, because he knows it probably better than most in this House, has over the recent years lost its capacity to redistribute wealth as it used to. As a result of that, people who have continued to do well and improve their standing in society and people who are at the lower end of the income scale find their positions slipping and losing ground at the rate which is the source of profound preoccupation. Therefore, if we want social stability I would be inclined to think that any party worth its salt should raise a very strong voice in this Chamber to say that a measure for child benefit that leaves out
Canadians at the low end of the income scale is not a good measure. A measure which does away with universality is also not a good measure.
As the member for Winnipeg North Centre outlined earlier, we have in society these days unexpected layoffs, sudden economic changes where people find themselves from one year to the next in dire economic straits. Under this bill, they would have to wait a considerable length of time before they can be covered under the new system in a manner that protects the income of their children.
I am grateful to the member for Mississauga South for having allowed me, in a sense, to outline the second line of reasoning as to why we find this bill lacking and not deserving support.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Children's Special Allowances Act. I did have the opportunity a little earlier to make some observations and I will attempt to make some more.
What we have today with the family allowances, the child credits and the refundable child tax credit has been a response from governments past and present to address assistance to the children of our country.
Through the years it has become somewhat complicated because of all the different programs. It has ended up being, as I said earlier, a patchwork of benefits and has certain complexities to it, especially when you are addressing lower middle income and low income families where income tax forms and calculations and so on need to be done to receive the benefits.
As I mentioned earlier, they become subject to tax discounters. That is very unfortunate in the situation we have today. It certainly shows all the reasons to change the system, but it is one that does have some problems.
What we want to do is increase the amount of money that can be directed to those in need. We are now giving children's allowances to high income people. It is something that I have been constantly receiving representation on. It is wrong and improper for persons making
September 16, 1992

$250,000 a year to be receiving children's allowances and then going through the process of taxing it back.
Certainly individual income versus family income is one that needed to be changed. It has been done with this change to the Children's Special Allowances Act.
Under the Children's Special Allowances Act we want those earning $50,000 a year and less in family income to receive more. On average, families will receive $250 a year more than they receive currently under the system we have today.
As I said earlier, those up-front monthly payments are really important so that people can set their budgets and know the amount of money that is coming in with this new regime. The opportunity to receive those moneys and not be taxed is also an important part of this legislation.
I have to say that I think our government has long been committed to human resource development in totality and certainly the area of children who are under the custody and care of their parents. We need to do everything we can to direct moneys so that they have adequate clothing, food and so on. That is an important part of the study that has gone on for some period of time by this government to look at modernizing children's benefits.
I would like to take the opportunity to address one specific and very positive aspect of the bill. I believe it has not received the attention of the press or the opposition that it truly deserves, and that is the children's special allowances portion. I may have missed some of the speeches. I do not think it has been mentioned although a lot of people have spoken.
Too often we forget in talking about the need of families that there are some children in Canada who may not have a family and they must look to foster parents and institutions to provide their care. The existing legislation under the Family Allowances Act does provide some support for these children by paying a benefit of $52.03 a month. That is a bit more than the family allowance, but it is actually less than the support provided to children in low income families when the value of the tax credits is taken into account and these children are not eligible for these credits.
I do not know if it was noted, but I am delighted to see that under this legislation the benefits for these children
Government Orders
will be raised to $85 a month, an increase of some 60 per cent or so. This is giving them the same support that is available under the basic child tax credit for a family with one child.
This will materially improve the lives of more than
30,000	children in foster homes and institutions. It also demonstrates that the government meant what it said in talking about fairer and more generous payments and benefits being the intent of this legislation. If it has not been talked of before, it is important that this be brought to the attention of all Canadians who are watching and to the House.
Some members in speaking have criticized the way the child tax benefit adjusts to fluctuations in family income.
I would like to comment on this issue because it seems to me that these criticisms appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the child tax benefit and how it works.
Some members have suggested that the child tax benefit is flawed because it does not adjust to fluctuations in family income. It is veiy important to remember that dealing with sudden income fluctuations is really the role of other social programs, not child benefits. For example, unemployment insurance and social assistance are major social programs that have been explicitly designed to provide support to families who experience sudden changes and declines in income. I think when people have talked about trying to include it all into this they are forgetting that there are other programs.
The new child tax benefit is not designed and should not take over the role of using unemployment insurance or social assistance in buffering families from income fluctuations. However, hon. members should note that the new benefit is significantly more responsive to changing family circumstances than the current system.
The current system also forces parents to deal with delays up to one year or more, as I mentioned before, to receive their full refundable child tax credit. When they must still meet the day-to-day needs of their families, then this is particularly difficult for low income families. I think it is probably one of the most significant and important parts of this bill because they need it now. They do not need it some time in the future and so they need it on a monthly basis.

Government Orders
Since the child tax credit is more than half of their entire federal child benefits, it is important that it be delivered in another way. As a result, many low income parents are forced to forfeit their child benefits by resorting to tax discounters for that often needed cash because they are strapped and they need it. Thx discounters charge a fairly exorbitant fee for advancing moneys and this will hopefully cut a lot of that out.
A similar problem exists when there is a new child, either from birth or from adoption or a change in custody. Under the current system a family could wait for up to a year before it receives full child benefits. The child tax benefit will eliminate these current delays in the delivery of child benefits and markedly improve the responsiveness of federal child benefits.
With the up-front monthly payments, parents will receive benefits as they are needed to help with daily needs. With this timely response of delivery of benefits, low income families are going to benefit and we cannot but emphasize that more and more and we should be emphasizing that more and more.
Finally, the child tax benefit is also more responsive to the needs of new single parents after a spouse dies and/or there is a marriage breakdown. For example, after a marriage breakdown the mother often finds that she has much less income to support her children and that is a real problem. Under the current system she may have to wait more than a year before she receives increased child benefits because of her lower income.
In contrast, under the child tax benefit this mother can receive a full increase in her child tax benefit payments as a result of her lower income shortly after separation, much quicker. The child tax benefit can respond to her more difficult financial situation in a much quicker and responsive way.
It is important to bring out some of these facts that maybe had not been discussed at length before or at all. They are important pluses and improvements to the delivery of moneys to low and lower middle and lower income families. We should be directing our financial help to these people, making it more responsive to their needs. There has been a lot of direction in having the
kind of payments that should be directed to lower income families where they are properly needed.
This government spends somewhere in the area of over $42 billion a year in human resource development which covers a broad base from the area of health and welfare and the unborn to anti-drug and smoking programs to children's benefits and education and retraining and so on.
The direction toward the children of our country is a veiy important part of that total dollar spending of the billions of dollars that this government directs to the social side of our social agenda. I am pleased that we have been able to modernize the direction of funding to the children of our country who are most in need. This legislation goes a long way toward doing that.
I thank the House and my colleagues for the opportunity to speak today on this very important piece of legislation.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use my comments time during the debate this evening to pay tribute to a very esteemed constituent of mine, Mr. Bruce Hutchison who died on Monday. What he stood for is pertinent to this debate. He was a journalist with an international reputation. He was an eloquent writer. Pertinent to this debate, he had analytical skills that called on governments and politicians to live up to what they said. He believed that it was not just what a politician or a government says, but more important what that politician or government does in support of what they say.
I quote from a 1984 newswire when the Prime Minister said: "Our position is simple and straight forward. We are in favour of universality of social programs and it shall not be touched". One wonders what Bruce Hutchison would have said today when we are here debating the end of universality of social programs. I do not have to wonder very deeply. He was an insightful, eloquent man. He believed his duties as a journalist were not just to criticize but to make a positive contribution to this country. He was not just throwing darts at those of us in public life. He was making a contribution, showing us the way. I think that the fifth estate today may have lost the way.
September 16, 1992

Bruce Hutchison died on Monday at the age of 91. Even 91 long and fruitful years do not seem long enough for those of us who admired him.
Since he was my constituent, I want to say in this debate tonight how proud I am to have been his member of Parliament and how much he will be missed.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate on Bill C-80 and some pretty sensible points were made.
I can only imagine how much better we could have made the system if an agreement could have been reached between the governments of Quebec and Canada, for instance. As we know, Quebec has its own system that it administers by itself. Now Ottawa will have, and we may not find the level of commonality, this osmosis we would have hoped for. Families in both Quebec and Canada will not receive as much as they could have had an agreement been reached. This leads me to the constitutional debate. We in the Bloc Quebecois, were hoping for an agreement which would have eliminated these double jurisdictions. Unfortunately we ended up with one that does not, neither in this area nor in others.
The Bloc Quebecois members, also referred to as Pequists and Separatists, are not the only ones criticizing this deal, but that does not address the substance of the debate. I have here a statement from a person who was deputy minister of governmental affairs in Quebec until today as far as I know. She said:

It is a national disgrace, we should have left. Mr. Bourassa should have taken a plane home right away. What a humiliation to arrive at such a point.
As premier of Quebec, with all of Quebec's historical demands, and with all the pressure he had on him here at home, he could have said: "All right, no way".

She described how Mr. Bourassa, among others, came to agree to this constitutional deal, this draft deal, as follows:

We are walking on our knees, you know. I think they have holes in them.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am having a hard time seeing the connection between what the hon. member is saying and the bill presently being debated, Bill C-80. I would therefore appreciate that the hon. member speak to the point, especially as I have to allow the previous speaker to respond to this.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to tell you that the comments I just told you about were those of the deputy minister of the Intergovernmental Affairs of Quebec, Mrs. Wilhelmy, as they appear in today's edition of the Globe and Mail, as well as other excerpts that give us an idea of what took place at the negotiating table between Mr. Bourassa, the Prime Minister and the others.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will keep my comments and questions on the subject of Bill C-80, the child benefit package, which most of know was introduced in the budget this past February. I have to say it simplifies, streamlines and targets those families most in need.
One thing that has obviously become quite apparent during the last few weeks is many people claim that we are doing away with family allowance and I wonder if that could be one of my questions to my colleague.
The other area has to do with the fact we are cutting back. As I recall, this is new money, $2.1 billion over the next five years. I would like my colleague to comment. Is it new money? Is it $2.1 billion over five years?
The most important thing in streamlining and putting these three child benefit proposals together in one package is the fact that we are hitting the people who need it. We are streamlining and targeting it.
What happens to the upper income? Should people over $75,000 or $85,000 a year be getting this? I really wonder. I think if you look at the true purpose with regard to the bill, and my colleague from Sarnia-Lamb-ton could explain, who does it target, is it new money and is it more responsive? What we want to do is get money out to the people who need it in time.

September 16, 1992
Government Orders


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I certainly could not dispute the member from Calgary Southwest. She asks if it is more responsive. It is and it is more money directed to children who need it and that is what is so very important.
Our government took the children's allowance, the patchwork that was going on, the direction of moneys to the families of the children that needed it, and said this needs to be updated.
There was reference made earlier by my colleague opposite to one of our great authors and writers, alluding to the fact that maybe he would not have agreed. I think certainly Hutchison was also a futurist and looked at how we should look to the future and change things and modernize them. I think we have to constantly and continually do that. To keep on funnelling money to those making $70,000 and $200,000 for children's allowances is archaic in the best of terms.
Certainly now this legislation directs more efficiently, more timely and with more money, over an average of $250, for families of $50,000 and under. It does all those things.
Someone else mentioned earlier it was a campaign plank. It must be pretty positive stuff out there if the Conservatives are using it as some lead up to an election. You do not want to come up with things that are negative. This one must be very positive in the minds of Canadians. In my mind it is and certainly any input I have received from the people I have talked to indicates it is a very positive piece of legislation.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on this bill today because it calls to attention the entire social structure the government is putting upon Canadian people. I will be sharing my time on a 10 minute and 5 minute basis with the member for Burin-St. George's.
What we have to look at in the implementation of this Bill C-80, the child benefit legislation, is not so much the streamlining of the system as is being proposed here or the fact that there will be some additional money provided over the next five years, but the over-all context in which most Canadians find themselves today. Although there will be some additional payments made over the next five years under this revised child assistance program, if you look back over the last five years
you see that almost $2 has been removed from benefits for low income families for every additional $1 that is going to be paid over the next five years. Therefore families today are suffering because of the cutbacks that have been made.
These cutbacks have taken place in many ways. The capping of the Canada Assistance Plan was one way. I know in my own district of Algoma that municipalities are in a desperate situation. They are meeting with their municipal associations and are calling on the provincial government for assistance. At one stage the Canada Assistance Plan was dollar for dollar with the federal government. I have heard reports in the media that in fact today the federal share in many instances has dropped to 25 per cent of those benefits. The Ontario government, of course, loaned some 20 per cent of the charges on local municipalities. Therefore, with the cutbacks on unemployment insurance and the benefits there and the massive welfare load because of the 1.6 million who are unemployed, and probably another
400,000	who have given up and have stopped looking for work, those are all loaded on to the local taxpayers. The provinces are also suffering because the government has capped the assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan.
A major item in the constitutional agreement that the provincial premiers wrung out of the Prime Minister was that there would be no unilateral cutbacks in the assistance of statutory programs like the Canada Assistance Plan.
Other programs which have caused the reduction of $3.5 billion assistance for families in low income include the cancelling of the government's commitment to national child care, the reduced UIC benefits, cuts in retraining and job creation programs. This is clearly not a government that is concerned about families with the cutbacks in all of these programs.
In my own constituency, in the communities of Elliot Lake and the north shore, we have lost some 3,400 jobs in the last two and a half years. Last year the government provided a $2.5 million commitment for training, retraining, upgrading and so on. This year it has chopped that to about one-quarter, $600,000. For a community where you had people in upgrading programs and pre-vocational training and now wanting to get skill courses, the well is dry. The funding available for training has been cut dramatically.

At the same time we have some 1,000 people who were laid off last spring at Denison Mines coming on to UI this fall and wanting to take the training programs, but the training support and assistance has been chopped back dramatically this year and the assistance is simply not there. This is portrayed as an anti-poverty program. Yet if we read the comments of various experts in the field of social development, they clearly give it a thumbs down on the range of benefits that are being provided. For instance, Ken Battle of the Caledon Social Policy Institute said: "The federal government proposal to change child benefits is seriously flawed. The proposal does little in the short term and virtually nothing over the long term to make a dent in child poverty. We cannot support this particular proposal".
Sam Snoblelen of the End Legislative Poverty group said this to the committee: "To us it is clear the so-called 'child benefit' will be a detriment to the entire country, especially to children, and eventually to seniors. Therefore Bill C-80 should be thrown in the garbage can, not passed".
I was very interested in the comments of the president of the Canada Council on Social Development because we have heard members across the way saying how this proposal will be beneficial to low income families and families facing poverty. The president of the Canadian Council on Social Development went on to say that the proposal would have very little benefit for single parent families who are generally the group in the lowest income brackets. He said that 62.9 per cent of single parents will receive nothing under the program. Imagine, this is the lowest income group in the country; 62.9 per cent of them will receive nothing under the program.
He went on to say that the income supplement is so modest that it will not make a dent in child poverty. An average family of four will receive something like 34 cents per day under the income supplement proposal. He went on to say that the new program will lift only .7, that is seven-tenths of 1 per cent, of those below the poverty line in single parent families above the poverty line. He went on to say that only 1.6 per cent of low income couples with children will be lifted above the poverty line.
Government Orders
This proposal is designed to have an overlap January 1 so that there will be a special cheque coming out under the old system and a special payment under the new system in January and a tax credit from the income tax for the previous year. It is designed to look quite good to the recipients in January or February when they are filing their income tax and so on. If we look back at the cutbacks that have taken place of $3.5 billion over the last five years and the benefits that are going to flow over the next five years, we see that the average family, if we compare those two five-year periods, has lost practically $2 for every $1 that it will gain under this program.
It certainly is not a very generous program when we combine it will all of the other cutbacks in the capping of the welfare system, which is putting a tremendous load on every province but certainly Ontario with its $10 billion deficit. If we combine it with the cutbacks in training at a time when literally 1.6 million Canadians are out of work and looking for work, who are drawing UIC benefits but there are no training funds available, it does not make a very happy picture either for those people who are laid off or for those family units, those single-parent families, often a woman with one or two young children. These benefits are not very significant and certainly do not make a very large dent in the problem of poverty which faces so many Canadians today. For these reasons our party has called on the government to come forward with better, more effective programs that provide benefits to Canadians, especially those in the extremely low income sector.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Algo-ma as he criticized the government's child support bill. I wonder if the hon. member would admit that the program and the arguments in favour of it, as we heard for example represented by the member from Sarnia- Lambton, have a certain simplistic appeal.
First of all, those commercial tax people will not be able to exploit the poor. They will receive the money quickly. There are some nice things there, among which is a little bit more money. I wonder if it is not possible at this juncture to perhaps enlighten the other side about the significant impact of abandonment of universality. I wonder if the hon. member might want to refer to the United States where universality for its social programs has not been the characteristic of their delivery and that

Government Orders
has had a certain impact. I wonder if the hon. member might want to address that.
I wonder if the hon. member might want to address the fact that those of the very poorest are hardly going to benefit at all. I wonder if the hon. member would like to address the fact that because the program is only partially indexed, the benefits will slide away. I am not so sure that those watching this debate are going to be altogether familiar with that fact. I wonder if the hon. member might make reference that he did slightly but a little more abundantly to the fact that those people who are going to benefit the least, that is the non-working poor, have been multiplied by this government.
There are more on welfare, not working, than there were before. Surely that has to be taken into account in analysing this program as well as the fact that as a result of income tax changes since this government has come into power, those who are very wealthy and the upper levels of income are doing very well, while those who are supposed to benefit from this program have experienced it in some instances as much as $3,000 in increases in taxes over that period of time as a result of the regressive GST. The cost of everything has gone up for them.
I just want to know from the hon. member whether all taken there is any net benefit at all to the very poor to be achieved by the abandonment of universality the night before the funeral of that man from my town who originated it in this house.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member from Windsor. I think he did an excellent job of capsulizing practically all the flaws of this agreement in a two or three minute address to the House.
Clearly this scheme, as Ken Battle said in his statement to the group, is designed for maximum political advantage. It sends out money early in January 1993 and still the bang for the buck is there. What low income Canadians are losing in this they have been losing for the last five years with cutbacks in programs, the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan which is one of those programs that was supported by the hon. member whose funeral was held today, Paul Martin, Senior, and all of those social programs that he either was instrumental in putting in place or supported dramatically. Those programs are being abandoned this year. In the past five
years the government has cut out some $3.5 billion of social assistance to low income families.
The hon. member has talked about the poorest of the poor getting practically nothing out of this legislation and he is right.
I quoted the president of the Canadian Council on Social Development. He pointed out that 62.9 per cent of single parent families will receive nothing from this proposal. Less than 1 per cent will be lifted above the poverty line.
The hon. member clearly has spelled out many-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time for questions and comments has now expired.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, this bill about which I spoke a few days ago is, as my friend from Mississauga South has just said, a great bill if you have his kind of paycheque. I will demonstrate that in a moment.
This bill is the big lie. The Tories as they stand in the House say in some words or others: "We are going to help the poor". Until you scrutinize the provisions of the bill, you find there is not one red cent of additional money there for people on welfare.
These are not only my words. This is not just my discovery. The gentleman from Calgary North discovered that one day last February just after he had put out his press release lauding all the provisions to help the poor in this bill. Then somebody in the press got to him and he muttered, unwittingly perhaps, out loud for the press to hear and quote him: "I would have thought there would be an increased benefit for welfare families".
Even a Tory can hear the truth sometimes, I say to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Minister of Supply and Services does not like this particular debate because he knows that we are exposing him and his colleagues for the big lie that the government is trying to spread across this country.
I have in my riding many communities, 158 of them altogether. There are 158.1 want to direct your attention to just a very small group of communities within that riding and apply the litmus test of this bill to those communities. I am thinking of what is known locally as
September 16, 1992

the Bay d'Espoir area. It has seven communities: St. Alban's, St. Joseph's, St. Veronica's, Head of Bay d'Espoir, Milltown, Morrisville and Conne River.
Conne River is geographically somewhat apart, and it is also a native reserve. In that respect, it accesses certain funding but all the communities including Conne River, all seven that I have mentioned form what is known locally as the Bay d'Espoir area.
When this government came to power in 1984, that part of Newfoundland, that part of Canada was on its knees economically then. It had many years before lost what had been its mainstay, the logging operation, exporting wood to England for use as pit props in the mine. It lost this industry long before this government came to office and I do not lay the blame for that event on the shoulders of this government.
This government came to power in 1984, and its candidate in that area made promises on behalf of the government commitments as to what would be done to provide some economic uplift for the Bay d'Espoir area, for those seven communities.
What has happened in the eight years since? Only yesterday I talked to one of the community leaders in that particular area. He was lamenting how terribly bad the situation is, how it has degenerated, how the unemployment rate now is fully 60 per cent in that area and how they have not been able to avail themselves of the normal programs that had been in place until a few years ago.
For example, there was a very aggressive silviculture program that had been co-sponsored by the federal and provincial governments which was wiped out by this administration. It had provided many hundreds of jobs drawing on the local skills in that particular area.
The government changed the job creation program guidelines which this area had come to rely on somewhat as a bridge to get it to better economic opportunities. Therefore, the unemployment rate which was 25 per cent when this government took over is now twice that and then some.
How does this bill help those people? Some of them, because they have run out of other options, are actually on welfare, not because they are lazy, not because they will not go to work, but because there is no work to go to in Bay d'Espoir.
Government Orders
What does this bill do for those people? What it tries is to hoodwink them. It tries to be cynical with that. But what does it put in their pockets? Many of them are on welfare through no fault of their own.
The bill is very explicit. It says in effect not one additional red cent for those persons who are on welfare. Whatever reason they may be on welfare is beside the point. There is not one additional red cent.
How does this bill help the people of Bay d'Espoir, of St. Alban's, St. Joseph's, St. Veronica's, the head of Bay d'Espoir, Milltow and Morrisville and Conne River? How does it help them insofar as another provision is concerned?
This bill has a provision for child care expenses. To be fair, this bill increases the amount for child care expenses from $5,000 to $6,000.1 put it to you, Sir. There are 6,000 or 7,000 people in Bay d'Espoir. Given what I just told the House, how many would you guess of those people would have a sufficient level of income which would allow them to qualify for that increased exemption from $5,000 to $6,000? Of course the answer is nobody or, if any, very precious few. Who does that benefit? Does that increased benefit help the poor who this government has said repeatedly they are trying to help with this bill? No. The same old story. This government has a two-step approach to almost every initiative it takes.
One, it says: "Here is what we are going to do". Then it rushes out and does the complete opposite, hoping it has distracted the people by what it said it was going to do.
In this bill, it says: "We are going to help the poor". Then it rushes out to do what it does very well and it helps the rich. It gives an increased child care benefit for who? People who do not need it.
I have no doubt there is somebody out there behind the curtains being coached to come in and being taught how to read an appropriate question to put to me when I finish my few remarks here. I will deal with that if time permits. Why does the government not answer this question? Why is it that there is not one single red cent for people on welfare? Why?
Keep in mind that because of the patchwork arrangement we have in this country, because of the way welfare and social assistance is paid out, we have 10 systems, one for each of the provinces. In an area where national standards are important, the government is passing the buck to the provinces, so they can pay really whatever amount of welfare they like. The government is saying one thing here. Whatever amount you pay Newfoundland, whatever amount you pay Ontario, whatever

Government Orders
amount you pay P.E.I., whatever amount you pay Quebec, we the government in Ottawa will not up the ante one cent on account of this legislation for people on welfare. Let the Tories answer that question when they get up.
Second, let them answer this question for the people of Bay d'Espoir that I have mentioned or for the people of Burin-St. George's generally, for the people of Newfoundland and for the people of Canada. Why is it that the government, in its pretence to be helping poor people, has gone out of its way to help the well-to-do, even in this particular bill with its increased child care benefits? Why? We all know that even under the old clawback system of family allowances that the well-to-do did not really benefit from family allowances because they were not there for those people anyway. Nothing is really changed here.
There is a mechanism that is different. Instead of giving family allowances to people with $100,000 and then clawing it back on income tax, we are not going to give it to them. It is just another mechanism to see that in the end they did not get any family allowance. So there is nothing really changed right there.
One of the things that has changed is that the people who could most afford their own child care expenses are going to get the increased benefit of $5,000 to $6,000. I said in my earlier speech a couple of days ago that it is also an attack on universality. I believe that strongly, and had I the time I would pursue that, because that also is a nefarious, disgusting, despicable part of this particular legislation.
The most despicable part is the deceit, the big lie that says we are going to help the poor, when we all know very well that this bill does not help the people on welfare, this bill sneaks in a little bit for the rich. Every time they can get that little bit for the rich. That is the shameful thing about this, and that is why the people of Bay d'Espoir and of Burin-St. George's are not very happy with this bill, I will tell you that, sir.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on an excellent intervention. I wonder in the time that is remaining, if my colleague would avail himself of the opportunity to try to explain to the House if, in fact, this present administration, through the auspices of either Bill C-80 and/or any other legislation in consequence thereof, has been able to provide additional benefits to the good people of his province as well as to the good people of the province of Nova Scotia.
I am thinking in particular of those provinces that have traditionally been known as have not provinces. Has this administration, through the auspices of Bill C-80 and/or acts which are a consequence thereof, been of any help or assistance to those have not provinces?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. It being 7.01 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Tbesday, September 15, 1992, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage 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. DeBIois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Belair	Oberle
Peterson
Rompkcy	Vezina
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford) moved: that Bill S-7, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Royal Society of Canada, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
Thai, notwithstanding any Standing Order and the usual practices of the House, Bill S-7, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Royal Society of Canada, be referred, after second reading, to a Committee of the Whole instead of to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope, and

Private Members' Business
That, unless otherwise disposed of, at the end of the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business this day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted and every question necessary to dispose of the said bill at all stages shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent to receive the motion tabled by the hon. member?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to accommodate and tiy to pass the bill through all stages, but I am not prepared to have a limit on debate at eight o'clock, which is what that motion implied.
We are quite prepared to spend the time in private members' hour today and extend the time of the sitting of the House if necessary in order to accommodate the hon. member, but if his speech goes 20 minutes and then there is a 10-minute speech from one member of the opposition and other members do not get an opportunity to speak before the bill is put through all stages, we are not prepared to agree to that. I do not think that was the agreement that was discussed.
We are prepared to extend the time of private members' hour until 8.30 p.m. if necessary and seek to see that the bill is approved in all stages during that time. I suggest the hon. member make his speech. If at eight o'clock it has not gone through all stages we will then give our unanimous consent to extend the sitting for the purpose of completing the bill and we will consent to have it go to a Committee of the Whole.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to indicate that we support the general thrust of the motion by my hon. friend. It is our intention that this bill be completed through all stages as expeditiously as possible.
I believe that the caution that my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands suggests is good. We also want to allow ample time for members to make comments if they so wish.
As far as the New Democratic Party is concerned we support the bill. We support it enthusiastically and want to see it pass through all stages before we recess today.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit of this discussion. I think that there would be an inclination on all sides to let the bill have a thorough examination tonight.
I just wanted to ascertain whether my colleagues opposite were privy to the discussion, I believe they may have been privy to the discussion, from which there was an understanding to have two items dealt with tonight, the other being the change in name of my friend's constituency of Timiskaming.
If that is in order then I think you would find that there would be consent for private members' hour to deal with those two items in all stages without there being an absolute and final limit on it. We will see how the debate progresses without it terminating at 8 p.m.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: May I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he draft a proper motion.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: It will not be necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Then the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Oxford, has the floor. If during this debate, some developments should occur, the Chair will welcome any suggestion to speed up the review of the legislation, if the hon. members so wish.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank colleagues opposite for their willingness to co-operate in this and I can assure them my remarks will be fairly brief.
The proposed act under consideration concerns certain modifications to the act of incorporation of the Royal Society of Canada found in Victoria, chapter 46. The Royal Society of Canada was founded in 1882 by the Governor General of Canada the Right Hon. the Marquess of Lome and was incorporated by the Parliament of Canada in May 1883. Its object is to promote learning

and research in the arts and sciences in all parts of Canada.
The founding members were led by Sir William Dawson, principal of McGill University and first president of the society and the Hon. P. J. O. Chauveau, former premier of Quebec and the society's second president. Despite sentiments that the formation of such a body was premature, these men saw the need for a body devoted to encouraging the growth of scholarship and research in the newly formed nation. At that time, active scholars and researchers were few in number and widely scattered largely across central and eastern Canada. The new society provided a venue for the presentation of their work and an opportunity for contacting others with similar professional interests.
In considering the scope of the body, the Marquess of Lome was the decisive influence in ensuring that it represented the full range of existing scholarship including literature, history and the scholarly arts as well as the natural sciences. In this it followed the model of I'Institut de France which incorporates five academies rather than that of the exclusively scientific membership of the Royal Society of London. One of the founders, Mr. Joseph Tasse, remarked that it was a federation of the intellect completing the still young political federation of the provinces.
The society today has been true to the vision of its founders. It now comprises three academies, VAcademie des lettres et des sciences humaines, the Academy of Humanities and Social Science and the Academy of Science, which includes divisions for the applied sciences and engineering as well as the life sciences, physical sciences and earth and space sciences. It continues to be guided by Dawson's original aim of building an organization characterized by: "productiveness exclusive in its membership, but inclusive in that it offers its benefits to all".
Through its 110 years of service to Canada it has elected to membership leading scholars and scientists from all parts of our country representing an ever widening array of fields of learning and research. An unbroken succession of annual meetings has been recorded in its publications which provide a rich source of information about the intellectual growth of Canada.
Private Members' Business
The society now gives 17 medals and awards in various fields of endeavour. Some are given for distinguished lifetime achievements, while others are awarded to younger researchers for outstanding work early in their careers. It has expanded its activities in recent decades by holding conferences in many parts of Canada on topics of the day and frequently in co-operation with other organizations. It launches studies into matters of national or global importance and provides advice to government and the public at large on current issues.
It has increasingly sought to bridge academic disciplines and address complex topics by bringing together specialists with different experience and expertise. This approach has distinguished its comprehensive studies of AIDS in Canada, of the safety of nuclear power and of the challenge of global change. This is the hallmark of the society's approach to its ongoing responsibilities for fostering research on the environment in its natural and human dimensions, for raising public awareness of science, for advancing the position of women in academic and professional life and for evaluating the research accomplishments and capabilities of the country.
By these and other demonstrations of its capacity to mobilize its members and call upon the commitment to service that they make upon election, the society has received increasing recognition of its emerging role as a national academy.
Since 1989 it has received growing support from its members, from government and increasingly from the private sector toward the goal of realizing its full potential.
Compared to national academies and the equivalents in other advanced and even some developing countries, the Royal Society of Canada still has far to go in increasing the scope of its responsibilities and activities. In its efforts to achieve further growth, it is found that the act by which it was incorporated in 1883 imposes certain restrictions. The petition now before the House seeks to remove these constraints.
The society requests that the provision in section 1 of the original act which limits the value of the real estate that the society may hold to no more than $4,000 be deleted. This would permit the society to obtain property for its purposes without restriction as to value.

September 16, 1992
Private Members' Business
Clause 2 of the amendment requests that sections 5 and 6 of the original act which concern the continuation of the original bylaws and offices of the society also be deleted as having served their purpose and being no longer relevant. Similarly, it is proposed in clause 3 that section 8 of the original act concerning the competence of members of the society as witnesses in any legal actions undertaken by the society also be removed as being no longer necessary in present day law.
I would like to add that it is my privilege to co-sponsor this bill along with the recently retired and highly respected former senator representing Quebec, the Hon. Arthur Tremblay.
I am therefore honoured to present this bill to the House and I wish to thank all of my colleagues for graciously agreeing to this expeditious process which, I believe, is appropriate in light of the consideration given by the other place.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a few very brief comments in respect of this bill. I want to say at the outset that the hon. member for Kamloops who has been called out of the House for a few moments wished me to indicate to the House his regret at being unable to be here to make a brief speech as well at this point. He fully supports this bill and the intent of it.
I am also pleased to indicate the support of our party of the procedures the Royal Society of Canada has adopted here to make minor amendments to the law that established it. I am pleased to say that the president of the Royal Society of Canada this year is Mr. John Meisle, a professor of mine at Queen's University and a member of the department of political studies there. He was head of the department when I was a student at Queen's and I enjoyed very much the courses with him that took us to various parts of Canada, particularly the trip to Quebec City and to your own constituency, Mr. Speaker, where we learned something of French Canadian government and politics as the course was called at that time.
This bill seeks to make quite minor amendments to the act as outlined by the hon. member who has just spoken. We concur in them and are pleased to assist in the bill's passage and I trust the bill will receive speedy approval from all sides of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order and the usual practices of the House, Bill C-351, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Thniskaming, be now called for second reading and that the House proceed to dispose of the said bill at all stages.


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, Mr. Speaker, but we would be willing to let the bill be called for second reading. It may be passed in all stages but only by unanimous consent at each stage.


ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF TIMISKAMING
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: that Bill C-351, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Timiskaming, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous agreement to refer the bill to Committee of the Whole, but I dare say the hon. member will want to give us an explanation of the purpose of the bill at second reading.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, yes I would like to take a few minutes to inform all colleagues here tonight the reason why I have asked for consent to have the riding of Timiskaming changed to the riding of Timiskaming- French River.
By proclamation on July 13, 1987 during redistribution, the riding of Timiskaming took a very new face. For many years Timiskaming was a north-south riding which included the corridor of Highway 11.
The unfortunate part about it, with population changes in our area and redistribution taking place, is that there had to be a change and an adjustment in the style and the population of Timiskaming. In that manner, the riding of Timiskaming changed from a north-south riding to an east-west, north-south with communication taking part in not only just in a central part in the

north-south but also with communication in the east-west.
We took part of what was then Nickel Belt riding into the riding of Timiskaming. One of the greatest problems that we faced at the time was that individuals from that part of Nickel Belt that had become part of Timiskaming could not identify with the fact that all of a sudden they had become part of a different riding.
They asked at that time if there was any possibility that we could look at changing or identifying that part of the new riding of Timiskaming. In doing so they have a lot in common with the north-south part of Timiskaming with regard to tourism, forestry and agriculture. We wanted to make certain that they were part of Timiskaming.
Private Members' Business
In doing so, we have asked here tonight if we could have the riding of Timiskaming identified as Timiskaming-French River, which would then encompass the entire part of the new riding and welcome the new constituents who became part of Timiskaming in 1988 to be fully an enjoyable part of the entire riding of Timiskaming-French River.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 7.53 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.53 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 17,1992