1992-09-15

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a nomination which was recently made by the government.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
[Stage Direction]
20TH ANNUAL MEETING OF CANADA-EUROPE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association for the 20th annual meeting between the delegations of the Canadian and European Parliaments in Strasbourg, France June 8 to June 12.
I want to comment on page 15 of that report because all members of the House of Commons that attended the meeting from both sides have said that the minister of foreign affairs should look into what is happening at the European Parliament vis-a-vis Canadian trade matters in agriculture and forestry.
Clearly the message to our counterparts in the European Parliament is not being carried. They are not aware of Canada's agricultural policies and stand or its forestry policies and stand.
We urge the minister to get her delegates in Brussels to work with the European parliamentarians so they can better understand Canada's positions.


HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present the forty-ninth report of the Standing Committee on House Management and, pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed to be adopted once it is tabled.


DECADE OF THE BRAIN ACT
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-358, an act respecting the decade of the brain.


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


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an act that calls on the Parliament of Canada to declare the 1990s the decade of the brain.
This follows a request by the World Health Organization for all nations to recognize the exciting advances made in correcting brain disorders and the need for more research. The bill is designed to focus public attention on this area of medicine and I call on all members of the House to support this initiative.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois) Mr. Nicholson moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.

September 15, 1992
Routine Proceedings Bill read the first time and printed.


DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS ABOUT PERSONS INTERNED DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est) moved: for leave to introduce a bill entitled an Act to provide for the destruction of records concerning persons who were interned during the Second World War.


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


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I present this bill, an act to provide for the destruction of records concerning persons who were interned during the Second World War. After 52 years, the government and the people of Canada recognize that the persons who were interned in Canada, those whose civil liberties were violated during the Second World War because of their country of origin, are entitled to the restoration of their reputation and their dignity.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill because some of them are still alive, including one who is here today and I am very proud of that as a Canadian.


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


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-360, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (hazardous displays).


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


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, last year the 18 month old daughter of a constituent of mine was nearly blinded when she tripped and fell into a shoe display rack whose metal hooks projected six inches from the peg-board.
A search of the database of the Health Protection Branch revealed that six other children have sustained injuries to the eye due to such hooks on peg-boards in stores.
An unsatisfactory response from the store in question prompted us to seek redress to such a potentially dangerous situation. While there is legislation which deals with product safety, there is a significant gap in the legislation concerning display safety.
This bill attempts to close the gap between product and display safety by adding a section to the Hazardous Products Act which would make it an offence to display goods in a manner that is likely to be hazardous to children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Ms. Clancy 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 have a petition signed by many constituents of the Ottawa-Car-leton region.


September 15, 1992

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to ask the government to exercise compassion when dealing with refugees, in particular, those from Somalia and other countries around the world which have civil problems as well as suffering difficulties. They are asking the government to use as much compassion as possible.


Mr. David  Bjomson@Selkirk-Red River: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present to the House a petition circulated by the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Selkirk, Manitoba, in my constituency as part of the Proud to be Canadian tour.
Quite a number of members have presented similar petitions calling upon this House to endorse the strength and pride of our country as being proud to be Canadian and to stress the importance of national unity.
On behalf of the constituents of Selkirk-Red River and in particular the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Selkirk, Manitoba, I would like to present this petition.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today on an issue that I have spoken on a number of times in this House, that is the Three Gorges Dam project on the "Yangtze River in China.
The petitioners, 100 in number, have asked this House and Parliament to pass necessary legislation to prevent any further involvement by the Government of Canada in the Three Gorges Dam project.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition regarding the goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out the ludicrous situation in which the goods and services tax is applied to feminine sanitary products such as tampons and pads. They ask therefore that the Parliament of Canada consider removing the goods and services tax from these products.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36.1 continue to receive petitions signed by hundreds of my constituents calling upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children.
Routine Proceedings
They are especially asking for an emphasis on abuser rehabilitation. They want to concentrate special effort on the training of police, lawyers, court workers and judges to help them become knowledgeable about women and child abuse, and to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and privilege to present a petition signed by many residents of the ridings of Sudbury and Nickel Belt.
The petitioners point out that the criminal justice system needs to be revamped in light of the violence against persons and the way in which sentencing takes place, the way in which the Parole Act is applied, and in light of the whole approach to violence against individuals.
Therefore, these petitioners call on the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to the House of Commons in the interest of the residents of Canada, and particularly from my riding, who wish to draw the attention of the House to the social and political conditions that are so unstable in the world's countries, particularly in Bosnia-Hercegovi-na, Croatia and Somalia and which are causing heartache and great problems. Thousands of these refugees as well as their families waiting here for them are trapped in a processing backlog. These refugees are suffering personal and economic hardship. Their futures are undecided as they await the slow process. These families are divided and separated for far too long.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to step up its actions on refugee cases and exercise compassion in the interests of family reunification, particularly for those from these disturbed places around the world.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions signed by Canadians all across this country who are objecting strongly to the treatment being accorded to Christine Lamont and David Spencer. They have been sentenced to 28 years in a Brazilian prison and have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in

September 15, 1992
Routine Proceedings
the Brazilian prisons, and discrimination in sentencing and parole.
They call upon the government to exercise the one thing that can bring them back to Canada and that is expulsion. They are beseeching the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the expulsion of Christine Lamont and David Spencer from this Brazilian prison so they can return to Canada.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present.
The first one is signed by a large number of people, particularly seniors. They point out that under Bill C-22 the price of both new and existing drugs has increased substantially. They call upon the government to not proceed with Bill C-91 and in fact to repeal Bill C-22.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: The second petition is signed by a number of residents from within my own community of Surrey North, particularly a number of prominent people from the Sikh community.
They point out that family class and assisted relative immigrants have historically been an important part of immigration in Canada, and that family class and assisted relatives have persons in Canada who can assist them with employment, housing and the learning of Canadian languages and customs.
This petition calls upon the government to not proceed with its present proposals for the amending of the Immigration Act but to continue to give family class and assisted relatives the first priority for all immigration to Canada.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of seniors in Canada, but particularly seniors in the Dawson Court home in the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, which I represent.
In essence, of the grants or subsidies they receive they are only allowed to keep $112 per month for the
necessities of life. They are asking this government to foster a program.
As a result of the extra added cost they are now facing because of the restrictions being placed on all additional medicare plans and drugs they are asking this government to support and foster a move that will increase the subsidy that is retained by the seniors, not only in Ontario, but throughout Canada.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that deals with the inconsistencies and contradictions of the current Income Thx Act.
This is one example. If one has receipted child care there is a particular deduction, but if one of the two partners in a marriage decides to stay home to take care of the children then there is no deduction.
These people find that this is unfortunate and that it needs to be corrected.
They also point out that there are a number of programs that lead to some confusion. They want greater simplification.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my other petition comes from petitioners who ask that Parliament ensure that the CRTC carefully regulate the use of foul language in radio and television programs.
These petitioners believe that it is not necessary to use inappropriate language to inform or entertain, and that quite often it runs contrary to the values they have in their home and to the efforts they undertake with their children.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from people who deplore the reductions and the cuts to the support of education from the federal government to the provinces.
They feel it is contrary to pleas to increase national productivity and to enhance competitiveness.
They point out that if we are not generous in supporting education today we will pay a big price in the future.
September 15, 1992


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today on behalf of my constituents of Kamloops, B.C.
The first is similar to the one my friend from Nickel Belt presented. The petitioners point out their concerns about the justice system and the problems attached to it particularly in terms of victims of violence.
They ask that Parliament consider recognizing that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent to society and that we consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on behalf of a number of residents of the Sikh community in Kamloops who point out that family class and assisted relative immigrants have historically been an important part of Canadian immigration.
They point out that this particular class of immigrants is important because they can be assisted in finding employment and housing and so on much more easily. Therefore they are asking the government to give applications for family class and assisted relatives top priority for immigration to Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this petition is an interesting one. It is signed by a number of public servants who point out that the government has failed to follow its own law in terms of negotiating with its employees.
They are calling upon the House of Commons to have a free vote to express its lack of confidence in the government. This is an interesting petition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, finally I have a petition signed by a number of veterans from Kamloops. They simply raise their concern that current levels of services provided to veterans through the Veterans Independence Program may be under some type of review.
Routine Proceedings
They simply want Parliament to ensure that there is no increase in charges to veterans for board and lodging in institutions or for long-term care.
I see the minister here. I am sure that he will ensure that if there is any problem it will be rectified.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under Standing Order 36 to present a petition duly certified by the clerk.
This petition is signed by over 150 Canadians who are concerned about education standards and how they are handled.
They wish us as a country to be more internationally competitive and want us to have a better skilled and well trained labour force. They are particularly concerned about the 38 per cent rate of functional illiteracy in this country.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament in support of a national education standard in consultation with provincial governments to help rectify some of these difficulties that I have mentioned.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to submit a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, signed by numerous Canadians who recognize that the government is moving Bill C-91, an act to end licensing of no-name generic drugs in Canada and an act that will allow brand name drug companies to market their drugs without competition from generics for periods up to 20 years.
The petitioners argue that the price of both new and existing drugs has already increased substantially to individuals and provincial and private drug plans since 1987 when another bill, Bill C-22, allowed up to a 10-year period for no generic competition.
The petitioners call upon Parliament not to proceed with Bill C-91 as tabled. They say that will allow Canadians to have the full benefit of lower priced generic drugs and provincial and private drug plans can better serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less coverage.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that was circulated by the

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
Kinsmen in Thompson, Manitoba. It is a petition to promote pride in being Canadian and it is to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled.
Whereas it is appropriate to encourage all Canadians to take pride in a united, strong and independent Canada; whereas Canadians are normally a reserved people often concealing their patriotic feelings; and whereas, Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada have created an opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the Proud To Be Canadian project during the celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation in 1992, we the undersigned, your petitioners, hereby support the Proud To Be Canadian project as an opportunity to nurture a positive life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag and to encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.
It is very appropriate at this time that this petition be presented to Parliament.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 am pleased to present four petitions to the House, and they are personally gratifying.
These petitioners from across Canada are in support of Bill C-327. It is the employee ownership bill that will be debated for the second hour of the second reading this evening at five o'clock p.m.
The operative clause is that Bill C-327, an act to assist employees to purchase a controlling shareholding in the corporation that employs them, contains amendments to the Income Thx Act which will allow worker tax credits specifically for the purpose of purchasing the companies that employ them.
I think that anyone who reads the newspapers and pays attention to the media would find out that each and every day it becomes a more and more common occurrence that employees are looking to purchase a part thereof or the entire work place in which they work.
These petitions come from Sardis and Chilliwack, British Columbia, from my home riding of Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Toronto, Ontario; Regina, Saskatchewan; St. John's, Newfoundland; Yellowknife and Fort Smith, Northwest Territories.
I would encourage the other two parties to support the bill when it becomes votable in the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That, in relation to Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Thx Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted for the consideration of report stage and one sitting day for the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill; and that, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted for the report stage consideration and on the day allotted for the third reading stage consideration of the bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
September 15, 1992

Government Orders


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, September 14, consideration of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowance Act, to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowance Act, as reported with amendments by a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 23, 25, 26 and 27 of Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing), and Motions Nos. 28 29, 30 and 31 of Mr. Walker.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on this amendment and on this bill, particularly, after the actions of this government which has imposed as we know time allocation on this bill at report stage.
++NAYS
Members
Allmand Anawak Arseneault
Althouse
Angus
Assad
Time allocation was also used at second reading and will be used, of course, at third reading. This government is very anxious to show Canadians that their word is not to be taken too seriously.

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
I want to quote the Prime Minister on August 18,1984: "Universal social programs are a sacred trust not to be tampered with". The family allowance program, instituted by this Parliament, is going to be abolished with this Bill C-80. Liberals believe this bill is flawed and the government should do the honourable thing and withdraw it.
The stated purpose of Bill C-80 is to consolidate three existing child benefits: the family allowance, the refundable child tax credit, and the non-refundable child tax credit.
Instead Bill C-80 will replace these three programs with one single monthly benefit which will begin in January 1993 if the bill receives Royal Assent. I hope it does not. This legislation means the end, as I said, to universality of family allowances.
Canadians were not consulted by this government about ending universal access to this social benefit. One can question the integrity of this government and its word and ask what is next. What is in its mind? Pensions maybe? Medicare? Who knows. Everything in this government's right-wing agenda is up for grabs and can be taken away from Canadians.
In truth this bill is an election ploy, an attempt by the Conservative government to pass off a flawed bill as a positive step toward alleviating child poverty. I want to get to that because we have reports after reports.
I have one here adopted by the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and addressed to the Prime Minister dated August 31,1992. It states: "One in six Canadian children lives in poverty, poor children experience a 50 per cent higher death rate from all causes, health conditions for our aboriginal children in Canada have been compared to those of the Third World, and their average life expectancy is eight years lower than the national average".
Suicide is the second leading cause of death among Canadian adolescents. The high school dropout rate, which averages about 27 per cent across Canada, is over 90 per cent in some areas and among some groups of young people. This is disastrous record. An estimated one in four girls and one in ten boys is a victim of sexual abuse. It goes on and on and on.
There is no child policy with this government. There is absolutely no heart for the problems that are at this time striking our youth, our young people.
I do not have much time so I will just relate some of the problems with Bill C-80. For example, the government says these changes will increase assistance for children over the next five years by $2.5 billion. Nonsense. One should ask how much child benefits would have grown without these changes. Between 1986-87 and 1990-91, family allowance payments grew by $275 million and refundable child tax credits by $750 million. This is smoke and mirrors.
The new child tax benefit will be based on family income as reported in income tax. This means it could take 12 to 18 months for the amount to change to respond to possibly dramatic changes in family income. This could present a serious problem for some families.
Third, the government conveniently forgets to mention that through partial indexation the Tories already took $3.5 billion out of the child benefit system between 1986 and 1991. In five years $3.5 billion has been cut from family benefits. The benefit is indexed only for the part of inflation exceeding 3 per cent. What will the government do to ensure that the value of the child tax benefit does not erode through further inflation? Nothing. It is heartless.
For women who receive low salaries or work part time, this bill means that after paying their work expenses and day care that they will probably make more money staying home. This type of incentive is a step backward from the right of women to work and to economic independence.
These measures in Bill C-80 offer veiy little to middle class families. A two-earner family with an annual income of between $30,000 and $40,000 will receive additional benefits of less than $4 a month. With inflation at 3 per cent a year, this benefit will disappear within a year.
Canada's poorest families who are on social assistance will receive absolutely no benefit from this measure. There are 2.5 million Canadians now on social assistance.
Furthermore, C-80 is far from being adequate compensation for the government's callous abandonment of its promise for a national day care program. Where is that program which was promised in the last election? That is another one of those commitments that was not kept by this government.
September 15, 1992

Let me quote the reaction of various groups to the new child tax benefit act, Bill C-80. Gerard Kennedy of the Canadian Association of Food Banks called it "the most deceptive and cruel thing coming from government that we have seen in a long time. It is a tremendous blow to the hopes of low income people". Sue Wolstenholme of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association states: "Either the federal government still does not grasp the problems of child poverty or child care which Canadian families face or they really do believe that they can trick the public with yet another illusionary tactic".
The government is admittedly and deservedly ashamed of Bill C-80. It wants it passed through this House so quickly that it imposes limits on debate so that people will not get the benefit of understanding this bill, of studying this bill and taking it for what it is worth, absolutely nothing.
The government has forced this bill through the House at second reading, imposed closure and forced it through committee and has forced it through report stage today and tomorrow to get the bill. Why? It is because it is ashamed of this bill. It should be ashamed of this bill.
The government knows that this bill does not address the vast problem of child poverty in this country.
Tory economic mismanagement with unemployment now up to 11.6 per cent has resulted in thousands of individual Canadians being in difficult situations financially and otherwise.
At one time it seemed that the government would take the problem of child poverty seriously. In 1989, remember, the government gave its support to a motion calling for the elimination of child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Instead, the number of children living in poverty has increased. In 1989 there were 863,000 poor children in Canada. In 1990, one year after, the figure was
1,013,000.	That is a jump of 150,000 in a year. We can safely assume that these numbers increased throughout 1991 and into 1992, with layoffs continuing as they are in this country.
Mr. Speaker, you have indicated to me that my time is up. I will just read one last quote from the columnist Leonard Shifrin. This is what Mr. Shifrin had to say: "If there was a Pulitzer Prize for flim-flam, the Tory snow job masquerading as a budget white paper would win
Government Orders
hands down. Despite what it seems to say, basic benefits are not really being raised for the poorest families".
In my riding of Ottawa-Vanier there are poor children, there are poor women, there are poor people and yet this government in this measure of Bill C-80 is showing absolutely no sensitivity. It has no heart. We will vote against this bill and fight this legislation.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this is quite a sad day in the House of Commons as far as I am concerned. I have seen a number of sad days in this House since my election in 1988. Those sad days include many budget days when this government has dealt with programs that affect the quality of life of people in my constituency and across Canada in a very negative way. I have seen days when the government has taken steps to actually remove benefits that Canadians have come to count on to ensure that their businesses, their families and their country can survive.
This day is one that I never thought I would see either as an ordinary Canadian citizen or as a member of this House elected to represent the interests of the people of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake in northwest Saskatchewan.
Here we have a situation where this Bill C-80 will remove the family allowance benefit that has served Canadians since the mid-1940s, nearly half a century, and is now providing some $2 billion of assistance, primarily for families with children. The Canadian people are probably going to get a surprise in January because of this program.
I want to make very it very clear here today that I do not support Bill C-80. I do not support the removal of the family allowance program. I do not support the action the government is taking today to railroad the bill that eliminates the family allowance program through this House.
I know that in January my office will be receiving hundreds of phone calls from Canadians living in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, wanting to know where their family allowance cheque is for that month.
This summer the government railroaded Bill C-80 through committee stage. It ran this through so quickly that many groups that wanted to speak to it were unable

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
to do so. Those that did speak, spoke strongly against the inclusion of many of the arguments in Bill C-80.
Today we have just gone through a motion to limit the speaking time on this bill, all in an effort to deal with this matter while the country is locked in a debate over the national referendum. If there was any way this government could have orchestrated a clean way of dealing with this bill without subjecting itself to a tremendous amount of opposition from across this country, it has found it in dealing with it this week in the House of Commons.
This is not a bill that will address child poverty, as the government says. We all recognize that one in six children in this country are living in poverty. It is a deplorable situation for young children and youth throughout Canada. It is a comment on the government's economic agenda that has been in place since this government's first election in 1984, an agenda that began with the previous government and the previous government's attack on some of the social programs.
More important, what is happening here is that we are creating a situation whereby we are sustaining the stereotype Canadians have about this place, this institution and about parliamentarians.
When governments take action such as this government is taking on the family allowance bill, railroading it through during the summer and during a period of time when Canadians' attention is diverted elsewhere, it is to sustain the public's perception that this place cannot be trusted, that politicians, Parliament and government are doing things that will jeopardize the ordinary Canadian's ability to survive the daily rigours out there in the countryside. I have known this from conversations with my constituents for most of the last couple of years. It is a process of distrust that began quite some time ago and has continued through this government's use of bringing in the GST, the goods and services tax, at a time when the Canadian people were saying they did not want these additional taxes. The Canadian public has responded by reducing spending in this country and throwing tourism, small business and manufacturing into jeopardy because consumer spending is not there.
People are not prepared to provide any more taxes to this government and they feel the whole tax system is a threat to their ability to earn income and to provide for their families. We see this fear that Canadians have
about the security of their income as they respond to matters that relate to pension income, income that is earned in the workplace, the declining value of the dollar that is earned in the workplace, the increasing costs of going to school and providing education for young people, the poor response of governments to crises in the fishery, in agriculture, in the mining and processing sectors and, most recently, the determination of this government to sell the North American free trade agreement to all of us at a time when we are saying that the free trade agreement with the United States has failed us. The government is simply creating one situation after another in which the Canadian people's response is they do not like what this government is doing, they do not trust this government and therefore they do not trust the institution of Parliament or any of those people who are working within that institution.
It is a threat not only to the well-being of Canadians but to the well-being of this institution which we must rely on for generations to come because we live in a democratic system, a system in which we understand the value of representation for the well-being of Canadians. When we throw that system into jeopardy, we are throwing into jeopardy our ability to respond in times of crisis and even in good times for Canadians.
I remember back in 1944 when the Saskatchewan people radically changed the face of this country by voting for and supporting the first socialist government in North America. Tommy Douglas was elected in Saskatchewan to lead that particular government. One of the things that guided Tommy through his years as premier and much of the philosophy of this party was his belief that people do not need governments in good times but they need governments in bad times. What governments do when times are good is prepare for the bad times so that we can sustain and rebuild a breaking and deteriorating economy and programs.
What is happening here is we have a government that did not provide that safety net during the good times. We have had some good times in this country, at the beginning of this government's term in office. Nothing was put away. We built debts and now we are trying to find ways to eliminate those debts by reducing the things that this country needs so desperately during the tough times. Canadians do need government in tough times. We need it in the fishery, we need it in the farming sector. Canadian families need the government during
September 15, 1992

the tough times to support them when they cannot support themselves.
The elimination of the family allowance, the elimination of the tax deduction that is part of this bill and the replacement of it with a program that does not make a whole lot of sense to me or to any of the witnesses who appeared at the committee stage are simply more indications that this government is not prepared to be there to help Canadians during the tough times.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record with respect to this bill and some of its amendments because I believe this is a critical piece of legislation that is being rammed through at a time when we are not being given the opportunity to explain it adequately to Canadians.
Some of you will recall this quote: "Universal social programs are a sacred trust not to be tampered with". That was made by Brian Mulroney on August 18, 1984.
It is rather interesting. Clearly universality is no longer a sacred trust. I suspect the Prime Minister would be saying he is not tampering with them.

"I am crushing them and eliminating them altogether." So in a way, he is right.

He is not tampering with them anymore. He is eliminating them.
People are upset that roughly eight years ago that statement was made and eight years later it is a complete reversal.
There is another thing that is upsetting Canadians with respect to this.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that time allocation has been imposed 39 times since this government came to power in 1984, and closure 21 times? The government has tried to restrict debate a total of 60 times on key legislation, key issues, questions that are important to Canadians. If we look at the history of the Parliament of Canada, it seems that previously this happened a total of only 10 times, compared with 60 times under this
Government Orders
government. These attempts to restrict the speaking time of members in this House are absolutely incredible.

The other thing that is bothering Canadians is that they see this, although the government has been able to fool some of them as an election ploy. There are time limitations imposed on the debate. We are being prevented from discussing this.
There were a few public hearings during the heat of the summer months. They were limited as well. The government is passing this legislation at a time when people are preoccupied with two major questions: the unity of this country and economic questions that we have never seen before; questions of unemployment, questions of social assistance, questions of food banks, questions of bankruptcies. During that period of time the government is trying to get this legislation through.
Hopefully, with the few minutes we have available to each and every one of us who wants to speak against this bill, we can explain to Canadians what is happening. There has been $3.5 billion taken out of support to Canadian families and $400 million put in. Clearly, that is not fair.
Families living on welfare will not get one penny more. I find that unfortunate because surely they are the families that need the most assistance. There will be one million families that will be net losers. The working poor will get, according to the estimates that were given to me, roughly $42 a month. It was the Minister of National Health and Welfare who said that is was better than nothing.
Yes, it is a little better than nothing but surely it is inadequate because it does not address the needs of children who are living in poverty. It does not recognize that if we do not meet that challenge today, we will have to come to grips with it later at a much higher cost in terms of crime, unemployment, social assistance and frustrations on the part of those Canadians who will feel that they were not given the opportunity to live and grow up in a kind of atmosphere that they could have contributed fully to Canadian society.
There is another disturbing element to this. The old family allowances program is now gone forever.

Government Orders
The new program will be starting at the beginning of the next year. For a period of time, a few months, there will be additional moneys made available but they are not really additional moneys.
That is made to entice Canadians, to make them believe that there is something here that there is not. Why was it done? Clearly, to try to get re-elected. I find this shocking. I find this so misleading that it angers me as it angers a number of Canadians.
I can well imagine that there was another telephone conversation on this item that went something like this:

"We should limit debate. We should make sure public hearings are held in the summer. We should be absolutely sure this bill is adopted when people are distracted by other priorities such as the Constitution, the referendum and economic issues".

If there was a call made, and there was, with respect to what the strategy would be with the North American free trade agreement, trying to discredit people who would oppose it, clearly there were discussions as to how this particular bill would be pushed, rushed and rammed through Parliament.
It is unfortunate that this is happening because it discredits the government in its efforts to attempt, for example, to bring about a sort of constitutional renewal and to have the question decided with some sort of finality in a positive sense with the referendum.
Some people may ask that since I am from the opposition, what could I say that is anything but negative.
I applaud the fact that there are going to be fewer programs because I think there is too much complexity out there.
However, let us not lose sight of the fact that because we made that little bit of inroad on that point it does not address the major question. The major question is what are the needs of Canadian children and Canadian youth? My colleagues have given some of the statistics. I will not repeat them but let me say what third party people are saying about this agreement.
Ken Battle from 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-Clearly this is a pre-election reform -
Sam Snobelen from the End Legislated Poverty said:
lo us it is clear the so-called "child benefit" will be a detriment to the entire country, especially to children, and eventually to seniors.
Joan Smallwood, minister of social services in B.C., said:
The new benefit is not simple, not fair and not generous.
There is a whole lot more. Professor Shelly Phipps of Dalhousie University points out one of the major flaws that we have not talked sufficiently about:
Suppose someone experiences a drop in income in January of a year, say 1993. Then they won't file an income tax return until April 1994. But we won't find out that they became poor in January 1993, and as I understand the proposal, they won't receive any child benefits at all until July 1994. So in this extreme case they could be waiting as much as a year and a half-
Citizens for Public Justice said:
By withdrawing or failing to provide the kind of supports that families need to move out of poverty, the federal government's attempt to alleviate child poverty through the child tax benefit will be ineffective.
The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Child Poverty Action Group ask why fiscal restraint must come at the expense of families with children.
Lise Corbeil from the National anti-Poverty Organization says:
We believe that Bill C-80 is flawed and dangerous - we therefore ask your committee to recommend rejection-
She points out that $3.5 billion was siphoned away from child benefit programs and $400 million is being put in.
Trevor Williams, Family Services Canada, says:
-without indexation this program will continue to slip year after year.
Terrence Hunsley points out that it is flawed. Martha Friendly makes the same point that we are going toward the United States' system as opposed to the European system. Dr. Robert Glossop of the Vanier Institute of the Family criticizes the proposal.
September 15, 1992

Marcelle Dolment says:
The Network finds it inconceivable that a government no longer wishes to recognize either the family responsibilities parents assume or their investment in the country, in the human capital that children constitute.

I have made it clear that this bill does not meet the needs of people who live in poverty. It is just an election ploy, and I am not quoting myself but what people who made a thorough study of these proposals have said quite clearly.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak in favour of the motion of my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre.
I also want to commend my colleague on the leadership that he has provided in opposing this legislation. As we know Bill C-80 will create a monthly payment for our child benefit program. It is going to take the family allowance and the child tax credit and they are going to be combined into one.
My party and I have a lot of objections to this legislation. This morning, due to the limited time, I will only be able to touch on probably two or three of these.
First I want to say that this government has made a mockery of the whole legislative process with this legislation. What it has been trying to do ever since it was introduced is get this legislation through.
There has been a lot of objection to this legislation, not only from the opposition parties but from groups and individuals all across this country. Certainly, the government should have got the message when in the standing committee, every group and witness who appeared, except one, were opposed to this legislation. There were a lot of groups and individuals that the government did not even give the opportunity to appear before the committee and speak on this very important legislation, which will bring about profound changes in this area.
The Conservative government controls the committee and it, as I mentioned, allowed interest groups very little time to prepare. When they requested more time to prepare to appear before this committee they were refused. The government cut off the number of individuals in groups who could appear before the committee.
Government Orders
After the presentations had been made they only allowed one hour of discussion on this important legislation. It really makes one wonder whether the government is really interested in hearing from groups and individuals, whether it is really interested in getting constructive and positive input into this legislation that we have before us. I know that the Canadian people expect better than this from the government, especially when it comes to an issue and a concern that is as serious and important as children's future.
Of course we have had glossy brochures that have been put out by the government on this. They say, and I want to quote: "-our future well-being and prosperity depend on our children".
Certainly, I agree with that. Unfortunately, with this program the government is really not looking after the needs of youth and children.
It took the government eight weeks from the time this program was announced to actually get it into legislation. Yet, the government only gave the committee studying this legislation eight days to hear from witnesses and groups interested in stating their views and in debating the bill. I am told that there were 10 social groups that asked the government for a little more time to prepare their briefs, and the government absolutely refused. I think that is very unfair. These social and interest groups in this particular area deserved to be heard. They have a lot to offer, a lot of constructive, good input to make on this legislation. However, obviously the government is not interested in hearing how this legislation could be improved or how this House of Commons could bring in a program that would better meet the needs of our children and our youth.
Across this country social groups-people who are involved in this area, are experienced in it and have the expertise and that know-have been very critical of this entire package and they have been critical of the government for not giving them adequate time and opportunity to study and debate this legislation. That is very unfortunate.
I served as minister of health and social services in Prince Edward Island and I always found that social groups and interest groups in this area had a lot to offer.

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
I believe the government has been very unfair in saying no to these people.
I want to quote the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development. This legislation will introduce "some of the most profound changes to Canada's income security system that have been contemplated in recent years-As a result, they require far more serious and broad debate and discussion than a surprise two-week process in Ottawa would allow".
I feel that the government has been very unfair and I have stated why. I am not the only one I just quoted the executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development.
Another group that has not really been adequately consulted is the provinces. This is despite the fact that 11 first ministers agreed in March of this year to form a partnership to work together on income security issues.
Despite that agreement, the federal government is just charging right ahead. It is paying lip service to this arrangement, but certainly there are a number of provinces that are opposed to this legislation and the government is really not listening.
I have a lot of other points I want to make on this subject. Mr. Speaker, I know you are signalling me that my time is up. Maybe later on third reading I will be able to put my other concerns about this legislation on record.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretai^ to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate at report stage. I would like to comment on some of the amendments.
Listening to the debate I cannot help but be amazed by the perspective shared by some of my colleagues opposite who think that our society is frozen in time and that nothing is ever supposed to change, when in fact society is constantly changing. The dynamics-especially in the 1990s it is so obvious the way the world is changing. There are all kinds of things changing, yet it seems that social programs in Canada, rather than being responsive to the needs of Canadians, are supposed to be static, frozen in time and never change.
I find that rather an interesting concept because I really think that it is dissonant with reality. I just put that forward as a general observation.
I listened with great interest to my hon. friend for Malpeque who served with great distinction as minister of health in Prince Edward Island. I was waiting to hear some of her substantive points but I found she spent most of her debating time discussing the amount of debating time that was available instead of getting on with it. I would have liked to have heard more of her substantive comments on the bill.
However, that being as it is, I have to say that it is my impression from the constituents that I represent and from what people tell me in Nova Scotia that one of their greatest demands of government today is that it use whatever money it takes in taxes efficiently and wisely and in the most expeditious manner.
I find it hard to believe that my hon. friends opposite continue to be mired in the belief that people like J. D. Irving need family allowance for their grandchildren. He is one of the people who is supposedly going to be hurt by this bill because he will no longer have family allowance for his grandchildren. When Eric Lindros gets married and has children they will probably not qualify.
My friends opposite think this is a heinous, villainous and Draconian thing. With respect, I do not think that is the case. I think that the demand and the expectation of Canadians is that those dollars will be used for the benefit of those Canadians and those Canadian families who need them. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C-80 and that is precisely why this change was so positively greeted by the Canadian public when it was announced in the budget last February.
All this talk about the sacrosanct nature of universality is just so much hog-wash and is not really relevant. The important thing is that programs respond to the needs of the times and that programs exist to support the people who need that assistance.
One of the things that has amazed me during my short tenure in this place to date is the fact that one is not obligated to speak the truth but one is not permitted to call another member to account for failing to speak the truth. Of course, I will cast no aspersions, but I must make reference to the fact that a number of members have talked about $3.5 billion being allegedly taken out
September 15, 1992

of the system through partial de-indexing. That is an extraordinarily misleading piece of information.
It is most regrettable that members would throw out a figure like that, which is certainly at odds with the truth and certainly ignores the fact that up to now since this government has been in it has increased the refundable child tax credit four times and has also introduced a supplement of $213 for children under seven when the child care expenses have not been claimed. Therefore, that figure is extraordinarily erroneous and would certainly mislead anybody who did not have an opportunity, as I have just provided, to become familiar with the facts of the situation.
I would also point out that Bill C-80 is going to increase child assistance by $2.1 billion over the next five years, and 80 per cent of those funds-


Mr. Samson:: And not one cent for the poor.


Peter L. McCreath: -and those funds will go to 80 per cent of the families, the families with the low income. With all due respect to my hon. friend, he is absolutely incorrect. The low income Canadians will be the principal beneficiaries and will end up receiving more money as a result of this measure. That is why the government has introduced it and that is why it is going to be welcomed, as it has been, by Canadians.
Similarly, Motion No. 25 calls for the elimination of the earned income supplement. That is not a complicated issue at all. The intent here is that it is the belief of this government, a belief obviously not shared by some of my friends opposite and I know not shared by the current Government of Ontario, that there should be incentives and encouragement and that nobody should be disadvantaged for trying to get out of the rut of welfare and back into employment. The intent of the earned income supplement is to ensure that there is no loss of income for somebody who does return to the work force and wishes to move ahead in life.
Indeed, my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier made reference to the fact that single women would be disadvantaged when returning to the work force. I
Government Orders
believe he said they were single mothers. The point remains that the earned income supplement addresses this problem specifically and assists people to move back.
Moving back into the work force not only affects one's income, it affects one's self-esteem, sense of productivity and a lot of other things. I think our social safety net should be there to assist people but at the same time it should provide encouragement and opportunity for people to become productive members of Canadian society.
In conclusion, I think that it is important that the facts of this bill be known. It adds $2.1 billion to federal child benefits over the next five years. More than 80 per cent of Canadian families will receive these benefits. Two-thirds of all the families in Canada, 2.4 million families, will receive higher benefits. They are targeted at lower-income families. The system is going to be responsive. It has been well received by the Canadian public.
I respectfully suggest that my hon. friends opposite take their heads out of the sand and listen to what the Canadian people are saying. They will welcome this progressive measure that has been introduced by this progressive government.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, those previous comments almost leave me speechless, but they certainly beg some sort of appropriate, sensible, rational and compassionate response to that kind of nonsense.
Hard times have demonstrated how easily we sacrifice the care of the young, the old, the sick and the helpless. The fragile state of social order and tolerance cannot withstand the pressures of mass unemployment and growing economic disparity. The smug assumptions of our peaceable kingdom depend more on recent prosperity than on our long-term history.
I think this government is out there polling each and every day. It does not tell us the results but it is out there polling. I think it finds out that it is fashionable and almost popular to do this sort of thing. It can attack the watershed of social policy in this country and get away with it because times are tough. Where does one go when times are tough? One picks on those people least able to respond in any sort of organized fashion. The bill is cynical and the timing is even more cynical.

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
I am reminded of Christmas in 1989 when the last watershed was breached. That was the initial attack on universality in this country. It was the clawback provision. It was done for Christmas. It was a Christmas present for seniors and families that received family allowances across this country. There was a great desire to get it done quickly.
Here we are now sitting and discussing a referendum bill in Parliament that the government wants urgently to get through. Why, Mr. Speaker? It is because it is extremely unpopular despite what the polls say.
Our social safety net includes unemployment insurance, universal old age pensions, maybe someday a national day care program and also, in this hostile climate, family allowances. It is the product of many factors: our history and heritage and our need to huddle together against the cold. We are a scattered people who are thinly spread across a forbidding landscape. There are not enough of us to entice private capital to establish the institutions that in other societies define a nation and tie it together. Instead, we have used public capital.
Canadians are noted for what they have. The longer this government is in power we will be noted for what we had. If one was going to target a group, one would think that one would not target the poorest of the poor. One would think that one would not compare one level of poverty with another level of poverty. One would think that if one was going to target a group to assist the lower levels on the economic scale that one would attack the wealthiest of the people in the country to access the riches. Canada is a country that now is regarded as having one of the highest concentrations of wealth in the world. It does not seem believable, but statistics prove that in fact it is. More and more wealth is in the hands of fewer and fewer people.
We talk about priorities a great deal in Parliament. We talk about $4 billion helicopters that we may or may not be able to land, but that perhaps is not the issue at this point in time. Surely, the allocation of funds could be more appropriately allocated than with this kind of decision making.
There's the cap on CAP for the so-called wealthiest provinces: Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. That accounts for 29 per cent of the debt accrued by the
Ontario government. We are criticized for caring and for responding to the needs of those people, but we are all having to pay. The federal government is washing its hands of social programs in this country. They are eroding them.
There was a discussion or a consultation paper in January 1985.1 know this government was around at that time. It said that the concept of universality is a keystone of our social safety net. Its integrity must not and will not be called into question.
I appreciate that times have changed and there are dramatic things happening around the world and in this country. However, if something is a cornerstone it is a cornerstone. It is not something to peck away at or take away from so gradually that people may not understand. That leads me to the simplicity. It says it wants to simplify the system. I defy you to read the government brochure on the child benefit and attempt to understand it. It is nearly impossible. It is not simplistic, Mr. Speaker.
The government is going to spend $500,000 to inform Canadians as to what it is doing. I suspect it would be better spent on the people who require these funds. It is spending $1.8 million on the NAFTA agreement. This is ironic at best and tragic at worst.
When one pits group against group, even though not intentionally, the middle class may look at this and say it does not have any great inclination to involve itself in this debate at this point in time. However, they shall soon be affected. It is like the clawback provision. Since it is not indexed to inflation, sooner or later we will all get caught and it will be too late to turn back.
This is a watershed and a most unfortunate one. It is most unfortunate that it is being debated at a time when the very future of the country is at stake. It would otherwise receive much more attention from everyone, especially those most affected by this particular bill.
I am fearful that the government's course is one of Thatcherism, Reagan's economics, or, worse still, similar to that of the governor of Michigan, John Engler. He made a campaign promise and he followed through. One day he said that he would cut everybody including all single parents. There would be no more social assistance.

Immediately in the city of Flint, 83,000 people were put on the streets. Governor Engler said get a job but anyone who knows anything about Flint, Bay City and Saginaw, Michigan, there are no jobs. People are living on the streets. They are dying on the streets.
Under Mr. Engler's scheme, under the guise of saving money, the people's safety net probably will not be a money saver. He pulls a study of Mr. Hollister pointing out research that shows if 5 per cent of those who are cut off end up in prison, another 5 per cent end up in mental institutions, the state will pay out more than it saves.
Cutting people off was not an economic decision, it was an ideological decision. I believe that is why this government acts in the way it does. It is more ideology than good sound economic sense, especially for those among us who can least afford this kind of backward legislation.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this debate and I am angry, frustrated and disgusted.
Today I listened to my hon. colleague and fellow Nova Scotian from the South Shore and earlier I listened to comments by the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs. I realized that both of these hon. gentlemen have the wrong end of the stick in this whole debate.
They both made allusions, one in a speech and one just in a comment earlier, to wealthy people. They both used the same family which happens to be one of the wealthiest families in our region of the Atlantic. Should those people or should their children be getting the family allowance?
It first of all shows a total misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the principle of universality and why the principle of universality is a good one, but I am not going to get into that at the moment. It also shows a misunderstanding of the way the family allowance in particular has worked.
There has been so little time for this debate. One is reminded of the quote from MacBeth about the murder of Duncan: "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly". This is the murder of the principle of universality. It obviously falls into the same category.
Government Orders
One of the things that has been missing in this debate is the question of the women who receive the family allowance to use for their children. I have gone to a number of meetings over the past several years with colleagues from the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, with women's groups representing women who stay at home. The Conservative Party in particular has always been a great champion, allegedly, of women who stay at home.
I am talking about the fact that if we are going to have universal accessible child care, for example, we must do something at the same time for women who stay at home, et cetera. Those of us who worry about the social programs affecting women in the work place, the economic programs, are somehow forgetting about women who stay at home. That has been a charge that certainly has been levelled at me and at other women on this side of the House by women and men as well on that side of the House.
It is time to turn the glass on this legislation in that context. I would ask my hon. colleague and friend from the South Shore and his other colleagues to think about this. I see the minister is no longer with us.
Some years ago a challenge to the universality of family allowances mounted in my own party. This was before I became a member of Parliament. I am happy to say that under the combined championing of the hon. Monique Begin, the hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette, the then senator Loma Marsden and a number of women in the Liberal Party, we beat down that challenge to universality. Would that our colleagues on the other side of the House had had the same luck.
One of the things I learned in that battle some nine to ten years ago was what the family allowance cheque means to an awful lot of women in this country. It does not just mean something to single mothers or low-income women. It means something to women who live in the Rockcliffes, the Rosedales and the south ends. It means something to the women who live in Shaughnessy and British properties. It means something to the women in Westmount. In other words, it means something to women who happen to be married to men who are wealthy.
If my hon. colleagues on the other side learn nothing else from this debate, maybe they could learn for once that women who are merely married to men who are

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
wealthy do not by any means de facto have access to that wealth.
I know of women in every one of those neighbourhoods that I cited here today who have saved the baby bonus cheques sometimes for years to get out of violent situations, miserable situations, to save their lives and protect themselves. That is just one aspect.
My colleague from South Shore is laughing. Perhaps it does not happen in his riding, although I know differently. Perhaps he does not have personal knowledge of that but I do and other women in this House on both sides have knowledge of that.
The money is not going to Mr. Irving or Mr. somebody else. The money is going for the benefit of the family and for the benefit of the women and the children in the family. How well do you know each individual? How well do you know a family that may be listed very highly in Dun & Bradstreet corporation or in a financial listing? Does the hon. minister who just made a crack, the hon. President of the Treasury Board, really know what every individual wealthy family in this country is like on the inside? Does he really know and can he stand in his place and say that women who happen to be married to wealthy men do not live lives of quiet desperation? It is merely a small point but it is one that means something to women in this country.
If this government had any commitment to a sensible and fair tax system, we would not have this kind of foolishness emanating from it. Every time it takes the wrong end of the stick or, should I say, the wrong end of the horse. That is what it is taking here.
It tries to sell this to us by telling us that there are more benefits for low income families. There are not. It is wrong. The experts will tell you there are not more benefits. It will try and tell you that there are more effective benefits to those in greatest need. That is wrong too. It tries to tell you that it will make the child benefit system simpler and more responsive.
What the government effectively wants to do is what it has effectively wanted to do to this country since the day it took office in 1984 and has been putting upon the people of Canada ever since. That is a systematic and deliberate attack on the infrastructure and the social safety net of this country.
The time has come when Canadians are standing up from St. John's to Victoria and saying they will not have it. They will not have it in South Shore. They will not have it in Moncton, New Brunswick. They will not have it in the province of Quebec. They will not have it in Wild Rose and they will not have it anywhere in this country.
When that glorious day comes when the people of Canada can tell this government what they think of these ideas with regard to the sacrosanct sacred cows that they have dealt with, the government will know.
I will mark the hon. member's words and I also know how people will be marking their ballots on the South Shore. God help us, I cannot wait for the day.
We look at the child benefit program. We look at the history of the family allowance in this country. We look at the fact that in the 1930s when these programs came into being, they were brought about because of the greatest economic depression that the North American continent had ever seen.
We are living through a period of the second greatest economic downturn that this country has ever seen, and we are living through it because of the fiscal policies of this government. That is the answer.
My colleague in the New Democratic Party talked about Thatcherism and Reaganomics. These are the same things being practised by this government and that is why this country is suffering, that along with a misnamed free trade agreement.
Government policy has caused the hardship in this country. Canada survived the Dirty Thirties because of social programs. We are surviving now because of social programs. If this government keeps it up, we will not have this safety net and Canada as we know it will not survive.
It is sad that the primary attack of this government is against the women and the children.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Mild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the motions being debated here today would be the outright cancellation of the child tax benefit.
In this respect, I am not quite sure if my hon. colleagues understand the implications of their motions.
I am surprised that they would want to take away a $2.1 billion increase in child benefits. This is particularly
September 15, 1992

perplexing since most of the money would be directed to low income families.
Are they trying to save money on the backs of low income families? If so, I fervently disagree.
I believe that if we were to adopt these motions, we would be giving up an historic opportunity to enrich child benefits and to improve the way they are delivered. Accordingly, let me take a moment to remind the House what this bill is all about.
I am a firm believer in the redistribution of scarce resources for the general benefit of all Canadians, particularly our children. It is a Canadian tradition of which we should be rightfully proud. It ranks high among the reasons why Canada is regarded by many as the best place in the world to live and to raise a family.
However, I also believe that our social programs have been strong and effective only because they have been amended and reformed over time to meet the changing needs of our society. That is why I strongly support Bill C-80. It will replace the traditional, and some may say antiquated, child benefit programs with a modem, fair, responsive and simple system.
Let me explain. For almost a century the Government of Canada has provided direct financial assistance to parents to help with the care and upbringing of their children. Over time, the benefits have evolved into a patchwork system which includes family allowance, child credit and a refundable child tax credit. This patchwork system of benefits is not sufficient to meet the needs and expenses of today's Canadian children and their parents. As identified by several national groups and scores of individual Canadians, this jumble of benefits has a number of shortcomings which must be addressed.
For example, Canadians agree that the current system does not provide enough support to lower-income families; especially lower-income working families. Many have expressed concern that targeting family allowances on the basis of individual income is unfair because families with similar incomes may receive different levels of benefits. Others have decried the delays faced by parents in receiving benefits as well the differing sets of eligibility criteria and delivery mechanisms.
The child tax benefit has been designed to rectify these and other shortcomings of the current system. For
Government Orders
instance, support to low-income families will be increased substantially. Over the next five years the child tax benefit will provide $2.1 billion in increased child assistance and 80 per cent of that new money will go to families with annual earnings under $40,000. Moreover, the new earned income supplement of up to $500 will help low-income working families offset employment related expenses and a possible reduction in social assistance benefits upon joining the work force.
The child tax benefit will also be fairer. Benefits will be targeted on the basis of family-rather than on individual-incomes. Families earning similar incomes will receive similar benefits. This will better ensure that assistance is directed according to family needs.
The child tax benefit will be more responsive to the current needs of Canadian children and their parents. Under the system now in place parents may face up to a year or more to receive their full refundable tax credit. Under the new system benefits will be provided on an up-front, monthly basis. This will ensure that benefits arrive when they are needed. It will also mean that parents will no longer feel the need to sacrifice portions of their benefits to tax discounters to obtain badly-needed cash.
As well, a family may now have to wait for a year or more to receive a full increase in benefits arising from a change in family status. This could be the birth of a child or the breakup of a marriage. Under the child tax benefit, monthly payments will be fully adjusted following a change in family status.
Finally, the child tax benefit will be simpler. The three different eligibility criteria and delivery mechanisms of the current system will be reduced to one. Payment will be in the form of a single, tax-free monthly cheque. Moreover, payment levels will be calculated automatically and the tax return will be shorter and less confusing. Gone will be the days when parents had to complete special calculations on their tax returns to receive child support. For higher-income families, the repayment of benefits to the government at year's end will also be a thing of the past. In short, the child tax benefit will simplify the tax system and streamline and substantially enrich the government's support for families with children. It responds to the changes urged upon the government by interested groups and individuals. I am pleased

Government Orders
to note that it has engendered world-wide support. Thank you for your support, Mr. Speaker.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few moments to speak on this bill this morning. There are a number of reasons, the first of which concerns the content or the way it was introduced. In light of some of the comments made here today, in fact in the last few moments, there was an obvious attempt once again at circumventing parliamentary procedure and the purpose of this House.
Before I talk about the subject of the tax benefit I want to recall for the House a comment that was made by a colleague of mine last week when he spoke on the referendum. It was the member for Acadie-Bathurst. He talked about the credibility of the House and the credibility of those people who sit here. What is happening with this bill is the very reason Canadians are wondering why this is still called the highest court in the land.
We have Bill C-80 which talks about the child benefit which was introduced in the 1992 federal budget. It is overhauling, purports to overhaul or will overhaul if it is passed, a system that has been in effect for years. How has this happened? Before I address the content of whether it is right or wrong in terms of content, let me just have a look at the process.
This bill was introduced on June 1 for first reading. It had two days of debate when the government invoked closure on the second reading. It then went to committee. The committee sat, I understand, during the summer under the auspices of the finance committee. There was not even enough time to get expert witnesses to come and discuss the intricacies of this bill so that legislators, members of Parliament, of this highest court in the land could understand what was happening. As a parenthetical comment, every witness except one said that they thought this bill was wrong, unfair and unbalanced. All but one said that.
We are in the House now today for debate at report stage. The report from the government side says that it wants this to be the way it was when it was laid out in this white paper. We are proposing amendments. These amendments should take a week to go through in chapter and verse so that those people whom we serve
could know and decide for themselves whether they are getting a good deal or a bad deal.
This is the modus operandi for this government. Look at the number of times that closure has been invoked in this House. My figures tell me it was 31 times since this government came to power in 1984.1 am sorry. That was time allocation which essentially is the same as closure. Closure happened 19 times. That is a total of 50.
I was not able to find the records and I was not able to get the information, but I believe it has happened roughly one-tenth as much as in the history of this country since Confederation. This will give you some indication of what the process is and in how much detail this bill is being discussed.
I see the member for Wild Rose is just leaving. I really object to one of the statements she made. She gave all kinds of reasons and I guess she spouted out government-prepared memoranda and documents. One of the statements was: "How could anybody oppose a $2.1 billion increase in this program?"
What she did not say was that one has to measure this against the $3.5 billion that has already been taken out of the child benefit system in the last five years. If she thinks the Canadian public is being fooled by an additional $2.1 billion against a zero background, I want to remind the public that it is $2.1 billion for the next five years. That $2.1 billion is not as much in real terms as the $3.5 billion that was taken away five years before. If I were a bargainer and a gambler I would not call that a good deal.
I am now into the content of this bill. I am not going through what it says because there is no time and other speakers have talked on that subject. The assistance to the poorest families does not increase by anything at all.
There is the the long-awaited national child care strategy. I recall when I was campaigning four years ago that there was a great program introduced by the government that was going to come up with a child care program. As I understand it, it has been completely abandoned and it is creating additional hardship on low and middle-income families, of which I have many in my riding. It is very difficult for single-income families.
I have already spoken about the lack of consultation, but in my mind, in principle, that is the biggest difficulty with this bill. Once more we are reducing social benefits to Canadians and they are not getting the opportunity to

hear the debate by chapter and verse as it used to be done before 1984. I could go on.
One of the concerns that I really have is the business of indexation. It can be a difficult thing to understand. It can be an easy thing to understand. Essentially, deindexing will amount to a clawback that in the long term will hurt Canadian families.
I am not sure that we need any more of that because we have had an effect on people in my riding, a reduction in UI benefits, a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan which, while it does not pertain to my province, has a principle involved, a reduction in health payments, a reduction in co-operative housing payments and a reduction in transfer payments to Newfoundland including Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. This means less money for those who need it.
I do not profess to be an expert in the details of this. That is one of the reasons I wanted to be here when it was discussed. I could decide one way or another how I could explain it to those people who would ask me questions. I think I have enough information for that now. I wanted them to listen to the debate.
In the time remaining I really cannot do more than make a few comments on what these few witnesses who came before the committee had a chance to offer. I think the one that describes my feeling about the bill more than anything else is this: "To us it is clear that this 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 think my hon. friend from Malpeque would tell me that that is almost a maritime description of something we do not like. I could not find more eloquent words to describe it.
We are in the process of debating our amendments. Our amendments essentially would deal with the deletion of the entire bill. That is first. Second, we would ensure that there would be full indexation of the benefit and of the threshold amounts. Third, we would include possibly a child benefits adjustment board to deal with the response to this problem.
Government Orders
I looked at a case last night and discussed it with the critic in this area. One could go as much as 18 months before an adjustment was made. There are an awful lot of people in this country in particular economic conditions who cannot wait 18 months for this kind of thing.
Finally, our amendments would ensure that the provinces cannot decrease the amount of the proposed benefit. Critics are concerned that a province could cap welfare payments as the new, combined benefits would provide a larger monthly amount to families.
I can conclude very quickly. I am concerned as a legislator that once more I am being cut off from information and I do not have enough time to discuss this with my colleagues on all sides of the House. I am concerned about the closure, I am concerned about the principle of parliamentary debate, and I am concerned that this is a rotten bill and we are being asked to pass it.
I for one will vote against it, and I think that most of the members on this side of the House also will.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was very quietly minding my own business over here listening to the debate, and I have been provoked into saying something about Bill C-80.
One of the things about this bill that strikes me as important, and it is something that Canadians have to think about-and we have said it time and time again-is that this bill destroys universality. The Tories come along and make this very specious argument that we do not need universality and that we need to re-focus the amounts of money we put into family allowances so that the real needy get money for the raising of their children.
What is at the root of universality? What is the root when we talk about family allowances and children? What we are saying with universality is that all Canadians are responsible for the raising of our children. These are not moneys directed to one group of children or to another group of children. It is not redistribution of wealth that we are really talking about here in this Tory package. Universality recognizes that all the children of Canada belong to all Canadians and that all of us have a responsibility to raise those children.

Government Orders
Bill C-80 is not new. The Tories did not dream this up. This was a Liberal machination.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


John R. Rodriguez: Absolutely. The Tories are only Liberals in a hurry. I want them to keep that in mind. They are on a fast track to nowhere.


Mr. Merrithew:: John, you will never change.


John R. Rodriguez: The minister says I will never change, but the minister must remember his history. It was Judy Erola, when she was minister, who proposed the idea that we had to get rid of family allowances and destroy their universality. She got into a whole lot of trouble when she made the famous, or infamous, statement: "What contribution do women make who stay at home and look after children?". That was the day that she started going downhill.
This refocusing did not start with Bill C-80 and the Tories. It started over here with the Liberal Party. Therefore, when Liberal members stand up and parade themselves as the greatest defenders of universal family allowances they ought to hang their heads in shame.


Ron J. Duhamel: The polls must be really bad.


John R. Rodriguez: No, I am just trying to set the record straight. We have to put it right there so that Canadians remember Judy Erola, who was a Liberal minister.


Ron J. Duhamel: Tell me about the polls.


John R. Rodriguez: The same Judy Erola, and we are going to hear a lot about patent protection, is the same one who is now the lobbyist for the pharmaceutical association. We have to keep these things in focus.
If we all accept the principle that all the children of Canada belong to all of us and that we all have to contribute it is not enough to go around saying that our children are our greatest resource and that our children are our future. We use children on the back of our loonies. The Prime Minister uses children for photo ops. Children wave their little flags and sing about how much they love Canada. We use children all the time. Yet when we look at what we are doing to them and their parents in this bill and in certain other actions of the government we realize that it is all phoney, that the government really does not like children. The Toiy government is anti-child. I want to say that and I want to put that on the record.
How else to describe a bill with the purpose of taking total amounts of money for family allowances and refocusing them so that the neediest get the most, when in fact the neediest do not get more? The neediest are those whose parents do not have work and are on social assistance. We call it welfare.
In this day and age there are all the cutbacks that this federal government has embarked upon, restructuring the economy, the recession that was brought on by this government, and all of the unemployment that has ensued, and the cutbacks in the unemployment insurance program that have forced people onto welfare. We hear the municipalities constantly complaining about the fact that they have to pick up the welfare costs now that all the people who have run out of UI are spinning onto it.
We have seen all of the job losses resulting from the free trade deal with the United States. The neediest of the neediest get not one penny more from this package, not one penny more.
However, those in the $125,000 a year bracket get more. Think about it. As a socialist I have often talked about class politics. It is my bread and butter to talk about working class people rather than the wealthy classes. I have always been told: "Oh, Rodriguez, you are always using the rhetoric of the 1930s. You are always going back to class politics".
Well if ever there is a bill that reinforces class politics it is Bill C-80. It puts parents and Canadians into classes. Those who are unemployed and are on welfare are the poorest of the poor and they get nothing more than they got before.
The working poor get $42 a month more per child. Those up in the next bracket, $40,000 to $60,000, get a little more. Those in the $120,000 a year bracket get more.
That is clearly dividing the community into classes. The government exploits class politics. The Tories are exploiters of classes and they trade off the rich against the poor.
This is the government that started deindexing. TMk about really stamping people down into the mud. It has kept the indexing of the family allowances at 3 per cent. Only if the inflation rate is above 3 per cent will the government reflect it in an indexation on the family allowances. If inflation is under 3 per cent there is no indexation. If it is 2.5 per cent it means that the amount

that the poorest of the poor are receiving is eroded even further.
The government has totally reneged on what it had promised with respect to, for example, a child care program. What happened to the child care program of the former health minister, now the Minister of Communications? Where is it today? If Tories really cared about children that is where they would put money. We do not have adequate child care in this country.
We hear all the pious statements across the way about how they are opposed, about how Tories do not like child abuse. Where is the adequate child care program? Where was the program that was promised?
Parliament had a committee. It studied the proposals and it's report is up on a shelf somewhere. This is a government that has no commitment to full employment. If we really want to show respect for children and for people we have to guarantee them a job, not use them as fodder in the war against inflation, stagflation, deflation, rheumatism, in-grown toe-nails and ptomaine poisoning.
If we have a commitment to full employment then we recognize that a person has dignity when they work. They do not really want to get welfare cheques. They want a job. They want a paycheque, not a welfare cheque.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to address the issue, especially after my hon. colleague has waxed so rhetorically and so eloquently from a partisan point of view on an issue that is very serious.
I say it is serious because he did begin on a rational level. That rational level would talk about the basic philosophy that underlies the directions of both this government and governments past.
Speaking of governments past, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and those who are following this debate in the House will grant me the indulgence of falling into a partisan discussion for a moment because the hon. member who just preceded me has raised a question which must be addressed in order that we put this debate in its proper perspective.
Government Orders
From a Liberal point of view, when we were in government we initiated a series of legislative initiatives for which the member for Nickel Belt takes great pride. As a Canadian and as a member of this legislative body, the House of Commons, he should take great pride in those initiatives which we collectively as a government and as a people put forward.
They have served as a role model everywhere throughout the world and have been duplicated in many other jurisdictions. When he suggests that the government is engaging in some nefarious deed that follows fast upon the heels of a government that collapsed some 10 years ago then he is asking us to stretch our imagination just a little bit too far.
Most important, he does great injustice to the essence of this debate, which my colleagues from this side of the House, from the Liberal Party, have pinpointed with particular attention to the details both in the amendments and in the bill itself.
Those amendments, the essence of those details, address the directions of a government whose philosophy has gone sorely adrift. We have seen over the course of this last session a cap placed on CAP. The consequences of that are now seen in this legislation.
What has happened is that the government essentially said: "We will not assume the responsibility that we had accepted for the health and welfare of all Canadians everywhere in this country", initially under the guise of saying that those residents in provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, those three provinces that do quite well on their own, do not need the financial assistance that a federal government provides as part of its obligation to its citizens.
Nothing could be so silly. The Government of Canada does not subsidize the provinces. What it does is transfer back into the hands of its citizens the wealth which is generated by them and which is there for their benefit.
We have seen as well that the government, in order to facilitate the projects determined by deficit cutting and cost cutting, has attacked those most vulnerable, the seniors. We have seen over the course of these last several sessions the government slowly eating away, gnawing away, eroding the basis of support upon which seniors have come to rely, at a time when they are least

Government Orders
productive from an economic point of view, at a time when they would be most dependent upon the state which they had helped to found, to develop, and to enrich, a state and a government from which they are owed at least some dignity, some respect and in the final analysis a modicum of financial support.
In the city of Toronto from where I come, a senior citizen is asked to make do on some very bare minimum monthly payments. To add insult to injury, we say that in spite of the fact that this government has been unable to put forth an economic program that would take advantage of the great resources this country offers. We are going to show that we respect our seniors and we are going to raise their monthly amount by 33 cents. It is not even enough to cover the cost of a postage stamp to send a complaint to their local member of Parliament.
This kind of legislation in Bill C-80 hides the fact that the government is very restrictive, small "c" conservative and, if I could lapse again into partisanship, almost reactionary. Were I in another country, I might say that this is right wing republicanism. I am not and I will avoid saying that.
What we have is the initiation of a philosophy that says we no longer need to support those basic social pillars that identified us as a progressive society. Do it under the guise that we are going to make the system more efficient. Listen to us, we are going to pump over the course of the next five years-my colleagues look in askance, "five years?"-$2.1 billion. This is after pillaging those systems of $3.5 billion. The phrase "smoke and mirrors" comes to mind to those who follow what the government is doing.
There is no question that the government does not want a socially progressive set of legislation or pillars for our society. It is a dog eat dog world. The marketplace must reign supreme. It must have its dictates imposed upon the way that people behave, the way that people act out their lives in this country.
There is much to be said for the workings of the marketplace. Where are those kinds of principles, I say to my colleagues opposite, applicable to everybody in our
society and not just to those who are weakest from a financial point of view?
I pointed out to the minister responsible for the privatization of Petro-Canada some months ago that the Canadian government, so eager to cut the deficit and reduce the debt, to show fiscal responsibility, to help those who are in need, was more than quick to contribute to oil companies, some of them not even based in Canada. These were not tax grants but outright cash grants totalling $832 million between 1989 and 1990. Then the government has the courage to come before this House and say with the rationalization of its social programs it is going to pump in another $400-odd million dollars per year over the course of the next five years. Give us a break, as they say on the street. We cannot possibly all be that gullible or that stupid.
This is the same government that says it is making a progressive step forward when it gets out of the unemployment insurance scheme. It used to be a three-party program of government, employer and employee.
To get right out of that and to put the onus on the employer and the employee at a time of recession when neither the employer nor the employee could afford to make that contribution hurts those people who need it most.
We must keep in mind that much of what is being applied today is going to have a negative impact on those children who will be the men and women of tomorrow who will guide this country. I refer government members to the statistics they throw back at us, that if we do not pay today we will jpay tomorrow through education costs and through other social costs.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
September 15, 1992

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, at this time when we are renewing our country's Constitution and focusing on Canada's promising future, it is comforting and instructive to also remember our rich past.
In Georgetown, one of the communities I am proud to represent in Parliament, that past includes strong Scottish heritage. Perhaps most symbolic of that is the Georgetown Girls' Pipe Band which this year is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
This band has performed with distinction across Ontario, Quebec, in the United States, and even in Scotland. The anniversary will be marked by a Scottish tattoo which I am sure will be impressive and majestic and to which I invite all members of this House.
My sincere congratulations to every one associated with this outstanding band and my thanks to all those in Georgetown and across the country who keep the flame of our heritage alive.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women said that it could not support this constitutional deal.
In the same breath it claimed to be speaking on behalf of the women of Canada. It does not speak for me.

The Charlottetown agreement is not perfect, but for the women of Quebec, it is a step in the right direction. We must defend our rights by ensuring that Quebecers say yes to Canada and yes to protecting women's rights that are guaranteed in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We must say yes- because economic instability affects women particularly. We must say yes. Otherwise women will be among the first victims of economic and social problems. No, Mr. Speaker, Judy Rebick does not speak for me. I have my own voice and I will say "yes" on October 26.


HMCS PROTECTEUR
Mr. Don Blenkam (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Government of Canada for sending our ship Protecteur, together with engineers, Canadian Forces personnel, machinery, supplies and equipment, to Miami to assist the population of south Florida in getting life back together again.
I am sure it is not the intention to help the United States financially, but the Americans certainly need our competent, well organized and trained people to rebuild schools and public institutions so they can be working again.
I believe this is the kind of assistance that one neighbour ought to give to another.


JOB RETRAINING
Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, due to this government's lack of foresight and lack of commitment to training, many Islanders are being forced to stay home and collect unemployment benefits rather than spend the time upgrading their skills through the fee payer program.

September 15, 1992
The budgets have run diy for the fee payer program and those who are victims of this government's economic policies are now falling prey to this government's lack of commitment to retraining.
This government has cut $200 million over the past two years from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program. With unemployment at 11.6 per cent across this nation and 18.6 per cent in Prince Edward Island this is absolutely unforgivable.
I call on the federal government to take action to ensure that unemployed Islanders are given access to retraining.
It is better to have an unemployed individual in a classroom upgrading his or her skills than sitting at home waiting for a job offer that may be a long time coming.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, Simon Israel, former head of mergers and acquisitions in ScotiaMcLeod's New York office, was fired mainly because he objected to anti-Semitic remarks from a senior officer who commented: "There's one that Hitler missed".
This comment was made in reference to a Jewish colleague who also was fired. Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that ScotiaMcLeod admits the Hitler comment was made and later repeated several times by ScotiaMcLeod's New York president.
We have to be constantly on guard to ensure that when racism rears its ugly head we promptly repudiate it. In our society racism starts in anodyne and anecdotal ways, then becomes part of a culture that spreads like fire.
Knowing the senior officials of Scotiabank, the parent company of ScotiaMcleod, I am convinced they do not countenance racist remarks. It is incumbent upon them to dissociate themselves from these statements and to deal effectively with the executive or executives responsible for these injurious words.


ATLANTIC EXPRESSWAY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to press on with negotiations
with the Governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to fund the Atlantic expressway. This proposed highway system, combined of course with the fixed link to P.E.I., is essential if any real improvement is to be made in the economies of Atlantic Canada.
Reduced rail services have had a negative impact on transportation while industry demands immediate and economic delivery of goods and services. The benefits of our location adjacent to the major markets of the northeastern United States can only be realized with an up-to-date highway system.
I urge that all parties re-energize their negotiations in the interest of completing this project which is in the interest of all Canadians.


CHARLOTTETOWN CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, on October 26 all Canadians will be asked to take a stand on the Charlottetown consensus report. It will be an important vote in our nation's history.
The August 28 constitutional agreement is not perfect but it is the best that this government could give us. I have some reservations about the weakness of provisions on economic union and the Senate. Obviously, we have an equal Senate at the expense of an effective one. Nevertheless, we think that these deficiencies can eventually be corrected.

As a member of Parliament from the only officially bilingual province in Canada, I am pleased that this new deal will at last recognize and enshrine in the Constitution the equal status of New Brunswick's two official linguistic communities.
I anticipate working together with all political parties, interested groups and individual citizens of Restigouche-Chaleur in support of this agreement despite its shortcomings.
Furthermore, I urge the citizens of my riding to
examine this document and, most important, to vote and
voice their opinion on October 26.


TAX SYSTEM
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for months the Germain family of Val-d'Or, Louis and Clemence, have been trying everything to find solutions for their seven children who are all under 10 years old. They have something against Canada's tax system: they think that the Canadian government should consider the number of dependants, namely the wife and children, and the husband's salary, regardless of the income earned from all other sources.
That is a typical example of a large family in Canada that is penalized by the Canadian tax system.


THE CONSTITUTION
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have received more than 50 calls in my constituency office in Winnipeg asking for information on the constitutional proposals and the referendum. People want a copy of the consensus report. They also want a brief description in an unbiased kind of way, possibly preferably by a third party, of what these proposals are all about.
The government spends millions of dollars on advertising and trying to make itself feel better than it deserves. Surely it can address this issue which is an urgent one right now.

The citizens of Canada want to make an enlightened decision on October 26, so they need information.

I call upon the government to make this information available now.

Can we make sure that our fellow Canadians have the information they need to make a good decision on October 26 and vote yes?


HMCS PROTECTEUR
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South, in bringing to the attention of the House the mission of the HMCS Protecteur which is down in Florida right now helping with the reconstruction efforts after Hurricane Andrew.
The Protecteur departed from Halifax as we all know on September 10 carrying building supplies, tools and vehicles for use in rebuilding two heavily damaged schools in Dade county. The vessel docked yesterday and our crew has already begun working on the sites. The over 300 crew and specialists on the ship will be assisted by Canadian Air Force engineers who had arrived over the past weekend.
Around the world, through humanitarian actions like this and the efforts such as the UN peacekeeping forces, Canada is noted for its willingness to assist people and countries in need.
I think Canadians should recognize the blessings that such catastrophes are very rare in our country. I extend my appreciation to the involved Canadian Forces personnel and their Commander Douglas MacLean.
I am sure that British Columbians in Esquimau and Victoria will provide the Protecteur a warm welcome once it returns to its west coast base after this mission.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we heard the minister of trade repeatedly state that his arguments in favour of NAFTA were based on fact. At the same time he repeatedly denigrated the opposition for spreading misinformation. And yesterday was no different.
On a point of order just after Question Period the trade minister stated he wanted to clarify an error in his trade ads which the member for Windsor-St. Clair, that is myself, had clearly shown to be incorrect. However, this trade minister chose to further misstate the facts. He compared unadjusted March employment to unadjusted June employment.

S. o. 31
Had opposition members done that, he would surely have jumped all over us for misusing statistics. Unadjusted stats are used in year-over-year comparisons or by statistical incompetents. The facts he should have used to compare the months within the same year are those that had been seasonally adjusted to remove distortions. Seasonally adjusted manufacturing jobs in July 1992 totalled 1.8 million while in March 1992 they totalled
1,760,000,	a difference of only 43,000 jobs.
In fact the NAFTA propaganda distorted the facts, and that is what we pointed out here yesterday.


REFORM PARTY
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the Reform Party is against the Charlottetown accord because it is not perfect. The Reform Party wants to ignore our constitutional problems, thinking they will go away.
How can a five-year moratorium solve an issue? Will aboriginal peoples have to wait five years for justice? Will Canadians be stuck with the same tired old unelected Senate for five years and maybe forever? Will Canada's international economic reputation be damaged by the uncertainty of our country's future?
Most Canadians have enough common sense not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I fear Preston Manning has contempt, utter contempt, for common sense.


CHARLOTTETOWN CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Prime Minister presented a proposed constitutional agreement. He said that it was the most important reform since Confederation in 1867 and that the negotiations had been an unprecedented success. Personally, like many others in Quebec and even in Canada, I have always maintained that it was not an agreement but rather a draft or a preliminary version.
Again today we see in La Presse that the Prime Minister of Canada and Mr. Bourassa are continuing to write to each other because they do not have a common understanding. That proves this is a draft and it is scandalous to ask Canadians to vote on a proposal that is only a draft. It is outrageous to spend $125 million for the pleasure of satisfying political parties.


THE LATE BRUCE HUTCHISON
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, a towering giant in the field of journalism has died. Bruce Hutchison, one of Canada's leading authorities on political and economic affairs, died yesterday at his Victoria area home where he had lived since the 1920s. He was 91. He was editor emeritus of The Vancouver Sun where he wrote a weekly column until illness struck him just a few weeks ago.
Mr. Hutchison was truly a national treasure. Besides being a working journalist for 74 years, he wrote 15 books which helped define and shape the Canadian identity.
Although known for his shrewd insight and gifted writing skills, his first love was that of the outdoors which, he said, was the source of his wisdom. He worked at a time when it was fashionable for pre-eminent commentators to hob-nob with prime ministers, and he met all of them going back more than 70 years. That era is now over.
Bruce Hutchison was honoured by Canada several times including an appointment to the federal Privy Council this past July. He was indeed a great Canadian.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CHARLOTTETOWN CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that I am satisfied with the Charlottetown proposals that will serve to renew Canada's Constitution after October 26.
These proposals respect Quebecers' historic demands and enable us to close an issue which, due to its importance, had a first claim on our energies and
September 15, 1992

resources. We will now be able to devote these to the social and economic development of Quebec and Canada.
The people of Quebec-Est have been patient. They have waited for years for a solution to this acute problem which threatened to demolish the most beautiful and best country in the world. Now that we have found solutions, I will ask my constituents to ratify them so that we can work more on giving them a better quality of life and on preparing with them the future for the generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I have rarely been as proud to be a Canadian and a Quebecer, thanks to this agreement.

[English)


STATISTICS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the government's manipulation of Statistics Canada data seems to be spreading like a virus.
The symptoms were visible in 1990 when Statistics Canada cancelled plans to produce a net price index which would have shown how much the GST contributed to inflation.
Last year the government muzzled a study on the debt which showed that the main reason for the increase in Canada's public debt was corporate tax cuts and high interest rates, not social spending.
In August, when the Minister of Agriculture addressed a rally in the Melfort area, he added exports and imports together to show a massive increase in trade even though the true figures almost balanced out. This genius at manipulating the analysis is mind-boggling.
Yesterday the Minister for International Trade tried again. He altered the trade data, even though the member for Windsor-St. Clair had the actual tables from StatsCan right in front of him and the minister was wrong.
We have seen the government tiy to rewrite history. Now it is trying to rewrite the statistical facts and the very essence of the truth for this place.
Oral Questions


CHARLOTTETOWN CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
Mr, Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend, the Union culturelle des Franco-Ontariennes or UCFO held a major convention. I am pleased to inform you and all members of this House that the organization has dissociated itself from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. UCFO has said yes to the Charlottetown constitutional accord. Franco-Ontarian women realize that their rights will be better protected in a united and prosperous Canada, and I want to congratulate them for saying so.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['The hon. member has asked if we can assume that the document the hon. minister referred to a few minutes ago contains all of the impact studies.\nAll the minister is required to do under the rules at the moment is to table that document from which he quoted and of course he said that he would do so. At this point I do not think I can inquire further.']
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade refused to dissociate himself from an established policy which consists of keeping lists of all so-called enemies of the state who are fighting the free trade agreement.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he also agrees with this policy of keeping lists of enemies of the state or whether he agrees with the opposition parties who see this as a shameful strategy on the part of the government.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in the old days we used to keep information in various files, clippings of newspapers, speeches from opposition members and so on, but more recently we have come on a new gadget. It is called a computer. We use a computer to store this information as opposed to filling up filing cabinets row on row on row.
That is the basis on which the comment was made that she is referring to in the taped message or taped conversation.

Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
On whose authority were those Conservatives authorized to spend millions of dollars of public money getting their message across and millions of dollars of public money on an issue that has not even been debated in Parliament?
There has never been a debate on the NAFTA. There has never been a vote on the NAFTA in Parliament. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister's office in fact authorized and approved this strategy or whether it was simply the Minister for International Trade running off on his own.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right. We have gone to some lengths at getting out the information on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
We have sent copies of this to all members of Parliament, to the premiers and to ministers of trade and industry in the provinces. Indeed we have sent copies of this to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and I am sure she has had an opportunity to review that. We have sent this to key associations, a number of chief executive officers, academics, trade and business associations, the media, foreign press, foreign embassies in Canada, as well as a large number of other people.
It is the desire of this government to meet the request that Canadians have put to us, which is: "When you do something, make sure that we understand what it is and we get the information on it so we can draw our own conclusions, make judgments and get views back to the government based on that''.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question of the Deputy Prime Minister because I thought he would avail himself of the chance to dissociate himself from the policies of his colleague. Since he is choosing not to do so, I will direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board.

I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he authorized the expenditure of public funds
for the purpose of compiling lists of persons who endorse policies that are contrary to the policies of the government. Does he agree that spending money this way on the very day his government is cutting family allowances is a serious matter? Can he justify such expenditures?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the spokesperson for the opposition is dangerously close to twisting the truth.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a budget for promoting its policies, and it is entirely normal it should do so. The hon. member should be flattered that the department bothers to tape what other people say, in order to comment and respond accordingly-


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the government is spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on an advertising campaign which is intended "to explain how Canada stands to be a big beneficiary of free trade with Mexico". Is this broad assertion substantiated by studies of the impact on industrial sectors and workers?
The minister says that he wants to provide information about NAFTA. Will he now table all such impact studies to lend some substance to what otherwise will be seen as an expensive piece of self-puffery?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me put this into context.
There were two pieces of what might be called advertising material. One was the tabloid which my friend from Hamilton is holding up. I know she has appreciated reading it because it has provided her with information which I hope she will use. The other is a radio advertising program which sets out the impact of the free trade agreement on Canada.
My hon. friend is well aware that our exports to the United States in the early part of this year were at record levels. Our trade surplus with the United States was up at annual rates around $19 billion in the first part of the year compared to $14 billion in 1988. Clearly there has been a positive impact of the free trade agreement on the Canadian economy.
September 15, 1992

Oral Questions


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to the newspaper insert and to media presentations of NAFTA.
He will know perfectly well that there is nothing in that document or on radio and television that analyses NAFTA. There is nothing in that document that says what is contained in NAFTA. He knows that. It is merely a piece of propaganda puffery.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Roy MacLaren: I take it from the minister's answer, which did not answer my question at all, that he will not table the impact studies which must exist on NAFTA on the Canadian economy.
He has promised to release an environmental study by the end of this month. How could he have prepared an environmental study without doing sectoral impact studies? He knows that. How can he hope to design even at this late date the adjustment assistance programs, which he continues to promise Canadians but does not deliver, if he has not done impact studies?
Will the minister now table the impact studies that must exist on NAFTA?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend received a binder, as did his leader, which sets out the impact of NAFTA on various parts of the economy: agriculture, the auto industry, textiles and apparels, financial services, telecommunications, transportation and services, energy, government procurement, rules of origin, standards, and comments on the impact on the environment, labour, wages and adjustment, the impact of NAFTA on cultural industries, health care and so on. I am sure my hon. friend has poured through all this material and finds it very useful. It explains a very important policy as it affects the Canadian economy.
I would be quite happy to table this, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues wish it. The Leader of the Opposition, his Liberal trade critic, the leader of the New Democratic Party and her trade critic have already received it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about what they believe is a manipulative propaganda campaign of disinformation being put out over the NAFTA agreement. It started with the tabloid that was sent out by the Minister for International Trade. My question first goes to him.
In the tabloid, it says clearly that "manufacturing employment has increased between March and July by 113,000". Statistics Canada clearly points out that it increased by 43,000. Which of these two sets of statistics should Canadians believe, Statistics Canada or those put out by the minister in his propaganda pamphlet?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend may not have been in the House yesterday when I corrected the answer that I gave to his colleague from Windsor. I said that there was an error in the tabloid and I appreciate my friend from Windsor pointing it out.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What happened was the seasonally unadjusted figures for March were compared with the seasonally adjusted figures. That is where the error came about. If the unadjusted employment figures are compared, the increase in jobs is 181,000, so I do not believe we are giving an incorrect picture to the Canadian public when it is looked at from that perspective.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has forgotten to add is that during that same interval 27,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared, which he has not included in his readjusted figures.
Let me go on. I can choose from a number of pages in this tabloid. I refer to the comment on page 2 that says: "Since the NAFTA, no country has been able to take a larger share of the United States market for manufacturing goods than Canada". That is patently untrue. A review of United States government statistics between 1988 and 1991 shows that the growth of Canada's share of manufactured goods was 10 per cent, South Africa's, during that same period, grew by 11 per cent; Mexico's by 33 per cent and Australia's by 45 per cent. None of these countries had a trade deal with the United States.
When the Minister for International Hade says that Canada has the largest share of the United States market as a result of the free trade deal, would he agree that that too is inaccurate?

September 15, 1992
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would like to give the specific points he wants the background information on, I would be very happy to get them for him.
The facts are that Canada has increased its share of the import market of the United States. There is a very good reason for that. We have seen the U.S. tariffs against Canadian products go down while tariffs against other countries' products have stayed the same. Our exporters have taken advantage of this and it is why we have seen the significant increase in our export performance, as well as in the balance of trade with the United States.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my last question for the minister is something I think will concern all Canadians. We are all concerned about the use of taxpayers' money to sell the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.
I want to remind the minister that selling the free trade deal with the United States cost federal taxpayers $31 million and the corporations spent $25 million for a total of $56 million.
We know that this is going to be significantly harder sell for the government because Canadians now know who really benefited from the Canada-U.S. trade agreement: multinational corporations, yes; Canadians, no.
My question for the Minister for International Trade is this. Having spent a combined total of $56 million to sell this Canada-U.S. trade deal, how much does the government plan to spend of taxpayers' money and that of their corporate allies in its sales job to sell NAFTA?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated just a few minutes ago that the only plans we have are the tabloid and radio advertising and that amounts to $3.1 million.
It surprises me that my colleague does not refer to some other statistics in this tabloid which show that pharmaceutical exports are up 90 per cent, chemical products up 33 per cent, man-made fibres up 133 per cent, clothing up 89 per cent, electrical machinery up 74 per cent, railway equipment up 126 per cent and aerospace products up 77 per cent. Those are the success stories and they are the responsibility of many, many
workers across this country who are working together to produce these results and generate employment back here in Canada.
This government supports them. This government brought in the free trade agreement with the United States to help them do this and they are succeeding.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, this minister just does not get it. This debate is not just about trade, it is about ethics in government.
For eight years the reputation of the government has been tarnished by lack of judgment, failing to separate the interests of Conservatives from the interests of the Canadian public.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister this question. Will he now do the right thing? Will he at least tiy to correct the wrong created by putting an end to this kind of propaganda campaign today?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Canadians have asked us time and time again, through the prosperity initiative consultations where we have been in 186 communities across the country, is to give them the facts on trade. These people hear all the wild statements from the opposition parties and want to know the facts.
This tabloid is the result. The information, drawn from Statistics Canada, shows the successes that Canadians have had because of their open access to the United States market.
The information also shows how individual provinces have done: Alberta, a 30 per cent increase in its exports; Saskatchewan, a 18 per cent increase in its exports. These are the successes that we want Canadians to understand.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we have the facts all right. They are in the transcript that we have in hand.

The transcript we have of conversations between the top brass of the Conservative Party indicates there is almost one hour of conversation. These conversations were not spontaneous. Canadians want to know once and for all who authorized this propaganda campaign. Did the Minister for International Trade, the Deputy Prime
September 15, 1992

Minister or the entire Cabinet do so? Who is the guilty party?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that my department is responsible for the trade negotiations. As minister, I am responsible for getting the information out to Canadians.
I ask my hon. friend, is it wrong to repeat Statistics Canada information and put it in a way that Canadians can understand it? In that way, they can see which industries are doing well because of free trade.
It is exactly the information that Canadians are looking for so they can judge how well we are doing in trade, so they can judge the importance of trade because it is trade that brings incremental jobs to Canada. It is trade which brings about the standard of living that we enjoy in this country and it is trade that we are going to continue to reinforce through policies like the NAFTA, the free trade agreement and other export development efforts. In that way we can help increase the standard of living of Canadians.



Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, the minister asked if it was wrong to spend multi-millions of dollars on these kinds of propaganda campaigns at this time.
What the minister ought to be asking himself is what the effect of this kind of answer is on a public that is already cynical and sceptical about all politicians.
In my riding today 350 fishermen and plant workers, 10 weeks after the announcement of an emergency assistance program, are still trying to have their applications processed. They are not processed because of a shortage of personnel in the office of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has just told me he has 1,500 inquiries a week from people waiting to have their applications processed. They are not processed because of insufficient staff in the Department of Fisheries.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister who just asked this House and asked Canadians "is it wrong" if it is not time to end spending millions of dollars fishing for votes for the PC party and start helping the fishermen and other unemployed Canadians who need the help of this government?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member has picked a very poor example. With respect to the northern cod disaster alone, the moratorium, so far we have looked after 19,223 fishermen and plant workers. This has all been done since July 2. They have been looked after. We now have an appeal process under way so that people who feel they should be on the program but have not been accepted can appeal.


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is $865 million.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister of Finance reminds me that $865 million is the cost of the northern cod moratorium alone. Surely the hon. gentleman should be fair and try to find some real example. I know it is difficult to find one, but try to find some other example than the one he has given.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we on this side applaud any measure by this government that will bring any real assistance to the people of Canada who are badly hurting during this recession.
What we are saying to this government on behalf of the thousands of fishermen who are still awaiting a decision on their applications as the result of a bottleneck in administration in the department of fisheries is that this kind of propaganda campaign at this time, costing millions of dollars, this cynical gesture, does not restore public confidence in the public administration process.
Will the Minister of Finance intervene now? Will he cancel his multi-million dollar propaganda campaign? Will he put the money to work on behalf of unemployed Canadians? Will he, in the process, in the middle of a referendum campaign, restore a measure of confidence in the public policy process of Canada?

Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one of the very positive advantages of the NAFTA agreement is with respect to the Canadian fishing industry because it opens up markets in Mexico to Canadian fish and removes the tariff. Cod is not the only species we produce in Canada.
I might remind the hon. gentleman that there is a species called salmon, particularly in British Columbia, and many others. The Fisheries Council of Canada and the fishery producers in Newfoundland are very strong supporters of the deal negotiated by my hon. friend who had the fishery right on the top of his list when it came to breaking into the Mexican market.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the minister knows by now, Dularie Boodlal has been told by the immigration department to return to Trinidad even though she has supported herself and three children without public assistance for over three years in Canada.
As the minister also knows, Mrs. Boodlal's estranged husband, after 11 convictions in Canada for assault and uttering death threats against her, has returned to Trinidad and immediately, by telephone and letter, resumed his threats to kill her when she arrives there.
Will the minister issue a permit on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and allow Mrs. Boodlal to stay in Canada and apply for landing and support her children, by her word, in peace?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I cannot, because of the Privacy Act, discuss the details of any individual person in Canada subjected to the Immigration Act.
treated the way this woman has been treated. We treated it as such in this country and the justice system has worked.
Two weeks ago I intervened in a similar case in Thunder Bay. Information was brought to my attention which allowed me to intervene. If the hon. member knows of facts that ought to be brought to my attention in this specific case, I urge him to do it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his proposal.
I have the information copied from the Legal Aid Service of Parkdale which they have already sent to the minister.
As well, he has them in his office, including the copy of the letter from Mr. Boodlal threatening to kill her.
The minister also knows, if he has read the file, that the department refused Mrs. Boodlal humanitarian and compassionate landing on the basis of a false accusation supplied in a letter from a Toronto policeman, even though the police department and the immigration department denied sending or receiving that letter. They used that letter as grounds. This is shown in the records of the minister's own department, obtained by the Parkdale Legal Aid Services.
While the minister is investigating this, will he investigate the improper action in his department of this sort, using a false letter, denying that they have not, and ensure that this kind of life-threatening action does not occur again in his department?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know it is easy to bash on bureaucrats, but I think that the bureaucrats and the officials in the department of immigration do a good job with the means they have.
They have a lot of information and they make the decisions they have to make. There is a process in place to review cases, and we do that.
The hon. member refers to a situation that is really If the hon. member wants to lodge a complaint about bad. I have read the same report in the press that he has officials of the department, these are civil servants and and I agree it is criminal that any person would be there is a process to do that. I urge him to do just that.
September 15, 1992


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Minister of Transport stated that the government would take every measure to make sure that we have, and I quote, "a safe, effective and competitive airline industry". My question is this: What measures have been taken by the government to make sure we have a competitive airline industry?


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has been clear both in his responses last week and through the press despite the opposition attempts to muddy the waters. The minister was very clear in his statements regarding deregulation and the benefits of deregulation to the transportation industry in the country.
The figures are there. The transportation agencies have confirmed that deregulation has assisted the industries. The minister and the department have been more than helpful throughout these negotiations in assisting the continuance of competition in the industry in the country.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday in the House the minister said: "There were too many people employed in the airline industry".
The Leader of the Opposition met hundreds of these people in Vancouver on Saturday. These are people who are ready, willing and able to make concession and sacrifices to save their jobs. What is the Government of Canada prepared to do to help them?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to correct any misunderstanding that the member opposite or any members may have taken from statements attributed to the minister.
It is clear that the minister was referring to an acknowledged and accepted over-capacity in the airline industry in Canada. Clearly, the minister and all of us in this House share the member's concern about employees in the industry in Canada and we are all doing our part in trying to maintain that industry.
Oral Questions
I have been meeting again with employees of both airlines. I am encouraged by statements from the presidents of those airlines that, in their merger discussions which are ongoing and which are as yet incomplete, both are doing what they can to ensure a minimum loss of jobs in the Canadian airline industry.


JOB TRAINING
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
With an 11.7 per cent jobless rate in Toronto, the highest since the Great Depression, I would be interested to hear the minister's response to the hundreds of complaints I am receiving about the job training programs.
Not everyone can lose her or his job at the right time in order to coincide with the deadlines for training programs. Hundreds of people in my riding are losing the opportunity of re-entering the job market simply because their UI benefits will run out before the completion of their courses.
Will the minister make job training his first priority by extending the UI benefits where necessary? Also, how will he get over 200,000 Canadians in Toronto working again since he has failed to do this through his job training program?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we will achieve that objective when Canadians fully realize that the matter of training is not an issue that concerns the federal government alone. In the last three years, for the information of the hon. member and his colleagues, we have tripled the amount of money for the training of unemployed Canadians. This year it is over $1,355 billion.
The member asks what more we must do. We must get on with the prosperity initiative and get Canadian corporations to train more of their employees. This message is now sinking in. The private sector has got to play its role in making sure that we have in this country the most skilled work force in the world.


Jesse Philip Flis: A supplemental to the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions
The unemployed constituents who come to my office for help are coming to my office because they feel they have nowhere else to go. My unemployed constituents want to earn a living, not to get welfare, nor to take advantage of other taxpayers. They have not only lost their jobs, they have lost their confidence and will accept any job to regain their dignity.
The Canada Employment counsellors are frustrated and their frequent advice these days is "go see your MP". Is this the government's job creation strategy, "go see your MP"? What exactly is the minister doing to help the over 200,000 jobless find meaningful full employment in metropolitan Toronto?


Bernard Valcourt: The hon. member refers to 200,000 people. What about the 700,000 Canadian men and women from coast to coast who benefit from the adjustment and training program of this department? This is the same member who on the floor of this House, along with his colleagues, delayed the passage of a bill that allows those unemployed Canadians to train. Bill C-21 was objected to and delayed by those members. Those people who did not have the skills are today getting them because of the tripling of the money we spend on training Canadians.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Garth  Dimer@Halton-Peel: My question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
As we heard last week, some people are saying that Canadians can vote no in the October 26 constitutional referendum and the constitution will just go away for five years. Can the minister tell my constituents that they can, in fact, vote no without destructive consequences?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, anyone who says that there would be no negative consequences to voting down this package is engaging in wilful blindness.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Clark: What would happen, for example, with aboriginal Canadians is that there would be a very strong sense of betrayal, whose consequences no one can predict.
What would happen in the province of Quebec almost certainly is that the forces of separation would gain momentum and would gain force.
What would happen with the Senate is that the Senate we have, which no one wants, is the Senate that we would keep.
I have to say, as someone who was there through all of those long negotiations, I do not believe that we could ever again, under any kind of circumstances, get the kind of unanimity on such a broad range of issues as we have achieved in the Charlottetown accord.
So there would be very negative consequences to voting no and very positive consequences to supporting this accord and letting Canada get on with the rest of our life.


SALMON FISHERY
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The B.C. salmon industry is in trouble. American fishermen have deliberately taken 700,000 Fraser River sockeye, twice their entitlement under the Canada-U.S. treaty agreement and 1992 is the low year of the four-year cycle. According to DFO estimates, 1.2 million Fraser sockeye have disappeared after entering the Fraser River spawning system. DFO has been trying to find out what happened to these salmon. Can the minister tell us anything at all about the department's investigations to date?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in British Colombia we have a situation where there is a major change under way in the fishery as the aboriginal people are admitted to take their place in the fishery in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada delivered in 1990.
There are major changes under way in which we are trying to involve the aboriginal people by entering into agreements with them for conservation purposes, the healthy management of fish resources, and several experimental agreements under which certain groups are
September 15, 1992

allowed to sell fish for the first time in many years this year. This results in tensions.
As a result of these tensions, a great deal has been made of a situation with respect to the alleged disappearance of salmon going up the Fraser River from the Mission Bridge to the spawning grounds.
All of the runs of salmon are not completed yet in British Columbia up the Fraser River. We do know that in the early short run some 110,000 less salmon reached the spawning grounds than we thought would make it there.
There may be several reasons for that. It might be poaching. If so, we do not know who the poaching was done by since the poachers were not caught. It may be environmental conditions because of the warmer summer in British Columbia this year.
Or it might be that the electronic equipment used at the Mission Bridge is not accurate enough. It is like a poll; it is plus or minus 20 per cent in its calculations. Next year we intend to have two pieces of equipment there to check. There are all kinds of reasons why it may be that some salmon did not reach the spawning grounds.
The significant thing is this, that this was the best year for sockeye salmon on the Fraser River at this stage of a cycle in 80 years. It was the best year in 80 years and that is the thing that should be noted.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister made an important point. It has been a good year in a 16 year attempt to rebuild the stock, particularly in Stuart Lake, but they have been wiped out. Those fish did not get back there to spawn and there will not be that kind of a return four years from now to Stuart Lake.
We have to know the whole truth before the minister enters into any plans, any deals, any agreements with any resource users.between now and 1993. Our B.C. salmon must not be allowed to go the way of the Atlantic cod.
The B.C. Fisheries Commission, the fishing vessel owners, the B.C. Fishermen Survival Coalition, the Sto Lo Musqueam Tsawwassen Bands are all calling for a federal judicial inquiry to investigate the apparent disappearance of hundreds of thousands of returning 1992 Fraser salmon according to departmental estimates.
Oral Questions
Will the minister agree to a judicial inquiry into the disappearance of these salmon, the policies of the department with reference to all user groups, and the irresponsible lack of patrolling and enforcing his own regulations?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there is a special investigation under way in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in the British Columbia unit with reference to the extent and cause of any sockeye shortage on the Fraser River such as I tried to outline in my previous answer.
That unit, the B.C. region of the department, will be reporting to me after a thorough investigation on what they think occurred this year and what improvements may need to be made. We have already decided on a number of improvements for next year, including new equipment at the Mission Bridge for the counting of salmon that go into the river, the use of helicopters for patrol purposes, increased enforcement, new regulations with reference to the use of sales slips. I could go on and on.
If I do not get a satisfactory explanation from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with reference to what happened this year, I am quite willing to consider having an independent inquiry into the situation. Nothing sinister has happened. It is regrettable that some fish did disappear this way. Our B.C. salmon stocks are not in danger. Forty-five thousand salmon reached the spawning grounds in the early short run, which is the second highest number ever to reach the spawning grounds there. We had been hoping it would reach the record again this year, but it did not. It is still the second highest ever. So B.C. salmon stocks are not in danger whatsoever.


NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs.
On June 30, Judge Pierre A. Michaud of the Quebec Superior Court handed down a judgment in the Libman case after consulting with about 50 experts. In his

September 15, 1992
Oral Questions
judgment, he said it was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow unlimited spending during a referendum.
My question for the minister is this: Considering that he has always claimed he respected the Canadian and Quebec legal systems, and defended the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is the minister prepared to add the necessary amendments to bring the Referendum Act into line with Judge Michaud's judgment and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Yes or no?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the decision of the Quebec court was that the Quebec law was not in violation of the Charter of Rights. The decision was not that the Charter of Rights made the federal legislation invalid.
I understand that the court decision is under appeal. In any event, that is a court decision respecting Quebec law. It has nothing to do with the federal legislation which is in place which we believe to be fair, proper and certainly consistent with the Charter of Rights.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not seem very concerned about respecting the Canadian and Quebec legal systems and appears to prefer to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Will the minister nevertheless respect Quebec's referendum legislation and, together with his colleagues, refrain from any kind of advertising during the Quebec referendum and immediately order the cancellation of extensions to three advertising campaigns costing a total of nearly $20 million, campaigns that have been discussed repeatedly during the past few days in the Quebec media? Will the minister do so, yes or no?


Harvie Andre: Given the hon. member's political affiliations, his love of the Charter of Rights is truly touching. Presumably, not wanting to lose the protections of that, he will be voting yes on the referendum.
The reality is that the referendum in Quebec will be held under Quebec law because it is a provincial referendum. The referendum in the other provinces of Canada will be held under the law which this Parliament has passed. The law is just, fair and proper.
At the end of the day I think he should have confidence in the people of Canada, including the people of Quebec, to make the right decision in spite of whatever he or any other politicians might say.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the government made an agreement back in 1990 with Seafreez providing for the operation of the fish plant at Burgeo and assigning specific groundfish quotas for that purpose.
As the minister noted, the company now says it plans to breach that 1990 agreement by processing the Burgeo quota at other plants.
I want to ask the minister what he plans to do to see to it that Seafreez keeps its end of the bargain and failing that, would he agree to undertake to see to it that local interests are enabled to take over the operation of the fish plant at Burgeo and be assigned the appropriate quotas to do so?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as usual there are quite a number of complicated facts with respect to this situation. The Seafreez plant at Burgeo was closed in April. The reasons given then were the absence of a labour contract, labour productivity problems, and plant infrastructure problems.
Several years ago, as a result of the efforts of my predecessor as the minister of fisheries, the Seafreez company was able to take over the operation of the plant at Canso, Nova Scotia and a plant at Burgeo, Newfoundland from National Sea Products with considerable assistance from the government and the allocation of quite a considerable amount of various species of fish.
There was an arrangement that 50 per cent of the fish
to be transferred from National Sea was to be processed
at Burgeo, 50 per cent at Canso and 60 per cent at Canso

of certain other underutilized species and 40 per cent at Burgeo. That still remains the case.
The Government of Nova Scotia entered into an agreement to help Seafreez, particularly in relation to Canso. The Government of Newfoundland did not enter into any agreement to help the company with reference to operations at Burgeo, but my predecessor and I made sure that these provisions were inserted to assist the people of Burgeo.
I intend to see that these provisions are carried out, or we will have an accounting from the Seafreez company. I am by no means satisfied with the statement it recently made. It is not in accordance with the agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: I am wondering if the hon. member could perhaps put a very short supplemental. Then I am turning for a single question to the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that the Ramea fish plant is also closed as is Burgeo.
He will know that the landings are absolutely dismal in 3Ps, 3Pn and 4R. People are suffering. The economic fallout, the closed fish plants, the job losses are every bit as bad on the south coast as they are on the northeast coast where he declared a moratorium.
Why is he discriminating? Why will he not extend that compensation package to those people in those communities who are hurting on the south coast, the southwest coast and the west coast of Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the fish stocks in places like 3Ps and others, and it is true that most of the fish stocks in Atlantic Canada, certainly the cod stocks, are not in good shape. The TACs recommended for next year are even lower than most of those in effect for this year. The situation is not good with reference to any of these stocks.
The difference between these stocks and the northern cod stock is that the very survival of the northern cod species was threatened, according to our scientists and to all the evidence we have seen, because of the fact that there are only two year classes of any great size, the 1986 and 1987 year classes, which if we allowed them to be
Oral Questions
caught before they spawn would mean the end of the species.
We had to close that fishery. The other stocks are not in as bad shape as that and we cannot take the same kind of measures. We cannot close the fisheries if it is not recommended that they had to be closed to save the species. That is the position I am in.
I agree that there are fishermen who need assistance in the areas my hon. friend mentions and I hope that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and I will be able to assist them later in the year as well.


THE BAHAMAS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I think everybody in the House applauds the government's job in assisting Americans with the hurricane damage in Florida. I was wondering what assistance and efforts the government made to assist the Government of the Bahamas in rebuilding villages like the village of Current on the Island of Eleuthera that was totally wiped out by the hurricane with its fishing dock and its school washed out to sea and every house levelled.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, clearly Canada has responded to the difficult situation in the Bahamas as it does in other places around the world under similar or difficult circumstances.
Fortunately within the Bahamas the damage was very localized and the main damage was not in the major population centres. Consequently the international appeals were smaller than one might have expected.
Canada has contributed $25,000 as part of a $400,000 relief effort by the Red Cross. We have also offered through a private Bahamian relief organization to assist with some building supplies and we have on standby further relief ready to go.
The organization was not quite in place at the receiving end, but we are quite prepared to help our Commonwealth colleague in the Caribbean in any way that we can.

Government Orders POINT OF ORDER


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked the Minister for International Trade to table all impact studies that the government has made on the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The minister undertook to table a document today. May we assume that document represents all the impact studies that the government has made of the North American free trade agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked if we can assume that the document the hon. minister referred to a few minutes ago contains all of the impact studies.
All the minister is required to do under the rules at the moment is to table that document from which he quoted and of course he said that he would do so. At this point I do not think I can inquire further.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-80, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, to enact the Children's Special Allowances Act, to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof and to repeal the Family Allowances Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We shall proceed with consideration of the last group of motions tabled at the report stage of Bill C-80. In accordance with the Chair's decision, Motion No. 36 and Motion No. 38 will be grouped for the purpose of debate.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) moved:: Motion No. 36.
That Bill C-80 be amended by deleting Clause 15.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: Motion No. 38.
That Bill C-80 be amended in Clause 15 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 21 the following:
"(3.4) A taxpayer may request in writing that the Minister determine the amount of the child tax benefit referred to in subdivision a. 1 in case of a decrease in the taxpayer's earned income.
(3.5) Within three months of receiving the request referred to in subsection (3.4), the Minister shall determine the amount of the child tax benefit and pay the adjusted amount to the taxpayer."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue the efforts on behalf of the Liberal caucus to improve this piece of legislation or if not, to defeat it.
In this particular Motion No. 38 we would like to address the question of changing circumstances for Canadian families. However, before I go on to that, I think I would be remiss if I did not speak to the issue of the time allocation vote we had this morning. This marks an anniversary of sorts. This marks the 50th time that this government across from us has used either closure or time allocation to cut off debate. I must say with some sadness that it is one of the first times it has used it against children of this country and in the debate on one of the most important issues in social policy.
We have tried several times in the last few years in House of Commons subcommittees and in different forums across the country to bring to the public's attention the questions and issues surrounding child poverty. The fact that the government moves in quickly with time allocation within 24 hours of the beginning of the debate, when this House sets upon to debate it, is the very real sign and indicator of its commitment to children's poverty.
The fact that the government has all its rhetoric for helping out families, but when push comes to shove it does not have the time to talk about it, is something that I hope every Canadian voter will remember in the coming year.
In this legislation there is an anomaly which I think should be addressed by the House before this legislation passes. If the government fails to address it then the legislation should be defeated on this point alone.
When the government set up this piece of legislation it made the decision to base the benefits received by each family on an income year-December 31 of a particular year-then not make adjustments to that until the following July 1 or 18 months later. This means that the

government has set up a bureaucratic process which has absolutely no ability to adjust to people's changing circumstances. If I can use my time in the House this way, then I would like to point out a few situations in which it could be disastrous for families.
Here is an example. Say that somebody is working in Calgary in the oil and gas industry. It would not be unusual for a professional to be making over $66,000 a year. Let us say that one professional in the family was working and making $66,000 a year with three children. Under the current system this family would not be receiving any benefits under the program. However, if on January 2 of that year the income earner was laid off, they would be immediately into UI which is a drop in income from $66,000 to $22,000. The UI would continue for one year at which point the family would have to turn to other methods of supporting themselves. There is, for example, social assistance.
Look at that evolution. A family in the lower-income levels would be receiving, for the three children, at least $270 a month plus some other benefits. Let us just round it out and say the family would be receiving $300. The family, under the way the government has set up this system, would not have access to that money for a full 18 months after their change in circumstances. For a family of five, $300 a month could represent, in very modest circumstances, a substantial portion of a food bill. However, instead of being able to respond and to be able to assist these families, the government is sitting back and leaving it up to the provinces or the municipalities to look after it.
One should stop and think about it. Look at the growth of food banks, for example, and the growth and need for nutrition programs in the schools across this country. One begins to realize that the fact that it has set in motion another piece of legislation which is inflexible and not responsive means that once again families in distress, going through absolutely wrenching experiences in trying to maintain income levels at a very difficult time, do not have access to the support which is being advertised across the country as a brave new way of assisting families. The very time one needs assistance, one cannot get access to it.
Government Orders
coal mining industry in British Columbia. Those are very cyclical industries. When things are going well, families with both adults working in a community can very easily make in excess of $65,000 a year together. On the other hand, circumstances can change. Take for example what has happened in Elliot Lake. It is not only one person in the family who loses income, but it is probably both people in the family who very quickly lose their income. Again, there are circumstances where people are tied into a community. They would probably like to have the opportunity to stay but the support system which could be available to them through simple amendments to the legislation is not available to them.
We are proposing that when a family gets into difficulty, then it is able to appeal to the Government of Canada for the benefits levels to be changed after three months. We think this is a straightforward and administratively simple way of adjusting the issue of declining incomes whereby families are put under undue stress. It could be tied in to, for example, the record keeping related to the unemployment insurance system. It could parallel appeal boards in other parts of the government. Take, for example, the pension appeals board where people write to the government and appeal to the government based on their changing circumstances. There are a number of situations that could be addressed if the government would show the initiative and respond to this amendment and show some understanding of the duress that families are in.
From time to time one is struck in the House by the way that other people tell the story of poverty and what it means. Tonight the CBC television network will show a program called Voices from the Shadows. It is the voices of people in poverty talking about their lives and their difficulties.
The face of poverty has changed in this country pretty dramatically. People who a few years ago could not imagine themselves being poor, now find themselves poor. As we stand in the House and listen to each other's debates, we have to remember that we are not talking about a marginal group any more. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of families.
Take another example of a family working in a re- I was struck, as we talked about the responsiveness of source community. It could be in the mining community this legislation, by a comment from one of the women in of northern Ontario across the Canadian Shield or in the the program. Her name is Donna Benjamin. She said:

Government Orders
"It's scary when the payments stop coming and the municipality isn't giving you any more to help you out while you are not getting it. It really doesn't seem fair to me that the government is almost holding the mother responsible for the actions of her husband. They are basically punishing the mother and the children rather than the fathers".
People end up in circumstances beyond their control. They end up in transitional times which are very, very difficult for people to survive. Say there is a program that can provide cash on a monthly basis to families. Say that the most important program we had in social policy-the family allowance-is abandoned in favour of targets and targeting. Say that it says publicly that the most important objective is to reach those families who most need it and then it leaves out of the legislation the ability to adjust to changing circumstances to assist families. One is forced to wonder whether or not the government is serious about this issue or whether or not there is some window dressing here that we do not quite understand.
On that basis we introduced this amendment with the hope that the government would see that this is one small step to improving a bad piece of legislation, but it is a necessary step. The failure of the government to accept this amendment will force us to continue to oppose this legislation.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing over the last day or so the government's proposals to respond to the problem of children in poverty.
Today we have seen the government impose extra speed to the debate. It is not prepared to let this debate go its full course and to allow all those who want to to speak in the House about this serious issue and the serious misdirection that the government is following. It is, as always, reprehensible to cut short a debate. However, in this particular case which deals with the children of Canada and the future of Canada-our most valued resources as I think we all would agree-it is particularly reprehensible to shorten the debate to force this bill through as this government is doing.
I would like to limit my comments on this amendment to just a couple of points. First, within this section and
within this proposal, the government is finally ending universality in child benefits in the so-called family allowance. The argument we have heard many times is why should the bank president and the rich get some income support from the government to raise their children? Why should that money not be taken away from those who are better off and given to those who are less well off and who really need it most?
On the surface of course it is an argument which has some merit, but it is not an argument which calls for the end of universality. With a fair and progressive taxation system we, of course, would be taxing back most of that child payment. So, in terms of the fiscal reasons or the financial reasons why the government presents itself as being concerned about this issue, it really is a much smaller issue that the government would have us believe.
There are many much larger tax benefits that the rich in Canada have, benefits that are larger than this family allowance. Why would we not look at taking those away from the richest of Canadians rather than just dealing with this little family allowance? Why in that process would we be saying to all Canadians that raising children is not as important as it once was? Surely, as we all know, the rationale behind the universal family allowance is that it costs money to raise children. Children are the future of the country and will pay the taxes in the future and will work and contribute to the economy of the country. Consequently, we need to recognize those extra costs for raising children and support, albeit in a relatively small way, the efforts of those parents, not only on behalf of the parents and their children but on behalf of the country as a whole.
We are taking away the universal family allowance, saying that it is no longer appropriate for the country to recognize that all those who are raising children are contributing to the public good in that process.
An important argument in favour of keeping universality is that it is a much cheaper program to administer. Universal programs are very efficient to administer because of low administration costs as they go to everyone and then are taxed back via the taxation system. In terms of efficiency and cheapness it is appropriate to have universality.

The most important reason is that evidence from those countries, particularly European countries with universal programs, shows that they have the lowest child poverty rate. In other words, there is a link between universal programs and effective child benefit programs. Those countries, particularly the Scandinavian and northern European countries, that have universal programs and where there is not a push to remove universality have done a much better job than countries with targeted programs in dealing with child poverty. Of the developed nations, the United States is the only country with a worse child poverty rate than Canada's. Countries such as Sweden and Norway with universal programs have child poverty rates of approximately one quarter of those in Canada.
Universality works. It makes for a better response to children's concerns and the desire to maintain them at a standard which enables them to fulfil their desires and expectations more fully than is the case if they are poor.
The other point I want to discuss in this context is with regard to the contrast between children who live in poor families that work and those who live in poor families that unfortunately cannot work. In an economy with 11.6 per cent unemployment, and officially the rate is going to be much higher than that, on average one in seven or eight households will have an unemployed person in it. We can see how difficult it is at the present time for Canadians to obtain employment. They are not unemployed because they want to be, contrary to what lies behind some of the comments from the other side. They are unemployed because they cannot find jobs. It may also be that they are unemployed because they do not have the required skills.
Children who live in poverty, whether they live in a poor family that works or a poor family that does not work, do not choose to live in poverty. It is entirely accidental that they are bom to poor parents. It is entirely accidental to them that their parents work or do not work.
Under this legislation if they happen to be bom to poor parents who do not work, that family will be $500 worse off than if it is fortunate enough to work.
Government Orders
on behalf of children because it is clear that rationale is not likely to end with this particular proposal but is likely to be considered in the context of others as well.
For example, there are very real concerns about Canadian pensions and medicare. Are we going to say that the rich should not have access to those programs as well? In that context, the same point goes for universality as it does in the context of family and child benefits.
At the risk of reiterating something that I said yesterday, it is really time that this government address the real problem and not tinker around the edges. That is what is happening here. For the poorest of Canadian children, not one extra penny will be available to them. To those who are not quite so poor, such a small amount of money available to them will really not make a huge difference, certainly not enough to those children and those families out of poverty. Lest we see that it is an unrealizable dream to raise poor Canadian children above the poverty line, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, there are countries like Sweden where child benefits bring poor families up above the poverty line. It is not such an odd notion that we should not put up with one million children living in poverty.
It is time that the government address the real problem with real solutions. It is not only unfortunate but it will be a terrible future for Canadian children because this government does not address those real concerns.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-80, a bill to repeal the Family Allowances Act. I congratulate my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre who has put forward many amendments to this very regressive bill.
This bill, should it pass in the House of Commons, really means the end of universality as we have known it in Canada for a good many years. Concerning the three existing programs, some of which have been traditionally available to all families regardless of income, this new system will bring an end to them.
This contrast between the deserving poor and the The government is doing it as a way to help children in undeserving poor is one which troubles those of us on low income families. This is a fallacy because those who this side of the House. It also troubles all those who work are on welfare will not get one penny more.

Government Orders
The partial deindexation of the 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.
At present there is no proper mechanism to ensure that dramatic changes in family income are reflected in the monthly benefit amount. As it stands now, it could take up to 18 months for the benefit to be adjusted.
Another major concern is the lack of a federal-provincial arrangement which could result in the provinces capping welfare payments.
This bill signifies the end of universality and the end of recognition of the higher expenses parents incur in raising children today.
The family of a woman who probably enjoys a combined income in her family and is probably above that threshold would in turn be paying back any benefits it had received through the family allowances over the years. It would be paying that back in income tax at the end of the year. This woman said to me she knew that every month she was getting a cheque for her children. She could spend it whichever way she wanted on those children. She could give it to them or she could make allowances for whatever. It was something that she looked forward to even though she realized that she had to pay it back at the end of the year. Now this government is taking it away.
The beginning of the end began long ago. While the government boasts that this legislation signifies an estimated $2.1 billion increase over five years to the child benefits system, we must remember that $3.5 billion has already been taken out of the child benefits system between 1986 and 1991.
The long awaited and promised national child care strategy, a significant deterrent to child poverty, has been completely abandoned, creating additional financial hardship on low and middle income families, especially single parent families. This government has brought forward several initiatives which have negatively affected poor families, such as the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
Another area of concern is over what this legislation might mean for women in our society. Some women in
abusive relationships, as an example, will now be losing their only form of income, the family allowance. The statistics speak for themselves. Many women feel trapped in these relationships because the only thing that separates them from the poverty abyss is the income of their abusive male partner. Now they are losing their only independent source of income.
It has been established that one of the main reasons for spousal violence against women is the need to control. What better way to control someone than by depriving them of all financial resources? For these women family allowances has been a life-saving buoy.
There are other areas of concern regarding this legislation: the lack of consultation both before and after the release of the white paper; the manner and speed with which the Conservative government is trying to drive the legislation through Parliament unamended; the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would not appear before the committee to defend his proposal which supports the disturbing trend under the Conservative government of transferring social policy to finance; the regressive nature of the increased child care deduction; the enrichment of the RRSP tax deduction which will cost the government millions of dollars in unclaimed revenue and be of assistance only to higher income groups.
The government through this legislation will be using $500 million to provide bigger monthly payments to a carefully targeted group of low income Canadians, thereby creating an illusion of wealth for thousands of low income Canadians in the months leading up to the next election.
Early in January, just as people are coping with paying holiday bills, they will get a big increase in their monthly cheques. For example, a two-child family with an annual income of $30,000 will get $153 a month instead of $70. A few months later, at income tax time, it will be able to claim the usual child tax credits. The government is hoping that most will not realize that it will be their last opportunity for claiming the usual child tax credits. The government is hoping that no one will realize when it is election time, possibly next spring, that their cheques will begin to decrease in July because they are not indexed to inflation.

The government is hoping that low income families will not realize at election time that they will not receive in November their usual $800 first instalment of their 1993 refundable child tax credit. There will be no such thing any more if this legislation goes through.
This is a government that is deceitful at its worst. The government is hoping that no one will realize when it is time to vote that their child credits have disappeared from the tax system as they have all been rolled into the bigger monthly cheques sent out in the initial months of this plan.
This is creative financing at its best. Government spin doctors have been having a field day.
This bill is flawed. It is deceitful and it is unnecessary. It will hurt every Canadian family with children, particularly those families impoverished or on the brink of poverty and also women in unfortunate situations of abuse or neglect. It is not too late for this government to listen to some reason and to have a conscience for these people and these families in situations in which they cannot afford to do without this.
I ask the government to reconsider, to take this bill back and seriously look at the flaws that are inherent in it.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but make a few comments on this legislation.
On November 24, 1989 the House of Commons adopted a resolution. I will read this resolution into the record. It states:
That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
That was supported by the House of Commons.
Fairly recently, in fact I think it was last May, we approved and became a part of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, Canada co-chaired this convention. We were very proud and honoured to see our country playing such a leadership role at the international level in trying to promote the rights of children abroad. That is to be commended, but since May 1992 we have seen no national strategy and no action plan.
Government Orders
The only thing we have heard to date is a comment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on May 7, 1992 when he was asked by one of my colleagues about his plans concerning child poverty in Canada. His comment at the time was that there were no specific plans to deal with child poverty.
It led me to believe that what we have put in writing in this House and what we have voted on is not really what we are taking action on. In other words, it is the public at large that is going to look at the action of this Parliament and the vote of this House with suspicion, and rightly so because it has been deceived more than once.
I say this because we have poverty in our country. In fact, one out of every six children in Canada lives in poverty. As well, the death rate of poor children is 50 per cent higher than it is for members of the population with higher incomes. When we look at aboriginal children in Canada we find that their life expectancy is at least eight years shorter than the national average. Suicide is the second leading cause of death among Canadian adolescents. I would suggest that figure would increase for poor children.
Let us examine the illiteracy rate of high school students and the drop-out rate of over 30 per cent. All these things require an over-all national strategy to deal with this question. We require a collective effort, not only on the part of the federal government but on the part of the provincial and municipal governments.
Unfortunately, the person or the group or the government that has taken the lead so far on child poverty has abandoned it and has passed it on to other levels of government without any sense of responsibility or any sense of accountability. That is very sad. That is why we are seeing the third sector, the non-profit sector, stepping in to fill the gap. That is also why church organizations are being forced on their own, without any kind of assistance or involvement from the government, to use their own resources to try to help fight child poverty.
I have one example of those who are working tirelessly. Members of St. Andrew's Church in my riding have circulated a petition nation-wide-I assume that all members in this House will be approached to circulate this petition in their ridings-urging the government to keep its commitment when it comes to dealing with child

Government Orders
poverty and promising to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
Another level of government, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, in our national capital region, has unanimously passed a resolution calling on the federal government to take action and keep its promise in trying to deal with child poverty in Canada.
These are not enough. It is the responsibility of the federal government to not only direct the traffic but also to send a proper signal to those other partners that we are serious about what we are doing.
It is not fair for legislation to be put in place that tries to tell the community out there that we are trying to help them if they are poor, the working poor, or of middle income when what we are doing is taking money away from them.
I am talking about the supplement that the government has decided in its own wisdom not to link to inflation or to the cost of living. Anyone, whether in the private sector or the public sector, knows that we live in a society where there is not always zero inflation.
As a matter of fact, in the 1980s the inflation rate was over 12 per cent. With a 12 per cent inflation rate and a zero per cent increase in the supplement for those poor families these people will be losing over 12 per cent on an annual basis. Inflation has eaten away at the supplement that the government is saying that it is giving them.
Second, we are putting in place legislation that gives responsibilities to other levels of government without telling people that there are any strings attached. We know too well what happens to transfer payments for education. Provinces take the money from the federal government, turn around and spend it on bridges and roads. Our institutions suffer as a result of that.
We have an incredible illiteracy rate. We have an incredible drop-out rate in our schools. We have an incredible drop-out rate in our universities. Simply put, this is because we do not have enough resources at the institutional levels. This is no different from what will happen with the new legislation.
My colleague from Nepean mentioned that this marks the end of universality. If we do not want to be so radical
in our assumption, if it is not, it is half way to ending universality in our country.
We are saying this because we believe that there is a need for a national strategy to deal with child poverty. There is a need for a national strategy to attack the question of poverty, not for half measures that hurt those who need our help the most. These half measures are not helping the poor.
That is why I and my colleagues have been encouraging the government to look at and deal with some of those amendments which were put before the minister and the government.
What happened? We had closure. Tomorrow we must go to third reading and rubber stamp the bill whether we want it or not so that it will become a law in January 1993. That is not very fair. It is not very fair because we have to allow a proper consultation to take place. We have to examine it and do an impact study to determine whether this bill as it is fits into what we have already committed ourselves, which is to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.
We also must look at this bill and determine whether it fits with what we have promised. Not only Canadians but every country all over the world must see that we are serious about dealing with the question of child poverty in our country. Frankly, what we have before us does not address the question at hand. In fact, it falls into a hole on its own.
The government is making a major error in moving very quickly without a proper assessment of this legislation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker,
I have listened to this debate in my offices and listened to drivel from the other side about this very important measure that was set out in the budget of February in detail. This measure was set out then and it has gone through all the stages of committee hearings and public exposure since then.
I heard my friend from Ottawa Centre say: "We need more time, we need more time, we need more time". What nonsense. Surely to goodness a change set out in the budget of February should be able to be effected on January 1 of the following year. That is surely not expeditiously cramming it through.
September 15, 1992

Surely that is ordinary common sense in the ordinary disposal of decent legislation. If anything, the government is much too slow on these tax changes. My friend from Ottawa Centre ought to be ashamed of himself for saying that they need more time, that it does not fit in with an attack on poverty, that transferring money to families on a monthly basis, on a tax-free basis, is not something that will help people to raise their children. It may not solve all the poverty problems in the world, but it goes a long way.
He attacks it on the basis that it does not do anything for people who are on welfare because they do not have earned income. The last time this House did something for people on welfare, for example the disabled, we gave them money and the provinces took it away. We cannot give them money in this bill because the provinces will just take away their entitlement. We are giving them exactly what they had before, no less and no more. There is not any change in their welfare arrangement because the moment we give them more money from the federal treasury, the provinces grab it.
That is a sensible reason why people in the welfare stream are not specifically looked after in a better fashion. There is no desire to hurt them or penalize them, but there is also no desire to make another transfer to another greedy provincial government that, the moment we give a tax break, immediately issues a new budget and raises its taxes again to grab all the tax room that the federal government in its desire to help people has made available. That is the sensible reason. The member ought to know that, say that and understand that.


Mac Harb: You mean Ontario or British Columbia?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia and every other province in the country.
What we have is a transfer, an amalgamation and a settlement of three confusing transfers that are already there, to which has been added another $500 million. We were transferring family allowance money out to people. That money is taken from the family allowance and put in this package. We were transferring to people allowances toward children in the Income Tax Act, a poor allowance, a rotten allowance. It was originally $65 for the first two kids and $130 for the subsequent children in a family, not much of an allowance and only good to people who had taxable income.
Government Orders Mr. Volpe: I am glad you noticed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not a heck of a lot but a complication, so we took that out. We are adding that into the till. What else? We have an existing child tax credit program, but people qualify on the basis of filing their tax returns. If they happen to owe tax money, guess what happens? The Minister of National Revenue grabs it. Yes. So the present system works out to help the taxman collect his taxes. It does not help the people who do not have any money. In this system we transfer money to the people who do not have any on the first of every month in advance, tax free. What is wrong with that?
Does the member for Ottawa Centre think there is something wrong with transferring money to people with needy families, tax free? We are taking away the family allowance, but we have already taken the family allowance away from every person with an income of $50,000 or better. Under this scheme people with $60,000 worth of income are still beneficiaries. All this scheme does is make it easier for ordinary folks to raise their kids. I do not know why members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party have something against people wanting to put money into the hands of people to raise their kids, but they do.
It is high time this bill was voted on and high time these foolish amendments were voted down.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I rise to again speak on this most important legislation.
I would like to point out to the hon. member who spoke before me that we do think it is haste when the government is trying to undo 50 years of social policy in this country in seven months.
The past seven months when this Parliament has been in adjournment, has been preoccupied with the Constitution, has been preoccupied with high unemployment, has been preoccupied in completing the trade deals, this government has been sweeping aside 50 years of social policy.
Yes, we are upset. Yes, we are saying that this government is acting with undue haste. Fifty years of Canadian social policy is going down the tubes. One of the things that is most striking about this whole debate is that it is taking place the same week that we are setting

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
out on a referendum to try to keep this country together, a unity referendum some people are calling it.
If you go right across this country and ask people what identifies us as Canadians, what makes us different from the Americans, what keeps us together, they will identify social programs. Traditionally they would identify three social programs: old age pensions that everybody received; family allowance that everybody received; and medicare that everybody received without fear of financial bankruptcy.
A mother in the Gaspe peninsula or in Pouce Coupe, B.C. or in northern Alberta or New Brunswick would say that she is in receipt of the same family allowance for all ox her children. It was a unifying force. It was something that identified us as distinctly Canadian.
It is like a ball game. It is three strikes and you are out. Old age pensions are gone as a universal program. Family allowance will be gone as a universal program. This bill makes it no longer a universal program.
That leaves medicare, which is under attack as a universal program because of the government's cutbacks to the provinces which lessens their ability to pay for universal health care. In fact, the medical association in British Columbia has said clearly that universal health care programs are no longer sustainable in Canada and that it is a policy of the B.C. Medical Association to no longer have universal health care.
With all of these wrapped together, the very fabric of Canada is under attack by this government at a time when we should be launching into a unity debate about keeping this country together.
This is also bad social policy. In fact, I had the opportunity to speak earlier about the whole question. This goes back to the Elizabethan poor law, the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. It is also based on another fundamental flaw in income security programs, and that is the concept of categorical assistance.
Categorical assistance was developed in conjunction with the concept of the deserving and undeserving. There were various categories, and the assistance rates varied, not based on their economic need, not based on their social conditions, not based on what it would take to ensure that they were above the poverty line, but based on their category.
Therefore, there was the blind person's allowance, handicapped person's allowance, veterans' allowance, mother's allowance. It was a long time before men who were unemployed were given any kind of assistance. They were in the lowest of categories in terms of categorical assistance. This is now perpetuating it because we are now going back to a concept of categorical assistance.
This is no longer a universal family allowance program. This is a categorical income assistance program. Certain people in one category will get a certain amount of money. Other people who happen to be working and are now deemed deserving, will get additional money, an additional $42 per month per child. The poorest of the poor, the ones who have no earned income, get less.
If you really sit and think about this, what are the case examples? A mother who has been working, trying to support her two children on $11,000 year loses her job because of the trade deal. What does the government do? It takes away from her $84 a month. It is incredible. Here is a working poor mother who loses her job and what do we do in this legislation? We say to her: "You are only half down, we will kick you down a little farther, we will take away another $84". It is an incredibly stupid social policy. The mother who is living with an abusive husband, who after a certain length of time deserts her, what do we do to her? We say to the mother: "Your husband has deserted you so we are going to take away your family allowance because there is no income coming in. He is considered a single person paying single income tax on his own. What we are going to do is take away your family allowance".
We say to the abused mother or the children who are being abused: "Do not dare leave that abusive husband. Do not dare leave that person who is abusing your children because if you do we are going to take away your $84 a month. We are going to make it as difficult and as impossible for you as we possibly can". This is bad social policy.
I wish the Conservative government had gone back and read a few books on the development of social policies and income security programs in Canada. It would have realized that what it is doing is going back to the whole concept of the deserving and the undeserving poor, the concept of categorical assistance, where assistance is provided, not based on need, not based on what it takes to live, but based on various categories. There is
September 15, 1992

a category of the working mother and the category of the non-working mother.
At the same time this government is making it extremely difficult for the provinces to deal with family poverty, particularly the larger provinces, Alberta, B.C. and Ontario where it has cut back dramatically on the Canada Assistance Plan. The Canada Assistance Plan is designed to provide income assistance to the very poor, the people who have no other source of income.
A witness before the committee said it best: "I think it is critical to remember that children are not poor in themselves. They are poor because their parents do not have enough money". That is what we have.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up. Unfortunately for many Canadians, it may be that the time is up for family allowances. I would just remind Canadians that it is strike two on universal programs. Old Age Security is gone, family allowance is gone and the only thing left is medicare, which if this government continues its present course on social policy will also be gone.


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would have appreciated if that speech could have been given to the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia because it would be addressed to an NDP government that would be able to deal with the problems the way the member asks us to do. About 75 per cent of his speech addressed problems dealing with the province of British Columbia and not the federal government.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the member for Surrey, I often wonder if we are talking about the same bill in this House.
I do not know if it does any good to confuse the Canadian public as to what is actually happening here. He makes statements to the effect that we are eroding certain programs that we have in this country. That is totally inaccurate. He is suggesting that we are tearing up or destroying the very fabric of Canada. That is a total exaggeration.
Government Orders
Some of the fundamentals of this program have to be explained, and I do not think he has done a very fair job of that. What we are talking about is a bill that will replace an existing patchwork of benefits into one new package. This new package will be called the child tax benefit. We are taking three patchwork programs and replacing them with one.
I question whether the members on the other side actually read the pamphlet that the minister, who is with us today in the House, put out explaining the program. In fact, it reached many Canadians; I know it reached my constituents. They have read it and have responded well to it. This booklet called The Child Benefit outlines clearly what we want to do. It is far different from what the member has just suggested.
In very simple terms, what we want to do is replace three patchwork programs with one program that works.
What will the net result be? The net result will be that it will put more money into the hands of Canadian families that need it. It will put more money into the hands of Canadian families. That is something which the opposition ignores completely. They have ignored it all week in this debate. The fundamental truth of this program is that it puts more money into the hands of Canadian families that need it.
I will explain to my constituents quite openly that if they earn over $70,000, this program will not benefit them. I will admit that. I will admit that this program will benefit no one that makes over $70,000 in this country. But those people are not complaining about this program anyway because under the present patchwork system, the family allowance is taxed back anyway. They are saying, why give me something that will simply be taken away come tax time? So that is what we have done.
I have letters on file in my office from my constituents actually complaining "why do you send out this thing?" and the constituent explains "this thing called family allowance, only to tax it back at the end of the year?" I suggest he is absolutely right. Why would we do it?
That is what we are doing with this new program, as is so clearly explained by the minister in this pamphlet. The minister steps through what this program will do for Canadian families. If the NDP wants to argue that it is

Government Orders
going to hurt Canadian families that need it most, that is a fallacious argument, it is not accurate at all.
The only families that will receive less under this program are families making over $70,000 a year and at the end of tax time there is virtually no difference for them anyway because the present family allowance is taxable. It is taxed back. The system that we are talking about now will be a non-taxable support package, one payment coming in monthly. It will allow families to manage their money better. There will be a flow of money coming in monthly versus getting family allowance on a monthly basis and having to wait until tax time to take advantage of the other parts of the program, whether it be the child tax credit or the refundable child tax credit. Let the Canadian people know that this program will help families.
I want to give some examples of what it will actually do. Again, this is outlined in our brochure. It uses an example here of Patricia and her children. Patricia is a single parent who works in a clothing store. It outlines exactly what this program will do for her and her children, a single parent with two children, one aged three and one aged eight, the wages of that family of one working parent of $19,000 a year with child care expenses of $1,500 a year.
Under the plan that exists now, Patricia receives a monthly family allowance cheque of $69.76 for a total of $837 a year for her two children, Andrew and Jane. She pays tax. Can you believe it? A wage earner of $19,000 pays tax on that little bit of money, although she says, which is accurate, she receives an equivalent to married credit of $915 for Jane and the regular child tax benefit of $71 for her son Andrew.
It says that in November 1992 Patricia receives a prepayment of the refundable child tax credit. The remaining $400 is paid after the tax refund is filed. Total annual benefits for Andrew and Jane are $1,925.
Under the new system, after the introduction of this in January, the single parent will receive a single monthly cheque of $211.67 versus that single monthly payment of $69.76. Under the new program the total annual benefit would reach $2,540.
Unlike the program we are presently under, the new child tax benefit will not be subject to tax. She will also retain the equivalent to married credit for that one child.
The annual assistance for this family, a single mother working with two children, will be up by $615. By my standards that is more, not less. So it is with all families in that category of under $70,000 per year.
Again, the fundamentals are correct. Do not let the opposition confuse the Canadian people as to what is happening. The new system will work. It will be much fairer for those people that need income.
The other interesting thing about this new program is that welfare recipients, for example, will not receive less than what they did under the old program. The member opposite just admitted yes, in fact they will get the same. The important thing to remember, and I stress this, is that low income families, the working poor, will receive more.
If you question why would that be, it is very simple. Giving people the initiative or an incentive to do it themselves has to do with self-esteem and respect. Most people that I speak to want that self-respect. They want to feel that they have done something to better themselves. They want governments to recognize that.
All the other safety nets will be there for people who, for whatever reason, do not work or cannot work. We have those systems, the existing federal or provincial programs. But where we have fallen down as governments, and I am talking both federally and provincially, is that we have not recognized the working poor. That is the one big advantage in this new program. For once, we are recognizing the working poor. Over all, I can support this new system and I think that all fair-minded Canadians will support this new system.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I am resuming the speech that I had to interrupt for lunch. I would like to come back to the speech given by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.
September 15, 1992



When he says that he can support this legislation he ignores something that we have been addressing throughout the entire debate this day and the last.
That is that it is fundamentally flawed because it shows a particular philosophical departure from those tenets which we have established as being central to a Canadian identity, a social identity, one that puts the individual citizen first and foremost as the object of all legislative initiatives.
This morning I said that we have a basic problem with this legislation. That problem is seen in the way it does not address the interest and the needs of those elements of society which are most vulnerable.
Even my colleague from the Conservative Party has noted that young children of single parent families, which by the way have the largest increase in numbers in terms of types of families we have in this country, and children from welfare families are the ones most prone to the difficulties that are imposed by the vagaries of our economy, our marketplace and our society.
We see that not only through the very short term. Immediate needs of food, shelter and clothing, needs that will not be satisfied by this legislation, needs which set the fashion, have been diminished because of the government and this minister's actions in the past when we have cut $3.5 billion from this kind of a program through a cap on CAP and other such programs.
Those children suffer in the immediate short term, but they suffer as well through some of the findings of the government which findings indicate that students from families that have been improperly nourished by financial means find themselves at a disadvantage in school. They are the children which are most likely not to succeed. They also represent the greatest portion of those who fall into that category of dropping out prior to achieving a high school diploma.
What happens? I closed off this morning's debate with the suggestion that if we do not pay now, we will pay much more later. The government does not seem to appreciate that its own findings suggest that not nourishing our society at this level today means that we will have a loss in productivity which it has identified with its studies. We will have a built-in clientele for large
Government Orders
unemployment as we head into a highly technological advanced period in the history of mankind. Most of all, we will create a clientele of dependency among those who are going to be very ill equipped to handle the new changes that come upon us.
Yet this government says that we must accept this legislation without any of the amendments that the opposition members who have so studiously laboured over this bill are putting forward.
When I say studiously laboured over in order to arrive at such amendments, I remind the Speaker and members of this House that only one witness that appeared before the committee studying this legislation had anything positive to say about the legislation, just one, a junior professor at one of the universities. But all of the associations that deal with social policy, those that deal with the front line consequences of this type of legislation, bash the government. They were invited by the government to appear.
This kind of legislation putting forward initiatives and law does not do a heck of a lot for generating confidence in the general public. It is the same lack of confidence that I fear may be hitting us with respect to the constitutional package proposed by the government in this last week.
The Minister for Constitutional Affairs said that we have to accept this deal and that it is really the only one we could have had. I quote him: "Our goal here is agreement". Nothing else, just agreement. It is agreement based on some principles we had before us but no final, official text. I wonder sometimes whether it is possible to achieve agreement in an adversarial parliamentary system that is not designed to strike agreement very easily. I wonder if that agreement is possible when the negotiators at the table, all the first ministers and representatives of the aboriginal communities, found themselves developing a climate that perverts an old ethic that has governed legislators and civic-minded citizens the world over for the greater part of this century.
Unfortunately, I would have to quote an American president who verbalized that ethic when he said 30 years ago: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". We found the emergence of a package from negotiators who went with one basic approach: "What can I get? Gimme, gimme. Let us see

September 15, 1992
Government Orders
what we can get for ourselves", rather than what we can do to enhance this country and to make it grow.
I wonder if Canada can be well served when we had provincial premiers at a table determining the directions of Canada and on one hand allegedly pleading for a Senate that will represent provincial and regional interests and on the other hand attempting to institutionalize an annual First Ministers Conference on the economy, not realizing, of course, that what they are doing in this process is undermining the role of members of Parliament and senators.
It is these kinds of things that erode the sense of confidence. For example, we could have had an opportunity at that moment for all members negotiating to tear down some of the things that divide us such as, on a commercial basis, things like tariffs. The minister asked us, "to stop focusing on the past and its wrongs and to focus on the future and its promise". He ignores something I would like to bring to the attention of the House. This is a Globe and Mail article dated August 17, sent to me by one of my constituents, Mr. Kohn, written by an associate professor, a former resident and citizen of Canada, now at the University of California in L.A., Professor Hariy Vinters.
He says:
On visits home I see a nation tom apart by bitter squabbling over constitutional language issues largely focused on the "founding cultures" both of which have become fossilized, intransigent and practically oblivious to the fact that much of Canada's current vigour derives from neither its French nor its British roots. It comes instead from the strength and diversity of relatively recent European, Asian and Caribbean immigrants.
Nearing the turn of the millennium, Canada is a country whose Chief of State is a man named Hnatyshyn and whose political leadership includes people with such names as Mazankowski, Jelinek, Romanow and a collection that one could scarcely have imagined even 50 years ago.
That package and the country is asking people who come from that kind of a background for yet one more sacrifice, to face their own identity so that others can be satisfied in the fashioning of a Canadian one.
I and many others from such a community will support that package nonetheless. Once and for all we hope it will end a lot of the squabbling that has afflicted all of Canada. Second, perhaps we will finally send a signal to the international community that we have set our house in order and that we will carry on and finally solve some of the short-term issues on regional representation, questions about distinct society and the concept of aboriginal self-government.
Finally, I think it gives all Canadian citizens an opportunity to say Yes to Canada.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Italian.]

I would like to say something in Italian because for one last time hopefully the ethnocultural communities of our multicultural society are being asked to make one more sacrifice on behalf of Canada. They are willing to put their own identity aside in the hope of promoting a Canadian one even though others are busily fractioning and partitioning Canada. They are destroying the wealth and resource of a Canada that the immigrant community and it's children know but which the current government scarcely recognizes.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to say that in my own language.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-80 at the report stage. In particular, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the amendments before the House which we feel are quite important. However, before doing that I would just like to say that the Conservative government has been clever and consistent in taking from low and middle-income Canadians over the past number of years.
There is the example of the $3.5 billion that has been cut out because of the deindexation of the child benefit system, the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan and budget cuts to social housing. It cancelled the national child care program, it has reduced UI eligibility and offered no new retraining or job creation initiatives.
These are just some of the areas that in my mind this government has inflicted right across Canada on Canadians. This was done whether they were unemployed because jobs have been lost over the last few years, the working poor who have depended on housing, the poor who have lost hope and have no jobs or working mothers. This government through all its social programs has made a dedicated effort to cut back on those most in need.
As it cuts back in this particular instance, it is the children in Canada who are going to hurt. I will just quote from Dr. Robert Glossop of the Vanier Institute of the Family when he said: "The anti-poverty impact of the new system will be negligible and will provide benefits inequitably to different categories of the power." I believe that and I will explain why.
September 15, 1992

The point of this bill is that for the first time in Canada's post-war history we will have no affirmation of a commitment by this government to children universally and to the parents who care for them.
It may seem like we have to cut back because these are tough times but I cannot help but feel that it would be better to allow the family allowance benefits to continue for another year rather than rushing this bill in a very depressed time in the economy. It could allow the spending to continue out there and bring back the indexation or the $3.5 billion it has cut since 1986 to 1991 from families in the family allowance program.
Of course the minister says we need it. He needs it. It needs it. This government needs it to get re-elected next year. They need to give Canadians $1,020. This will be the same amount as what the person who receives the $1,020 in January would have received under the present system.
There will be many others who will say it is good for the government to cut the family allowance, but they do not realize that the non-refundable child tax credit will be gone as well as the refundable child tax credit as well as that which the woman or parent or person who raises the children will have no right to unless they qualify.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. With due respect, the member is stepping through a number of figures which are inaccurate. At the end of the day the very family she is talking about will have more money, not less money, and therefore I think she has to be corrected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You will understand that this is a matter of opinion. Therefore the Chair can only listen to the points of view of both sides.
I again recognize the hon. member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: I hope that the hon. member is not taking my time with his inane comment. He has a minister who does not even go to the committee to explain to the members what he is probably espousing.
The minister may want to counter that. I agree that the same people will receive the same amount of money. There are many more who will not receive.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. minister.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to what the member said about my presence in the committee. I have proven in the past that I can go to the committee when we believe the minister can provide the information. This is normally available to all members, including the Conservative members, who have exactly the same figures and can talk about that accordingly. I would appreciate if the member does not refer to my absence but to my presence at the committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for South West Nova.


David Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


David Walker: This has been a very interesting exchange and I am very happy to have the minister today participating in the debate because I think he will begin to recognize how much we would have appreciated and enjoyed his participation at an earlier stage to clarify some of these questions between other members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must remind members on both sides of the House that no mention must be made of a colleague's presence or absence in this Chamber. I ask the hon. member to return to the consideration of the motions in question.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it was not a question of his absence from this House, because he was indeed here. It had to do with his absence from the committee. He can come here, to the House, at any time, but I was referring to his absence from the committee.

I want to get to the crux of it. Yes, the people who received benefits before will continue to receive them. I have no qualms at all about that. They will receive their entitlement to the child tax credit with a refundable child tax credit because they are going on the income tax year of 1992. It will not be until 1993 that that same family will realize that there is no child tax credit coming back and

Government Orders
that there is no non-refundable tax credit or the family allowance. Three things are going for most Canadian families. It is not most Canadian families, but for any family that has a net income of $25,000 to $66,000. Their benefits will go on a decreasing scale as they get to the net total income of the family earnings of $66,000 and a bit. I think it is $66,721 for a family of two. If there was a larger family it would probably be a little higher.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is one of those programs that the government shows an inability to change in mid-stream. It brought out a February budget where it wanted to put a cap on CAP and it did. It is now doing it to the family allowance where people would be spending this money in a depressed time, keeping the economy stimulated and keeping the jobs out there because of the government spending. This side of the House is asking this government for any type of massive job creation across Canada so people will start working. They are taking money out that would keep stimulating it when most people are saying the government has got to do something. It cannot just sit there. I say this because, over all, this government will now put on an added onus-this is where the amendment comes in-because it will take anywhere up to 18 months for a couple whose income changes within a year.
Mr. Speaker, I realize you are telling me I have two minutes. I hope you are not taking the minister's time and including it in my 10 minutes. It should not be so. I just want to say that there are two fears about this program. It is geared to the lower income in the working poor. A lot of those lower-income people rely on other assistance. Let us say it is provincial welfare assistance. I have seen it in the past where, if it is a disability pension and they are receiving social service assistance, then as the Canada pension disability goes up, the province takes it back. This is what will probably happen without a commitment. This government never gets that type of commitment anyway. It would not bother. The province has every right to take it back.
What is even worse is that as it takes back paying the social service assistance, it will not have to pay the 50 cent dollar on the social service assistance that would have been paid. So it is gaining on the Canada Assistance
Plan because it will not have to pay that welfare. Even if it is only $4 or $10 a month, it is something that is being taken away from the Canadian people and from people who need it such as children. The onus is going back to not giving it to the children, but making sure that if there is a gain that the province can come in and take it away. They do it under the disability pension for people in my province. You get the indexation one month and the next month the cheque goes down.
There is another thing I want to say and it is a shame. I wanted to say that our party feels there should be a child benefit adjustment board. There are those people who do suffer the loss of a job and have to wait for their next yearly income tax. There will be a transition there that is going to hurt families and children across the board.
The minister may want to rise and say that people can write in right away and do this and this. Does he know that I am getting pensions that are under the Canada disability plan that have been there for many years. They are getting $20,000 back and they have to pay the welfare back? The systems don't work any more in this government.
This government is a tired government. This government has got to go. It has lost the confidence of the Canadian people and this is just one more action to help I don't know who. It may help their election perhaps by bribing some Canadians until June next year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Before giving the floor to another speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-Judges; the hon. member for Don Valley East-The Environment; the hon. member for St. Boniface-Linguistic Minorities; the hon. member for Hamilton West-Employment.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in the debate this afternoon. But some regrettable things are being said and I think it is important to set the record straight so as to explain why Canadians very favorably received this bill in April and are very positive towards what this government is doing for children.



At the same time we understand why the Liberal party had a problem with the provinces in the past in the way that they are mixing up the responsibilities of the province. The member from Nova Scotia said that the welfare system does not work. The federal government is involved in the social benefits for welfare, but at the same time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: I never said the welfare system in Nova Scotia does not work. If I ever said that then I would be at a loss, because that is what a lot of people in my riding are on. The minister has by capping CAP tried that. I would never say that the welfare system does not work because that is the only income most people have who are not working.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please! It is a matter of differing opinion.
I again give the floor to the hon. minister.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful the way that the member understood what I said. I did not say that the welfare system did not work in Nova Scotia. I said "the member from Nova Scotia". This is where I understand the member is from. I said that the welfare system, wherever you are in the country, is under the responsibility of the province, whichever province we are talking about.
I want to explain today the reasons why Canadians welcomed the announcement we made in April and June about the package for children. Canadians know very well that first we dealt with the convention for children which was signed by the Prime Minister last December in front of all the children of Canada and is highly regarded by all Canadians.
Second, we announced the package of children's benefits which represents more than $2 billion over five years for the children of Canada. We are trying to help what we called at the time the low income workers' children, those who will not receive the benefits of the social benefit system but at the same time are within the $10,000 to $20,000 bracket.
Government Orders
A lot of women in the $10,000, $11,000 or $12,000 bracket will receive $400 a child more than they did before. That is the category of people we are targeting.
At the same time, we announced in June-


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. The minister states that a woman will receive an extra $400, but the documents states $500. Would the minister please clarify whether it is $400 or $500.


Benoît Bouchard: If the documents say $500, trust the documents, because the documents were prepared by the minister.
What I was about to say is that we also announced what we called at the time the Children at Risk: Brighter Futures with $500 million for children. It deals with the question of the promotion, the protection and the prevention of all problems that our children, particularly those who are between zero and seven years of age, face in the country. All of this represents more than $3 billion announced by this government for the children of Canada over the past six months.
I repeat what I said. It was highly applauded by Canadians. We know that 75 to 80 per cent of Canadians agreed, particularly with the children's benefit program. Canadians agreed that we should be giving more money to the poorer people, the poorer families and less to those with higher incomes who are more able to look after themselves and their children. That is the policy we are talking about.
The reason we asked the House to pass the bill today is so that we will be able to give that money to the children of Canada beginning January 1,1993. It is a good reason. We believe that it is a good policy.
The opposition should applaud it. I do not understand why they are opposed to us giving $1 billion more to the children of Canada. It is not the way they would do it. We are doing what we can within our capacity. We have to face fiscally and economically that reality, not in the way they did it before when they had exhausted almost all the capacity that this country had to pay not only for children.

Also, I think that Canadians in general are satisfied with the way the government has acted toward Canada's children, especially with the fact that in the past six months we added $3.1 billion to the money already paid. That was quite an effort, recognized throughout the

Government Orders
world, considering that the programs for children in Canada are now among the best in the world and still managed in a fiscally responsible way.
Again, when we look at all we are doing, of course, as we say for the constitutional agreement, it is not perfect and we are quite aware of that. But given our ability to face our actual situation today, we think that $3.1 billion, of which $2 billion will be allocated directly over five years to help low income working parents improve their revenue, is a matter of balance, whatever the New Democrats in particular think of the famous sacrosanct principle of universality whereby people earning $500,000 a year got family allowances when low-income individuals benefited less.
With that in mind, I hope and trust-
-the opposition will now applaud the quality of the bill, particularly because it is part of a package which has been announced over the last six months. We have, among the industrialized countries of the world, almost the best programs and we provide the best programs we can for the children of Canada.
Therefore, I would appreciate it if the opposition would recognize what this government has done. It may be the most that any Government of Canada has done for the children of Canada.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in this debate and to support the amendments put forward by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre.
This amendment would permit the Minister of National Revenue to reassess the child benefit amount in the case of a loss of family income and make an adjustment within three months. This amendment would address the responsiveness problem in the bill which would result in an 18-month delay in adjusting the benefit.
Listening to the minister speak just a moment ago begs the question: If this legislation is going to be that great a benefit to the children of Canada, why did all of the groups, why did our critic in the Liberal Party and the other critics and the various groups across the country
appearing before the committee have a different opinion?
I fear that the Canada we have known in the social sense is about to come to an end. The legislation being debated marks the end of universality of one of the oldest social programs and, as far as I am concerned, is replacing it with a magic show full of smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand to make the poorest of Canadians feel that they are receiving some kind of a benefit just before the next election.
We have seen some remarkable displays from this government in the past. While it gears up for the next election, our mail boxes have been flooded with tabloid style advertising sheets, as we know, singing the praises of the free trade deal and promising even better results from NAFTA, lb read the propaganda being put forward, one would be hard-pressed to figure out why over
1.5	million Canadians are looking for work and why the country is in the depths of the worst economic downturn since another Prime Minister was going to blast his way into the markets of the world in the 1930s.
The legislation which is before us today is somewhat similar to the sheet being put out about how healthy our economy is. The legislation is part of a fundamental change in our social policy, designed to give the illusion of increased benefits beginning next January, reinforced at tax time by seemingly increased family benefits.
We know that the next federal election must be held before the end of November 1993, coincidentally about the same time the benefits which seem so real early in the year will start to disappear and the true nature of this legislation will become obvious. This legislation will then be seen for what it is, part of an agenda which is designed to further advance the interests of those that control the assets of this nation. The old saying "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" has never been more true than when speaking of this legislation.
As I said before, almost every witness who appeared before the committee studying this legislation condemned it. Representatives from welfare groups and agencies, from family services groups and academics were virtually unanimous in their condemnation. It was said that the legislation would do nothing to reduce or eliminate childhood poverty, nor would it do anything to allow people to raise themselves up to a higher economic
, 4.
September 15, 1992

Government Orders
standing. As I pointed out earlier, it creates the illusion before the next election that benefits will increase.
The whole process leading up to where we are today has been flawed by the unseeming haste of the government to get this legislation through without proper debate or study. We were allowed two days of debate and then closure was invoked.
The legislation was then sent to committee where brief hearings were held revealing mostly negative impressions of the legislation. Now, today, we are at report stage and the bill will soon become law.
The government will then try to implement these changes which are exceedingly complex before January 1 next, necessitating the training of some 4,000 public servants in the new program before its implementation.
They then will be administering a program which will be so complex that most taxpayers will not be able to make their own calculations but, rather, will have to depend on the calculations of these public servants to have their entitlement determined.
There are two ways that this House could deal with the bill in a just and a fair manner. It could be thrown out and new legislation could be brought in which would reflect some of the concerns that have been expressed before the committee. The other option is for the government to listen to some of the amendments that have been proposed which, while they are not perfect we admit, would at least remove some of the most glaring inequities in this legislation.
Our party would of course like to see the entire bill done away with and a just, a fair and an equitable benefits package developed. We certainly have the resources and the expertise to do that, and to bring something before this House that would be a positive step toward eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000, which has been the stated goal of this House since 1989.
I am not naive enough to believe that the government would do this. Perhaps it will listen to some of our other suggestions which would at least make the current legislation a little more palatable. The full indexation of the benefits proposed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order adopted earlier today, in accordance with Standing Order 78(3) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 36. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the report stage of the bill before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

(And the bells having been rung:)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The first vote is on Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
The vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11,13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 69 and 71.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Be lair	Lewis
Milliken	Oberle
Reid	Romp key
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Therefore I declare Motions Nos. 3, 5,7,9,11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 34, 39, 41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 69 and 71 lost.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you might find a disposition to apply the vote as just recently taken to grouping number two, grouping number three, grouping number four, and then in reverse for concurrence.


Louis Plamondon: Although we were not consulted, since the three parties are no longer in the habit of consulting, we agree to co-operate.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry I was a few seconds late coming in. I did not hear you read the question. Therefore I did not vote but I would naturally be honoured to have my name added on the subsequent votes to those of the government.


Mr. Chartrand:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was away for the vote and I would like my name to be added to the list of those who voted with the government for the following motions.

The House divided on Motion No. 23, which was
negatived on the following division:
September 15, 1992

Government Orders
(.Division No. 228)

Members
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Breaugh
Callbeck
Clancy
Copps
Duhamel
Flis
Gaffney
Gauthier
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hunter
Keyes
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Manley
McCurdy
Mifflin
Murphy
Parker
Plamondon
Riis
Samson
Stewart
Taylor
Vanclief
Walker
Anawak Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) Berger Boudria Butland
Campbell (South West Nova) Comuzzi Dingwall Finestone Fontana Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard Hopkins Karpoff La porte Lee
MacLaren Maheu Marchi McGuire Mills Nystrom Peterson Proud Rodriguez Simmons Stupich
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-64
++NAYS
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Bosley
Bourgault
Cadieux
Chartrand
Clifford
Cooper
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling
Desjardins
Domm
Duplessis
Felt ham
Friesen
Greene
Guilbault
Hawkes
Horner
Hughes
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Layton
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Marin
McCreath
McLean
Moore
O'Kurley
Porter
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Sobeski
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Members
Andre
Attewell
Bertrand
Bjomson
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbett
Couture
Danis
Della Noce
Dobbie
Dorin
Fee
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Horning
James
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew
Nicholson
Plourde
Redway
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Sparrow
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbini^re)
Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia) -95



[Stage Direction]
Belair
Milliken
Reid
Lewis
Oberle
Rompkey

[Stage Direction]
Belair
Milliken
Reid
Lewis Oberle Romp key

[Stage Direction]
Belair
Milliken
Reid
Lewis
Oberle
Rompkey
The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was
negatived on the following division:
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
(Division No. 231)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bellemare
Black
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Berger
Boudria
O'Kurley
Porter
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Sobeski
Tfcrdif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Van De WaUe
Vien
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Plourde
Redway
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Sparrow
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbini&re)
Valcourt
Vezina
Vincent
Wilbee
-Assiniboia)-95
Breaugh Call beck Clancy Copps Du ha me 1 Flis
Gaffney
Gauthier
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hunter
Keyes
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Manley
McCurdy
Mifflin
Murphy
Parker
Plamondon
Riis
Samson
Stewart
Taylor
Vanclief
Walker
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquifcre)
Bosley
Bourgault
Cadieux
Chartrand
Clifford
Cooper
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling
Desjardins
Pomm
Duplessis
Felt ham
Friesen
Greene
Guilbault
Hawkes
Horner
Hughes
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Layton
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Marin
McCreath
McLean
Moore
Butland
Campbell (South West Nova)
Comuzzi
Dingwall
Finestone
Fontana
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard
Hopkins
Karpoff
Laporte
Lee
MacLaren
Maheu
Marchi
McGuire
Mills
Nystrom
Peterson
Proud
Rodriguez
Simmons
Stupich
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-64

[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkara
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbett
Couture
Danis
Della Noce
Dobbie
Dorin
Fee
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Homing
James
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew
Nicholson
Belair
Milliken
Reid
Lewis
Oberle
Rompkey

[Stage Direction]
Be lair	Lewis
Milliken	Oberle
Reid	Rompkey

[Stage Direction]
Belair
Milliken
Reid
Lewis
Oberle
Rompkey
The House divided on Motion No. 31, which was
negatived on the following division:
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
(Division No. 234)
[Stage Direction]
Van De WaUe	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creelt-Assiniboia)-95
Members
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Bellemare Black Breaugh CaUbeck Clancy Copps Duhamel Flis
Gaffney Gauthier Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hunter Keyes
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay MacLellan Manley McCurdy Mifflin Murphy Parker Plamondon Riis
Samson Stewart Taylor Vanclief Whlker
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquifcre)
Bosley
Bourgault
Cadieux
Chartrand
Clifford
Cooper
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling
Desjardins
Domm
Duplessis
Feltham
Friesen
Greene
Guilbault
Hawkes
Horner
Hughes
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Layton
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Marin
McCreath
McLean
Moore
O'Kurley
Porter
Reimer
Richardson
Saint-Julien
Sobeski
Thrdif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est) Thrner (Halton-Peel)
Anawak Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Berger Boudria Rutland
Campbell (South West Nova)
Comuzzi Dingwall Finestone Fontana Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvard Hopkins Karpoff Laporte
Lee
MacLaren Maheu Marchi McGuire Mills Nystrom Peterson Proud Rodriguez Simmons Stupich
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Volpe
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-64
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Attewell
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Corbett
Couture
Danis
Della Noce
Dobbie
Dorin
Fee
Fretz
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Homing
James
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacKay Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's)
Merrithew
Nicholson
Plourde
Redway
Ricard
Roy-Arcelin
Shields
Sparrow
Tetreault
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbini&re)
Valcourt

[Stage Direction]
Bfelair	Lewis
Milliken	Oberle
Reid	Rompkey

[Stage Direction]
Belair	Lewis
Milliken	Oberle
Reid	Rompkey

[Stage Direction]
Belair	Lewis
Milliken	Oberle
Reid	Rompkey
Donald Frank Mazankowski: that the bill be concurred in.
September 15, 1992

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: 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.
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	MacKay
Marin	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McLean	Merrithew
Moore	Nicholson
O'Kurley	Plourde
Porter	Redway
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Shields
Sobeski	Sparrow
Tardif	Tetreault
Thompson Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Thorkelson lYemblay (Lotbinifcre)
TUrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vezina
Vien	Vincent
White	Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-	-Assiniboia)-95


Some hon. members:: Nay.
++NAYS


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


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find a disposition to apply the votes taken on report stage in reverse on this motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
Belair	Lewis
Milliken	Oberle
Reid	Rompkey
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read for the third time? According to the order made earlier today, at the next sitting of the House.

Private Members' Business
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS	faced with a recession and a restructuring of the economy not only in Canada but world-wide. Some may not want to admit it but the fact is a lot of plants are closing [English]	here an(j vvhen they close here they move somewhere
else. We attribute that to the effects of the free trade EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN ACT agreement with the United States.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tliesday, June 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Butland that Bill C-327, an act to assist employees to purchase a controlling shareholding in the corporation that employs them and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the House is faced with a private members' bill, Bill C-327. It stands in the name of my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I think not only this House but all of Canada is indebted to my colleague for having put before this House a very creative and innovative proposal.
He is to be congratulated because in his own community he was faced with a very serious problem. Here is a member of Parliament representing a community in which the major industry employing some 5,000 or more people was faced with a shutdown.
This member of Parliament, along with the community, decided to work diligently to try and address that specific problem. Rather than spitting into the wind, rather than cursing the darkness, my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, decided to work diligently to find a solution to a problem that faced not only Algoma Steel but increasingly in 1992 faced many other communities.
We are in a period of recession and we have been in periods of recession before. I remember the recession of 1982 very well when plants were closing, when plants were laying people off in my own community. INCO and Falconbridge closed down for a whole year. The workers were laid off but hope sprang eternal in their breasts because they knew once the economy turned around they would be recalled and production would continue and they would earn wages and be able to pay then-expenses and keep their families.
It is very different in 1992. Invariably when the plants close today, hope does not spring eternal because we are
There is evidence of thousands of jobs being lost because the plants close here and relocate to the sunshine states where costs are less.
Plants do not have to worry about heating in the winter. In some cases there are no minimum wage laws in those states. The laws governing the organization of trade unions are very weak or non-existent, they are right to work states. They do not have effective legislation, not only on the books but enforced, with respect to occupational health and safety in the work place.
I was just listening to As It Happens last night. I heard about a chicken plant somewhere in Mississippi in which the conditions were most appalling. A fire took place in the plant and workers lost their lives.
As I said, in 1992 we are dealing with a different situation, not the same situation that existed in 1982. Plants are leaving now and not coming back. In some of these instances it is not that the plants are not making money, it is not that they are not making profits. In many instances it is that they are not making enough profits.
We have the case of Algoma. We have the case of Spruce Falls Pulp and Paper plant in Kapuskasing. It was going to close, not because it was not making money, but because it was not making enough money for those who owned the plant.
What my colleague has proposed is an employee ownership plan. At the moment we have no federal structure for employee ownership. It seems to me that federal governments, not only in the past but now the present government as well, deal with these situations in a knee-jerk reactionary approach. It is crisis management. As the crises arise, they tiy to come to a solution to the problem. Ontario and Manitoba are contemplating and have proposed legislation which sets a framework within which employee ownership can take place.
What my colleague has presented to the House of Commons is a bill, Bill C-327, which sets out the parameters and lays out the structure in which this type

of ownership can take place. Why is it needed federally? As my colleague has pointed out, there is a need for the federal agencies to be involved. It means that we are thinking of a whole new concept. We are making the capital markets available to workers. Presently, capital markets are available to corporations and very wealthy individuals. What we are attempting in this plan is to make those capital markets available to workers.
To do that we need the co-operation of Revenue Canada, for example. The plan my colleague has put forward requires that the incentives extended to corporations vis-a-vis the Income Tax Act on investments should also be available to workers.
Surely this has to be a positive thing for Canada. When a worker starts taking responsibility for his work place in terms of being an owner, that has to have an effect, not only in terms of decision making, not just on the plant floor, but all the way to the board room. That input is important to the overall productivity of the plant. The sense of ownership that comes with this kind of plan is an important incentive for a worker to feel like part of the operation, thereby resulting in greater productivity.
This is the most effective way of redistributing wealth within the country and maintaining Canadian ownership in the work place and the corporations of the country.
Presently there is no federal legislation on this matter. Quebec has been light years ahead of the federal government with its co-op legislation which allows a corporation to shift from being privately owned to a co-op.
There are solidarity funds that allow for shares to be purchased in companies. That is not the plan my colleague has put forward. His plan deals with the individual workers working together as part of a collective purchasing ownership in the corporation, actually owning assets and influencing decisions on the daily operations and on the over-all strategy of the plant.
As I said before, I want to commend my colleague for this initiative. It certainly brings to our attention a very creative and innovative way to approach the problem in which we find ourselves. The example I mentioned before in Kapuskasing where the workers' jobs were
Private Members' Business
saved because of an ownership plan and the Ontario government. This is probably one of the great achievements of the Ontario government. It saved the community that depended on that plant. I might point out that between December 1991 and June 1992 the plant turned a profit of $2 million.
I say to my colleague and to my colleagues in the House that Bill C-327 is the flagship of employee ownership in Canada. It is an idea whose time has come.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, we are considering today Bill C-327 which proposes a 50 per cent tax deduction for investments to finance employee takeovers of the businesses where they work.
This deduction would be available to employees, employers or financial institutions involved in such investments.
The proposal raises a number of questions which deserve our careful consideration. One should ask whether the proposal is good for employees, whether it is good for business and finally whether it is good for taxpayers as a group.
We have been fortunate enough to have this summer to ponder these questions. I have spent considerable time studying the issues involved and have come to the conclusion that on the whole this proposal raises more problems than it resolves.
However, I welcome the opportunity to share with hon. members the reasoning which brings me to this conclusion.
I would begin by examining the proposal from the employees' standpoint. None would deny that Canadian employees put forward a great deal of effort in order to bring home their pay cheques. Their cheques must cover their bills for food, shelter, clothing and transportation. If they have special needs, these too must be met with the same pay cheques. We certainly cannot overlook the amount that must be set aside for provincial, federal and municipal taxes.
On top of all these spending pressures, Canadian employees must do their best to provide for their future financial needs. Perhaps when faced with ill health or unemployment, and almost certainly with decreased earnings during retirement, employees must try to set

Private Members' Business
something aside and must decide where best to place the nest egg.
This is not an easy decision for any of us. We all have acquaintances who are willing to undertake what we would consider overly risky investments. They do so in the full knowledge that high rewards often accompany high risks. At the same time, we all know of those who invest with safety first considerations at the top of the agenda. They are prepared to take a somewhat lower return in exchange for the peace of mind that comes from safe investments.
Which is the best strategy? The answer to this apparently straightforward question is it depends. It depends on the individual making the decision. What is best is a very personal decision that is governed by a number of factors, including the individual's past experiences, current situation and outlook for the future. Should we, through the income tax system, be sending individuals signals telling them how to allocate their hard won saving? Is acquiring a controlling interest in one's employer company a desirable investment for everyone? Is it such a desirable investment that it warrants the government's seal of approval in the form of a 50 per cent tax deduction? I would be tempted to answer no to some of these questions. What concerns me particularly is the plan proposed in Bill C-327 which was designed for situations where the financial viability of the employer is in some doubt. Such turnaround situations constitute high risk investments, not bad investments necessarily, but certainly not one that everyone would make in the absence of a tax break.
It is not appropriate for the government to entice employees to place their savings in a particular investment by leaving the bait of an attractive tax break. We do not provide 50 per cent tax deductions for lottery tickets and for good reason. Many Canadians buy lottery tickets nonetheless. I wish them the best of luck. It is a lottery ticket buyer's own calculations and whims which lead to the purchase of a ticket, not the lure of tax deductions.
I am convinced that a good number of Canadians have found and will continue to find investments in their employers to be a good home for their savings. The tax system should by no means discourage such investments. My point is that the tax system should likewise avoid
tipping the balance in favour of a particularly risky type of investment. Bill C-321 would do just that.
I strongly believe that our tax system will serve employees in Canada best if it plays a neutral role with respect to investment decisions.
I mentioned at the outset of my remarks that we must also assess this proposal from the point of view of the businesses which would be affected. If this proposal is good for business, some would argue that it may be worthy of our support even if it is questionable from the perspective of the employee investors.
It is timely to ask this question because some fundamental assumptions underlying the traditional relationships between the owners, managers and employees of business are in the process of being re-examined.
Increased employee participation is cited by many analysts as the key to business success. These same analysts often suggest that it is crucial for employees and employers to recognize that they have a common interest in the success of the organization. One of the key devices identified for reinforcing this appreciation of common interest is a remuneration structure which enables employees to share in the successes of the enterprise.
In these discussions, employee ownership is sometimes cited as the answer to Canada's problem of productivity and competitiveness. If employees acquire control of the business where they work, they clearly are participating in the operation of the enterprise. If they own shares, the remuneration is clearly tied to the success of the business.
But employee ownership is not the only means for achieving such ends. Much has been written of late concerning the success achieved by quality circles and other approaches to involving employees more fully in operational decisions. These techniques work and they do not involve employee ownership. Many firms offer profit-sharing plans or tie a portion of pay to the individual, department or enterprise performance. These techniques too are effective and they do not involve employee ownership.
Increasingly, firms are encouraging employees to acquire shares in the business. This technique achieves its goal without requiring employees to take a controlling position.


By citing these examples of different approaches to increasing employee involvement and thereby enterprise success, I merely wish to point out that the mechanism described in Bill C-327 is but one of many means to the same end. The fact that these other means are being used and are meeting with success and that they are doing so without tax assistance is important I believe.
Businesses and employees are re-examining their traditional relationships and are changing them. Different approaches seem to work best in different situations, but providing tax assistance for one approach and not for others may well discourage the very process we wish to promote, that is, establishing employee-employer co-operation in the fashion which best suits the particular situation and thereby achieving higher productivity and greater prosperity.
Bill C-327 might inadvertently place a strait-jacket on a dynamic, innovative search that is now going on in Canada to find a better way of doing things.
We all wish to ensure that the best business decisions are reached. When a business thrives Canadians benefit as employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders and simply by participating in a prosperous economy.
We should all agree therefore to avoid using our tax system in a manner that would lead to sub-optimal business decisions in the important field of employee-employer relations. A level tax-playing field is essential if we are interested in business success. This bill unfortunately would tilt the field.
I have talked at some length on the implications of this proposal for the employees and businesses involved. Let me now take a broader perspective and consider what is best for the taxpayers of Canada. There is no denying that a 50 per cent tax has a certain appeal if you belong to the select group that is to benefit from it. That is the employees of target companies and others who help finance the takeover. What if you are not fortunate enough to be in that group?
Most Canadians would not benefit from the provisions of this proposal. It excludes Canadians who are outside of the labour force, who are unemployed, self-employed or employed in the non-corporate sector. It excludes Canadians who lack the means of a desire to invest in
Private Members' Business
their employers. It excludes most of us if those excluded would have to provide the extra taxes required to pay for this new tax deduction. Therefore, it is difficult to support the idea of asking a large majority of Canadians to pay higher taxes so that a select few can benefit from a 50 per cent tax deduction.
I hope I have made the position clear that I do not support this measure because it fails on the counts I have illustrated. It is not particularly or necessarily good for the employees. It is not necessarily good for business and it is not necessarily good for Canadian taxpayers. However, I think the member should be commended for bringing forward this proposal for discussion to be considered because at a time like this when we are going through difficult economic times, we want to look at all aspects in any proposals that may have appeal. I do not say that his proposal is without merit. I just wanted to highlight some of the things that you could take into consideration very carefully when it comes time to decide the fate of this proposal.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to participate in this private members' bill, Bill C-327, an act to assist employees to purchase a controlling shareholding in the corporation that employs them and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof.
I commend the member for Sault Ste. Marie for putting forward this private members' bill. I think he has shown a great deal of initiative. He has experienced the problem within his own area with regard to Algoma Steel, the problems that it faced and the procedures it had to follow.
I want to comment a little bit on what is happening in my riding of Kootenay East where Westar has gone into bankruptcy. It went into a bankruptcy situation on May 3. Not only was it going into bankruptcy, but it decided it was not going to pay the holiday pay or the severance pay, so it locked out its employees. That initially stopped the employee-workers of that mine from participating in the judge's comments, decision and procedures of the bankruptcy. The employees, 1,100 of them in a one-industry town, did not have the opportunity to participate in the bankruptcy decisions because they were locked out. They were unable to get unemployment insurance. This went on for four months.

Private Members' Business
During that bankruptcy discussion in the banks under the Creditors Arrangement Act, the creditors, the company, provincial governments and the various financial institutions had opportunities to discuss the bankruptcies. There is no mechanism in place for the employees to participate or to bring about the kind of a program such as the member for Sault Ste. Marie has put forward.
The bankruptcy took place on August 25. The court decided it had until September 26, a little over a month, at which time liquidation could start to take place. This is a profitable mine. This mine has second and third generation employees in a single-industiy town. It has been profitable. It has long-lasting contracts with the Japanese markets. This is a veiy profitable mine. It has been admitted by the governments, the creditors and various others that it is a profitable mine. The employees wish to participate with a new buyer to tiy to bring about solutions, but I want to say they have until September 26. If liquidation starts to take place and some of that machinery starts to come out of that mine and is liquidated, what is the chance of that mine ever starting up again?
Here is an opportunity for a piece of legislation. The Americans have it in place.
I hate to use the American scheme as a project. The Japanese have employee contributions and employee programs in which they can participate. The United States has had legislation for 20 years that facilitates employee ownership. In fact almost one quarter of all American steel workers are involved in an employee share plan.
While I am speaking here in the House, those 11,000 workers and their representatives are meeting with a new buyer. They are pleading with me: Is there any federal help that can help us with regard to taxation benefits or some other types of benefits? I have had to tell them sadly there is not.
My colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, has put forward a piece of legislation that could facilitate that kind of thing. I heard the comments and the rattle that was made by one of the members from the government side, but I would urge the government to take a serious look at this piece of legislation.
Surely to goodness if that legislation is put in place the government in power can look at the feasibility along
with the provincial governments, the community involved, and the workers involved. We are talking about a one-industry town that has been in this industry for over 100 years. There are second and third generations that have paid taxes to the Canadian public provincially and federally throughout these years. They were participating.
They know it is a profitable mine. It can contribute. It can continue. The markets are even there. The will must come from the governments. These workers are even prepared to participate in an employee-share benefit with new employers or with themselves if they have to.
All they are asking for is the same type of relief, the same kind of support that business gets when it wants to get into that kind of a situation. The very part that bothers me so much about it is that less than 10 years ago, I stood in this House when the Liberals were in government. They were putting as much as $1.5 billion into the development of northeast coal in direct conflict with southeast coal.
Now we come to a situation where southeast coal is in a financial problem and needs some assistance, whether it be through this type of legislation, whether it be direct participation between the federal and provincial governments, and the municipalities, and we are told that the employees are not smart enough to be able to participate in this kind of a structure.
I want to protect these employees. The member on the government side said: "We would like to protect these employees from destroying themselves". I want to say to him that those employees do not need protection. Those United Mine Workers and their representatives have been to Japan. They have met with the steel companies in Japan.
They have looked at the operations of the mines in Russia and in Japan where the markets are. They know that this is a viable mine. This is a mine that should be working. It should not be into bankruptcy. It was a planned bankruptcy. There is no question about it. Westar went to the banks less than two years ago and tried a restructuring and a refinancing of its companies. It separated west coast terminals.
Imagine the banks with $300 million of loans into this Westar Mining company coming back for a restructuring and saying: "We are going to take the west coast

terminals out of our proposal and we will put the rest up for security".
It was planned two years ago when it took its west coast terminals out and protected that portion of it. The profits from that mine, which is the Balmer Mine in Sparwood, belong to Westar. Westar was into many other types of facilities such as pulp mills, off-shore drilling, lumber mills. The profits from this very viable mine were going in all directions and not being put back into the mine.
The piece of legislation that the member from Sault Ste. Marie has put forward is one that this government should look at very, very seriously. The Japanese have allowed it and the Americans have put it in. If we are going to be into free trade agreements with other areas, let our people at least have the same kind of legislation here so they can benefit and try to bring it about. It is going to have to be in place so that workers and companies can use it.
September 26 will come along and if they have not found a solution to this situation in the Balmer Mine, then liquidation could take place and the chances of ever bringing that mine back on stream are probably going to be very, very limited.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious to most of us why the member for Sault Ste. Marie brought this Bill C-327 forward. I do not think too many of us would argue on the merits of why he wanted to do that. Obviously, that part of our country which is his riding is going through a very, very difficult time and they are looking for a solution to a problem. We have to give the member full credit for attempting to do something.
I will be addressing this bill from an economic point of view and from a tax revenue point of view It is a bill that is certainly worthy of debate. It is not a frivolous bill and it is one that we take very seriously.
When this government took office in 1984 that was one of the things we looked at as a government in terms of how we tax. We wanted to bring certain things into the taxation system that we thought were missing at the time. One was, of course, the ability of individuals to pay
Private Members' Business
taxes. We wanted a system that was fair. We worked to achieve that. Another thing we took a look at was the plugging of loopholes.
The members opposite me, such as the member for Sault Ste. Marie and his counterpart who just spoke, have often been on their feet in this House of Commons suggesting ways in which we can plug those loopholes. Through Standing Order 31 they are famous for delivering the corporate welfare bum award of the week. They do it on occasion with a great deal of drama attached to it. Often, although I hate to admit it, they are absolutely right in some of their presentations. We have committed ourselves to plugging some of those loopholes which have been identified by their party. In doing that we are eliminating preferred tax treatment for some Canadians. That is something we are all sensitive to in the sense that we give tax breaks to certain Canadians, whether they are rich Canadians or corporate Canadians.
We have made a great effort to reduce those preferred tax incentives. In doing some of those things we have passed on those savings to individual Canadians in the form of lower personal taxes. Obviously, when we try to change the system again and move in the direction of Bill C-327, we have to be cognizant of the fact that there is going to be some revenue foregone and given up by the Government of Canada. We are not talking about a little bit of money, we are talking about a lot of money. It is millions and millions of dollars.
If you forego that revenue the question then becomes: "From what other source can we get it?" The only other source is the Canadian taxpayer. Therefore, we want a system that does not discriminate against individual Canadians. In a sense, Bill C-327 does that and I will go through the reasons why.
Let us take a careful look at the bill itself and exactly what it does. The purpose of the bill is to use federal funds delivered through generous tax deductions to encourage employees to take over corporations that employ them. Specifically it proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a 50 per cent deduction from taxable income for employee and employer investments in tax vehicles known as employee share purchase plans, or ESPPs. It also proposes to give a tax break to banks and other financial institutions that would take part in these plans.

Adjournment Debate
It runs somewhat contrary to the position of the party to which the member for Sault Ste. Marie belongs. I believe that the party to which he belongs is fundamentally opposed to creating tax breaks for banks and other financial institutions. That is exactly what it does.
In a case like his-and I guess this is where politics comes in. I am not arguing against what he is saying in a personal sense because, believe me, if that situation existed in my constituency I would be doing the same thing, although in this case it philosophically flies in the face of the party that he represents. Indeed, it would give a tax break to financial institutions, obviously including banks. I think that runs against the grain of most Canadians at this time, particularly at a time when bank profits are at an all-time high. We have been reminded in this House, particularly by those on the other side, how high those profits were. So I do not think that any of us want to see tax breaks for banks and financial institutions at this point.
I have mentioned the redistribution aspect. If revenue is lost from one source it must be made up from another source, and unfortunately that other source always comes down to the individual taxpayer.
The other aspect that we should take a look at is what we do, in terms of investment, to encourage individuals to invest in Canada. We do that at present and we do it in a number of ways. One of those ways is to tax investment income differently than earned income in the work force. One of those methods I am referring to is dividend income. It is taxed differently to encourage those Canadians who desire to invest in a corporation to do so. Dividends are taxed differently than simple interest income.
In other words, it is an incentive for people like ourselves to not just place money in stale bank accounts but to invest in Canadian corporations. When we do that we are given a little bit of a tax break. I do not think the tax break at this point is as lucrative as it should be or could be. In fact we have changed that law from time to time with the sense that it was maybe too lucrative.
That is one type of investment break for Canadians. The other one is the capital gains tax. Individual Canadians are allowed $100,000 in capital gains income before they are taxed. That simply means that if an individual has a choice to make in terms of what they want to do
with their money, if they take a look at investing that money in stock or in a Canadian corporation in terms of achieving some capital gains on that investment they are going to be given a break, a $100,000 break.
That has been attacked again by the NDP and by the Liberal governments. They suggest that it is perhaps too lucrative. That $100,000 exemption is extended to $500,000 for investing in small Canadian corporations, because those are the corporations that need the funding and the capital. We have done that as a government, as well.
The point of the exercise is that we have a number of instruments out there at present that allow Canadians to invest in Canadian companies for the right reasons. Through the retirement funds, Registered Retirement Savings Plans, individuals can invest in companies they work for. They then receive a 100 per cent tax break on the dollars they invest in that corporation. The belief is that we invest now when we are working and can contribute and later on when we retire we can draw that money back out at a lower rate of taxation. That instrument is also readily available for employees who presently want to do that.
We could go through a raft of other vehicles that are available at this present time without having to move in the direction of Bill C-327.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
['Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore\nAdjournment Debate\nstands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).']
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, according to the National Judicial Institute 40 per cent of all federal and provincial judges have not taken advantage of the gender sensitization courses available to them.
The report of the Law Society of British Columbia's gender bias committee has concluded that gender inequality is pervasive in the legal and justice systems in B.C.
September 15, 1992

The committee also recognized that significant steps must be taken by all the actors involved-the government, the judiciary, the legal profession, and other service providers in the justice system-in order to eliminate such bias and to uphold Canadians' perception that their justice system is and at least can be a model of fairness.
For example, the study found that while judges are becoming more aware of gender bias some nonetheless continue to exhibit a lack of sensitivity toward victims of wife assault and sexual assault. There is also evidence that suggests that women are regarded as less credible witnesses than men and that stereotypical notions about women undermine the prosecution of such assault cases.
It is obvious from the above finding that voluntary gender sensitization only preaches to the already converted. Those judges who belittle the suffering of women at the hands of their spouses are those most in need of such courses, yet they are the ones who feel that training is not necessary.
The committee concluded that the existence of direct and systemic biases in the courtroom, the legal profession, and other areas requires that each sector of the justice system critically examine its role in perpetuating gender inequality. This could be accomplished if those who work in the system were educated about gender bias in their own beliefs and in the laws and how they are applied.
The recommendations are wide-ranging and include judicial education courses in family law, addressing spousal maintenance, and accurate information about the costs of child raising. Spousal maintenance is all too often insufficient, as anyone who has practised family law knows, because the courts underestimate the economic disadvantages borne primarily by women as a result of child rearing.
The second recommendation is regular training for judges by the Canadian Justice Institute designed to make them aware of the subtle and overt manifestations of gender bias directed toward women lawyers, witnesses, and litigants. Another recommendation is training for family court counsellors that includes a gender equity component. This training program should parallel the training received by judges and masters.
The final recommendation is judicial education programs providing information on how sex-based stereo-
Adjoumment Debate
types about women and men affect decision-making in custody cases.
I could go on but there was a commercial once that talked about what happened if you did not fix your car. The mechanic said: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later". How much more relevant is this theory when we are talking about human lives. We can pay now to make judges and the judicial system more sensitive and the ramifications for families will be far better in the long run, or we can pay later in the broken lives that such decisions will engender.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that gender equality is an objective and should be sought in our justice system. No one, male or female, should be in any doubt that he or she will be treated fairly and with dignity in our courts of law and other institutions of justice.
To this end ministers of justice and attorneys general have adopted a statement of principles aimed at ensuring equality of treatment in the Canadian system of justice, with special efforts being made to accommodate the needs of indigenous people and women from multicultural communities.
The judiciary has also recognized a need to address equality issues. The National Judicial Institute and the Western Judicial Education Centre, Canada's two leading institutions for judicial education, have created programs on gender issues at the request of judges themselves. These programs have been highly effective and well received. On the basis of their experience with these programs, both institutions have decided that all future judicial education programming will include components that place gender issues in context within the treatment of substantive law subjects.
There is some concern, however, that unprecedented attacks have been made upon the fairness and integrity of persons who have a very difficult and important job and who do extremely well. Isolated incidents have been seized upon as being indicative of the attitude of all judges, whether federally or provincially appointed, male or female. Individual judges have been tried in the public press on the basis of statements which have been taken out of context or sometimes misconstrued. Respective careers have been shattered and additional pressures added to the heavy burden of responsibility on the

Adjournment Debate
judiciaries' already heavily-laden shoulders. A new disincentive may be added to the acceptance of judicial office.
Under these circumstances, in which the judiciary and governments are dealing effectively with gender equality issues, we should be aware of warnings issued by educators in the United States which suggest that mandatory gender sensitization training can be counter-productive and can undermine all of the good work that has been done so far. Certainly we should take an informed interest in judicial education, but equally we should trust to the good faith and good will of the men and women of the judiciary who have thus far shown themselves more than worthy of the confidence of their fellow Canadians.



Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr.Speaker, my particular constituency, Don Valley East, takes its name from the Don River. When I was a kid we used to swim in the Don River but no one would swim in it today. It is polluted with raw sewage and industrial waste.
Also according to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board's report to the International Joint Commission, the Don River is polluted with toxic materials carried through the atmosphere from Latin America. According to the board's study 70 per cent of the lead in Lake Ontario, 80 per cent of the PCBs in Lake Erie, 90 per cent of the PCBs in Lake Superior, all travel through the atmosphere from Latin America thousands of miles away to pollute our Great Lakes.
Therefore, even if we clean up our own act, the Great Lakes and the Don River are still going to be polluted. The source of the pollution, according to this study, is some 11,000 tonnes of DDT used each year in Latin America.
One of those Latin American countries is Mexico and we just initialled a free trade agreement with Mexico, NAFTA. One of the things that concerns a great many Canadians about NAFTA is the environmental standards in Mexico.
Our government has told us not to worry about that because Mexico has good environmental laws, it just does not enforce them. It also tells us not to worry about that either because we have just provided Mexico with $1 million to help it enforce those good environmental laws,
even though Mexico is not one of those countries that qualifies for this sort of assistance under the Canadian International Development Agency under normal circumstances. We also should not worry because we have an environmental co-operation agreement with Mexico that we signed back in 1990 and so everything is going to be all right.
Now that Mexico is enforcing its really strict environmental laws using Canadian money, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary tonight if he will give me and all Canadians answers to the following questions. First of all, when can we expect Mexico to stop using DDT? Second, if it does not stop using it immediately, can we use the dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA to require it to stop? And third, when can I and my constituents start swimming in the Don River again?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot, in all honesty, answer the last of my hon. friend's three questions because, as he knows, the clean-up of already polluted bodies of water is an extremely difficult and costly procedure.
Having said that, the important point is to ensure that we and other residents of North and South America work together to address international pollution problems as we are doing at the present time.
The hon. friend made reference to NAFTA. One of the key points about the NAFTA agreement is that it is the first time we have had such an assessment in a trade agreement. There is an environment assessment in the agreement itself and that will be made available to the public at the same time at which the legal text is made available.
I can also inform my hon. friend that later this very week, the Minister of the Environment from Canada will be meeting with his Mexican and American counterparts in Washington to talk about the way in which the three governments, the three ministers of the environment and their officials, can work together to make sure that common environmental problems are addressed effectively. I would anticipate that what will come out of the meeting is the establishment of some sort of trilateral
September 15, 1992

panel and the objective will be to address the very concerns which my hon. friend is raising.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 1992, I asked the Acting Prime Minister a question. It went something like this: Since the government had said that henceforth the provinces and territories would finance cases concerning language rights and equality rights, did the government consult the provinces and territories? Here is the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave me: This program could be funded by the private sector or by the provinces.
Of course, without meaning badly, it did not consult. It hoped that the provinces, territories and private sector would come to the defence of these groups, not only linguistic minorities but the other groups protected by this program. He did not really answer the question and that is why I am here this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that there is now a new constitutional reality, containing new provisions, as we very well know. I want to emphasize that this program ends on September 30. Given these new realities and that the government did not consult the provinces to see whether they were prepared to continue the work, is the government now ready to resume, restore and reinstate the Court Challenges Program?
Mr. Speaker, I feel that you must know that the Committee on Humam Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons unanimously recommended-that is, with the consent of the representatives from the three main parties-to continue it in one form or another. So it is really time to do something.
This committee said that the program was essential. It is even more essential today than it was when it was cut. I believe that it should be continued. I will give you two brief examples: the disabled are unhappy with the constitutional proposals; they will no doubt have demands to make, but who will be able to help them? Women, especially a certain women's group, are not at all happy and they too will no doubt want to challenge it.
The last example: you certainly know that the Frenchspeaking linguistic minorities, and maybe even the En-
Adjoumment Debate
glish-speaking, are debating the issue of "attachment" versus "commitment". I would prefer commitment, it is so clear. Jurists recognize it as a term with legal validity. Those are some questions that will have to be answered about this new constitutional reality.
So I ask the government to face up to its responsibilities.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. Boniface will certainly remember that the Court Challenges Program was set up by the federal government in 1978 to guarantee equality for linguistic minorities throughout the country.
In 1982 and again in 1985, the Court Challenges Program was extended to include the language rights and equality rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since 1978, the Court Challenges Program has been financed solely by the federal government. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we did not consult our provincial colleagues about a decision affecting the federal budget.
The Court Challenges Program has proven useful in several important legal decisions that helped to clarify the Charter. In fact, many cases dealing with official languages and funded by the program have had a direct impact on the development and amendment of provincial legislation convering education in the official languages and linguistic minorities. The provinces were also influenced by the cases concerning equality heard by the courts. However, in a period of financial and economic difficulties and budget cuts, the government had to make some hard decisions. The Court Challenges Program was one of the programs that we had to abolish to achieve the objectives.
Mr. Speaker, in June, the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons tabled its report, "Paying Too Dearly", on the Court Challenges Program. The government is now considering this committee's report and will table its response to the recommendations in the House.
The government will continue to promote the right to equality for all citizens as it has committed itself to do. It also remains determined to promote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in every possible way.

September 15, 1992
Adjournment Debate


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter is employment or the lack of it in this country.
On April 29, 1992 I informed the minister of employment that a comprehensive economic review of the Hamilton labour market released at McMaster University concluded that while 36 per cent of employees felt they would be laid off this year, an astounding 52 per cent of business owners and managers said they will be laying off employees this year.
Given that alarming fact, I asked the minister what concrete action he will take to ensure that employees in Hamilton and in other great cities across this great country will not become statistics? It is called Question Period, after all, and seldom if ever do we in the loyal opposition get any answers from a government in which Canadians have lost faith.
In the city of Hamilton the unemployment rate has hovered over 10 per cent for close to two years. Last month it was again at close to 11 per cent. Hamiltonians are coming to my constituency office demanding to know why they are losing the opportunity to re-enter the job market because their unemployment insurance benefits will run out before the completion of their job retraining courses.
That very question was asked again today of the minister of employment by my colleague, the member for Parkdale-High Park. He appealed to the minister to extend UI benefits where necessary. By skirting that direct question, the minister who represents this sorry government might as well have cut his answer to the quick and simply said no, the government will not extend UI benefits to those in need.
Speaking of jobs and the lack of, the government spends literally millions of taxpayers' dollars on a propaganda paper extolling the virtues of the North American free trade deal. Who will lose their jobs because of the deal? How many will need help? What programs will those working men and women displaced by NAFTA attain?
Permit me to quote from today's editorial in a Toronto newspaper. First it speaks briefly about how U.S. Labour Secretary Lynn Martin said outright that the Canada-
U.S.-Mexico deal could cost up to 150,000 American jobs and that they were prepared to spend $750 million a year for five years to help workers who lose their jobs because of this NAFTA deal.
The editorial states:
In Canada, the Tbries have refused to help the victims of free trade, despite Brian Mulroney's 1988 election promise to provide "the finest programs anywhere". Since Ottawa still refuses to help those who suffer under free trade, it continues to pretend that they don't exist. And in trying to maintain that dishonest posture, it is indulging in propaganda warfare with Canadians.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Canadian workers are not looking for a handout. Canadian workers want a helping hand. Canadian workers want jobs, not welfare.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know very well, a vital part of job creation is retraining of those who require it in order to find their place in the work force.
I am pleased to be able to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Canadians, that indeed we are spending record amounts on such job, training at the moment. This is a very substantial increase over moneys made available in the past, including as recently as some two years ago.
For example, we are spending this year a record $1.95 billion to train 300,000 UI claimants. That is three times what was spent in the same area in 1990. In addition, we will spend $1.6 billion in skills training and employment assistance for unemployed Canadians this year.
This brings total employment and training assistance for Canadians in 1992 to $3.55 billion. That is $3.55 billion, not million. Close to 700,000 Canadians will get some help this year from EIC training and adjustment programs.
In a slightly different vein, I would also like to note that last year 190,000 UI claimants received training under section 26 of which 39,000 were fee payers. This year, it is expected that about 300,000, a substantial increase of UI claimants, will receive training under section 96 and 85,000 of these will be fee payers.
That is an increase of some 46,000 fee payers over the last year. The need is great, but I would also point out in response to my hon. friend that a financial commitment of some $3.55 billion to provide training to 700,000 Canadians this year is also a very, very significant contribution.
September 15, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore
Adjournment Debate
stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 16,1992