1993-02-12

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I know that in a few moments when we move to Orders of the Day, the Chair will rule on the admissibility of amendments to Bill C-76.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Chair that yesterday my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, sent an amendment at approximately 5.55 p.m. 'Hie amendment was deemed to have been not receivable because it was sent on what is known as a fax machine or telecopier instead of being sent by hand.
I am sure all members know that except for legal documents which must be served personally, it is generally acceptable that virtually any kind of transaction today is done in that particular manner. Indeed, anyone who is familiar with real estate or any other kind of procedure like that knows perfectly well that the distribution of a document by way of fax machine is deemed to be quite acceptable.
However when it comes to serving an amendment, an amendment which was duly signed, and the original of which was later sent, the fax copy was sent to the Clerk's office by six o'clock and it was not deemed to be receivable.
I submit respectfully that in the age of modem equipment, telecopiers and telephones that we now have for this House, I question not accepting a document from an hon. member because a photocopy is sent. After all a fax copy is nothing less than a photocopy sent by electronic mail.
I submit that is not in keeping with the spirit of having this House function as best as possible.
I ask if the Speaker would undertake to review this and possibly rule, at the moment, after consultation perhaps with the Clerk that the amendment should have been and should still be receivable. It was sent before the appropriate time, duly signed, by way of a telecopier machine.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: On the
same point of order, Madam Speaker. I must tell you quite frankly that I have a problem with the representations made to the Chair this morning by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
To send documents by fax is commonplace today, but the fact remains that a legal document, an authoritative, authentic document, is one that has been sent through the normal channels, has been signed and is deemed to be an original.
Faxes are not originals. In that context, I think that as far as the point of order raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is concerned you ought to look at it as a precedent and I would suggest caution in considering this specific point of order.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, certainly in the past I have been able to submit through my caucus amendments by facsimile to the appropriate office on the Hill, provided that I have personally signed the document. It has been accepted by the Table as having been delivered in the appropriate manner.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am advised at this time that the point at issue is not just the faxing of the document. It is a little more complicated than that, since the request apparently was not in the form of an amendment per se. As we speak, we are checking the exact time at which the document was received. Once that is known, we will determine whether it was drafted as an amendment or if assistance was requested to do so, but above

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
all at what time it was received. I have asked the Clerk to ascertain the time of arrival of this document as well as its content. I shall get back to the House later in the day if it turns out that this amendment can be considered acceptable. I think that this settles the matter for the time being.
I see the hon. member for Ottawa Centre but I cannot see what more could be said at this time.


Mr. Harb:: Madam Speaker, you have covered all the main points. I just wanted to point out that they turned down the fax because, as they put it to my assistant, they do not accept faxes. The original had to be delivered to the office. I wanted to make that clear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As I said a moment ago, we will check anyway and if the amendment sent by fax is admissible we will get back to the House at that time using the normal procedure. I have requested that we look into this matter. I believe that we all agree on that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992, as reported (with amendment) by a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: Subject to the point of order that we talked about a few minutes ago,

There are 17 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992.

After consultation, I have selected Motions Nos. 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface. They will be grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Motions Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 11 standing in the name of the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair and Motions Nos. 4, 7, 10 and 13 standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan will not be selected as they are identical to Motions Nos. 3, 6, 9 and 12.

I will now call Motions Nos. 1, 3, 6, 9,12, 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Since the hon. member for St. Boniface is not proceeding with his amendments as he is not with us today, I shall in that case select Motions Nos. 4, 7, 10 and 13 standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. They will be grouped for debate and the vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 7, 10 and 13.


Don Boudria: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Because of what the Speaker indicated some moments ago I wonder if the House would give unanimous consent that I move the amendments standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface. In addition to solving the problem, it would make the whole other discussion academic save and except for discussion of the principle of it and it would prevent the Speaker from later having to make an additional ruling which might have to change something.
If I could ask for that consent, with of course agreement of the Chair, we could then proceed with the debate in the manner I have just suggested.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there be unanimous consent for the motions standing in the name of the hon. member for St. Boniface to be moved by another hon. member?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

February 12, 1993


Don Boudria: Motion	No.	1.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 2.Motion	No.	3.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 3.Motion	No.	6.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 4.Motion	No.	9.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 5.Motion	No.	12.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 6.Motion	No.	14.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 7.Motion	No.	15.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 8.Motion	No.	16.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 9.Motion	No.	17.	That	Bill	C-76,	be amended	by	deleting	Clause 10.
He said: Madam Speaker, first I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Chair for accommodating me this morning in this unusual situation and also to thank all hon. members for their co-operation.
If no other settlement is reached on this issue I would hope that a meeting of those concerned, perhaps even the house management committee-I see my colleague opposite, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader-would be held soon to find a way that documents could be accepted in the form suggested this morning in my point of order, if not for the bill before us now, at least for those we will consider in future.
I think that would update this institution a little. In any case I do not want to dwell on this too much. I want to go on now with a few remarks about the bill under consideration and especially the amendments presented to it.
As you said so well and so eloquently this morning, Madam Speaker, the Liberals propose deleting many clauses from this bill. Of course, the ultimate goal is to delete the whole bill, because we find that it has two main components: first, it would of course impose
Government Orders
charges on students, and second, it would also establish a process for charging fees to register lobbyists.

Perhaps I can move to the first of these themes, that of imposing fees on student loans.
Bill C-76 removes the six month grace period for Canada student loans and adds six months of interest for those students who have to borrow in order to access post-secondary education. We as a society are saying how we must all work to increase our academic level in this country to ensure that our young people have more and more of the tools that are required in order for them to have meaningful careers in order to be ready for the job market. We are all concerned about the rate of high school dropouts. We are trying to eradicate that. There is a group in my constituency, in the community of Rockland, working hard toward convincing young people who have dropped out of school to go back and, for those who have even an inkling of dropping out, trying to change the minds of those young people.
What does this bill do? The exact opposite. I see my distinguished colleague from Carleton-Gloucester, himself a former school teacher. I am not sure whether one is ever a former school teacher. I think once a school teacher, always a school teacher. The member for Carleton-Gloucester taught high school. He knows perfectly well the attractions there are for young people to leave the educational facilities and go into the work force. Those are instilled in our young people and by everything that is out there, for example the old jalopy with the chrome wheels on it that too many young people are ready to give up school to try and purchase, a few months later only to be left with the payments on the jalopy and the car parked behind the garage. It is so sad to see that immediate gratification being sought by purchasing some of these less than totally useful objects and sacrificing one's future for them.
Here we are giving a further disincentive to young people to stay in school. It is already far from easy. In the province of Ontario tuition fees have increased astronomically under the present provincial government after it promised to abolish tuition fees altogether. My colleague from Thunder Bay who is a former member of the Ontario legislature, as I am, will know what a burden it is on young people right now. In addition to higher tuition fees, the young people have to finance those tuition fees. They will now have to pay interest for a

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
longer period of time on those increased tuition fees. They are being attacked both ways.
There is always the uncertainty, particularly in these difficult economic times, that when they finish school, the career that they had hoped for may not even be there. I hope that the recession is nearing its end. We begin to see some positive indicators, not enough, but at least some.
I hope the time will come very soon when our young people will again be able to have the hope that after graduation they can be reasonably sure of finding a meaningful job. That is what we want for all of them, but right now we are not making it any better with bills like Bill C-76. We are not making it any better of course with bills like Bill C-105. In the event that they do enter the work force it may not be in the area they are looking for but simply a make-shift kind of employment opportunity-
Then they are thrown on the unemployment insurance line. If it does not meet the new strict criteria the minister of employment has been talking to us about in recent days, those young people will be stuck with a pile of bills that they accumulated while in school; no job, no unemployment insurance. It will be a very discouraging situation for all of them.
It is still very true that the more education that one has the greater the employment opportunities, but exceptions make the rule. It is the same everywhere. If there is one young person with a masters degree who cannot find a job the news of that of course travels far and wide. Everyone knows about that particular situation and the bad news that will circulate will discourage more young people from continuing their education. That is sad.
To make all of this worse, we are going to have an extra six months additional interest. That will cost Canadian students $35 million annually. That is $35 million annually. That is from Department of Finance officials who testified before the committee. This is not just a few dollars, if anyone is of that opinion. If members across the way do not understand what that represents for young people entering the work force to collectively
have a bill on their shoulders of an additional invoice of $35 million, that is sad.
It is sad indeed. It is sad that we are even discussing this kind of proposal. My colleagues, the hon. member for St. Boniface, and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, have worked very hard, very actively, tirelessly I would add, for the betterment of young people. All I want is hopefully to convince the government to withdraw this piece of legislation.
The best we can do right now is to ask the government to delete at least that portion of the bill. In 1990 the former minister promised a complete overhaul of the student loan program. Some overhaul.

We could easily do without amendments like those presented to us today because the last thing young people need is to have this kind of bill to pay when they leave our post-secondary institutions to find work.

Let us all be sure of one thing. Who is going to pay for this? It is not my kids in university and it is probably not the children of people who are from other middle to upper middle class backgrounds. It is going to affect in a disproportionate manner those people who come from lesser means and who are trying to improve their situation. They have to borrow money because there are not the resources in their families.
All this is to say that it is my hope that the government will withdraw this bill and, if it does not do that, at the very least it will withdraw the offensive clauses.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the amendments put forward by my colleagues in the Liberal Party. They are amendments which are designed to delete particular clauses in Bill C-76.
I do so for a number of reasons, one of which is the work my colleague, the member for Windsor-St. Clair, has done in terms of post-secondary education and in tracking this particular issue.
February 12, 1993

Another is the work that the Canadian Federation of Students has done in trying to convince the government to move in a different direction when it comes to student loans. Regretfully the committee of this House that was charged with reviewing this bill decided not even to hear from the students, not to allow witnesses. I think that is a travesty.
Another is because I am a parent. I have a daughter in university. I have a son and a stepdaughter who will hopefully be in university or college at some point in their future.
I also went to university. I must say at the time of my post-secondary education I was very fortunate that not only was I able to access the student loan and student grant program as it existed then, but I also had a Department of Veterans Affairs scholarship. My father fought in World War II and was disabled because of the treatment in a prisoner of war camp. My tuition was therefore paid. I received an honorarium each month and had access to student loans. Even that was not enough. I can remember having a number of part-time jobs in order to put food on the table for my new family. Perhaps that combination is why I never completed university, why I ended up getting a job when one was available as opposed to completing university.
When we look at these particular clauses we see that what the government is doing is placing more barriers in front of our young people, our future leaders, our future business people, our future entrepreneurs, our future inventors, our future scientists, making it that much more difficult for them to gain access to college or university level.
I come from a university-college community. Confederation College in my riding has been a key in providing access to college programming not just in Thunder Bay but in northwestern Ontario. Lakehead University in the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon but whose faculty, staff and students live within my jurisdiction also has provided services not just to northwestern Ontario but to the rest of Canada and indeed the world. Therefore, I am very aware of the importance of education.
I am also more aware these days as we see our mills downsizing, some of our mills closing, our grain industry declining, that there are no longer the jobs that young
Government Orders
men and women can get into right out of high school. They recognize this. They know they have to go on.
I have talked to parents who say: "I cannot afford the $10,000 a year that it will take for my child to go to school outside of my community". I have talked to fathers who are part-time cab drivers in order to help pay for their children's education.
Every time we put a barrier or a road-block like the provision in this bill which will say that the moment you get out of school, the moment you graduate, you have to start paying back, it does not deal with the reality of society today.
It does not deal with the reality of unemployment among young people, even though we all know a graduate from a community college or a university has a much better chance of getting a job. Whether your field is in the general arts or a specific trade, there is a much better chance of getting employment.
The reality is we have an unemployment rate in excess of 19 per cent. In some communities for our young people it is 25 to 30 to 35 per cent. We see migrations of young people out of my region moving to the golden horseshoe in search of work.
The reality is that the day a graduate had a job waiting for him or her the day after the graduation ceremonies is long gone. We no longer see halls full of recruiters at universities and colleges. It is difficult to get people even to come to the campuses to offer jobs for students because the jobs just do not exist. There is so much downsizing.
Therefore to say to the students who are about to enter college or university that the moment they graduate they will have to start paying the interest back is putting one more straw on a very overburdened back. It is not cheap to go to school even in one's own community. There are costs that are out of reach for a number of families. The Canada Student Loans Program has been an exceptional aid to Canadian young people in giving them access to higher learning. That is why we are supporting these amendments, the sole purpose of which is to delete specific clauses dealing with repayment in particular.
The government will argue it is doing this because it is going to eliminate the 3 per cent tax that students have to pay up front. In testimony before the committee officials said that it is not going to happen at the same time. The moment this bill passes the other place and

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
the Governor General puts his signature on it does not mean the 3 per cent tax is gone. No, it will be gone when enough revenue has been raised through this other process.
That reminds me of the promise made-I am not quite sure whether it was just after World War I or during World War II when the Government of Canada decided to impose a temporary income tax on Canadians.


An hon. member:: It was in 1917.


Iain Francis Angus: I thank the tax expert in the comer. In 1917 it was a temporary tax on income. Well, we all have our forms at home. We know that the 1917 temporary tax has become a permanent feature. It is said that death and taxes are with us always.
When the government says: "We will eliminate it down the road," we have no faith. We have no faith that the government will do that. In addition to convincing government members to vote in favour of deleting these particular clauses we must see how else we can assist our young people in getting that education and minimizing the barriers to accessing education. More important, an education designed toward a career does not do any good if the jobs are not there.
Everything this government has done from my perspective is to eliminate, eliminate, eliminate jobs. It has created an environment where it is impossible for the private sector to create jobs. All it has been able to do is downsize, downsize, downsize. Look at rail. Look at air. Look at the whole transportation sector.
Look at research and development. We are not putting dollars into that field either publicly or privately to create an opportunity for our young scientists or engineers to get into the workforce and do some good things for Canada and the world. We do not do enough research on the medical side so that we can put those medical specialists who are more interested in working in the laboratory than working with individual people because they know they can find a solution to a problem as opposed to fixing what is broken. We do not provide the resources there either.
I say to the government that these clauses are wrong. They should be deleted. That is why my caucus is
supporting these particular motions which we would have put in in any case in the name of the member for Windsor-St. Clair. I hope the government is listening and is prepared to recognize that what it is doing is not going to help our young people get ahead in this world.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the amendments proposed by my colleagues opposite.
It is important to remember that the budget of this government was dedicated to fiscal restraint and deficit reduction in the interest of sound responsible management. In Bill C-76 we amend the Lobbyists Registration Act, the Salaries Act and the Canada Student Loans Act.
All measures were designed with restraint in mind. The measures in this bill pertaining to the Canada Student Loans Program were introduced as part of the government's over-all restraint program.
I would like to remind all members of the House that we do not practise restraint because it is fun or because we are opposed to programs. We practise restraint because of the need for responsible management. The removal of the six-month post-school interest free period as of the 1993-94 loan year is an integral part of this over-all effort. Some of my colleagues want this measure removed from the bill.
The 1992 budget signalled the government's commitment to reform the Canada Student Loans Program. This was reiterated in the December economic statement. We all agree on the continuing importance of the Canada Student Loans Program in maintaining an accessible post-secondary learning system. But that does not preclude the need for constructive reform.
Like so many other areas of public policy, it is necessary to update the program to ensure that it continues to provide assistance to needy students. The amendments of Bill C-76 should be viewed in the context of other measures currently being undertaken by the government to strengthen and improve the Canada Student Loans Program.
As currently structured the federal government guarantees loans made to full-time students by lending institutions. The taxpayers through the government pay
February 12, 1993

the interest costs while the students are at school and currently for the six months after graduation.
The fact is that the elimination of the six-month interest subsidy will affect students only after they have left school and are normally in a position to repay their loan.
The financial burden of eliminating the six-month interest subsidy should be minimal. For an average loan, the monthly payment will be increased by less than $3.50 which is an amount well within the financial capacity of most if not all students who have graduated.
Borrowers will continue to have up to six months after completing their studies to make repayment arrangements with the lenders. However during this period, interest on their loans will accrue. Borrowers will have the choice of paying this interest in one lump or having it capitalized into the amount of their loan.
Borrowers will still have access to up to 18 months of interest relief which is a component of the program available at the end of the six-month grace period. If they are unemployed or temporarily disabled, they will continue to have access to interest relief.
In addition it is important to remember that Canada student loans will continue to be interest free to students the entire time they are in school.
Therefore I am confident in saying that while the amendments will contribute to the deficit reduction effort, students by and large should not be disadvantaged.
Since it was created in 1964 the Canada Student Loans Program has enabled more than 2.5 million Canadians to pursue post-secondary studies thus contributing to the development of a well educated and very acceptable work force.
I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. I have explained the rationale behind these changes to the Canada Student Loans Program and how they fit into the over-all restraint program. We all agree on the importance of the Canada Student Loans Program. The program will continue to be effective in promoting post-secondary education.
I suggest that we get on with passing this bill as was originally intended.
Government Orders


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that the specific part of this bill I will be dealing with concerns the Lobbyists Registration Act.
The remarks I will be making today about a specific firm that I will be dealing with are not meant to be partisan remarks. I will be talking about an organization called Government Policy Consultants (GPC). A lot of people tend to think that when we talk about the Lobbyists Registration Act we are basically talking about lobbyists who tend to be labelled as Conservative lobbyists. However this particular firm has Liberals involved.
My good friend the Hon. David Collenette, who is actually one of our candidates in a downtown Toronto riding, is a member of this firm. James Crossland, who is a very good friend of the Prime Minister, is also a member of this firm. Another member is Mark Rudolph, who happens to be a constituent of mine and is a good Liberal lobbyist. Sharon Vance is another good lobbyist who used to be an executive assistant to Mr. Broadbent and was also a senior assistant to Bob Rae. There is also another good Liberal, John Duffy, who used to be a senior advisor to my good friend and colleague the member for LaSalle-Emard.
My comments are not in any way, shape or form partisan. I am not promoting GPC because it has some Liberal lobbyists. It also has some Conservatives and some NDPers. There might even be some Reform Party lobbyists.
Included in the brochure that Government Policy Consultants sends out to its clients is a code of conduct. I am going to read two or three excerpts from this code of conduct. It says: "GPC will respect the confidence of clients and not reveal confidential or private information obtained during the professional relationship except where authorized by the client or required by law to do so. GPC will conform to the federal Lobbyists Registration Act, which requires our firm to register clients for whom we undertake direct advocacy with government officials and politicians. GPC will avoid positions of conflict of interest and will not accept assignments that will in any way bring discredit to the firm or to our profession. GPC will not knowingly place anyone holding public office, elected or otherwise, in a position of a conflict of interest. GPC will not make promises or commitments to clients that may suggest influence over cabinet ministers, legislators or government officials".

Government Orders
I believe that this is a sincere attempt by this corporation to put forward a basic set of ethics by which it operates. The problem we have though is that today there is a perception in this city and in this country that the lobbying industry is not functioning properly or fairly. This is an industry with fees of close to $100 million last year. That is an awful lot of money being paid by people throughout Canada to lobbying firms that approach not only MPs and ministers but officials to put forward the particular customer's position on a particular issue.
The time has come for us to radically reform the Lobbyists Registration Act. Perception being reality we have now developed an industry that has a very bad reputation. We should be examining a bill introduced in the Senate of the United States just recently, S-349.
The purpose of this bill is the effective public disclosure of the identity and the extent of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence federal officials in the conduct of government actions. By doing that it will increase public confidence in the integrity of government.
Then it goes on to say in section 5(b)(2)(D)(3): "That in the case of a lobbyist lobbying on behalf of a client other than the registrant a good faith estimate of the total amount of all income from the client including any payments to the registrant by any other person to lobby on behalf of the client during the semi-annual period other than income for matters that are unrelated to lobbying activities".
In section 5(b)(2)(D)(4): "In the case of a registrant lobbying on its own behalf a good faith estimate of the total expenses that the organization and its employees incurred in connection with lobbying activities during the semi-annual filing period".
In the United States people must file every six months and they must be very specific about all their lobbying activities.
As we are discussing this Lobbyists Registration Act we should examine this bill from the United States. We should not just have the amounts of money that lobbyists receive from specific clients but should list the officials and MPs who are being approached by the lobbyists. Officials should also report to ministers' offices when they are being lobbied and report the specific issue. In
1985 the Prime Minister said that he was going to reform the lobbying system in this country and that he was going to develop a transparent system.
It is almost 10 years later and we have not done that. I am hearing from many people, from customers of lobbyists and from lobbyists, that they would now like to have a system that would restore the image that the lobbying industry in this country once had. We can only do that by having full disclosure of all the activities that are going on.
As part of Bill C-76 there is a little cost recovery measure related to the Lobbyists Registration Act. The government wants to charge a fee of the companies that are registering. That does not even come close to addressing the real issue that needs to be addressed.
I ask all members of this House to support the chairman of the consumer and corporate affairs committee and radically reform this act.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about the amendment to the Canada Student Loans Act. We have a number of amendments on the Order Paper calling for an overhaul of the student loans act. Back on February 25, 1992 the Minister of Finance indicated that he would be negotiating a new arrangement for student loans with financial institutions and that he would eliminate the 3 per cent administration fee on student loans.
The bill came before the House and the 3 per cent tax still exists. In fact the student population was denied the right to appear before the committee in order to make its case. There was no consultation whatsoever when it came to this part of the bill. Also, the bill itself imposed an extra burden on the students.
If we examine the student loan and its impact on students the latest statistics show that there are in excess of 10,700 students in the Canadian system who have over $15,000 in terms of loans they must repay. That figure has increased by more than 500 per cent over the past four years alone.
If we consider the 3 per cent tax increase, which I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party feel should not exist, as well as the way in which the government is managing student loans one cannot help but say there is a major problem that must be addressed.

February 12, 1993

We cannot have it both ways. On one hand we are talking about the need to reform our educational system in order to improve our way of doing business in this country so we can move forward and on the other hand we are hitting those who are going to create the infrastructure necessary for that kind of move.
By the year 2000 we are going to see a vast majority of jobs that require at least a high school or post-secondary education. We are going to see a shrinking work force and an increase in the number of people who need assistance from the system. We are going to see the need for a dynamic work force.
One would think that any person with proper reasoning would put a lot more emphasis on helping those who are going to be helping the future generation. It is the student population that will be the main instrument for moving into the next century.
The government is burdening those students with an extra debt load. It is penalizing them. Many of those students are leaving school or finishing university and finding themselves in a situation in which there is no job available for them. The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot on one hand tell the public it is putting more emphasis on education while on the other penalize students who are going to school. It is trying to block students who are going to school. It is creating road blocks for them in terms of accessibility.
Just recently the NDP Government of Ontario eliminated student grants altogether. This is a government that had promised to increase assistance to educational institutions and to students. Now the federal government is doing the same thing. The student population is finding itself in a very awkward position.
We must ensure that we have an accessible national plan for post-secondary education. We must ensure that education becomes a right and not a privilege in the society we live in. It is quite sad, particularly when we look at the illiteracy rate in Canada. Forty per cent of the population group between the ages of 15 to 24 is considered to be functionally illiterate. That represents a loss of revenue to the economy of $10 billion as a result of illiteracy. The government is doing nothing to deal
tangibly with accessibility to post-secondary education and education as a whole.
It is deplorable that on the one hand the government promised in 1992 that it would consult with the student population and on the other hand in 1993 it even denied students the right to appeal before a committee so they could argue their case and take the government to task about the 3 per cent tax on student loans. Enough is enough. We cannot continue to fool the public by saying that education is a priority when in fact what the government is doing, in conjunction with the provincial governments in some cases, is trying to create roadblocks, trying to avoid the reform of the educational system, trying to really deliver a blow to those who want to progress in life and move on to make a better life not only for themselves but for society as a whole. It is high time the government took this piece of legislation and put it aside until such time as the commitment of the Minister of Finance is fulfilled in trying to amend the act, trying to do the proper consultation and trying to see what really needs to be done.
I can see my time is coming to an end, but the student population-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will be able to continue after Question Period when we resume debate on the bill.
As it is eleven o'clock, the House will now proceed to statements by members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Madam Speaker, both fishermen and processors in the gulf and on the Scotia shelf are getting increasingly frustrated and angry with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' confused policies on the harvesting plan for the cod fishery.
On December 18, as part of the 1993 groundfish management plan and a campaign to prevent the capture of juvenile fish, the minister ordered all gear sectors to develop fishing plans before they would be permitted to fish. These and other new restrictions have greatly
[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1993
increased the cost of fishing this year. At the same time, fishermen will be facing quota cuts in the order of 70 per cent.
If this government wants to close down the fishery in the gulf and on the Scotia shelf, why does it not do so directly and provide adequate compensation and adjustment programs for those people in communities that will be affected rather than jerking the fishermen and fish processing companies around with its confused management policies?

Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I would not purposely go out of my way to frighten you, but in this case hang on to your chair. When a former finance minister who brought Canada its highest interest rates, highest inflation, record increases of government spending, becomes the leader of the present day Liberal Party and he makes his economic statement, then this is scary stuff.
The Liberal boss's position on the GST must have his backbenchers almost sucking lollipops. First, he was going to eliminate it. No, no, no. Now it is going to be replaced with, well, it is going to be announced after the election. But no, no, that was not good enough. He is going to replace it with a hidden business transfer tax. No, no, none of the above. It is now going to be studied by a committee.
Now the Liberal agenda is starting to surface. The Liberal platform is sneaky and frightening to all Canadians.


WHITE CANE WEEK
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the House and hon. members present that since 1946, the first week of February has been designated White Cane Week by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. A national network of special events occurred during this week to make all Canadians aware of the challenges faced by blind and visually impaired persons in our society.
The theme for this year's week, February 6 to 13, is employer awareness because there has been a tremendous increase in the last decade in the availability of educational and technological resources that enable persons with visual impairments to work. Providing employers with an awareness of the job skills and potential possessed by persons with visual impairments is an important step toward that goal.
I am pleased that the federal government has had a long and productive association with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. The Department of National Health and Welfare has been supporting this organization-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I must interrupt the hon. member.


DAVIS INLET
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, Canadians are pleased to learn that the Innu of Davis Inlet will have a treatment program instituted and the government has agreed to move the Innu to the mainland. We cannot stop there. This government may have succeeded in the damage control of promising to take care of the one situation that has attracted the attention of Canadians and the international community, but an official of the Assembly of First Nations informed my office that there are at least 100 communities in similar situations across Canada.
Solvent abuse, alcohol and drug abuse and suicide are rampant in aboriginal communities such as Big Cove, New Brunswick, Fox Lake, Alberta, Cat Lake, Ontario, and I could go on and on. These communities need more of a government commitment to help address these issues. It is time to stop waiting for emergencies to happen before making a commitment. Proactive steps are needed immediately, not reactive steps when atrocities occur.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, one year ago today members endorsed a New Democrat motion which called for Canada to support a balanced GATT negotiating position on agriculture including the maintenance, strengthening and clarification of article XI and an end to export subsidies.
February 12, 1993

Lately ministers having been saying clarification when they are speaking to farmers at home and tariffication when they are dealing with negotiators outside the country.
'Tariffication will destroy supply management. There are periods of the year when U.S. poultry prices are so low that even a high tariff will not keep them out. We therefore call on the government to reaffirm its commitment to advance the concerns of farmers of supply managed commodities at the GATT.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Charlesbourg):: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada and its leader continue their exercise in vacillation on the GST as on so many other issues.
Last night, in the second economic statement in as many weeks, a second version of their position was made public. In Ottawa last week, the GST was replaced with a VAT to be included in the price structure and thus invisible to consumers.
According to what was said in Toronto last night, the GST would not last more than a year under the Liberals, after which they would tell us what Canadian consumers could expect.
I may remind hon. members opposite that a consumer tax was introduced to put Canadian industries during this difficult period of transition on the same footing as their international competitors and that it was a visible tax at the request of consumers who wanted to make sure their government would not take advantage of the tax to increase program spending.
All Canadians, which means all consumers, have a right to know the true intentions of the Liberal Party of Canada.
A word to the wise.


MEMBER FOR ROBERVAL
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, today I would like to thank the hon. member for Roberval and Minister of National Health and
Welfare for his prophetic insight because yesterday the minister bravely conceded the next election to the Liberals.
In fact, the minister recognized the tremendous popularity of the Liberals when he admitted that his party was considering an alliance with the NDP. According to the hon. member for Roberval the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This is a political party that has hit rock bottom.
I therefore invite the Prime Minister to take a walk. Perhaps he could go across the street from 24 Sussex to see the Governor General and ask him to call an election immediately.


LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, last evening the leader of the Liberal Party made a major policy speech in which he addressed many subject areas in very general terms.
One such area was fiscal responsibility which invites some interesting comparisons. For example, he spoke of unwaivering discipline in controlling expenditures. Yet in the 15 years of Liberal government during the 1970s and early 1980s the rate of growth in government program spending rose on an annual average of 14 per cent. By comparison, in the past eight years of Conservative government program spending has been restrained to an average growth of less than 4 per cent each year.
Similarly, the Liberal leader made a general commitment to reduction of the deficit in terms of gross domestic product. Perhaps he does not realize that even in the depths of recession the Conservative government has reduced the deficit in those terms from 8.7 per cent to 5.1 per cent. That is the difference between promises and performance.


MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, thought to be extinct, yet again the Crosbi-saurus has lumbered out of the tarsands to wreak havoc. Known to be callous, verbose, obsolete and bumptious, untethered this creature meanders about causing harm to all that fall in its path.

February 12, 1993
Last night the fisheries minister said that with the proposed UI bill "it seems that everyone quitting their jobs today have been sexually harassed".
To gales of laughter from others from the tar sands, the minister went on to say that if he had been sexually harassed he would want everyone to know that he had been "so favoured".
This is an outrageous statement. Yet again the minister has shown his gross insensitivity to the issues affecting Canadian women. Yet again we see how flawed the interpretation of the new UI legislation will be.
The minister of fisheries owes an apology to every victim of sexual harassment for making light of such a serious issue. With the exception of the Newfoundland Chamber of Commerce, it is no longer even amusing that the Crosbisaurus roams about without a leash and a
gag-


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, another flip-flop for the Liberals. Last week the Liberal leader said he had a plan to scrap the GST. It was reported in the media as the Grits' sleaze tax. Hidden and unfair, it would tax food.
However this week the Liberal leader, speaking at the Toronto Empire Club, admitted that it would be up to 12 months after the next election before the details would be made public. Canadians are demanding that the Liberals come clean with the public; stop waffling.
The Conservative government has a clear economic plan. It has removed the manufacturing tax and replaced it with the GST to make Canada more competitive in the world market.
The Liberals have no plan. Canadians have a right to know where political parties stand.


CITY OF MONTREAL
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Helene Dra-peau, assistant clerk of the city of Montreal, kindly sent me a copy of a resolution passed by the executive committee of the city of Montreal on December 22, concerning the unfortunate freeze on grants in-lieu-of-taxes which will put the city in a very difficult position because, as it says in the resolution, the decision was made without prior consultation with the municipalities.
I wish to inform hon. members that next Monday we will meet the mayor of Montreal the executive committee and everyone who is concerned about a decision that will create tremendous problems for Montreal which stands to lose $10 million without having been consulted. The entire Quebec caucus-yesterday, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace put a question on the subject to my good friend, the Minister of Finance-understands the financial situation but our point is that there was no consultation and this puts tremendous pressure on the finances of the city of Montreal.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time is up. The hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, as a small business person, I am fully supportive of the review of the Small Businesses Loans Act. Amendments to the act are indeed long overdue.
In particular, I have had a major concern that our small businesses did not have adequate access to readily available capital. A number of entrepreneurs in Sarnia- Lambton have reinforced this concern.
Today I still have some reservations that the current amendments to the act will correct this problem. Improvements rely on a firm and unwaivering commitment by our financial institutions to better utilize the program, to maximize access and to be moderate in their demands for collateral on a personal guarantee. I question whether current amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act will guarantee this commitment.
February 12, 1993

However, let me reaffirm my support for a number of the changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act. There was and in my mind there still is room for improvement to this act. Let us make the most of this opportunity. Let us make the SBLA what it is supposed to be all about, access to needed financing and capital for our small businesses.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, it is with grave concern that I rise in the House today to warn Canadians as we head into an election campaign that yes, indeed, this government is finished. There are choices to be made in the next election on precise policies. We know where the government stands on NAFTA and now we know where the Liberal Party stands on NAFTA as well.
Yesterday, as sweepers after the parade of the Leader of the Opposition's speech, the members for LaSalle- Emard and Etobicoke North said that the Liberals would probably sign NAFTA and try to change it later. That is an absolute cop-out. It is a sell-out even worse than what the Tories are doing.


MEMBER FOR SKEENA
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, after hearing what the NDP member for Skeena had to say to the Americans about electricity from Quebec and considering his refusal to retract and stop the screening of a video that criticizes the Great Whale project, all Quebecers feel that what he said was uncalled for, unjustified, and not helpful in creating a better environment.
The leader of the New Democratic Party dissociated herself from the statement, calling it excessive. We can assume this means the hon. member for Skeena will have to leave his party and thus will not be able to apologize to Quebecers.
I therefore want to ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Yukon, to apologize to Quebecers on behalf of her party.


THE ELDERLY
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme disgust with the continuing attack on seniors by the Ontario NDP government.
The NDP has plans to charge seniors who live in apartment buildings for basic maintenance services such as outside window cleaning and painting.
I find such policies to be reprehensible and inexcusable. The latest attack on seniors involves the NDP decision to remove pay phones from lobbies of seniors buildings. In many cases, high rise buildings with hundreds of seniors have been left without access to a public phone. The rationale for this is that it will save through the whole national capital region $18,000 per year.
By removing these phones, the NDP is putting the safety of seniors at risk. If the NDP insists on removing these phones anyway, when is it going to put in some sort of a public safety phone for those seniors?
This is just another example of poor NDP government management. There must be a better way-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River) Madam Speaker, yesterday we had the opportunity to hear the leader of the Liberal Party at the Empire Club in Toronto tell us about his economic plans.
Instead of Canadians being able to sleep well last night, they had nightmares. They had nightmares because they can remember the six and five wage and price controls when the same member was in government. They still remember when he was in power saying the government would not tax gas. What did they do?
[Stage Direction]
February 12, 1993
Oral Questions
The economic plans of the Liberal leader and the Liberal Party are they want power and there is no economic plan.
This is the same party that gave us the 21 per cent bank rate. This is the same party that gave us the 21.7 per cent mortgage rates.
Canadians want the truth. Canadians want economic policies brought forward, not the shadow boxing the Liberals are trying to give us. Let us hear what the Liberal Party really stands for.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
For weeks now we have heard the government claim that it is very concerned that sexually harassed women should be dealt with fairly and should have access to UI benefits.
Last night in a speech to the Lewisporte Chamber of Commerce in Newfoundland we heard a senior minister of the Crown characterize how he views sexism.
"Apparently just about everybody who quits their job is being sexually harassed. We must have one hell of a lot of attractive people working. I have never been sexually harassed myself. If I were, I would certainly want to make it known that I had been so favoured".
How can the government on the one hand claim to be serious about the issue of sexual harassment and on the other hand have a senior minister display such abject ignorance on the subject?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the government is very serious about the issue of sexual harassment and violence against women.
The hon. member knows the minister of fisheries, and knowing him as I do, and as she does, I am absolutely convinced that it was not his intention to reflect unfavourably on genuine victims of sexual harassment.
The minister is on his way to Ottawa. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that if there is clarification required about this statement it will be issued.
I have just been handed a document which is a review of a book that was written about Mr. Crosbie. It reads: "In fact it was John Crosbie who pressed his colleagues to appoint more female judges, to federally enforce maintenance and custody orders, to stop discrimination against women in the Armed Forces and put an end to the sexual exploitation of women and children in pornography. But when it comes to a choice between his legislation or his limericks, the press usually runs with his off-coloured humour every time".
In fairness I do not think-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister will have a chance to continue.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, it is not the press running with off-coloured humour.
It is the minister once again displaying his absolute and total insensitivity to the issue of sexual harassment and the devastating effect it can have in the work place.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister this once again. Given that he and his colleagues claim to be very concerned about this issue, does he not realize that the comments of a senior minister of the Crown ridiculing the issue of sexual harassment in the work place sends out the wrong message at the wrong time and that this is the wrong bill?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and all members of the House that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not insensitive to sexual harassment and exploitation and violence against women. He has a clear record to substantiate that.
He is in transit. He is coming to Ottawa. If it is necessary to clarify what he has said, I know very well he would want to do that. I am sure the hon. member will find his statement of clarification satisfactory.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, we are being asked to change topics. It is unacceptable for the Acting Prime Minister in the House today not to deny the policies expressed yesterday evening by the minister who belittled the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace.
February 12, 1993

I want to quote again what the minister said last night: "I have never been sexually harassed myself. If I were, I would certainly want to make it known that I had been so favoured".
Is the Acting Prime Minister prepared to reject these comments categorically here in this House and say that they do not reflect the government's policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, as I indicated there will be a statement of clarification made by the hon. minister.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about you?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member says: "What about you?" I did not make the statement and I have full confidence that the minister of fisheries will make that clarification. She has known the hon. minister for quite some time. I think she recognizes that a jest was involved in this. He was making fun of himself and not sexually harassed women.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And cripples and coloured.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Wasn't it Jean Pelletier who said that?


An hon. member:: Yes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, while I understand very clearly the sensitivity of this issue, I appeal to the hon. member to wait for the minister to clarify whatever misunderstanding may have occurred. I can assure the hon. member that her reflection of what the hon. minister said is not an accurate reflection of government policy.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment. Among the victims of this recession are tens of thousands of workers in their 40s and 50s. These employees have been offered and have taken voluntary separation packages from their firms. However, under the government's new rules, if the employees take these packages they are cut off
Oral Questions
forever from the possibility of collecting unemployment insurance.
The minister has said that his changes to the unemployment insurance system were designed to catch bums, cheaters and fraud artists.
Why does the minister think that employees in their 40s and 50s who have to take these severance packages are bums, cheaters and fraud artists? Does he not realize that they are decent people who are still in the labour market and will have need of the unemployment insurance system?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I find it incredible that the hon. member would stand up in this House and put these words in my mouth. I did not utter them.
What I indicated, and what the government has indicated quite clearly, is that on the general severance issue you cannot receive severance benefits and unemployment insurance benefits at the same time. What he does not add is that once your severance benefits run out you are then eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits.
The hon. member is talking about an adjustment issue, policies the government has been pursuing since 1984 in a much more pro-active way than any government before.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the minister's officials said quite clearly yesterday that workers who accept severance packages will not be eligible for unemployment insurance at any time if his rules go into effect.
Thousands of Canadian workers in these tough times have been taking voluntary separation packages. There is no scam here. There is no rip-off here. They are just companies and employees trying to cope as best they can with the effects of this government's economic policies.
How can the minister talk about the need to restructure the economy and at the same time try to put into effect a policy which will undermine attempts at this restructuring being carried out in a way that is fair and humane for the men and women involved who have to stay in the work force?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I want Canadians to know that when we talk about adjustment measures, the hon. member who just stood up and pretended to be so

February 12, 1993
Oral Questions
concerned, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada, are the very people who opposed strenuously for over a year the implementation of measures that would protect the unemployed people that they claim they seek to protect.
We increased the funds under UI from $350 million two or three years ago to $2.21 billion to help unemployed Canadians. In our quest to help unemployed people adjust we were opposed all the way by the now pretenders to power on the other side.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The draft document dated December 1992 written by the minister's director of benefit entitlements was sent to all regional managers and directors of insurance services and benefits programs, the executive director and directors general of insurance, the director general of benefit pay systems, the directors of insurance policy and the legal counsel of insurance.
Earlier this week the minister repudiated this document, a document which demands that workers remain in unsafe working conditions, as well as a host of other intolerable situations. This was done under the name of reasonable alternative.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may wish to put a question.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, if the guidelines in this document are not to be followed, will the minister table documents in this House which clearly state this, as well as documents which outline the sensitive procedures the minister has stated repeatedly will be followed when adjudicating claims under Bill C-105?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, the printer of new money, should know. He should really reflect on this. Demagoguery will lead you nowhere. It will lead no one anywhere.
I have never seen the documents that he so proudly distributed to everyone on the Hill and to every media
reporter in the country. This is work from some level in the department.
The important issue here is for Canadians to know that in the implementation of this provision under Bill C-105 its only purpose is to try to rule that benefits will not be given to those who choose without provocation, without reason whatsoever, to seek benefits.
These are the only people targeted and whatever he says will not change the issue.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, with regard to the last statement the minister made concerning what I said about not changing anything, it does not matter what anybody says, nothing is going to change. At least I do not print documents that are as destructive as this one is.
On April 7, 1978 the Tories published the report of its task force on unemployment. Page 9 of the report states:
Most people on unemployment insurance would rather be working. A problem exists, however, in that there is still a myth held by Canadians that UI causes unemployment and that people on UI are lazy.
On March 28, 1992 the minister said in The Toronto Star that unemployed workers "want to work. They are not lazy. The least you can ask of political leaders is that they identify solutions and try to put them in place".
Why are the minister and his government going back on their word and deliberating creating a perception that all recipients of UI are shiftless and lazy, a perception which pits Canadians against Canadians?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Those are very long preambles and long questions.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, how can these individuals stand in the House and pretend that they care about the unemployed when they opposed strenuously the efforts of this government to try to help those people who through no fault of their own became unemployed.
We have made expenditures to train those people, which is the key to reintegration into the labour market, at from $350 million to $2.21 billion. The adjustment
February 12, 1993

policies we have put in place are helping Canadians. We shall improve them because we care about them.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, in an attempt to be brief I am not even going to respond to that ridiculous statement.
In recent days the minister has repudiated his director of benefit entitlement, his director of public affairs, and even his own stated interest in establishing a UI snitch line. How can we have any confidence in a minister when he repudiates not only his senior staff but also himself?
Is the minister going to do the only reasonable and sensible thing and withdraw Bill C-105?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the record is clear. At least we must give them that. They argue that the hard working people of Canada and the employers, those small businessmen and women throughout the country who work tirelessly, should pay benefits to a person who, without reason, without provocation or without any reasonable circumstance, quits his or her job.
That is the position of the NDP. We respect it, but Canadians do not accept it and this government does not accept it either.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In Atlantic Canada jobs are scarce. There just are not enough to go around. Most older workers who retire do not want to. They retire because at least they will have some income. If they did not take voluntary retirement, younger workers with young families and mortgages would be laid off and would have absolutely nothing.
Why will the minister not guarantee the older workers of this country that he will not deny them their unemployment benefits?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member talks about older workers he could say at the same time: "Why don't you add POWA, a program that was put in place to help older workers?"
I am also from Atlantic Canada. I know the situation in our region of the country. I know the hon. member is concerned about this matter. So am I. I can assure the
Oral Questions
hon. member and the House that nothing in Bill C-105 will prevent the government from working with firms and their employees to help them adjust to the restructuring, the rationalizing and the downsizing that are taking place.
We have already taken steps in that direction and we shall take more.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, there is an economic catastrophe happening in Atlantic Canada right now.
When the Prime Minister was president of the Iron Ore Company of Canada he offered a retirement package. Was that voluntary retirement? That sort of voluntary retirement is happening right across this country at the present time.
Why will the minister not be fair with older workers? Why will he not say that if they qualify and they have paid into the program they can have the unemployment insurance benefits?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, we have to be careful with the words we use and not to mix the issues.
When the member talks about restructuring, obviously people who are leaving their jobs under this type of restructuring are not voluntary quitters in the pure sense of the phrase.
The Government of Canada has many tools at its disposal to lend assistance to employees and employers who are adjusting to new economic realities. All these are presently being pursued in effectively positioning companies for emerging opportunities.
I know what the hon. member is talking about. There is the general issue of severance and I want Canadians to know that once the severance benefits have run out the person is eligible for UI benefits. But when we talk about restructuring or downsizing or cashing out, for example, that may be a situation which not only UI but our general adjustment policy could help these people with.
We have POWA. We have others. We are working on retaining the best adjustment measures in the world which we already have.


Dennis Joseph Mills: There is no money in POWA. POWA is empty.

February 12, 1993
Oral Questions


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
At the moment there are about 120,000 unemployed Albertans and by coincidence the Edmonton food bank alone is serving about 120,000 people a year, thanks in large measure to this government's economic policies including the GST and its very bad stabilization policy.
Will the minister in such circumstances tell the House why it was that he did not consult with the respective provincial governments, specifically having regard to what we are talking about today: the buy-outs for people who take severance packages?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I have just indicated that UI was one of the tools in our arsenal to help people adjust to this emerging economy. Rationalization, restructuring and downsizing are taking place. I said that in those situations obviously the person is not a voluntary quitter in the pure sense of the word. I have already indicated that.
We have taken measures in the past and we will in the future to ensure that the measures in place help those people reintegrate into the labour market. That is the issue.
They can claim whatever they want, but no government in recent history has done so much for the workers of Canada, and we will continue doing that.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the minister still has not given us an answer to the question many of us on this side of the House are asking.
At the moment a recent opinion poll indicated that about one in five Albertans was still prepared to vote for the Tory government. I do not know how that can be.
Will the minister tell us why he is not prepared to listen to one of the few Albertans who is still prepared to be seen in public with this government, namely our temporary premier?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, Canadians will see through it. These people on the other side, the Liberals and the NDPers, are not concerned about the unemployed. They are not concerned about the economy. They are not concerned about the rate of taxes. They are not concerned about the deficit. They do not care about these people who have to foot the bill out there, the real people, the taxpayers.


Dennis Joseph Mills: There is no money in POWA.


Bernard Valcourt: They stand in this House and they ask the government to ignore reality. The reality is that unless these steps are taken in a fair way taxes have to be increased or the deficit has to go up with its dramatic impact on interest rates. It will stymie the recovery and we will not do it for the sake of the pollsters or the special interest groups that they play to.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, earlier in Question Period the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the minister of fisheries was in transit. He is in transit all right. He is in transit somewhere between the 19th and the 20th centuries.
What the minister said last night was: "It seems that everyone quitting their jobs today has been sexually harassed". To gales of laughter he went on to say that if he had been sexually harassed he would want everyone to know that he had been "so favoured".
With this outrageous statement, I want to ask the minister of employment: Does he not agree that the minister's interpretation of the proposed UI legislation shows serious flaws in the legislation and just how vulnerable women will be when saying they have been sexually harassed and trying to prove they have been sexually harassed when that is the attitude of the government that is bringing in this legislation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have already responded to that issue. Just to simply repeat, the interpretation of the hon. member and the interpretation of the deputy leader of the Liberal Party is not an accurate reflection of government policy.


Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, this particular minister has a long record of making these kinds of anti-women statements over and over again while I have been in this House of Commons.
February 12, 1993

I ask the government side of the House and the Deputy Prime Minister: Will this minister be reprimanded? Will he be removed from his position of trust and authority so that Canadian women will understand that this House of Commons and this government do not tolerate such specious remarks about Canadian women?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated that the hon. minister of fisheries would be issuing a statement of clarification so that there is absolutely no misunderstanding.
In talking about his record in the book that was written about him-


David Kilgour: You have already read it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am just reading a review, something that has been handed to me, for the turncoat across the way.


Charles Joseph Clark: Has anybody ever read any of your books, David? Anyone? Name one.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The review states as follows: "In fact it was John Crosbie who pressed his colleagues to appoint more female judges, to federally enforce maintenance and custody orders, to stop discriminating against women in the Armed Forces and put an end to sexual exploitation of women and children in pornography".
That is a pretty good record.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister does not really understand the problem in totally denying unemployment insurance benefits to those who leave their jobs voluntarily.
Yes, those who have just cause will get unemployment insurance, but there are many cases where just cause is not clear-cut and it is difficult, costly and takes months to prove. In the meanwhile the employee is presumed guilty and has no income.
How can the minister support such an excessive, harsh penalty in these questionable circumstances? Wasn't the
Oral Questions
penalty of 12 months that he introduced two years ago tough enough?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, surely the hon. member is referring to the penalty of 12 weeks.
The government has been clear. This is not about trying to go after the unemployed. This is about trying to protect the integrity of the UI system. This is about trying to avoid having to raise the premium rates to such a level that it would kill the creation of jobs in Canada.
This is about trying to ask people who have jobs, who luckily have jobs today with this high rate of unemployment, to please stick to their jobs and not expect to quit them without valid reasons and expect their fellow Canadians to pay them benefits for a period of time.
If we had all the money in the world, if we were irresponsible as the Liberal Party was for 16 years, maybe we could ignore the fact that at the end of the day it is always Canadian workers who foot the bill. We care for them and that is why we took these measures.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, the minister is still not answering the key question and he is giving us a lot of rhetoric.
Proving just cause is extremely difficult in many cases. Appeals on average take three to four months and in Montreal they have taken up to two years with no income during that period. As I said the employee is presumed guilty until he proves his case.
When just cause is not always clear-cut and it is difficult to prove, how can the minister justify such an excessive, absolute penalty? Why does he not drop this ridiculous unnecessary bill?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, again I know the hon. member is a reasonable person. Why portray the UI situation for those who appeal as being all in one category when he knows that the vast majority of cases are dealt with expeditiously and within a reasonable time?
I am not saying that this is a perfect world and that we are not ready to try to improve the speed with which we deal with these cases. We are looking at better ways of delivering services to the Canadian taxpayers. The UI

February 12, 1993
Oral Questions
system will not be an exception. We will try to improve the situation and be fair to all Canadians. That is what Canadians expect and should get from us.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
He said yesterday that the rules had been "followed exactly since 1985" in the awarding of the $21 million worth of government advertising. Yet Mr. Chuck Quite, senior public servant, has confirmed that the rules have not been followed.
I ask the minister which is it and when exactly will he stop defending the indefensible?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the people who are trying to defend the indefensible are these two reporters who came up with a totally false story last Saturday. Unlike NBC reporters they have not had the backbone to admit they were wrong and get on to other things.
The fact is we are following a process which duplicates what happens in the private sector. Unlike the previous administration we did not have a process of just selecting one advertising agency. We have a process in this case where six agencies made their pitches to a committee of five. That is exactly right. They made their sales pitches and tried to convince the committee of five which one was the best agency to do it.
The hon. member shakes his head. Perhaps he should learn something about this issue before he asks any questions.
As for having heard back from some of the officials who were called by these reporters, these reporters are again distorting what was said to them, ignoring things that did not fit their biases. Frankly, the editors of The Ottawa Citizen should be ashamed to allow them to continue to write that.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, two senior officials have confirmed there was no written record of the competition. If there
is I would like the minister to table it now. One even said there was no rating system about the bid. We also know that the meeting to discuss the contract consisted of a lunch at the Cafe Heniy Burger in Hull.
How can this government, if it had any conscience at all, hand out $21 million worth of taxpayers' money to Tory advertisers on the strength of a meeting at the Cafe Henry Burger with no written records?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I am truly outraged. You mean there was a business lunch? Oh my goodness, what next? Who knows what is going to happen now? They actually had a business lunch. Gee, what a scandal.
The reality is that these agencies came forward, as they always do in these circumstances, with story boards, with pictures and sketches of the kind of program they would give out, with a description of what they proposed to do if they won the contract. These things were assessed by a committee of civil servants, not politicians, but a committee of civil servants. They decided on the two agencies to run this campaign.
It is a system eminently fairer than the system in place when the Liberals were in power. It is a system that works. It is a system that is duplicated in the private sector.
The hon. member should try to find some other rock to turn over and maybe he will find some other worms squirming around to focus his attention on.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister regarding the proposal to construct an export gas pipeline from the Mackenzie Delta across Yukon to Alaska.
Since the pipeline would interfere with the Porcupine caribou herd, would the Acting Prime Minister assure this House the position taken by various ministers on behalf of Canada ranging from Lucien Bouchard to the right hon. Joe Clark to the present Secretary of State for External Affairs that the 10-02 lands and the coastal plain of Alaska will be accorded wilderness status in perpetuity still stands?
February 12, 1993

Or does this government oppose hydrocarbon and pipeline development in Alaska but support those despite the impact on the caribou on the Canadian side of the border?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not in the House today and I will take that as a representation and relay it to him.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, what is unfortunate is that two of the ministers involved in this are sitting on the front benches.
On Monday the Liberal Party reversed its position on the $1.5 billion fixed link from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island and said in this House: "We want a full environmental assessment of this particular project and this particular bridge".
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now direct this project to such an assessment or will he allow construction to begin as on the Oldman River dam in Alberta and have the courts order an assessment and perhaps then a decommissioning?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, it is true that the Liberals are changing their position on a lot of things. So are the NDP.
I noticed today that the minister of economic development in the province of Saskatchewan, who is an ardent opposer to the North American free trade agreement and the free trade agreement, went to Mexico with a group of 10 people and has gone through an immaculate conversion. He now says that North American free trade would be the greatest thing for western Canada.
There are a lot of conversions taking place and I will certainly take the hon. member's question in that context.


CANADA STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I have a question about student loans for the Secretary of State or the minister answering on her behalf.
Oral Questions
In the February 1992 budget it was indicated that the 3 per cent administration fee on student loans could possibly be eliminated following negotiations for new arrangements with Canada's banks.
Have these negotiations now reached the stage where that surcharge of 3 per cent on student loans can in fact be eliminated?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Not yet, Madam Speaker, but the discussions with the lenders are now well advanced. From what I am advised an announcement will be made on the successful conclusion of those discussions.


ELDER ABUSE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Seniors.
Canadians are becoming more and more aware of the problems associated with elder abuse. Despite this our government is planning cuts of over 80 per cent to the Seniors Independence Program, a program designed to combat elder abuse.
How can the minister justify these cuts at this time? [Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, our government has been very vigilant and in 1988 we initiated a strategy to deal with the needs of seniors. Through this five-year plan, we have developed all kinds of programs which must be implemented in co-operation with the organizations and seniors themselves, including those excellent programs dealing with the problem of violence against older people.
I have a document which is ready to be discussed by cabinet and we fully intend to repeat this initiative which will be based on seniors' current needs, given that these people are active and know how to take on responsibilities and share their daily experiences.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, the government managed to find $21 million for its friends but the sad fact is that it can find only $2.5 million a year to combat elder abuse. The government is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul in funding programs to fight elder abuse.

February 12, 1993
Oral Questions
Does the minister have a co-ordinated program to fight elder abuse and if not, why not?


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, the government has taken an initiative on family violence. Through this program we also work with seniors. But I must emphasize again that, whether it is the New Horizons Program or the Seniors Independence Program, it is up to retired and seniors to submit programs to us. We have done an extraordinary job with the provincial governments in setting up awareness, information and activity programs within groups, and we certainly intend, as a responsible government, to continue to work in close co-operation with our partners-municipal and provincial governments and seniors' groups.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he probably knows in 1987 and again in 1989 the government promised a drinking water safety act. On page 35 of the 1990 green plan the government promises that: "In 1991 the federal government will introduce a drinking water safety act". Seven years have gone by since the first promise was made. In the meantime sales of bottled water and domestic water purifiers have sky-rocketed thus reflecting the increasing lack of confidence of Canadians in their drinking water.
Will the government introduce and pass this legislation before the next election?


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Madam Speaker, I think we are all concerned about issues relating to drinking water. In fact just recently the minister made some statements out west indicating that how as Canadians we have to be more sensitive to the cost of drinking water and that we should be paying more
for the utilization of it. We are the second lowest of the developed countries next to Italy in that respect.
We obviously have been working on an appropriate legislative framework. Not knowing when the next election will be I cannot promise that it will be concluded before then. However it is an issue that the minister and our department are working on assiduously.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: The government has abandoned another important piece of water legislation, namely the Canada water preservation act which was allowed to die on the Order Paper in 1988. It would have forbidden major water exports.
Will the government bring back this legislation before this Parliament is dissolved?


Mary Collins: Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is aware that in other pieces of legislation, for example the legislation dealing with the free trade arrangements, there are specific particulars which prohibit the large scale export of water. We anticipate those will also be in the legislation dealing with NAFTA. Therefore it is clear that this government does not support the large scale export of water. That has been our policy and continues to be so.


LIBERAL PARTY
Felix Holtmann: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Liberal leader has flip-flopped all over in order to find a replacement for the goods and services tax. What negative impact would an ill-thought-of business transfer tax have on Canadian businesses and the Canadian public?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I think all Canadians were waiting with great anticipation yesterday for a clear signal as to what kind of tax the Leader of the Opposition was going to propose as a replacement for the GST. We are not sure whether it will be a BTT, a business transfer tax, a GST, a Grit sneaky tax, or a CST, a Chretien sneaky tax.
February 12, 1993

The hon. member from Edmonton chirping over there had better beware because it was that minister who was part of the group which formulated the National Energy Program that gave us the PGRT, the petroleum gas and revenue tax, the petroleum compensation charge, the incremental oil revenue tax, the Canadian ownership-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. When announcing his decision to allow competition into Canada's long distance telephone market the CRTC reassured Canadians that affordable local rates would be maintained.
Just recently Bell Canada made application to increase local rates because of an erosion of its long distance revenues. Bell Canada, which showed profits of some $986 million in 1991, will increase local calling rates by 10 per cent in the case of residential consumers and 9 per cent for business consumers.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognize that these increases in local rates are anything but affordable particularly in today's stagnant economy? Will he ensure that the CRTC keeps its commitment to the Canadian people to maintain affordable local rates?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I understand the matter is before the CRTC. There will be adequate opportunity for all to make their representations. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made a valid intervention in a response he made in the House earlier this week. I am sure he will be monitoring with great interest the proceedings on behalf of all consumers.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
Article 1302 of the North American free trade agreement requires that services offered by public networks be priced to reflect the economic costs of providing such
Oral Questions
service. As well, U.S. companies, including telecoms and resellers, would be given non-discriminatory access to public networks.
I would like to ask the minister whether he would agree that under NAFTA, American companies would use our networks to bleed off business from Canadian telecoms. Would he also agree that this will further erode the long distance revenues and force Canadian telecoms to seek even greater increases in local rates.?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: No.


SCALLOP FISHERY
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
On January 24, eight U.S. scallop boats were arrested for fishing illegally in Canadian waters off Georges Bank. This illegal fishing for scallops in Canadian waters is continuing.
On any given night between 12 and 17 American vessels illegally capture thousands of pounds of Canadians scallops worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The U.S. vessel owners know that this government has demonstrated its inability to enforce Canada's fishing laws in our coastal waters.
When is this government going to get tough with U.S. scallop poachers and start properly patrolling our coastal waters?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this problem was brought to the attention of the minister of fisheries and myself by the member for South Shore, who shares some of the member's concerns.
We have looked into this. We are prepared to take action in conjunction with the scallop fishery as we have indeed on other fisheries, whether it is dealing with overfishing from Europe or whether it is the agreement we have with the United States.
We have looked into the situation and we will take whatever action is necessary.

February 12, 1993
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table on behalf of the Minister of Justice, in both official languages, a copy of the government's proposal to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and occasional errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada.

Madam Speaker, you will find the usual consent necessary for this bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 264 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour and the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Association of the
Assemblee intemationale des parlementaires de langue frangaise on the first AIPLF-ACCT (Agence de cooperation culturelle et technique) information and exchange seminar on parliaments, governments, human rights and democracies, which was held right here in Ottawa from November 15 to 21, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
61ST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 61st report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-305.
Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PARLIAMENT OF CANADA ACT


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-404, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, the purpose of my bill is to make sure that a member cannot sit in the House of Commons or receive funds for his or her parliamentary duties without swearing or solemnly affirming loyalty to Canada and the Constitution of Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Bellemare 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.
February 12, 1993



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, you will find on the Order Paper and Notice Paper at page 11 Motion No. 10, which I tabled on May 1, 1992 following certain differences that I had with the Chair.
Given the good behaviour and exemplary leadership demonstrated by the member for Edmonton North I would like to withdraw that motion in the spirit of the day and because it is Valentine's Day on Sunday. I just wanted to say have a nice day.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On behalf of my colleague from Edmonton North, who has been a member of the House and occupied the Chair for many years, I thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his kindness. I am sure that my colleague will oblige as soon as he returns from Edmonton.
Motion withdrawn


PETITIONS
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, this petition concerns a human rights violation in Vietnam. The Vietnamese communist government has continued to violate the fundamental human rights of its citizens through arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial, censorship of the press, denial of the right of free association and refusal to hold free and democratic elections. It has imprisoned without a fair trial many religious and political prisoners.
These petitioners are calling on this government to take the strongest possible action to ensure that the communist regime of Vietnam respect human rights.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to file.
Routine Proceedings
The first petition points out that the planned closure of the immigration office in Surrey and New Westminster means that immigrant applicants who have paid $250 for an application will receive much poorer service. It also points out that the loss of the 38 jobs in Surrey and New Westminster that will be transferred to downtown Vancouver means a loss of jobs in these communities and a further concentration of work in the overcrowded and expensive downtown core.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reject the planned closure.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, my second petition concerns Bills C-91 and C-22, which have effectively destroyed our generic drug industry. It calls upon the government to repeal these bills.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from the people of Saskatoon and concerns the taxation of child support payments.
The petitioners point out that the imposition of the tax on child support payments is a heavy burden on the parents who receive them and often results in the impoverishment of children after a marriage breakdown. They ask that the government change the tax system so that is no longer the case.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, the second petition concerns the proposal of the federal government to move the services of Immigration Canada to a central processing unit in Alberta rather than having the services available to people within the different communities across the country.
The petitioners point out that in many ways this will cause hardship for people using those services and certainly will slow down the process by which the Canadian government provides services to people.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my petition has been signed by a large number of residents in my constituency of Ottawa South and concerns the announcement in last year's budget of the termination of the Federal Co-operative Housing Program. That pro-

Government Orders
gram has provided affordable accommodation for many residents of Ottawa South as well as people across Canada.
As recently before the last budget as December 17, 1991 the Minister of State for Housing stated that the benefits of co-op housing were such that a budget of $6.1 million should be allocated in 1992. This was summarily cut in the budget.
This program is one that ought to be preserved for the benefit of all Canadians.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by parents and grandparents in my riding of Carleton-Gloucester. They want to see marketing and sales of the Serial Killers board game, 1st edition, banned in Canada. The game includes a mortuary kit, 25 babies and four murderers. The purpose of the game is to commit murders. For children at an impressionable age, this is a very suggestive game. As you know, Madam Speaker, the game includes tearing off a baby's head. That is part of the game.
I therefore ask the minister to give this matter his attention and ban the sale of this game in Canada.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Code (air and maritime safety), as reported (without amendment) by a legislative committee.
Monique Vézina: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Monique Vézina: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to say a few words at third reading of this particular piece of legislation.
Just before the summer break it was reported back to the House without amendment from the legislative committee. It is an important piece of legislation. The events of yesterday underline how important it is for Canada to take legislative initiatives and enter into agreements with other like-minded countries to try to control terrorism wherever it exists.
Once this bill has passed third reading, been passed by the other place and given Royal Assent Canada will then be in a position to implement three international agreements that we helped create. Those three agreements are the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, and the Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf. We will be in a position to implement those international agreements once we have made the amendments to the Criminal Code, and that is what we have done.
February 12, 1993

This bill helps to extend the reach of Canada's Criminal Code. I am sure members are aware that the Criminal Code was drafted at a time when there were no international hijackings. I suppose piracy was a problem. It is covered under the Criminal Code. This is one of a number of attempts by the government to update various parts of the Criminal Code. It is an important one because it would make a difference in the kind of case we saw yesterday where a crime may be committed in one country and the individual may end up in another.
The provisions of this bill extend the provisions of the Criminal Code so that we could prosecute an individual if they were abroad and there was a Canadian connection.
It also extends protection to the fixed platforms, the oil drilling rigs. We make it clear through our amendments that the Criminal Code provisions apply to them as well. It has been properly described as an anti-terrorist piece of legislation. This is a fact of life. There have been a number of examples.
As recently as yesterday we have seen examples of this kind of situation and Canada is under an obligation. Canada is a leader in trying to bring countries together so that there can be a co-ordinated approach to ensure that there will be no safe haven and there will be no country in which a hijacker or terrorist can land and expect to be immune from prosecution.
It is a step in the right direction. It is a bill that is directed against acts of violence against people. It covers acts involving the destruction of property, attempts to commit these kinds of offences and even complicity with those types of offences.
This particular piece of legislation has not received a lot of publicity. Perhaps it will receive more as Canadians and people in the international community reflect on the difficulties we have in ensuring that this world is a safer place in which to live and not just within the borders of Canada. It extends jurisdiction when Canadians or others are either the victims or involved with the commission of an international offence.
It is a step in the right direction and I am sure that as such it will receive the approval of this House.
Government Orders


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I wish to support this bill that the hon. parliamentary secretary has put forward in the House today. This legislation amends the Criminal Code to enable Canada to implement three international antiterrorist agreements developed under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Marine Organization. These agreements extend the "prosecute or extradite" principle of international law.
Canada joins the other states in an effort to eliminate our country from the list of safe havens for terrorists committing violent acts and this bill goes in that direction. The bill creates new offences in the code to deal with unlawful acts of violence. They are directed at airports serving international civil aviation, maritime shipping and platforms attached to the seaboard on the Canadian continental shelf and it extends the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts over such offences occurring outside of Canada.
The problem is that this bill has been so long in coming. It should have been before this House well before now. The government continues to play catch up in what needs to be done. It is very difficult to find reasons not to support this bill because what is said in this bill is correct as far it goes. The problem is that it should have been here well before now.
We are very fortunate some act of terrorism has not happened in this country where we needed this type of legislation but it was not available. This certainly is not a new concern but goes back many years. We should have been one of the first countries to sign these agreements.
The parliamentary secretary said that by joining this list of countries, Canada will not provide a safe haven for terrorists and that we are working toward eliminating all of the countries where this type of person will not be welcomed.
Frankly, I do not anticipate a day in the near future where there will not be safe havens for this type of criminal. It is a very tragic situation when there are countries in the world that do not realize how important it is to stamp out terrorism. Unfortunately that is just a fact of life. There will always be countries that will offer a safe haven to terrorists.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
While having this bill does Canada's share in participating in these three agreements, it does not eliminate the need for further documentation, further legislation and further agreements.
I listened one time to a speech by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam advocating a world court. I have a feeling that this is the way to go. We really need a world court of criminal justice, not only to deal with terrorists, but also with hijackings, acts of international piracy, pollution in international waters, and last but certainly not least, war crimes.
Those who witnessed on the CBC News the night before last the documentary on the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina cannot help but be touched by the tragedy and the slaughter that is occurring in the city of Sarajevo. They cannot also fail to be touched by the actions of inhumanity toward each other and the war crimes that are occurring there day after day. There is now going to be an attempt to monitor these war crimes. I really have no idea what success they are going to have in dealing with this.
Certainly these types of crimes should not go unpunished. There should be a forum that deals in this area. We do not have an adequate forum to deal with these concerns. Relatives of people who live in Bosnia who are being savagely abused in the name of war will not see these perpetrators go punished. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Canada as a member of the international community must work toward an international organization to deal with these crimes. This present government seems to have a reluctance to push in this direction, perhaps because it will offend somebody that Canada does not want to offend.
I can tell the House that it will not offend humanity. It is humanity that requires an international court of justice. It is humanity that requires us to deal with war crimes and terrorism and pollution in the high seas, to name only a few areas. If we cannot in this modern, complicated, interdependent world work out an arrangement to deal with these crimes then we, as an international community, and Canada in particular, are not fulfilling our mandate to the people of the world.
The fact is we are not moving-I am not saying we are not moving fast enough in this direction. As I have said,
this bill as far as it goes is quite acceptable and I would say helpful. Unfortunately it does not go far enough as far as the government's efforts to correct what needs to be done is concerned.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-69 on behalf of my caucus. I do so at the behest of my colleague, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, who did the work on this legislation.
As we said at second reading, we support it. We find it somewhat frustrating that it takes more time than I think is appropriate for Canada to move to adopt the legislation that in effect implements a decision that the government agreed to, whether it was with IACA or IMO, having sat with other officials from around the world and come up with solutions to international problems. I would hope that we can find ways to streamline this process.
From 1988 until it was tabled in the spring of 1992 to passing this House in February 1993 and hopefully getting quick consideration by the other House, will mean it will be in place and up and running.
Having said that, I do not know of any particular cases that have been in limbo because this bill had not been passed. In fact I am pleased that we have not had to invoke the provisions of this bill to do it.
It is ironic that we are debating it at third reading today after having spent a lot of time yesterday-I think all of us in Canada if not around the world-watching the first hijack in something like 17 years occurring. We heard stories of Canadians who thought they were going to the Middle East only to find themselves in New York City as a result of the hijacking.
Perhaps it is a good lesson for all of us. There are those in our communities who wonder why we still have security at our airports, why we are so insistent on carry on baggage being X-rayed or hand checked in the case of smaller airports where they do not have the X-ray facilities.
We on this side of the House, on an ongoing basis, are pressuring the government of the day about security procedures at airports, such as matching baggage with the people who are on the planes. I think there are still problems out there in Canada where we could do a better job.
February 12, 1993

I would like to offer a friendly suggestion to the government. The Minister of State for Transport, who has a personal interest in this area, is in the House. Perhaps Transport Canada should send one of its staff to Frankfurt to act as an observer as the officials there begin to review what exactly happened. How did a passenger get a hand gun through security?
My sense of Frankfurt and other European capitals is that they do a much better job than we do when it comes to security. The minister shakes her head. I would be happy to hear from her how much better Canada is than the Europeans but I think there is something to be learned. Obviously the Frankfurt air officials have something to learn, to find out what happened there, but there may be a glitch in the system that will assist Transport Canada in improving our security services to an even better level.
I raised an area where I believe the government should act during second reading of the bill. It is the manner in which we contract for security services at our airports. The current procedure is that the Government of Canada makes the airlines responsible for providing the services and at each major airport through an agreed upon procedure one of the carriers accepts responsibility for security. In turn it will contract with a private security firm which will hire personnel and train them to screen passengers as they go through.
We have long objected to this process. We believe very strongly that the Government of Canada should have the responsibility and the direct control of these security services. We believe they should be Transport Canada employees. They should not be private contractors.
We have seen too often where company A's contract has run out and company B comes along and undercuts and then hires back some of the former personnel at lower wage rates. They are able to get the contract because they are able to reduce the rates of the staff. There is heavier turnover. There are always problems because the new contractor is always non-union. There is an organizing drive and they go through the whole process of whether this is a new bargaining unit or an old bargaining unit, and so forth.
Government Orders
All of us would be happier if Transport Canada would accept its direct responsibility and provide the security services so that we have a crew of trained personnel who could be moved across the country, where necessary. It would mean less turnover and better pay, quite frankly. In turn, we would charge the air carriers and they would charge the passengers. Let us not fuzzy that. It is the passenger who would pay for that service, but they would be paying for their own protection and I think that is appropriate.
We support this bill. I have one final comment I would like to make to the government. I wonder if it could look at how it could streamline the adoption of further protocols, of further international agreements, particularly on the safety of passengers and workers, whether it is on ships at sea, on oil rigs, or on aircraft or in airports, so that Canada comes on board legally, not just morally, much faster.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that Bill C-lll, an act prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to persons under the age of eighteen, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House today to obtain my colleagues' support for Bill C-lll, the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.

The bill deals with a most vital goal, to improve the health of each and every Canadian, particularly children and teenagers.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
I am sure that my colleagues on both sides of the House are well aware that today I refer to one of the most crucial public health problems in Canada.
Tobacco use is the single most important preventable cause of disease, disability and death in our country. According to a study conducted by Collisaw and Leahy in 1989 over 38,000 Canadians died from smoking related diseases. One in five of all deaths is caused by tobacco.
It is estimated that in 1995 there will be 48,000 deaths related to tobacco. Other studies show that tobacco use caused 85 per cent of all cancer deaths, 35 per cent of fatal heart disease, and 33 per cent of all strokes.
We can see the burden that tobacco represents in terms of loss of life and human potential, financial loss and human suffering. This burden hangs heavily on Canadian society and we must attempt by all means at our disposal to lighten it or eliminate it entirely.

Nevertheless, encouraging progress has been made to date: tobacco consumption has declined in Canada in recent years. Tobacco consumption per capita fell 20 per cent between 1985, when the government introduced the National Strategy to Reduce Tobacco Use, and 1990.
I think that it is important to point out and for Canadians to know that these results have been made possible by the efforts of all levels of government and our partners in the health field in Canada who are unanimous on fighting tobacco use.
Tobacco use has also declined among young people aged 15 to 19, but it is probably the age group where the number of smokers is still too high, especially and sadly I would say among girls, who are starting to smoke in greater number than boys of the same age. You should know that very rarely do people start to smoke after the age of 18, but once a youngster is seduced by tobacco it is very difficult to quit.

The government's anti-tobacco campaign is not an isolated measure in our efforts to improve the quality of life for the young. There are a number of initiatives aimed at providing children with the best possible environment, which will allow development to their fullest potential. For example, initiatives are aimed at pregnant and nursing mothers in order to prevent malnutrition and tobacco addiction from harming their newborn babies.
I am very pleased that the youth and tobacco measures we have put forward have considerable support among the Canadian public. Moreover, 76 per cent favour preventing access to vending machines by minors. A poll released yesterday by the National Campaign for Action on Tobacco found that the majority of Canadians, both smokers and non-smokers, are in favour of measures to curb tobacco use by minors.

I think that it also must be said that the government's fight against cigarette smoking is not limited to legislation, despite what some may think. On the contrary, this bill today is part of an overall strategy comprising several types of programs all intended to reduce considerably the number of young people who smoke. Fighting such an entrenched and widespread habit as tobacco use requires involving the whole community. When the community as a whole sustains such changes, one can realistically anticipate a long-lasting shift in behaviour. This is what we hope to achieve with the National Strategy to Reduce Tobacco Use.
We all recognize how important prevention is. Prevention can be achieved through educational programs, raising public awareness and various other measures.
Our resolve will not lessen despite the enormity of the problem of tobacco use in Canada. We will continue to take further initiatives to protect the health of Canadians.
It is my intention to come forward in the very near future with revised health warnings on cigarette packaging to warn Canadians, especially the young, of the dangers of tobacco smoking. As well the government will continue with new promotional campaigns including a program designed to help Canadians quit smoking.
February 12, 1993



Before closing, I would like to mention a few more features of the new legislation. The Tobacco Restraint Act provides penalties which we believe are now outdated.
According to the new legislation possession by minors will no longer be a criminal offence; fines for selling tobacco will be raised from $1,000 to $50,000 to show how serious it is to sell tobacco to young people; the Department of National Health and Welfare will be responsible for enforcement.
An adjustment period prior to implementation will be provided in order to develop a community-based compliance strategy through consultation with the provincial governments, municipal authorities and band councils. Of course, this will also allow retailers and vending machine operators to become familiar with their new responsibilities.
Federal inspectors will conduct investigations and prosecute where warranted.

I believe that all my colleagues are in agreement on this legislation. We must inform the youth of this country of the benefits of a healthy lifestyle. We would like to provide them with a healthy environment in which to live. We would like to provide them with an environment, a society in which it is normal not to smoke.
I ask the House to support the health of future generations. I ask that Bill C-lll, an act regarding tobacco sales to young people, be supported. Madam Speaker, I think you will find consent to go through all stages of Bill C-lll, including committee of the whole, and complete consideration of the bill today.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on Bill C-lll, an act to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act and to replace it with an act prohibiting the sale of tobacco to young persons.
My son Sherwin is 17 years old. Today if he so chooses he can walk into any comer store in the country and buy cigarettes, just as thousands and thousands of Canadian youth like him are already doing. The selling of tobacco to youth will change and it must.
Government Orders
Tobacco mortgages the future of our children leaving them forever indebted to disease and poor health. Tobacco will leave them addicted, forming a crippling bond between clean, young pink lungs and hundreds of chemicals, many of them cancer producing substances. This wedding between nicotine and the health of youth is a match made in hell.
Currently 28 per cent of Canadians aged 18 and older smoke cigarettes. Those who have tried and stopped constitute about 36 per cent of the population while another 36 per cent never learned how to start smoking.
Obviously Canada's campaign against smoking among adults has been remarkably successful and we have also reduced the number of smokers among our teenagers. Those successes are due to educational campaigns and the increase in prices of tobacco.
The educational campaign must focus not only on the dangers of smoke to the human body but also on the dangers of smoke to the human mind. It causes addiction which is a 40-year sentence in the nicotine trap.
These measures are not enough as are demonstrated by the continuing sobering statistics among youth. It is estimated that by age 12 half of all schoolchildren will have experimented with cigarette smoking. That is a very sobering statistic.
Even more alarming is the fact that even when people only smoke a few cigarettes a day at an early age it is likely to lead them into a life of addiction. Teenage smokers become regular smokers.
A young girl named Claire Huston posed as a model for the cover of The Canadian Medical Association Journal last month for National Non-Smoking Week from January 18 to 24. She posed as a model for her peers so that they may not learn how to smoke and so they may not be placed in the nicotine trap. She sent a clear message to everyone that cigarette smoking is harmful and it is doubly harmful because it damages not only the human body but also the human mind.
For this reason I stand here today, with the Liberal Party of Canada behind me, and proudly support the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his repeal of the outdated Tobacco Restraint Act of 1908 and his introduction of the present bill. This bill will raise the legal smoking age from 16 to 18 years, decriminalize possession by minors, restrict the location of vending

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
machines to licensed premises and impose fines on vendors who sell cigarettes to minors and thereby decrease access by minors to cigarettes.
The penalties enforcing this bill, fines of up to $50,000, have been declared harsh by some and radical by others. I sympathize with store owners who worry about making the mistake-I repeat, the mistake-of selling to someone they mistook to be of legal age.
However, our court system in Canada has proven to be sensitive and careful. At the same time I would like to emphasize that this legislation is preventive in nature. For every teenager buying tobacco with a fake identification card there will be dozens turned away at the store counter because they could not prove themselves to be of smoking age.
Some have said that this is a very harsh measure, that it is a radical measure but it concerns a serious health problem that we want to prevent among the youth of our country. Not only are they affected physically and mentally but it has the consequence of increasing demands on our health care system which runs into billions. In 1989 cigarette smoking related problems were estimated to have cost our system about $3 billion. That is a sizeable amount of money that we can spend for preventive programs.
A store owner must use discretion, ask for ID when unsure and always fall on the side of caution. Drinking establishments have been doing this for years and they manage quite successfully. We will not find that 19 per cent of young males and 25 per cent of young females are alcoholics but we will find that those numbers of youth are addicted to tobacco today.
It is a matter of social conscience and responsibility. I know very well that store owners are very responsible Canadians. However, I shudder when remembering a recent study in Halifax where children aged 12 to 14 were sent into stores to buy cigarettes. Approximately 60 per cent of them would sell tobacco to these children. That is an alarming phenomenon. [DOT]
Why were they selling this addictive product so easily? I believe part of the answer is in the fines for this offence under the existing federal legislation. Fines of $10, $35
and $100 for the first, second and third offences respectively are no deterrents at all.
A cavalier manner toward tobacco sales also developed because the government and society until now have not sent a strong enough message to retailers. With
38,000	Canadians dying each year because of diseases related to tobacco addiction there is no denying the need to keep our youth away from tobacco. Retailers must heed the fact that tobacco is addictive and dangerous and not sell it to children.
I believe we have reached a new dawn in social responsibility in this country when in a survey released just yesterday 90 per cent of Canadians called for tougher government action against selling tobacco to our children and youth.
Today indeed is a day for unanimous consent among all political parties, all members of Parliament to give this bill speedy passage, saving it from death by prorogation of the House.
I would have preferred to introduce some amendments myself to further strengthen the bill, but I am willing to forgo them in the interest of the benefits already in the bill so that we can go on with that. Last summer I prepared a private member's bill calling for increased fines and even a jail term. I was advised by constitutional lawyers that it could pose a constitutional challenge and thereby delay the passage and implementation of the bill. Therefore, I will settle for the second best, it is still good.
I am sure that if tobacco were discovered today and marketed, it would never get federal drug approval. Since millions of Canadians are currently addicted we must work backward to discourage its sale in Canada and to bring up a cigarette-free generation.
For Liberal co-operation in passing this bill, I have received assurances from the minister of health that the tobacco file will still remain a top priority in his department and I thank him for that.
I would like to remind the minister that since 1989 we have waited for the improved tobacco package labelling promised by his predecessor. A recent court endorsement of the tobacco advertising ban by the Quebec Court of Appeal has now opened the door for the minister to proceed with his promise. I would like to see him do this in The Canada Gazette as soon as possible.
February 12, 1993

I also have been gravely concerned about smokers aged 16 to 18 who will no longer be able to legally access cigarettes upon passage of this bill today. I would like the minister to consider them because if they are already addicted, they need help. I am glad to say that again the minister has given me the assurance that there will be help for these addicted youths. I would like to remind the minister that I will be watching.
I ask the minister to do more and to re-evaluate his department's budget for the widest and most effective distribution of such educational campaign materials.
I have also asked the minister of health to get tougher on smugglers. He must ensure that bootleggers who sell smuggled cigarettes from the back of a truck are shut down. We know that the smugglers would be the last to ask a child for ID.
In conclusion, I would like to indicate to the House that the minister has agreed to meet with the provincial ministers of health within the next six months to discuss licensing of establishments that sell tobacco and to discuss better provincial laws governing the sale of tobacco to minors.
Again I would like to say that the Liberal Party gives its support to this bill to encourage more and better legislation as a part of a new social responsibility in tobacco legislation. Bill C-lll although not completely perfect, will show the world that children come first. Only five pages long it means a lot not just to Canadian youth but to children the world over.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find consent to do all the stages of Bill C-lll, including Committee of the Whole, to complete consideration of this bill today and that when the question is put on any amendments moved in Committee of the Whole they be deemed negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: The House has heard the terms of the motion.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, yes there have been discussions and I assume that when the motions are placed in Committee of the Whole and debated and then negatived, they will be negatived on division. That is what the record will show. With that we agree.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Government Orders
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to be able to speak on this bill for a short period of time. I want to congratulate the minister for moving forward on this legislation. It is an important step toward dealing with the problems of tobacco addition.
First, as was already pointed out by 1994-95, 45,000 Canadians will die because of tobacco related illnesses. Over and above that, the cost of expenditures to our health care system runs into the tens of millions of dollars. In a time when we are all experiencing funding shortages particularly in health care, it is important that we take whatever preventive measures we can to decrease the incidence of illness.
Second, it is very important to remember that all research has shown that if young people do not start smoking before the age of 19 the probability of them starting to smoke is greatly diminished. That is the essence of this piece of legislation. It is trying to clearly say to the younger people that it is a health risk severe enough that we are going to try to prevent them from starting to smoke up until the age of majority.
This bill does two or three things that I support. First of all, it does set a uniform age across Canada. I will speak a little more about that later on at the committee and report stages. It is important to have a Canadian standard rather than having 11 or 12 provincial and territorial standards.
Second, it also increases the fines to a meaningful level. One of the problems we frequently have when dealing with fines is that if the fine is too low, it simply becomes a licence for the person to continue to commit the offence. That is the situation we now have in Canada. The fines are not deterrents. The fines in no way will stop people from that activity. But now with the increase in the fines of up to $50,000 that will of course be a real deterrent.
Third, I support the bill because it does something about the issue of vending machines. Vending machines have become an unsupervised way of obtaining cigarettes.
There are some weaknesses in this bill. If there had been a little more consultation with the opposition, with the provincial legislatures, provincial governments and provincial ministers of health there could have been improvements. There would have been a growing consensus across this country that we should move to a uniform age of 19. Other provinces already have legisla-

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
tion moving the age to 19. I will speak briefly on that later on.
There could have been a tightening up of some of the loopholes whereby someone can simply buy cigarettes on behalf of a youth and is not subject to any penalty. On the whole, I and the New Democratic Party support the thrust of the government. We say let us go forward. Let us go forward, if there are flaws I am sure the minister and if not the minister, I certainly will be back before the House in six or seven months to propose constructive amendments to improve the bill.
I want to make a couple of other comments about where we are in terms of dealing with tobacco addiction. The minister gave his assurance to me and to others in a letter to me this week. He said: "As I stated previously, it is my intention to come forward with revised regulations under the Tobacco Products Control Act to require stronger health warnings on cigarette packaging".
I am happy to get that minister's assurance and I look forward to speedily assisting him in that bill also. I hope he takes that bill to the second step, that he stops the sponsorship of events by tobacco companies because that is a form of promotion that is now considered to be ill-advised throughout the world. Other countries, such as Australia, have stepped forward and have banned any promotion of events by tobacco companies.
I also hope the government will reconsider its strategy for dealing with smuggled cigarettes. The removal of the export tax has been a dismal failure. We have had incident after incident across this country in the last three or four months where exported cigarettes are being brought back in and sold. I am calling upon the government to reinstate the export tax.
I would also like to see the government live up to its obligation in the area of education. More can be done in that area. There has been a cutback in dollars within the health department for education.
Finally, the time has come for the government to put some real money into assisting people to shake this addiction. We spend money on alcohol treatment centres. We spend money on addiction treatment centres. But the government has never seen fit to
develop a systematic workable program accessible to everyone to assist them in quitting smoking.
That is a very significant step which must be taken because more and more Canadians, not only younger people, but also middle-aged people are beginning to realize it is not in their interests and not in the interests of Canadians for them to continue smoking. However, they do need assistance in dealing with that addiction. I can give the minister the assurance that we will move quickly through all three stages this afternoon so that we can get this legislation on the books and we can move forward to deal with this problem of tobacco addiction among youth.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I do not intend to take a great deal of time. I am not speaking on behalf of my party. I do not intend to vote against the bill. However, there are a couple of issues I want to raise.
One has to do with certain factors affecting those who are still, as I am, dumb enough to smoke, especially those who work within the House of Commons. I do not mean the members of Parliament who frequent the ladies lounge or the government lobby or some of the alcoves in the parliamentary restaurant where smoking is still rather openly permitted despite the rules and regulations.
Up until a few days ago the only place some staff and members could smoke on these premises and were allowed to get away with it in an open sort of way was in the loading bay at the back of the Centre Block under the kitchen garbage chute. Because of a fire in a dustbin hundreds of feet away, it has been decided to enforce that too.
It was a health crusade that later became a moral crusade when the anti-smoking crusade got under way, especially the rules and regulations as far as the House of Commons is concerned. There were questions raised that there ought to be some ventilated areas, at least one in each building, where those who were still encumbered with this habit could smoke without having to go outside in the middle of winter.


An hon. member:: But you guys will pay for it.
February 12, 1993


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I would remind the member opposite that if he wants to talk about who will pay for it, nobody pays for it more than the people who pay the tobacco taxes in this country.


An hon. member:: If you want a special privilege you pay for it.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: If you talk about the cost of health care, we also die earlier, improve the actuarial tables and save you a lot of money on pension plans. So do not worry about that aspect of it. TTiey cancel each other out.
I come from a different world than a lot of members here. It is called heavy industry, lumber and mining. Related to that, I can remember some cancer maps of Canada a few years ago. You do not see them very often now. However, the incidence of cancer across Canada was always much higher in mining and smelting areas, pulp and paper industry communities than it was anywhere else in the country.
I do not think there were ever any statistics that suggested that people in those areas smoked more than anywhere else. One thing a lot of us who worked in heavy industry are fed up with is what used to be common practice in industry and that is to make everything an individual guilt trip and cracking down on individuals instead of cracking down on industry.
The emphasis in industry used to be that everybody had to be dressed like the Six Million Dollar Man with ear protection, respiratory protection, gloves and hard hats instead of protecting the worker from the hazards at source.
One thing that is comfortable for politically correct people on this moral crusade that anti-smoking has become is that they can keep attention on that if society concentrates all its anger and all its feelings against individual habits. It is a con job. It was a con job in industry and I suspect it is still a con job.
When there are researchers going out looking for facts to support a given conclusion, which is what a lot of them appear to be doing, how much attention is paid now to the chemicals in the potato growing industry in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I know that nobody in my family will buy commercial potatoes any more.
If you talk to people who work in those areas, it is obvious that lot more of them are dying from cancers produced by the food everybody is forced to eat without
Government Orders
warning labels than die or get sick from cigarettes or tobacco products.
I always told my kids that smoking was dumb and that the people who smoked were dumb. Fine. I still think that is a choice they are able to make. To move as we constantly do in the direction of deregulation of industry, deregulation of the collective and an increasing regulation of people's private lives and private habits is not my idea of a free society.
So much of the research is to steer us away from any of the other very real health problems that plague everybody in society without warning labels.
Just on the point concerning the House of Commons, I think it is a bit too much. There was a fire in a dustbin that took place hundreds of feet away from the one area where a lot of people in this House smoke. It was under the kitchen garbage chute at the back. It is a bit much that they should have cracked down on and not have proper ventilated smoking areas within this House for the significant number of people who are still encumbered with that bad habit. It is a bit much.
If we want to look at health effects we should look at the effects of bad administration, bad government and bad practices. We would do a lot better to ban booze from Parliament Hill and the rest of these precincts than we would with tobacco.
If we look around the country at the costs on family breakdown, of death and injury from alcohol, I suspect we would get very close if not in excess of what we lose every year from the bad habits that result from the smoking of tobacco products.
Nobody is suggesting that we ban booze from the Hill. It is part of our culture, but the least that people here ought to be able to expect is that there are some ventilated smoking areas for those who are still encumbered with this bad habit.
Those are some things I wanted to get off my chest. While I am probably the only politically incorrect enough person to voice some of the objections and the feelings that I have mentioned here today, they are representative of a lot of other members of this House, a lot of people who work on this Hill and a lot of people around the country who just do not believe the kind of research b.s. that we have been getting for the last few years.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
It is imbalanced. It is research looking for facts to support a given conclusion. It is out of whack. It is out of balance. It does not make sense.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order, please. The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-lll, an act prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to persons under the age of eighteen.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Furnishing tobacco to young persons


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chairman, I would like to move:
That clause 4 be amended by deleting in subclause (1) the words
"in the course of a business".


Andrée  Champagne: The amendment as moved by the hon. member is receivable.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chairman, I would like to indicate that the rationale for proposing this amendment is to remove any possible legal loophole whereby somebody would give it to someone who has no real business like the smugglers and second, the so-called middle man. This is really an attempt to improve the bill.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Chairman, I have already served notice that I would be moving the same amendment when we were talking about getting the bill through the three stages today.
My reasons are basically the same. This appears to be a major loophole. I have had some discussion with the minister's office concerning this. I know that it is an area that will be monitored over the next few months to see if
it does become the kind of problem that I think it could become.
By limiting it to a person doing business, it means that you are really opening it up for people to become brokers for youth, to go in and legally buy cigarettes, to go back out and sell the cigarettes to the youth, with both the store operator knowing that is what is going to happen, and the person knowing that is the purpose of their purchase of cigarettes, without being able to do anything. This used to be a problem within the alcohol industry and legislation was brought in to make it an offence for anybody to sell alcoholic products, or give alcoholic products to a minor. We need that same kind of amendment in this bill.
I just want to reiterate that we should move forward with this bill. If in the next six months it becomes obvious that this is a problem, I will be back before this House asking for a comparable amendment.
Madam Chairman, I need your guidance. I have another amendment I wish to make to clause 4 but I was not sure whether you were going to call for the vote on clause 4 or just on the amendment.


Andrée  Champagne: We will start with this amendment and then move forward.
Pursuant to order made earlier today, the amendment is considered negatived on division.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Chairman, I would like to move:
That clause 4 be amended in line 5 on page 2 by deleting the word
"eighteen" and substituting therefor the word "nineteen".
It would have been a much stronger piece of legislation if the age had been 19, and I say so for two reasons. A number of provinces moved forward with legislation to establish the age at 19 for a very good reason. Within the high school system there are many 18-year-olds. This makes it very difficult for people in the high school environment and stores around the high school to know whether or not they are dealing with minors. They know that as a result of peer pressure a person who is 18 and in high school will purchase cigarettes for those students who are under age. It would make it much more enforceable to have an age where the vast majority of people in our public high schools would not be able to obtain cigarettes.

The age of 19 rather than the age of 18 is increasingly the age of majority for all sorts of other things across Canada. Therefore, to make it compatible with the legislation now before the Ontario and the B.C. legislatures it should have been 19.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chairman, I object to the amendment. It is my recollection that the majority age for most of the provinces remains at 18 years of age.
Perhaps we will be inviting a lot of protest on this basis alone. We may lose sight of the mission of the bill which is to protect minors, those under 18 years of age. I register my objection to this amendment.


Andrée  Champagne: Comments?
Pursuant to order made earlier, the amendment of Mr. Karpoff is considered negatived on division, and the same vote applies to an identical amendment to clause 4, at line 25 on page 2.
Amendment negatived.


Andrée  Champagne: Are there further amendments to clause 4?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chairman, I move:
That clause 4 be amended at lines 15 to 20 by deleting subclause
(2) and by renumbering the remaining subclauses accordingly.
The reason I am proposing this amendment is that as a former medical practitioner I do not recall a physician ever prescribing tobacco products. Perhaps the only way I could conceive of this would be in a situation where they would tell laboratory technicians or technologists to buy some for their experiments, but they would never prescribe them for patients.
On this basis I thought that this provision, unless the government could clarify it for us, was unwarranted and served no additional purpose in the bill.


Benoît Bouchard: Madam Chairman, the amendment does not say should. As I understand it, it does not apply in respect to the prescription of a physician entitled to practise.
Government Orders
I understand the position of my colleague. I know his expertise at that level. The bill is not necessarily inclusive in terms of what we do, but in an exceptional circumstance where it would have to be done the bill would apply accordingly. That is the reason for it being in the bill.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chairman, the reason I have great apprehension about this subclause is the implication in the subclause that doctors prescribe tobacco products and that is a very serious indictment of the medical profession. On that basis I remain convinced that my amendment must proceed.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Chairman, I do not want to get into a long discussion about this amendment but my understanding was that some prescription drugs to assist people to quit smoking, including some nicotine derivative drugs, would be considered a derivative of tobacco.
I agree with the hon. member's concern that there be no implication that under normal practice doctors prescribe cigarettes. It also talks about any product manufactured from tobacco. It may include such things as various kinds of nicotine patches used to assist people in beating the habit. Therefore I think the subclause should be left in the bill to protect the doctor in cases where that is true.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chairman, a tobacco product is clearly defined in clause 2 as:
(a)	tobacco leaves, and
(b)	any product manufactured from tobacco- and includes cigarette papers, tubes and filters.
Nicotine is not a tobacco product. Nicotine is not a cigarette. It is one of the chemicals that causes damage to the human body and to the human mind. It is not a tobacco product.
I remain convinced that this subclause bill is unwarranted and could leave the implication that physicians prescribe tobacco products, which they definitely do not.


Andrée  Champagne: Further to order passed earlier today, the amendment is now deemed to have been negatived on division.
Amendment negatived.
Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Benoît Bouchard: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Benoît Bouchard: that the bill be now read a third time and do pass.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chairman, I would like to thank at third reading the National Campaign for Action on Tobacco. I would like to put on record what the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health said:
Now is the time for us to seize this opportunity to simply pass Bill C-lll, <he Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act.
I would also like to put on record what the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada has said:
This piece of legislation is an important element of a comprehensive strategy which will greatly reduce tobacco use by kids.
Last I would like to put on the record what the Canadian Cancer Society has stated:
With this bill Parliament can support efforts by Canadian parents to ensure their children's claim to a healthy life.
I submit that a new sense of social responsibility has dawned on us. Now we can demonstrate to Canadians that we are really serious about protecting the lives of our youth, that in fact our children come first.
I would like to make a challenge to all members of Parliament both in the House of Commons and in the Senate. If we donate $1,000 of our income a year for the next ten years, we will be able to generate $4 million and at the end of that time to contribute that amount to the elimination of smoking among the youth of Canada.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, it is appropriate at third reading stage to pay credit to those
who have fought for legislation and tax policy that have made Canada one of the leading countries in the world in the reduction of smoking and cigarette consumption.
The National Campaign for Action for Tobacco, the anti-smoking coalitions, the Canadian Cancer Society and a variety of other heart and stroke foundation organizations should be commended. All Canadians owe them a debt.
We cannot let it pass without acknowledging they have done it under tremendous pressure and odds. They have taken on one of the most powerful and well financed lobbies in Canada, the tobacco lobby that has highly placed spokespeople with a lot of political influence, well financed campaigns and a tremendous amount of money to spend. In one sense it is like David taking on Goliath. Because their cause was right and they were diligent and persevered, we can thank them for the progress we have made in Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-79, an act to amend the Divorce Act and the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, as reported (with amendments) by a legislative committee.
Hon. Thomas Siddon (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Carried on divison.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Thomas Edward Siddon: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
February 12, 1993


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words at third reading stage of this bill. We as members of Parliament usually say that we are pleased to speak on any piece of legislation. However, this concerns an area I have felt strongly about and I am very proud of the fact that I was able to be a part of the legislative committee and be one of the speakers on this.
In that context I want to thank the hon. member for Terrebonne who chaired the legislative committee that looked into this bill. Indeed, I thank all members of the legislative committee as well as officials from the Department of Justice. Through their work and their initiatives in the department, I think they are making a contribution to the quality of life in this country and they are making a difference by helping to solve a very difficult problem.
That difficult problem involves what happens when a couple becomes separated or divorced. This particular piece of legislation amends the Divorce Act as well as the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. It involves amendments to both those acts. They are both steps in the right direction.
One thing that cannot help but strike anyone who started to study the law of this country, as I did 18 years ago, is that there are considerable problems with the whole question of support, particularly the support of children. The law as I understood it and as I experienced it in the relatively short period of time I practised law, made it extremely difficult for an individual to enforce a support order, in most cases against an estranged husband.
There were hundreds of thousands of examples over the years in which women particularly have suffered. Just as important, of course, our children suffer because their estranged father who does not have custody is not paying for support. That is wrong. That is fundamentally wrong.
No system of law in this country or in any other should in any way facilitate or not come to the assistance of children whose mother's counsel has obtained a support order. This is wrong. Nobody has the right it seems to me
Government Orders
to bring children into this world and then renege on their obligations to those children.
This sort of thing has gone on in this country for many, many years. Indeed, I remember seeing statistics in my province of Ontario that I am sure are mirrored across the country. Individuals who were up to date in their support payments of their children were the exception to the general rule. Normally support payments and schedules were not adhered to.
That is wrong and it seems to me that every legislator, everyone involved with the judicial system of this or any other country, has an obligation to change that, to do something about it. The problems do not involve just non-payment but what happens when circumstances change.
I can remember one particular example from when I practised law. A woman came in who had a provincial court support order in favour of her children. She told me her separated husband was not paying for the support of the children and that he had moved from Ontario to Manitoba.
The first thing that would go through a lawyer's head is good luck in trying to enforce a provincial court order from the province of Ontario if that individual has moved to another province.
It is not to say that there was not a procedure. There was a procedure. I am going by memory now about registering the provincial order in a superior court, having it transferred to a superior court in another province and then going through the enforcement procedures. It was a very long and expensive process for an individual to get justice and the support that the law requires, in that particular case, for her husband to pay.
One of the things that I was very pleased about after I became a member of Parliament was that the government did come forward with the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. It was a step in the right direction.
I know just as we have passed this piece of legislation and as we did the previous one, the knock will always be "you should have done this last year" or "you should have gone farther". I am the first one to say that this does not solve all the problems of the enforcement of custody and changes to orders under the Divorce Act.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
I agree with that. I agree it does not fix all the problems but it is a step in the right direction. This is a good piece of legislation just as the previous one was. It did not get much publicity. I used to talk about it. When people would say what are you doing in the justice area, I always told them that we are making it possible, that we are getting the federal government to co-operate with provincial authorities to get involved with collecting support payments from individuals who are under an obligation, not just legal but moral, to support their children.
I was very, very proud that the federal government was involved with that. I am very proud and pleased about this particular piece of legislation. This too is a step in the right direction. It helps in the enforcement of support orders by making some refinements, clearing up some of the red tape and responding to some of the problems we found in the last few years with the original piece of legislation.
As well, it helps individuals who have obtained a divorce and then, for whatever reasons, circumstances change and they want to make a change to the original order. This gives them some flexibility in terms of where they can go to get that changed. That too is a good idea and a step in the right direction but the process is not complete.
I know that the officials from the Department of Justice I referred to earlier are in discussion with their provincial counterparts. They are working on guidelines to help bring some consistency across Canada as to what, under certain circumstances, an individual, a child might expect in a support and custody hearing. I hope to see those recommendations later on this year, which is good.
There has been progress in this area. This is a step in the right direction. There is going to be more progress in this and that is good. I should add that we have seen progress at the provincial level. I do not mind saying that. I do not know what if anything the New Democrat Party in Ontario has done that I agree with, but I certainly agree with some of the moves that have been made in this particular area because this for too long has been a neglected area in society. I have made the comment and I believe it to be true.
If for the last 125 years our system of law and government had been dominated by women, this would
not be a problem and we would not need this legislation. This problem would have long since been cleared up.
I am proud to be part of an administration that believes this is a priority and is bringing it forward. I appreciate those individuals who came before the legislative committee. Indeed, I wish there had been more. We sent out invitations and we would have liked to have heard from more groups on this subject, but those individuals who did come forward did contribute positively to the debate.
One of the ideas that came forward was the whole question of taxation of support payments. That is obviously outside the scope of this particular piece of legislation but nonetheless an interesting proposal did come from one of the groups. The interesting proposal from this group was that we should remove the tax consideration of support payments in the hands of the payer and the payee. Generally in a support order the payee is in a higher tax bracket so the tax deduction is usually more valuable to him than the recipient so in effect there is a public subsidy to the whole question.
I am happily married to my wife. I have three children. I do not get a tax deduction. Certainly under the changes to legislation, it is a reasonable question to ask whether those who are separated should get a tax deduction for what otherwise is their moral obligation to look after their children.
I do not want to take up too much time but I hope that is a question that this House will consider. I agree it is beyond the scope of this bill but, as I say, it does touch on this whole area.
This is a step in the right direction and I look forward to the results of the discussions that departmental officials are having now with our provincial counterparts because I believe that too will be fruitful and helpful in this area.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be part of this debate on Bill C-79.
To follow what the parliamentary secretary has said, this is a bill to amend the Divorce Act and the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act. Its goal is to improve the effectiveness in the support payment system. We are also supposedly improving the tracing and garnishment system of support payments.
February 12, 1993

With respect to the Divorce Act, the major change in the Divorce Act appears to be the simplification of the law so that it will be easier for former spouses living in different provinces to apply for custody or a support order.
With respect to the Family Order and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act this will also reduce costs, this time for investigating child abduction. The proposed amendments remove the requirement that police officers get court authorization to use general federal data banks for tracing individuals in cases of spousal child abduction.
The witnesses who came before the legislative committee were of the opinion that this bill was a step forward. However, they felt that the whole process needed to go a lot further than was the case under these amendments. The problems that exist in the maintenance of children of parents who are separated or divorced is just not satisfactory and in fact is totally unacceptable.
We have a large number of children at risk who are not receiving the support that their single mothers can give and that is really no fault of the single mothers. To give an example, in a study of broken marriages by Statistics Canada which was done in June of last year men who paid alimony and child support had incomes more than twice as much as their partners who were looking after the children.
It is quite a shocking statistic that the husbands paying the money have incomes of more than twice as much as the mothers looking after the children. I say the mothers because the parent who is paying the maintenance in 98 per cent of the cases is the father and the other 2 per cent of course is the mother looking after the children.
That does not leave a lot of funding for the mother and children to live on. This statistic was based on the tax situation in 1988 but according to Statistics Canada very little had changed since 1988 so the problem is still there.
The study also showed that alimony and child support on average made up only 15 per cent of the income of the women who received it. That is an unfair statistic I would suggest because what we are talking about here are a large number of cases where the custodial parent
Government Orders
does not receive any maintenance whatsoever. If you average it out over all the families that are separated or divorced where one parent is looking after children and receiving maintenance from the other the income of the mother and children existing in the family is only 15 per cent.
It gives you an idea of how serious the situation is in our communities. What we are talking about are the children of Canada, a large number of children. It is certainly not the majority of children, but a very large number have become children at risk through the system and its neglect or its insufficient attention. These children will be the citizens of tomorrow. We are not guarding this resource. Not only are we not guarding it we are in many cases abandoning its welfare.
We have heard more and more of the situation that exists with respect to crime in our communities. Now more than ever we are concentrating on crime prevention and the reduction of violence in our communities.
While we are concentrating on this and talking about longer sentences for offenders, while we are talking about retribution, more and more evidence is coming forward that we need rehabilitation, treatment and care for the young people in our society.
One psychiatrist testified before the Standing Committee on Justice which studied the question of crime prevention. This psychiatrist is very knowledgeable in crime prevention and children at risk, the very young people in our community. He testified that the most important age for assistance as far as the reduction of crime is concerned, where our dollar can have the greatest impact in reducing crime, is between the time the child is bom and the child's third or fourth birthday.
Now that is quite a significant statement. It shows that the younger the child is the more of an impact we can have in bringing that child forward as a citizen who does not resent his or her treatment in society and who does not represent a child at risk who could become a potential violator of the laws in this country.
It has also been said by many and the statistic that sticks in my mind is that for every dollar we put into the welfare of a child below the age of seven we will save $7 in reduced cost to the community in incarceration, rehabilitation, court costs and police costs. Investing $1 will save $7 if we want to look after our very young people.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
However, we are not doing it. We are not doing it because of the stereotypical, preconceived attitudes that have existed in this country for some time. We are not doing it because we do not want to change. We want to tinker with the system a little but we really do not want to change it.
We are not changing it even though many women, because of the low maintenance and low support they receive for themselves and their children, have to supplement their income. Two-thirds of the women who receive alimony and child support are raising their children by themselves.
They are left with this very important-I do not want to say difficult because difficult is not the word, although raising a family is not easy today. Important is the best word because they are raising and moulding the citizens who will be in charge of this country tomorrow.
In that there is this important role, this important and meaningful procedure and this important and meaningful task ahead. We all should be supporting these women, these partners of broken marriages who are looking after our children.
What is the reality? The reality is that the majority of Canadian child support orders are in arrears. The majority are in arrears. Most mother-led post-divorce families live in poverty. That is over 50 per cent. This would still be the case even if all payments were made. That remark comes from no source less than the Department of Justice. The reason that even if all maintenance payments were made over 50 per cent of the mother-led post-divorce families live in poverty because the support payments are ridiculously low. Two-thirds live in poverty. That is, with payments being made two-thirds live in poverty. If the payments are not made, 75 per cent of mother-children households would live in poverty.
The Ontario government, as the parliamentary secretary has said, has taken over the collection of support payments in the province of Ontario. I join with him in congratulating it on that. This is important because the stalling and the deflection that has gone on in enforcing these payments has been totally tragic. It has been a national tragedy in Canada. But even with the full support of the Government of Ontario, and I think it is
sincere in this, in that province 75 per cent of maintenance orders are in arrears. Goodness knows what the situation would be if it was not supporting them.
Research by Miriam Grassby published in May 1991 in Reports of Family Law shows that the average support awarded is considerably less than half of the actual cost of raising a child.
Therefore, in a family where maintenance payments are received, less than half of the needs of the child in that mother-led family are met by the support payments. That is just for the necessities. That is absolutely no money for the mother for leisure activities or for any kind of retirement package. That is unheard of. There is no retirement package, nothing that could be put aside. Just forget about that completely. The mother is supposed to completely forget about any kind of recreation, any kind of free time, any kind of pleasure or leisure activities or any kind of money put aside for retirement or whatever.
The case seems to be that it is hard to deny your children if you are living with them, but it is easy if you are not. I am not condemning the former husbands. This is not an easy situation. This is not cut and dried. When there is a divorce and a breakup of the family, there is a tremendous amount of animosity.
Sometimes the mother is resentful and if she has custody of the children she does not want the father to have access. If the father does have access, or the court says the father is to have access, she may throw roadblocks in the father's way. The father may be well-meaning at the beginning but because of the frustration and aggravation of trying to see the children he finally says he is not going to go through the hassle and is not going to bother trying to gain access to the children.
That is one way of doing it. That is understandable, with the degree of aggravation, but that is not fulfilling the role for the children. You may dislike your former wife intensely but the fact of the matter is the children are so very important. We cannot just look at the animosity that exists between two adults who are not putting the welfare of the children first and foremost, or one who is and one who is not, it does not matter which one. I do not want to get into that kind of an appraisal this afternoon.

It is sufficient to say that more consideration must be given to the children. As well, judges seem to be unaware of the barriers to a woman becoming self-sufficient if she is older, say in her forties. Not only may she be lacking in skills, experience and opportunity but as the custodial parent she is not free to travel, to work long hours, study at night or socialize with colleagues and may not be able to hold employment, a job that she wants to hold.
That is in addition to the fact that sometimes in marriage the wife sacrifices her career for the husband's career. She does not follow through with her own career because she is working with the children, helping them and moulding these citizens of tomorrow.
The husband can carry on and he does. The divorce takes place. The husband carries on with his career but the wife has jettisoned her career. She does not have a career. She tries to pick it up but she also must care for the children. She also must find a job. As a result of the fact that she has given up these important years of work and does not have the experience but does have an increased age she becomes less and less marketable as a prospective employee.
Add to that the inequities of the tax system. In our tax system a man gets to deduct his child support payments directly from the amount of tax he must pay. If a maintenance order is awarded by the court, if the court says to the estranged husband who is living apart from his former wife and children that he must pay so many dollars a month for the support of his children the husband is not taxed on that amount but it is considered as revenue to the mother. Not only are the courts awarding less than what is necessary for the support of the children but what the mother receives for supporting herself and primarily the children is taxable. She gets even less than what is awarded in dollar terms.
The federal government actually subsidizes the lifestyle of the divorced man to a large extent. There are many divorced men who are faithful in making these payments. They are good fathers who go out of their way to keep in contact with their children. These men really deserve an amount of credit that is not being given to them.
Government Orders
That father has affection for the children. It is difficult when the mother gets custody of the children and the father does not get to keep contact but must pay. He is obviously a man who is putting the consideration of the children first. That is really vital, and he knows that.
Quite often he is paying more than he feels he should be paying, and in many cases he is right. He is paying, he is being taken advantage of. There are lots of ways in which that can be done. It is not one-sided. It is a complicated situation. It is not cut and dried.
In 1988 men deducted $1.3 billion from their income tax for child support payments and saved themselves $475 million in taxes. The government then collected about $275 million in taxes from the recipients of the support payments. That leaves what we could call a divorce subsidy of approximately $200 million. That $275 million, although lower than what the husbands would have paid, was really grinding down the single mothers with children who had to pay that amount of taxes.
Advocates of the system say that it encourages judges to award larger support payments if the husbands do not have to pay taxes. It is also said that many husbands are married a second time and have second families and that there is only so much they can contribute. That is an argument, but there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that husbands separated or divorced from their families are encouraged to pay maintenance or alimony by the mere fact that they do not have to pay taxes on that amount.
Why should husbands and fathers feel that they do not have an obligation? Why should anyone have to be encouraged to support their children, whether they are children living in the family home or children and mothers living outside the family home?
An Ontario government report presented in November 1992 said that child support payments should not be deductible or included in the calculation of taxable income. There should be no tax ramifications at all for maintenance payments or alimony payments. It should be treated as income by the husband and passed along to the former wife and children without any tax ramifications or tax payable by the former wife at all.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
That is a recent recommendation by the Government of Ontario. It acknowledges in this study that to do so may cause some courts to re-examine the maintenance orders by arguing that if the husband has to pay taxes then that is more of an outlay by him, and therefore they will have to reduce the orders.
In order to stop the onslaught of realignments of maintenance payments or re-examination of maintenance payments the report states that the taxes payable by the former husband should be phased in each year. For example, each year over a five or ten-year period the husband should pay a higher percentage of taxes until the final result would be that there would be no tax ramifications. It would be treated as income to the estranged husband and no taxes will be paid by the former wife and mother who is looking after the children. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that.
The present situation is costing taxpayers $235 million a year. The 1990 taxation statistics reveal that not only are divorced fathers and husbands being given a tax break but an additional $66 million is not being claimed by the estranged wives and mothers who have the custody of the children. The mothers are in such a difficult financial situation that they try to dodge the tax payments. Through what they consider to be absolute necessity they try to avoid payment of the taxes they should be paying by not declaring their support payments. It is a fact that the government is losing $66 million in that way.
The present tax deduction that men receive when they pay support is arrived at by rewarding the payer for meeting his obligations. That is not something of which there is any proof. There is no substantiation for that case.
The amount of support to be paid should be more in keeping with what is necessary. Whether it is a reality that the courts must face, or whether it is a tax change, there must be change to reflect the need for single mothers with children estranged from former husbands to have more support.
It is also in the interest of the community to ensure that this happens because the children of today are the citizens of tomorrow. They must be considered. They have to be considered because if we do not consider them then we are asking for a great deal of trouble in the future. We cannot forget about the children of this country without paying the price.
In addition to the problems that women face, quite often what they receive is what the lawyer wants. There may not be maintenance payments over a period of time. There may be a lump sum payment. That may be what the lawyer will advocate and not only advocate but absolutely demand. The lawyer may actually take his or her client to court to get what the lawyer feels is in his or her interest in terms of legal fees.
There could be $10,000 awarded to the mother for herself and the children without any maintenance payments over a period of time. That whole $10,000, and perhaps even more, could be taken by the lawyer. That leaves the mother and the children without anything as a result of the divorce settlement.
I once again congratulate the province of Ontario for trying to do something, at least in the initial stages, to correct men's ability to stall. The longer husbands work at trying to stall their maintenance payments the better they become because they know a little about the law. They get to know a little more about the system. They know that perhaps the system will not enforce the orders.
Perhaps they are big movers and shakers in the community and have some clout and that helps them to stall their maintenance payments. That helps them to renege on the support for their children and their former wife. They get to know it a little more as time goes along and of course their lawyers are a big help to them in that regard. That is not to criticize lawyers. Lawyers are there to help their clients and there are good clients and bad clients-


An hon. member:: Good lawyers and bad lawyers.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: There are good lawyers and bad lawyers. That is one of the problems.
The other problem is that maintenance orders are not being enforced. They can be held up for years. What does a family do in the meantime? The father can also use the Divorce Act to have payments reassessed and there are various ways of delaying the actual maintenance payments themselves.
Maybe there should be mandatory interest charges and penalties on overdue payments. Possibly that is one way of demonstrating that society is not going to tolerate the neglect of children in the various communities. Maybe, and I say more than maybe, there should be more negotiations in the federal-provincial area to deal with this situation. The actual collection and enforcement of
February 12, 1993

maintenance orders falls within provincial jurisdiction. One of the problems we have in our great country is that divorce is a federal statute but the enforcement of maintenance payments is provincial. Therefore, some areas are in federal jurisdiction and some in provincial.
The parliamentary secretary has stated that there is some movement, some negotiations between the Minister of Justice and his counterparts in the provinces. I want to say that if movement is there it must be measured with a microscope because there is very little evidence of any movement. In fact, in 1992 there were two federal-provincial conferences on justice planned with the attorneys general and both were cancelled by the Minister of Justice.
In fairness, there was the referendum and a few other things that came about, but the fact is that priority was not given to what the government says it feels very strongly about. It was not given at all. There was no priority given to deal with this.
The new Minister of Justice says there will be a symposium from March 10 to 12, where federal-provincial problems will be dealt with. They will deal with young offenders, the problems of maintenance payments, crime prevention and many other areas where federal-provincial negotiations must take place.
It will be a two and a half day conference. How in the name of heaven are any conclusions going to be arrived at? How are we possibly going to reach any kind of improvement in two and a half days with federal, provincial, municipal officials and officials from all the organizations that deal with crime prevention in Canada at the conference in Toronto? It is absolutely incredible that we should be expected to believe there is going to be progress. There is no progress now and there is no indication that the federal government wants to make progress in addressing this tremendously important area.
The fact of the matter is that we are in the last century in the way we deal with this question. Even when the courts talk about support and funding for estranged mothers and children or the former wife and mother, they talk about the major asset as being real property, the family home or whatever property they have, be it real or personal. They do not talk about the main
Government Orders
financial area as being the earning power of the father which is the main area which has to be considered.
We seem to be going around in circles on this question. We seem to be taking three steps forward and two back. If this country is going to work it has to be meaningful for the people who live in this country. It has to be meaningful for Canadians. It has to be meaningful for the needs of the future, and the needs of the future are our children. We are doing a tremendous injustice both to the children and our future.
If we do not come to grips with this, if we cannot get the federal government and the provinces to come together to deal with this very important question of maintenance of the mother and the children, if we cannot provide meaningful assistance, if we must say that these children and single parents must live without the maintenance orders to which they are entitled and they have been awarded by the courts of this country, if we have to say that the Canadian public has to pick it up in any fashion possible, perhaps by welfare payments or by charity, then what are we saying? We are saying that this country does not work. We are saying that the future is not important. We are saying that the children of this country can be left to fend for themselves. We are saying that we are not serious about crime prevention. We are saying that we just do not care.
I want it to be known by all Canadians that that is what they are saying. I want everyone to know that that is what they are saying so it does not become a shock, a surprise and a rude awakening to this country as the years go along. I want them to know. I want them to have the chance to do something about it.
This government knows that it does not care. This government knows that it is not going to do anything. It is not putting themselves out for the children of this country and our leaders of tomorrow. It has made its choice and that choice is to do very little. That is not good enough. It is not good enough for this side of the House and I know it is not good enough for most Canadians.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my colleague from Cape Breton who spoke forcefully and clearly on many of the issues that are raised in this discussion of family law reform brought forward by Bill C-79.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
I would like to say before going into any of the technical aspects of the bill and the function that it performs that some of the issues which are touched on by revisions to the support for families in the event of divorce go beyond the narrow scope of that issue.
Bill C-79 provides an opportunity for this House to consider many of the things that concern our electors, the citizens of Canada, about the developments in modem society. Some of them relate to divorce and support for dependent spouses and children in the event of divorce but I think others relate to the fundamental issue of how well Canada is doing in the context of providing for its weakest and its poorest.
We all know and we all shared a great deal of pride in the fact that according to some standards the United Nations indicated last year that Canada had the best standard of living in the world. This reflects a number of aspects of Canadian society of which we are all justifiably proud.
What I think those of us who are concerned especially at this time and what we are aware of is the fact that despite the excellent quality of life, despite the fact that Canadians enjoy great opportunity, great freedom we also have within our borders an undue level of poverty. We have too many children, we have too many adults, who face very grim prospects as we go into a continuing winter of recession.
Unemployment remains high, in excess of 11 per cent. There are 1.5 million Canadians out of work. Poverty is clearly related to unemployment. The problems we face in our cities, in our rural areas are continually reflective of the level of poverty that has been increasing sadly over the past few years.
The 1980s were the first decade since the Second World War in which real family income failed to grow over the course of that decade. This reflects a number of things. In particular, it reflects the fact that government charges have been increasing at a very rapid rate through all of that time. Government charges in the form of taxes at both income tax levels as well as property taxes or wealth taxes, which have increased dramatically in many municipalities across the country, have imposed a greater burden on families. At the same time, real incomes
were not increasing as rapidly as inflation was occurring during that decade.
It reflects the fact that our economy has gone through a period of difficult restructuring. There have been a lot of high paying jobs lost permanently during the course of that decade and the early years of the 1990s.
To some extent it is fair to say that the policies pursued by the government have contributed over the last three years directly to the degree and intensity of the recession that we face. We all know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada pursued a policy of what he called price stability, some called it zero inflation, with great ardour and intensity. His objective was more or less achieved but at a price of many jobs being lost.
It is interesting when you look at the pursuit of that policy by the Bank of Canada to always remember that the bank pursues monetary policy with the consent and agreement of the government. The Minister of Finance meets on a regular basis with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He has the power to tell the governor to pursue a different policy. The policy we are talking about is the government's policy.
That policy to drive inflation out of the system was pursued at the same time as the government was implementing a free trade agreement with the United States. The perversity of doing those two things at the same time is demonstrated by the fact that the Canadian dollar which traded at 76 cents U.S. in October 1987 when the free trade agreement was signed, reached a peak of 89 cents in November 1991.
Meanwhile we lead the U.S. into recession. We suffered extremely high levels of unemployment, much higher that those in the United States. The result for our people has been a continuing round of poverty which remains unabated to this point in time.
It is clear that where unemployment is a problem, where the economy is weak, the price is paid by families first. It is clear that where financial problems arise, the problems within families increase.
The difficulty of dealing with the stress that is imposed by financial hardship is a clear, frequent contributor to the breakdown of marriages and is, in a direct way, a contributor to the problems we are trying to deal with in
February 12, 1993

part with this bill when we are dealing with support for estranged spouses and dependant children.
It is impossible to simply take the objective of this bill, which is a worthy one which we are supporting, and deal with it apart from the over-all economic situation the country is in. To ignore the consequences of the economic policies of this government and simply applaud the fact that it is doing more to ensure that child support can be collected, is to ignore the really important factor, the failure of this government's economic policies which has led directly to the breakdown of many families and has caused hardship and poverty in families across the country.
The reality is that the majority of child support orders in Canada is in arrears. I dare say that many of those arrears are caused by the fact that the supporting parent has become unemployed and is unable to earn a living.
Even if all of the payments were made, it seems that most mother led post-divorced families would still be living in poverty.
In this country, surely one of the most prosperous in the history of the world, we continue to see in our cities and in our rural areas cases of poverty, cases of hunger. It is a disgrace and all of us should be ashamed.
Over the last few years I have had the privilege within my own region of Ottawa-Carle ton and in Ottawa South of working with the Ottawa food bank and with UNICEF every year to try to address the issues of hunger in our community, which are addressed in part by the food bank and in the broader international community in which UNICEF plays a part.
Each year we encourage people to spend 24 hours without food in order that they may understand to some extent the nature of hunger when it really strikes. It is very short-lived. It is not something that necessarily changes a person's life, but it is a realization of the fact that hunger is one of those things that is part of the human experience. Very few of us in this House have experienced it in any real and enduring way but it is a fact of life for millions of Canadians.
Government Orders
Until we begin to see the economy expanding again and people getting back to work, sadly hunger and poverty will increase rather than decline in our land.
As well, it is clear that poverty and hunger have a direct relationship to the ability of children to perform in educational facilities. Throughout Canada school-boards, especially in the large cities, are instituting breakfast programs and other food programs to ensure that students have enough to eat. They cannot work in their classrooms if they are hungiy.
All these issues are tied together. It is not possible to take them apart and deal with them on a segmented basis. We need to understand the nature of the over-all problem if we are to begin to address it.
With respect to the payments of child support, what has to be understood is that again and again our judicial system has failed, usually because of complexity, to make it easier for dependent spouses to collect support payments. This has contributed to the futility of lives, the futility of people trying to find ways to keep their families together, to keep them from being completely tom apart by the lack of resources.
According to some research published in the May 1991 issue of the Reports of Family Law by Miriam Grassby, the average support awarded is considerably less than half the actual cost of raising a child. According to the research paper this means that an already impoverished wife ends up paying a disproportionate share of child costs. She is left with no money for leisure or savings, or even for a modest retirement. She ends up footing the bill for the emotional and recreational needs of her children, needs that an absent ex-husband can easily ignore.
According to Miss Grassby, and I quote: "It is easy to deprive children if you appear to be paying a large amount for child support. It is veiy difficult to deprive children if you are living with them".
This points out a very important factor in the way we deal with these issues in our society. Sometimes I think that when we passed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we ought to have called it the charter of rights and responsibilities. Maybe there is still room in Canada for us to enact a charter of responsibilities.

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
Based on the evidence that exists of the occurrence of poverty in mother-led, post-divorce families in Canada, it is clear that there are fathers across this land who do not consider their responsibilities to their former wives and to their children to be important enough to ensure that they do not live in poverty.
It was said, I think by Franklin Roosevelt, that we cannot prepare the future for our youth but we can prepare our youth for the future. If we allow this problem to continue, if we fail to address the needs of the children living in Canada in poverty today, we will have to deal with the problems that creates in the future. They are the people upon whom we are going to depend for the future of our country. They need to be supported and prepared for that today.
The situation that befalls a mother-led family after a divorce is often a difficult and grim one. Frequently we find the mother is ill-prepared to become the economic support for the family unit. The pressures of raising children even in a traditional family unit are significant. I can say from experience that there is a lot to taking care of a family with children.
A mother-led family that is without adequate support from a former spouse finds it difficult to collect support without going to see lawyers and paying the legal fees or trying to negotiate with Legal Aid to get assistance to pursue a husband that is not paying support payments.
It is difficult to find housing in many of our cities where vacancy rates are extremely low and where affordable housing is difficult to find. The training and experience of a mother who has been out of the work force for a period of years make it difficult for her to re-enter the labour force, to find a job that pays adequately. There are pressures to accommodate the needs of children whatever they may be. Whatever their interests or involvements may be they cost a lot. It costs a lot to have a 10-year-old in minor hockey. Yet, if our children are to have the opportunity to enjoy the lives that we hope for them, these costs have to be taken into account.
We think we have a free, publicly funded education system in this country. Anyone with children in the public education system knows very well it is not free. We know very well the requests for special payments to go on field trips, to buy books, to join the clubs and to
play in the volleyball tournaments. All these things cost a lot of money.
What parent, however difficult their circumstances are, wants to be the one to say to their children: "No, you cannot be part of that team. No, you cannot engage in that activity. No, you cannot go on that field trip because I cannot afford it". What parent wants to go to the school and say: "Please, I would like to apply for the subsidy so that my child can go on the field trip. Because my support payment has not come in this month I cannot afford to do it".
This is the reality of living in our modem society in Canada. It looks very good from some points of view, so good that we can be considered to have the best standard of living in the world in some quarters, and yet for others who are deprived of sharing in that it can be very difficult.
I want to talk a bit about the issue with respect to the tax system raised by the parliamentary secretary and my colleague from Cape Breton. The numbers according to the 1988 statistics were interesting. They indicated that in 1988 supporting husbands deducted $1.3 billion in child support from their income tax. Therefore they saved $475 million in taxes. The receiving spouses in turn declared the support payments and paid about $275 million in taxes on them. In other words the difference of about $200 million in lost tax revenue is considered by some to be a subsidy for divorce; the government subsidizes divorce to the extent of $200 million.
If the $200 million were going to dependent spouses we may be able to say it is justifiable, that it makes it available. However the reality is that $200 million is staying with the paying spouses.
Would it not be better to look at readjustment of the system so that the $200 million goes directly to meeting the needs of the families, to looking after the problem of child care and the problem faced by many mother-led families of getting new training and experience to find jobs. These are the needs of these mother-led families. That is where the problem arises, and that is where we need to be adjusting the focus of our attention.
For that matter, again by imposing the tax burden on receiving spouses we add to the difficulties mother-led families often have in completing tax returns, in making proper claims and in knowing the records are correct.
February 12, 1993

These difficulties could simply be avoided by adjusting the system so that the obligation to pay tax was shifted.
All these points underline the fact that the women of Canada are and have been most hit by divorce. I would like to leave this statistic with the House: men who paid alimony and child support had incomes that were more than double those of women they sent the money to, according to a study released last year by Statistics Canada. This points out the fact that usually the women who have children in their care suffer the most by divorce.
Our support for Bill C-79 indicates our concern that the collection procedures be simplified so that support payments that are ordered are actually collected. It is the sadness that results from the economic policies of this government that must not be overlooked in considering the poverty in which many of these people live.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I will be picking up on some of the themes that have just been spoken to by colleagues on this side of the House.
We support Bill C-79 in principle but certainly the analogy of using a band-aid for a serious disease would apply to this bill. I quickly read through the bill and it was difficult to find anything that any person of good will would disagree with.
The government just does not get it. As on so many issues it does not get the fact that separated and divorced mothers and children have bigger problems. This will do some good, but if this is the best this government that is about to be voted out of office can do, after eight years, why did it not do this years ago? Why did it not do so much years ago? Why did it mandate the Governor of the Bank of Canada to come down on less fortunate Canadians, often single mothers, disproportionately single mothers? Why did it mandate the Governor of the Bank of Canada to make fighting inflation his only goal? At what price have they won that battle? How many single mothers have lost a job working for the federal government, working for a federal Crown corporation, working in the private sector, so that a few thousand Canadians living at the top of Westmount, in Forest Hill Village and the like can live better than they did eight
Government Orders
years ago? Some of them are not living so well these days either I understand.
What we have learned is that we need a government that tries to represent all Canadians, not just the wealthy few thousand in a few cities in our country. That is why this government is going to get itself-I do not think it is going to be surprised-a real lesson when people go to vote at the upcoming election.
To speak more directly to the bill, as you heard earlier, Madam Speaker, the majority of Canadian child support orders are in arrears I understand. Most mother-led, post-divorce families live in poverty, but that would be the case even if all of the payments were being made, because the orders themselves are ridiculously low.
Our judges still need to be sensitized. At least in my province they are getting better but they still have not got it yet. I am sure they have to be sensitized in other communities. I am told by a friend who recently became divorced that they need to be sensitized in the Ottawa-Hull area to the issues of what is an adequate payment to a wife and children.
Without those payments made pursuant to a separation or divorce order, 75 per cent of mother-children households live in poverty. The Ontario government, as I think we heard earlier, has now taken over the collection of support payments, 75 per cent of which are now in arrears. We heard reference earlier by my colleague from Ottawa South and I believe my colleague from Cape Breton to Miriam Grassby and I will not take up time on that.
I believe too many judges across the country seem to be unaware of the barriers to a woman becoming self-sufficient. She is older, perhaps in her forties. Not only might she be lacking in work skills outside the family, and experience, but as the custodial parent she is not free to travel, work long hours, study at night and that sort of thing.
This brings me to the income tax issue. Again, I am advised that we cannot amend this bill to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to child support payments. I hope I can convince you in a moment, Madam Speaker, this is a very major problem.
The custodial parent, virtually always the former wife, pays tax on child support as if it was her income. Child support payments are not income of course but a

February 12, 1993
Government Orders
spouse's contribution to raising children. Most European countries, the United States and Australia do not tax child support payments in the hands of the mother. Why do we in this country?
Non-custodial parents claim a substantial tax deduction. The figure was given by my colleague from Ottawa South a moment ago that two-thirds of divorced mothers and their children receiving support live below the poverty line.
We have, I am proud to say, in Edmonton an organization called "People Against Child Support Taxation", PACT which has launched a campaign to throw out the law which taxes child support payments.
I have written to the Minister of Finance and I will refer to what his views on that matter are in a moment. It is essential that single parents receiving child support that is taxed join in the battle for a fairer tax system that will reflect the real needs of single parents and their children. I hope anyone watching today in that position will feel urged to contact, in most cases, her member of Parliament.
I have a couple of further comments. The custodial parent pays tax on the child support as if it were income. It is not income, as I said. This money is reimbursement for living expenses involved in raising children. Two-thirds of divorced mothers and their children receiving support live below the poverty line. Susan Thibaudeau, a social worker in Quebec, as members will know, has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of 300 women challenging this tax provision.
For the last three years Madam Thibaudeau to her great credit has been filing separate tax returns for her children claiming child support as their income. When filing this way you are subject to interest in penalties but she feels-I am sure you are aware of this Madam Speaker being from Quebec-that it is worth it for such children when they look at the long-term consequences of being overtaxed.
I might also add that women suffer as a result of this extra so-called income in terms of decreased eligibility for student loans, for subsidized day care and subsidized housing. The burden is on women going through divorce to prepare statements on the before and after tax impact of receiving child support.
This brings me to a letter I wrote in June to the Minister of Finance, the member for Vegreville. I refer to a couple of things that have already been mentioned. I wrote first:
Once a court divorce order is issued, the spouse with more than half the custody for the children (virtually always the former wife) must pay income tax on the other's support payments whereas the other can deduct such payments from his taxable income. In recent years, approximately 264,000 women across Canada have paid taxes on such support.
The practical effects of this almost unique Canadian practice in effect since the 1940s-

-France appears to be the only other industrial democracy to follow us in this dreadful practice,

-are very serious. For example, one of my visitors-
I was referring to people who had come to see me.
-pointed out that fully $385 of the $800 she receives monthly must be put aside for taxes.
Of course, she is one of the lucky ones to get $800 a month. How many separated wives get $800 a month from their former spouses?
This leaves her constantly attempting to keep the financial noses of her children and herself above water. Approximately two-thirds of divorced women and children live below the poverty line-whereas only 16 per cent of divorced men are below the poverty line after paying child support.
In 1988, men deducted about $1.2 billion in support payments, thus saving $475 million in taxes. Government then collected about $275 million in taxes from those receiving support, thereby providing a divorce subsidy of about $200 million.
Imagine at the end of the 20th century a so-called government of an industrialized democracy subsidizing divorce. Where are the members of the government caucus on this issue?
The answer to those who assert that not allowing ex-husbands to deduct their payments would increase the numbers of defaulters is that the default rates in both Canada and the U.S. (where deductions are not allowed) is about the same.
It is 75 per cent I am sorry to say.
I wrote to the minister that it would strike any fan-minded government or person that the tax system:
-concedes about $ 12 billion yearly for RRSPs and $ 2.6 billion for capital gains exemptions yet encourages most single mothers to live in grinding poverty shrieks for reform.
February 12, 1993

Here is what our wonderful Minister of Finance, this great humanitarian replied on August 31. He explained the system. I think my letter made it clear that his reply would be made public so I do not think I am breaching any confidence by quoting from his letter. He said:
On the other hand, the disposable income of a recipient of child support payments is increased by reason of the amount received. As you can also appreciate, a child support payment received is disposable income in the same manner as income earned in employment and is appropriately taxable as an income source. It would be unfair, for example, to make child support payments tax exempt while imposing tax on employment income earned by a single mother to support her child.
It goes on further and if you can imagine, it gets even worse:
It should also be noted that the Courts and the legal practitioners are well aware of the tax status of child support payments and the amount of court ordered or negotiated payments reflect these tax results. Indeed, as a result of the deductibility of these payments, larger maintenance amounts are encouraged.
If I have not convinced you yet, Madam Speaker, I will quote the Minister of Finance of our great country writing this kind of stuff:
With regard to the status of single parents, the government's assistance to families with children is being restructured as outlined in my February 25, 1992 budget.
I will stop there.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to report stage and third reading of Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to
Private Members' Business
implement certain financial provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992.
Under the provision of Standing Order 78(3), I therefore give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stages.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-285, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (oath of allegiance) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act to change the oath of allegiance which is in it.
My proposal is that the oath that is taken by new citizens after they are accepted as such should be as follows: "I swear or affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen".
The oath of allegiance that is in the present Citizenship Act reads as follows: "I swear or affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen".
We have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of oaths of allegiance, especially oaths of allegiance for people that come to Canada as new citizens. These new Canadians come from many lands. They come from Italy, Portugal, Greece, Chile, El Salvador and India. As a matter of fact one-third of our population comes from lands other than Great Britain or France. One-third has origins in Britain and one-third in France. Therefore two-thirds of our population does not have their origins in Britain.

February 12, 1993
Private Members' Business
What is the purpose of an oath of allegiance? It is to have some sort of assurance that these people who are becoming new Canadians are pledging allegiance to the country that they are coming to, Canada. These people have chosen Canada among all the countries in the world to immigrate to. Three years after they are landed immigrants they can apply for citizenship. They apply to be citizens of Canada, not Great Britain, Australia, India or any other country.
However, when they read the present oath of allegiance they are not sure to which country they are pledging their allegiance because the principal allegiance given in the present oath under the Citizenship Act is to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors.
This is very confusing for a great number of new Canadians who come to this country, very confusing indeed. If we want to make this oath of allegiance meaningful for those people who commit themselves to this country we will make the commitment clear, precise, open and honest. If we want a clear, open and honest oath of allegiance that oath will be to Canada and to the Constitution of Canada, not to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
I have nothing against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II personally. I will not comment on any of the recent troubles that the monarchy has endured. That is another issue. I am talking about the purpose and reason for an oath of allegiance in our Constitution and the need to ensure that an oath of allegiance is clear for these new Canadians who are committing themselves and swearing this oath to Canada.
I can refer to cases that happened in my own constituency office. One case involved a young Italian American who had come to Canada to do business 20 years previously. He had been in Canada as a landed immigrant for 20 years and finally decided to become a Canadian citizen. He went down to the citizenship office at the Secretary of State and inquired about becoming a Canadian citizen. He was told that everything was in order, that he had been a good person as a landed immigrant, and he proceeded with the documents and papers.
When the day came to swear the oath of allegiance he found he was swearing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and not to Canada so he refused. He said he had not chosen to go to Britain. He chose to come to Canada because of its very special qualities, because of the kind of country it is, its people and its way of life. Therefore he refused. I understood his problem but I tried to convince him, because I thought he would be a good elector, to become a Canadian citizen. He eventually took the oath after two years but he did it with reluctance.
During the recent referendum debate we spoke a lot about Canadian unity and patriotism. When I was discussing the distinct society clause for Quebec, and I can recall because I campaigned in this debate outside of Quebec although my constituency is in Montreal, some people told me they could not understand why some Quebecers were more loyal to the fleur-de-lis than to Canadian symbols, why they were more loyal to Quebec than to Canada. I told them that was interesting because I meet Quebecers in my own constituency who feel that Canadians are more loyal to the British monarch and to Britain than to Canadian symbols.
That is true. If we do not have unity in this country and if there is ambiguity with respect to our symbols it is because we still have a large number of symbols and traditions that represent the United Kingdom, Britain and the British monarchy. That is confusing for a lot of people who seek patriotism and unity in this country. It certainly provides an ambiguous situation for them.
If there are Quebecers who seem to favour Quebec and Quebecois symbols over Canadian ones why not also address those Canadians who seem to favour British and monarchal symbols over Canadian ones?
Since World War II there has been a movement in this country in favour of Canadian symbols, Canadian traditions and Canadian institutions. In the immediate postwar period we appointed our first Canadian Governor General. Before that time we always had British subjects as our Governors General.
We abolished appeals to the Privy Council. We made the Canadian Supreme Court the last court of appeal for Canadian cases. Prior to 1948 or 1949 one could go to the Privy Council in Britain.
February 12, 1993

We adopted the Canadian Citizenship Act. It was only in the late 1940s that we had Canadian citizenship. Before that time we were British subjects and shared citizenship in some weird way with the United Kingdom.
It was only in 1964 that we adopted the Canadian flag. The Canadian anthem, O Canada, was only adopted in the early 1980s.
Even with this government I have seen some progress. A few years ago our mail was referred to as the Royal mail. Now it is Canada Post.
When I was a young person all our paper money had the picture of the monarch on them. Now there are Canadian figures and scenes on our bills but the picture of the monarch is still on a good many others.
I am saying that the practice of leaving one foot in the old country provides a good deal of ambiguity for Canadians who are concerned about patriotism and about national unity. They cannot accuse people in one province, Quebec, of not being totally loyal to Canada when they are not totally loyal to Canada in that they still support British symbols and institutions.
Right now I will deal with the whole question of Her Majesty, Queen of Canada. It is what we call a legal fiction. Everybody knows that the monarch was bom in Britain. She is a British subject. She was brought up in British schools, she is English, she is British. She is not a Canadian. It is a legal fiction that she is the Queen of Canada. Why is it a legal fiction?
While I have been in Parliament the Queen in the right of Canada has voted against the Queen in the right of the United Kingdom in the United Nations. The most famous case was in the Suez crisis when there was a very serious difference of opinion between Her Majesty in the right of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty in the right of Canada.
While lawyers might understand the subtleties of these legal fictions the ordinary person does not.


An hon. member:: They do so.


William Warren Allmand: Maybe they do in my friend's constituency but they certainly do not in my constituency.
A recent poll was conducted by Angus Reid and published last week in the Montreal and Toronto papers, and throughout Canada. The headline in the paper says: "51 per cent do not want monarchy, poll finds". I am not
Private Members' Business
dealing with that in my bill. However, let me say that this is what Canadians think. The article says: "Although 56 per cent said the monarchy would survive its current troubles a majority of 51 per cent said the time has come for Canada to sever its ties with the monarchy". That is not Quebec, that is Canada.
My bill simply deals with the oath of allegiance for new Canadians swearing allegiance to Canada when they become new citizens under the process set out in the Citizenship Act.
I suggest that they pledge true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada. I make no suggestion to change the Constitution of Canada.
For the moment the Queen is part of the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution of Canada is made up of the monarchy, the Senate, the House of Commons and all the institutions. Therefore in pledging allegiance to the Constitution of Canada, although it is not mentioned directly and I do not think it should be mentioned directly because I prefer Canadian symbols and Canadian institutions, people are pledging allegiance to the Queen. In no way does this bill abolish the monarchy. We might discuss that on another occasion, but this bill does not do it.
This bill is another step forward in putting in place meaningful Canadian symbols and institutions, just as we did with our flag, our anthem, the Governor General, appeals to the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of Canada and so on. From the Statute of Westminster in 1931 there has been a steady movement to give us in this country Canadian symbols and institutions.
I return again to the question I asked in the first place. We should all ask ourselves what the purpose of an oath of allegiance is. If I ask somebody to be loyal to me or my party I want that person to make it clear when he or she recites that oath of loyalty or allegiance that he or she is pledging loyalty or allegiance to me and not to somebody who might have been a relative of mine 200 years ago and is now dead or to somebody who is still alive in Ireland or some other country. If we want loyalty and people pledge loyalty and allegiance it should be crystal clear. That is the purpose of an oath of allegiance.
The oath of allegiance we have now is not crystal clear. It is ambiguous, misleading and confusing for the many people who come to this country from the many continents and lands throughout the world.

February 12, 1993
Private Members' Business
I am suggesting that we amend the Citizenship Act and replace the present oath of allegiance, which is principally an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II or whoever the monarch might be, with an oath of allegiance in which new Canadians would swear or affirm that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada and that they will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil their duties as Canadian citizens.
I have spoken to many people in my constituency and they think this makes sense. When I tell them what the present oath is, and these are people who were bom in Canada, they are surprised that we still have an oath in which we principally pledge allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. None of them are anti-monarchists but they are surprised that we still have such an oath.
I would hope that the House would agree with me on these points. I was not in Parliament when we had the flag debate. I arrived soon afterwards, but I was here when we debated the anthem and other moves to consolidate Canadian symbols and Canadian institutions. There was support in all parties.
If we are really concerned with unity and want to do things that will promote patriotism in this country we must start doing away with those things which divide us or pull us apart. To maintain, after centuries, these fictional ties, and they are fictional, with monarchs and institutions in other countries, even though they are friendly countries-we have no official constitutional ties with the United States yet we are friendly with the United States. We have no constitutional ties with France but we are friendly with France and belong to special associations with France. It is the same with the United Kingdom. I am not suggesting in this bill that we do away with the monarchy. I am simply saying that when new Canadians come to this country they should pledge allegiance to this country and to no one else and no other country.


John Henry Reimer: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the private members' bill that has been put before us today concerning changing our oath. The member has explained the changes that he wishes to make. I want to say in very clear and unequivocal terms that I am totally opposed to what the member is suggesting.
The oath as we have it now is exactly as it should be. I want to explain briefly why I think it is exactly as it should be and why we should retain it that way.
I would like to comment on some of the points raised by the hon. member. I was taking notes as he went through his speech. First he said: "What is the purpose of the oath?"
He then dwelt upon the fact that many immigrants come to Canada from countries other than Britain. That is true, many do. My parents came from the Soviet Union. Many immigrants come from countries other than England. That is simply a statement of the obvious. So what?
Then he went on to say that in an act of citizenship, when a person comes from countries other than England I guess was the point he was trying to make, and then applies to become a citizen of Canada, that somehow our oath of allegiance for citizenship in Canada is confusing to them.
Well if it is confusing to them maybe they should wait a couple of more years and learn the history of Canada and our parliamentary institutions. When they understand Canada and want to assure active citizenship which is the highest right we can give them, then they should take it after they have learned and understood what Canada is all about.
You do not give an act of citizenship because somehow people do not understand. That would be taking our systems and all of the things we value, such as our act of citizenship, and reducing it to the lowest common denominator of ignorance. That would be our new standard.
I cannot believe the hon. member. I know the hon. member loves playing hockey and so do I. We still play in old-timers' hockey leagues and we are pleased that we have them. I wonder if the hon. member has not crossed into the boards too often. Something has gone wrong. I cannot believe this.
He said that it is confusing, that it is not clear and we should make it more meaningful. What he is really saying is that if a person who comes to us from a non-parliamentary system-


William Warren Allmand: No, no. Everybody including the British.
February 12, 1993


John Henry Reimer: The member had his say before so I will continue now.
I think what the member is saying to us is if a person comes from somewhere other than our traditions, which have evolved out of the British model, and cannot quite comprehend how our system works, that somehow we have to change and accommodate that ignorance of our system.
What we do is bring that person to understand our system. Then the person will say: "Now I understand why Canada is one of the best places in the world to live. I can understand the evolution of Canadian society. I can see the values that you have developed in Canada. Now I really want to become a citizen because now I understand".
That is what we should be doing rather than going in the opposite way. The hon. member talked about a person who came to his office and did not want to swear an oath of allegiance or make an affirmation of allegiance to the Queen of England. Of course, he did stay. We have to be fair. He did say that he corrected the person. It is to the Queen of Canada. That is correct.
He mentioned some of our constitutional debates over the past few years. I want to quote from page 9 of the chairman's foreword in the report The Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future. Keith Spicer said something that is very important and it is important to this debate. He said: "This country is dying of ignorance and of our stubborn refusal to learn. Lazy cynical official minds have for too long dismissed the obvious practical answers to these problems as simplistic and naive: broad travel, exchange opportunities for example and better teaching of at least some shared history".
I think that Keith Spicer hit it right on. This country is dying of ignorance in our stubborn refusal to learn. If only we started to learn some of our history we would then understand what it means when we say Queen of Canada as opposed to Queen of England. Because we would say that as a Canadian we swear allegiance not to the Queen of England but to the Queen of Canada. That is what we do. If we understood our system properly, we would understand exactly what that means.
I think the member has it all backward. You do not swear allegiance to institutions. You swear allegiance to
Private Members' Business
the head of state. The head of the Canadian state is the Queen of Canada.
Look at the structure of the bill itself. What appears right on top of the bill? That this is the third session, 34th Parliament, 40th year of the reign of Elizabeth II. A little further down that it is by Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It is right there all the way through.
When we became members of Parliament we also took an oath or an affirmation of allegiance. To whom? Not to the Queen of England, no, to the Queen of Canada. That is what we did and that is what we are asking every other person to do.
If an immigrant coming into Canada says this is the best place in the world to live and wants to live here and then somehow does not understand our process maybe we have done something wrong by making it too easy for them to become a citizen. Maybe what we should do is change from the three-year requirement we have now back to five years as it used to be in order for these people to be in Canada longer, to understand our institutions and some of our history.
We also have two other requirements for oath of citizenship or for qualifying to take the oath. We say that you should have at least an adequate knowledge of English or French. I think we should change that to a working knowledge of English or French. Now that would be more meaningful. It would not bar anyone from being a landed immigrant. It just might take them a little longer to learn one of our two official languages. That is all.
Instead of having a minimal understanding of Canadian traditions, institutions and geography which really means that they have to know the name of their member of Parliament, the mayor, the Prime Minister, and the premier, maybe we should elevate that to an understanding perhaps comparable to a grade 10 level of Canadian civics. Then we would not have members getting up in the House as we have one now saying that he does not understand or it is not clear about the Queen of Canada. Then they would understand.
These people would still be landed immigrants in Canada but they would then work at their citizenship and it would be more meaningful. Maybe we should consider that type of reform. If the hon. member were getting up on that type of reform I would listen to him.

Private Members' Business


William Warren Allmand: Never.


John Henry Reimer: Well, you see he says: "Never". He does not want to make the oath of allegiance meaningful and that is what I am trying to get at. I think we should try and make it as meaningful as we can.
There is a good textbook which I recommend to the member, Dawson's The Government of Canada, 6th edition. Maybe he should look at the chapter entitled "The Monarchy and the Governor General". If he were to look at that chapter he would find something very interesting in the second paragraph so he would not have to read very far.
In that second paragraph the Acting Prime Minister of the day, Mr. John L. Ilsley, said the following: "The authority of the government is not delegated to the House of Commons. The authority of the government is received from the Crown. His Majesty's advisors are sworn in as advisors to the Crown. The government is responsible to the Parliament but that is a different thing from the doctrine that the government is a committee of the House of Commons or that it exercises authority delegated by the House of Commons. That is not so. What is the case is the authority of the government is received from the Crown".
That is the key point of a parliamentary system and a constitutional monarchy. The authority of this House is from the Crown. The authority is vested in the Crown and that is why an oath of allegiance is to the Crown, the Queen of Canada.
I think the member would do well to go back to a good book that is used in many of our first year political science classes and learn what Canada is really all about. Then I think he would say that maybe we have to educate new immigrants a little more rather than lowering our standards to a level of ignorance.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support this. If I had been lukewarm about supporting this bill I certainly would be very fired up after hearing the previous member speak.
I have never heard anybody get up and insult immigrants, the backbone of this country, as much as the previous speaker. He was talking about going backward to make sure they cannot get citizenship for five years, trying to put impediments in their way to full participation in our democracy by saying that they have to have a working knowledge of English or French, making it more and more difficult for them to participate as full citizens in our democracy.
This is a bill about symbols. Canada is in the process of growing up and maturing. It is deciding that it wants its own symbols, its own institutions. It is learning that it wants to take some of those symbols and institutions not just from Great Britain or France, but from our enriched community and blend them, making them our own.
My father, like the previous speaker's parents, was bom in Russia. He came here during the time of tsarist Russia. He was always a little surprised that Canada still reverted to allegiance to a Crown in another country. While he had tremendous respect for the British monarchy he was always a little confused as to why we did not simply say: "We are Canada" and have symbols that were clearly Canadian.
I increasingly take part in citizenship courts. At the last one I attended there were people from 39 different countries. It was held in a high school. The Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, Mr. Lam, attended. It was a very moving experience. There were 500 high school students there. Everyone repeatedly said that it was quite amazing that 39 different countries were represented.
Many of the people taking the oath wondered why 100 years later Canada was still asking them to swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs and successors, rather than swearing allegiance to Canada and its Constitution and laws.
It is difficult to explain that to them. It is not because, as the previous speaker seemed to indicate, that they are a little slow, that they have not been here long enough, that they have not been indoctrinated well enough, that their English or French is not good enough to understand our culture.
Some of these people already have degrees at the doctoral level. They speak better and more precise English than I do and some people would say that is not too difficult. They are not people who do not understand constitutions. Some of them have been involved in independence movements in countries where to under-
February 12, 1993

stand the constitutions and the loyalties was much more significant than it was growing up in Canada.
They all say: "Why are you continuing on with this quaint idea of taking an oath of allegiance to a foreign monarch?" Yes, as the mover said, lawyers can make the distinction between Queen Elizabeth, the British monarch and Queen Elizabeth, the Canadian monarch, but it is a distinction made by constitutional lawyers, not made by people who want to be clear and want to have things meaningful.
There is one other thing I want to comment on. I am not an immigrant. I have been here all my life. I do not see the logic in why we would swear allegiance to a queen who is not the symbol of Canada. If I do not see the logic, why are we so insistent that newcomers to this country do so, newcomers who want to truly feel that they are now part of a very strong democracy, who want to stand up proudly and clearly when they take their oath of citizenship and declare "I am a Canadian citizen and I will swear allegiance to Canada and to Canada's Constitution and laws". That is what they want to do. That is what I want them to do and that is why I support this bill.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of addressing the House with respect to private member's bill C-285, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (oath of allegiance), sponsored by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
Under the present oath of allegiance the applicant for citizenship swears allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. It is my understanding that it is the intent of Bill C-285 to make the oath more meaningful by having the applicant swear allegiance to Canada and the Canadian Constitution.
The hon. member's amendment would substitute the current citizenship oath with the following declaration:
I swear or affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Canada and the Constitution of Canada and that I will faithfully
observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian
citizen.
To my way of thinking, citizenship does not apply to new Canadians alone. Citizenship affects those who were born here as much as those who recently became
Private Members' Business
Canadians and those individuals who will choose to become Canadians in the future.
Frankly, Canadian citizenship gives everyone, without exception, the same rights and responsibilities. Citizenship is not limited to the ceremony in which the oath of allegiance is taken, nor is it confined to our knowledge of Canadian history and our system of government.
The oath of citizenship reflects the commitment of Canadians to upholding their citizenship and working for a better society. Acceptance of Canadian citizenship as signified by the oath also acknowledges that Canada has a strong and rich history and heritage.
This brings me to the amendment to the oath of citizenship in the Citizenship Act proposed by my colleague. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, as I read it, would remove a strong link with Canada's heritage. The amendment, if accepted, would be an important symbolic change and I believe would not have wide public support.
Some of my colleagues have spoken and will speak to the divisiveness of such an amendment. Others will speak to this proposed amendment as being nothing more than a tinkering with the Citizenship Act when it would be more appropriate to have an open discussion and review of the act.
I wholeheartedly share these points of view and I am sure that on these points I stand in good company with many Canadians who share the same sentiments.
An open review of the Citizenship Act as a whole could be dealt with at the committee level and witnesses could be heard from all regions of Canada and from different groups within Canada.
This would be an infinitely more satisfactory way of dealing with the oath of citizenship rather than following a course set out by a very limited private members' bill, regardless of how well it is intended by its sponsor.
When you get down to brass tacks, citizenship is apparent in what we do every day to enrich our lives and those of others. One thinks for example of the Cubs, the Brownies, the Guides and Scouts who with their leaders come together with their committees and communities to clean up stretches of rivers.

February 12, 1993
Private Members' Business
Also coming to mind are the countless parents who selflessly help run recreational sporting leagues. They coach children's teams and drive their children to practices and games. Of course, we cannot overlook those millions of Canadians from all walks of life who volunteer their time to work for organizations that provide much needed services in their communities. These are only a few of the concrete expressions of commitment to Canadian society that represent good citizenship.
Active participation in the life of one's community displays the intent of individual Canadians to make their neighbourhoods and their country a place where everyone can develop and make a contribution as an equal and full partner.
It also makes Canada a place where everyone can express their differences openly. Frankly, such participation in my opinion is what makes us feel more Canadian. Such participation gives us all a sense of belonging to our country.
In very real terms it is like being a member of a family where everyone takes part in helping the household run smoothly. The more committed the family members are the more they feel at home. I believe the same can be said of Canadian citizenship.
Part of the commitment to the family we call Canada is the acceptance of our multicultural heritage, including the heritage that comes from Canada's creation as a constitutional monarchy. Changing the oath of citizenship might be construed as a denial of an important aspect of Canadian heritage, a part of our heritage that I might add of which I am very proud and attached to. I most certainly know that I am not alone.
There are some members of the House who took the oath of citizenship when they became citizens. They accepted the oath for what it is, a symbolic gesture that mirrors part of the rich heritage of our great nation, Canada.
In Bill C-285 we have the anomaly of a private member seeking to alter the oath of citizenship that now calls on new Canadians to swear or affirm allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the Queen of Canada.
Mr. Justice Royal of the Federal Court of Appeal stated in a ruling in January 1992 and I quote:
It is in my view quite proper for Parliament to require persons wishing to become Canadian citizens that they swear and affirm their loyalty to the head of state. That the head of state should be found in the person of Her Majesty the Queen might be a matter of debate but it is nevertheless as much a part of our constitutional framework as are provisions of our charter.
Justice Royal went on further to say and again I quote:
Furthermore, the personified symbol of Her Majesty as head of state is not, in terms of our long constitutional heritage, a latter-day invention of some imaginative or manipulative spinner of tales but the result of constantly evolving constitutional principles which are cloaked in constitutional conventions in the United Kingdom and partly codified, in Canada, in the Constitution Act, 1982. The head of state as Her Majesty as so defined is the very embodiment of the freedoms and liberties which the applicant has inherited and which he now enjoys in a legal sense. The head of state legitimizes the laws of Canada which in concrete terms provide for the peace, order and the good government of its citizens.
Although I have considerable respect for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, given the facts as I have previously enumerated and coupled with a learned legal opinion of a well-respected Canadian jurist, I cannot in all conscience support the amendment being sought to the Citizenship Act.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I think that I will make my main statement and Quebecers will understand that I intend to speak about this subject that concerns us, namely the oath of allegiance for new citizens, and I would prefer to do so today in English, for reasons which are quite obvious, I think, because that is where we must direct all our efforts at convincing.

I was in my office when I saw my hon. friend and Every member of this Chamber has taken an oath of colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace raise this issue. I allegiance. Similarly, every member appointed to the listened with great care to the sentiments expressed by Senate has taken an oath of allegiance. What they all our colleagues from Surrey North and Kitchener. No have in common is that they swear or affirm allegiance to one knows how much I respect the views of my very old Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.	friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka.
February 12, 1993

However, the beauty of the British parliamentary tradition is that we can disagree and remain fine gentlemen and friends to each other or a lady colleague without having to fight over this issue.
What we are talking about has to do with Canada. All members know that Canada is my love. It is my blood, my passion, my lifetime devotion.
I remember years ago when I sat here as a young member in 1964.1 sat with a member of Parliament who said to me: "I do not need to be a Canadian citizen to be a member of the House of Commons. I am a British subject". Believe it or not young people of Canada, there were here in the House of Commons members of Parliament who were not even Canadian citizens because they fell under that law and they were right.
We changed that. I negotiated with my friend the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. We gave five years to get on the electoral list as a Canadian. You had to be a Canadian citizen. I wanted it immediately but some people said never. We negotiated and we got a father clause or a mother clause, if you like, of five years. Now you need to be a Canadian citizen to be on the electoral list.
This is what we talk about when we talk about Canada. We talk about evolution. We do not believe in revolution. We went slowly from a French colony to a British colony, semi-autonomous, independent. We fought for almost 100 years to get a Canadian flag. I voted for it. We have a Canadian national anthem composed by a Cana-dienne francais in 1880 and now it is being sung 100 years later as O Canada, our pride our joy.
Years ago I put a bill before the House, and I would put it again, where I slowly wanted to change the Canadian dollar bill. Why? In order to show new Canadians who had no knowledge of what Canada is all about that together we are building a new identity called Canada.
We do not believe in insulting our monarchy. We do not believe in insulting Canadians who believe strongly in the monarchy. I have already pledged allegiance to our gracious Queen 11 times, nine times as a member of Parliament, once as a cadet officer in the Armed Forces in Shilo, Manitoba, when I was a student and very recently as a member of the Privy Council. I believe in that. However, I believe in the evolution of Canada. I believe that we can have exactly that kind of bill without
Private Members' Business
being disrespectful to the Queen. We did the same thing with the Canadian dollar. We moved slowly on it and finally had a $2 bill. Then we said that we should Canadianize the money and we used the image of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Who today would oppose a $5 bill showing Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
Then we said: "What about that great Conservative first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald?" We kept the Queen on the $20 bill. I am not a Conservative so I do not have a $50 or a $100 bill in my pocket, but I know the $100 bill shows Borden and the $50 bill, Mackenzie King.
I as a Liberal proposed many years ago that the image of Diefenbaker should be on $2 Canadian bill because that is the history of Canada. I proposed that the $20 bill show Mr. Louis St. Laurent and eventually, later, later, later, other Prime Ministers who served Canada well.
This is not to be anti-British, because I would not be part of it. This is not being anti-anything, because I would not be part of it. It is strictly to teach young Canadians what Canada is all about, a country where people's traditions are respected and where we advance slowly in society in Canadianizing our institutions.
It means something when one says: "I pledge allegiance to Canada, to its law and to its legal authority". Who is the legal authority of Canada? It is a constitutional monarchy. Of course it is the Queen. When one pledges allegiance one pledges allegiance to something ones sees, something one understands, something one is proud about.
Some people say that maybe our gracious Queen will be the last Queen of Canada. I say: "Long live the Queen", but she maybe the last one. I hope she will lives a long and healthy life, but who knows? What if when she dies Canadians suddenly decide graciously, as we have always done in our evolution, that she will be the last. It would not be like in Australia where they said: "We will abolish Queen Elizabeth II as head of state of Australia", and that was it.
We could start by saying that when the gracious Queen of Canada dies or abdicates, according to the long tradition of the Canadian way of doing things, she could be the last monarch and that all her powers, which are quite limited, could be in the hands of the Governor General until such a day as Canadians have enough

February 12, 1993
Private Members' Business
maturity and understanding to know what kind of head of state we want. But he or she will be a Canadian.
Are we opposed to having had as the third Canadian Governor General Mr. Vincent Massey who served us so well with distinction? Are we afraid to recall the graciousness of Vanier or the extraordinary good talent of Michener? What about Jules Leger who had a bad heart condition but was a remarkable Canadian ambassador? Then there was his successor, Ed Schreyer; that magnificent couple who we buried in the same year, the Sauves; and the one we have at the moment who is a Canadian, Ramon Hnatyshyn.
In 1964-65 his gracious father who was a senator opposed the Canadian flag. Today our Governor General is happy to carry the flag of Canada while his father, Senator Hnatyshyn, opposed the Canadian flag. That shows people like me who are getting older that we must respect the past but we must build a new identity. This new identity is called Canada, an institution that is easy to sell to people. We should have pride because as I keep saying Canada is probably one of the last lights of hope.

It is a light of hope, and I say it in French, because what I say in English about Canada I can repeat in French in Quebec and everywhere. If people do not like what Prud'homme says when he talks about Canada, well, there is democracy and they can vote me out.
But I believe that Canada, my dear friend, especially you-and that is the parliamentary system; I can talk as I am doing with the distinguished member for Parry Sound-Muskoka-

We should try to convince each other that we cannot cry over the past. We must be part of the future-

-because Canada may be the future for suffering humanity, searching for a glimmer of hope. Canada, despite all our problems and divisions, represents that. That is Canada. Part of that is showing new Canadians-

-new people in school who have come here from all over the world. When they see the Queen on a bill they do not think of the Queen of Canada. They think of the Queen, gracious as she is, but the Queen of Great Britain. When they see a five-dollar bill they have to ask, because they do not teach much history in school, who is Laurier? Who is Borden? Who is Mackenzie King?
In my humble estimation this is the meaning of the bill before all of us by my hon. friend and colleagues for our reflection. It will not pass today, but if we do not debate this issue we will not have a Canada that evolves and becomes an example of acceptance and tolerance of change for the rest of humanity.
I would hope to pursue the discussion, especially with a very distinguished friend of mine, the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, on all issues people who believe strongly can come at these things from different points of view.
I can tell the hon. member who brought this matter forward about my experience with citizenship court. I have attended for about eight years and I can say with all honesty that I have not had one complaint about the oath of allegiance. I do not remember one individual complaining.
In fact in my discussions with them there was joy for the people who took the oath of allegiance because it does include not only an oath of allegiance to the head of state but to the laws and to this country. There was complete joy.
On July 1,1 am asked as the member of Parliament to go through with people, as I guess most members of Parliament are, the reaffirmation of citizenship. Sometimes there are as many as 5,000 to 6,000 people. I can again say with all honesty that I have not had any complaints. Nobody has come to me and said I object to the wording of it.
I say to the hon. member that once one raises some of these matters they do have the opposite effect. The central premise among other things was that new people to the country do not understand about this. I would disagree with that. I have asked them, because this was introduced a couple of years ago, whether they knew when they came to Canada that we had a history that
February 12, 1993

involved two languages, whether they knew it was French and English. They say: "Yes, we had an idea". I said: "What was your idea about the government?" Most of them had an idea that somehow this country was a new country, that it had evolved from colonial status. They knew of the country's association with Britain, that the country had involvement.
We should give more credit to the new people who come to this country. They are aware of the tradition, and it is a long tradition. It was 1535 that Jacques Cartier claimed this area on behalf of the French Crown. Canada has had more than 450 years continuous association with the institution of monarchy.
It would be an interesting question for the Library of Parliament. I do not know of any other country that has had that long a continuous association with monarchy. Not England; it had the republic under Cromwell. Not France, not Spain, not Russia, not Italy, not any country I can name has had a continuous association. It is a proud association.
The first time I went to Government House one of the things that struck me was the role of le gouvemeur, the Governor General. It is unbroken line from Samuel de Champlain to the present occupant. Instead of saying that is something foreign, they are representing another head of state, these are things that I take great pleasure and take great pride in.
As the member was speaking he was in front of the mace. He and I both know that evolved from another parliamentary system, the British parliamentary system. The member for Saint-Denis mentioned it today. We
Private Members' Business
have adapted it to be a Canadian symbol. These are things I take great pride in and I do not mind passing on.
I believe in the British parliamentary system, not because it is British or it devolved somewhere, but because I believe it works so well. We have adapted it. It has become Canadian.
I would have reservations about changing a system that works so well. I believe that in some way I would be breaking faith with the people who fought for Canada. Any of us who have been to the Legions in our ridings, has seen the plaques. They always say "For King and country".
I realize deep down it was for Canada that they fought. It always says that in letters you get from people who were at the war front. They will mention that they fought for King and country. Somehow I feel that I would be letting them down after a couple of generations if somehow I turned away from the institution of the monarchy.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being four o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 15, 1993