1978-10-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of Paul McCrossan, Esq., member for the electoral district of Y ork-Scarborough.


NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Paul McCrossan, Esq., member for the electoral district of York-Scarborough, introduced by Mr. Joe Clark and Mr. James Gillies.

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, inasmuch as the government has given terms of reference to the McDonald commission which include the question of ministerial involvement, knowledge or approval of Royal Canadian Mounted Police activities, but cannot absolve the House of its duty to consider the conduct of ministers of parliament I move:
That this House requests the Prime Minister to urge the commission to bring in an interim report dealing with this issue so that members can examine the accuracy of ministers statements in that regard and decide if any action needs to be taken in parliament in the light of the evidence, findings and recommendations of the commission; and, further, requests that the interim report be presented in time so that it can be considered in this current parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES REQUEST TODAY BE DECLARED ARTS DAY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion which, because of prior consultation, I believe the House will find acceptable.
Considering that artists and members of the cultural community provide goods and services to the Canadian public in the form of entertainment, works of art and achievements of excellence; that these goods and services are provided at costs which are substantially less than their value in ensuring a Canadian identity; that 65,000 people are employed gainfully in the literary, visual and performing arts; that all Canadians benefit from the discipline and dedication which these people show toward their work; and because of the importance of culture and the arts in maintaining and promoting a sense of national identity and a common expression of national values, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe):
That this House declare its support for those involved in artistic and cultural activities by declaring today, Thursday, October 26, 1978, Arts Day across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is, therefore, moved by Mr. Symes, seconded by Mr. Lapointe:
That this House declare its support for those involved in artistic and cultural activities by declaring today, Thursday, October 26, 1978, Arts Day across Canada.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I want very much to speak on this motion: first of all, to welcome the initiative which has been taken by the arts group
80065 -31V4

October 26, 1978
480________________________________
in coming to Ottawa today to present publicly their case as they have. We on this side of the House welcome it very strongly. We as a government provide support for the arts, something which we do out of firm conviction for a variety of reasons. Government support for the arts is not a response to some marginal interest of the public nor a mere frill in government expenditure: it is because these programs respond to deeply felt human needs which it is important for government to deal with.
Our second belief is that Canadian artists in their work, consciously-perhaps	sometimes unconsciously express
Canadian response to the Canadian experience within their works. Their efforts are extremely important to this country because they help affirm for us all a sense of Canadian identity.
The third point-a point which, 1 think, is not often recognized by members of this House-is that support for the arts in Canada is support for an important industry in this country. The investments which we make as governments in this area come back to us in terms of the employment of Canadians and a multiple of economic benefits.
[ Translation\
I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that to us it is not a figment of the imagination. People often talk about cuts in government programs in this area, and it is true that we were concerned about possible future cuts. 1 must say to the House that there was even an increase for the year 1979-80, a marginal one, 1 admit, to support the arts. As far as the government is concerned, it is essential that artists in this country are successful in their work, which is important both for the human mind and for us as Canadians. Mr. Speaker, the representatives who are sitting today in the galleries asked-

-for an inquiry, perhaps for a commission, into the future of the arts in this country. We have within the Department of the Secretary of State already begun an examination ourselves of what should be the long-term strategy for government funding in this area. We are determined that our efforts in this area should take place publicly. We will be involving this committee and the Canadian Conference of the Arts in discussing with us how we can most appropriately design an effective policy for the government in the future in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? There are a number of other members who seek the floor. I have no authority to give them the floor at this moment. The question period is to begin at this time, and Standing Orders make it clear that we must interrupt this debate to begin the question period.


An hon. Member:: Come on; you gave the minister a chance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter is before the House. It is debatable, the debate has begun and it is my interpretation of the Standing Orders that we must now begin the question period, and then at three o'clock the subject

matter is transferred, pursuant to Standing Orders, to government orders to be taken up at some other time.
If there are any other points to be raised with respect to the continuance of the debate, I will hear them at three o'clock. At the moment, I must begin the question period. I cannot put the question, because the debate is not concluded; there are other members who wish to participate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday, in the report of the minister's department, the Auditor General of Canada identified $142 million in overpayments under the UIC program. This, of course, is in addition to the $68 million already identified by the minister's department, for a total of $210 million in overpayments.
At a time when this government is supposed to be practising restraint, what does the minister intend to do about this intolerable situation? I can assure him that this kind of mismanagement and excess is unacceptable to the people of Canada.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question: it gives me an opportunity to put the facts into better perspective than heretofore. We are not just embarking now, but we embarked a year ago on seeking the assistance of the Auditor General with a view to indicating to us how we could best balance the service operation with the control mechanisms.
The Auditor General was good enough to put a team of experts into this field to examine something like 1,000 files out of the 2.3 million that were involved within a year. They spent about AVi hours per file, where we only had the opportunity to spend about 20 minutes per file. On that basis, he gave us some indication of areas where there may be-and he cannot be positive about this-undetected overpayment. On that basis, not this year but last year we embarked upon a pilot project called Information on Hirings, from employers. We have put that in place in six regions of the country. We are improving our on-line computer system. I think it is important to realize that in any payment that is made directly to an individual or groups of individuals, invariably there are going to be overpayments. We have to determine how we can best balance the service with the overpayment and tighten up
October 26, 1978

wherever possible in order to give this particular program the control it needs, as well as the service.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Last year the Auditor General identified $95 million in overpayments and made specific recommendations. Lie outlined the fact that existing control procedures were inadequate. Obviously, his recommendations were not acted upon because the total has now gone to over $200 million.
Why were the recommendations of the Auditor General not acted upon last year, and how does the minister explain the fact that we are faced with another $142 million overpayment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it was precisely because of the Auditor General's report that we took action in the pilot project known as Information on Hirings. As one of the steps we are improving the quantity and quality control. The increase the hon. member has thrown in is actual overpayments that we detected and most of which have been collected. He adds that on to the $142 million but, in fact, the two are not comparable. The supposed overpayment indicated by the Auditor General is the $142 million and, as I have indicated, we are working in four or five different areas to tighten up the control mechanism.
It must always be remembered that we have to balance this with service to something like 2.3 million people. We pay out close to $4 billion per year. I think this program stacks up well against OHIP, workmen's compensation or any payments in the private sector to large numbers of people.


James Aloysius McGrath: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying to us, "What's $142 million?"


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, I am not.


James Aloysius McGrath: I can assure him that the House is entitled to an explanation. What steps did he take last year, when the Auditor General said that control procedures were inadequate? At that time there was $95 million in overpayments.
What steps did he take at that time, and will he now, through his House leader, make provision to have a report of his department containing this special audit by the Auditor General referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, or does he subscribe to the view of the UIC director that the increase in overpayments is not major?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Auditor General both before and after his report last year to indicate that we would like to have stronger control mechanisms. We have to indicate to him how much money we are prepared to spend in addition to what we are spending now to put that control mechanism in place. We indicated to him that we were bringing forward a program on information on hirings which would be helpful. The computer programming that we are putting in place, the improvement in the quantity and quality control, all these mechanisms are directed to helping us in this particular area of control.
Oral Questions
I am surprised the hon. member would suggest that I made the statement, "What's $142 million?" That statement was never made. 1 am very much concerned, not only as a result of this, but the UIC director indicated the increase from last year was something like $19 million. Given the increased number of claims, the increase in the amount of pay-out and the extended length of period that people are on particular claims, the difference was about $19 million. When he said $19 million, I suspect he was indicating that $19 million of a difference in a $3.9 billion payment is probably not a significant figure in that context.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, we think that over $210 million is certainly very significant: it is major and it calls for action. I notice that the minister ignored one of the most important parts of the hon. member's question.
Will the minister now stand up and state that he will be prepared to recommend to the government House leader that this entire matter, particularly the Auditor General's report, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for study? Surely this sort of mismanagement and ineptness in connection with government restraint calls for this matter to be examined. Will you recommend that to the government House leader?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I never thought that in the House of Commons I would see the time when the hon. member for St. John's West would have to have his question pumped up and psyched up by the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The fact of the matter is, and the hon. member for Hamilton West should know this, that we tabled our reports yesterday spelling out this particular statement made by the Auditor General, as well as several other positive things that have come about. The hon. member also knows that the Auditor General will, in fact, be making a report on this particular subject and that that will be referred to the public accounts committee.
I would challenge the hon. member to find any other program of this size, where direct payments have to be made to the public, where the error factor or the overpayment can be shown to be better than the one in this program.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am used to this minister and his flim-flam. Now let me talk about the $210 million. Is this an entire loss to the Canadian people, through this government's incompetence, or is the minister prepared now to stand up and tell the Canadian people what steps he will take in order to try to recover some of this $210 million?


Mr. Jamieson:: Including St. John's East.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let's hear from you on Namibia.

October 26, 1978
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long or short a time. I am rather accustomed to the hon. member's theatrical appearances here when he puts a question that I think he could put more seriously. The fact of the matter is that we have taken several actions in this particular area. We have indicated that we sought the help-we did not seek to hide this-of the Auditor General in this particular program. He was kind enough to give it. He was prepared to put personnel to work on
1.000	files that we have, spending something like 4'A hours on each file, whereas I have indicated that we spent something like 20 minutes.
We are prepared to go before the public accounts committee when the Auditor General's report comes out. In so far as the collections are concerned, we did embark on an advertising program indicating we were going to take that particular action. We thought it was appropriate to let people know we were going to tighten up. We moved the prosecutions up from
2.000	to 7,000. The administrative penalties have increased by something like 100,000 in the course of a year. So we are taking action. But that is not the answer to the overpayments, Mr. Speaker. The answer to that is to find some control mechanism that will make this as close to perfection as we can.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, now we are talking about control mechanism. I can recall when the minister downplayed the fraud squad. Can he advise this House and the people of Canada what steps he has taken to bring about a more effective fraud squad, or is he still prepared to let this go by the way and at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer? Can we have some information about the fraud squad, which I understand was quite effective?


James Aloysius McGrath: So effective they had to disband it.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, rather than decreasing the impact of the so-called fraud squad, we thought that rather than zero in on particular areas or regions of the country we should do this detection across the country. When we moved from the post-fraud squad era, we moved from 2,000 to 7,000 prosecutions; we moved from detecting 327,000 to detecting 447,000 violations of the act. So that to zoom in and suggest that the fraud squad is doing a job that would embarrass the government is just not in accordance with the facts.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You said it, not me.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I never said that, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is misquoting me again.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Labour. Will the

minister confirm that, following discussions which have taken place during the past 24 hours, the government has agreed to add two further persons to the mediator-arbitrator working on the postal dispute, one to be appointed by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and one to be appointed by the Post Office?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the very constructive suggestion that has been made by the Canadian Labour Congress. I discussed this suggestion with the mediator-arbitrator, who thinks it has great merit. Therefore, I am ready to appoint two assessors if the union representing the employees, and the employer, both want it, one to be recommended by each party, to assist the mediator-arbitrator in carrying out his duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Postmaster General. Will the Postmaster General confirm whether the government has agreed that, in dealing with a number of complex clauses in the agreement between the Post Office and CUPW as interpreted by Judge Tremblay and the two additional persons, it will give its unequivocal commitment that no existing benefits will be withdrawn from the union?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to inform the House that our entire work force was back to work this morning and I hope that the mail will be delivered in the shortest possible time. In reply to the question put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, I can say that he should rely on my co-operation for the appointment of an individual to assist the mediator-arbitrator appointed by the Department of Labour. Mr. Speaker, the Post Office Department does not usually withdraw acquired rights when negotiating with its employees. I can assure the House that if, for example, there are 56,000 grievances outstanding at present it is merely due to the fact that the terms of the collective agreement should be clarified and their meaning made more accurate. I think that the suggested appointment of two qualified persons to assist the mediator-arbitrator help clarify and specify the terms of the collective agreement is good.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to get the answer a little more clearly from the Postmaster General. In addition to suggesting that two people be added, one from CUPW and one from the Post Office, I also had in mind the fact that union members currently believe-reasonably so, in terms of the law that was passed-that existing rights might be taken away. Will the minister state unequivocally that this will not be the case?
I repeat the question: is the minister in agreement that Judge Tremblay and the two persons who will be interpreting the complex clauses will have, as a mandate from the government, the insistence that whatever decision they reach in such
October 26, 1978

interpretations, no existing rights or benefits will be withdrawn?
Oral Questions
ing, our dollar is continuing to tumble, hanging, as it is now, within a rather wobbly 84-cent range?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, it seems clear from what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby just said that the final decision will be made by the mediator-arbitrator. He will make his decision after discussing what must be clarified in the language of the collective agreement. I do not think there will be any question of a rollback, as it is called in a collective agreement. That was never our intention. The final decision will be made by these three persons.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Beliechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Reports appeared in the morning papers that yesterday the Chamber of Commerce submitted a memo to the minister in which they suggest a reduction in individual income tax. Would the minister tell the House whether or not he is aware of the contents of that memo and what answer he intends to give in light of those recommendations?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am now receiving briefs from several organizations before presenting my budget. I have met with most of the finance ministers in Canada as well as businessmen and union leaders throughout the country. That is a process of consultations which I began last spring and which I intend to continue. 1 receive advice which does appear contradictory at times but I take it into consideration. All those consultations will help me draft a budget which will reflect the views I have received, but in the end it will be the government's responsibility to announce its own measures and 1 will take into account recommendations from the Chamber of Commerce when I will be preparing my budget.
* *
*


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in the last six months there has been borrowing at all levels in Canada to the amount of something like $4.4 billion of foreign funds-well in excess of the present current account deficit- would the minister tell us why, in spite of this massive borrow-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have explained the policy with regard to the dollar almost every week since I became minister. The Canadian dollar is a floating currency and the governor of the bank intervenes only to make sure that the market operates in an orderly fashion. The rate of the Canadian dollar is determined by the market.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, since at a seminar in New York yesterday attended by many international bankers of the world it was widely reported that the Bank of Canada had lost still further reserves in the current month, defending the floating dollar in the way the Minister of Finance claims it is not doing, would the minister tell us, in addition to the $750 million, October 15 issue which now has a red herring out on it, what additional foreign borrowing he contemplates will be needed in the next six months?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we decide to borrow abroad, or outside Canada, we make the announcement the day we take that decision. No such decision is being taken by the government at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Minister of Finance, who appears to want to continue the charade about a floating dollar. Would he indicate what, in his opinion, is a fair value for the Canadian dollar in relation to the U.S. dollar, bearing in mind that if he and the government are not willing to show what in their opinion is a fair value, one cannot expect world confidence to be restored in the dollar at any level?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member likes to make all sorts of statements. It is not for me to determine the value of the Canadian dollar: it is a floating currency and its value is determined by the market.


DEDUCTIBILITY OF MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The government has appointed 23 sectoral task forces to report on different phases of the Canadian economy, and now a two-tier committee representing business, labour and the academic world has reported. One of the recommendations is this, and they are proud that they are able to agree: they note that the deductibility of mortgage interest payments should be reviewed by the government and given careful consideration.
In the light of this recommendation, is the minister dropping his fanatic opposition to mortgage interest deductibility, and has he given thought to including such a provision in his budget and considering it as a possibility?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have explained that if at this time we were to introduce a program which would cost the treasury $3 billion in loss of revenue, at the time we are running a large deficit which the

October 26, 1978
Oral Questions
opposition does not like, I would almost certainly be criticized. This, in our view, would not be a fair program. There are better ways. Of course, when I prepare my budget I have to consider all the alternatives there are.
One of my big problems is this: I cannot understand the opposition. One day they complain about the size of the deficit, and another day they propose to cut $5 billion from taxes. It is pure irresponsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the understanding shown by the Minister of Finance, of anything, is very limited. Has he read the review of the Economic Council of Canada and all the other reviews which indicate that stimulation is now needed?
My supplementary is this: in the report of the same task force we find the statement that continental free trade should not be pursued as a general policy, but only as a selective sectoral strategy where appropriate. The government had another report from the other place studying Canada-U.S. relations this summer, recommending that serious consideration be given to U.S.-Canadian free trade. Which of these recommendations, if either, is presently under study by the government? Does the government mean to adopt either one of them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have talked very often about this problem. Of course, everyone is making all sorts of recommendations-the hon. member illustrates this very clearly in his question-and we shall take the best course. In some instances we have negotiated free trade arrangements with the Americans which have been very good for Canada-for example, the auto pact-and if there are other agreements of that sort which could be devised, that is all right; but we are not planning to develop an economy fully integrated with that of the United States.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Solicitor General in an effort to elicit more detail with respect to the policy of protection and indemnification of members of the RCMP, referred to in the House yesterday. Has the minister been able to discover the extent of the practice? How widely was it implemented?
Specifically, did Chief Superintendent Donald Cobb enjoy the protection and indemnity provisions under the same theory, I presume, as that by which the former minister gets support in his litigation problems?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will recall that yesterday, when this matter was brought up, I indicated that it was related to a document

which had been circulated and made public by the commission. The hon. gentleman will also recall that it refers to a policy within the force itself, which policy is being reviewed by the McDonald inquiry. He will also recall that initially, when the inquiry began its deliberations and I assumed my responsibilities, I indicated it would not be my policy to deal with matters before the commission on a day to day basis.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister will not give such a straightforward question at least a semblance of an answer. 1 want to put a question to him on a related matter. Has he been briefed on the circumstances in which a prominent Canadian journalist, reportedly Peter C. Newman, at the request of an ex-member of the RCMP conveyed information to the then solicitor general relating to testimony given before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in May of 1973? The minister was at that time a member of that committee.
Does he know what, if anything, resulted from the communication of information to the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and what if anything, was done about it? Has he seen correspondence directed to the then solicitor general by this ex-member? Has he had the benefit of that information?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I recall being a member of the committee at the time but, of course, I was not exercising my present functions. I hope the hon. member will recognize that he has brought forward some specific facts with regard to which I cannot be expected to have knowledge at the tips of my fingers, as it were.
I am somewhat disappointed that in their two questions, hon. gentlemen opposite did not call attention to the amnesty recall program to which I have given some publicity and which will be receiving additional publicity in the immediate future.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO PAN-AMERICAN GAMES
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). In view of the announced intention of the B.C. minister of recreation and the mayor of Vancouver to submit an application on behalf of Vancouver to host the 1987 PanAmerican Games, can the minister advise the House whether the federal government intends to assist in this worthwhile endeavour?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. minister and mayor of Vancouver seem to be engaging in a new and unusual form of consultation, since I have heard nothing of this from them.
October 26, 1978

I suppose this consultation may be forthcoming since I read a news report stating the revenue which could be forthcoming from the federal government would be that of Loto Canada. They seem to have a respect for Loto Canada, but not for the normal courtesies of consultation. If and when I receive notification, I will be pleased to answer it.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES FUNDING OF CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State make his commitment on the arts today. I hope he has persuaded some of his cabinet colleagues, particularly the President of the Treasury Board.
Since I wrote to the Secretary of State on August 31 with respect to a proposal which, in line with the government's restraint program, would reduce its spending but increase its funding directly to the Canada Council by $2 million-a body which has had its budget frozen for nearly four years-and since the minister's only public response was to cut the budget of the Canada Council, that of the CBC, the National Film Board, the Film Development Corporation and other artistic and cultural institutions-which may have disastrous repercussions, as the minister well knows, for artistic communities in the country, the closing of art galleries and theatres, etc.-in view of this virtual freeze in constant dollars to the Canada Council and the crisis that is being created in the arts, what concrete action is the minister planning to take?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member's question-


An hon. Member:: I am not.


John (Moody) Roberts: -because usually he is more conscious of the facts than he seems to be today. The Canada Council's budget was not reduced; its base budget was increased by $3 million, or almost 8 per cent or 9 per cent. The budget of the CFDC was not cut, Mr. Speaker; it was increased.
It is true-now I regret it-that I did not reply to the hon. member's letter because I did not take it very seriously. He was suggesting that the budget for the Canadian Unity information office be wiped out-I am sorry Mr. Speaker; he suggested it be cut down by $9 million of $10 million-and this seemed to me to be an irresponsible suggestion, given the referendum which is to take place in Quebec in the coming year. He suggested that we should cut out the funds of the French and English national theatre companies at the National Arts Centre, which seemed to me to be an extraordinarily irresponsible suggestion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: So I came to the conclusion that the letter was sent to me for no other purpose than to garner some newspaper publicity in what I consider to be an irresponsible way.


An hon. Member:: Oh, David!


John (Moody) Roberts: The last point on which the hon. member is again incorrect is in his indication that this government is insensitive to the arts. The fact of the matter is, as I said, that the basic budgets of the arts organizations have been marginally increased. It is true that the budget for the CBC was frozen, but budgets over-all were increased rather than cut. In view of newspaper speculation that there were going to be cuts of something in the order of $60 million to $90 million, I would have thought he would have recognized the strong determination of this government, shared by my colleagues, including the President of the Treasury Board, to make sure that this area of activity continues to receive strong government support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there is a great line from Shakespeare which is appropriate to the occasion. It is, "methinks thou dost protest too much".
I wonder if the minister could refer to two specific matters that happen to be of great concern to the artistic community: that of the Disney report, which has been in circulation for some months now and has been on his desk since early this spring, having to do with the taxation situation of the arts in this country, and also the Keyes-Brunet report on copyright, which affects the publishing and recording industries in this country and on which there have been numerous submissions.
What action has he taken with his cabinet colleagues to accelerate real performance on matters of basic concern in the tax and copyright areas to the artistic and performing people in this country, which they desperately need?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to see the interest which the hon. member is taking. Of course we are concerned. With regard to the recommendations in the Disney report, that is exactly why we financed it. It is we who promoted the funding of the Disney report because we wanted to have that assessment which was taken of the employment situation which artists in the country face. We have received the report and I have distributed it to my colleagues who are concerned, and active discussions have taken place and are under way now with my colleagues about it. I have also discussed that report with, for instance, representatives of Equity, and people on my staff have discussed it with other arts organizations. We attach great importance to the Disney report and we are actively pursuing discussions within the government.
In terms of copyright and other procedures, the hon. member will remember-if, for instance, he goes back earlier this year-the action which the government has taken to deal with the problem which authors have expressed to us over the dumping within Canada of books which are remaindered in
486

October 26, 1978
Oral Questions
the United States. We are concerned with the copyright situation and we have responded to the specific suggestions which have been made to us.


INQUIRY WHETHER STUDIES CONDUCTED ON EFFECT OF CUTBACKS IN FUNDING
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the minister's self-serving remarks earlier today prevented my motion declaring today as Arts Day from being passed.
I want to put a question to him in terms of real budget cuts that the artistic community knows have taken place. In view of the fact that as of 1971, 85 per cent of all Canadian visual artists earned less than $5,000 a year, and since the establishment of the Canadian art bank accounted for $1,300 of the annual income for over 600 artists from whom works were purchased last year and, further, considering that $800,000 will be indiscriminately slashed from the art bank program along with another $800,000 cut in the Public Works Department's fine arts program for a total of over $1 million can the minister tell the House if his department has conducted studies into the effects of these cuts on the income of Canadian artists?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to my remarks being self-serving. They are not self-serving. What they serve to do is to express the interest which this government has in supporting the arts throughout this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: I have been Secretary of State for two years and not once in that time have members of the opposition used an opposition day, or any other occasion, to raise the question of the arts policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


John (Moody) Roberts: Finally, Mr. Speaker, now that there are people in the gallery, they show interest in this issue but today is the first time in two years that they have put such questions to me.

Good news travels slow, Mr. Speaker, but I am glad to see that, finally, members of the opposition realize this is a subject of importance and significance. The hon. member referred to the question of the arts bank-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie on a supplementary question.


Reginald Cyril Symes: That kind of empty rhetoric is so self-evident to the artistic community, as well as the lack of dollars from this government, that I think the minister is digging a deeper and deeper hole in which he will find himself together with the artistic community in this country. With regard to the nonanswer which the minister gave me to the very precise question

in real dollar reductions, I would like to put another example to counter his phony argument that there are no reductions.
In the light of the minister's statement which shows a reduction of over $1.1 million in assistance to literature and publication, a reduction which amounts to 16 per cent of the current budget, not accounting for inflation and increased costs, and given the fact that only 15 per cent of all books sold in Canada were authored by Canadians, has the minister's department conducted studies on the effects of these cuts and what effect they will have on Canadian publishers and authors, who are contributing much more than the minister to the preservation of Canadian culture?


John (Moody) Roberts: First of all, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question on the art bank cuts, I want to assure the hon. gentleman that those cuts were made after our discussions with members of the Canada Council about them. They were undertaken in view of the extremely high administrative costs which were involved in the program and the belief, not simply on the part of the government but expressed to me by the director of Canada Council, that it would be useful to be able to reassess the administrative efficiency of that program.
In so far as the member's general question is concerned, it is true that I have had discussions with the various cultural agencies. Those discussions are continuing so that I might have the benefit of their advice as to what the effect will be of the restraint on expenditure within the arts community. I may say that I have found within the arts community general support for the government's restraint program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -because people in the arts community realize that the arts suffer more from the impact of inflation than almost any other sector of the economy, and they are most anxious to see that inflation brought under control. Naturally, there is concern about the impact of cuts upon them and I share that concern; but they are generally supportive of the need to bring government expenditure further under control.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs; given the fact that both sides of the House want a legal and peaceful settlement on the question of Namibia's independence, what assurances did the five western ministers receive in Pretoria last week that the election of a constituent assembly in Namibia in December-which we know will be declared null and void-will in fact be followed by a UN supervised election which will then be recognized by the world community?
October 26, 1978


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to look at the joint communique, the first three paragraphs of which were agreed to by the Western Five and the government of South Africa. In that communique, it was indicated quite clearly that the South African government agrees to pursue a United Nations' solution to the Namibian problem. I think that is, at least on the surface, the assurance the hon. member has been asking about.
I would be less than candid if I did not say to him that, of course, we continue to have some reservations about the bona Tides of South Africa regarding this. This is why we hope Mr. Ahtisaari, from the United Nations, will go to Namibia shortly. Then, within a matter of two or three weeks, it will be clear as to whether or not South Africa is genuine in its wish to have a United Nations' supervised peace settlement in Namibia.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, because this issue is very complex and has serious consequences for the international community-as have other recent major developments in the world news, such as the Middle East peace talks and the genocide in Cambodia-can the minister now assure the House that we will have a two-day debate on external affairs, such as we had last year, which gave members a full opportunity for airing Canada's foreign policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, yes, personally I would welcome this. Of course, it is not for me to decide on the business of the House. However, if the House leaders find that there is an appropriate time between now and the Christmas break- when I think it occurred last year-I will be glad to do it. May I also refer-and I do not think the hon. member will object to my saying it publicly-to the fact that I offered him an in-camera briefing, if he and other members of the House would wish, on the outcome of our discussions in South Africa. Barring an in-camera briefing, then I would be glad to meet with members of the committee in public and go as far as is considered appropriate in terms of the current developments at the United Nations.


FINANCE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance: it relates to the reallocation package of which they gave some information in a joint statement dated September 8. I am referring to the reallocation package, not to the items which make up the $2.5 billion cut.
The main thrust of the reallocation package was a reallocation of income in the country. Some $220 million was to come from transfer payments including equalization payments.
Oral Questions
Given that it is rather strange that one should go after equalization payments, which go to the poorer provinces, as well as reallocating income in the country, can either minister tell me how much the government proposes to ask the provinces to reduce the equalization payments?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at that time we listed the transfer programs from which we wanted to have some money. In the case of transfer payments to the provinces in terms of equalization, of course, from time to time we have to review the formula because there is variation in the actual situation from year to year.
It is possible that we will review it at this time to make sure some of the developed problems are not disturbing the process of equalization payments. But there is no question of cutting down equalization payments; it is just making the necessary adjustments from time to time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to give me the assurance this afternoon that it was not the intention of the government, when it indicated that it was going to save part of the $220 million from equalization payments, to ask the provinces at this time to modify in any respect the equalization formula?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we regularly review our programs with the provinces, and we intend to discuss this problem with them at the finance ministers' meeting which will be held next Thursday, because some aspects of the formula have created problems. But I wish to reiterate that next year's equalization payments to the provinces will be increased over this year's. As for the exact amount of the increase, that is what we will discuss with the provinces.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be a little forthcoming and indicate to the House in what manner the government intends to propose a change in the equalization formula? Never mind all the hocus-pocus and the vagueness: this is a program which has been established in this country for some 30 years and has been changed by agreement from time to time. What changes does the Minister of Finance intend to propose at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss that problem at this time. I have already consulted a few finance ministers on that issue. I will be meeting others early next week. We are now studying the problem. I trust that we will arrive at a simple solution when we meet with the finance ministers next week because, as I said, we do not intend to reduce the equalization payments. They must simply be adjusted, there will in effect be an increase in the amounts paid next year over this year's payments.
80065-32'A

October 26, 1978
488________________________________________
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs: in particular, it refers to senior citizens' housing in the Toronto area. Can the minister tell the House if he has reviewed CMHC capital funding to Ontario in order to assist the Metro Toronto Housing Corporation?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the allocation budget for the province of Ontario, under section 43, for public housing has been increased to $73.3 million. These additional funds should enable the province to assist the Metro Toronto Housing Corporation to realize its 1978 production goal, and it will be of particular assistance to senior citizens projects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and gets back to the original questions asked in this hour. Regarding the $142 million overpayment, his director of unemployment insurance is quoted as having said the following, "It is not a major increase in the sense that the whole program is going crazy". This is just another example of overpayments. These have been audited before by the Auditor General. The minister has given us indications that the fraud squad will come back and that there are monitoring systems. Once all of this has been discussed, could the minister tell the House how he expects to get back the $142 million overpayment which has come out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated, our success ratio in collecting overpayments has been excellent. The area of detected overpayments has been approximately $65 million, in round figures, and we have collected all but approximately $5 million or $6 million of that to date. So the collection mechanism is fine, but that will not solve the undetected payments. The areas which I indicated, the four or five different avenues for a better control mechanism, are the sorts of things which the Auditor General sees as a good move in the right direction. He just wants to see it done more quickly and more efficiently.


REFERENCE OF UIC ANNUAL REPORT TO COMMITTEE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council. In view of the fact that we are just not receiving answers to the problem of overpayments and the

entire operation of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and that the parliamentary standing committees have not been struck, would he give us the assurance that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will be struck forthwith and that the annual report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission will be referred to that committee immediately?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I have asked already that the organizational meetings take place as soon as possible. I think that is under way now and the committees will be set up to meet.
With respect to the reference of the annual report, that is a matter I would have to discuss with the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As we conclude the Question Period I know that hon. members would want to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor, in the person of the minister of commerce from India, Hon. Arif Baig.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
*	* V


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raised a point of order, or possibly a matter of privilege, regarding the omission from Hansard the previous day of certain remarks which he recalled had been made by the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). The Minister of Transport, in his contribution to the discussion, indeed confirmed that he had made the remarks which had been heard and recalled by the hon. member for Yukon. Those omissions constitute the word "hypothetical"-where the minister had said, "hypothetical" and "theoretical", the word which ultimately appeared was "theoretical" and, subsequently, in the minister's remarks the phrase, "The decision will then be taken by the commission."
On both of these counts I can confirm that the minister did make those remarks, that the omissions did occur, and that the omissions or alterations were not in any way attributable to any intervention by the minister or anyone on the minister's behalf, but in fact were attributable to the editorial staff of Hansard. On one occasion there was an editorial change in leaving out the word "hypothetical." On the second occasion it was simply an error in transcription by the reporter who, in
October 26, 1978

moving from one page to another page of his own notes, left out a phrase that was at the bottom of the page. It was simply a human error.
On both counts it has brought home again-as I think it always must, because in every case it is always well, I think, for a member to raise such errors or omissions when he sees them and bring them to the attention of the Chair, either in the House or privately-the reminder that we should always be vigilant that these errors may occur. After all, human error can take place, and editorial judgment has to be used from time to time. All of us should share the vigilance of the hon. member for Yukon in bringing such points to the attention of the Chair in order to make sure that we always have the highest quality of recording.
When we do have a human error, of course we try to point that out and make sure that we are conscious of it, but in this case there was certainly no aberration in the practices; I believe there was simply a mistake made. There was a judgment made in respect to the omission of the word "hypothetical" and that does concern me to a certain extent.
I also, with all hon. members, reflect on the relationship between the electronic facilities we have here and the human reporting facilities which we have had for so long. I think that it is essential we recognize on some occasions the superiority of the one over the other and make sure that in the future we have a useful combination of the two, and not a conflict, as may occur from time to time. Again, I reiterate that the way to ensure this is for all members to be vigilant whenever they spot any kind of error in Hansard and bring it to the attention of the Chair so that we can exercise the kind of quality control that all hon. members demand.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order with respect to the matter of the motion under Standing Order 43 moved by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), where the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) took opportunity to debate the motion prior to the allotted question period time and which, as I understood it-I did not hear over the general murmur that goes on in this chamber, therefore, I may not have heard you clearly, sir-gave me the impression that we may be inadvertently moving into an area of precedent which might be contrary to what I suspect is the spirit and the intentions of the standing orders and the rules of this House.
I wonder if I could beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to speak at some little time to put forward my contention with respect to my understanding of the procedure and the rules relating to Standing Order 43, for I believe, sir, that you did indicate at the time when the debate was interrupted that the matter would be considered under government orders, which, in the vernacular, means that the matter will come back again
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
at the pleasure of the government itself, as opposed to the pleasure of this House.
I would just like to make my points procedurally on the basis of precedent, and if I may be permitted to do so at this time it would then be appropriate for you to take the matter under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Certainly, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will be permitted to proceed with the point. 1 would like to set the record straight and then the matter can be discussed.
By virtue of relatively recent changes in our procedures, we have transferred the consideration or the calling of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 to the beginning of the day, prior to the question period.
This problem has arisen once or twice in the past. On those rare occasions when the House does give its consent that the motion be presented, the question is put. The question is not, as all hon. members will know, when an application is made pursuant to Standing Order 43, for the passage of the motion, but simply for the putting of the question, for there is no authority to put a motion at that hour of the day, or, for that matter, at any time by a private member, outside of the private members' hour. Therefore authority is sought, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to put the question, and the question being asked is not the consent of the House to pass the motion, but the consent of the House to put the motion.
Occasionally the House gives it consent, as it did today. Therefore, when the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) put the question earlier, he was seeking the consent of the House that his motion be put, and since the House gave its consent, the motion was put. The motion then becomes debatable, and it is the duty of the Chair therefore to call the motion for debate: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?" Any members then rising obviously must be recognized by the Chair for participation in the debate. Today, the only member who was rising at the time of the calling of the question was the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). At 2.15 a confrontation, or collision, occurs between that rule pursuant to Standing Order 43, and that practice in another standing order which prescribes that the question period shall begin at 2.15 and continue until three o'clock.
1 want to refer hon. members to Standing Order 45(2) which reads:
When a debate on any motion made prior to the reading of the orders of the day is adjourned or interrupted, the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under government orders.
It seems to me that we had two choices at 2.15. One of them was, by virtue of having put a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, to set aside the question period at 2.15 because the debate was under way. Obviously the danger with that is that if we set aside the question period and the debate carries on- for example, until three o'clock or later-we would need the consent of the House to restore the question period. So, the risk is that if we continue with the debate at 2.15 we wipe out

October 26, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
the question period, to which, I am sure, all hon. members would be opposed.
If we do not wipe out the question period and do as I did today, stop the debate at 2:15 a.m. it seems to me we are caught with Standing Order 45(2) which says that, having done that, the only way we can return to the debate is take it as a government order. That is the background against which I made the decision I made earlier today. I now invite the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to continue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to beg your indulgence and make my submission for your consideration. The preliminary thought occurs to me that there are parallels in other circumstances which have brought this to our attention during the last three days, particularly where there had been preliminary proceedings, the introduction of new members, for example, where there had been, by your leave, a forestalling of the question period, notwithstanding the strict wording of the rules that questions proceed during the hours you mentioned. I want to deal with the substance of the matter first of all.
It seems to me that two points have to be examined in deciding how to deal with motions under Standing Order 43. First, is a motion under that rule different in some previously unnoticed way from any other motion called under motions during routine proceedings, and second, how is Standing Order 45(2), to which Your Honour referred, intended to operate? I am concerned not only about motions under Standing Order 43, but about other motions dealt with under the item motions itself. For example, the result of a ruling that the interpretation of Standing Order 45(2) is to change after 12 years from the original intention to an exact literal meaning, would be to curtail sharply proceedings on concurrence motions. If this is to be done it should be through a change in the rules.
On the first point, Mr. Speaker, the move of Standing Order 43 to a slot before the question period was nothing more than a move to limit their number for the convenience of the government. No new category was created in a formal procedural sense; we have motions under Standing Order 43 which are taken before 2.15 p.m., and the other motions, with Standing Order 43s excluded, taken afterwards. An examination of the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization will show that there was no intention to create a new category under routine proceedings with a different status and a different relation to the rules governing motions. There was simply a subdivision.
When the period of notice expires on a motion put down for routine proceedings, it is immediately debatable. Similarly, if the notice provision is waived on a motion brought forward under motions, whether this happens during motions as before the rule change, or under a separate subdivision as at present, then the motion is a debatable motion. This has been confirmed by our practice. Once the motion is properly before the House for debate there is no difference in the way the standing orders respecting motions apply.

Then the question is: how was Standing Order 45(2) intended to be applied to such a motion?
As some members of the House may remember, a motion called under motions prior to 1965 had absolute precedence until disposed of. It precluded the question period and any other proceedings each day, since motions came before oral questions. Since the motion was not a government order, Standing Order 18(2) giving the government the right to call its own orders as it saw fit, did not apply. Thus the business of the House could be blocked for days until such a motion was finally disposed of.
To correct this situation Standing Order 45(2) was introduced. In bringing it in the then government House leader, the Hon. George Mcllraith, said as reported at page 2132 of Hansard, volume II:
Paragraph No. 7 deals with a matter which was not provided for in the rules formerly. There was a provision that caused some concern to those responsible for administering the rules having to do with a motion moved by a private member. It arose, in my experience, where a private member was moving concurrence in a committee report. The change is such that a motion, which seemed to have a doubtful or unclear position on the order paper, is now placed under government orders after it has been debated for one day. There will be a safeguard offered in an amendment we will be bringing forward to give that order precedence. The rules now provide that any item of business under government orders can be called in any sequence the government wishes. There will be a safeguard put in to protect the priority of debate of such a motion when it is transferred to government orders.
The amendment referred to was made, and simply meant that although the motion was transferred to government orders, it still had to be called first on government orders until disposed of. This was not satisfactory either, and so in 1969 the amendment that had been made to Standing Order 18(2) exempting Standing Order 45 was dropped.
The third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House (Journals 1969, pages 429 to 438), in dropping the amendment to 18(2) which gave the motions a priority, said:
XII Transferred Motions
33.	On June 11, 1965 a provisional section (2) was added to Standing Order 43 (as S.O. 43 then was), providing for the transfer to government orders of an order for the resumption of a debate which had originated on a motion under routine proceedings. Its purpose was to prevent such an order from obstructing indefinitely the normal business of the House. This purpose was only partially achieved, however, because under the provisional rule the government is obliged to call such an item of business before any other government order.
34.	Your committee believes that this restriction on the government's discretion should be removed and that it should not necessarily be obliged to call such an order before any other. One day of debate would already have been devoted to the kind of motion contemplated prior to its transference to government orders-
The committee therefore recommended the necessary change, and, in addition, made Standing Order 45(2) refer not to Standing Order 15(2)-description of routine proceedings-but to all motions "prior to the reading of the orders of the day". This had, I believe, the effect of bringing any debate on a motion concerning a prima facie case of privilege under the rule as well.
It is clear from the statements made on these two occasions, and from subsequent practice, that the debate begun on a
October 26, 1978

motion moved before government orders was to proceed until the daily hour of adjournment was reached, or until a superceding motion interrupted the debate. In all the motions which have been debated after proceedings were begun before orders of the day, we have never interpreted private members' hour on the dinner adjournment, fixed at a set time as is the question period, to mean an interruption in the procedural sense. They are a temporary suspension of proceedings properly before the Elouse.
How can there now be a contention that this rule does not have the meaning it was intended to have by its authors, and the meaning it has had for twelve years? Are concurrence debates now to stop at five o'clock or the dinner hour? Will that be the limit on any debate which may arise on a question of privilege? Are government adjournment motions to be a routine proceeding before dinner and a government order after? Will the government be able to arrange for Black Rod to come tapping at the door at four o'clock, thus interrupting debate on a motion properly before the House? Are we to decide that an interruption at 2.15 p.m. is somehow more permanent than an interruption at five o'clock? Any change in the interpretation of Standing Order 45(2) would have profound effects on our procedure, all to the disadvantage of the opposition parties, pro tern.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that the counter argument is what appears to be the plain language of the rule to which you alluded in your opening discourse. I have shown that the rule was never intended to be interpreted in the way now suggested. I must point out that not all standing orders can be applied without reference to practice. If we are to take rules literally, then we are in for interesting times. The next time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) leaves to deliver an address such as the one on February 22, he will need the permission of the House under the terms of Standing Order 5; according to Standing Order 11, I am sorry to say we will never again see an increase in members' salaries or benefits, because we would all be forbidden to vote on the matter. I particularly look forward to the enforcement of Standing Order 28, when all members wishing to address the House must rise "uncovered". I assume the Chair will not be sympathetic to arguments that this was meant to refer to hats, because the rule does not mention hats.
Mr. Speaker, a motion which is properly before the House before orders of the day has always been debatable until the House adjourns or a superceding motion is moved. If the House wishes otherwise then it must carry further the revisions made in 1965 and 1969. We cannot ignore precedent and practice simply because a potentially awkward situation is created for the House.
That constitutes my formal submission to you with respect to the operation of the standing order. I think it is possible there may be other people who wish to participate in the course of the debate, and I hope it will be possible for you to take this matter under serious consideration and entertain
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
representations from other members of the House in order that we may have a most important point clarified in the interests of having an understanding of the rules and be able to expedite the business of the House, because that is what we all seek to obtain.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar will recognize at once that I have had this matter under consideration for quite some time. He asked me to take it under serious consideration. There have been three previous occasions on which I have been faced with the same difficulty. However, the hon. member in his contribution does not address the central point. The central point is whether he or other hon. members would prefer that we go past the hour designated for the commencement of question period. That is the difficulty. It is not difficult to carry on the debate. But once we go by the hour of 2.15 the question then becomes: do we have any authority to take question period later on? Yesterday and the day before when there were a number of members to be introduced, I indicated to the House that obviously we consider it a matter of priority to introduce new members to the House. I presume that members are agreed that we should guard the time for the question period in order to do that, and in the circumstances of course the House agreed.
Supposing we were in a situation in which the House did not agree? Does the Chair have the authority to return at four o'clock or five o'clock, or eight o'clock in the day, to a question period? It seems to me that the House does not have that authority unless the House gives the Chair the authority to do that. It appears to me this means a second question requiring the consent of the House. The first question would be whether the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) today had the consent of the House to present a motion for discussion. That motion having been presented, when 2.15 arrived and the matter was under discussion, the House would either have to give its consent that the debate could go on for some time, with the question period to be taken later in the day at the conclusion of the debate, or that once we had gone past 2.15 the question period could not be called for that day. That is the real collision between the two rules, and that is the one to which I want all hon. members to address themselves.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will receive considerable representation.
As I understand it, at 2.15 the debate can be interrupted. But it seems to me then, and this is my own idea of the interpretation of the rule, that if that is the strict understanding of the rule, you would revert back and have a continuation of debate following that interruption, the same way as I referred in the course of my presentation to the interruption during dinner hour or private members' hour. In other words, it is an interruption in the same way in which those two items are interruptions in the proceedings. But they do not forestall the return or continuation of the debate properly initiated prior to 2.15 when you have received the unanimous consent to continue with, or to present to the House, the motion brought by any private member. In my opinion it is the logical explana-

October 26, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn tion of the rule and the spirit of the rules by which I would submit Your Honour should be bound.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should be very happy to participate at length in a debate on the theoretical aspects of this procedural problem, and I shall say a word in that vein, but I should like my intervention to be regarded mainly as a suggestion with respect to what we might do today. However, I shall come to that in a moment.
First may I say that I think Your Honour is quite correct that, as the rules are set up, there is a collision that arises when the putting of a motion has been allowed, and 2.15 arrives. I think that those of us who were on the standing committee that drafted these rules, or agreed to them, have to take some responsibility for the fact that there was a point which we did not cover. I think that an effort should be made, perhaps through that committee, to cover that point.
It seems to me that common sense, which is not a standing order in our rules, of course, would tell us that if the House agrees under Standing Order 43 that a motion may be made, that implies more than just putting the motion. I know that the standing order does not say that, and I know that the standing orders require that we move to the question period at 2.15. But surely on those rare occasions when the House gives its consent to the making of a motion under Standing Order 43, the House expects to decide on that motion.
There is not much point to a motion being put, a few words being said to it, and then for it to languish on the order paper for the rest of the session. I think we should find some way to resolve that problem.
One of the reasons we got into this collision was because we had made changes back in the old days. Motions under Standing Order 43 used to come after the question period and, if they were allowed, the debate could go on and on. Then this also got mixed up with the problem as to what happened to motions for concurrence in reports of committees. It was that kind of a motion respecting the flag debate that got us into a position where, day after day, we had to carry on that debate because it was on the motion for the adoption of the report from a committee. It was in an attempt to resolve that impasse that 45(2) was put in the book in its present form. I do not think that those who were drafting 45(2) at that time to cover that problem realized what it would do to a motion under Standing Order 43.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to participate in the theoretical aspects of this. It seems to me that such a discussion should start from the basic common sense proposition that if the House is willing unanimously for a motion to be put, especially a motion that has the very day's date in it, the House wants to resolve that matter that very day.
As I say, I should like to see this matter discussed. I think Your Honour has the proper answers. When the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) asked you to review the matter, you have reviewed it at great length and on many occasions. That does not give you the right to change the rule. But maybe the kind of review that is necessary is a review by

the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House.
Having said that, may I get to what I think is more urgent today. The House received, with applause and approval, the suggestion made by my friend, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), that certain things be said about the arts in Canada and that this day, Thursday, October 26, be designated as Arts Day across Canada. If there is any day to pass that motion, surely it is today. There is not much point to our passing a motion sometime in November or next March making October 26, 1978, Arts Day.
We got into a situation that is perfectly understandable. My friend made the motion. We thought it would be carried at that point, but the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) chose to stand and speak, and he kept talking until 2.15.
My suggestion is that the House now agree unanimously to call that motion so that the debate can be concluded just as soon as we get through routine proceedings. My suggestion is that it be a debate with one speaker per party, and a limit of ten minutes for each such speaker. If it is agreed, I hope the House will allow the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie to be the speaker for our party even though technically, having made the motion and sat down, he has exchausted his right to speak. I hope this might be considered seriously. I think we would be carrying out the thinking of the House on motions under Standing Order 43 generally, and carrying out what we in this House felt when the motion was put and received so enthusiastically today.
That is a suggestion I put forward, hoping it will be considered right now. The theoretical idea is that it can be dealt with at some other time. However, I hope that just as soon as we finish routine proceedings, before we go to whatever is to be the business of the day, the House will agree that there be a debate with one speaker per party. I will not even object if the government contends it has not had a speaker, although the Secretary of State had six or seven minutes. I suggest there be one speaker per party and that the motion be put at the end of that debate.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the easiest way to solve this very simple problem of when a motion put under Standing Order 43 can be debated is this: I feel the surest way is to refer to the Standing Orders themselves.
Let me refer to four standing orders which are relevant in this case. At the beginning, Your Honour has very pertinently underscored three of them. Obviously, it starts with Standing Order 43, which is relevant and under which we can put a motion on an urgent matter. However, it should not be forgotten that Standing Order 43 is an exception to the general principle outlined in Standing Order 42, which stipulates that an advance notice of 48 hours must be given prior to the
October 26, 1978

putting of a motion. But Standing Order 43 provides for the case where, if the matter is urgent and if hon. members unanimously consent, the member is dispensed from giving notice and can put his motion. That is all what is stipulated in Standing Order 43. This Standing Order does not authorize us in any way, as you pointed out so pertinently, to debate the question or put it to a vote. The consent is to dispense with notice and to put the motion. Then where do we go once the motion has been put? As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 15(2) was introduced provisionally in our rules on March 24, 1975 and became a permanent feature on December 12, 1975. That Standing Order 15(2) stipulates very clearly, and I quote:
(2) Not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers, the business of the House shall commence. Members, other than ministers of the Crown, may propose motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 at this time. Not later than-
And this standing order is very clear, I point out, Mr. Speaker-
-Not later than 2.15 p.m., or 11.15 a.m., as the case may be, oral questions shall be taken up. At 3.00 p.m., or 12.00 noon, as the case may be, the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows:
So, that second standing order which is relevant to this debate and which I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, is very clear, that is there is no choice. The legislator, hon. members and parliament have asked under that standing order to proceed with the oral question period at 11.15 or 2.15, depending whether it is a Friday or another week day. I do not think that we have any other choice. This standing order is quite clear and compels us to interrupt our proceedings and proceed with the oral question period.
There is a third relevant standing order when it is 2:15, as happened today, but the standing orders leave us no alternative nor any choice but to interrupt our proceedings and proceed with the oral question period. What happens then to the motion under consideration as is the case today? Then we have to refer to Standing Order 45(2) provided for that purpose and which reads as follows:
When a debate on any motion made prior to the reading of the orders of the day is adjourned or interrupted-
-such is the case now-
-the order for resumption of the same shall be transferred to and considered under government orders.
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be clearer than that standing order which provides that when the debate on a motion is interrupted, as it has been today, the said motion is transfered under government orders. This is the point we are at now. What should we do once time comes for the government orders? Again, the answer is in the standing orders, Mr. Speaker. I refer you-and I suppose Your Honour has not mentioned this before because you thought that all members knew it-to Standing Order 18(2), and I quote:
(2) Government orders shall be called and considered in such sequence as the government determines.
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to determine the sequence of the proceedings of this House and it will be ours, pursuant to the standing orders to decide when the debate will continue. The government decides which matter is more important than others. It is the government's responsibility and it must be accountable to the public. Hence, what the hon. member suggests to the Speaker is to withdraw the government's prerogative to decide the order of the proceedings of the House. If we were to accept his arguments and give priority to the debates on motions pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, once it has been agreed to do without the notice pursuant to Standing Order 42, the opposition would determine the order of the debates of the House through the expedient of a motion under Standing Order 43. This is absolutely contrary to tradition and absolutely contrary to the standing orders, particularly the provisions of Standing Order 18(2). We determine the order of business of the House and what is urgent or what is not. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, if we stick, as we should, to the rules of the House pertaining to the business of the House and if we refer more particularly to the four relevant standing orders which I mentioned and which are quite clear, then there is no problem at all. The answer to your question is that at 2:15 the discussion of motions under Standing Order 43 for which notice was waived with unanimous consent and debate started, is interrupted, the debate is stood as a government order, and the government decides when the matter will be debated.
There is another point, Mr. Speaker, that was raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). They referred to the date when Standing Order 45(2) came into effect or one or the other of the standing orders. There is also a principle that must be respected here, Mr. Speaker. It must be taken for granted that when members amend the Standing Orders they want the amendment, be it a new standing order or an amendment to a standing order, to read in agreement with the other provisions of the standing orders. That must be presumed, Mr. Speaker, even if Standing Order 15(2) which directs you to interrupt the debate at 2:15 is subsequent to the others that existed. A case can hardly be made for the previous practice when Standing Order 15(2) did not exist. That is another story then. My reasoning is that by accepting Standing Order 15(2) without amending the other standing orders, members wanted the procedure to apply, as I just mentioned, that Standing Orders 15(2), 18(2), 43 and 45(2) apply in correlation with one another. Otherwise Standing Orders 45(2) and 18(2) could have been amended and Standing Order 43 might have been amended, but they were not. Standing Order 15(2) was introduced, and that produces a situation like the one we have now. We have no choice, we are bound by the Standing Orders. We must assume that those who drafted the Standing Orders knew what they were doing. If practice shows that it is not too advantageous for one party or another, the standing orders can be amended later on. That is

October 26, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn another matter. But, as things stand now, it cannot be said that because Standing Order 15(2) was introduced just recently the other standing orders become non applicable. There is in my view a basic principle that must be respected. When an act or a regulation is amended or a new one is introduced, each provision is construed in light of the others and they must all be consistent, otherwise they are amended. This has not been done in this case.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to limit myself strictly to the point that was raised, much has been made this week about the introduction of new members. This delayed the oral question period, and per force Standing Order 15(2) was not adhered to. As you very appropriately emphasized, you assumed there was unanimous consent, there was no objection, and you quite rightly did so. One thing must be said however. Although new members do not come every day, each and every day motions are put under Standing Order 43. Things must be looked at in their right perspective, Mr. Speaker. As you can see, my point is therefore very logical. I believe we have no choice if we want an orderly House, we must simply abide by our standing orders. They are clear. Four are relevant to the case. If we are not happy with the result-and for quite some time I for one and other members on this side of the House have been suggesting our procedure should be amended-let us sit down and modernize parliament, let us make it more efficient by all me*ns. In the meantime, let us apply the rules, let all parties be treated on the same footing as provided for in our rules.
Coming finally to the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who asked for consent that one speaker from each party deal with today's motion, my view is that it would be a dangerous precedent. Because you know it is not every day we receive sensible motions under Standing Order 43. Most of the time you know how the preambles are too long, they are partisan, and the rule is abused. However, this will be the subject of another debate you have reserved and in which I will welcome the opportunity to participate. On the precise suggestion itself, Mr. Speaker, the mere fact that consent has been granted-and I think the Leader of the Opposition understands me-to the waiver of notice under S. O. 43 for the hon. member putting his motion forward reflects a collective will to concur in the substance of the motion that today be called Arts Day. I believe that any additional debate and a division would be futile and a needless waste of the time of the House. It is an undeniable fact that all hon. members agree on the contents of this motion, but the government needs more time to discuss matters which have higher priority. That is all I wanted to say.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my heart bleeds for this poor government which is so afflicted by the backbenchers of this House, particularly the opposition, that it is not able to carry out its functions. After listening to 20 years

of amendments to rules of the House, particularly in the last 12 or 15 years, I know that every time rules are made there is an attempt by the government, which unfortunately too often is supported by the Chair, and I exclude Your Honour, so far, from that-


An hon. Member:: Cheap!


Gerald William Baldwin: -which has the effect of denying private members the rights they have had. These rights have been taken away from them slowly over the last number of years. There is no question about that. If it is not asking too much, I would hope the House would approach the question of these rules in a mood of common sense. I know this is difficult to ask from members of the government side, but I would hope this would be done. I think this requires an examination chronologically of these rules.
I had something to do with Standing Order 43. I do not know whether I was the father, godfather, or grandfather. I remember it was originally used at a time when the House was seeking a chance to debate a motion dealing with the problem in Biafra. We used a motion at that time. Unanimous consent was secured, and we went ahead and had an excellent debate. Use of the rule has grown since then. I would be the first to admit that there are occasions when we may need to look closely at the rule and its application, but that is a question for another debate.
I was involved in the debate on Standing Order 45(2) as a member of the procedure committee. I agree thoroughly with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It was thought, quite properly, that debate on certain motions, particularly motions with regard to concurring in a committee's report, should not go on and on ad nauseam and the sensible decision was made and accepted on both sides of the House that we would limit debate at that time to one day. A motion to concur in a report of a committee would be a motion which would come within, for example, the parameters of Standing Order 45(2). Both sides agreed the House should have a one-day debate on a motion of that kind, and that was it. I think the same thing was understood to apply to Standing Order 43. But it was much later than that when changes were made with regard to the establishment of fixed times.
1 would suggest to Your Honour, as a member of the profession to which you and I have the honour to belong, that common sense should be applied and that the application of those fixed times must be taken to be ingrafted on our rules subject to the existing arrangments.
I think the wording of Standing Order 45(2) gives support for my view. It says:
When a debate on any motion made prior to the reading of the orders of the day is adjourned or interrupted-
I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to those words "adjourned or interrupted". I think in the first place you could apply the rule of ejusdem generis-the "interrupted" must be taken to be within the context of the word "adjourned". I am supported in that contention. I was able to send for the dictionary. This is a dictionary from the Table; I am sure Your
October 26, 1978

Honour makes reference to it from time to time, so it has that sanctification. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary the definition of the word "adjourned" includes "break-off for later resumption", and the word "interrupt", "break in upon a process, speech, person speaking, etc." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that those words must be taken as having virtually the same meaning. I think that makes sense.
When we brought in Standing Order 45(2) there was no intention of other than limiting the right of members of this House engaging in a debate to concur in a committee report, and under S.O. 43 no intention to have a debate lasting more than one day. The government always had the right-and it should have, and I agree that was proper-at the end of a day to adjourn debate, and the motion did not come back. They could make a formal motion to adjourn, if they had the courage to do that.
The government always has the right to make a formal motion to adjourn, and when that happens it is an adjournment within the meaning of Standing Order 45(2). That is up to the government. That is their privilege. But I submit to Your Honour, and I am very sincere in this, there is such a limit on the opportunities for private members in this House, particularly on the opposition side, that 1 think it would-the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) smiles. He has been one of the foremost movers in attempts to curtail the rights of members of this House. Ever since I have known him as House leader he has never lost an opportunity to cut down the rights of hon. members on this side. He has been very successful in it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not very.


An hon. Member:: Machiavellian.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will not go into that now; we are in trouble already. I suggest that this was the intent of members of the committee in making their recommendation, and the intent of the House in accepting it. Surely it was to put these two rules together and say: there shall be a limit of a day, but in using fixed times for the question period common sense would enter the picture and the words "adjourned or interrupted" would mean that when you broke into the debate at that time, then at three o'clock or whenever the question period was over, we would resume this particular debate.
I think that is the only way there can be a sensible and logical interpretation. I am sure the leader of the House for the government might come along and say. "Maybe we ought to look at this rule to see how it is applied and what we can do, with due right to preserve opportunity for the private members of this House to engage in debates and discussions sometimes." I know the government suffers very greatly from the deprivations of the rules in these very sad circumstances. But I suggest any other interpretation would do violence to the intent of the committee, to the intent of the House, and to the situation which arose today when a member of the government properly initiated a debate and, having done that, the debate will never be brought back.
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
The very fact that the wording of Standing Order 43 refers to urgent and pressing circumstances must surely impress itself upon Your Honour as indicating that the intent should be that Your Honour should be vigilant and ingenious-and I am sure Your Honour can be very ingenious-to find ways to enable this debate to continue. You can do so under the circumstances I mentioned, without violating the rules.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. It seems to me that there has been a lot of razzmatazz and procedural jargon heard here this afternoon which could be cleared up by a sensible agreement among all concerned in the House. Surely we have many things to consider, and the suggestion made by the hon. member from Edmonton was a fair one. The principles can be laid down in our standing orders. We have all read them and we should know them, but I suggest to you, sir, that the primary principle in parliamentary procedures must be the principle of common sense, natural justice, fairness and equity.
Here is a motion which has been put to the House by unanimous consent. Even the mover of the motion was cut off from making a statement. A minister of the Crown rose and talked out the motion. I thought that could only be done on a private member's bill and on matters of that nature. Surely the motion was brought before the House by unanimous consent and, I understand, there was agreement that there would be no debate and the motion would be unanimously agreed to by the House. So I am most surprised that members of the House, and particularly ministers of the Crown, would back off from an agreement made with members of various parties.
I think the government owes it to us to sit down, discuss this matter, and iron it out. Let the mover of the motion at least be given an opportunity to say a few words-I am sure he must have a few words. It seems to me that natural justice demands that the mover of the motion be allowed to speak up and say a few words, in view of the fact that a minister of the Crown was given that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we stop the razzmatazz and agree to have this motion heard, and get it over with once and for all.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on this matter. I think the points were well put by members on this side, but there is an essential point which needs to be made. There are the rules, which are very important to the effective operation of this House, and there are also the practices. I think the practices are quite clear, Your Honour, that usually motions under Standing Order 43 are opportunities for private members to bring motions before the House, usually to raise issues which are rarely voted on and even more rarely debated.
In this particular instance a motion was presented later than normal because of the introduction of a new member. It was presented with the understanding-certainly on this side of the House and we understood that such was the understanding on the other side of the House-that it would be accepted, because it referred to a specific event today, and passed

October 26, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
without debate. In fact, as I recall it, it was seconded by a member on the government side of the House, thus showing there was all party support for the motion which would be accepted without debate. I would like to be charitable and believe that the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) did not know of that agreement because, if he did know it, what happened was in violation of the agreement which was generally understood.
The other aspect which concerns me very much is that when motions are presented it must be a rule in the House that there should be equal opportunity given to members on both sides of the House to make a fair statement on the issue. The fact that by this particular interpretation of the rules there is to be no equitable sharing in the expression of opinion strikes me as being in defiance of both the spirit and practice of the rules, and I think that should be unacceptable to all members of the House.
The third thing that strikes me as being a very strange anomaly is that the particular motion refers to an event today, and it was the understanding that because of the importance of that motion it would be passed by the House as an expression of support for the 1812 committee and what they represent to the broad cross-section of the artistic and cultural community of this country. To have it stood over for some eventual debate, which might not even take place later, surely makes a farce of the whole motion. Such action would undermine the spirit of what I thought the Secretary of State was supporting. I find it strange that by his speaking he would want to prevent the House from adopting a motion which he said he was supporting, not only in his brief remarks but in answering the questions that followed. I am surprised that the parliamentary secretary says it would be ridiculous to give an opportunity for an expression. Without that expression surely the House is not in a position to adopt the motion, and that would be against the interests of us all.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate which has taken place on this point and I think it serves to underline further the unsatisfactory operation of Standing Order 43. You might recall that last week I raised a point of order when the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 which I regarded to be replete with false allegations, because in the normal course of events it would not be possible for members on this side of the House to indicate the fallacy of the statements in his motion. It is for that reason that I raised the point of order on motions under Standing Order 43 and that, at your suggestion, sir, the debate was deferred.
I have been away, and today the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who wishes to participate in that debate, is absent. At his suggestion we have deferred the debate on the broad operation of Standing Order 43.
I could not agree more with the statement that was made by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) who urged that in the operation of our Standing Orders there should be a sense

of fairness and a sense of natural justice. It is to that point that I wish to address myself when later I make my argument on the broad operation of the Standing Order, and I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) refer to the necessity of our proceedings being fair and providing an opportunity to reply when allegations are made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yes, when motions are debated.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Often there is a long preamble to a motion before consent is asked. However, you can say yes or no to the motion, but you never have an opportunity to reply to the false allegations made in these increasingly lengthy motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Members of the opposition have laid the groundwork for my argument when they have urged equity, natural justice, and fairness in the operations of our proceedings. I assure you, sir, if there was unfairness today-


An hon. Member:: Poor Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -if there was unfairness today because one member of the House was unable to speak on the motion, then it is a sequel to a long succession of unfair episodes under Standing Order 43 when, within the preambles and motions, there are false allegations, personal insults, and political partisanship, with absolutely no opportunity for members of the government to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If there are complaints on the other side, the complaints are legion on this side, and we shall return to them later when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton comes to the House.
I would add one point because I regard it as very important. I was not involved in the negotiations on Standing Order 43 today. No member of the opposition approached me with respect to how that motion should be dealt with in the House. I have no personal knowledge of it and therefore I cannot clarify the situation, but I do say that usually when members of the opposition ask for my consent, when the motion is satisfactory I always add the rider "provided there is no debate". I do not know whether or not that was arranged today, that is a matter beyond my knowledge, but I think it is a matter which should be clarified later when those who are involved in the negotiations are present in the House.
That is my introductory comment to the statement I would like to make later when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is in the House.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) sat down before he intended to do
October 26, 1978

so. He spoke about the principle of fairness and how important it is to respect that principle in the House of Commons. Certainly there is a belief, or a very clear understanding, on this side of the House that this motion introduced by a member of the New Democratic Party, and seconded by one of the members of the Deputy Prime Minister's own party, had associated with it the understanding that there would be no debate. That understanding, which I am given to believe was there, was broken by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) when he rose to speak.
In the interests of the fairness to which the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council has made such extensive reference, I am sure he intended to go on to say that it was the intention of the government to accept the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and to ensure that there would be an opportunity for one spokesman for each party in the House of Commons to speak for a limited time, ten minutes, so that there would be extended to the other parties the exact equal and fair treatment which was extended by circumstances to the Secretary of State.
In putting forward his case in the interests of fairness, I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister would not want to mar that case by establishing now an obviously unfair system where the Secretary of State, who may have been very well in breach of an agreement given to members of the House, is allowed to be the only person to speak. It was quite a reasonable request by the House leader of the New Democratic Party to ensure that other parties would be extended the principle, practice and fairness already exercised by the Secretary of State.
I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister wants to rise in his place and simply complete his remarks in order to make it clear that it will be the intention of his party, as it is the intention of my party, to agree to the position put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has invited me to reply to two points. The first point is that I regret very much, as he does, if an understanding reached among the parties has been broken. I would regret that very much and apologize for it, but I do not know whether that is so. Those involved in the discussions will be able to return to the fray tomorrow and clear that matter u^P
In reply to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in principle I would not find it very difficult to agree to, but I believe I ought not to agree to it, in order to underline the unsatisfactory operation of this standing order generally. If we are to clean up the inequity alleged today, let us clean it up for the past and for the future, and hon. members opposite can show their bona fides tomorrow when they rise under the provisions of that Standing Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been a rather full discussion of this point this afternoon. I remind all hon. members that two applications for consideration pursuant to Standing Order 43 are being reserved under a point of order. One was raised by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees), in which I ruled on a preliminary basis that the subject seemed to be one of general concern and not a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Subsequent to that, a motion was raised by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), when again I repeated the suggestion that the subject of the motion was really one of rather general concern and not a matter of urgent and pressing necessity as envisaged by the rule. Those two applications pursuant to Standing Order 43 remain under consideration as a point of order for an argument to be addressed at a later time on the use of the Standing Order.
One of the many difficulties we have faced in the application of this rule is whether or not the Chair ought to take a strong position in determining whether a matter really is one of urgent and pressing necessity. Previously when these motions were taken up after oral questions, it would seem to me that there was an open-ended period of time for consideration of them. Often there were so many that the Chair had to step in and take some measure of control of those which seemed not to be in conformity with the rule. However, when the procedures were changed to put them before the questions, there was a sort of self-limiting factor. Therefore I thought that there was much less compulsion on the Chair to intervene, because indeed they are almost always opposition applications. It is somewhat unseemly, day after day, for the Chair to be interposing itself in the face of what are consistently opposition applications-not exclusively but almost-for consideration under the rule, particularly when there was an automatic time limit on them. Therefore I have tended to be rather generous in the interpretation of what motions can be considered. However, there is a limit to that.
Two of the motions now under review should be the subject of discussion by the House. I look forward to the time, as the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has mentioned, when House leaders can agree and give me some advice as to a convenient time for discussing the subject matter. At that time I think we ought to continue the discussion about the difficulty we face if one of these is considered. There are real difficulties respecting the point just raised by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Also there are difficulties in knowing clearly what is going to take place, if a member gives his consent under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Certainly it is one thing for a member to be asked to give his consent to the immediate passage of a motion, if that is the case. Indeed that has certain weaknesses to it, but nevertheless it is a known quantity. It is another thing altogether to ask a member to consent to setting aside the business of the day and, on a priority basis, debate some other motion to the exclusion of and then priority ranking in the subject matter for the day. If that is the question being put-will the House put aside its other business

October 26, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
and debate this matter as a matter of priority-surely that ought to be put in a question so that members can address themselves to that very point as a matter of procedure.
Therefore, these considerations remain as loose ends. As I have said, on three previous occasions they have been a problem for the Chair. This is at least the fourth occasion. On every one of those occasions, on October 26, 1976, February 18, 1977, and December 16, 1977, we ran into similar difficulties. On one occasion we had a vote. On another occasion the proponent of the motion was talking until the appointed hour for the beginning of question period. By talking in support of his own motion, in effect he deprived himself of the opportunity for a vote. On some of those occasions in the past, at the conclusion of question period the situation was rectified with the consent of the House.
There is no procedure which I can invoke at this time to return to the consideration of the question we had before us at 2.15 this afternoon. It was interrupted by the question period. In our practices we cannot change from one item of business to another without the adjournment of the item before the House and asking the agreement of the House to move to another matter. Having done that at 2.15, surely we cannot then return at three o'clock without the agreement of the House in some form. Therefore, in my opinion, we are powerless to return to the consideration of this matter, unless we do so by unanimous consent. In fact, on a previous motion put by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), this was the case. We agreed to a debate of limited proportions, but that was done clearly with the consent of the House. 1 have no authority to direct that. I am bound by the fact that at this time we are facing the calling of other proceedings described in the standing orders, and I do not have the authority to direct us back to this motion, unless the House consents. At the moment I do not have any vehicle through which to determine that consent.
1 think this matter ought to be set over along with the other matters of substance which were raised by virtue of the proposals by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I hope the parties will agree to an early discussion of this. Frankly, I think it can be resolved only by some changes in the rule, something which will have to be done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I hope that the House leaders will agree to an early opportunity for full discussion of these points raised today so that we can address ourselves to this problem which, after all, is a part of our daily proceedings and therefore a problem of great urgency.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, just so that the record is clear, I would like to reply to the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister and House leader (Mr. MacEachen). The reason that we have had this hour-long procedural debate is because an agreement was broken. I had put the proposition to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that I would be putting my motion under Standing Order 43 today on the

agreement that there would be no debate. It was a non-contentious and non-partisan issue, and for that reason the government agreed by unanimous consent to having it put.
The point is that, unfortunately, certain developments occurred which prevented that motion from being put for final resolution. I just wanted to clear that up, that it was the government side that broke the agreement and got us into these difficulties. I understand that the government is not prepared to allow equity in terms of participation in debate. I wonder, in the interests of good sense and fairness, whether I could move at this time that my motion under Standing Order 43 be now put for final resolution, without debate.


Yvon Pinard: This is more in the nature of a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) states that we have gone against an agreement that he is supposed to have made with me. He mentioned my name. He talked about the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister. I never gave my consent, or the consent of anyone else since I could not do so, for the motion to be accepted without debate.
All I said to the hon. member, in his own language, when he came to see me in the government lobby a few seconds before two o'clock, was that as far as we were concerned, contrary to what we must usually do because of the nature of the motions moved, I would not object to this motion being moved, 1 would not say no if unanimous consent were needed for this motion to be moved, and I would ensure that no one on our side would say no when you ask: Is there unanimous consent for this motion to be moved? This was the only agreement between the hon. member and myself. Therefore, when he suggests to the House that I have gone back on an agreement, I must point out that the hon. member is wrong and that I am sure that if he is misleading the House, it is unintentionally. Perhaps in his mind-I cannot say for sure-he did not want us to debate this matter. It is not my place to guess what he was thinking. However, in all honesty, since he mentioned my name and referred to to an agreement against which I am supposed to have gone, I want to formally deny this charge. All I said in English was:
[English]	^
All I agreed to was that I would not say no to the putting of the motion, and that nobody on our side would say no. If the hon. member is pretending that he talked to me about not debating the motion, I am saying to this House that he is not telling the truth, and I deny it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House will realize the very great difficulty that we are in here. First we have the difficulty when in fact one of these motions is accepted. It is a difficulty we have faced two or three times in the past. None of us is clear on how it can be handled. I have to take the best course I can, pursuant to the rule, and it is the same course I have taken in
October 26, 1978

the past. If we were to differ from that course we would need the consent of the House.
The other difficulty we face is that, obviously, before two o'clock there had been some discussion about one aspect of the rule with regard to whether or not consent would be withheld or given to the presentation of the motion. As often is the case in the eyes of members of the House-and, I am sure, in the eyes of many others-the two are equated. The two are considered to be synonymous, the consent for the putting of the question and the consent for the passage of the motion. In fact, they are two very separate questions.
There has always been a general impression that consenting to the putting of a motion to the House is thereby agreeing to the passage of the motion immediately without debate. That is not the case and never has been. It is a difficulty that we face every day in the interpretation of this rule, and it is a difficulty that has even, it seems to me, introduced itself into a discussion between two members-who have each taken I am sure, quite righteously, entirely different interpretations-which they had before the presentation of this motion. Surely it would be helpful even to those kinds of conflicts if we could clarify some of the many difficulties which face us in this Standing Order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it has been the tradition that a question be placed, under a point of order, before we go into routine business, as to what the government's intention is with respect to the business for the next week. I am sure that I could come up with some speculation as to what it may be, but it would be better to hear it out of the mouth of the government House leader, who is probably now giving some undertakings or obtaining them.
I would ask the government House leader if he would tell the House what the government's intention are with respect to business during the course of the next week. It is Thursday, the government House leader is back from Rome, over his jet lag and able to consider the business of the House, I am sure. Possibly he could stand up and tell us what he has in mind for the next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what the business is today until I have reached motions, when I want to have a discussion with the hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the business today. Quite apart from the disposition which may be reached with respect to the borrowing authority bill, I want to indicate that the Old Age Security Act, the child benefits act, and the Health Resources Fund Act will be the next package of legislative items. Of course, as my hon. friend realizes, we have already agreed that Monday shall be the final day for debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), and further to my reply in this House last Friday to a question by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) on the government's plans concerning the implementation of the gun control legislation, I would like to table, in both official languages, letters and attachments which I sent recently to all my provincial colleagues responsible for the enforcement of the Criminal Code and, as well, to the two territorial commissioners, reviewing arrangements for Canada's first firearms amnesty to be held from November 1 to 30, 1978.
I might also indicate that I have made that correspondence available to my critics in the opposition parties.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH NEWFOUNDLAND ON SHARED COST PROGRAMS
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of correspondence with Premier Moores of Newfoundland concerning publicity of shared cost programs.


STATUTE LAW (SUPERANNUATION) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978 MEASURE TO CHANGE RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROVISIONS
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
October 26, 1978
Business of the House

Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-13, to amend the Electricity Inspection Act and the Gas Inspection Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Motions.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment on the disposition of Bill C-7.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Following the spirited, if illogically based, speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in the debate yesterday, I received a communication from the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). It is not a private letter because it was posted in the press gallery within 15 minutes of its arrival at my office, so I trust I will not be breaking any tradition of confidentiality by quoting-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is known as open government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the third paragraph which may lay a foundation for the later discussions I had with party representatives and for the proposal which I trust will be agreed to as expediting the business of the House.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton wrote as follows:
Following upon the leader's presentation, I am writing formally to request that you agree to withdraw Bill C-7 and to bring in a new bill in place of Bill C-7, limited in its scope to a borrowing authority for the fiscal year 78-79 as set forth in Bill C-7.
In return, we are prepared to permit the introduction of this bill later today, or tomorrow if necessary, for first reading, to give second reading to such a new bill without debate immediately after its introduction and to refer it to a committee where it will be given speedy consideration.
I draw attention especially to the final paragraph because it is the one that attracted me particularly. It reads as follows:
We make this suggestion to you as a way to expedite the business of the House and the committee in which we have a mutual interest and 1 hope that it will meet with your favourable consideration.
I was very pleased to receive this letter and I communicated to my colleague that I would give it consideration and be in touch with him as soon as possible. I have had discussions with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and the representative of the Social Credit party.

I believe there is general agreement to my proposal that second reading of this bill will be concluded without further debate and that the bill will be amended in the standing committee to confine its application to the current fiscal year. It is not necessary to withdraw the bill. We can achieve the objective of confining the operation of the bill to the current fiscal year by particular amendments to it. We are agreeable to doing that, on the understanding that the committee will report not later than November 10, and that it will have no fewer than three meetings in that period, and that report stage and third reading will be completed in a period of not more than five hours.
I should add that I am quite agreeable that we have discussions to determine a mutually agreed upon time for votes that might occur as a result of the proceedings at report stage and third reading.
I suggest that, if this proposal is accepted, we might have the division on second reading today at 5.45 p.m. in order to ensure that those members of the House who have attended the funeral of our former colleague, the hon. Mr. Greene, will be present for the vote.
I hope this is a faithful representation of the discussions and, if it is agreeable to hon. members, it could be made a House order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on the proposal put forward by the government House leader. First of all I should point out that the suggestion made by my leader yesterday, and subsequently transmitted to the government House leader by our House leader in a letter, underlined the fact that one part of the bill causes us particular concern, that is, what has been termed the "blank cheque" provision of $10 billion for future spending.
My leader pointed out very strenuously, as have the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and others, that we still have some substantial and valid objections to the remaining provisions in the bill with respect to the $7 billion. It was on this basis that we had the discussions.
It was part of my understanding that the government House leader indicated he would ensure the attendance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) at the standing committee so that he could be questioned. The government House leader is quite right in saying it was understood there would be no fewer than three sittings. 1 should make it quite clear that we came to this agreement on the basis that government members will not indulge themselves in points of order, questions of privilege, or other procedural tactics which are irrelevant, and that members will be able to question and cross-examine the Minister of Finance during the standing committee deliberations. I think it is fundamental to this understanding that we have a clear and unequivocal undertaking with respect to our right and ability to question the minister on the remaining provisions of the bill which are fundamental and very important to us.
The Minister of Finance is in the House, so perhaps he could give us an undertaking that he will be present at those
October 26, 1978

committee meetings. I want to be quite clear that this is the basis upon which we put this matter forward. I say that, not suggesting there will be any such tactic, but sometimes enthusiasm takes over where logic should prevail, and occassionally-


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We want to get this business through and we put this forward on a serious basis in order to help expedite the business of the House and to get the government off a sticky wicket with respect to the $10 billion. We put it forward in good faith in order to get the bill through in the minimum amount of time. It is essential that the Minister of Finance be at committee and that we be given the opportunity to examine and cross-examine him on the remaining provisions of the bill.
I believe it was the understanding given by the government House leader that, as far as he had any control over this matter, he would counsel his colleagues not to indulge in excessive debate or other tactics. The Minister of Finance is here and he will be able to confirm that he will be at those particular meetings.
Finally, as far as the understanding is concerned, we are agreeable to the Five hours but that any votes that might arise by virtue of the discussion and amendments brought forward in the report stage will be taken at a time mutually convenient after discussion on this matter.


Yvon Pinard: The rules provide for that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Maybe the parliamentary secretary, who was so good at undertakings, and who would not participate in this debate now, wants to make an interjection. But 1 am trying to recall publicly what was my understanding of the arrangement, that the votes would not be considered as part of the time involved in the five-hour debate. In other words, the five hours would be attributable and available for debate and not be included as far as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope that all hon. members will recognize that if we are trying to come to some kind of agreement here, which I expect will be made the subject of a House order, the matter has now become so complicated that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to frame an order in extemporaneous language.
If the parties want to finalize the terms of an order, that perhaps ought to be done privately. But to attempt to do this as we move along from moment to moment, adding different paragraphs, conditions, and undertakings from the one side to the other, into the final product, I simply want to point out makes a practical procedural difficulty. If we were to attempt to phrase some sort of an order, there is a limit to how much we can incorporate in it extemporaneously.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the reason I rose to explain my understanding of the undertaking of the government House leader was due to the fact that he inadvertently did not say it
Business of the House
was his understanding the Minister of Finance would appear before the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is all right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The proposition that he makes is satisfactory to us. He is confirming that now, sir, and he did not make that clear when he made his proposal. I simply want to make that quite clear, that that was an essential and integral part of it, and I gave it some background. With those very few caveats and observations, we are prepared to go along with the suggestion and the recommendation put forward by the government House leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I often go to the press gallery and look at the notice board because it is a good way to find out what is going on around this place. It just so happens that I did not go last evening, so 1 have not seen the letter that was written to the government House leader by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). However, I was clued in a little before lunch time today as to what was happening, and although I have not had an opportunity to consult with all of my colleagues, I have consulted with enough of them to be able to state our position.
Our position, Mr. Speaker, is that we are prepared to agree to the proposal that has now been made by the government House leader.
May I state it as I understand it, hoping that it is the general proposition. It would be, first, that the debate on second reading of Bill C-7 be now regarded as concluded which, of course, would do away with that motion under 75(c), of which notice was given yesterday. It is also understood that any vote on second reading would come at 5.45. The bill would go to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs with the understanding that in that committee the government will move for the deletion of the clauses that relate to fiscal year 1979-1980.
The rest of the understanding is that when the bill comes back to the House, and it must come back by November 10, that the debate at report stage and third reading will not exceed five hours, and that any time required for recorded votes would be outside of the five hours.
I should like to say that I prefer that way of putting it, that is, five hours of debate, rather than saying one sitting day, because one sitting day can sometimes be messed up by a long debate on procedural points, references to Standing Order 43 and so on, and the first thing you know a sitting day can be an hour and a half or two hours.
So, Mr. Speaker, if you do not mind my having taken this time to say it, I have been trying to spell out what we understand to be the agreement, and we agree to it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important enough that we do not have later misunderstandings as a result of our discussion. I do not believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred in his otherwise admirable summation to what would happen in the

October 26, 1978
Business of the House
standing committee, the number of meetings, when it would report, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is that in the standing committee there will not be fewer than three sessions. In other words, the government cannot ram it through in one or two.


Charles Joseph Clark: And the minister will be present.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the minister will be there, the government says, in the normal way. I gather it is understood that the minister will be there for those three meetings. That is not a prohibition against there being more than three meetings. The understanding is that there will be no attempt to do it in fewer than three meetings.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a limit to what we can put in this order. I have undertaken in reply to the very statement that the hon. member for Rosetown-Big-gar-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Saskatoon-Biggar.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I am sorry. I remember the former member for Rosetown-Biggar. He was so much better.


Charles Joseph Clark: Simply closer in age.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that the minister would appear before the committee in the normal way. If only to preserve some relative dignity in the House, I do not think I am going to undertake that no matter how many meetings-I think there is a steering committee,-there has to be a certain element of good will in the operation of this House, and I undertake that the minister will co-operate within that spirit of accommodation with which this whole agreement has been worked out. 1 do not think we ought to go beyond that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) rising. We are not in a debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is a negotiating committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has risen on motions to put what has been laughingly referred to as a brief discussion on this subject. The suggestion is that an order be made at this time, which obviously requires the consent of the House, first of all that the order be presented by unanimous consent at this time because it is being presented without notice.
As I understand it, the order contains the following terms: that debate of Bill C-7 be concluded now; that when the question is put under Orders of the Day to terminate that debate, if it leads to a recorded division that division shall be taken at 5.45 o'clock this afternoon; that the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; that while in committee the government will move to

amend the bill in such a way so as to restrict its scope to the fiscal year 1978-79; that the minister will co-operate with the work of the committee in the usual way; and to be more specific, but not so as to restrict the generality of that proposition, that not fewer than three meetings of the committee will be used for this bill and the minister will be there for those; that upon its return to the House not later than November 10, five hours of time will be allocated for the consideration of report stage and third reading of the bill, with any vote to be taken to be exclusive of that five-hour period of time.
I believe that is the proposition put before the House. That order can be put only with the consent of the House. Does the House give its consent for the putting of that motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the way Your Honour dealt with the portion of the summation with regard to the $10 billion for fiscal year 1979-80, that is the intention. There is another provision which I have not examined which may have application to that year, but it does not relate, as the hon. member rightly observes, to 1979-80. I would like it understood we are dealing with the proposition of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) with regard to the borrowing authority 1979-80. However, there is another provision which may have application to that year which is not under discussion, but which your summation may have included, I am sure inadvertently.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to mar in any way the coming to an agreement that has now been reached. However, I must rise on a question of privilege. I hope it is clearly understood that the order of this House does not restrict private members like myself who may be sitting on that committee from the full exercise of their rights on that committee. I object very strenuously to the smuggling in by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) of some suggestion that the members on this side should not perform their full functions on that committee. I trust in all of those other summations that it is very carefully deleted, because I certainly will perform my full function there. I resent the suggestion that we delay or raise points of order. The history of those committees goes the other way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

;

October 26, 1978


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that those questions be allowed to stand.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this has to do with questions on the order paper. In order to expedite answers to questions on the order paper, and in view of the fact some questions have been on the order paper for a matter of months and even years without the government feeling any obligation to answer them, will the parliamentary secretary do the House the courtesy of giving a list of questions he refuses to provide answers to, and possibly we can take that into consideration?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I merely refer the hon. member to the order paper and as for the remainder, our record is self-explanatory since we answer an average of 90 per cent of the questions per session.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-2, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and Malaysia and conventions between Canada and Spain, Canada and Liberia, Canada and Austria and Canada and Italy for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
Old Age Security Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year
1978-	79, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year
1979-	80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: According to the order the House made earlier this day, the question is on the motion of Mr. Chretien. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I declare the motion carried on division?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with order made earlier this day, the members will be called in for this division at 5.45 o'clock this afternoon.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Monique B£gin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: That Bill C-5, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I rise on second reading of a bill in the House, a piece of legislation I personally submitted to hon. members for consideration and I do hope to have their support. During the budget debate in April last, I had started discussing poverty in Canada and the urgency of doing more to increase share of national income for our most
[Stage Direction]
October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
needy Canadians. I realize that in an affluent country concerned about losing its recent wealth, to which most Canadians are entitled, it was not proper to talk about the state of poverty of some of us. I felt however it was urgent to refer to it specifically because the feelings of concern among some sectors of the Canadian community could scare us and make us lose sight of existing problems whose urgency is quite obvious.
On August 1 last, the Prime Minister made it clear that he would do more to protect senior citizens against the adverse effects of inflation. So I am most happy today to introduce two amendments to the Old Age Security Act, one about the annual guaranteed income supplement and the other regarding the spouse's allowance. The supplement is paid to those who have hardly any or no income at all other than their old age security pension. At present, in October, 1978, this monthly supplement may mean up to $205.22 for a couple of pensioners and up to $115.55 for a single pensioner, alone, or whose spouse does not yet qualify for any pension or who is not eligible, so to speak, for the general old age security, as well as for those who get the spouse's allowance. To qualify for this supplement, single, widowed or divorced pensioners must have an income under $2,784. Married pensioners whose income is less than $4,944 will qualify too. A married couple with a single pension will be eligible if the income does not exceed $7,544.87.
[Stage Direction]
The proposed change to the GIS, the guaranteed income supplement, will increase the total benefits to each household currently receiving GIS by $20 a month effective January 1, 1979. As far as I know, this is a new characteristic in our program. It means that the monthly benefit for a single GIS recipient will be increased by $20. For a couple, each member of the couple will receive an additional $10 per month, for a total of $240 for the coming year. This total will be indexed every three months according to the cost of living in a similar way to what we do now with the pension and the supplement.
This change will give a break to those who are referred to in the statistics as "unattached" elderly people. It may appear to be an injustice to give more money to those who live alone than to a couple on pension. However, I am sure the House will agree with the justice of the proposal.
At the moment, those in Canada who live alone and are the recipients of a pension and a supplement receive approximately 50 per cent of the amount a couple is entitled to receive. In fact, it is 52.4 per cent.
First, the cost of living for the person alone, single, widow, or in whatever circumstances, is much more than just half the pension of a couple. The cost of living alone is approximately two thirds of the budget of a couple or family. For instance, the basic one-bedroom apartment, the cost of the telephone bill, electricity, hydro, will be the same for a person alone living on a supplement as for a couple. Therefore, it is a matter of great urgency, it seems to me, to bring our program in line

with the realities of the family budget. It is the first time we are taking such a measure.
When the economy is in better shape I hope to be able to come here with further such measures and I hope we shall never hear that measures to help older people living alone are a disincentive to marry or an incentive to divorce. I am only talking of relief to the family budget by which we bring up the pensions and supplements going to unattached, elderly Canadians. There is no way they can live as cheaply as two can live. This must clearly be said of present and future steps to increase benefits to elderly Canadians. Right now, this proposal of $240 additional money per year as of the coming January will bring them to approximately 54 per cent of a family's budget, that is, 54 per cent of what a couple receiving a pension can be entitled to. It is a first step. It is surely not a complete correction of the problem but I think it is a step in the right direction.
It is important, it seems to me, to ask who will benefit from the change in the GIS. I should like to use this opportunity to put before members of the House and other Canadians the fact that in our rich and affluent society, which we keep forgetting, in times of better circumstances for the majority of Canadians, approximately 60 per cent of all the pensioners in our country will benefit from the new GIS provision of $240 a year, that is 1,350,000 elderly Canadians. We keep forgetting there is such a big number needing our help, who live mainly upon pensions paid through the money of the taxpayers. I am not sure this fact of the poverty of the elderly Canadians is known to us.
Sixty per cent of all the pensioners in Canada receive some supplement, some assistance in addition to the basic pension because they are in poverty by all standards of definition.
We should consider some figures here. Over the last 20 years, consistently more than 50 per cent of elderly Canadians have been in the poorest one-fifth of our population.
Over one million Canadians, in fact 1.3 million, rely almost entirely on public funds as their only income. For a couple this amounts to $6,410 a year at the most, and the $240 additional money will for the first time bring them just above the poverty line. As to the single elderly person in such a situation, survival must accordingly be achieved on $3,363 a year.
[Stage Direction]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask honourable members, my colleagues and all Canadians how many of us would be able to survive without financial help on $3,363 a year. We simply cannot figure out how these people can make it and it is high time and most urgent that we realize the state of poverty the majority of Canadian pensioners live in. When we grow to that age, we hope that either the pensions will be a lot higher than they are now or that Canadian pensioners, because of different circumstances, for instance access to good private pension plans, will not be in a situation where 60 per cent of them will have the two public pensions of the government as their only source of revenue.
October 26, 1978
[Stage Direction]
Now my question is this: who will benefit from the changes in the GIS? Besides the figures I gave earlier, that is the
1.350.000	Canadian pensioners who, starting next January, will be entitled to $20 more every month, indexed every three months to the cost of living, there are 100,000 others who, to this day, are not entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. Allow me to take a couple of minutes to explain that point.
[Stage Direction]
The 1,350,000 Canadian pensioners who will receive the new $20 per month as of January include 100,000 who right now do not have access to any supplement. In other words, not only will it go to 60 per cent of all Canadian pensioners but it opens the doors to qualifying for the GIS to another 100,000 Canadians. These 100,000 will qualify for assistance and therefore part of the $20. By the way, the $20 will go in full to pensioners now in receipt of assistance. This is because if we raise the annual GIS by $240 we automatically, to effect such an increase, have to raise the ceiling on income. The maximum incomes pensioners can receive and still qualify for some assistance under the GIS will increase by $480 a year. For every additional dollar there is a corresponding $2 in the allowed income and the integration of an increase to our benefits increases immediately the total ceiling under which people can qualify for supplement.
I am pleased to stress that 100,000 more Canadian pensioners will now have access to some assistance in addition to the basic pension.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Begin:: Perhaps I could put on record a list of who these Canadians are. This provision will help 662,000 unattached individuals. It will help 200,000 couples. It will help
21.000	couples when one only of the two partners qualifies for the pension, and it will also go to 72,500 couples in receipt of the spouse's allowance. The new pensioners I have just referred to can be described according to the same spectrum of categories.
The cost of the program is very easy to figure out. It amounts, including a margin of uncertainty of between 9 and 10 per cent, to $290 million of additional expenditure in the coming calendar year, 1979. This cost is going to be absorbed into the government budget and will not mean any additional tax.
When I spoke in public of these new provisions in the fall, newspapers quoted a few times the word "robbery" attached to the discussion of the provisions for indexation included in the old age security. I think I owe the House an explanation which I shall give this afternoon. We are often told, virtually always by those still working and commanding high salaries, that Canada cannot afford indexation. I just want to refer members to two sources of such statements.
Very recently the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stated that the indexation of social service programs had
Old Age Security Act
led to the fall in the value of the Canadian dollar-a statement, which, of course, I do not accept at all. Also, the Canadian Construction Association stated through its president that we cannot afford our social programs. This sort of grand generalization is particularly detrimental to social programs directed at those Canadians who live on fixed incomes, the golden age Canadians, our senior citizens, the pensioners in our country.
Surely those who make these statements who are still in the productive stage of their life have access to increases of 6 per cent, 8 per cent, 10 per cent, or even more, in their wages every year. That is fine; they still have bargaining power. But they forget that those Canadians who have ceased to have that bargaining power must live on fixed incomes which are usually voted by parliament. They forget that this country is extremely rich in natural resources which are being exploited but the potential of which is not yet fully known. That is very obvious to older Canadians who have seen change more than we have, and who keep telling us to have faith because this country can offer so much. It seems to me that we keep forgetting that.
We look at the immediate advantages to which most of us have access, or which we have acquired in the past ten years or so. We are afraid that in these times of economic difficulties we might lose some of these recently acquired privileges and we are ready to protect our own assets immediately at the cost of the indexation of social programs, and in particular the indexation of old age pensions which at first appear to us to be hugely expensive. I refer to the Canadians who carelessly state to whomsoever wishes to listen to them that we cannot afford indexation. I wonder how they can look at themselves in their mirrors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: That is why I refer to this as a subtle form of robbery. I hope to be able to present publicly very soon a paper putting forth the problems of the indexation of pensions in general, including private pensions. I am not sure that it is normal in a country like ours for the government to index our own pensions and not to take care of 60 per cent of our older citizens who have no other source of income but the two pensions from the government, that is, the general universal pension and the supplementary pension. I do not understand why the share of the burden of providing for our old age citizens is not distributed in a better fashion and why some of it is not shared by the private sector, but I suppose there will be many other occasions when this matter can be discussed.
Before leaving the subject of indexation I should like to refer to something which historians might have already recorded, which many citizens and members of the House might have witnessed, and which I now offer as an hypothesis. The indexation of social programs was an innovation and was quite imperfect at first. It was a step toward progress in the development of social policy, and that first step was the indexing of pensions. Having been here for six years I think that many of us in 1972, 1973 and 1974 have witnessed the full and automatic indexation of pensions every three months which

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
was written into the law. It is one of the greatest developments in the social policy of our country and is now applied to all our social programs. Basically, we owe this to our senior citizens, who through well organized and numerous clubs and groups, have put pressure on members of the House and on the government, and rightly so. I suppose that is the name of the game.
I want to acknowledge the social role played by the senior citizens in our country who have made the general public aware of the concept of indexation which, five or six years ago, was a complicated concept which only economists understood. The word "indexation" was not generally used, but now it is a word in our everyday language, a word which workers recognize when they bargain for their settlements, which journalists use in their daily news reports, and which is very much part of the Canadian language. So I want to pay tribute to our senior citizens who have put on the map, forever I hope, through acts voted by this parliament, the concept of indexation of all social programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: I often hear questions about the huge cost of our pensions, as well as other arguments against indexation which I would like to refute today. One argument 1 hear is that very soon there will be too many old people in Canada and that no one will be left to pay their pensions. I should like to put forward briefly some statistical facts. I do not think people should use these figures as an excuse for what I would call future panic. They think that very soon in the future we will have a vast dependent population, with no one working and earning left to support it. This is absolutely incorrect, although it is true that every year the percentage of people in our population who are over 65 is rising.
At the time of the last census in 1971, senior citizens accounted for 8.1 per cent of our population, or over 1.7 million people. By 1981, nine out of every 100 people will be 65 years of age or over. By the year 2001, this age group will account for one-tenth of all Canadians, for a grand total of approximately 3.4 million people. If we look at the visual representation of our population, the graph, we will see that it is not a panic situation. Even if it were one, we would have to face that situation and find solutions. But there is no reason to panic.
The truth is that there will be fewer dependent age people in the future. Social scientists refer to dependent age people as those under 18 or over 64 years of age, and therefore not in the labour force. The peak in this regard was in 1961 when there were 47 people of dependent age for every 100 Canadians. By 1971 the figure had dropped to 44. It dropped further last year to 40, because of the decreasing birth rate. It is safe to predict that it will be between 38 and 40 for the coming years and well into the next century. That means that the increased cost of better social services and health care for older people will be

more than offset by the savings at the educational level and all programs relating to children.
There is absolutely no reason to panic and psychologically visualize Canadian senior citizens as a burden. Of course there will be more senior citizens, but one must remember the children of the baby boom who will be entering the labour force for decades. These workers will ensure a decent living for the senior citizens and, in turn, one for themselves when they reach retirement age.
The universality of old age pensions also was questioned in some quarters. The basic pension program should remain universal for all Canadians. It is the cornerstone of our system of retirement. All senior Canadians have contributed to the growth and development of the country. Surely it is a general feeling that all should have access to a basic universal pension, no matter what their income.
The first part of the bill proposes to provide $300 million a year to senior citizens who are in need, who receive one of the basic pensions or one of the pensions which provide assistance, the guaranteed income supplement or the spouse's allowance. The second part of the bill deals with the spouse's allowance, which often has been called a problem. Three years ago the spouse's allowance did not exist.
During debates in the House we witnessed pressures to lower the age of compulsory retirement to 60. Those pressures were resisted, and rightly so. At the present time a Senate committee is studying that question, and Canadians have been placed in a position of making their views known. We will witness a move toward flexibility of retirement age, rather than its being compulsory. Also we will witness a movement in favour of labour participation in the work force by many Canadians who are over age 65 and now realize, as governments do, that an arbitrary age of retirement at 65 without any transitional period affects people physically, psychologically, and does not help at all.
In October, 1975, a spouse's allowance program was introduced. It was meant to meet the needs of many married Canadian couples who suddenly lost one full salary and were required to live on a single pension. This program was passed by parliament. It applied to the spouse who was not yet 65 but at least 60. In all cases where families were in need, the spouses would receive this allowance. It is similar to the GIS which is offered in addition to the old age pension to those in need. Approximately 75,000 Canadians, most of them women, are in receipt of this additional pension. After three years of operation, we concluded that the program needed to be corrected on an emergency basis. That is one area covered by this bill.
At the present time, a partner or spouse loses the allowance and the first pension after the month in which a pensioner dies. I do not apologize for that. I know it creates hardships for many Canadians. All Canadians in need, be they under or over the age of 65, have the benefit of welfare and social assistance payments at the provincial level. That assistance is waiting for them as a right, not as a privilege. Approximately $1 billion of taxpayers' money is paid to the provinces every year in order
October 26, 1978

to cover only 50 per cent of the welfare payments made to individuals. Even without this new proposal, families have been able to go to provincial welfare offices to apply for assistance over the last three years.
Many Canadians, particularly senior citizens, still consider welfare to be a form of help which does not respect their dignity. One must remember that welfare payments are a recent social development in all countries. These senior Canadians have lived during the years when their lives and careers were based on pride, dignity, and self-sufficiency. Their neighbours and their extended families provided for them during economic crises. A more recent development in our society led to the establishment of social welfare payments. Senior Canadians in need are entitled to such payments; it is their right to receive them. In fact they have paid for this right, and their children are continuing to contribute moneys. 1 regret that a stigma is still attached to welfare payments and social assistance.
At the time of the establishment of the spouse's allowance, the federal government paid for approximately 75,000 senior Canadians instead of the provinces. Many people, to offer a solution to the hardship created by this sudden loss of two pensions in the instance of the death of a partner who was a pensioner in his or her own right, suggested that we keep these people on until they reached age 65, or that we put all people in need between the ages 60 to 64 on pensions. I rejected both avenues, and I would like to explain why.
[ Translation]
In one case, then, we would have taken the pensioners' roll and lowered to 60 the age of eligibility for all the needy. Such an option, Mr. Speaker, can be ideal. It does not however take into account the fact that many Canadians are beginning to have doubts about retirement age; they want it to be optional and flexible. Canadians would rather not have a compulsory retirement age, namely 65. They would prefer to choose their own, a few years sooner or later, according to their personal circumstances.
I do hope we can find a way to distribute pensions because, to my mind, therein resides the whole practical problem of distributing pensions that leave room for the principle of flexibility and choice in one's retirement age. But we are not there yet. I shall be very anxious to get the recommendations of the Senate committee on the matter. But to say today that everyone of 60 to 65 who is in need should receive the federal pension automatically would cost the state $630 million more each year. In times of economic restrictions, that argument becomes important for the very simple reason that $1 billion already go each year to the provinces from all Canadian taxpayers, through the federal government, to pay for 50 per cent of the costs of all social welfare programs.
Needy people between 60 and 65 have to apply to their welfare office and withdraw the amounts for which they are
Old Age Security Act
eligible. So the question becomes rather whether this should be paid for by the federal or by the provincial government.
We are now covering the spouses of pensioners who have already a right to their retirement and who are in need, which makes about 75,000 persons. If, because of the present state of our economy we cannot cover all the needy people, no matter what their marital status, we think about what we can do. The other solution is to keep on the list of eligibility the widow who lost both pensions after her husband's death, until she is 65. I examined the situation, Mr. Speaker, and 1 rejected this solution for the sake of fairness. I think the House will understand my reasons for this; I rejected this solution because it is unfair to the neighbour who is single, and to the other neighbour who has been a widow for a long time, or to the separated woman or the single man who is not eligible for this pension.


James Aloysius McGrath: It wasn't fair in the first place.


Monique Bégin: The hon. member has asked why this was so in the first place. The opposition will recall that when this idea was introduced and passed by this parliament three years ago-the spouse who qualifies for a pension because of a partner who is 65 years of age-this was at a time when we were still negotiating a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians. That would have been automatically taken care of by, if I may use the word, negative income tax or other techniques. We were very confident that an agreement would be reached between the provinces and Ottawa. Some months later, however, some provinces refused to embark on such a huge, brand new social approach to solving problems of poverty in Canada, and consequently we did not settle on a plan for a guaranteed annual income. 1 hope that I will see the day when such a program is instituted, but it will not be in the near future. Therefore it would be very unfair to exploit the expectations and hopes of people.
In good faith we established a program to help Canadians in this very bad situation. The approach taken was a pragmatic approach. We asked: what is the most urgent need for people in this situation? The answer was, in cases where a married couple are living on one pension and the other spouse does not qualify, to give these people assistance.
Now we face another problem, and that is the hardship created for a spouse upon the death of the mate. In cases such as this we propose that we keep the individual on the equivalent of OAS, GIS and, of course, the additional $20 which is proposed in the first part of the bill for a further six months after the death of the partner. The six months interval is not perfect. The ideal would be to take on pension all Canadians in need between the ages 60 to 65.
This is a cost which the federal government cannot afford right now. It is money which is given to the provinces to provide this benefit and the cost amounted to $1 billion last year. We are ready to enter into negotiations with the provinces to make the necessary changes to include Canadians

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
from age 60. We hope that we will also be able to work out a system where we can offer a choice to an individual with regard to the age of retirement. If that is what hon. members opposite wish to have, I am sure the official opposition will propose it. It means federal-provincial conferences and negotiations in areas of jurisdiction which are provincial right now.
I propose the realistic solution of keeping the partner on benefits for six months. How did I arrive at six months? It is enough time to give the widow-I say widow because most often it is the woman who is in this situation-or widower, as the case may be, time to settle the estate even if it is small. Members of this House know that the government's definition of income is quite generous. For example it does not consider as income savings in the bank or the equity in the little home. The death of a partner in most cases does lead to-
-and I am going to say it in French. The death of a spouse naturally brings up the question of the house in which they live. Most elderly people we are talking about live in a small house which they own. Six months may not be enough to sell the house. Yet things can get started. One can find residence in a small apartment, a place in a home, in a residence, arrangements can be made with the children, a bank account can be closed, saving bonds can be cashed-

For instance, they can make the application to have the dossier processed to obtain the CPP survivors' benefit, which takes 60 days. I think six months given to the spouse who survives the partner who was a pensioner in title gives the time needed for readjustment. That is what I am asking of hon. members, knowing very well that it is not an ideal solution to the problem. It is a solution, however. I challenge any hon. member to say that six more months is not something that is good for the spouse who is in receipt of the spouse's allowance, f Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close my remarks by making a plea to my colleagues from all parties for the cause of the elderly, particularly old women who live alone and in poverty. When we talk about this bill which proposes two amendments providing nearly $300 million more for elderly people in Canada, we are talking about some 800,000 women who are old, poor and live alone. I know this is a case of urgency to which nobody can remain indifferent. As soon as the House passes this bill, it will enable the Senate to deal with it and our parliamentary system to give it royal assent so it will then allow the continuation of the spouse's allowance for an additional period of six months. This is a matter of urgency which I bring to the attention of hon. members.
As for the second program which will benefit 1,350,000 Canadians, if such is the desire of the House, it will come into force starting January, 1979, that is in two months, and I

would urge the members of all parties in the House to give their support for a quick passing of Bill C-5.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae)-Transport-Movement of grain on Great Fakes- Fengthening of Seaway season; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil)-Agriculture-Sale of government elevators; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae)-Finance-Tax recommendations of Economic Council of Canada.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-5, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that we, on our side of the House, firmly intend to support this bill, but as concerns social welfare, how many times did the minister note this afternoon in the House of Commons that she cannot do much because of the economic situation? It is true that, compared with previous administrations, including Liberal administrations, the minister has not been able to do much. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because for the last ten years we have had the worst economic administration in our country since confederation!

It is pretty hard to speak for long about this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it is merely tinkering. How many times has the minister said today that she cannot do much because of the economic situation facing Canadians? She said it three times. Because of ten years of the Prime Minister's mismanagement and socialism that has brought this country to its knees, because of $150 million waste in the UIC, because of millions of dollars worth of government space going unoccupied, because of the worst economic mismanagement since confederation, this government cannot do much in the domain of-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 26, 1978


William Heward Grafftey: Compare this administration with past administrations. What major piece of legislation has this government been able to bring before the Canadian people in ten years because of the worst-I say the same thing that the people back home are telling me-the worst economic mismanagement since confederation? Ten years of this Prime Minister's socialism has brought this country to its knees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member get back to the bill under discussion, Bill C-5.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. minister said today that because of the economic situation in the country, she could only tinker and bring in a $20 raise, or a $10 raise, or a six months' raise for old people and spouses. If this country is bleeding economically it is because of ten years of the worst economic mismanagement it has seen since confederation.
The New Democratic Party likes to lecture us about a social conscience. The minister has said on many occasions that this party does not have a social policy. We have a social policy, Mr. Speaker. One only has to look at it to see under our present leader how humane, decent and compassionate it is toward the handicapped, in the area of housing, the aged, etc. If we cannot do too much today, as the minister has admitted we cannot, it is the extravagance, waste, and economic mismanagement by this administration that has handicapped her.
We are a Progressive Conservative party-progressively humane and decent in social policies. Surely hon. members opposite must recognize that in order to invoke progressive, humane, social policies there must be conservative, expansive, and constructive economic policies. Under their economic mismanagement the pie has got smaller and smaller and smaller. Today, at the end of a dying parliament, supported by a government that would in the name of God go away, the minister is handicapped, handcuffed, and put in a corner and she can only get up and tinker.

I want to take this opportunity this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Of course, the policy of our party-and the minister discussed this matter a few minutes ago-states that the partner of the 64-year old widow who is left behind after the death of her husband, at the age of 67 for instance, must receive what we call the spouse's allowance until she is 65.

I know that deep down the minister wishes she could pay the spouse's allowance earlier. Her arguments today were pretty good and she made a good defence on a sticky wicket. If this government had managed the economy properly the minister might be able to support the proposition put forward by the
Old Age Security Act
hon. member for Kingston-The Islands (Miss MacDonald). She is boxed in, however, and can only tinker as she has today. [Translation]
It would be difficult for us to vote against an increase of $10 or $20 or against a six-month extension of benefits for widows, but government members will certainly admit that this is only a band-aid solution.

I challenge this government to name one significant social program it has invoked in the last ten years compared to those of previous administrations in this country. Just name one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of making a speech. I suggest we all listen to him.


William Heward Grafftey: The UIC is very apropos. We are told today that this great innovation of the present administration has shown a $150 million wastage in one year. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) now has to get up in the House of Commons and pretend she is doing something brilliant by offering a $20 increase in the GIS, a $10 increase in the GIS or an extension of six months for the spouse's allowance. Does the minister really think this is such a great innovation? Can she go to the people of Canada in this dying parliament-and thank God, it is dying-and say this is a great social-


Monique Bégin: Nobody said that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, you did.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister said three times in her speech that because of the economic situation in this country, this is all she can do for the old people and the handicapped. It is all she can do because of the economic mismanagment of this government, the worst economic mismanagement since confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: By articulating Conservative economic programs we are confident that the pie will get bigger and bigger and we can help those people who need help in this land with progressive social programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: But in the name of God, until this government moves this will not happen. Because of economic mismanagement the government have embarrassed the hon. lady today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
510

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act


William Heward Grafftey: There has been millions of dollars of waste. Of course, the hon. lady is going to have rapid approval of this bill. What else can we do?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest we listen to the hon. member.


William Heward Grafftey: Of course the hon. lady will get rapid approval. This is certainly not enough, $20 here, $10 there, and an extension of six months. 1 know the hon. lady's social conscience well enough to know that she would have liked to do much more for the old people, the disabled and the handicapped of this country who are the very people who have suffered most.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: These are the very people who have suffered the most from the economic incompetence and waste of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Of course she can count on our support, but we deplore the fact that in ten years no major social programs have been introduced on the floor of this House. We tell the Canadian people that only when this government goes and we have a chance to govern and make a bigger pie with our economic policy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: -will we be able to invoke humane, decent, and progressive social policies.
1 thank you, Mr. Speaker. But how much longer can anyone speak on a bill like this?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Normally the lead speaker from this side of the House is allowed 40 minutes, but this bill only deserves ten minutes from the lead speaker. It is a band-aid, it is a sop, it is peanuts. And in the name of God this government must go so we can invoke progressive, constructive economic policies to help the disadvantaged people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to an order adopted earlier today it is my duty to interrupt the hon. member in order that the House may proceed with the recorded division on Bill C-7.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1978-79-80 MEASURE TO GRANT SUPPLEMENTARY BORROWING POWER
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-7, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1978-79, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80, and to amend the Financial Administration Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.15 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-5, to amend the Old Age Security Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have returned to the debate on the second reading of Bill C-5, which contains two proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act. Sometimes I have the feeling that the very walls of this chamber must be so accustomed to speeches by me on the subject of pensions that those walls themselves should almost play my speeches back. But I hasten to assure not only the walls of this chamber but the members of this House that there are many more such speeches still to come.
If hon. members on the Liberal side imagine that they know what I am going to say about this bill, namely that it is good as far as it goes but that it does not go far enough, I assure them I will not disappoint them. That is precisely the position my party and I take respecting Bill C-5. The things which are in it are good and move in the right direction, but they do not go
Old Age Security Act
far enough. However, because the things in the bill move in the right direction, we shall be voting for it.
In view of the fact that the bill is set up in such a way that although the $20 increase in the guaranteed income supplement will not come into effect until January, 1979, but that the change with regard to the spouse's allowance will come into effect as soon as the bill has had royal assent, I feel the minister's request that we not delay the handling of this bill is one to which we ought to respond. It is my hope that the various stages through which the bill must go will not take very long.
Before I talk about the bill itself, the things in it which are good and the failure of the bill to go far enough, I confess I want to say a few words about the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I realize that opposition members, to be in character, must see no good in any member of the present cabinet. It is not very difficult to take that stance in respect of most of the members of the cabinet. But there are two or three-I do not think I would go much higher than that, though there may be four-who, in my view, have their priorities straightened out. One of those ministers is the present Minister of National Health and Welfare. I hope that is not the kiss of death; I would not want to do that to her!
If the rumours are correct that a cabinet shuffle is in prospect, I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will not move the present minister. I have noted with intense interest the speeches she has made. In fact, I have read, if not in full, certainly I have scanned them, all of the speeches she has been making all over the country, and it is clear that she is aware or has become aware of the shortcomings of some of our social programs. She is proud of the programs that have been put in place, and she has the right to be proud, but her awareness of the inequity of income distribution, her awareness of the high proportion of our people who are in the lower income brackets, and particularly her awareness of the difficult time that many of our older people are having, make her one whose voice in the cabinet is very important.
The spokesman for the official opposition who took part in this debate just before the vote we took at 5.45 referred to the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is limited by the policies of the government in what she can do. It was a critical statement he made, but I think even that criticism carried with it the implication that if she could do better, she would.
1 compliment the minister on the speeches she has been making and on the efforts she has been putting forth to try to win some significant improvements in our social legislation. I have referred to her discovery about the large numbers of our people who are in the lower income brackets. She had something to say about that this afternoon.
I want also to refer to her discovery-and maybe this comes about because before she was in this department she had the portfolio of the minister of national revenue-that our income tax structure is one in which there is a host of hidden benefits
80065-33'/2

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
for the wealthy. She has made a move to counter that by winning certain changes in respect of family allowance payments, and we will get to that when we get to another bill. Her proposal, even if it is in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), that there be income tax credits-and by "credits" we understand that to mean not just figures on a page somewhere, but actual dollars being paid out-granted to persons whose incomes are below certain levels is an indication of the awareness of the minister that there is an awful lot that is wrong with our income tax structure. It is, as I say, full of hidden benefits which exemplify the biblical statement that to them that hath is given. I commend her for having made a start in that direction.
I was interested in her reference this afternoon to the guaranteed annual income or to a negative income tax, or something like that. It was in character for her to blame the provinces for not having been willing to agree to it, but at least she is aware of that sort of thing.
I have no hesitation in commending the minister for the speeches she has been making and for the battling she must have had to do in cabinet to get some improvements in social legislation at this time. After all, the government tells us this is a time of restraint, and there are cuts being made, all over the place. If in such an atmosphere one minister is able to bring before the House an increase in certain social payments, it is obvious she did not accomplish that by suggesting it just once; she must have had to fight for it for a long time. 1 commend her for that, and if she can stand life in that cabinet much longer I hope she wins further gains.
I want also to commend the minister for taking the time this afternoon to dispel some of the myths about pensions and pension policies. I think she dispelled only two or three this afternoon, but she made at least one speech in which she lists seven of them and dispels them all. I am glad she took the time to point out that the campagin some people wage against pension indexing is completely without foundation. She was quite clear on that, and that just as other members of our society have the right to expect an increase in their incomes to keep up with the rising cost of living and, perchance, to keep up with a rising standard of living, that right should also be extended to pensioners.
I am glad that she took the time to point out that the arguments some people make that if we keep on doing so much for pensioners-and those words "so much" are not mine, but words other people have used-the day will come when everybody will be my age or older and there will not be anybody left to do the work. The minister gave statistics this afternoon to set that right. I have said many times in this House that perhaps the best legislation the Parliament of Canada has passed in my lifetime has been legislation in the social field. I am not going to give that fatherly or avuncular lecture I sometimes give about conditions as they were before I came to this House, but 1 will take a moment to say that 1 did have the good fortune of being alive and active in the 1930s, so I have a memory of what life was like for older people before there was

extensive government intervention to see that they got their rights.
I happened to be just 34 years of age when I came to this place back in 1942, and it was not very long after, largely because I succeeded the late J. S. Woodsworth who had something to do with the first old age pension legislation, that I became a spokesman for the older generation of that day. Now that my friends who were in their thirties when I came here are, along with me, members of the older generation, I am glad and honoured still to be one of their spokesmen.
So, Mr. Speaker, even though as a member of the opposition I am supposed to get up and condemn any minister for what was said at the beginning of a speech, I have to say that to me it was a delight to sit here this afternoon and hear the minister speak with pride about our pension legislation, to make it clear that it is here to stay, that things like indexing have to continue and that we have to continue to make other improvements for our older people.
There is no doubt that we have done a lot in the years since I first came here. In those years about all we were doing-and it took all of our efforts-was trying to get the amount of the opinion increased. When I came here the pension was only $20 a month payable at age 70 and then only with a means test. For years we worked hard on getting the amount increased, on getting the eligible age brought down and on winning universality. We have moved on from that to hospitalization and medicare, first for older people and now for everybody. We have moved on to housing for our senior citizens. I am particularly proud of the good job that was done in that field in my province during the years that Premier Schreyer was the leader of the government. We have established programs like, "New Horizons" and we have made all sorts of changes that have really been revolutionary.
I said that I was not going to repeat some of the things which I have said so many times here, but at this point I feel 1 have to say again that I well remember those days when our parents or our grandparents were at home in the back room, kept alive but that is all. They were not out in society They did not have clothes to wear or car fare. Car fare was something you spent on streetcars in those days, in case some members come from cities where they do not have streetcars.
Today many older people have their own apartments, and even if they are at bingo, at least they are out. I saw a sticker on a car the other day that I thought was very interesting. It said, "Support bingo, keep grandma off the street." I say that in the jest which the sticker intended, but I think that even in reciting it I can convey to hon. members-in fact, I am trying to impress upon them-that we have changed quite radically the life of our older generations. It just does not compare, the life of older citizens today, with what it was when I first became active in public affairs. To me this parliament has been worth it, to me our party has been worth it, if we have done nothing else. To me the years I have spent here have been worth while even if that was all we had achieved.
October 26, 1978

If I am taking a moment or two like this to speak with pride about what we have done, it is not just to be historical; it is because I am terribly concerned that there be no retreat from that position, that there be no rolling back. Every time I hear talk about privatizing or cutting government expenditure or the government getting out of the economy, I get afraid of what some of us knew and experienced when the government was not in the economy in the way it is today. I was delighted to listen to the speech which the hon. minister made this afternoon, and she has my support and backing as she continues to try to get social improvements out of the cabinet of which she is a member.
Having said that, sir, I should like now to get to the terms of the bill. I said at the start that members opposite knew before I began what I would say, namely, that the things that are in the bill are good but they do not go far enough. Certainly the $20 per month increase, whether it is $20 for a single pensioner or whether it is $20 for both partners of a married couple, is good. It still leaves many of our people on levels below the poverty line, but the $20 increase is good. I was delighted when I realized, soon after the announcement was made, that the minister won that as $20 across the board for those receiving the guaranteed income supplement, that it was not graded in some way. In other words, if a person is getting $50 or $60 guaranteed income supplement he still gets the $20; or if a person is getting only $1 guaranteed income supplement he still gets $20. Well, Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about it-and I am saying this on the opposition side of the House- that is good.
So, what is wrong with the bill if it is so good? Nothing is wrong with it, it is just what it does not do. The minister said this afternoon that 60 per cent of the people of my generation, a generation which is over 65, have little or nothing else. That is attested to by the fact that they qualify for guaranteed income supplement. I have been boasting about what parliament has done in the 40 or 50 years that I have been following these matters, but when 60 per cent of our older people have for their retirement only what they get from old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, this is a terrible condemnation of our economy, of our so-called private enterprise.
These are the people who have worked to build up this country and have made their contribution, and they now have to rely on so little, and they have to listen to speeches about the desirability of privatizing things and getting the government out of the economy. That being the case, that 60 per cent of our older citizens have so little else that they qualify for all or part of the guaranteed income supplement, I want to remind the minister that there is another bracket just above that where people are also in trouble. I am glad that she is by this legislation in effect raising the ceiling.
My arithmetic, which I hope is not far out, shows that when this plan is in full flight the 60 per cent will probably be 65 per cent, the 100,000 or so that were to be added. That 65 per cent of our older citizens have nothing else; they gain nothing because of the greatness of this private enterprise economy,
Old Age Security Act
but they are taken care of at the level of old age security and guaranteed income supplement provided for in the legislation of this parliament.
But just above that 65 per cent there will be another, I would guess, 20 per cent of older citizens who are in difficulty. The top 10 per cent or 15 per cent of those of us who are 65 years of age or older are all right. I am basing that statement on statistics that have been produced from time to time by the minister's own department. Quite frankly, I think 10 per cent is quite generous, but people between that 65 per cent level and the 90 per cent figure, another 25 per cent or 400,000 or
500,000	older Canadians-we are not talking just about a few, we are talking about 400,000 or 500,000-have just enough other income that they do not qualify for the guaranteed income supplement. There are certain benefits and perquisites that adhere to the guaranteed income supplement which these people do not get.
I wish, with the skill she has shown in getting money out of a cabinet that is cutting back and in getting something done about some of the unfairnesses in our income tax laws, she would give her attention to that group of people.
I know my simple solution has been rejected, that is, to raise the basic amount of old age security and adjust income tax so that the few at the top will have to pay most of it back. I make that proposal time and time again and I will go on making it, although it is difficult to win. In the meantime, there is that group of Canadian senior citizens, that group from 65 per cent to 90 per cent, which is about 25 per cent of the two million- that is, 400,000 or 500,000-who are having a rough time. They do not all write to me, but many do and they describe their difficulties. That is what is wrong with this bill; it does not meet the needs of those people.
The minister can say to me that she could not get that much money out of the cabinet and could not get a universal increase across the board. I enjoyed the way she told us this afternoon that what the government is doing can be done out of government revenues without any new tax. That is true. It is interesting, however, that every time over the years I have proposed pension increases the government has said to me: "Look at what it would cost; certain new taxes would have to be imposed." When the government decides on increases that amount to a few hundred million dollars, however, all of a sudden taxes do not have to be raised.
I hope the minister will find some way to persuade her cabinet colleagues that further things should be done. I know they cannot be done in Bill C-5. This parliament is not over yet, however, although it has not very many months left. I plead that she give thought to that group of 500,000 senior Canadians who are between those two points, 65 per cent and 90 per cent of the senior citizens of Canada.
I stand by and repeat the plea that I have been making in this place since the early 1940s-that pensions should be universal without a means test and that the amount should be a lot higher.

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
The clock always seems to move faster when I am speaking than at any other time, Mr. Speaker, so I had better get on to the other aspect of this bill.
The bill also provides for a continuing for six months of the spouse's allowance in the case where a younger spouse has lost the pensioner or older spouse. There is no doubt it is a good thing that is being done. Every month between 200 and 250 persons in Canada, most of them women, have this experience. Every month in Canada 200 to 250 persons, mostly women, lose the older spouse and the spouse's allowance. Indeed, the pension, the whole works, is suddenly cut off. That is one of the reasons I am glad to see this part of the bill is not designed to come into effect in January, but instead as soon as the bill has had royal assent. Let us get it over to the other place and hope they will not treat this pension bill as they used to treat pension bill years ago.
That just solves the problem for some of the 200 to 250 persons, not all of them. It solves it for those aged 64'/2 until they reach 65, but what about the woman who becomes a widow at age 61 or 62? She gets another six months' pension and then has to go on welfare.
I think what is wrong with the minister's defence of this is that she puts the whole business of spouse's allowance in the context of its having been desirable for the government to solve the problem of two persons trying to live on one pension. She now says that in that context what she is doing is valid, that it does not destroy that, that it does not start giving pensions to widows or single persons. But I still feel and I felt at the time that the whole basis of the spouse's allowance that was passed in this House in June, 1975, and came into effect in October, 1975, was basically wrong when it established a marital test.
This House knows how opposed I am to a means test by whatever name it is called. But I would rather provide a pension between ages 60 and 65 on a means test or needs test basis, if you cannot make it universal or available to all those out of the labour market, which is the way I would do it. Surely the single person, the widowed person, the divorced person, is just as much in need and has as much right to be on a pension with honour and decency, rather than on welfare, as the woman who can say she got a man-this business of saying to a woman between the age of 60 and 65, "If you are single or alone you cannot get a pension; that pension with all its prestige and honour is only for you if you have got a man who is over age 65."
I cannot blame the minister; she was not in the department at that time. I think she was parliamentary secretary to some other ministry and although parliamentary secretaries have certain advantages they have the disadvantage of having to keep quiet about a lot of things. So I cannot blame her.
The minister said one thing this afternoon that I rather liked when she indicated that this was a step which is resolving one problem connected with the spouse's allowance. The problem of the spouse's allowance will not be solved until it is replaced in its entirety by a pension for persons between the age of 60 and 65 on some basis-some basis that does not have a marital test. That is completely wrong. My answer is a universal

pension available, if you will, to all persons between ages 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market-universally available, 1 do not mean universally paid, as it is, to those over 65. That is my answer. If that is too costly and the government is not prepared to do that, then, certainly between ages 60 and 65 the government should make it available to all persons who are in need.
Even the spouse's allowance, the key to which is the marital test, also has a means test with it. I know the spouse's allowance works both ways and the same deal applies to a young man with an older woman for a wife as vice versa, but in 80 per cent of the cases of marriage in this country, the husband is older, and in 90 per cent or perhaps 95 per cent of the cases where the spouse's allowance is applied for, there is a younger wife. I have had lots of complaints from widows who became widowed between ages 60 and 65, but I have never had a letter from a man saying; "My old woman died and I lost the spouse's allowance."


Miss MacDonald:: I had three.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 guess those 60 to 65-year-old men are more interested in Flora than in me!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who has heard from three men in that age bracket has heard from many times that number of women. That's what this spouse's allowance is, a program of pensions for women between ages 60 and 65 but only for those women who can say they have a man. 1 am putting it that way rather than in the more formal way of saying they are married and living with a spouse- because it is so ridiculous.
This lifelong advocate of universal pensions, this lifelong opponent of means and needs tests, stands here tonight and says a needs test for everyone between ages 60 and 65 would be infinitely better than the marital test that is there now.
I do not expect the Minister of National Health and Welfare to accomplish a miracle and get this bill amended before it is passed. The present parliament can last only another few months, however, and it would take a lot of hard work on her part to get something more. But I think she would like to have some legislation about next spring that would boost the Liberal stock in the coming election. I suggest she could do that and in fact she might even become leader of the Liberal party-


Monique Bégin: Minister of Finance would be okay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -if she could get out of the government by next spring an amendment to the Old Age Security Act that would provide pensions for those between 60 and 65 without any marital test but simply on the basis of a needs test, so that the single woman or the single man or the divorced woman or the divorced man or the widow who is already a widow or the spouse who becomes a widow
October 26, 1978

will get the pension on the basis of need and not because of this really cruel, mean and ridiculous test that is there now.
I suppose what I have done, Mr. Speaker, is to fill those walls up there with more of my words on pensions. The issue never really gets resolved. We have done well over the years. I have said it many times and I have said it in my speech tonight that the things being done in this bill are good; they move in the right direction. I give my plaudits to the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare. I hope my colleagues will not criticize me for doing that. Anyone who gets anything out of this tight-fisted cabinet at this time deserves credit.
I hope she will keep at it and soon get changes in the Old Age Security Act that will do something for the 500,000 Canadians I referred to who have just enough that they do not get guaranteed income supplement, but not really enough to cope with today's rising cost of living. I hope she will do something for the women of this country between the ages of 60 and 65 who deserve better than they are getting under the spouse's allowance as it now stands.
I congratulate the minister for what she has done. I wish her well as she tries to win more for the senior citizens of this country.

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
soaring prices so that there has always been a deficit in income for old age pensioners.
The $20 increase they get today or next January is only a catch-up allowance. I want now to deal with another aspect of the bill: after the death of a spouse they will continue to pay the old age security pension for six months to the surviving partner who is still under 60. I wonder why six months instead of nine months. That would have made more sense if they did not want to continue until 65. It is as if this government is trying to govern on a temporary basis.
We have seen the sales tax abolished for six months. Now we are authorizing the continued payment of pensions for six months before the next elections which will probably be coming six months from now. The minister would have brought much more applause not only from members in this House but from all senior citizens across Canada had the pension continued until age 65 to all spouses of deceased pensioners. As I said earlier, without producing at this point a whole set of figures, I believe the cost would not be so huge, and although the Minister of National Health and Welfare made serious efforts to obtain that increase from her cabinet colleagues she will have to keep on pressing for something that would completely satisfy all senior citizens.
My feeling is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) meets with much more success with his cabinet colleagues than does the Minister of National Health and Welfare when it comes to increasing every year the interest share we have to pay on the national debt. He has no difficulty obtaining that, because this year the increase is $1.5 billion.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare would have to keep pressing her cabinet colleagues for their needed attention to get that pension without a means test, a very sad situation I believe the minister is aware of. If she does not, maybe she is not in the field often enough to know what goes on. A very sad situation. Every week I meet with a number of senior citizens and it is very sad indeed to find out people who worked all their lives, people who saved to put something aside, either a private pension fund, a bank account or an income producing property. Because of those savings, they are not entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. They feel penalized because they saved. Over and above having paid taxes when they were working and paying taxes on the interests or income from their savings, they are now penalized for allegedly having money. Mr. Speaker, this is very hard to understand and to accept for people who worked and managed to save some money.
I submitted these points to the minister so she could study them carefully and plead this cause with her colleagues for solving this situation once and for all. It is all very nice to say, as my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and some other of my colleagues here, that we make two or three fresh attempts each session to drive the nail home, to get this idea across, it is all very nice to say that, but I think that instead of discussing these matters we could be debating other

matters just as important, if this question were settled once and for all. So I think that in the present debate we will support it as soon as possible. There is at least one thing I am happy about, contrary to what was done in the past, this bill was not brought forward three or four days before Christmas. It was presented early enough in the session to be studied properly, referred to committee and given third reading so it will become law as soon as possible, that is to say, in January. As to continuing payments after the death of the spouse, let it be adopted as soon as possible.
We wish to assure the minister of our co-operation and support and we want to tell her that we expect even more from her, that she will have to work even harder.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to participate in the second reading debate on this bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I consider this legislation as important and even essential. I think that many have overlooked the significance of this measure and in my speech I would like to rouse deeper interest in this question which is of concern to us all.
This measure is important because to our senior citizens it is an indication of our constant concern about their needs and their welfare, even in a period of budget restrictions. We owe it to ourselves to be aware of the plight of those of our senior citizens who have problems and urgent needs. By increasing the guaranteed income supplement, we prove in a concrete way to our senior fellow Canadians that our commitment toward their welfare will stand.
We as members of the House have to deal with bills which sometimes need to be explained. This bill was remarkably explained this afternoon by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and I understand that members of the Opposition have also given other necessary explanations. This bill is important, Mr. Speaker, because as it was pointed out this evening for the first time it will enable many old age pensioners to rise above the threshold of poverty. Of course it is difficult to define poverty which can be quite subjective. Some consider themselves poor with incomes that others consider comfortable. In addition, strictly in terms of income the needs of people vary, depending on whether a person lives in a city, in a village or even in the country. We also have in Canada different levels of incomes and needs according to the areas of our country. This is why the definition of the threshold of poverty is more than arbitrary.
Nevertheless, there have been some measures established which are very useful. Statistics Canada has published such a measure of low income, beginning in 1973. This is based on the premise that families which spend more than 63 per cent of their income on basic necessities such as food, clothing and

October 26, 1978

shelter are considered to have low incomes. These levels vary by size of area of residence, with the lowest level corresponding to rural areas, and the level gradually increases with the size of area of residence.
Since Statistics Canada figures are always retrospective- the latest ones are for 1977-we have to make some assumptions about the growth rate of these poverty lines, but if we assume that the consumer price index for 1978 rises about 9 per cent over 1977 and that the low income level rises at the same rate, we find that a pensioned couple will for the first time be up to the Statistics Canada poverty line even if they have no income apart from their basic old age security and guaranteed income supplement or spouse's allowance. There are about 40,000 couples in this group. Those with incomes from other sources such as the Canada Pension Plan or private pensions will be better off than this.
Some people will suggest, of course, that $20 is not very much. They may not appreciate how tight the budget is for some senior citizens, and this extra amount may be the difference between not quite making it and having enough to get by. [Translation]
The increase will not be enough to enable pensioners living alone to rise above the poverty line but it will certainly contribute to improving their lot and they will go from 74 to 80 per cent according to the standards of Statistics Canada itself. Pensioners living alone are faced with a particularly difficult situation because unlike married couples or those who qualify they do not share the cost of rent, property taxes, heat and food. One interesting feature of this bill is that unattached pensioners covered by the guaranteed income supplement will receive the same $20 monthly increase as married pensioners.
Since this $20 increase will be most helpful to our senior citizens, I would like to comment briefly on provincial programs which will be affected by this measure. Mr. Speaker, some provinces pay additional benefits to G1S recipients. This extra amount-known as "gain" in my province-adds to their income so that they can at least meet their needs. Given the higher supplement proposed in Bill C-5, there is a possibility of conflict. Should a province not change its ceiling on income level, it would thus deprive many of its senior citizens of this increase. Some provinces sometimes reduce their own contribution to the guaranteed income supplement when there is an increase in the federal benefit. A few moments ago I was talking with the minister to know whether she had received from the provinces the assurance that they would leave that increase to those who really need it. She told me that she did receive that assurance from only two provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, and I congratulate them on that. I hope the other provinces will do the same.
As for housing, Mr. Speaker, the minister also confirmed a moment ago that she had not received from any province the assurance that they would not touch that increase in order perhaps to replenish their coffers or help fill their deficits in housing. And that I find regrettable. I would like the provinces
Old Age Security Act
to show as much generosity to try and understand that needy people do need that increase today because of the galloping inflation we now have in this country. Anyway I hope they will avoid the old practice, namely that you have to erode an increase when needy people do need it.

Another potential problem is presented by old age pensioners who reside in institutions. As I understand it, it is a common practice in most provinces to charge residents a proportion of their pension to cover room and board, leaving them with a portion for personal expenses which is called a comfort allowance. Concern has been expressed about these pensioners residing in institutions. I realize that this is a very complex issue. Practices vary from province to province and there are situations where comfort allowances become meaningless because of the physical or mental impairment of residents. However, I hope as far as possible this increase will be permitted to help augment the personal funds of pensioners in institutions.
I might mention also the situation of pensioners living in subsidized rental accommodation. I hope they will be allowed to benefit from this extra $20 a month and that there will not be a rise in their rents to take advantage of this benefit.
I have mentioned the importance of the G1S increase to pensioners. I think we should not ignore this importance as an economic stimulus. An extra $290 million a year will be in the hands of low income elderly Canadians who will be able to purchase more in the way of basic consumer goods. We know they will be spending this money and in helping them we shall be helping producers and retailers as well.
I turn now to the other amendment which is contained in this bill. Its cost to the taxpayer is not nearly as great but it is also a valuable improvement to the program, one which will provide relief for recipients of spouse's allowance who are faced with a particularly distressing situation.

Most hon. members know that the spouse's allowance paid the younger spouse of an old age security pensioner lapses upon the latter's death. That is a problem the government had foreseen and accepted when those allowances were first paid, because it is inherent in the nature of the program which itself is limited. I am happy that the minister found a way to improve the tragic situation which must faced by the recipient who, in addition to losing one he or she holds dear, suddenly also loses the financial assistance afforded by the allowance. [English]
The logic of the spouse's allowance is very straightforward. The families with which this benefit is concerned have a direct connection with old age security through the pensioner's spouse and it is reasonable that their immediate income needs should basically be met through this program. I do not agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he says it is a marital criterion. I repeat, it has a direct connection with the old age security program. It did not make much sense that a couple receiving the old age
518

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
security pension might also have to seek provincial social assistance to meet basic income needs.
There are many others in the 60 to 65 bracket who are not eligible for this allowance, including widowed, separated and single persons, and married couples where neither spouse is old enough to qualify for old age security benefits. Also their needs are important, and the minister has expressed her concern on many occasions for such groups and for other Canadians in vulnerable circumstances. But as they do not have this direct and current connection with the old age security program, it seems reasonable that their needs should be met through other programs.
This is a very important point to understand about the spouse's allowance. I have heard a number of criticisms of this program, but almost all of them are criticisms of other programs, most particularly the present system of provincial social assistance. Really they are stating that other programs are not as adequate, effective or attractive as the spouse's allowance and the old age security program in general.
Undoubtedly the good example set by programs like old age security and the spouse's allowance shows that efforts toward general improvements in the over-all Canadian system of social security must continue. But it upsets me to see good programs being criticized essentially because they are better than other parts of the current system.
Because the spouse's allowance is a limited program, however, it has been necessary to terminate the benefit if the younger spouse's connection to the old age security program is terminated, whether it be by separation or divorce, or by the death of the pensioner. We could not in fairness continue this benefit indefinitely when there are no further ties to the old age security program. It would not be fair to do so when so many others in the 60 to 64 age group in similar situations who would also like to benefit from the Old Age Security Act must be told that they are not yet eligible.
On the other hand, the wrenching, emotional experience of widowhood and financial loss is something that we all must sympathize with. The six-month extension proposed by the minister will help those caught in this situation, without going against the essential principle underlying the entire program. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I know many hon. members would like us to do even more than what is provided in this bill; I share their concern and wish to help their compatriots. But we cannot use the old age security program to solve all old age security problems in all social areas in Canada. Those problems can only be solved by improving other sectors of social security; I am confident that they can and will be solved. I shall mention only the initiatives already taken, through the changes made in family allowances and the income tax act we shall probably be looking into within the next few days, to help families generally through increases, changes in structure, changes in the programs and in the income tax act.


I would be guilty of exaggeration if I stated that the old age security program is perfect; it does not pretend to be. But it has been adapted to meet many of the changing needs of Canadian society. Let us look at the changes made to the program over the last 15 years. In 1965 the old age security program provided a flat rate benefit of $75 per month for Canadians aged 70 or over. Today, whether retired from the active work force or not, a Canadian aged 65 who meets the residence requirements will receive a basic old age security benefit of up to $164.74 a month. This is an indexed benefit which is revised quarterly to reflect rises in the cost of living and to maintain its purchasing power.
As well, the pensioner with little or no additional income can qualify for a guaranteed income supplement, which now amounts to as much as $102.61 per month for a married individual and $115.55 for a single pensioner. Soon this will be more. The spouse's allowance is also income tested and currently provides for the payment of up to $267.35 each month to the younger spouse aged 60 to 64 of an old age security pensioner. A retired couple in Canada can now receive monthly benefits of as much as $534.70 from the old age security program alone, and with the increase proposed, this amount will be more than $20 higher in January of 1979.
[ Translation]
The cost of improving benefits is not negligeable. But the importance of the program in meeting the needs of our old people is, I am sure, understood by all. That is why we shall continue seeking to further improve our old age security program, for instance, through the higher income supplements and broader spouse allowances as contained in this bill, without ever forgetting exactly where old age security fits in the context of our over-all Canadian social security system, through which we must continue to meet the needs of all Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to what the minister said this afternoon because I do not think there is a member among us who is not concerned with social legislation and policy. I am sure the minister will not be surprised if I say to her that I do not expect to be quite so fulsome in my praise as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Nevertheless, I am tremendously interested in this bill and in what the minister has proposed.
Every member in the House is interested in the social legislation which comes before us, in any piece of legislation which provides some kind of betterment for those Canadians whose lot is more difficult than it is for most of us. I listened to what the minister had to say and how she explained what she considered to be the major positive thrust of the bill, the increase of $20 a month in the guaranteed income supplement. Also I listened as she gingerly picked her way around the proposed six-month extension to the spouse's allowance, trying to find a rationale for a program which was discriminatory when put into effect and remains discriminatory to this day.
October 26, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 
Flora Isabel MacDonald: I shall continue.


An hon. Member:: As the minister leaves the chamber.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 want to say to the minister, as she leaves the chamber, that it is not just a fad, and it is not enough to use the word "fad" when you are referring to the plight of elderly women in this country. It is not a fad to those people who have to put up with poverty and deprivation. It is not enough to use the word "fashionable"; it is something which has only now come to her attention. These things have been going on for a long time but what really concerns me is when the minister allows words like "fad" and "fashionable" to creep into her vocabulary with regard to the plight of elderly women. I have to question her concerns as to how deep and genuine they are.
8006 s -34V,

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act
Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I have been following the minister's speeches outside this chamber. I have been reading them with some interest. I noticed that she spoke a week ago to the Canadian Association of Gerontology in Edmonton, and it was with a certain amount of scepticism that I read that speech. The minister said in Edmonton:
What we need is nothing less than a new deal for the aged.
I agree that those are fine words "a new deal for the aged". Then she said:
I don't intend to slip away from the challenge that the question of old people puts to the federal government.
She spoke of a new deal and a challenge in Edmonton on Saturday, and then on the following Monday in Ottawa the minister introduced the bill we are now debating, a bill to extend the spouse's allowance for six months. Well, that is some deal-and some challenge.
The new deal for the aged means, according to the minister, that instead of running to the welfare office when her spouse dies, the former recipient of the spouse's allowance can now walk very slowly. That seems to be what the new deal means, and I suppose that is the government's idea of how the spouse retains her dignity and her self-worth. But the department's letter to the spouse will remain the same. Whether it is on the date of the death of the spouse or six months later, she will be told the same thing. She will be told in heartless, cold prose that her allowance is through, that her income is terminated. Unless the widow is 641/2 years old and can get her own pension when that six months is up, she will be on her own living with her poverty, scrounging for some kind of support. That is what she is up against, and there are many of them.


An hon. Member:: The minister says she will have her estate.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister asked in Edmonton:
Who are the old people? What do we owe them?
I can tell the House what seems to be her answer, and that is "Not very much". The minister has come into the House to claim that it is the first objective of the government to concentrate on the basic needs of old people. I thought the first objective of the government, as shown earlier this week, was to borrow money. She went on to say we must work-
-to ensure that all old people receive enough financial support in order to have a decent life.
1 am not sure what the minister considers a decent life, but certainly for the widow who loses her husband and her allowance as well as her husband's pension when he dies or six months later-it makes very little difference-a decent life is denied her completely. The minister must remember that that spouse became a recipient of a pension because she was in need in the first place. She did not have a decent life and so she applied for the spouse's allowance.
I cannot understand it when the minister says that she will be guaranteed, or will carry on, a decent life. I think it is simple justice for the government to add $20 a month to the

guaranteed income supplement, thus easing the financial plight of 1.2 million pensioners. Certainly I and my party support that, as stated earlier, and it has been incorporated in our party's welfare policy. But I have to ask: If it had not been for the economic mismanagement of this government, would that not have taken place long ago?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: What about the big homeowner?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: For the widow who loses her spouse's allowance and her husband's pension, just think what that increase to the guaranteed income supplement means, that $20 a month increase. That increase means that she is denied an additional $20. That is what it means. It means that her income would have been increased by $20 a month, but because she now loses the income, she loses the increase as well. No, that $20 will not help the widow lead a decent life. It will not help the widow who is 60 to 65 one bit.
The news release covering this bill stated that because of the six month extension of the spouse's allowance "a financial bridge will exist to the widowed spouse until more permanent arrangements can be made". The minister put out that news release very carefully. I looked at the words and that is what it said, that the extension of the spouse's allowance will mean that a financial bridge will exist to the widowed spouse until more permanent arrangements can be made. It went on to explain that the idea is that once the estate is settled, the widowed spouse will be secure with payments from life insurance, pension plans, etc., and the minister reiterated that nonsense this afternoon about there being sufficient time in that six-month period to get the estate settled. She even went so far as to say that the six months' extension could cover the period until the widow could sell her home. I would like to know what she expects her to do, sell her home and move into a boarding house?


Monique Bégin: I did not say that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is not the kind of just society we heard so much about.


William Warren Allmand: You would want to help the big homeowner.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As the minister is sure to know, for many widows there is no estate to settle.


James Aloysius McGrath: Go back and defend your McDonald commission, Warren.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I thought we had recognized the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Tell the minister to keep quiet.


William Warren Allmand: There is a lot of hypocrisy over there.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I want to reiterate that although the minister may think that in the case of many widows there is an
October 26, 1978

estate to be settled and there is an ongoing income to be met in six months' time, for many widows there is no estate to settle and there is no bridge. And if there is a bridge, it is a bridge to nothing or to the welfare rolls. That is what will result, whether it is on the day of the pensioner's death or six months later. That should come as no surprise to anyone who knows that there are less than one million Canadian women who are covered by survivor benefits under their husband's pension plan and there are less than a million Canadian women who have pension plans of their own.
My point is, sir, that it is not the widow who must await the settling of her husband's pension plan, his insurance benefits and his stock market holdings to whom this six months' extension, this so-called bridge, applies because such a widow was not likely a recipient of the spouse's allowance in the first place. No, sir, this pertains to the widow whose husband had no pension, no holdings and probably no insurance, and at best this bridge might help her pay for the funeral before she goes on welfare.
Most of these widows do not want to go on welfare. That is the question. As one of the scores of widows who have written me in this regard said when her spouse's allowance was cut off along with her dead husband's pension:
I couldn't work as I have arthritis in both my knees so I had to go on welfare and it is an awful feeling to be on welfare-a pension cheque, you can hold your head up, but welfare, no.
That is what is important to these women, to be able to hold their heads up.
The minister tried to persuade us this afternoon that people should think of welfare as a right, that everyone is entitled to it and that applying for it should cause no great concern. Well, sir, that is just not the way the world works and it is not the way that a great many people think of welfare.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now you know where Liberals are losing.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Another widow wrote me:
Not everyone can build the bank accounts! But it took a nation of everyone to build roads, bridges, schools, churches and work the land! Isn't it time we paid them back? Isn't it time we stopped the treadmill and said thanks?
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that putting them on the welfare rolls is the answer. I have said it before and 1 say it again: too many of these elderly people, too many of the people who built the roads, the bridges and the schools, are living in poverty; and of the poor elderly, it is women who are the poorest. Some of them must eke out a meagre existence on less than $2,000 a year. In 1975, the last year for which we have statistics, approximately three-fifths of the unattached females in Canada between the ages of 65 and 69, and four-fifths of those women over the age of 70, had incomes below $4,000. These are the women who are 65 years and over, and yet I suppose they could be termed the lucky ones because they are entitled to old age security. Well, sir, those who are between the ages of 60 and 65 are even worse off.
The minister may tire of hearing me cite these bleak statistics, and I want to assure her that I tire equally of having to repeat them over and over again, but I shall be forced to
Old Age Security Act
continue to cite them until the policies of this government have got to the root of the problem, and the government comes up with some kind of solutions that deal with the inequities that are there in society for elderly women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 know the minister said this afternoon her six-month proposal for the extension of this program is not an ideal solution. But she did insist that it was a solution. I would like to know, a solution to what? A solution meaning what for six months? What will it basically resolve? Nothing. And yet Liberal party spokesmen continue to put forward band-aid solutions to what is rapidly becoming a cancer in our society-growing poverty among the aged.
Just the other day a Liberal spokesman, the parliamentary secretary for urban affairs, came up with a very unique solution. His solution-and 1 have heard no minister repudiate what he had to say-was to discontinue all transfer payments to the provinces for social programs, whether for health, welfare or housing, social policy equalization. He would discontinue the whole lot.
This government has its six-month solutions and this bill, but it is not the first of its type. The government is running on a six-month cycle of programs. Earlier this year it put forward a six-month sales tax reduction which, of course, was leading up to the fall election that never was. Now we have a six month extension to the spouse's allowance to the spring election that we are waiting for. 1 would say that a great deal of what we are being shown tonight and what is being presented in this bill is mere election propaganda which the Liberal party is trying to propagate.
The people who live in poverty in this country deserve something better than to stagger from one six-month program to the next. This kind of proposal will not come to grips with the problem of poverty among elderly Canadians. The minister says that there is not the money to go any further, that she has no means to go beyond that limited six-month period, which will take her into an election campaign. She cries restraint and she tells us how expensive it all is.
It may be expensive, but it is not nearly as expensive as some of the financial fiascos that this government has blundered into over the past number of years, and I would cite only one or two. They invested some $17 million in unoccupied land which they have rented up to the middle of the next century, or there is the $4 million in an unoccupied office building that they paid out back in 1975. There is also the situation we heard about today where $142 million was paid out in overpayments by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Why do we not create restraint in those areas and use the money that is saved to pay for the spouse's allowance to widows until they reach 75 and can have their own pensions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sixty-five.

October 26, 1978
Old Age Security Act


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Until age 65, rather, and then they can have their own pensions. That, sir, is a better solution than the six month band-aid which this government has proposed today.
We on this side of the Elouse have said that we will support this bill and the $20 increase in the guaranteed income supplement, which we feel is overdue. It is with great reluctance that I support the extension of the spouse's allowance, since we do not think it goes far enough and we do not think it ends discrimination and injustice. It is better than nothing, but it is not much.
I have maintained throughout that the withdrawal of the spouse's allowance is cruel, unfair and unjust. I still maintain that and I will continue to do so until this practice is ended completely. But after hearing what has been said by the Liberal government in the House today, I can say to you, sir, that it will take a Conservative government, the next government of this country, to carry out that kind of program.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: We have just had, Mr. Speaker, this evening and this afternoon with the hon. members from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and now the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), the real Tory approach to politics.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish you would shut up for a while, sir. 1 know you had a tough time in Toronto. I know that 1 make them nervous, but, Mr. Speaker, my point is just this. 1 heard my riding mentioned, Hamilton West. I do not know whether the member was sleeping in the House all the time, but I have not delivered a speech this evening, nor have I made a contribution on this bill.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If they want me to give a speech-


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -I will destroy them because-


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


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member for Hamilton West knew more about the parliamentary system than to think that that was a question of privilege. For a member from the class of '68, he should know by now that that is not a question of privilege at all.
This afternoon the hon. member for Hamilton West in the question period was asking the government to establish a fraud squad to go after the unemployed in this country. The hon. member for St. John's East, from the great province of Newfoundland, also got up to support the Auditor General and all of the right-wing forces in his party to try probably to take the initiative before members like the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) started pressing the government, to go

after the unemployed, the poor UIC claimants in this country, to collect money because of errors that were made by civil servants. Then to show this party's phoniness, the member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) this afternoon, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands this evening, and other members of the Conservative party, have been arguing for more social programs and more social spending in the country.
The Conservative party is saying this evening that the government of Canada should spend more of the G.N.P. on social programs. How can anyone stand up in any public forum and pretend to speak the truth, or have the courage to speak the truth, when we all know that it is the Conservative party, the member for York-Simcoe, that great banker from Bay Street, and members like the member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the other member from Calgary, the oil man, who keep repeating day after day, week after week that too many of the resources of this country are going to government spending and to social programs. This so-called, great party is continuously attacking this government because we had the guts and the courage to persuade the provinces to go into medicare.
I will just say to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and her friend, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie)-although I know one should not refer to new members too quickly, and I want to be courteous-that I appreciate the assistance they gave the Liberal party in the recent provincial election in New Brunswick. I should like to invite them to New Brunswick and I would even ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to facilitate their travels all across the country. Because when they came to New Brunswick they helped the Liberal party to thrash the Tories to a mere coalition in a few local areas of the province.
That great Tory party is saying that because they still have a few premiers who are Tories in the provinces-although they are about to lose two before long-they could form a better government in Canada. Let me tell them what Tory governments do, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) rises on a point of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member has vented his spleen for the loss both of New Brunswick and the leadership, I was just wondering when he is going to get back to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair would invite the hon. member to speak on the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Herb Breau: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 asks the House of Commons to authorize payments of moneys for social programs in Canada. I am speaking about the hypocrisy of the Conservative party members who come here this evening, as they did this afternoon-they do it all the time- with some members on the one hand pretending to speak for

October 26, 1978

the party and advocating more spending, while on the other hand the policy of their party is that they want less government spending, a smaller percentage of the g.n.p. That is the real policy of the Tory party as dictated by Bay Street. The rest is hypocrisy.
I have respect for the New Democratic Party because on this issue they speak out of conviction. The Tories speak out of confusion. They do not know where they should stand. They know it is better for this country to have more social spending and they know it is better for this country to reallocate resources in the economy. The only reason they get up now is to hide what the real power in the Tory party is saying-that you should have less reallocation of resources in the country. That is the real position of the Conservative party.
Let me tell them, if they do not already know, what more Tory administration would do to the poor and the handicapped in this country-the people the hon. member for Brome-Mis-sisquoi was quite properly concerned about this afternoon, and I know he is sincere. In my province when family allowances were increased a couple of years ago, families on welfare found their welfare payments reduced despite the fact they were paid 50 per cent by the federal government. That is what a Tory administration does to poor people in the country. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and her friend from Rosedale, pretending to be great spenders and great people who support reallocation of resources, go to New Brunswick and support that kind of Tory administration.
Under the Canada works program, the local employment assistance program and the community employment strategy of the federal government, we look to welfare officers in the country to put welfare recipients on the payroll and try to bring them actively into the labour force. I know of cases of people who are handicapped and cannot work in a normal labour activity. Under the Canada works program they are hired and then they get UIC, but what happens in New Brunswick is that the great Tory administration cuts them off welfare. We have in New Brunswick a housing program to assist low income families. But what happens when federal funds go into assistance for low income housing, Mr. Speaker? The great Tory administrations in Ontario, in New Brunswick, and, I suppose, in Newfoundland, cut them off welfare.
Members who pretend to be on the side of low income people-they know they have to be humane when they face their constituents and have to reconcile their position for the Tory party-advocate a fraud squad to go after the unemployed of this country because a few civil servants make a mistake. I suggest to my friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae), whose family I know very well, that he should listen to what I am saying.
This afternoon the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands bootlegged another issue, that of transfer payments and equalization. We listened to the Tory position on equalization as enunciated this afternoon by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on many occasions, and by her great friend in New Brunswick who was thrashed to pieces last Monday-they do
Adjournment Debate
not seem to know that the Conservatives in New Brunswick lost three seats nor that the premier only won his own riding by 300 votes. The Tory position on equalization is this: leave it alone; do not adjust it. The result will be that Ontario will be the recipient of equalization next year. That is the position of the Tory party.
On transfer payments and on equalization the policy of this government is that we should divert some of those funds to job creation and development. That is a better policy than just supporting provincial bureaucracies, as the Conservative party wants to do all across the country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago in this House I had the opportunity in the middle of the strike on the seaway to ask about the efforts being made to keep the seaway open a good deal longer, given the backlog of grain and the need to move more grain to maintain a balanced economy and our balance of payments.
The strike on the seaway was extremely serious and there is no question that it was dealt with in that fashion. It lasted just about a week and then we had legislation overwhelmingly adopted to end the strike and put the ships back in operation. The fact that the House moved so fast, the fact that the economy of the country was in serious jeopardy because of this strike, highlights the extreme importance to the economy of Canada of the St. Lawrence Seaway and, of course, of the port of Thunder Bay.
Thunder Bay is the third largest port in Canada. In terms of grain tonnage we ship two-thirds of all the grain moved from the west out of Thunder Bay. Therefore, anything that closes down the seaway and the operation of the port of Thunder Bay is of vital consequence to the country, and certainly the speed at which we moved to terminate the strike illustrates that factor.
In the last six years many of my colleagues and I have fought hard to improve the St. Lawrence Seaway and to improve the facilities on it, as well as to lengthen its season. We fought to keep the tolls down, even though an agreement between the United States and Canada was in the offing which would have seen the doubling of the tolls over a one-year

October 26, 1978
Adjournment Debate
period. However, we gained the point that the tolls will be doubled over a three-year period, 50 per cent in the first year and 25 per cent in the subsequent two years. This is very important. I hope that the minister keeps in mind that the excess revenue which comes from this increase in tolls over this three-year period will be used to improve facilities on the seaway. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, to lengthen the season of traffic on the seaway.
Early this summer the ministry announced that a study had been initiated by the department using a firm of consultants to test the economic feasibility of lengthening the season ultimately to 11 months. This is extremely important, and certainly it would have been this year, with a slowdown because of the strike as well as a backlog of grain in the west, if everything had been in position to lengthen the season. But of course, this is not the case.
I understand the report is completed and the draft is in the hands of the ministry. I hope it will be tabled in this House within a month. I am sure it will indicate that there are great cost advantages to lengthening the period in which the seaway is open. We hope the minister will move as rapidly as possible, considering the extra revenue that is now being received.
If we can put class 10 icebreakers in the Arctic to move natural gas, oil and so on through a 12-month season, there is no reason why we cannot extend the life of the St.Lawrence Seaway to ten, 11 or even 12 months. It is important that we put pressure on the department in this direction. We hope that the result of this initial study will be out very shortly and that we will then move into some very progressive measures to keep the seaway open.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) who for many years has been trying every time he gets a chance to do so to exert as much pressure as he can on the Department of Transport and people in general who have to make decisions concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway to improve that system that is truly vital to the economy of this country.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind him that since the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened in 1959 the seaway authority has been trying to find a way of extending the shipping season on that waterway. That research which is being carried out at a time when demand is much lower than the capacity of the system is motivated by the simple desire to make the system of locks and canals more effective.
The seaway, as anyone knows in Canada, met with much greater success than had been anticipated initially. So, last year, record volumes of 63.3 million tons of commodities were shipped between Montreal and Lake Ontario, and a record volume of 71.1 million tons was also moved that same year through the Welland canal. So it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the best way of increasing the capacity of the seaway and its

effectiveness is to extend the shipping season and, hence, the period during which the facilities can be used.
Already, without pomp or ceremony, Mr. Speaker, the season has been extended by a month from IVi to 8Vi months. The season now goes from April 1 to about December 15, and even last year the last ship to leave the seaway or the system did so on December 26.
So the seaway authority is developing an ongoing program to slowly extend the season, adding four weeks. That program will be gradually phased in on the basis of demand and also, of course, the advantages Canada will be able to get out of it.
The cost of this development is naturally increasing as the Seaway attempts to work under adverse cold weather conditions. Studies indicate just enough benefits to warrant this modest and gradual approach. We can therefore look forward to steady work and the long term goal of a season lasting 11 months, one month being used for annual lock maintenance.
A crash program to extend quickly the season because of unusual circumstances would likely be impractical. Much of the experience gained so far by the two U.S. and Canada Seaway entities and by the coastguards, indicates that more than positive thinking is now needed to achieve the objective. Sustained efforts and large amounts of money are required from now on to extend the navigation season further.
This effort must necessarily be a long term undertaking. I wish to stress that the interest of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) and the type of pressure he is constantly bringing to bear will certainly assist in having the season extended.


AGRICULTURE-SALE OF GOVERNMENT GRAIN ELEVATORS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on October 13 I posed a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) in relation to the sale or proposed sale of government inland terminals. I specifically asked whether the decision to sell the elevators was his decision or that of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and, second, whether the government would guarantee job security and security of pensions to those employed in the elevator system.
I received no response to the first question. I can only assume that the decision was not that of the Minister of Agriculture but rather that of the President of the Treasury Board. I believe the Minister of Agriculture has more sympathy than that for the farmer and is concerned about the sale of grain in western Canada.
Since 1972 I have pressed for the utilization of these inland terminals. The answer from the Minister of Agriculture, the minister in charge of the wheat board and the officials of the wheat board has always been the same, namely that they blame the line company elevators. They say the line company
October 26, 1978

elevators did not and do not want the terminals to be utilized to the fullest extent.
These terminals were built in the era of 1914 to 1920 approximately. They are all in pretty good shape at the present time. There are five terminals having a capacity of some 17 million bushels. They can supply half the needs of Vancouver harbour with grain prepared to export condition. I might point out that in Moose Jaw the elevator is operating 24 hours a day.
In the past these elevators have operated at about 20 per cent capacity yet they made a profit. I put a question on the order paper in 1976 asking for a statement of the profit and loss position of these elevators. I found that in the period from 1959-60 to 1975-76 the five terminals made a profit of over $4 million; if you add the profit of the Prince Rupert terminal the amount is brought up by more than S5 million. Yet the President of the Treasury Board in his statement announcing the sale of these elevators indicated that the sale was being carried out for the purpose of saving some $6.3 million. It is interesting to note that Mr. Mantz, the general manager of the terminal elevators, said he could not understand where the President of the Treasury Board got those figures because the elevators would this year show a profit of between $4 million and $5 million.
As I say, the Moose Jaw elevator has been operating since May 1 on the basis of three shifts a day around the clock. They are handling rape, flax, buckwheat and mustard and most of this is coming from the Alberta Pool, the Manitoba Pool and the UGG. All these companies are utilizing the facilities to the fullest extent. They evidently see a need for them and I suggest that the statements by the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the wheat board to the effect that the pools and the UGG do not wish to utilize these elevators are not correct.
It is unbelievable that the government should be wanting to sell these elevators when they have been operating at a profit. This year the profit will probably be larger in one year than the profits for the last ten years. The Hall commission recommended the utilization of the government elevators but the minister and the Canadian Wheat Board rejected the report. My opinion is that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the minister in charge of the wheat board has ever sat down to discuss the proper utilization of these facilities. Certainly, in my opinion, they have never discussed the matter with the line companies or with the railways. The farmer-owned elevator companies are concerned about the maximum movement of grain on behalf of their members.
Our transportation and grain handling system is in a mess. Deliveries this crop year are 33 per cent down compared with last year. Surely the time has come to make a realistic attempt to develop and improve that system. I believe these inland terminals must be part of our grain handling arrangements.
I understand these terminals are worth $120 million. What will they be sold for? I do not think a buyer will be found at that price. My personal feeling is that they should not be sold.
Adjournment Debate
At most they should be leased. They should be operated at cost. If there is a sale there should be a condition attached that the elevators must be utilized to the maximum, otherwise the sale would be void and the facilities would be returned to the taxpayers and used by the government.
I am concerned also about job security for the employees. If a sale takes place it should be a condition that the job security of these permanent employees as well as their pension rights will be protected.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to respond to the hon. member's question. The Canadian government elevators consist of five inland terminal elevators at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge, and one terminal elevator at Prince Rupert. The total licensed capacity of the six elevators is 541,870 tonnes. The total licensed capacity by elevator is as follows: Moose Jaw, 154,020 tonnes; Saskatoon, 154,020 tonnes; Calgary, 70,010 tonnes; Edmonton, 65,510 tonnes; and Lethbridge, 35,000.
The amount of grain handled by the inland grain elevators in 1977-78 was as follows: Moose Jaw, 21,163 tonnes; Saskatoon, 140,709 tonnes; Calgary, 55,778 tonnes; Edmonton, 57,413 tonnes; and Lethbridge, 22,000 tonnes. Current projections for the 1978-79 crop year are that the amount of grain handled at each of the inland grain elevators will be higher in 1978-79 than in 1977-78.
The current projection for operating profit for the 1978-79 crop year is that it will be higher than in any of the six previous crop years. This will be as a result of the substantial increase in revenue coming from the increase in grain handling. The net operating profit-before depreciation-in the last six years was as follows: 1972-73, $1,051,375; 1973-74, $765,458; 1974-75, $2,056,081; 1975-76, $2,531,461; 1976-77, $838,377; and 1977-78, $1,301,180.
The five inland grain elevators were all built between 1914 and 1931 with the Moose Jaw and Saskatoon elevators being built in 1914, the Calgary elevator in 1915, the Edmonton elevator in 1924, the Prince Rupert elevator in 1926 and the Lethbridge elevator in 1931. All of the elevators have been maintained in good working condition, considering their age, through a regular program of structural repair and maintenance. The five inland grain elevators are each equipped to dry grain and to clear grain to meet export standards.
The Canadian government elevators have not been utilized to their potential physical capacity. The government has announced that the elevators are to be sold to the private sector. We are optimistic that this initiative will enable these elevators to be used more in line with their potential.
The Department of Agriculture is now drawing up the conditions for the sale of the inland grain elevators. We feel that the elevators must be operated in the interest of the grain farmers of western Canada to assist in realizing market opportunities for Canadian grain.

October 26, 1978
Adjournment Debate


FINANCE-TAX RECOMMENDATIONS OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the question I put to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) yesterday concerned the fifteenth annual report of the Economic Council of Canada. I put to the minister the fact that the Economic Council has recommended this year, as it had last year, that the economy required, at the very least, the following three measures: cuts in income tax, cuts in the federal sales tax, and a federal-provincial capital works program to offset the difficulties that currently last in the construction industry, particularly in our metropolitan areas.
In his answer, the Minister of Finance simply indicated that he would take into account the recommendations of the Economic Council and that he was appreciative of efforts from this side as well as from other quarters to draw his attention to certain recommendations before the budget was brought down.
I think his answer raises two further problems, and they are the ones to which I should like to address myself this evening. The first is the fact that the economic priorities and economic direction of the government have been, it seems to me, severely criticized in the report of the Economic Council. Obviously the council will not put it that way, but that seems to be the implication of their report.
The second problem which is raised by the minister's answer is the totally unsatisfactory way in which budgets are prepared and in which economic advice is given and taken. We in the New Democratic Party have been arguing for many years that it was not good enough to have an Economic Council which would simply make recommendations to the government which could be ignored at any given time. The composition of the Economic Council of Canada depends entirely on the whim of the government. We in the NDP have argued for a form of social and economic planning which would allow a serious canvassing of opinion from all quarters of our society, not only those people who have the power to make representations.
If the Minister of Finance was asked who made representations to him concerning the budget, both formally and informally, I am sure the reply would not include many of the people who do not have power in our society. It is these two problems I wish to deal with this evening, briefly as it may be.
The first problem is that the government, by adopting the Tory policies of cutbacks, has assumed that these policies will somehow administer a boost to our economy, on their own and that they will be sufficient to stimulate an economy with a serious problem of industrial undercapacity and unemployment that causes tremendous human problems of which I am sure all hon. members are aware. The fact is that the cuts brought in by the government were brought in without any consultation, even with the cabinet of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and without any warning or systematic planning.
There have been a series of ad hoc emergency measures to deal with a set of long term problems, and they are simply inadequate. One cannot cut $2.4 billion off a budget in the

space of two weeks or one month without creating havoc within the government or great hardship and unfairness toward individuals.
In particular, I should like to direct the government's attention to the fact that the immediate implication over a period of a year or two of cutting back the amount of benefit paid in unemployment insurance is to reduce considerably the level of demand in our economy. It will take money out of the economy which would otherwise be there. If I am not mistaken, the estimate of the Minister of Finance indicated that demand would be reduced by $1 billion. While that type of cut might seem attractive to the bankers of this world, certainly it will do nothing to stimulate consumer demand or protect the living standards of ordinary Canadians.
Yesterday in my speech I had occasion to recite the figures from Statistics Canada concerning the fact that more and more families were forced below the poverty line as a result of the anti-inflation measures of 1976 and 1977. I guarantee the number will be increased as a result of measures introduced by the government since August 1978.
Coupled with these cutbacks is the assumption that the private sectors will fill in the gap. It is that myth which the Economic Council attacks directly. It has pointed out that, in order for that to take place, it would require an increase in consumer spending and private investment which has been unheard of in the country for the past 50 years. That will not happen.
The second point I wish to emphasize is that it is no longer possible to continue consulting with different power groups in this ad hoc manner. That does not amount to economic planning and consultation. The government should look at the proposals of the New Democratic Party respecting economic planning, particularly the mechanisms which allow us to consult fairly with all groups, and propose a budget over a period of time which allows the House, and the many groups outside it, to be consulted about the economy of the country.


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in its Fifteenth Review, the Economic Council of Canada has once again made a useful contribution to the discussion of Canadian economic problems and the policies necessary to deal with them. Of course, this is not to say that I agree with all their policy proposals.
I should like to begin my discussion of the council's recommendation for a $2 billion cut in personal income tax or manufacturers' sales tax by noting that there is much more to the council's discussion of fiscal policy than the specifics of its recommendation. Indeed, the council wrestles with many of the same issues that the minister must face in preparing the budget. It should come as no surprise that the council emphasizes that the policy choices he must make at that time are, indeed, difficult.
On the one hand, expansionary initiatives such as the tax cut could improve the short-term outlook for real growth and
October 26, 1978

employment. On the other hand, there are also concerns over the exchange rate and inflation. The minister is now in the process of preparing a budget. He will have to form judgment about the relative magnitudes of these various effects of expansionary initiatives and how to weigh them off one against the other. He has some difficult choices to make. He is concerned about employment, but at the same time he is determined to bring down the rate of inflation. To find out what his choices are we will have to wait until budget night.
The council observed that the cumulative increase in public debt relative to national income or to the tax base has raised questions about the government's room for manoeuvring. To shed some light on this issue, the council presents figures on the general government deficit as a percentage of gross national product for Canada and for the other major OECD countries. These figures show that the Canadian general government deficit at all levels, both federal and provincial, while at 3 per cent of GNP, is, indeed, greater than in the United States, but smaller than in other countries such as West Germany, Japan and Italy.
The council interprets the international comparison of government deficits as suggesting there is perhaps room for
Adjournment Debate
additional fiscal stimulus. This is not to say it does not regard the deficit as worrisome. Others may interpret the figures differently. The minister will inform us of his interpretation on budget night.
The Economic Council has come forward with its review at a good time. Its tax cut recommendation and supporting analysis must be welcomed as a useful input to the budget making process. It will be given full consideration, just as are all the other pre-budget submissions the minister receives.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to commend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae) who, in less than 30 hours as a member of this House, has raised two questions, made his initial speech and been on the late show. I would defer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I think that must be some kind of record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And a good one, too.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 27, 1978