1981-07-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas lower-priced imports have, within the last few months, increased by 11 per cent and the market for Canadian wine products has declined by 6 per cent; whereas foreign subsidies on one side and weighted tax measures on the other threaten the serious erosion and the potential collapse of the Canadian wine industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley);
That the Ministries of Agriculture, Revenue, and Industry, Trade and Commerce combine their resources in an investigation of the serious injury being done the Canadian wine industry from low-priced imports, which, in the instance of one country, borders on dumping.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Yesterday, during debate on a motion by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), speakers from all parties supported the principle of an environmental bill of rights. Since the Minister of the Environment himself supported the motion during his speech, and since the same minister has special responsibilities connected with the government's constitutional resolution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Minister of the Environment explain fully to the House why the government's proposed bill of rights, while addressing almost every other subject under the sun, contains not a single reference to environmental rights.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of this House to put a motion on an urgent matter.
Since the Government of Canada yesterday approved an additional increase of $20 million in the budget of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, which means a 23.9 per cent increase with the inclusion of amounts already granted, and since the cabinet approved the major policies in the five-year plan proposed by the National Research Council, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette):
That the House congratulate the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) for these major initiatives which will increase to 1.5 per cent the portion of the gross national product allocated to research and development.


Madam Speaker:: It is not customary to congratulate ministers for what they do.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Mark Rose (jyiission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, this motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerns a forthcoming tour of New Zealand by a South African rugby team. It may therefore sound frivolous, but I assure the House it is not. Unless the tour is cancelled, a Black African boycott of next year's Commonwealth Games in Australia is a distinct possibility.
11406

July 10, 1981
In 1966 both Canada and New Zealand signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which obliges the signing nations to refrain from engaging in such exchanges with South Africa. Under Article 22 of the Convention, if any signator to the agreement participates in such an exchange, any other signator to the agreement can apply to the World Court in The Hague for interim protection or injunction against such a tour.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae):
That Canada support the objections to the proposed tour by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and give this racist issue international exposure by seeking an injunction at The Hague.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DELAY IN SIGNING CONTRACT FOR WORKS AT PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, arising from the reported two-month delay in the awarding of the contracts for the causeway access and site preparation at the Port of Prince Rupert. The tenders closed on July 7, 1981. The two-month delay will mean that work will not commence until September, when adverse weather conditions will surely delay the completion of this important project. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of Transport personally intervene so the work may begin immediately on this long promised facility at the Port of Prince Rupert.
!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the government's intention to reduce rail passenger service drastically in this country simply by cabinet edict and without the consideration of the Canadian Transport Commission, and since this will seriously
affect millions of Canadians and numerous communities, particularly in those areas where adequate alternative services are not available, and since VIA Rail was never properly constituted through the parliamentary process as determined by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the government defer any passenger service cutbacks and that a VIA Rail Canada Act be presented to this House in the fall at which time its mandate, objectives and regulatory mechanism and route structure can be fully debated and considered by Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


IMPERIAL OIL PROJECT AT COLD LAKE, ALTA.-STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Imperial Oil spokesman Glenn Rainbird said yesterday, "Despite Imperial's continued interest in the Alberta oil sands, it will take two years to get the Cold Lake project back on track, if it is resurrected", and whereas, in an interview on "Canada AM" this morning, Mr. Arden Haynes, president of Esso Resources Canada Limited, Calgary, said it will be 18 months to two years before Imperial would be able to reassemble its research and work teams in order to restart development at Cold Lake which was suspended yesterday, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That this House direct the very righteous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to retract this statement of yesterday that the postponement at Cold Lake does not mean a delay of up to two years, or that he stand in his place and tell this House who is telling the truth, the spokesmen for the company or the minister.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 10, 1981


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Al MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the participation of women in politics, commerce and the professions for more than
1,000	years has been and remains unequal when compared to that of men; and whereas this state of affairs will tend to continue unless and until the representation of women in the seats of political power is more or less equal to that of men; and whereas, in the troubled times that lie ahead, for selfish reasons alone, if not for the noblest of reasons, it is imperative that we no longer perpetuate a system which tends to prevent about one-half of our people from entering the mainstream of modern society; and whereas it is acknowledged that any new program for equalization must take account of input from the grassroots level of all political parties, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mercier (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), and supported by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) and the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House unanimously accept, in principle, that it is necessary to take some innovative, direct and adequate action now to promote equal representation of women in the House of Commons by the year 1995 and that, to this end, the government be asked to appoint forthwith an all-party parliamentary task force of four women and three men to conduct an in-depth study of the matter and to prepare a report which shall delineate a course of action to promote the desired result, and that the report be tabled in this House on or before June 30, 1982.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is writing a book. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in view of the disastrous effect the postal strike is having generally on the Canadian public and specifically on the small business and agricultural sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the government immediately proceed to obtain a settlement so that the Canadian public will have this essential mail service restored.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a very urgent matter. In view of the fact that it is 18 months since the International Year of the Child and thousands more babies have been born into poverty, children at risk have reached school age and adolescence and many are now beyond help, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Prime Minister allocate a cabinet meeting to discuss the priority needs of Canada's children and that recommendations from the reports presented to the health and welfare committee and tabled in this House on Wednesday be discussed, in particular the recommendation
(1)	to establish a children's bureau,
(2)	action to appoint a minister to be responsible for children, and,
(3)	action requiring all federal departments concerned with children to act on the recommendations of these reports.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on which I have consulted with all parties. The city of Ottawa will be hosting the 1981 Canadian Summer Special Olympics from July 16 to July 19. Seven hundred fifty mentally retarded athletes from across Canada will be competing in track and field, swimming, bowling, and floor hockey. I believe the House should encourage these special games and, if that is the case, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), and I know as well by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House congratulates the sponsors and organizers of the 1981 Canadian Summer Special Olympics and extends its best wishes to the competitors for success at these games and at the subsequent International Games in 1983.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure members of the House will want to express those sentiments by their applause.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 10, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the Attorney General of Canada. We now know, on the admission of the Prime Minister, that the government became aware in 1975 that the uranium cartel could be impacting or, indeed, could have the effect of fixing prices in Canada. We know as well that the combines investigation did not start until two years later. Did Mr. Justice David Henry, in his capacity as director of combines, offer advice to the government to the effect that one of the consequences of the international cartel could be the fixing of prices in Canada and, hence, the breaching of the Combines Investigation Act? Did he get that advice? We know that at least one of the client groups of the cartel received similar advice from Mr. Justice Willard Estey when he was in practice, and if that advice was given to the government, what action, if any, did the government take?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I do not know any facts on this question. I have received, as I said, a report from Mr. Bertrand, who, with some lawyers, studied this problem for three or four years. They have made a recommendation to me. As I have said earlier to the House, I have accepted the recommendation of Mr. Bertrand. I have hired the same lawyers he hired, and I have initiated actions in the court on the cartel and on the illegality, if there was some, and now the matter is before the court to be decided.
On the question of the advice from Mr. Henry, who was the director before Mr. Bertrand, I do not have any knowledge of it, and it is not related to the accusations which are before the court and which have to be disposed of by the court in the future.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister seems to be very selective in what he remembers and what he does not remember.


ACTIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. In terms of the charges which have been laid and considering the fact that one of the two named unindicted co-conspirators was an assistant deputy minister in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, did the minister in his capacity as Attorney General satisfy himself that the deputy minister and the former minister were not involved in this conspiracy? Indeed, it is inconceivable that an assistant deputy minister would act without the advice and consent of his deputy and his minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am satisfied that there was an inquiry which lasted for four years and that there was a report to Mr. Bertrand, who made a report to me. I have hired the same lawyers, and both Mr. Bertrand and these lawyers, who are the special prosecutors in the case, have recommended to me that action be taken against six companies, and I have done that. The unindicted co-conspirators are not indicted, so that means they have not been guilty of anything, according to that report. They have been named. This is not unprecedented. In three other cases before, there was the same type of classification of unindicted co-conspirators. It is a technique which has been used in these cases in order to facilitate the development of cases before the court. However, when you are named like that you are not a conspirator and you are not an accused. I am satisfied the report of the investigators is thorough, and I have accepted their recommendation.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF BERTRAND REPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, those who are sitting in jail convicted and sentenced for conspiring in the dredging scandal will draw very little consolation from what the minister is saying. But the minister can help himself and the House by releasing the report. Given the fact that the "gag" rule was put in place to protect Canadians and Canadian corporations from United States law, and that these individuals and corporations can now no longer claim the legal principle of coming to the court for protection with clean hands, why does the minister not now lift the "gag" rule since these people it was intended to protect are now charged under the Combines Investigation Act? Why does he not lift the "gag" rule and release the Bertrand report? Otherwise we could draw only one conclusion, that is, that the minister wants to cover up why they did not act between 1975 and 1977.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member uses exaggerations in his language quite regularly, but I should like to say that I explained to the House some time ago that the "gag" rule does not apply to Canadian cases within the Canadian law. There was a ruling on that by the appeal division of the Federal Court. I quoted the case a few days ago. If the hon. member looks back at the record, he will see that I said that, according to my judgment, if some of those documents can be used in the court the "gag" rule would not apply because it is not in relation to international jurisdiction but it is within Canadian jurisdiction. That is the advice 1 have.
When the case will be in front of the court, the lawyers will make their case, the judges will rule, and the government will be faced with the problem at that time. But I think the "gag" rule was applied so that the Canadian documentation would not be used in other nations against the Canadian interest.
July 10, 1981


PROVISION OF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR OFFICIALS NAMED IN BERTRAND REPORT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Justice. It relates to the uranium cartel. There is a widespread belief across the country that the Attorney General, in the terms of laying his charges, is in effect hanging out public servants to dry, so to speak, and not possibly fulfilling his responsibility of having joined or named as unindicted co-conspirators other people who had positions of political responsibility. In the interests of determining exactly where the government stands with respect to these public servants who were in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, reporting to a deputy minister and to a minister who is no longer with us, does the government intend to engage counsel on behalf of Mr. MacNabb and Mr. Runnalls for the purpose of the hearings and of the information and the charges which were laid against the alleged conspirators in the cartel case? Will the government be providing counsel for these people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have not received any such request, but Mr. MacNabb and Mr. Runnalls have not been accused. They are not accused. I do not know whether they need some legal advice. I have not received any request from them. They have been named as unindicted co-conspirators, a technique which has been used in three different cases before. This is the first time that there are public servants in that position. I want to repeat that they are not accused. If they are requesting some legal advice of me- and I have not received any such request-I will certainly study the case.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the people who are named in this particular information will take very little comfort from the position taken by the Minister of Justice. In other words, he is not quite sure what he will do with respect to providing counsel. This only goes to underline the fact that they are being hung out to dry.
With respect to the Bertrand report, the minister will know with his legal training that it is one of the items in which demand for particulars could be obtained in the criminal proceedings. In fact the prospect is that the report could be public in the course of these proceedings. Why does the minister not allow the Bertrand report to be made public? Why does he continue to keep this matter under wraps? Why does he insist, for example, on not having the matter reviewed by the attorneys general of the provinces, independent of counsel who helped prepare the report and who naturally will have a particular interest with respect to the kinds of charges which are laid?
Oral Questions
There is a principle here of ministerial responsibility, which the minister does not understand, traditional to our parliamentary system. The minister must take responsibility for the acts of public servants. What is the minister's position with respect to-


Mr. Lalonde:: What about the rights of the defendants?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -Messrs. MacNabb and Runnalls? Did they act without the authority of the government, or is it the position of the government that they acted with authority?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will have a little bit of a problem in replying to all those statements, but I would like to say that I have been discharging my responsibility as Attorney General. It is a quasi judicial capacity, as was stated by Senator Flynn when he appeared in front of the committee at the time the other side was forming a government. In the matter of transportation, when there was some argument about consultation with ministers and so on, he took full responsibility, as I am doing.
The Bertrand report is the documentation that will be used by the prosecutors in court in terms of evidence. At that time, according to the inquiry lawyers, they will use some elements of that material to make sure they win their case against the six corporations indicted. I do not want to jeopardize the position of the prosecutors in that case. That is their case, they will handle it in the courts. Some or all of it will be in front of the courts; but it is their case. It is like any other report from the police or reports in other cases of a similar nature in the past. These reports are for the Crown to use in their prosecution, and I will keep it that way.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. As the whole country knows, on Monday we will have experienced two weeks of a postal strike which has been a great inconvenience to the country, has meant a great financial loss particularly to small businessmen, and most of all has adversely affected the workers involved because they experience a total loss of income.
Since the striking workers have made a significant conciliatory gesture by stating they would go back to the bargaining table right away if the government has Mr. Michael Warren join its negotiating team-that is the only condition now-I ask the minister is the government prepared today, as an important step to getting the postal service running again, to agree to that request?

July 10, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, first let me say that I know we all share concern about the impact the postal strike is having across Canada. I might also say that we have at all times been ready to sit down and negotiate-the team is there-without any preconditions whatsoever. I have of course encouraged Mr. Parrot to do just that.
I might say that I received a letter from Mr. Parrot yesterday which suggested we did not have negotiators with authority at the table. I intended to clarify that with Mr. Parrot, and I had the opportunity of doing so during a telephone conversation yesterday afternoon. I pointed out that no matter who is at the table, they would have the same authority, and our team has the authority to reach a settlement with CUPW. I hoped to satisfy him on that point. I then suggested that we should put repesentatives together to see how the parties could get back at the table, and I specifically named the most senior member of our department in charge of collective bargaining across the public service, Mr. George Orser, for that purpose. I went even further and said we would send Mr. Orser to the bargaining table.
Mr. Parrot called me last night to advise me that this would not be acceptable. I received a letter this morning. He does not make reference to those conversations, but he again indicates he would like to have Mr. Warren at the bargaining table. This puzzles me because Mr. Warren can add nothing to these negotiations and, as I think we all know, there are concerns on our part with respect to having Mr. Warren at the bargaining table. We expressed reservations. We have not yet closed that door, but we are interested in the long-term health of the Post Office and we do not think Mr. Warren's presence at the negotiating table is likely to help that come about.


POSITION TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the postal workers, as everyone who has been following the situation knows, made a major concession when they withdrew their insistence that the conciliation report recommendations be accepted before going back to the bargaining table. That was a major concession by the union involved.
Since Mr. Warren will, in fact, become the new head of the Post Office when it is re-established as a Crown corporation and the postal workers are simply saying have him there taking part in these negotiations, why is the government holding back? Surely we want the postal service restored in the country. The union wants a settlement, obviously, because it has withdrawn a certain precondition. Why is the government so reluctant to be reasonable?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I certainly take issue with that statement. Not only are we being as reasonable and as accommodating as possible in the circumstances-we want to negotiate-but the union wants to negotiate who the negotiator is going to be. Mr. Warren will be the chief executive officer of
the Crown corporation. Whether he will elect, at that time, as chief executive officer to go to the bargaining table with all the unions of the Post Office, which would be most unusual, that would be his decision as chief executive officer. The mandate that he would then have would be a mandate that would be established by Mr. Warren, presumably in consultation with his board of directors. But he can only enter these negotiations with the government mandate.
I might say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that the decision not to send Mr. Warren to the negotiating table is not one I am taking personally as President of the Treasury Board. 1 have expressed the concerns of the government because the question has been addressed to me. I think it is clear that this is a matter of concern to the government with respect to future operations of the Post Office itself.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION ON PARTICIPATION IN NEGOTIATIONS BY PRESIDENT DESIGNATE OF NEW CROWN CORPORATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, with that in mind I will put a question to the person who is directly responsible, namely, the Postmaster General. I will ask him a related question, because the President of the Treasury Board has once again chosen his words with care. He has not closed the door to Mr. Warren's participation. Considering that, considering the fact that the postal workers would like Mr. Warren in attendance, and considering there is an intended recess coming, we want the negotiations back on track before we all go off to do other things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We are not in favour of back to work legislation like some people in this House who preach the right to strike but oppose it once it is exercised.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: We want negotiations.


Mr. Beatty:: You got your raise; now you want to go home.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the minister prepared to say that during the course of today the government will reach a final decision as to whether or not Mr. Warren can participate in these negotiations? Will the government make its final decision known before this day passes?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I think it is important, and all members will understand, that we want Mr. Warren to start out with the clearest and nicest possible situation. In my opinion, he ought to get off on the right foot and under the best possible conditions. I would remind hon. members that several unions in the Post Office, including mail carriers, superintendents and postmasters, saw it that way and did not ask for Mr. Warren's assistance at the bargaining table
July 10, 1981

when they signed their collective agreement recently. I deplore that requirement on the part of the inside postal workers but, in a spirit of co-operation and anxious to break the deadlock, my colleague did not close the door. He did not say no, but I think that before saying yes the government would like to have assurances from the postal workers and from Mr. Parrot himself with respect to the true role that Mr. Warren might be expected to play in the next few hours and the next few days.
Unfortunately, in his letter to my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Parrot is much too vague about Mr. Warren's participation and eventual role. And before jeopardizing the significant work which Mr. Warren might do within a few months as head of the new Canada Post Corporation it would be imperative that those points be clarified with Mr. Parrot or one of his spokesmen, as had been suggested by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It deals with the current situation in Quebec with regard to salmon fishing.
As the Prime Minister of Canada has asked that a meeting be held in the fall with the Indians, which invitation the latter have accepted, I myself got in touch with the Attikamek-Mon-tagnais council who have agreed to meet with the Canadian government. The Indians would like the minister to say exactly when this meeting will be held, and who will set the date for it. I should also like to ask the minister to tell us whether there has been any consultation with the Quebec government with a view to dealing directly with the dispute involving the Indians. Again in this connection, Madam Speaker, I should like to know whether or not the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is directly in contact with Quebec Indians concerning that conflict.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I would say that my officials and staff have been in touch with the chief at Restigouche this morning. He indicated that at this stage he might be prepared to compromise on the situation in some way to resolve this troublesome dispute following his conversation with the Premier of Quebec yesterday. We are keeping in touch with the chief to find out that exact dimensions of his compromise and to ascertain whether over the weekend or at the beginning of next week we might finally find a solution to this matter.
Oral Questions ENERGY


IMPERIAL OIL PROJECT AT COLD LAKE, ALTA.-MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON BLACKMAIL
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday in response to a question regarding the cancellation of the $12 billion Cold Lake heavy oil project, the minister said that the government would not be blackmailed by any oil company. Does the minister believe that Imperial Oil is blackmailing the government? If so, how?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, when I made that statement, I was replying to a member of the Conservative party who asked that we reach an agreement. The implication was that we should be ready to sign any agreement, at any price, at any cost, to get that project back on the rails.


Mr. Epp:: No.


Marc Lalonde: I indicated that we were not ready to do that and that this government will have to bear in mind the interest of Canadian consumers and the interest of all parties concerned. This government is not ready to buckle under any particular threat of suspension or cancellation of any project just to sign anywhere where any particular company would wish us to sign. That is our position and it remains our position. Our interest is to have a fair deal for the producing provinces, for the people of Canada and for the industry, but not any deal.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You are not getting any deal either.


QUERY RESPECTING OIL SELF-SUFFICIENCY TARGET FOR 1990
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think we all feel the same way about this. But I say to the minister he is blackmailing the people of the country with the negotiating stance that he has taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Employment in the manufacturing industry today has fallen by 26,000 jobs. Here is an opportunity to reverse that downward trend and to get jobs back into Ontario and Quebec as a result of this project.
Yesterday the minister also said there is no justification to conclude that the decision announced yesterday meant it would take two years to start the project again. Arden Haynes, president of Esso Resources, said quite specifically on the program "Canada AM" that it would take a year and a half to two years to start the project again. Since the minister clearly misled the House, I ask him today to reserve his position and state clearly that that is the case. Because of the casual attitude which the minister has taken with regard to the cancellation of these huge projects, can he also advise the House whether he believes that the Cold Lake project and the

July 10, 1981
Oral Questions
Alsands project are not now necessary in order to achieve oil self-sufficiency by 1990?
U0)


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I said in the House yesterday that there does not appear to be justification for that conclusion that it would take two years to start the project, certainly not from the discussions I have had with the president of Imperial Oil. What Mr. Arden Haynes said this morning is, indeed, along the same lines.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: He said a year and a half to two years.


Marc Lalonde: That is a minimum-not two years for sure. Maybe another official will come along next week and say maybe it will be nine or 12 months. I have seen this happen before. My statement stands.
As far as "the casual attitude" of the government is concerned, Madam Speaker, I remind the opposition that this government has placed $40 million in this deal in order to ensure that the work would reach a stage where it could be started again as soon as we reach an agreement. This is a contribution which has been made by this government, one which has been greater than anyone else.
As far as the importance of those projects is concerned, we want to pursue all options. We want to make sure as far as possible that every project will contribute to self-sufficiency in this country. That has been our policy. We think that the completion of those tar sands projects will be very helpful in achieving self-sufficiency. But again, I do not think we should be ready to ask the people of Canada to pay any costs which the companies may ask us to pay in order to achieve that end. That is what we are fighting for at the present time. I think the people of Canada support this position rather than the position being put forward by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue, you would think the economy was booming, Madam Speaker. I therefore address my question to the Minister of State for Small Business.
On Monday of this week the Minister of Finance announced a commitment made by the chartered banks to increase their lending under the Small Business Development Bond program by $800 million. This, of course, was a commitment already made by the Canadian Banker's Association some weeks ago.
along with other proposals which the government has refused to consider. Would the minister now make a more meaningful commitment and expand the Small Business Development Bond program to include provisions to finance inventory and receivables for all small businesses, incorporated and unincorporated, keeping in mind the increase to $1.6 billion by the banks, and the banking community's obvious co-operation?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, it is easy to make such suggestions, but I would like to say to the hon. member that an amount of $1.6 billion, such as announced by the Canadian Bankers' Association, is not an insignificant amount which you can dismiss offhandedly by saying that it is not enough. It is certain that there is never enough money to satisfy all the needs which occur at the same time. However, if we add to the $1.6 billion which the banks will make available to small businesses the financial commitments which other financial institutions have already made within the Small Business Development Bond Program, we come to a figure of over $2 billion, Madam Speaker, which will be injected in the Canadian economy for the development of small businesses.
Yesterday morning, during a press conference held by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Bankers Association, Mr. McIntosh indicated that as a result of a survey of the banks in the Association, about $250 million would be allotted specifically to small businesses in financial straits. I believe that these are extremely important measures for small businesses; if well used, these funds will be of great service to this important sector of our economy.


REMITTANCE OF TAXES BY SMALL BUSINESSES
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, not only is the minister and his government unwilling to reduce the burden of high interest rates on the small business community but the problems of that community have been further compounded by their refusing to deal with the postal strike. Therefore, at this time, will the minister at least take steps to allow small businesses to suspend remittance of employee income tax deductions, pension contributions and UIC premiums until full postal service has been restored? Surely the government cannot stop cash flows on the one hand by allowing the post office strike to continue, while on the other hand continuing to insist on the remittance of funds to the federal treasury by the already hard hit small business sector of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has already indicated in the House that he would do everything in his power to have
July 10, 1981

refunds sent to individual and corporate taxpayers. My colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, has not only implemented throughout Canada a delivery service for social benefit cheques, but he and this Department would also like to use this system for government purchases from Canadian businesses so that the payments can be made as quickly as possible. I think that it is uncalled for to say that we do not want to settle the postal strike, that it is misleading the House and Canadians, and that it is quite unacceptable. Not only have the President of the Treasury Board and the Postmaster General maintained the negotiating team at all times, but like my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, I am myself in daily contact with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Association of Small Businesses and other groups of small businesses in Canada to try to find a way to help them to get through this difficult period.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, this week he made public the Nuffield report, the report of the working group on conditional release. That group unanimously urged that there should be no further political appointments to the National Parole Board, appointments such as those of former Liberal MPs Gaston Clermont, Prosper Boulanger, and defeated Liberal candidate Anne Cools. Will the minister confirm that, in fact, he received this report in March, well before he reappointed Anne Cools to the National Parole Board in May and well before he appointed defeated Liberal MP. Simma Holt to the National Parole Board in June, ignoring the recommendations of this important working group? Why did he ignore these recommendations and engage in such blatant political pork-barrelling?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, in fact I had received that report. It has been made public for the gathering of public reaction. Anyone who can read the report will see how grossly the hon. member opposite has exaggerated the recommendation of the commission, which merely amounts to a suggestion that there is a danger in having too many political personalities appointed to the parole board. As it happens, I agree with that recommendation.
I point out that out of the 26 full-time members of the parole board only four are former members of Parliament or members of provincial parliaments. I believe the board should contain broad representation of the community point of view. These are former policemen, former prison officials, clergymen, businessmen-the widest possible variety of representation-on the board. As I indicated a few days ago, I am proud of all the members who have been appointed to the board, but
Oral Questions
particularly of Simma Holt because she is the first woman journalist who ever covered the prison beat. She has written books on prisons. She was one of the principal authors of the McGuigan report, which has been responsible for considerable reform of the penitentiary system in the last few years. I am sure she will do a very good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: As the Solicitor General has indicated, there are four members with impeccable Liberal credentials on the Board, two of whom were appointed after the minister received this report.


IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Will the minister tell this House how long he intends to consult before he intends to implement the recommendations of this important report for long overdue changes to the judicial relief system in Canada? Will he, at the very least, give this House an assurance that until those consultations are completed there will be no further appointments of a political or quasi-political nature to the National Parole Board, appointments which the working group said can affect the quality of justice delivered by the National Parole Board?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I intend to recommend new members of the National Parole Board as vacancies arise. I would also like to note that the committee itself made no recommendations for an improved or alternative system of appointments. So if I were not to proceed in the way I have so far and look to the report itself, there would be no solution for appointing people.
I think the important consideration is to find individuals of good, sound judgment who can make decisions and guesstimates, in effect, about the possibility of the individuals before them committing more crimes. I hope the public will react quickly to the recommendations contained in that report. There are nearly 100 of them. I hope that in very short order, perhaps a few months, I will be able to form conclusions about the way in which all the recommendations will be dealt with.


AVIATION SAFETY
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Several weeks ago the first Dubin report on air safety was released and aviation groups across Canada unanimously called for speedy action on its recommendations. I wonder if the minister can tell us now what progress he has subsequently made to put the Dubin recommendations into practice and to make Canada's air safety system safer?

July 10, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, there is indeed an amount of urgency in the question because some people have expressed worry about delays in implementing the Dubin report. On the advice of the committee, of insiders and outsiders, for the implementation of the Dubin report, I was in a position a few days ago to recommend to cabinet that it should agree with most of the recommendations of that report on the creation of an independent air safety board. Fortunately, cabinet agreed. We will now proceed to the writing of a longer paper which will be the basis for drafting legislation which we hope will be introduced in the fall to the great satisfaction of all my friends here.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister for National Defence. This concerns the frigate program and the possibility of a conflict of interest in the case of a senior officer moving from being in charge of the patrol frigate program to the position of president of a subsidiary of one of the major bidders. On October 16, 1980, the minister told the House that he had ".. . asked the Privy Council to co-ordinate the review of the case." I wonder if the minister could tell the House now what the results of the review were, and what action he has taken, if any?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, in the case that the hon. member mentions, I do not remember that any issue or any memo was sent to me regarding a conflict of interest.


ACTION TAKEN BY MINISTER
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, this is an astonishing remark when several billions of dollars worth of contracts are involved and when one of the main movers is in possible conflict of interest. I do not question the integrity or probity of the officer concerned, but I do question the competence of the dunderheads in the Department of National Defence who approved this transfer after the commodore had gone through the routine of applying for sanction. The minister has to accept responsibility for that. I should like to quote to him from the guidelines, which appear to me to have been abridged, as follows:
An office holder must not... change sides to act for or on behalf of any person or commercial corporation in connection with any specific proceeding, transaction, case or other matter to which the Government of Canada is a party and in which he had a personal and substantial involvement on behalf of a department or agency of the government.
This exactly describes the case referred to. What is the minister doing about it? I do not accept the fact that he may have told the House months ago that the Privy Council was
looking at it and has not bothered to enquire into it again, considering that the contract is being signed today.


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the case mentioned by the hon. member is well known. If he would like to have answers to all the questions he has asked today, he can put a question on the order paper. I cannot give him all the answers here. All I can say is that there was no conflict of interest. It was in accordance with the guidelines that existed at that moment. That is all I can say now. If the hon. member wants more detail about when the individual was engaged, when he took his pension, etc., we could give all those answers on the order paper.


DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to either the Minister of Justice or the President of the Privy Council. It relates to the exchange a week ago between myself and the Prime Minister when I raised the question of the implications of the appointment of the then member for Spadina, Mr. Stollery, to the Senate of Canada in a way that might void proceedings before a special court established to see whether Mr. Stollery had been elected legally or illegally. At the time I pointed out that that was a test case which might also call into question the right to sit in this House of the Liberal member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre and the Liberal member of Parliament for Guelph.
At that time the Prime Minister indicated, as reported at page 11173 of Hansard:
I will certainly consider that suggestion.... I believe if any minister of this government is involved in that matter, it might be the Minister of Justice or the President of the Privy Council. I will discuss the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition with them.
My suggestion was that the Government of Canada knows that it is in the interest of Parliament to have any question of the legality of the right to sit here of members of Parliament solved very quickly. My suggestion was that the government act very quickly to ensure that the question of the right to sit in Parliament of the Liberal members for Scarborough Centre and for Guelph be proceeded with very quickly. That question has added urgency today because Mr. Stollery now has commenced an action, or an application in the courts of Ontario, to squash the action against-


An hon. Member:: Quash.


Charles Joseph Clark: -to render inapplicable the action against him in the special court.
My question to the Minister of Justice or to the President of the Privy Council is, will the Government of Canada act, first, to ensure that the action in the case of Spadina remains open, and second, that the speediest possible priority is given to the constitution of special courts to determine whether the
July 10, 1981

member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre and the member of Parliament for Guelph sit legally in this House of Commons?
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: No,
Madam Speaker, because the hon. member ought to know that the government is not party to any one of the cases he has mentioned. In the case of Spadina or of the other two ridings, he ought to know that the defendants are the hon. member who was elected, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and the returning officers in the ridings involved. The government has absolutely nothing to do with those proceedings.
As far as we are concerned, the Leader of the Opposition can appreciate the fact that, under the circumstances, we can hardly interfere in the judiciary process. I looked into this after he raised that issue the other day. The government did not do anything to speed up the proceedings before the Senate appointment of the hon. member for Spadina. No more than before does the government intend to get involved in the judiciary process.
Now if I may I should like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that we are not about to settle those proceedings here on the floor of the House, any more than the postal strike. The Leader of the Opposition should know that in this institution we debate subjects but that we do not get involved in the judiciary process, nor do we force our way to the bargaining table when a union has the right to strike. I hope that is perfectly clear.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will put my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs since it was rumoured that Mr. Stollery had first sought an ambassadorial appointment before he settled for the Senate-or to whoever is the Acting Prime Minister.
The Acting Prime Minister will know that Section 9 of the House of Commons Act reads as follows:
No member shall tender his resignation while his election is lawfully contested, or until after the expiration of the time during which it may by law be contested on other grounds than corruption or bribery.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister or whoever responds for the government in cases of this kind is to ask whether that was the reason the very unusual procedure was taken of naming Mr. Stollery to the Senate prior to his resignation from this House and, if that was not the reason, to get around that section of the law in the naming of Mr. Stollery to the Senate, what was the reason for breaking the normal practice and the normal routine which is followed when members of this House are elevated to the other place?
Oral Questions
Why was a special procedure followed here? Was the simple reason to avoid and evade Section 9 of the House of Commons Act?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there was no attempt to go against Section 9 of the act referred to by the Right Hon. Leader of the Oppostion. On the contrary, if I may refer the right hon. gentleman to Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for Thursday, July 2, 1981, he will realize that when we wrote to the Speaker on July 2 we did not tell the Speaker that the hon. member for Spadina at the time had resigned. We advised that he was appointed to the Senate and that therefore his seat was vacated.
For someone who understands the law, this is very clear. There is no breach of Section 9 of the act referred to by the right hon. gentleman. On the contrary, all the procedures were well followed. There was no resignation. Once again I refer the right hon. gentleman to Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for Thursday, July 2, 1981. If he re-reads the Votes and Proceedings passage to which I am referring him, he will understand that in fact there was no breach of Section 9. On the contrary.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we have here is an admission by the government that it acted under Section 10 in this case, whereas in every other appointment to the Senate, whether it had to do with Senator Muir, Senator Haidasz, or any other senator elevated from the House of Commons in the last ten years, whenever there has been that kind of appointment there has been first of all a resignation from this House. An unusual procedure was followed in the case of Mr. Stollery. He was appointed before he resigned from the House of Commons. Was there some reason for that, other than the fact that following the procedure followed in every other case would have broken the law of Canada under the House of Commons Act?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that is not an unusual procedure. The Leader of the Opposition is referring to previous cases. It is obvious that in the case of Senator Murray and of Senator de Cotret, those gentlemen could not hand in their resignations since they were not elected members of Parliament. But in Mr. Stollery's case, who was the member for Spadina, we did not follow an unusual procedure, we simply advised the Speaker of the House that he had been appointed to the Senate and that as a result his seat had become vacant. That is quite normal, that was the most appropriate procedure under the circumstances, and I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition is being fair when he refers to precedents because he is proving to me that Messrs, de Cotret and Murray had to resign before being appointed to the Senate.

July 10, 1981
Business of the House MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Official Residences Act and Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act, without amendment.
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, without amendment.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the government House leader that I would be asking him a House business question today.
My understanding is that as a first priority we will be dealing with Bill C-82, to amend the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. If that is the case, I want to advise my friend that we are prepared to have that bill proceed through all stages here today with one speaker per party, and hopefully it can be passed and be before the Senate before we break for luncheon.
I wonder whether the minister can tell us what his intentions are with respect to this bill and with respect to the legislative program for today and for next week.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we always keep our word on this side of the House and we will continue to do so. Consequently we will, as indicated very clearly, first introduce Bill C-82. I thank the hon. members for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for having agreed to a short debate on that bill in order to send it to the Senate around 12.45 p.m. so that it may get royal assent as soon as possible. Following passage of Bill C-82, we will keep our word and introduce the motion for adjournment motion of which I gave notice Wednesday last in the hope that such motion, in accordance with an understanding but not a firm agreement last week, will be passed to allow us to adjourn today.
However, if the opposition would rather not adjourn today, we will be considering Bill C-48 at the report stage on Monday.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I rise simply for the purpose of confirming the agreement we made with respect to Bill C-82. The agreement was that we would deal with that bill
through all stages today and that there would be only one speaker per party. We stand by that agreement, and we trust that if their Honours in the other place pass it quickly there will be an arrangement for royal assent this afternoon, whatever else happens, so that Bill C-82 can come into effect right away.


Mr. Waddell:: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the President of the Privy Council a question. He says the government intends to keep its word. He says, "We keep our word". The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made a deal with the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, the Conservative energy critic, that the report stage of Bill C-48 would not be proceeded with until the fall. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could tell the House what has happened to keeping his word on that deal.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the government is keeping its word on that deal. I refer the hon. gentleman to the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works at page 63:5 and page 63:6, where the matter is stated very clearly. The hon. member for Edmonton East asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to be very specific and to make a commitment in the name of the government. The parliamentary secretary said, "Yes, I will speak in the name of the government," and here is what he said:
I shall undertake that the government will not bring this bill for third reading prior to our recess if this resolution carries your positive support.


Mr. Yurko:: Okay.
That is the agreement. What I am saying is that we will be dealing with the report stage of that bill, not with the third reading stage.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made reference to royal assent a little later today. Could the government House leader tell us whether arrangements have been made for royal assent later today?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, with reference to what the President of the Privy Council just read out, I want to inform the House that in discussions I had with the minister, which were not on the record but between himself and myself, he told me, and his words were, "The bill will not be brought back to the House until the fall". To me, that means it will not be brought back for the report stage until the fall, and so I say to the government House leader that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not keeping his word by bringing Bill C-48 forward for the report stage today.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I usually believe the hon. member. I was not party to the discussion he had with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I want it to be on the record that I spoke to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who confirmed to me that the only agreement he made was not to deal with the third reading stage of that
July 10, 1981

bill before fall. I believe both hon. members, but what we will be dealing with on Monday is the report stage of Bill C-48.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-637, to amend the National Capital Act (local government representation).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter David Baker: I want first to thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for agreeing to second this motion because he is very interested in the subject as well.
The purpose of this bill is to increase the membership of the National Capital Commission by adding two commissioners who represent local government, that is to say, the chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the chairman of the Outaouais Regional Community. However, because this represents a new financial charge which only a minister of the Crown may initiate, the bill provides that the two local chairmen would serve without any remuneration, allowances or salary.
I would hope, as I said earlier in the House, that at some point the government would adopt this bill as its own.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion.
July 8, 1981-The President of the Privy Council:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Order Paper Questions
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I intend to move this motion. It was agreed that when we reached orders of the day, we would first of all consider Bill C-82 and that I would then move the adjournment motion.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,280, 2,373, 2,512, 2,513, 2,515, 2,524, 2,525, 2,550, 2,572, 2,605 and 2,629.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) Must the adoption of an illegitimate immigrant child take place before the child is thirteen years old (b) can a child under the age of twenty-one be sponsored as an immigrant by the father?
2.	In the past five years, how many governor in council approvals were given to admit to Canada illegitimate children between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1.	(a) Yes;
(b)	Yes. Under Section 4(b) of the Immigration Regulations every Canadian citizen and every permanent resident may, if he is residing in Canada and is at least 18 years of age, sponsor an application for landing made by his unmarried son or daughter under 21 years of age, provided that child was either born in wedlock or was legally adopted by the sponsor.
2.	The Employment and Immigration Department has no readily available statistics on the number of governor in council approvals which were given in the past five years to admit to Canada illegitimate children between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one. To provide this information would require employing additional staff to help search individual files and, in addition to the high cost, it could take a considerable amount of time to answer this question.


Mr. McKnight: 1.	Is Mr. Gregory Argue employed by the Department of Transport or the office of the Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board) and, if so (a) what are his duties (b) what is his salary and term of employment (c) where is he located (d) what is his relationship to the minister?
2.	Is Mr. Allan Coulter employed by the Department of Transport or the office of the Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board) and, if so (a) what are his duties (b) what is his salary and term of employment (c) is he employed on contract?

July 10, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No.
2.	Mr. Coulter is employed on contract by the office of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, as a special adviser to the minister on the drought situation.
(b)	He is paid $106 per day, professional fees, plus expenses. Contract: June 18, 1980, to August 31, 1981.
(c)	Yes.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare aware that a drug, generic name lidoflazine and trade name Angex, is about to be placed on the market in the United States?
2.	Does the government have information with regard to the value of the drug for angina or other heart disorders and, if so, what is the information?
3.	Was the drug tested in Canada and, if so, what are its merits?
4.	Will the drug be approved for sale in Canada and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, but no "approvable" letter has been sent as yet by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A committee of experts in the United States recommended approval for use in angina patients who are resistant to other drugs, but asked that further studies be done to clarify a possible adverse effect (abnormal heart rhythm).
2.	Yes. A new drug submission is under consideration. A request for additional data was sent to the company in 1979 however no response has been received to date. There has been a change in the last few months in the Canadian sponsor of this drug and this may account for the delay in reply to the department's questions. The department believes that the information submitted was not as complete as that made available to FDA.
3.	Yes. Limited studies were done. More precise information is required to substantiate safety and effectiveness in angina.
4.	It is impossible to predict at this time if and when lidoflazine will be marketed in Canada.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare aware that a drug, generic name diltiazem and trade name Cardiem, is about to be placed on the market in the United States?
2.	Does the government have information with regard to the value of the drug for angina, arrhythmias or other heart disorders and, if so, what is the information?
3.	Was the drug tested in Canada and, if so, what are its merits?
4.	Will the drug be approved for sale in Canada and, if so, on what date?


Royce Herbert Frith: 1. No. Diltiazem is under consideration by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). According to the information available that agency has no definite projected date for approval as yet.
2.	Yes. Preliminary data are available to us as part of the preclinical submission and published reports. This information indicates probable effectiveness in angina and arrhythmias. Further studies are being done in Canada and elsewhere.
3.	Yes. The drug is being tested in Canada. Results will be evaluated when presented.
4.	It can be expected to be approved barring any adverse information. The projected date for general marketing is 1982.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare aware that a drug, generic name nifedipine and trade name Procardia, is about to be placed on the market in the United States?
2.	Does the government have information with regard to the value of the drug for angina or other heart disorders and, if so, what is the information?
3.	Was the drug tested in Canada and, if so, what are its merits?
4.	Will the drug be approved for sale in Canada and, if so, on what date?


Royce Herbert Frith: 1. The nifedipine submission is under consideration in the United States. The information available to the department indicates that no definite decision has been reached by the American authorities, however, the drug will probably be placed on the market within several months.
2.	Yes. Preliminary data are available to the department as part of the preclinical submission and as published reports. This information indicates probable effectiveness in angina. Further studies are being done in Canada and elsewhere.
3.	Yes. The drug was and is being tested in Canada. Some results were presented to the department and are being evaluated.
4.	Nifedipine can be expected to be approved barring any unexpected or new adverse information. The projected date for general marketing is 1982.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Deputy Postmaster General, Mr. James Corkery, make a recent statement to the effect that increasing numbers of postal employees are being given crash courses in the French language and, if so (a) what was the number of persons involved over the past four years and how many were employed in each province (b) what was and will be the cost or estimated cost of the program?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Yes.
(a)	200.
New Brunswick	63.
Ontario	97.
British Columbia	40.
(b) The cost of the program for the Fiscal years 1977-78 to
July 10, 1981

1980-81 was $722,887. The estimated cost of the program for the current fiscal year (1981-82) is $550,000.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is there serious damage to this year's fruit crop in the Niagara Peninsula as a result of frost and, if so (a) how many farmers or growers are affected (b) what is an estimate of the damage as a percentage of the entire crop (c) what is an estimate of the damage in dollars?
2.	Does the government intend to assist those suffering considerable loss in the area and, if so, what are the details?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 
Mr. Stewart: Did the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission pay Bronstein Bros., Lasalle, $19,326 for bakery and cereal products and Gatehouse LaSalle Ltee, Lachine, $10,011 for miscellaneous groceries and, if so, for what purpose were they purchased and to whom were they distributed?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: No.
However, the Department of Supply and Services did awarded a contract on behalf of the Department of National Defence, to Bronstein Bros., Lasalle, for the amount of $27,794.75 and to Gatehouse LaSalle Ltee., Lachine, for the amount of $10,011.00. Both contracts were for purchase of miscellaneous groceries required by the DND Base at Alert. N.W.T.


Mr. Halliday: Were federal funds used in the establishment of the Montreal Neurological Institute and, if so, in what amount?


Royce Herbert Frith: Under the Health Resources Fund Program, federal contributions were approved for the expansion and renovation of the Montreal Neurological Institute in 1978, totalling $7,262,983. To date, payments amounting to $5,040,637.72 have been made.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of the Environment lease cars and trucks from Alberta U-Drive valued at $58,629 and, if so (a) how many vehicles (b) for how many days (c) for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: On behalf of the Department of Environment, DSS awarded a contract to Alberta U-Drive for an amount of $58,718.75.
(a)	30 vehicles.
(b)	4479 days.
(c)	To be used in the national parks during the tourist season.


Mr. Jelinek: Was financing made available in 1978 to Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka, Czechoslovakia (H.A. Simons International Limited) through the Export Development Corporation for the purpose of constructing a sulphate pulp mill at Czechoslovakia's Ruzomberok and, if so, what was the full amount of the loan and what were the terms of repayment?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (Trade)):: Export Development Corporation states that: it did make financing available in 1978 to Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka A.S. by signing a loan agreement to finance sales of goods and services

July 10, 1981
Pensions
by H.A. Simmons (Overseas) Limited to Technoexport Bratislava for a pulp mill at Ruzomberok.
The full amount of the loan was $218 million. The loan was to be repayable in 20 semi-annual instalments commencing the earlier of August 15, 1982, and the fifteenth day of the sixth month following the month of commissioning.
As to the rate of interest, in view of the intense competition that prevails among countries in foreign trade, it is not in the public interest for the Export Development Corporation to discuss its participation in export transactions or proposed export transactions. Such information would assist an exporter's competitors both foreign and domestic. Since information on bids, participation or negotiations is given by companies to EDC in confidence, the corporation, to respect that confidence, refrains until the sale arrangements are final, from discussing a deal or even from indicating that it has been approached in a transaction. EDC makes public its participation in direct lending transactions when the financing agreement therefor is signed, and, on request, in credits and foreign investment insurance cases where the exporter or investor consents to publication. If the exporter or investor has not given its consent the reply will so state. When EDC makes public its participation in direct lending transactions it does not, because of the intense competition above mentioned, publish the rate of interest, for the reasons mentioned.


David Michael Collenette: In anticipation of a question from the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, it is my intention to answer his two questions on Monday. I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, that in itself justifies our waiting until Monday. I just want to indicate to the parliamentary secretary that if he does not give the House the answers to those questions on Monday, I will.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


J. Gilles Lamontagne: that Bill C-82 to amend the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act be read
the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today, on behalf of my colleagues, to move passage of Bill C-82.

Last July I had the privilege of seconding Bill C-40 which was presented to this House by our late colleague, the Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald. Bill C-40 was considered to be a major breakthrough in veterans' legislation as it granted proportionate pensions to widows of disability pensioners with an assessment of 47 per cent or less. We believe that Canada thus became the only country in the world to have such a program and to recognize in such a tangible way the spouses and dependants of pensioned veterans. Almost all other countries grant widows' pensions only in cases where the death of the veteran was due to war service.
The well-being of veterans and their families has long been the concern of the government and today I am pleased to propose that we enhance Canada's proud record in this area. I am asking hon. members to approve the total elimination of the phasing in process now in place for the payment of proportionate pensions to widows.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: Instead of waiting for up to five and a half more years for a proportionate pension, this bill will allow some 23,500 additional widows to receive monthly payments as of July 1 this year.

I therefore ask hon. members to agree that the phase-in period for the payment of proportionate pensions to widows be altogether abolished. Instead of having to wait five and a half years to be eligible for a proportionate pension, 23,500 widows would, under this legislation, start receiving monthly benefits as of July 1 of this year.
Hon. members will recall that prior to the passage of Bill C-40 last summer, widows' pensions were payable to spouses of veterans who had died as a result of their military service. Also, widows of pensioners whose disability was considered at least 48 per cent at the time of their death were also eligible for these benefits. These benefits are still being paid; however, under this bill the proportionate pensions would be paid even if the pensioner's disability was under 48 per cent.
The speed with which the House approved Bill C-40 was quite welcome, but there was still some concern about the phase-in period for the widows' pensions. At the present time, widows of veterans with a 33 per cent or more disability pension receive monthly benefits. The Hon. Dan MacDonald and myself were concerned about the period of time which would elapse before all widows could receive their pensions. At the House Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and during our many meetings, the Royal Canadian Legion expressed the wish to have this phase-in period amended and
July 10, 1981

even suggested that widows become eligible at 65. Moreover, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested that pensions be paid immediately, at least to the widows of First World War veterans.

We are acting today beyond the desires and projections of all these people. The government is proposing a formula which should satisfy everyone. We are eliminating the timetable completely and all entitled widows will have become eligible for a pension as of July 1, 1981.

Mr. Speaker, the government is suggesting a formula which should commend itself to everyone. We are abolishing altogether the phasing-in period. All widows will be eligible for a pension as of July 1, 1981.

Looking back about a year, we should remember that Bill C-40 fulfilled the pledge made in the election campaign a couple of months earlier that, if elected, a Liberal government would move quickly to help those persons in society in the greatest need, and this should be our objective in the months ahead. 1 do hope that everyone in this House will be convinced of this principle.
Bill C-40 was not exclusively addressed to the needs of widows. There are other benefits for entitled veterans and their dependants. In particular, the legislation gave immediate and future assistance to over 50,000 recipients of war veterans and civilian war allowances under the age of 65.
In total, Bill C-40 represents $184 million in additional benefits for veterans and their survivors and was the most that could be attained in the financial circumstances at the time of its passage.
Now, just one year later, the government is allocating a further $41 million so that 23,500 widows and dependants can be eligible for their proportionate pension benefits effective July 1 of this year. We are eliminating completely the phasing-in period.
Hon. members will be interested to know that of the 2,300 widows it was originally estimated would be eligible for benefits by April 1 this year under the current phasing-in formula, applications have actually been received from 1,200, and of these, more than 90 per cent have been processed.
1 would point out that the average age of entitled widows is 72 years and the total number of eligible beneficiaries is expected to remain constant over the next five years as new applicants replace those who died. Before the passage of Bill C-40, the Canadian Pension Commission had no way of knowing whether a disability pensioner below the 48 per cent level who had died still had surviving dependants years after the death. As there were no ongoing benefits, there was no need for such records.
Pensions

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank all my colleagues in the cabinet, in the House committee and in the House who have made representations and have helped us pass this bill as quickly as possible. I believe that credit should also be given to members on the other side of the House and that my colleagues on this side have made matters easier by making representations in the proper place and at the proper time. I am very grateful for their support.

Now, widows and dependants of all disability pensioners who pass away are informed of their benefits under Bill C-40. The same information will be relayed in respect to the legislation I introduce today. The commission will be working with veterans' organizations and through a media campaign to inform widows of their new benefits. Members on both sides of this House have always been zealous in passing on veterans' information to their constituents and I trust members will use their householders mailings to inform their constituents of this legislation. In these ways, I hope that all widows and dependants will have the information to apply for their rightful pensions.
Honourable members, Mr. Speaker, can be confident that the Canadian Pension Commission is ready to deal quickly with the applications flowing from the legislation. The processing period will be relatively short as, unlike claims for disability pensions, there is no need for the comprehensive gathering of supporting medical and military evidence. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation will have the support of all parties. It is further proof of this nation's resolve that veterans and their survivors will continue to receive the just and generous treatment they deserve.
Bill C-40 was ground-breaking legislation. The aging veterans' program I announced last November is another pioneering program designed to bring independence and dignity to the most needy of our disability pensioners. Bill C-82 is added evidence that this government and this Parliament continue to recognize and honour the debt owed to those who fought for Canada and who left us a heritage, the freedom and liberties we enjoy-which make this country Canada so great.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, for the second time this week I have the honour and privilege of rising on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to respond to the introduction of a bill which this time is not only to the benefit of veterans, but particularly to the benefit and interest of widows and dependants of veterans. Of interest here is the fact that Bill C-82 introduces amendments to an act passed just one year ago yesterday. If we could maintain that kind of review and update in this House with respect to all legislation, then this would be an efficient Parliament indeed and it would gain the respect of Canadians across the land.
Of course, it should come as no surprise that we on this side endorse the recommendations proposed in Bill C-82. We have recommended them for some time, and the Conservative party endorses the proposals with respect to both amendments to the

July 10, 1981
Pensions
Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. We advocated those changes and said the phasing-in period as prescribed by Bill C-40 was inappropriate for widows and dependants of veterans who were in receipt of pensions of less than 48 per cent. It was recommended that we shorten or eliminate that phasing-in period. This party took the same position with regard to widows and dependants of prisoners of war.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that at the time Bill C-40 was being debated 1 had the privilege of making this comment in the House:
Let us hope that many of them will live long enough that they will see the day when they, too, will receive the benefit of this golden anniversary year legislation.
In view of that, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to say I commend the minister for the introduction of Bill C-82. With the elimination of the phasing-in period, currently a five and half year wait for some, an additional 23,500 widows and dependants of war disability pensioners will become eligible for monthly benefits as of July 1, 1981. When one considers the advancing age of the veteran population and the inflationary times we live in, the immediate availability of a pension income of this nature is a welcome necessity. Clearly the minister has not only been listening to the veterans' community, but he has been taking action following those recommendations received from the Legion and other veterans' organizations, and from members on this side of the House. For this he deserves the thanks of all of us.
As I mentioned Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we remain hopeful that Bill C-79 and Bill C-82 will be the forerunner of still further improved veterans' legislation. Canadian veterans should not be subject to the inexcusably long periods of application reform and delays, and I gathered from the minister's comments today that some action will be taken on these. I would like to say as well that pensions should be indexed in some meaningful way so that they will not continue to be eroded by inflation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in my last speech I recommended amending legislation with regard to prisoner of war compensation. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) referred to this last Wednesday as a grave injustice to prisoners of war under the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. I can only concur with his assessment. At present, compensation occurs in theory, not in practice. This should be corrected, and soon.
I do not feel, Mr. Speaker, that we in this House should prolong the debate. We are pleased the amendments have been brought forward today. We recognize that veterans and their widows and dependants have called for this action and we want to expedite the bill's passage so that they will receive the benefits of this legislation as early as possible. I would like at this time to confirm it is the Progressive Conservative Party's position that this bill should proceed through all stages today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suspect I will make what for me will be the understatement of the year when I say I am pleased this bill is now before us. I congratulate the minister on getting the support of cabinet and for being in the position where he can present this bill before we adjourn for the summer recess, if indeed we are going to adjourn.
As the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) has pointed out, it was just a year ago yesterday that the late hon. Daniel MacDonald presented Bill C-40 for second reading. I am glad the present Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lamontagne) referred to that. It was the last thing our friend Daniel MacDonald was able to do for veterans. It was an historic piece of legislation.
However, despite the fact that that legislation improved something which had been around for 50 years, it did leave a serious, most unfortunate gap in that it provided that many widows, more than 20,000, who were given entitlement to pension on that day had to wait for another one to six and one-half years.
As the House is aware, there has not been a week since then, when the House has been in session, that I have not found a way to get in a question as to when we were going to correct that wrong. The minister is quite right in saying that when it looked as though it was difficult to get the money for such a change, I offered various compromises. I suggested on the floor of the House, and I suggested to the minister privately, that if it was not possible to go all the way, that at least the phasing-in period could be shortened, or maybe the proportionate pension could be paid right away to the widows of veterans of World War I, or maybe an age factor could be introduced. These were just alternatives if we could not abolish the phasing-in period altogether. I am more than delighted that the minister has not brought in a half-way measure. He has gone all the way and is wiping out, as of ten days ago, all of the phasing-in period.
The minister has indicated a bit of the history of this legislation. Perhaps I might just include a repetition of some of that. Starting about 50 or 51 years ago, the Parliament of Canada did provide for pensions for widows of disabled veterans; a continuing such a pension for the widow, as of right, provided the veteran's disability rate was 48 per cent or more. That, in itself, was good for 50 years ago. However, throughout those 50 years, those interested in veterans and in thier survivors have contended that that 48 per cent cut-off was unfair.
That is what we corrected a year ago. We wiped out the 48 per cent cut-off. We said by Bill C-40 that all widows of veterans who were disabled were to be entitled to a pension, either the full widow's pension or a proportionate pension. The difficulty a year ago yesterday was that there were still clauses in the bill which provided that 20,000 of them had to wait one year, two years, three years, four, five or six years. These were older women. As the minister said today, the average age is 72.
July 10, 1981

Most of the ones who have been writing me during the last year have been 76, 78 or 80 years of age. They have been getting letters wich tell them that, yes, they will qualify in 1984, 1985 or 1986.
I am sure that my good friend, Allan Solomon, must have found the writing of those letters the most difficult thing he has had to do in his times as chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission. Incidentally, I thought I saw him in the official gallery earlier this morning. I am pleased that his term, which has expired, has been continued for a little while.
I would like to see it continued for a long while, because he has done a good job. He has been not only an efficient administrator of the Canadian Pension Commission, but he has also had ideas which I know he has spread all over the place, and his innovations have played a part in many improvements, some of which I could identify if there were time, but I will not do it now. But as I say, the pleasures he has in that job did not include writing these letters to older women to tell them to apply again four years of five years from now. This is fine; all of that has been wiped out.
I remind the minister, and I hope he will not mind that I am doing it, that all of this trouble could have been saved if there had been three or four fewer Liberals or three or four more Conservatives or New Democrats in the House a year ago yesterday. Because when we got into Committee of the Whole on that bill and we got down to the clause on page 11 which provided for the phasing-in period, I was able to get the Chair to call a vote on that particular subclause. The record of that is on page 2730 of Hansard for Wednesday, July 9, 1980. What was the vote? It was 62 to 58.


An hon. Member:: Too many Liberals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If a few Liberals had stayed out, or a few more on this side had been here, we could have defeated it all. I hear my friend contributing from across the way. I heard various sayings.


An hon. Member:: We would have had an election!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no, it would not have brought an election. I was even told that maybe the government would not have proceeded with the bill because of this extra money which would be required. At any rate, that is how we felt last year. It was only by a vote of 62 to 58 that the phasing-in period was kept in the legislation at all.
Well, that is all history now. I am sorry for the many thousands, though it will not be the full 23,000, who might have had it if we had had this provision in Bill C-40 last year. I am glad that the second category, the 33 per cent to 38 per cent group, got in a few months ago. However, for the rest, they are all coming in now. They all get their pensions. In some cases, they will be disappointed in the amount, because it will be a proportionate pension based on what a veteran's total income would have been from his disability pension as a married veteran. In the lower cases, the amounts are not going to be very large, but at least there will no longer be a
Pensions
discrimination which says that these people have to wait until 1984, 1985 or 1986.
I confess that I am never conscious when I speak as to whether the light on my desk is on or not. I am never conscious whether the camera is focused on me or not. I do not know how much the people of Canada watch; but I hope that the people who are watching us now or see us on a replay will take note of this. I hope that many of these widows will actually see what we are doing. I hope that others who are not personally interested but who know veterans' widows will tell them about it.
One of the reasons I am sure that there have not been the number of applications we thought there would be is that many of them do not know of it yet. I know that there is an advertising program by the department, or by the Canadian Pension Commission. I know that the Legion does a very good job of trying to get this information out, in its magazine and in notices in its halls across the country. In fact, women from the group which was entitled in the last year have written to ask me whether it was possible. Those were the nice letters, to be able to write back and say, "You are already covered. Send in your application to Mr. Solomon, you will get it quickly."
I just hope that we will all do everything we can to let these people know that we are passing this legislation and that from now on, as of July 1, nine or ten days ago, any widow of a veteran who had a disability pension anywhere from 5 per cent up is now entitled and will get that pension, retroactive to July 1, 1981.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: They have to apply, though.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is my reason for referring to the publicity that they give. 1 hope that what I have said will lead people out there to tell widows that they may know that there is this bill. As the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) says, they have to apply. But before they apply, they have to know that it is available to them. I urge that we do everything we can to get that kind of publicity out there.
In other words, for some of us this is a much happier day than yesterday. This is a piece of legislation of which we are all very proud.


An hon. Member:: We were happy yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not I. I congratulate the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lamontagne) for being in a position to bring this legislation before us. As he said a while ago, the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans' organizations have had this issue right up at the top of their list. The veterans are getting older. They are more conscious of what happens if they die and leave widows. A few years ago, it was number three or four on the list of priorities. It has been number one, and now they can take that off and we can move down to number two and number three, and we will. Therefore, it is good that we are doing this. As I say, I trust that widows who are affected will find out about it, and that we will get most of those widows covered just as soon as possible.

July 10, 1981
Pensions
This, of course, has been an interest of mine for a long time. I made a reference to it in my speech last night. I think the first time I ever felt my interjection on the floor of the House had resulted in something happening was with respect to the widows of veterans of World War I back in about 1943 or 1944, when Ian Mackenzie was the Minister of Pensions and National Health. At that time the widows of non-pensioned veterans of World War I were not covered under anything. They had not been included in the War Veterans Allowance Act, but I was able to persuade the Hon. Ian Mackenzie to obtain an order in council from cabinet to make an ad hoc allowance of probably about $25 to $30 per month to such widows, and a few years after that we got them covered under the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The acting minister is part of the process. We are not only improving things for veterans, but we are increasing the recognition of the rights of women. There has been too much tendency in the whole of mankind's history-and I say "mankind" advisedly-for women to get their rights only because of their attachment to men. The more we establish women's rights in their own right, the better it is and I am glad that we are moving in that direction.
We have agreed to put through this bill quickly with one speaker per party. As far as I am concerned, this means the one speech which each of us has made now at second reading and that when we get into committee of the whole there will be no debate. We will have the bill out of here and get it to the Senate very shortly. As the hon. member for St. Catharines emphasized, with this out of the way, the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs must know that all the jobs are not done. There are some other things which will start to have priority. In the first place, he himself referred to the fact that Bill C-40 of last July included references to the War Veterans Allowance Act and to benefits under that act, and I quote him from this morning, "immediate benefits and future benefits".
I remind the minister that in that part there is another phasing-in process. It is not quite as serious as the phasing-in with respect to widows, but I suggest it is time he start studying that and bring in the full benefits accorded under the War Veterans Allowance Act, and that Bill C-40 be brought into play right away.
I also urge, as the previous speaker did, that he give considerable attention to facilities to speed up the handling of cases by the Canadian Pension Commission. Also I support the proposition that the formula for the rate of pensions paid by the Canadian Pension Commission should be put on a clear basis. It should not wait every three or four years to be adjusted; it should stay in a relationship to the average take-home pay of the five categories of public servants designated eight or nine years ago. If we were able last night to change the indexing formula with respect to certain other things like pay and pensions, we ought to be able to do the same for veterans, and I urge that it be done.
I am getting some signals that if I were to sit down now we would get the bill over to the Senate, get it passed, and get
royal assent today. This is extremely important so that the July 1 effective date has its full meaning. On behalf of my party I give our full endorsation to the immediate passing of Bill C-82.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Certain remarks were made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning Committee of the Whole stage, but the order made was to refer the bill to the standing committee. Is there unanimous consent to refer the bill to Committee of the Whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Denis Éthier: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I said that there would be no speeches but I think that Allan Solomon, having appeared for a moment, should be given a round of applause for the work he has done, just in case there is any change before we meet again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, bill read the third time and passed.

Yvon Pinard: That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
He said: Mr. Speaker, for the information of my colleagues of the opposition, we talked about royal assent earlier and arrangements have been made, since we received formal notice
July 10, 1981

from the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) that the adjournment motion would not be passed today; consequently, royal assent will be given this afternoon a little before or a little after 4 p.m., depending on circumstances.
As far as the adjournment motion is concerned I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side keep our word and that we intended to move the adjournment as discussed a little earlier in the week.
I think I may take this opportunity to make a brief review of what we have accomplished during this session. All hon. members will remember that Parliament was first convened after the April, 1980 election and that we had to sit from mid-April until mid-July, that we adjourned for the summer and that we returned subsequently in the fall; we shall probably adjourn later today, in July or in August, depending on circumstances.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe it falls to me as government House leader to point out the work carried out during these weeks and these months. First of all, let me congratulate all members on their regular attendance and on the earnestness and determination they have shown during these months in their efforts to act sincerely in the best interest of the nation and their constituents. I am convinced that regardless of political ideas, principles or philosophy, every member in this House is sincere. Irrespective of any political affiliation, I must recognize that in any debates held during this session, whatever opinions were expressed by members on both sides of this House, everything was done in earnest and with the intention of actually serving society rather than to destroy this nation called Canada. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, this is the first group I wish to pay tribute to even though it does not mean that we have completed the job if I am now extending congratulations, but I believe that after these months, since April, 1980, the members deserve congratulations and recognition for all the work they accomplished and for all the time spent doing their work and taking their responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, since the election and since April 1980, we often meet members who could prove beyond doubt they devote 80, 85 and even more hours every week to the interests of Canadian men and women. I believe this is a fact often forgotten in the heat of action, in the heat of debate, and I believe it is sometimes important that parliamentarians and I, as parliamentary leader in any case, should mention it. Whether on the government or the opposition side, whether we favour such and such a policy or have differences of opinion on the same subject, each and every one of us devotes in all good faith 80, 85 hours of our time every week to serve the interests of our constituents to the best of our ability and to make Canada progress. There is absolutely no question about that, it is worth mentioning occasionally and it is a further reason to congratulate again every parliamentarian.
Summer Recess
We must also think of all those people whose lives are related to our proceedings. We must not forget all the Commons staff, all those whose duties are related to those of parliamentarians, who have to adjust their way of life to the tempo of parliamentarians, and I include the media and also the press gallery people. When we sit till 10:30 p.m. they have to stay on the look-out and keep their ears open up to the last minute to report as completely and faithfully as they can what happened on the floor of the House of Commons. Accordingly, in order to adapt themselves to our parliamentary tempo, these people must follow our proceedings and neglect their family life or other occupations. This applies to the media, to the reporters on the Hansard staff, to the translators, it applies to all those men and women whose job it is to keep the House of Commons working smoothly, and at this time of the year, on July 10, after a very long session which started last April, these people deserve our respect, our support and our apologies to some extent, if we have to sit after today.
As for the business which has been dealt with during this period, let me say that this session has been more productive on the average than all previous sessions in the history of Canada. Let me give you only one example. I see that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is smiling, and I know that it is not with malice, but he may not be aware of this fact. For over 20 years, it has never happened that the House of Commons has passed all bills related to the budget before the summer recess. This is the first time it has happened in over 20 years, and I am told that it may be the first time in 29 years. I would like to thank also in this regard his House leader, who has co-operated and contributed to this result, as well as the House leader of the New Democratic Party.
When I said earlier that parliamentarians had worked constructively and when I asked that party lines and partisanship be set aside, it was because it is indeed important for the public to know from time to time that their representatives in Parliament are doing something positive for society. The Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that the image of politicians is not at its best among the public. And what often contributes to tarnishing this image unfairly are irresponsible reactions to positive results when a statement which contains such positive aspects is made. I am not denying the right of the Leader of the Opposition to criticize and to blame us for not having tackled such and such an issue which his party considers a priority. I understand this, he is within his right and 1 respect that freedom. It is the very foundation of Parliament. However, when we do something positive, when we get results, when we are productive, I would also appreciate a positive reaction on his part in an effort not to deteriorate further the image of public men and women in Canadian society, because in fact, at times when parliamentarians do something positive I believe that it is the responsibility of parliamentarians themselves, and especially party leaders, not to minimize the importance of such positive results, however small they might be.

July 10, 1981
Message from the Senate
Thus, Mr. Speaker, in over 20 years, the House of Commons has never before passed all the bills related to a budget, as was done during this session. Let me enumerate them. We have had the Income Tax Act, the borrowing authority bill, the Customs Tariff Act, the fiscal transfers, the Excise Tax Act, the six day budget debate. And if I wanted to add all the bills related to the economy, I have here a list of 65 measures which as of four o'clock this afternoon will have been approved during this session, which is more than usual, and it is another positive aspect to which we shall come back later on.
During this session, we have passed more economic or financial bills than ever before in previous sessions, and I do not want to take the credit for it and I am not looking for plaudits, quite the opposite. I do not expect congratulations from the Leader of the Opposition. I do not ask for any, but what I am asking him to do is to recognize that his own House leader and the House leader of the New Democratic Party have done everything in their power to allow this Parliament to produce at least a minimum, and by a happy coincidence, this minimum represents more than what was done in previous years, and I believe that they have contributed to this result. I simply wanted to point this out. However, I have not only compliments to address to the House leaders. As much as possible, I shall avoid making criticisms, but in the areas where they deserve congratulations, no one will stop me from saying so because I am speaking quite sincerely. Going back to the month of April, we avoided a situation which was, and still is, the result of two elections in less than a year. Hon. members will remember that because of the nature of our Standing Orders-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 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 the following bill without any amendment: Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 10th day of July, at 2.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons,
Ottawa



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, since the beginning of this session last April, 1980 in this House, we will have adopted and obtained royal assent, after what Your Honour just mentioned, to some 65 bills.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: I have the list of those bills here, but I will not read the list because it would be rather long. However, Your Honour will see that among those 65 bills there is a lot of major and most important legislation related to financial matters, related to budget, and related to other major subjects, like the Post Office, the Bank Act and others.
July 10, 1981

What I would like to make very clear at this stage in my speech before we adjourn later today, hopefully, is that during those months many people have been made to believe that we have dealt almost solely with the Constitution in this chamber during the last months. This is not the fact. This is not the truth. Let me tell Your Honour that, in fact, the Constitution has required about two months of the time of the House of Commons. The resolution on the Constitution was sent to a special committee which dealt with it during four months. Hence, altogether it is true that we have dealt with this very major and important subject of the Constitution at length and that we have spent six months on the subject; but four of those six months were spent in a committee, allowing this House to be able to deal with some other business.
What kind of other business have we dealt with? I spoke to Your Honour a few minutes ago about 65 bills. Once again, I will not read the list; but let me tell Your Honour that we had a six-day budget debate last fall. We have dealt with major bills related to the economy-the Income Tax Act, borrowing authority bills, the Customs Tariff Act, the Bank Act, fiscal transfers, the Income Tax Conventions Act and the Excise Tax Act. We had 35 allotted days related to the business of supply, and a special two-day debate on the economy just before Christmas. Everyone will remember that.
Therefore, if we add up all those days we spent in the House of Commons which were devoted to the economy and to financial matters, people in this country will realize that we have spent, in fact, much more time on financial matters and on the economy than on any other subject. That must be said very clearly. As I said earlier in my speech, it is the first time in over 20 years that the government has been able to have all the bills related to the budget adopted before the summer adjournment. That is a reality too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: But interest rates are still at 20 per cent!


Mr. Cullen:: We are going to wrestle them to the ground!


Yvon Pinard: There was something very positive also achieved during the session. It is related to some changes in the system. I should like to speak briefly about those parliamentary task forces that were created to deal with different subjects and to say that if, on the one hand, the experiment was very positive and very useful, on the other hand there are aspects that will have to be corrected in order to allow this Parliament still to be able to allow a number of members to be part of an action group and deal with very important subjects, at the same time not disturbing the existing system of standing committees.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that following an agreement between parties, we have set up task forces, parliamentary committees made up of seven members, which is much less
Summer Recess
than the normal membership of some 20 members for a standing committee of this House. What the government intended in agreeing to set up those parliamentary task forces was to enable a limited number of seven members from all regions of this country to get together and look fully into highly topical matters, and in so doing to enjoy a great deal of freedom and travel opportunities, technical advice and every facility to produce a report as little partisan as possible which would really enable the government to be acquainted with the real views of the public and those concerned on a given subject. You will recall that those committees have considered alternate energy, the handicapped, the North-South relations, the National Trade Corporation, regulatory reform, employment opportunities for the 80's as well as the renewal of fiscal agreements between the federal government and the provinces. As I said, this experience has had very positive aspects. Those honourable members have done an excellent job. They have worked in a very responsible and efficient manner. I think we can now say that in the reports of those committees, there was an input by members from all over the country, including the maritimes, western Canada and central Canada, which will give more weight to the recommendations made in those reports.
However, on the negative side, there has been an increase in Parliament's costs in order to allow those committees to do their job. The costs have increased very substantially. We know that printing costs have gone up as well as transportation and counselling costs. But I think that was worth it and that in the future we should not cut out those activities just to save money, as I think the loss would outweigh the benefits; but we should not overspend if we want to show our moderation or at least our ability for sound management and efficient control.
But the most negative aspect may have been the disruption of the present standing committee system, as such honourable members who were appointed to the task forces were also very active members of the standing committees. Because of the very long time they had to work on the task forces, they were not always able to take part in the activities of the House standing committees. So I believe we will have to look into that practical problem and try together to find a workable solution. I am quite willing to try and work out an acceptable compromise with representatives of the opposition parties to reach our objective and not place the work of the standing committees in jeopardy.
Offhand, I would make a suggestion subject to amendment or discussion. We might perhaps consider having sub-committees of our existing committees perform the same role, and this might be an indirect way of obtaining the same result without jeopardizing committee work. We might also require that these task forces, these sub-committees, made up of seven members or so only, be empowered to travel outside the period where the committees are dealing with the estimates, between

July 10, 1981
Summer Recess
the beginning of March and the end of May. I submit there are two or three months in the year where all hon. members should be required to be very active in committee, to better scrutinize the Main Estimates, and outside that period we could be more flexible in order to allow these sub-committees to address matters of public interest, in small numbers, to effectively reach the same goal we had in mind for that experiment. This is what I had to say on that aspect of a new feature. Once more this year we had television. We extended it to the committee on the Constitution, which was also a first and an innovation. That experiment proved very profitable, and also very costly, but money is no obstacle to possibly trying similar experiments in the future. On the other hand, it is a matter of common sense in my view that before bringing television into the proceedings of all committees, we must first bring in parliamentary reform, especially in our committees. Television should be brought in only when we have put some order in our parliamentary procedure, especially that of our committees. Be that as it may, the constitution committee experience has been most positive, and I wish to commend all people involved with televising the debates, both in this House and in the committees, for their magnificent work at the technical level.
Madam Speaker, I see you have not yet interrupted me, so I may go on. In respect of other reforms that could be made, I have often indicated publicly in this House, during the year, in response to questions, that to me this was a priority. Some three weeks ago, on a Friday afternoon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in answer to opposition members stated in this House that this was one of his priorities, and I want to confirm that I am now consulting and preparing a document. I intend to consult my colleagues as soon as possible on some aspects of that reform, but I will do all I can in order that we may reach an agreement on changes that would not be too controversial at first, and in order also that we might ask a committee to very seriously but in a short period deal with that basic question of parliamentary reform. Why did we not do so during these last few months? After passing 65 pieces of legislation, discussing the Constitution for two months in this House and four months in committee, after having a budget, 35 opposition days, passing all the bills stemming from the budget, as 1 said, for the first time in more than 20 years, after performing all that work, especially after passing all those bills, most of which were an accumulation of legislation resulting from two elections in less than a year, it would neither be realistic nor fair to expect that we should have addressed in-depth reform over these last months.
However, I think that though there are still about twenty bills on the Order Paper, we, on this side, can consider the future with optimism, I can assure the hon. members that when I refer to parliamentary reform, I do not want to restrict the rights of the opposition. I wish to be quite clear; I will never suggest any change that could encroach on the rights of
the opposition. This is not my intent. And if such changes were made, it would be for reasons beyond my control. When I refer to reform, I do not mean more power for the government, Madam Speaker; I want to improve the ability of this House to hold more thorough debates while coping realistically with the problems and dealing with the concerns of the Canadian people. I apologize, Madam Speaker, because I see that you want to interrupt me. I will continue my speech shortly.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-14, an Act to amend the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act-Chapter No. 74;
Bill C-81, an Act to amend the Official Residences Act-Chapter No. 75;
Bill C-82, an Act to amend the Pension Act and the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act-Chapter No. 76;
Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act-Chapter No. 77;
Bill C-79, an Act to amend the Veterans' Land Act and to amend the Veterans Benefit Act in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 78;
Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act-Chapter No. 79.
Bill S-20, an Act to revive Ontario News Company, Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act;
Bill S-21, an Act to revive G. A. Barber & Sons Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act;
Bill S-22, an Act to revive Eastern Diversified Company Ltd. and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
July 10, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, when the House adjourns on the day this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 14, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have almost finished my intervention on this motion. Let me just refer you to the text- [English]
Yes, I have an hour and a half to go. However, since I am creating the case for 20-minute speeches, I should set the example. I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition follows me, he will set the example and limit himself to 20 minutes. For that I thank him in advance.
May 1 now refer to the motion. It has been drafted the same as in the past with the same standard provisions. The House will adjourn until mid-October, which is the normal date for the return of Parliament in the fall, and I quote:
-provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker, after consultation with the government that the public interest-
I repeat that:
-that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time. Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;-
Possibly I misunderstood, but yesterday I heard some members say that once we adjourn until mid-October, that is it; Parliament will not be able to do anything before the middle of the fall.


Mr. Lambert:: Those on your side.


Yvon Pinard: 1 heard it from members on both sides. To pretend if my motion is accepted that it is theoretically and physically impossible for Parliament to sit earlier than October 14 is not correct. I am not saying that the House of Commons will come back earlier, but that it is theoretically possible. In fact, this was done last summer when we came back a week or ten days early. It was done a few years ago when we dealt with the bill on the pipeline. We returned in mid-August to deal with that bill.
It is up to the elected representatives to look at the facts. When the public interest is at stake, it is up to the government
Summer Recess
to assume its responsibility. If it fails to do that, we have an election. It looks as though the Liberal party has assumed its responsibility rather well in the past.

Therefore, when we are told that Parliament cannot meet before the middle of the fall, this is not true. Theoretically, it remains a possibility; the motion respecting the summer recess is drafted in such a way that if the public interest requires it, the government may recall the House of Commons to address this question, as was the case last summer and as was the case not too long ago when the House was recalled to study a bill on the pipeline. I do not say that the government intends to take this action; that is not the point. The question is hypothetical and I say this simply to refute the arguments of those who claim that this motion makes it physically impossible for Parliament, for the House of Commons, to sit before October 14. Let us be clear on this; this is not only true in theory, it is a possibility; Parliament can be recalled this summer and for the time being no decision has been reached nor am I in a position to confirm or to deny that the government does or does not intend to recall the House of Commons earlier than October 14.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I can hardly add anything to the balance sheet I summarized a moment ago, and I will not repeat myself. In my opinion, we have had so far in this session a rather considerable and highly appreciable production of legislation, motions and reports, as well as the work done by all sorts of committees of the House. I am not trying to pat anyone on the back; it is simply a matter of looking at the facts and to conclude that indeed a lot of work has been done in recent months. Of course, some members would have liked to accomplish still more, and I count myself among them, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest once again that if we had more modern tools to work with, the House of Commons and the committees would be a lot more active and a lot more productive, and they would also be working under much more human conditions. Now, as I said earlier, after we have just had royal assent, changes are in the air and I think that we have been able to clear up most of the bills which had accumulated as a result of the last two elections in less than one year and, within reasonable time, we will be in a position to consider and negotiate changes and submit them for study by appropriate groups.
Mr. Speaker, those are the essential remarks I wanted to make at this stage of the session. I hope hon. members will agree to consider adjourning later today, in principle until October 14. Yesterday I heard the Leader of the Opposition suggest in his questions that on the face of it he was tempted not to support this motion for as long as the postal strike is not settled. I think he had not read the text of the motion when he said that. I am not asking him for anything, I am simply expressing a wish. Should he insist that we go on passing bills this summer, we are at his disposal, but then may I be

July 10, 1981
Summer Recess
permitted to point out to him very respectfully that, to my mind, his request is not going to help solve the postal strike.
In my opinion, the conflict will be brought to an end at the bargaining table. It is not the type of dispute which we will settle here on the floor of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister told him quite clearly, I said the same thing to him, the President of the Treasury Board confirmed it, and again today as government House leader I say to him that we have no intention of legislating the postal workers back to their jobs. That has happened in the past; the government has had to weigh, on the one hand, the right to strike and, on the other, the public interest, so that when the government did legislate in the past it was because it deemed that in the circumstances the public interest was sufficiently harmed to justify disregarding the legal right to strike, which is acknowledged and supported by the Leader of the Opposition, particularly at the Post Office. If the Leader of the Opposition is now against the right to strike by postal workers, he cannot say so more clearly than by demanding that we pass legislation immediately. I would ask him to give me one single example, and I mean a realistic, not a trumped up example, of the ideal moment when we would respect the right of the postal workers to go on strike.
Summer is starting. The postal workers are legally in position to strike. They have exercised that right for barely 15 days and the Leader of the Opposition has been asking us for a week already to send them back to work. Does he not believe in the postal employee's right to strike? If he does, when then will he realize that back to work legislation is not advisable if the postal workers chose freely to go on strike? Let him show me a realistic example where the right to strike is recognized not only in theory but in practice. I claim that at this point, in view of the time of the year, and of circumstances generally, though undeniably there are serious inconveniences which affect some people, a responsible government must look at both sides of the coin: the interest of the public on the one hand, and on the other the financial implications, the need for wise management, and above all the respect of existing laws and the right to strike granted to a union with the support of the Leader of the Opposition.
In view of those circumstances, when he tells us suddenly, at the very last minute and to everyone's surprise, that the House will not adjourn until the postal strike has been settled-I recognize that he is free to say so, and I do not despise him for it-I say he is mistaken. That in no way helps to solve the conflict, nor does it help the parties involved to get back to negotiations, nor does it help negotiate a settlement. I claim it is harmful. The present attitude of the Leader of the Opposition will do more harm than good if he persists in it. I have no idea what he will be telling us. Perhaps I misunderstood him yesterday. It is possible. Perhaps he did not want to go that far. I pass no judgment on him but only give my interpretation of the situation and my point of view; I do not believe that
forcing the hon. members to sit here in Parliament for one week, two weeks, will change anything in settling the postal dispute. If anything, it will hinder it.
We believe in the right to strike, in legal strikes, in negotiations and discussions that will bring all parties involved back to the negotiation table to settle this conflict in a normal and legal way. We are not of the opinion at this stage that it is appropriate to legislate the postal workers back to work and I say it again. It is not because the Leader of the Opposition is going to have 282 members of Parliament come back here or those members who are responsible enough to come back next week or in the coming weeks, that we are going to legislate. I am telling him, we have no intention of legislating a back to work order. He is making a mistake if he thinks so. Not only is he making a mistake but he is jeopardizing a settlement to the postal strike. He is jeopardizing the possibilities of a compromise and a negotiated settlement in this dispute.
If he really wants to be useful in the settlement of the labour dispute in the Post Office, I will remind him that strikes are not settled on the floor of the House of Commons, just as trials are not settled on the floor of the House of Commons, as I told him during the oral question period regarding the dispute over the election in the riding of Spadina. To each his own. Courts deal with trials and parties involved in a labour dispute have to negotiate a settlement. Some are free to make offers up to a certain limit, others are not, and if they are not satisfied with having to go on strike, as provided in the law, that is put to the vote democratically and with the support of the Leader of the Opposition and suddenly he turns against that practice. All of a sudden it's no. The right to strike is no longer to be granted, it has negative effects.
Strikes have negative effects indeed. But if he is against the right to strike, let him have the courage to rise and say: "I am against the right to strike in the Public Service, I am against the right to strike for postal workers in particular." Let him state it clearly. But let him not play little parliamentary games on the backs of parliamentarians, on the back of the media covering our activities, on the backs of all the personnel of the House of Commons-and they are 3,000 employees-and their families depending on our schedule, on our work here, and all of that for the purpose of scoring little political points and making the postal workers believe that we are going to force them back to work. We have no intention of legislating their return to work. All that he is doing presently, is jeopardizing the settlement of this strike. It is pure masochism to harm your own members of Parliament and also to infringe on the rights of members opposite. I am calling him back to his senses. If he absolutely wants us to come back next week, let it be so. As I told him, he knows the legislative program and we are going to be here. But we would prefer to adjourn now since we have been sitting since April, 1980, with our usual adjournments. We would prefer, naturally, to adjourn on July 10 after having passed 65 bills, after having reached an agreement on
July 10, 1981

the constitutional debate, after a budget, after having passed all the budget bills, which was the first time in over twenty years. So I would respectfully submit to him that he should consider being a little more human and, rather than taking a position which would hinder rather than facilitate a negotiated settlement of the postal dispute, I would respectfully suggest to him, if he keeps on, unless there are new developments which would make him change his mind or explain to me his position, which I may have misunderstood, that at this point if he wants to help the settlement of the postal dispute he must not count on the government legislating the postal workers back to work. Also he had better not think that by keeping hon. members here he will in fact force the government to introduce legislation to that effect. I think I made that quite clear. I will not repeat what I said in the other official language.
I would finally like to congratulate all parliamentarians, for their good faith, and that includes the Leader of the Opposition, because 1 have never questioned their good faith and the efforts they made in the last months to try and improve the quality of life of Canadians. Of course we do not always agree with each other's methods, but it is the role of the opposition to criticize us. I do not expect to be paid compliments. I expect to be criticized and that is normal. However, there are things that must be said. I think that beyond party politics we are all men and women who, sincerely believe they are doing their best to improve the quality of life in Canada. I believe that the best way to act at this point is to allow members, not to go on holidays, but to go and meet with their constituents in their ridings, to go and meet with their people, to go to their offices, as all of us on both sides of the House intend to do. For someone to say that-
-"We won't allow the members of Parliament to go on holiday before any strike is settled," that is wrong. It is not a matter of a holiday. It is a matter of allowing the members of Parliament, after ten months, to be able to go to their constituencies and meet with their people so they will know what the people really want and they can try to solve the problems of their constituents, who have the right to see them. That is one very important aspect, too. The role of the parliamentarian, I agree, is to legislate and to debate in the House of Commons. However, when we have achieved what we have during the last ten months, having passed 65 bills, a budget, all the financial bills, the Constitution, a lot of major bills have been adopted, above the average compared to previous sessions of Parliament, I say that it is unfair if someone prevents hon. members from going as soon as possible to their regions to explain, to listen and to meet with their constituents, and to allow the easterner to go to western Canada and westerners to come to eastern Canada.
That is what we have in mind when we say it is about time we adjourn today. We do not want a holiday. I think some hon. members deserve a holiday. They will take two weeks or
Summer Recess
three weeks, and that is fine. However, hon. members know very well that we will not be on holiday for three months. It is wrong to say that. We are not going on holiday for three months; we are going to do our job, which is different, another aspect of our job, working very hard in our constituencies over two and one-half months. That is what we want to do, and no later than today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me begin on a soft note on two matters on which the President of the Privy Council and I can agree. One of those certainly has to do with the expression of our appreciation on this side of the House to all of those who work in association with the House of Commons as employees, or in jobs which are associated with the House of Commons. They are called upon to perform tasks with unusual demands, and all of us in this Parliament on all sides of the House, are deeply grateful for the work they have done and want to take this opportunity, as we begin an adjournment motion debate, to express our deep gratitude to them all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The other matter on which I want to express some very real identity of interest is the references the President of the Privy Council made to parliamentary reform. I am pleased that he has found so useful the innovation of parliamentary task forces which my government began. If he takes a look at some of the other proposals for parliamentary reform which were introduced during the period we were in office I am sure he will find other elements of value. I am pleased to see him nodding his head. I am prepared to accept his word that he is genuinely interested in the reform of this place because, frankly, I cannot imagine how anyone who has spent any time here can be satisfied at all with the way the rules of Parliament now limit the ability of individual members of Parliament on either side of the House to do the job we are sent here to do, which is to have influence upon the public policy of the land.
Certainly it is my view-it has been my conviction through my life here, and I am pleased to hear a similar view expressed by the President of the Privy Council-that there have to be changes which allow individual members to have more influence upon the events of Parliament. He has given us his word that he will not introduce reforms which will limit the powers of the opposition. He will understand if we want to wait to see what he is proposing before we accept that word, but certainly there is major institutional work to be done here.
We have to change the rules of this place because it is one of the greatest wastes in the country to have a situation where some 30 people, who happen to sit at the Privy Council and in the centre of the government side of the House of Commons, have most of the influence and power in this Parliament, where there are 282 members, and all the rest of the members of the House of Commons have relatively little influence upon the events of the day. It was not for that reason that Parliament

July 10, 1981
Summer Recess
was created, and it is not under that system that Parliament can thrive.
If the President of the Privy Council is serious about reforming this institution to make it an institution in which individual members of Parliament can in fact influence the public policy of the day effectively and freely, then we on this side of the House will support any sensible measure which he introduces to accomplish that, and we will propose several to him ourselves.
Let me get to matters where there might be less agreement. I heard the minister talk about the need for members of Parliament to get into their constituencies and to talk to their constituents.

I must say that I am certain that if some of the members from Quebec had been able to visit their constituents, especially when we were debating the constitutional issue, the result would be very different and the contribution of these members to our debates would have been very different. Because one thing is quite clear, and that is that the views of Quebec citizens on the constitutional issue do differ from those expressed by Quebec members during the long constitutional debate.
Someone mentioned Levis. The Progressive Conservative Party obtained 4 per cent of the vote in Levis in 1980. We obtained 31 per cent of the vote in a byelection because we spoke up for Quebecers on the constitutional issue. This is why our candidate was so successful, and I believe that it shows to Quebecers, and especially to the members of the Liberal party, that they have the duty to take the views of their voters into account in the future when we deal with such basic issues as constitutional reform.

I wish them well on their voyages home. If they need any arguments or if they need any help in understanding the point of view of Quebecers on the constitutional question, they can write me and I will send them some of my speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me come to the question of the order we are debating now, the motion for adjournment. The President of the Privy Council jokes and says he will mail me a letter. Unfortunately, that is one of the problems with this House in dealing with this question, because it is possible for members of this House of Commons to have our communications sent by messenger, or perhaps by courier, to people who need them. It is not possible, when the postal service is on strike, for ordinary Canadians to have their mail delivered when they need it because ordinary Canadians do not have the privileges members of this House of Commons have. My party and I say
that we do not propose to exercise our privilege of rising for the summer while individual Canadians across the country face the prospect of being denied their privilege and their right to have their mail delivered by their postal service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me come back to some of the remarks of the President of the Privy Council. He admitted that Parliament has the power to come back here and resolve problems- including problems of a work stoppage-and to introduce back to work legislation, so the question of the right to strike is not at issue here at all. Most of us in this House who have been here for any length of time have had to vote to have Parliament impose upon various work forces in the public service the necessity to get back to work and carry on their functions. That was done without any limitation of the right to strike.
That is an unhappy part of the life and the responsibilities of the parliamentary system, but that is not the question here at all. The question here was alluded to, perhaps inadvertently, by the President of the Privy Council. He talked about the inconvenience caused to members of Parliament. He talked about the inconvenience caused to members of the press. He talked about the inconvenience caused to others who might have to stay here to make sure Parliament is able to do its duty. What concerns me and my party is the inconvenience to hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have a right to count upon their mail. They look to us to put their convenience ahead of our convenience, and that is what my party and I intend to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He speaks about the rights of public servants, and I certainly accept that. But I also accept that citizens have rights in this country, and if there is one body in the land which has a duty to respect and protect the rights of the citizens of Canada, it is this Parliament of Canada. I do not propose to have this Parliament of Canada getting up and going away when, by staying, it could positively influence the restoration of mail services in the country.
The President of the Privy Council used the words "the public interest". He said that the government can decide to call Parliament back when the public interest is at stake. We happen to believe that the public interest is at stake now in the question relating to mail service in the country. He has said that if we want to have a real test of the public interest, we can perhaps have an election. We are ready for that too; however, I suggest to him that the people of Canada are not particularly interested in elections, but the people of Canada are very much interested in having their mail delivered. The people of Canada are very much interested in having an energy agreement. The people of Canada are very much interested in having a government which will act on the problems which are real and important to ordinary people across the country. That is what this government has failed to do, and it proposes to continue to
July 10, 1981

fail to do so. That is the responsibility this government proposes to continue to back away from by having Parliament rise when, by staying, we could influence a settlement-one way or another, by negotiation or by other means-of the postal strike. We say we should not be moving away from our responsibility. We say we should spend another couple of days here in the heat. We are elected to take the heat. We should stay here for a couple of days further in the heat, deal with our responsibilities, do our duty and not run away from our responsibility as members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The President of the Privy Council spoke about the record of the government in this session. He said that for a session of Parliament this government had a record better than the average. That has to be seen in the light of the fact that this has been two sessions of Parliament, when we take into account the fact that we met before summer and then recessed for summer last year. What he is saying is that in two sessions of Parliament we have had a legislative output a little better than the average in one session of Parliament. I can agree with that kind of calculation.
However, it is not really for us today to compare lists of things which were done and things which were not done, although there is a very real concern in the country about a number of things which were not done or a number of things which were badly done. Some parliamentary sessions are merely unproductive. This session of Parliament has been one of the most divisive sessions of Parliament in the history of this nation and, tragically, two issues which could have united Canadians, our energy and our Constitution, have been used by this government to drive Canadians apart. Now, the constitutional bill which occupied most of the government's legislative agenda-he says it only took two months; I seem to hear them saying it took 54 years. That constitutional provision betrays the basic federal nature of this nation. The National Energy Program, which reflects the government's intellectual agenda, its taste for statism and its determination to have the state control more and more of life in Canada, is driving Canadian citizens, jobs and money out of our country.
We, Mr. Speaker, are one of the few nations in the world with a chance to become genuinely self-sufficient in energy. The news in Canada should be about new energy projects starting, however, because of this government, the news in Canada is about new energy projects shutting down. This week it was the $12 billion Cold Lake project shutdown for at least two years, and probably much longer. That project's delay will have economic implications and will cost jobs right across this country. 1 hope members of Parliament from Ontario and Quebec understand that fully 35 per cent of that project's impact, which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cancelled, would have been felt in those two provinces. So the provinces being bloodied by this wrong-headed, ideological, doctrinaire attempt to control in Ottawa an energy industry which will, faced with that kind of control, choose other places
Summer Recess
to build, and the people who pay for that, are the citizens of Ottawa Centre, Toronto, Montreal, Trois Rivieres, indeed the citizens of every community right across this country.
Before the announcement of the Cold Lake shutdown, before that great economic leap backward as a result of federal Liberal policy, there had been a flood of 165 drilling rigs out of this country, taking expertise from western Canada, taking jobs and production from eastern Canada, and taking the possibility of energy self-sufficiency from all of Canada. There has been in the energy service industry a drop of between 20 and 30 per cent in employment as a result of the energy policy of this government. There has been a mammoth increase in imports which help foreign countries and hurt Canada. Instead of building up the independent Canadian energy industry, this government builds up its own multinationals. Instead of serving Canada, this Liberal government serves Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and OPEC. The Liberal energy policy is: OPEC first and Canada last.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: In a curious way, "Canada last" was also the motive of the constitutional proposal. The Liberal government tried to hide behind the colonial connection to have Britain decide Canada's Constitution. We fought that colonial action and we won the right to have the courts of Canada decide the constitutional legal questions the Prime Minister and the Liberal party wanted to send away to Britain. Having won that right, we reserved for Canadians the right to decide the political question about what it is that is right and legitimate for a federal government to do. Because, sir, that Constitution is Canada's first; it is not Britain's constitution.


An hon. Member:: Not too convincing.

A Quebecer told me that was not convincing. He should perhaps talk to his constituents, because they believe like I do that this is an issue for Canadians to decide and not for the British people, and if he thinks that it is up to Britain to determine the future of Canada, he is wrong.

As a consequence of some of these actions, Mr. Speaker, and I say it with sadness and almost with fear, we have a situation where in some parts of this country you can cut the anger with a knife. Whole regions are developing the view, with far too much evidence to support it, that their nation is being governed against their interests. The great majority of individual Canadians with bills to pay, families to raise and lives to lead, find their daily problems being ignored by a national government that just does not care about the things that concern individual Canadians across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: Millions of those Canadians are forced to cut back on their food purchases. Thousands must contemplate

July 10, 1981
Summer Recess
letting their houses go because they cannot afford to renew their mortgages at current interest rates.

Interest rates have broken every record in the last six months. Prices have increased by 12.3 per cent. Food prices have increased by 13.6 per cent. Energy prices have gone up by 28.5 per cent, bankruptcies by 20 per cent during the first part of this year, and the price of gas by 60 cents a gallon since the return to power of this irresponsible government. The deficit this year will be $3.7 billion higher than it would have been with our budget.

We have the unemployment statistics today showing the rate for June. It is up again now at 7.3 per cent. In June of 1981,
24,000	jobs were lost in the services sector, 26,000 in the manufacturing sector. Those are jobs Canadians have been counting on. They cannot count on them any longer. Because of the economic policies of this government, those jobs are being lost. The cost of living remains far too high. The agriculture food index published yesterday stated that for June of 1981 food prices are up 13.6 per cent over last year. Business bankruptcies are up 20 per cent in the first quarter of 1981 compared to 1980. Farm bankruptcies are up 70 per cent in the same period. We have the highest interest rates we can remember in Canada. We have an indication that the CPI for heating oil was up in May, 1981, 44.8 per cent over May of 1980. The statistics go on.
However, for the individual Canadians across the country, they are not statistics; these are real problems which they have to deal with every day as they try to make their way through life, feeding their families and building their futures. The tragic and unforgivable thing about this government is that it knows it could act to help some of those Canadians. It knows, for example, that the mortgage tax credit proposal that my government introduced, and which the Liberals and NDP voted against, would be paying $100 a month today to every Canadian with a $30,000 mortgage. It would help that Canadian keep his or her home against the high cost of interest. The government knows it could bring in an energy tax credit to help low and middle-income Canadians. It knows it could act in other ways to protect victims of inflation and high interest rates, but it will not do that. Why not? Because it prefers to spend $1.5 billion on an oil company it does not need. It puts buying oil companies over helping meet the needs of individual Canadians across the country. That is an inforgivable priority for any government facing economic circumstances such as those we have in Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: This, sir, is a government whose priorities are absolutely wrong. It is following its own selfish course and is blind to the real needs of individual Canadians across the country. Nothing is more typical of that attitude than the desire of this government to have the House of Commons get up and go home while postal workers are on strike and
Canadians are denied the right of mail service. We want that resolved by negotiation, but if that fails, there is only one institution in the land that can restore mail service, and that is Parliament. The business of Parliament is to stay here and be ready to act rather than to run off. If this government cared about the people of Canada and cared about its responsibilities, it would demand that Parliament stay and be ready to do its duty. The government might walk away from its duty, but this party will not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We intend to keep this Parliament on the job until we can be assured that the postal workers will be back on the job.
Let me review some of the unhappy facts about the postal situation. They are unfortunately known to most people in the country. At midnight on June 30, some 23,000 postal clerks and mail handlers went on strike. The government knows that the people who suffer most are Canadians in need of postal service, people who need to receive their government cheques and small businesses which are paralysed and cannot keep functioning without that kind of service. The important thing in this situation is that the postal strike was absolutely unnecessary. It could have been avoided. It is a strike by choice, not the choice of the union, but a strike by choice of the Liberal government. This is why we have a postal strike in the country today. It could have been averted by the federal government.
The government refused to go back to the bargaining table for a difference of less than 2 per cent. The difference between what the government was offering and the cost of the conciliation board report was less than 2 per cent, yet the government maintained that the board's recommendation could not even form the basis of negotiation. The government was not interested in keeping the mail service going. The government was interested in forcing a strike by a union it knew to be unpopular. That is how we got into this situation, and that is clear to every Canadian who has followed the negotiations and who knows that what separated the parties was 2 per cent in terms of money and a determination on the part of the Government of Canada to force the postal workers out. We in this party are determined to have the postal workers back at work preferably by negotiation, but in any event back at work so that Canadians can count upon their mail being delivered.
Let me speak for a moment about the government's record in labour relations. For the government to force a strike by the postal workers should not be surprising to anyone who has known its record. One only has to look at what happened in the government's treatment of disputes in the past. One example is the Radio Canada strike which dragged on for eight months, interestingly for eight months during the discussion of the constitutional question in the House of Commons. Another example is the current CBC strike which is over 50 days old. Last fall some 48,000 clerks were out on strike. This means that in the last eight months alone nearly one quarter of the public servants under the direct authority of the President of
July 10, 1981

the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) have been out on strike. The government's record with respect to postal disputes since 1968 has included 12 strikes, virtually one strike for every year of office. This indicates a terrible record of labour relations by the government. In the meantime, while the government plays its political games with CUPW, those who suffer real and deep damage are Canadians awaiting government cheques, old age pensioners, widows, small businessmen, and others across the country.
It is estimated by the Canadian Organization of Small Business that there will be between 1,000 and 1,500 bankruptcies per week as a result of the postal strike. It is estimated also that 6,000 to 9,000 jobs will be lost each week and that direct mail business people will lose several million dollars every day the strike continues.

The postal strike creates unsolvable problems for most small and middle-sized businesses in Canada. I have received many phone calls at my office for the last 11 days in support of my representations to try and convince the government to take the necessary steps to settle the strike. Many small businesses in Canada will not be able to survive for long if this situation continues a few more days or a week. Let me give one precise example. I could give 1,000, 5,000 or 10,000 more but I want to stress the case of MSC Ltee of Sherbrooke, in Quebec, in the Eastern Townships. That company is a Quebec small business.
It buys, manufactures, imports and sells sewing and handicraft products to businesses in Quebec, the maritimes and Ontario. It generally has 40 full-time employees. Customers' orders are received and goods delivered by mail.
At a pinch, shipping could be done through Voyageur bus services but Voyageur is on strike. As a result, the company had to lay off thirty of its workers. Thirty out of a staff of forty have now lost their jobs because of government procrastination and unwillingness to settle the postal problem. The president of that small business, Jean-Guy Cyr, told us this morning that he was very concerned about the future of his business should the postal strike last another one or two weeks. He added he is not the only one in such a position; all his suppliers, customers and customers of his customers have to lay off or shut down. Mr. Speaker, this is a concrete and precise example. There are thousands more in all Canadian cities and towns.

I think it might be interesting for the House to have just a quick survey of some of the damage which is being done to individual Canadians by this postal strike, by this government forcing the union to go out and now indicating that it is prepared to wait a long time to have postal service restored.
In Victoria, British Columbia, over 250 people who are eligible for United States pensions or other benefits went yesterday to the office of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) to give him written authority to pick up their U.S.
Summer Recess
social security cheques from the U.S. consul in Vancouver. These cheques represent the main means of livelihood for these senior citizens. This is one group we know about. We do not know about other senior citizens who do not realize they can go to their member of Parliament or do not know what route to follow to ensure that they obtain the cheques they need to maintain their living.
Let me bring to the attention of the House of Commons the problem of a very small business in Dundas, Ontario, namely, McMaster Pottery. It is a small business with 21 employees. The company must close the plant for the rest of the summer and lay off the 21 employees because it cannot receive its incoming orders or accounts and it cannot do its billing.
The Edmonton Chamber of Commerce indicates that the effect of the mail strike on business, especially on small business, has been simply devastating. The feeling in the business community is such that a meeting of businessmen was called for noon today for the express purpose of discussing the particular problem. It is probable the meeting will recommend the boycott by the business community of all government accounts. In other words, there will be a stoppage of payment of anything owing to the government, be it payroll deductions or income tax. According to a spokesman of the chamber of commerce, in many cases $40,000 to $50,000 cash flow is tied up in the post office. He could not give specific details as to how many businesses are being affected or how many are near the brink of disaster, but he did say that the telephones have not stopped ringing in his office and that the feeling in the business community of that particular city is very grim.
I should like to refer to the case of Burlington, Ontario. A company called Brant Insulation laid off most of its employees because its cash flow has dried up. When the company tried to collect an account it was told, "It is in the mail". But when it is in the mail in Canada today, it means that it is nowhere. Minuteman Press in Burlington has released half its staff and the balance will go this weekend if no settlement is reached. Alpha Davis of Burlington indicates that mail accepted for delivery more than a week before the strike date is undelivered, which leads it to believe that this might have been some plan to plug the system before the strike deadline. Most independent insurance agents are hard hit because of delays in policy renewals. The money is not coming in, the policies are not going out. This means that many individual Canadians are exposed to risks with no insurance coverage because of the mail strike.
I should like to refer to the case of a very small business in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. It is a flower shop called Hearts and Flowers. It has five employees and is owner-operated. Usually it receives its payments on account in the amount of $2,000 to $3,000 each week. Now, because of the strike, the shop's cash flow is cut in half. On the island fewer people use credit cards than they do in many other parts of the country, thus, that particular blow is doubly damaging to that small business operation in the city of Charlottetown.

July 10, 1981
Summer Recess
1 would like to refer to a letter sent to my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). It is from L.U.L Publications and it reads as follows:
I have just finished laying off our entire staff of 17 people because of the postal strike.
Our customers are located in the three western provinces, and we rely on the postal service to deliver our products, and therefore on the postal service to receive payments from our customers.
The majority of these 17 people will be applying for unemployment insurance, which is an expense to the "Canadian Taxpayer".
Also the following companies are our suppliers, and we will not be placing orders with them. I know the volume we handle will not put them out of business, but they will have a decrease in orders:
Premier Matches Limited
Trendcraft
Hi-Signs
Edmonton Screen Craft Sheltered Workshop West Web Printers Allied Printers Barber Ellis A.G.T.
These are but a sampling drawn together at random this morning which shows the impact upon individual Canadians, companies, citizens, businesses, and people who want to keep jobs but cannot when the postal service does not work. The government can sit back and say, "We will be tough. We will force these guys out and we will not be forced to act quickly to bring them back." The government has the luxury of being tough. The people, whose cases I have just cited, do not have that luxury of being tough; they cannot hang tough. They will go under. The government has the responsibility to stop Canadians from going under, not to force them to go under.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We never know the full impact of something like this strike until after it is over. The one thing that is clear is that it will cost the Canadian public many times more than what a settlement with CUPW would have cost them.
One way of judging the cost to the Canadian economy is to look at what happened in 1975 when there was an interruption of postal services. According to a survey undertaken by the St. Catharines Chamber of Commerce in 1975, the average daily loss to local businesses in St. Catharines during that 42-day postal strike was $38 per day. It was further deduced by the Chamber of Commerce that, city-wide, this represented a daily loss of some $200,000. At today's rate, with our dollar's purchasing power eroding, that $200,000 is clearly understating the case. In fact, the Chamber has learned recently that some of the 1975 totals have already been reached in St. Catharines. Therefore, even if we do nothing to transpose 1975 figures into 1981 dollars, we can assume that St. Catharines, Ontario has already suffered a business loss of at least $1,600,000.
Some industries, industries spread across the country, are more particularly hurt than others. The big industries can handle it. The big guys like big governments can usually look
after themselves. It is the smaller industries and the smaller individuals who cannot.
For example, the direct mailing advertising industry in 1975, according to its report, lost an estimated $37 million on revenues of $250 million. A 42-day strike in 1981, if it goes on as long now as it did then, will cost this sector 15 per cent of its yearly revenues, or $61.5 million. We are asking these industries and these individuals to bear that kind of burden because the Government of Canada would not sit down and negotiate a 2 per cent difference between themselves and the postal workers. That is the context in which we must see this issue. The government might say that it is saving people money. For whom is it saving money? Is it saving money for the florist in Charlottetown who is being forced out of business? Is it saving money for the businesses in St. Catharines who are losing sales? Is it saving money for the business in Sherbrooke which is forced to lay people off and cut sales? It is costing these Canadians money and opportunity. It is doing exactly the opposite of what a government should be doing in this kind of circumstance.
The tragic fact is that the longer the strike goes on the higher the cost will be to Canadians. We on this side of the House do not intend to go home until there is some reasonable assurance that mail service will be restored in the country. The government provoked the strike; it is for the government to show its good faith and bring the union back to the negotiating table for final resolution of the issues which are in dispute. In the last analysis, back to work legislation has to be considered if no other solution is found because Canadians cannot be left in the grips of a postal strike during the summer.
As I said before, the government might think that it has the luxury of waiting. Again today the President of the Privy Council said, with all the security he has as a well paid minister of the Crown, that they will not settle or legislate a settlement. He has said, "Let them suffer."


Mr. Cousineau:: That is not what he said.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the clear implication of his statement when he indicated that the Government of Canada would not consider using the legislative instruments open to it. The clear implication of that is that the Canadians who are losing their jobs and their incomes can go right on losing them because the Liberal government does not care about the ordinary people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The fundamental point here is that a minister of the Crown might have the luxury of saying that he can tough it out. He can wait; most Canadians do not have that luxury. For some Canadians, some of the people we are here to represent, whose interests we are here to protect, it is merely an acute inconvenience. For the elderly, people cut off from their families and friends, it is merely an acute inconvenience. But if you know older Canadians and the degree to which they count on the mails, you will know that it is an inconvenience that cuts deeply into their lives. It cuts deeply, even though it
July 10, 1981

is an inconvenience, into the lives of young people who might be waiting for word on jobs, or for people who might be awaiting documents or payments in the mail.
But for others it is much more than an inconvenience, it is a literal tragedy to be without their mail in this country. It can be the breaking of their lives. People who have laboured long to put together small enterprises, people who have worked hard to keep and to earn jobs are now being forced, because the government will not negotiate a settlement, to see their businesses put at risk, to see their jobs put in jeopardy. These individual Canadians cannot afford to have their government play games with their future.
The Government of Canada has two alternatives. One is to negotiate a settlement. The other is back to work legislation. The one thing which is not acceptable is to do nothing. The government created this burden for Canadians and it must resolve that burden. A Parliament which rises now is one which turns its back on its responsibility to be here immediately in case there is a need for Parliament to act. We have here a House of Commons which is not working to solve the problems of our country. That is not the fault of the institution of Parliament; it is the fault of the direction of the policies brought before the Parliament by the government. We have a Parliament and a government whose initiatives and policies are having the effect of dividing the country more dangerously than it has been divided at any time in our past.
We have a government which ignores the real problems of real people. An opposition in the Parliament of Canada has only very limited weapons. I talked about those when I began my remarks. On some occasions we can be ingenious in the use of our weapons to ensure that the public interest is protected. But there are very serious restrictions on what we can do as an opposition. We cannot hold Liberal members of Parliament here forever. We cannot force the government to be here forever. We cannot even force it to do its duty and negotiate a settlement or bring in back to work legislation. But we do have a duty to Parliament to try to force this government to accept its responsibility to the people of Canada. We have a duty to try to force the government to restore the mail service in this country, to recognize that it is not here for its own pleasure but is here to serve the interests of individual Canadians, to solve the problems of individual Canadians. There is no indication at all on the part of this government that it intends to do anything to restore mail service in this country. Until we get an indication of a serious determination to restore the mail service in this country, we in the Progressive Conservative Party intend to prolong this adjournment debate as long as we can.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) on a point of order.
Summer Recess


Mr. Deniger:: Would the Leader of the Opposition allow me one or two questions so that I may properly understand his rationale and the conclusions he suggests to the House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the consent of the Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I think he eloquently made a very strong case about the specific impact of a postal strike on the Canadian people. He mentioned some particular cases and rightly so, and many more could be added. However, does the Leader of the Opposition think that the right to strike should be taken away from postal workers? If not, does the Leader of the Opposition think that we should immediately legislate them back to work?


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to answer very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be a mistake to take away the right to strike from postal workers. The hon. member will remember that we have suggested another way of settling disputes in the public sector. I hope this government will be prepared to implement such a solution. But, at least until we have a more efficient mechanism, we must respect the right of the workers to strike, and we must also recognize the right of Parliament to act in case of emergency to provide services. Back to work legislation immediately? Of course not. If, as I often said, we can reach a negotiated settlement, that would be a lot better. But the government must show evidence that it is really determined to reach such a settlement by negotiation.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Leader of the Opposition allow a supplementary question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I share many of the feelings which were expressed by the Leader of the Opposition, but I would like to get things clear. The motion put forward by our House leader does provide that at any time prior to that date if the government becomes convinced that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied and thereupon the House shall meet in due time. Therefore, does the Leader of the Opposition not agree that the guarantee which he is seeking can be found in the notice of motion introduced by the Government House leader?


Charles Joseph Clark: With this motion, the government alone is deciding what the public interest requires. We have no confidence in the government to make such a decision. It is for Parliament to make that judgment. We are here and we intend to stay here to allow Parliament, not just the government, to decide what the public interest, the Canadian interest requires. We consider bankruptcies, problems affecting individuals,
11438

July 10, 1981
Summer Recess
people losing their jobs, as a serious situation and a threat to public interest. We do not want to leave Ottawa and let the government decide on a matter of public interest, when we feel that Parliament is a much better judge of the matter than the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to speak in this debate, but on a point of order. There are certain discussions taking place this afternoon in which my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa is involved which, we dare to hope, might be fruitful. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has been informed of these discussions. Because they are taking place, we feel it would be better not to speak at this time. I should like to reserve my right to speak later in the debate, if it goes on.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak as one individual member of Parliament this afternoon and say that I am appalled at the government's attitude that this Parliament should rise for a three-month holiday, that this Parliament should walk away while the country remains in the grip of a strike which is so badly hurting the Canadian people. I find it unconscionable that the Liberal government should propose that we leave countless thousands of Canadians in a situation where they are deprived of a service that so many people depend upon for their livelihood, their jobs, their pay cheques and the welfare of their families.
How could a Government of Canada possibly be so insensitive to the welfare of so many Canadians? How could the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make such an unbelievable statement as he did on Monday of this week when he said that he did not want his government to legislate the postal workers back to their jobs because he did not think the postal workers would obey that order?
I want to read into the record a commentary from a former colleague of mine in the parliamentary press gallery who is now a reporter on CFRA, Mr. Hal Anthony. On July 7 he said:
Canadians reached a plateau of sorts yesterday. They were told by their Prime Minister that the government will not introduce a certain piece of legislation because it wouldn't be obeyed.
The elected representatives of the people are running scared, afraid of a powerful and determined union.
The possibility of levying heavy fines seems to have escaped the government. The thought of sending postal union leaders to jail is enough to paralyse the Canadian government. If the government were to stand on a principle and say, "Having given the posties the right to strike we cannot now forbid a strike," one could understand that. But no, the Canadian government quite clearly is caving in to blackmail. The private and public sectors are already shuddering about their own union contracts should the posties win the day. They cannot be allowed to win all they are asking for... that's clear to just about everybody except organized labour. But the government is ducking the issue and uncounted thousands of Canadians will pay the price. The anguish and economic hardship is being felt across the land, but the government backs away, fearful of enacting a law it doesn't want to enforce. It's a sorry day for Canada, and for all of us.
We could not agree more with our leader that we as parliamentarians simply cannot walk away from an issue that this government may want to run away from but that the people want brought to a dead halt.
I do not like to face the prospect of going back to my constituents and telling them that I as a member on this side of the House or, indeed, a member of Parliament on any side of the House, did not do the best we could; that we in the official opposition did not do the best we could to convince the government to be sensible for once, to public opinion and to listen to this very real expression of public concern. It is a widespread expression of concern.
I want to say right now that I resent an aside made earlier today by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa. He said that we on this side preach the right to strike and then want to shut one down the moment a strike gets going. As the Leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out, it will be two weeks on Monday since this strike has been crippling the nation.
The principle of the right to strike in the public service is one thing. It is an arguable principle for some of us on this side, but it is now an accepted fact of life. A prolonged strike in such an essential public service as the Post Office is quite something else again. And we, as elected representatives, feel we should do whatever we can on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians affected by this strike. They may not care about the niceties and technicalities or the crucial aspects of whether one more body is added to the negotiating table. We think it is up to this House of Commons to get that strike stopped in the absence of successful negotiations at the table. I share the hope of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that maybe there will be some hope of getting the parties back to the negotiating table and getting a negotiated settlement. I repeat, if we do not have that negotiated settlement, it is up to this House of Commons to get this strike stopped, get the mails flowing again and to get into place some mechanism, some way of reconciling the right to strike with the chaos that results when the whole country is held up for ransom by the disruption of an essential public service.
I believe we have to think through very carefully about what services are essential in this society. But even our friends to the left cannot deny that the Post Office and the movement of mail is indeed a vitally essential public service and worthy of the concern of this Parliament before we take a three-month holiday. My opinion is shared by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. All members of Parliament receive copies of Mandate. We all take this group of businessmen seriously. The federation plea is "end the chaos". In one of its publications we read:
We're mad. In fact federal members are seething over the public sector strikes that so badly affect the health and survival of the country's small and mediumsized enterprises.
Strike after public service strike has created chaos.
Post office unions are among the worst offenders, but the strike, go-slow, work-to-rule mentality has, over time, tied up everything from airlines to police protection services.
In my view, the Mandate article has real credibility. The federation makes a very strong case about what happens to
July 10, 1981

strikes in any part of the public service, but especially in the Post Office. As I said, 1 think it would be unconscionable for this Parliament to adjourn for the summer without coming up with some form of legislation recommending some solution to end this strike in the absence of negotiation.
People keep talking about bad faith being shown on both sides of the postal dispute. But the ultimate act of bad faith would be shown by the Parliament of Canada to the people of this country if we were to take our three-month holiday and leave this nation in the grip of a postal union whose actions are crippling the country and causing all sorts of economic hardships to the people of Canada.
My leader touched on the costs of the 1975 mail strike and what that could mean in 1981 dollar terms. The 1975 strike lasted 42 days. According to the Canadian Direct Mail Marketing Association, the expected loss to the Canadian economy for a 1981 postal strike of the same timing and duration as the 1975 strike is $407.6 million, which amounts to $9.7 million per day.
Reference was made earlier to Mary McMaster's pottery operation in my home town of Dundas, Ontario. That pottery business is a small business with 21 employees. Mrs. McMas-ter has closed down her plant for the rest of the summer, laying off 21 people because she cannot receive incoming orders or accounts and she cannot do her billing. Understandably, Mrs. McMaster is fed up with the Post Office. She is fed up with the strikes and the salaries disputes. In fact, she is fed up with the whole civil service. Mrs. MacMaster feels, and she is just one of many hundreds of thousands of Canadians expressing this view, that it is totally irresponsible for this Parliament to recess during the postal strike, abandoning thousands of small business owners to deal with this colossal problem on their own. Having talked to Mary McMaster myself, I know what a problem this will be for her because having laid off these 21 employees, it will take her months to gear everything up again. There are many thousands of businesses which are like Mary McMaster's.
People on the government side who are trying to duck this issue and run away from it ask what positive proposal we have on this side. I would suggest that perhaps we return to the idea of a public interest disputes commission. This proposal was made by the former postmaster general, the hon. member for Vancouver South, when the Conservative government was in power. He said:
It is recognized that sometimes the private right to strike or lockout must give way to the larger public right to receive essential services, whether those services are provided in the public or the private sector.
In order to help prevent recourse to strikes affecting essential services, the Progressive Conservative Party advocates the establishment of a public interest disputes commission. This was first recommended in 1968 by Dean H. D. Woods and others who made up the federally appointed Task Force on Canadian Industrial Relations. The Task Force Report said:
"The public has an interest in being protected from the hardship caused by work stoppages which interrupt the supply of essential goods and services."
Summer Recess
However, while some services are easily defined in advance as "essential" a strike can have effects under some circumstances that are not easily anticipated.
Again, I come back to Mary McMaster and the 21 employees that she had to lay off about 48 hours ago.
The Woods report listed seven factors that should be considered in finding solutions to essential service disputes. Because labour relations are not nearly as simple as some believe, these factors need to be understood and are set out exactly as they appear in the report. I will not take the time to read that report into the record. It may be found elsewhere in Hansard. But a public interest disputes commission would be a new approach, a better management-labour climate in both the public and the private sectors. The report states that new approaches are working in other jurisdictions and, where compatible, experience gained in these other areas may well be incorporated along with the Woods report suggestions.
We on this side have said we will consult with labour and management and prepare legislation for introduction to Parliament once we become the Government of Canada again. This is an idea which we are dusting off, but it is an important one. Labour and management relations are essentially a matter of human relations. Just passing more laws is not the answer. We believe that the public interests disputes commission is a step toward establishing a more effective framework for the settlement of legitimate issues. It could serve to minimize work stoppages in essential services.
In closing these brief remarks, I would like to reiterate that this Parliament and we as elected representatives have a right and a duty to speak on behalf of the Canadian people. We want to ensure that we are representing their best interests. Their best interests right now are served by getting the mail going again. However the mail gets going, whether it is through a negotiated settlement or Parliament legislating the CUPW workers back to work, we will not know until after the weekend. However, in the final analysis, we the representatives in this institution are responsible to the Canadian people to keep one of the most essential and fundamental Canadian services going. That is Her Majesty's Royal Mail, Canada's post office. That is why we feel it would be dead wrong for this House to rise this afternoon leaving the country in the grips of this crippling and very unfortunate postal strike.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the matter of the adjournment of this House which has been brought forward by the President of the Privy Council. During his remarks, he explained in a glorious fashion how his government had 61 bills passed through this House.


An hon. Member:: Sixty-five.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Sixty-five, 103. I wish to state unequivocally that I could not agree with at least 66 per cent of those bills. They will destroy the economy of Canada and take away the rights of Canadian citizens. They are bills which will expropriate the property of Canadians. The government has not accomplished very much since the session began in April, 1980.

July 10, 1981
Summer Recess
The postal strike is very critical. It is hurting every person in this country. The large corporations need not worry, just the little guys who cannot collect the dollars. The banks will extend them money. With interest rates at 22 per cent, I can understand why a bank would be delighted to extend credit. We are not looking after the people of this country.
Concerns have been raised in this House about blood samples getting to hospitals. There are many examples of how this strike is destroying Canada just as much as the legislation that has been passed in this session. I support the Leader of the Opposition in his belief that we should stay here in order to give a message to the Canadian public that the government and the unions should get their act together and resolve this matter. I do not say we should necessarily give in to the union because this new round of wage increases will result in increased inflation. It is all we have seen in this House in this last session.
When they sit down at the table, the government blames the union and the union blames the government. Now they are all blaming Mike Warren who is being brought in as an extra. They cannot even do their own work without bringing in somebody who has not even started his job. He is to be chief executive officer of a corporation which has not yet been formed. If he can do it, that is great and I will give him credit. He may be successful. He has had a good deal of experience with a Conservative government in a part of this country. Perhaps a Conservative civil servant will be able to help out.
I would like to refer to some of the things the government has not accomplished and to which I take objection. This is the year of the handicapped. I attempted to move a motion under Standing Order 43 and raised a question in this House. I also wrote to the Minister of State for Finance asking for some relief for the handicapped people of this country who must use braces but are not in wheelchairs. I received the most ridiculous answer from the minister. Six weeks ago I wrote him a second letter, but I have not yet received an answer. This is why I complain that we should not be going home for a holiday until we accomplish what we have set out to do.
This is the year of the disabled. If the government were to protect one segment of our society, it could have been the handicapped. I came upon a situation where a gentleman suffered through 36 hours in the Toronto-Dominion Centre. They did not give a damn about him. That is exactly how this government feels about the citizens of this country who are affected by the mail not getting through. The only ones to gain will be the banks. The large oil companies will not suffer but the smaller ones will. They will not be able to get their working agreements with other companies through the mail.
Maybe it is time to look philosophically at the Post Office. Maybe the government's opinion is that if we leave them out long enough, the private sector may pick up. That is fine for those businesses and individuals who can afford it. However, we must address the situation of senior citizens who will not receive their cheques, as well as needy Canadians such as the handicapped who are not capable of going to government
offices to pick up cheques. We must look after the unemployed who are out of work as a result of the poor economic policies of this government. To say they can stay out for two years and the private sector will look after them will not work. It will destroy small business and many individuals.
This government boasts about its great legislation. I would like to refer to one of the great pieces of legislation of all time, the National Energy Program. It has brought this country to its knees. I hope Lalonde and Leitch are using the federal express to correspond with each other.
Recently I had an opportunity to visit western Canada where I met with small service operators. It is not only those in the west who are going into bankruptcy. This is hurting every segment of industry in Ontario. When you bring the industrial heartland to its knees, you create a chaos from which this country cannot recover. Much as I would like to be lying beside my swimming pool or playing tennis, I would be willing to stay here till hell freezes over, and perhaps this place is the closest we will come to that, or at least stay here until next winter in order to try to get something moving.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders preceding No. 1 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 2, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and who are not in or are prepared to withdraw from the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market and to everyone at age 65, to be increased to $400 per month, for this basic amount to be escalated each year by an amount that will enable pensioners not only to keep up with rising living costs but to share in rising standards, and also to provide for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
July 10, 1981
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting motion which was last debated on June 2, 1980. It is a rather lengthy motion which includes more than one idea. The motion would provide for the payment of pensions at the age of 60 to all persons who are not in the labour market or who are prepared to withdraw from it. It would also provide for an increase in the old age security payment, that is, the basic payment as opposed to the increases that the Liberal government has recently given in the supplement. While I am sure the concern on all parts of the House is equal for people who are finding it difficult to manage on a fixed income, the different philosophies of the different political parties would, of course, suggest different approaches. Retirement at age 60 is something which is also being proposed now, I understand, by the newly elected socialist government of France, partly as an answer to the question of youth unemployment. Its slogan, I believe, goes something like: "Less work so that everybody works".
The approach includes not only early retirement, but also a shortening of the work week. This, of course, is one approach to youth unemployment, but we will have to watch it with some interest to see if, in fact, it proves to be effective because the jobs which are vacated by 60-year old experienced workers are not necessarily the jobs which will be suitable for 20-year-old or 18-year-old persons who are unskilled and inexperienced.
The other aspect, of course, is the problem of income maintenance for older people. This is very real. We all know that the poorest people in Canada at the present time are older women who have not been in the labour force long enough to have acquired pension credits. Women generally have interrupted careers and work at the kinds of jobs which do not carry private pension plans. In any case, the private pension plans in Canada have generally not served their members well. But whether increasing the old age security for everyone and making it available after age 60 is going to answer this, or is the best way to answer it, I think is very much open to debate.
The hon. member's motion would also eliminate any means test. The Liberal party's position has been to try to assist first those who most need assistance. Therefore, we have opted to increase the old age supplement, that is, the part of income maintenance which is means tested. We have increased this, and we will try to manage further increases for those people who are clearly in need of assistance. We would give a much lower priority to increasing the old age security, that is, the basic part of the plan which is paid to everyone, whether they need it or not, and whether they are wealthy or poor.
The fact that we would put the first emphasis on increasing the supplement rather than on the basic part of the pension does not, of course, alter the fact that we know that pensions, generally, in Canada are greatly in need of improvement. The Committee which was so ably chaired by Senator Croll produced some very interesting figures, and also a number of
Old Age Security
different solutions which I think should be looked at with at least as much attention as the particular solution advanced by the hon. member in this motion. That particular report suggested widening the eligibility of people to pay into the Canada Pension Plan, increasing the contributions, with the aim of everyone receiving more substantial Canada Pension Plan at the end of a career.
In terms of the question of retirement at the age of 60, this again is perhaps a question where one would like to see considerably more flexibility. Again, the report of the committee which was chaired by Senator Croll does, in fact, suggest flexible retirement ages because clearly there are many people who wish to work long after the age of 60 and are very capable of doing so. Increasingly, people are not only living longer but are also remaining healthy and active longer. On the other hand, there are people, particularly people who have done hard manual work, who are tired and who might wish to retire at age 60 or even earlier.
In my own constituency, I find that many people are having great difficulty in working, even by their mid-fifties, people who have worked very hard at backbreaking work in construction who have perhaps had an accident or two. People who, although intelligent, have not had the opportunity to upgrade their qualifications can find themselves at a very distinct disadvantage in the labour force long before the age of sixty. Indeed, I would like to see, as a higher priority, some special plans for people in that age group, for the older construction worker who is tired but who, once his physical strength has gone, is finding it very difficult to acquire the skills which would let him move into another type of job.
There was another aspect of the hon. member's motion which also gives me pause. The suggestion in the hon. member's motion that old age security for everyone be increased at age 60 without a means test, would mean a substantial cost. If that cost appreciably improves the lot of Canadians, then of course I would not quarrel with it because there are certain costs which have to be met in terms of social justice and humanity. However, as I think of the number of working poor, the number of families where one parent or both work very hard because they have a large family, and as I think of the needs of poor children in our society, I wonder if the shift of revenues toward older people and away from young people is necessarily in the best interest of society. My own preference would be for something in the nature of a guaranteed annual income, something which assists people of every age, whether employed or not, to have a standard of living which meets what most of us would consider to be a decent standard and which allows them to raise their children and educate their children-if they still have children of that age-without undue stress on both parents. We are increasingly seeing families with parents who are thoughtful and caring and who have much to give to their children, but are obliged to work such long hours that they spend little time with them. Something in the nature of a guaranteed annual income-one can call it by what name one would choose-it seems to me would meet the needs of both older people who need income supple-

July 10, 1981
Old Age Security
ments and also the needs of some of these young parents who are struggling to give their children a healthy lifestyle and exhausting themselves in the process.
In closing, I would like to say that, while I appreciate and respect the concern about poverty among older people which is shown by the hon. member's motion, I would rather see an approach which would assist all poor people in Canada to use their own resources and to have the kind of equality of opportunity we would like everyone to have, whether young or old.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to speak in the debate on the motion put forward last June 2, 1980 by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). It is a great honour to speak to this motion presented by a person who has fought so hard for so many years for older people in Canada.
As the last speaker mentioned, the motion concerns amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan. Although we are pleased to have this matter brought forward today, it is interesting that for some rather mysterious reason it is brought forward after last evening when members of Parliament voted themselves a generous pay increase. I think many of us recall the speeches made and the pleas made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last night on behalf of senior citizens across our land. I hope this bodes well for pensioners today and that there will be unanimous agreement on this motion, although I cannot help but comment that we have fewer than one dozen members of Parliament sitting listening to the debate on this motion on a Friday afternoon.
The motion put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre over one year ago includes a number of points which I will quickly review. The motion concerns old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, as well as the Canada Pension Plan. In his motion the hon. member recommends that these plans should be available at age 60. It should not be for everyone but for those who are not in the labour market or those who choose-and they should have the right to choose- at age 60 to retire. They should have the assurance that they have adequate incomes on which to survive.
In his speech last year the hon. member pointed out that this also would make many more jobs available for young people in a rapidly tightening market situation. This, of course, is not the main reason for the proposal, and we hasten to point out that we would support the flexible retirement plans suggested by Senator Croll which would allow people to choose at age 60 either to work or to retire with adequate pensions as a right and not just as a token welfare gesture.
The motion also recommends increasing the old age pension to $400 for those aged 60 who are not working and for all people at age 65, the age upon which our universal old age pension is based.
The motion also recommends that the Canadian Pension Plan be reviewed and be changed so that it is available at age 60. This would make a consistent policy for all older people.
I think we should note also that the motion mentions several points which in effect are goals that we in the New Democratic Party would say are important goals for pensions and for older people. We should eliminate the means or income test so that pensions are a right and not offered as a matter of charity. We would see implicit in this that there must be tax reforms which would ensure that wealthy people receiving these pensions would be taxed back and that that money would go into the kitty in order to make this a universal and equitable plan.
I would like to make a personal reference. I have a neighbour next door whose name is Buster, a man in his eighties who never lets me forget the needs of senior citizens, just as my hon. colleague does not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good for Buster.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Because of him I could not vote on the bill last night, although I acknowledge that it is needed and certainly is just from the point of view of the work of members of Parliament. If Buster had been here yesterday, he would have been demonstrating outside, just as my colleague was demonstrating inside. He would have been fighting, not against pay for the very hard work members of Parliament do, but for a fair and adequate guaranteed income for the pioneers of our land.
Buster is typical of many west coast pioneers. He came from Ontario to the prairies when he was a young man. He worked on the prairies before the depression in days when things were very difficult. Then he moved to British Columbia. He worked in remote areas of the north. As a mechanic he repaired ships and often travelled up and down the British Columbia coast, stopping in at Indian villages and so forth. During the war he kept ships in repair. He worked hard to keep our navy in the state of repair which was needed. However, of all the experiences in his lifetime, this man will never forget the shame and indignity during the depression years. This pioneer was proud of his independence and worked hard all his life. He will never forget the indignity of having to ask for welfare to support his young family at a certain period during the depression. As we do, he believes that an old age pension and a guaranteed adequate income should be a right and that it should never, never be a charity for which people must beg or suffer indignity.
What is happening to our senior citizens today? In one's year time things are worse, not better. Granted, the Liberals fulfilled their one single token election promise and brought forward an extra $35 a month for senior citizens, but even with indexing this still leaves single senior citizens far below the poverty line, the poverty line for a single person being recognized as $5,500.
July 10, 1981

So even if we pass the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the combined old age pension and GIS will total only $4,800 per year, still below the poverty line. It is a year later and we should probably be going for more than a $400 increase. The cost of living for every senior citizen and every person aged 60 has gone up phenomenally in one year. Rents for the average older person in Vancouver are now far in excess of 60 per cent of their income. The cost of food is more than double. Fuel costs are up, and we have no cost of living supplement to help people in that regard. Taxes for those who own their own homes are up. Of course, we have extreme variations in the cost of living across Canada.
I put in a plea as well for increased pensions. We should also have shelter allowances, particularly to help older people faced with exorbitant costs of shelter, whether it be their own home or rental accommodation. We certainly must have pensions increased to at least $400 a month. If you think of your own parents or friends in the 60 year old age group, with the changing employment situation and the fact that as people get older they have to retrain or be forced out of the labour force, surely it is reasonable to give people a choice at that age of whether to continue in the work force or to retire with dignity.
I would like to speak for a moment to the pensions, which do not at all provide for the needs of women. My friend and colleague mentioned this in his speech last year, and many times since then. We know the system discriminates against women, particularly those in that very important class of workers, the homemakers and parents raising children. They are in effect raising the new generation. Many of our women now reaching 40, 50 and 60 years of age have worked very hard in raising their families. In the case of women on the farm, for example, they have carried on another full-time job as well. In recent years, of course, they have worked in industrial areas and in the community, as well as in the home.
Now, if we could just think a moment about the working conditions of the homemakers. Their job requires long hours, particularly when children are younger. They have no control over the working hours and they work seven days a week. They have no pensions, no benefits and no holidays because even on their holidays they usually go off with their families and do the same things they do at home, only under more difficult circumstances. In essence, they are workers in a most terrible and deplorable situation, yet they have no financial compensation. They have no cheque coming in that they can consider their own, that they can go and spend, probably on the family, but at least something they can decide to spend in their own right. They have no money to pay into the Canada Pension Plan, which brings us back to this motion. It is really very important that we begin to look at how this group of workers can have some form of income. We have some proposals on that which I will perhaps speak to another day, which will give them an allowance and give them the choice of working outside the home when children are younger, and thereby enable them to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan.
Old Age Security
In British Columbia over the past year the New Democratic Party sponsored a task force on older women. We travelled to many parts of British Columbia, remote areas in the interior as well as the larger metropolitan areas. We spoke to many women in their middle and older years and those who work with and are concerned about women in that age group. Without exception, every group presenting briefs, every man or woman who spoke on the situation, stressed that we in Canada have to change the pension system so that women who are likely to be unemployed in their 50s or 60s, if not earlier, have a decent guaranteed income. In addition, they should have decent pensions to protect them as they get older.
We are pleased, of course, that the bill concerning widows went through yesterday. That is one step, but it is not enough. We have to have adequate pensions for everyone, but particularly for women and particularly at age 60. The Liberal party-and I am sorry all the representatives of the Liberal party left the House during this discussion on pensions, which I hope is in the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not one Liberal is now in the House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Liberals have talked about pensions as being the responsibility of the private sector. We have had a number of conferences recently, such as the national pension conference which was limited to private sector input, and we have had Liberals, particularly the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) condemning the private sector for not taking action, seizing the moment to advocate expansion of private pension provisions. Yet these are the people who should be taking the responsibility, not for private pensions-sure, let us improve private pensions if we can, but they will never meet in a comprehensive way the needs of the people of Canada.
So we would like to see a much stronger emphasis by government on public pensions. I see no better motion or resolution than the one presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We support it wholeheartedly and ask the endorsement of other parties.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) would permit a brief question in relation to her remarks?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Vancouver East accept a question?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I listened with great interest to the hon. member's remarks, but I am a bit puzzled as to the position of the hon. member and her party. Having sat on the Constitution of Canada Committee, and in particular having dealt with clause 15, it seems to me there would be an anomaly in supporting the Constitution and this motion at the same time because the Constitution would, in effect, rule out the use of age as a criterion. In fact, we are dealing with a motion to extend pensions to people at 60 years of age, and I am

July 10, 1981
Old Age Security
wondering how we can support that and the Constitution at the same time, given that anomaly?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I did not sit on the Committee on the Constitution of Canada to the degree the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) did. However, we have already accepted the right of people at age 65 to a pension, and surely in any charter of rights we accept the point that there will be adequate living conditions for people, regardless of age. Surely the rights of the aged are implicit in our Constitution.
I do not know whether it would be appropriate for my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to speak to that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the rules, the hon. member has spoken in this debate. Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member to speak if he wishes to make an intervention at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the opportunity. I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is really drawing a long bow if he suggests that the provision against discrimination with respect to age means we have to pay family allowances regardless of age. Do we pay them to people as old as I am, or do we pay old age pensions to people as young as he is? Surely that is not the meaning of the provision in the Constitution that people shall not be discriminated against because of their age. The fact of the matter is that when people get older, if there is not security for them, they are being discriminated against because of their age. I think that would be a better way in which to interpret that provision.


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to hear some of the many different views held by various members of the House on the topic of retirement and benefits for the retired. I am especially glad to have the chance to make some comments on this very timely issue.
Hon. members have spent a fair bit of time discussing the many facets of retirement. In particular, they have discussed the present motion and its ancestors which entail making retirement benefits available at age 60 for those not in the labour market. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not advocating that all Canadians must or should cease paid employment immediately upon attaining 60 years of age. What I find particularly interesting is that we have two schools of thought on the issue of retirement age: one supporting a longer working career and the other a considerably shorter one. Could this be a reflection of an ambivalence toward working and retirement being felt by the Canadian population? I believe this must be so. It would be all too easy to dismiss this social phenomenon as an indication that people simply do not know what they want. On
the contrary, it seems to be a very real and important demonstration that the Canadian public is not just simply a faceless mass moving uniformly in one direction. Rather, in this age of awareness Canadians are coming to the natural realization that different people have different needs and expectations. For some, their lifetime fulfilment and objectives are met in their work world. They want, are capable of, and very much need this continued contact. For others, their lives are not motivated by a need to work in paid employment. They find the important qualities in their lives outside the labour market. Each approach to living is equally valid. Our vigil will be long-enduring if we intend to wait until the Canadian population reaches a consensus on such an individual and personalized matter as retirement and optimum retirement ages. A final distillation of views may never materialize.
How can we as legislators best respond to a situation where there is no clearcut right and wrong, where in fact what is right for one might be entirely wrong for another? The only reasonable course to follow is one which will provide the maximum amount of flexibility, one which allows Canadians to have as much access as possible to the greatest number of options.
It might be worthwhile at this point to examine the development of our present retirement system. Not so many years ago the Canadian public was coping with almost the entire responsibility for providing for its income needs after retirement from the work force. As recently as 1965, the income guaranteed to a retired Canadian by the Government of Canada was only $75 per month, payable at age 70 under the Old Age Security Act. Some were lucky and were able to participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan, but others were not so fortunate and had to provide from their own resources and savings. Some simply could never afford to retire and were obliged to continue working. Since then some dramatic improvements have been made in retirement benefits for the elderly.
In 1966, the retirement age for old age security began to be reduced a year at a time until it reached the present OAS retirement age of 65 in 1970. Also in 1966 the Canada Pension Plan came into effect. A compulsory, contributory pension plan, the CPP provides coverage to virtually every Canadian wage earner and has become increasingly important as a source of present and future retirement income.
Parliamentarians did not intend that these two programs would provide all the retirement income Canadians might wish to have. Rather, the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act were seen as providing the foundation of a layered retirement system. The first level, the flat rate old age security pension, provides a base upon which the second level, the earnings-related Canada and Quebec Pension Plan benefits, is built. Together with the guaranteed income supplement, these benefits ensure a minimum amount of income which adequately provides for the basic needs of retired Canadians. There is still ample room for Canadians to apply their initiative and supplement this minimum amount, because the third level of the system is the additional income available through private pension plans, registered retirement savings
July 10, 1981

plans, investments or other sources which can be seen as providing whatever supplementary margin of comfort the individual might require.
This retirement system gives Canadian workers a great deal of flexibility in determining when they will retire. First, there is no federal statute legally requiring the retirement of each and every Canadian at a specified age. Benefits are available at age 65 under both the OAS program and the CPP, but neither stipulates that in order to receive benefits the individual must be retired or removed from the active labour force.
A wide array of retirement options is available to Canadians. Almost two million Canadians have taken advantage of the tax savings and the wide range of choice allowed in setting up registered retirement savings plans. When the time comes to turn their savings into retirement income, taxpayers can either invest their RRSP proceeds in a life annuity with an insurance company prior to reaching 71 years of age, or withdraw the funds in a lump sum and pay income tax on this amount in the same year. Two additional alternatives increase flexibility while retaining the basic principle that RRSP funds are for retirement income. The first alternative allowed the purchase of a fixed term annuity to provide benefits to age 90. The second alternative allowed taxpayers to have RRSP savings placed in an investment vehicle known as a registered retirement income fund. The transfer of an RRSP into any of the retirement income options can occur at any time between age 60 and age 71. These alternatives provide a range of choice available to Canadians in planning for their retirement.
The motion before us today is not new to the House. This is not the first time the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has proposed this motion. If the hon. member's tenacity in the past is an example of what is to come, it will probably not be the last time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Arthur Allister MacBain: But I think there is a very real danger in over legislating. Governments have been accused of this tactic in the past. It is time we all recognized that it is nearly impossible to devise a plan with universal applicability which, at the same time, has the capability of adapting to individual needs. Perhaps it is better to have a straightforward basic plan which is fairly simple to administer and from which the individual, if he or she wants, can build to develop a personalized retirement package.
The issue of retirement age has been debated in this House on many occasions, as I have said, and that in itself is evidence of our concern and desire to explore the various approaches to retirement. As our elderly population continues to grow, the age of retirement becomes more and more relevant, both in economic and in social terms.
What have elderly Canadians a right to expect? Canadians have traditionally believed not only in the right to work but in the right to work for as long as they wished, or were able to. Hon. members will agree that as a fundamental right senior
Old Age Security
Canadians should have the right to make reasonable personal choices. It follows then that we must retain a retirement income system in this country which makes some provisions for individual options.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member permit a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Arthur Allister MacBain: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the hon. member believes that senior Canadians should have a number of options, does he not agree that one of those options should be to retire at 60 and have a reasonable measure of security?


Arthur Allister MacBain: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. The cost of retiring at age 60 may make it impossible for most senior Canadians to exercise that option. It may be holding out something which at this point in time we cannot offer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then, is the hon. member limiting the number of options which he holds out for senior Canadians?


Arthur Allister MacBain: I think to that extent, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the point raised by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). This is one of the points which concerned me, and probably others, with regard to the Constitution wherein it is said that there is no discrimination because of age. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre expressed the hope that there would be no discrimination because of age. The difficutly is that when this provision is written into the charter of rights, if the judges decide that is the case, then our hands are tied. This is one of the very dangerous points of that type of legislation if left to the judges to decide and not to the legislators of our country. If some decision needs to be made without it being tied into the charter, individuals could come to their members of Parliament and members of their legislatures and the matter could be brought before the government of the day which could see that justice was done. But if a decision is given by the Supreme Court of Canada, then our hands are tied until the Constitution is changed. I hope that is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court judges will throw it out.
The next point I would like to mention is that social legislation is important in any country. The party to which 1 belong is very conscious of the importance of social legislation. I think probably every party in Canada has its own social legislation program. I personally feel that social legislation should be written in such a way that our people generally come under that legislation. That is why I question the social legislation which is now included in the negotiation package of our postal service which is presently on strike. They are asking for a maternity package. If it is granted, then one particular group will have better maternity benefits than any other group in Canada, including those on unemployment insurance. Thus,

July 10, 1981
Old Age Security
differences begin to build up between women. Some receive a certain amount of money under one program and some another amount of money under a different program, and others still receive nothing because they come under no program. I feel that social legislation should be enacted by the governments of the day, nationally by the federal government and, to the extent they can, by provincial governments. This would allow all women to come within a similar category for similar benefits. This is my view. I object to including maternity benefits in a negotiation package for just one small group. I believe in maternity benefits. As a matter of fact, I was part of the legislation in Alberta which led the way with regard to maternity benefits several years ago. I believe that course was followed by other governments later. The fact that babies were to be born in hospitals and not in some other places saved the lives of hundreds of babies born during the depression years.
Something else which always appalls me about social legislation, and which causes me great difficulty when explaining it to the people who come to me, is where there are differences between two women on one street, for example. Both are widows; one is 62 years of age and the other is 64. Neither one's spouse came under the old age pension but the spouse of one had contributed to the Canada Pension Plan and the spouse of the other had not, for the simple reason that he was not working during the period of 1976, or because he was working in a field in which that pension was not deducted. Both these women came to see me at the same time. They told me they had come to me to see whether they could receive the Canada pension. I asked them if their husbands had contributed to the plan. As I said before, one husband had and the other had not. Neither of the two women had contributed since they were housewives. I was able to tell one of the ladies that she qualified for a certain amount of Canada pension and that I would be glad to fill in the application for her. I told the other lady that it was no use because she had never contributed. She said that she had no opportunity to contribute, nor had her husband. I recognize that, but they receive no Canada pension.
This type of social legislation where we make differences of flesh of one and fish of another does not lead to a good feeling among our people. In my view, our social legislation should be overhauled with a view to giving the benefits to all those who fall within that group.
I recall that when I was first campaigning for the House of Commons in 1979 I knocked at a door in a small town. When the lady came to the door, I introduced myself. She said that she wanted to talk to me, and also to every other candidate, but so far I was the only one who had knocked at her door. She said she wanted to contribute to the Canada pension and that she was a housewife. I do not believe she had a husband, I guess she was a single woman. I did not go into all the details of her life. She said that she was able to contribute and that she should have the right to contribute. I rather agree with that. The women who are spending their lives in the kitchen and who are raising children, who are doing one of the most important jobs in the nation, should have the right to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. If that legislation were so amended that would be fine.
There is still another group, however, those who will not be able to contribute. When people get to the age where they need help, are we going to treat them on the basis of whether they did or did not contribute to the plan? I think that is an important point. People of an advanced age who need help should get it, and that is where I differ somewhat, not too much, from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the matter of universality.
I know people who are aged 66, 70 or 75 today who are well off and are drawing the old age pension. They have plenty to get by on and do not need it but as there is universality, they are entitled to it under the law. Personally, I question that.
Universality sounds fine and at one time I advocated it but when we see what social legislation is costing the nation, and when we consider that many people get nothing, then I think we have to reassess the situation. We must ask if those who are well off and have made provision for their senior years and are not going to suffer in any way, should draw this allowance while other people in the age bracket who need it badly, get nothing.
I think of single women between the ages of 60 and 65. If a woman's husband was a pensioner and she was on spouse's allowance, she is fortunate, because the legislation that the Clark government introduced to continue that pension for the spouse filled one gap. A lot of women did not have a husband who was a pensioner and indeed, some did not have a husband at all. I know one woman who spent her life looking after a disabled sister. She has no way of getting help, except through welfare. An hon. member from British Columbia told us that some people who have been independent all their lives are reluctant to go to the welfare office. I think the welfare office has its place, Mr. Speaker, and I do not look down on anyone who has to go there. It is there to help people, but in spite of anything we say, many people feel that there is a disgrace in applying for welfare.
I think we made a mistake in our social legislation when we did away with the disability pension. There is a disability pension today if one has contributed to the Canada Pension Plan but a lot of people did not and are now dependent on welfare. They should be in a different category. At one time there were two disability pension plans, the federal and the provincial-at least the province of Alberta had a plan and I suppose other provinces did as well. At present the only disability pension is paid under the Canada Pension Plan. In many cases the only redress for the disabled is to seek help through welfare, and that is not satisfactory.
I think the government realizes that a lot of work has to be done on pensions. The Canada Pension Plan does not do the complete job and that is aggravated by the pension bill passed in this House last night for MPs and senators. They can now draw a full pension at age 35 if elected at age 20, based on the best six years of earning. That is pretty rich, when someone
July 10, 1981

can draw a pension for life at age 35, or 40 or 45, when they are still in good health.
1 think we have to inject some sense into this, Mr. Speaker. Surely pensions should be paid as the result of a number of years of service and contributions. Even if the pensioner has contributed part of it, someone else has paid the other part. I think this type of pension should be reassessed.
With regard to the Old Age Security payment at age 65, one of the things we can do is change the compulsory retirement age in many industries and services from 65 to at least 70. Even 70 may be questioned if a person is well and able. I know of people working on farms today almost as hard as they did 20 years ago and they are now aged 71 and 72.


René Cousineau: Some people of 70 still play a great game of hockey!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I don't know about that. These people are happy, Mr. Speaker. I know a chap who took early retirement-I have to talk fast, Mr. Speaker-from the Department of Highways. He was an excellent engineer but that was all he knew. When he retired, he sat in his back yard and dreamed about the bridges and roads he had built. He just lasted two years. He took retirement at age 61 but he had nothing to do then. He had worked hard all his life and suddenly he found there was nothing to live for. That is a real danger.
We all like social legislation, Mr. Speaker. Someone made the point that lowering the age to 60 for those who are not in the labour market or who are prepared to withdraw from it is a redeeming feature of the bill. I think all our social legislation needs to be reassessed so that we can help those who need help and that we do not provide pensions for those who do not need them.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order, because 1 do not want to deprive my colleague of his right to speak with regard to the business of the House. We still intend to proceed on Monday with Bill C-48 but we may instead decide to resume debate on the adjournment motion started today. Probably before the end of the question period on Monday we will be able to advise the opposition parties whether we will debate the report stage
Old Age Security
of Bill C-48 or whether we will resume debate on the adjournment motion. Should 1 know before the question period, I will advise my colleagues. For the time being we intend to proceed with Bill C-48, but I must inform the House that we may instead decide to continue debating the motion to adjourn. In any event, I shall advise opposition parties before the end of the question period on Monday.


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to provide for the pensions payable under these two acts to be available at age 60 to all persons who meet the other requirements of the said acts and who are not in or are prepared to withdraw from the labour market, and also to provide for the basic amount of the pension payable under the Old Age Security Act, at age 60 for those not in the labour market and to everyone at age 65, to be increased to $400 per month, for this basic amount to be escalated each year by an amount that will enable pensioners not only to keep up with rising living costs but to share in rising living standards, and also to provide for the elimination of any means or income test from the Old Age Security Act, so that the full pension thereunder will be recognized as the established right of all our people.
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I enter this debate with pleasure although there is not much time remaining to make a contribution. I should like to speak for more time, of course.
At the outset, I should like to say that I have the utmost respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has contributed greatly in his role as a parliamentarian for, I believe, 35 years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thus far.


John Leslie Evans: But for the unfortunate hiatus of four years he would be, by far, the dean of the House of Commons for longevity of continuous service. I still consider him to be the dean of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about agreeing to my motion, then?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with his motion. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance I have some problems with the motion. The main one is that I think that at this time the OAS represents an outlay in the range of $6 billion per year. If we were to accept the motion and make the OAS payable at age 60 and incorporate the GIS, that would mean an additional outlay of some $5 billion per year and would raise the total outlay for the program to $11 billion, or nearly doubling the cost for all time.

July 10, 1981


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what every Minister of Finance has said: we cannot afford it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members business has now expired.

It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, July 13, 1981