1982-07-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I am sick of a government that feeds inflation instead of "wrestling it to the ground", that increases its spending by 20 per cent but asks Canadians to cut their expectations to 6 per cent, that rewards the bureaucracy with 10 per cent to 12 per cent pay increases just before the budget, but that slaps our Armed Forces in the face with a $100 million reduction. I am sick of a government that has killed Canadians' initiative and their incentive to invest in Canada. I am sick of Liberal members who think it is clever, smart, and cute to change Dominion Day to Canada Day. My constituents tell me they are fed up and ask what we can do. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That (a), the disenchanted Liberal members cross the floor; or (b), the Prime Minister give the country some hope by immediately calling an election.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The National Council of Welfare, a federally appointed body, set up to advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare about the problems of poor people, has stated that the budget's "social policy aspects will adversely affect thousands of low-income Canadians." The Council estimates that among those who will be hard hurt by the budget proposals are 100,000 pensioners living at or just above the poverty line. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Crosbie):
That the House of Commons condemns the government and, in particular, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, for their callous disregard of the needs of 100,000 senior citizens at or just above the poverty line, whose real income, meagre though it is, will be reduced as a result of the June 28 budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA SUGGESTED CREDIT CARD APPELLATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, whereas the taxpayers of Canada have invested over $2 billion in Petro-Canada; whereas that was not enough and the government confiscated 25 per cent of other oil interests from other legitimate companies; whereas that was not enough and the government has now imposed a 4-cent per gallon tax on Canadians, which will total some $1.4 billion, to finance Petro-Canada; and whereas even with that the company is failing, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That Petro-Canada properly name its credit card "Pierre Elliott Trudeau Rips Off Canada."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the policy announced by the government in 1978 to increase the participation of Indian, non-status Indian, Metis and Inuit in the federal public service has produced some 500 jobs, compared to a target of 12,000 jobs; and in view of the fact that this dismal failure resulted from the government's lack of commitment to the joint council that was established to implement existing native employment programs

July 15, 1982
and is made up of native representatives and government officials, I move, seconded by the hon. member from Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House decries the government's shabby approach to its own stated policy and instructs the President of the Treasury Board to give assurances immediately to the members of the joint council that the necessary financial and human resources required to implement this policy will be provided forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA COSTS OF PRODUCING GASOLINE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the purpose in creating Petro-Canada was that this company would supply "a window on the oil industry" to Canada. But the window has become frosted as Petro-Canada refuses to supply Members of Parliament any detail of the costs of producing gasoline, both leaded and unleaded, or a justification for the difference in price of these products per litre. Since Petro-Canada is "ours", I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That Petro-Canada be directed by this House to supply to this House, and to the public generally, a complete breakdown as to its cost of producing gasoline, both leaded and unleaded, and a proper justification for the difference, sometimes as much as 5 cents a litre at the pump, in the price of these gasoline products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Unless an agreement is reached between the federal government and the Government of Quebec between now and September 1, Quebec may lose $108 million it would otherwise receive under the national program for occupational training. Since the program is aimed at improving access to the labour
market for thousands of unemployed Quebec workers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House ask the governments concerned to end their futile arguments and to establish this program, for which there is such a pressing need in Quebec, as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, the provisions of the present spouse's allowance which provides for assistance to spouses between the ages of 60 and 65 if they are married to old age security pensioners are extremely unfair to widowed Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65. There is a large number of widowed Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65 who cannot work and are not eligible for income assistance or paid medicare coverage. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this House directs the Minister of National Health and Welfare to amend those sections of the Old Age Security Act dealing with spouses' allowances to allow for special health coverage for widows of pensioners between the ages of 60 and 65 years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in a July 7 letter to the minister restated its urgent recommendation, made in its fifth report filed in this House on June 1, calling for an independent inquiry into certain aspects of the activities of the British Columbia regional office. Despite these repeated positions taken by a standing committee on this House, the minister yesterday announced a restricted internal review, which cannot begin to
July 15, 1982

address the issues raised. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House instructs the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to honour the considered recommendation of a House standing committee by immediately appointing qualified persons to undertake an independent inquiry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, the base metal mining industry in Canada faces a bleak winter. In particular, towns based on such mining activity may be decimated due to mass lay-offs because of temporary mine closures resulting from high inventory and low demand.
I believe the federal government should establish a selective strategic base metals stockpile equivalent to a three-month production supply from mines which are facing shutdown during the coming winter, and that such government-owned stockpile inventory be financed by federal government taxation revenues from either the approval of additional gas exports to the United States, from savings resulting from a cutback in oil imports, or borrowings against the base metals stockpiled inventory. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) and the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner):
That the government immediately undertake to study and implement a government-owned base metals stockpile to alleviate unemployment in the base metal mining industry this coming winter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada expect the Treasury Board and Parks Canada to live with the 6 per cent ceiling on land rentals under their control. A constituent of mine was informed by Parks Canada that a 50 per cent increase in the rent due from federal land is, to use the words of the Parks Canada, "in line with a Treasury Board directive". In addition, similar
Oral Questions
increases were projected by Parks Canada up until 1984, namely, 50 per cent per year for land rentals under the control of Parks Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House urge the government to set clear and unequivocal guidelines for all federal departments to follow the 6 per cent ceiling contained in the budget for prices of government delivered services. In this way the people of Canada may derive some of the benefits of wage and price guidelines and not simply shoulder all of the costs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, of the minister responsible for employment and of the Minister of Finance, may I put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. As he probably knows, Cambridge is a community of 75,000 people in the heartland of southwestern Ontario. Until this year it had virtually no real unemployment. This morning the mayor of Cambridge telephoned me and advised me that in the first six months of this year 3,629 residents of Cambridge have been placed on indefinite lay-off; in the last year 1,090 people have become unemployed as a result of plant closures, and there are 1,683 temporary lay-offs.
Will the Acting Prime Minister please advise me what to tell my constituents whose hopes and dreams have been dashed, and whose pride has been stifled as a result of unprecedented rates of unemployment in the heartland of industrial Ontario? What will they do?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member should tell his constituents that the policies of the government are to make sure that Canada will come back as a very competitive society, and that if we achieve the goals established in the budget by the Minister of Finance, and if we manage to bring down inflation, Canada will regain its competitive position in the world market and so the good workers of Cambridge will be able to produce goods that will find markets.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I am surprised by the lack of sensitivity in the answer given by the Acting Prime Minister.

July 15, 1982
Oral Questions


INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, this morning I was advised by Ingersoll-Rand that they are closing their plant in Cambridge, which means that 200 more people will lose their jobs. 1LAP applies to Kitchener but it does not apply to Cambridge, which is in the same regional municipality. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us why that program does not apply to Cambridge which has massive unemployment, but applies to Kitchener, which does not have such bad unemployment?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the designation of various areas in Canada is based on the levels of unemployment and the nature of industrial problems in those areas. Designations have been made from time to time, and if the hon. member wishes to make representations regarding the city of Cambridge, he can do his duty as a Member of Parliament and get in touch with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for International Trade. RCA Canada announced today that it would be closing indefinitely at the end of the year. That means that 1,200 people in my riding will lose their jobs at one plant alone. The company cites the loss of the European market and severe foreign price competition as the reasons. It is the last producer of colour picture tubes in Canada. What action is the government going to take to enforce the use of Canadian production in these products which come into our country, and in that way guarantee some jobs for Canadians?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, I have not been approached by RCA to my knowledge in the past two and a half years since I have been minister, with respect to their particular problem to which the hon. member refers. I will look into the situation and act accordingly.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF DOFASCO LAY-OFFS IN HAMILTON, ONT.
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of all the key economic cabinet ministers, and despite the favourable economic predictions of the Liberal government, I should like to bring to the attention of the House the announcement just made by Dofasco of Hamilton, one of our
blue chip industries and the second largest steel manufacturer in Canada, of its intention to lay off 2,100 employees indefinitely. This is the first major lay-off in the history of the company.
I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Acting Minister of Finance. When are they going to recognize that the government's interest rate policies and massive deficit have wrestled our economy to the ground, and what action do they intend to take to deal with the 2,100 newly unemployed in one community alone?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is very unfair because the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are meeting at this time with some labour leaders in this building in order to try to get the consensus we need to bring Canada back into a competitive position in world markets. They are working on the problem at this very moment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, if they succeed in getting a consensus that it is in the best interests of all workers in Canada to do what is needed to make sure we bring Canada's workers and products back to a competitive position, that will serve the purpose that the hon. member is seeking. It will make sure that a company which produces goods in his riding, or elsewhere, will be able to sell its goods abroad at a competitive price.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, that answer will not help the 2,100 newly unemployed. Nor will the last three federal budgets help those unemployed.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POLICY
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers in the economic field, on behalf of my constituents and the 1.3 million unemployed Canadians 1 ask the remaining cabinet ministers and the Liberal backbenchers when are they going to stand up on behalf of Canadians against the bankrupt economic policies of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and demand a change. Could the Acting Prime Minister stand up on behalf of Canadians and answer that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Minister of Finance produced a very good budget which is receiving-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -at this time more and more support in the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 15, 1982


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He has tried to tackle the problems at the most crucial point. That means that Canada, the greatest trader per capita in the world, has to maintain its competitive position. If we succeed in the national campaign, on which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are working at this moment with some union leaders, and if we can have the support of the opposition in that national drive, we will regain the position we want to have in world markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I am sure the workers at Dofasco do not think it was a very good budget.


HOUSING
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. In March of this year the then president of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Mr. Hession, said that rents in Ontario needed to increase significantly in order to stimulate new development. At the same time the minister was indicating he thought that rent controls were an impediment to the growth of the rental accommodation industry and the provision of rental accommodation.
Given that the Minister of Finance has said we need to bring inflation down to 6 per cent, and given that every single renter, regardless of where he turns, is being faced with increases well in excess of 6 per cent, will the minister do two things: one, will he instruct CMHC not to charge more than 6 per cent for all accommodation within their jurisdiction; two, will he meet with the various provincial ministers responsible for housing and require that they put in place rent control mechanisms to guarantee that rents will not rise above the 6 per cent level?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons why rents are so high and there is pressure for increases in the cost of rental accommodation, and one of the reasons for the lack of an adequate supply of rental accommodation in Canada from coast to coast, is just that: people are not building.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: In recognition of that fact, Madam Speaker, the government in its November budget introduced a $350 million program to support the early construction of 30,000 new units of rental accommodation to increase the supply, to take the pressure off price and, therefore off rents, to people looking for accommodation. More than that, one third of those units are designated to be on a rent geared to income basis. I sought the co-operation and the support of the hon. member
Oral Questions
who seems to be concerned about Canadians looking for that type of accommodation, worried about supply and affordability, but unfortunately, how can the member rise in his place, pretend to be concerned about those items, and at the same time turn down that program, vote against 60,000 jobs and
30,000	units?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the minister is long on rhetoric and short on facts. Surely he knows that new rental accommodation does not come under rent control programs, at least in the province of Ontario, and so his argument is absolute nonsense.


RENT INCREASE IN TORONTO PROJECT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the minister responsible for housing. Given that CMHC has complete jurisdiction over the premises at 1338 Queen Street East, Toronto; given the fact that the vast majority of people living in that building are either veterans or pensioners, and given that they are going to have a 25 per cent rental increase on September 1, will the minister move to protect those people from the gouging of CMHC, and will he move to protect them in a way that is consistent with the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that inflation should be at 6 per cent and that therefore rents should go no higher than 6 per cent in government-owned and operated buildings?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, with all respect, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. If indeed he is concerned about the welfare of people in those projects who cannot afford to pay increases in rent, he would have paid attention to the fact that CMHC has indicated that in those cases where people have to pay a proportion of their income that everyone agrees is beyond reason they are supported on a rent geared to income basis. Indeed, some of them would not have to pay even a 6 per cent increase, which the hon. member is wishing that we put on top of them. I wish he would get his facts straight.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I do not understand how the minister can stand in the House and say such things.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT EXERCISE RESTRAINT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the people at 1338 Queen Street East, Toronto, are affected by a 25 per cent increase, notice of which they have already received, to commence September 1. They are veterans and they are widows. Does the minister not feel any sense of responsibility to those people whose incomes will be restrained by the government program but whose costs will be left to skyrocket far beyond what they can afford? Surely to God it is not too much to ask that in those cases where incomes are being restrained by the government that costs should also be restrained by the government?

July 15, 1982
Oral Questions


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I think that my answer did not register with the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: It is for the very reasons the hon. member expresses that I would not wish to visit increases over and above those which people are being asked to pay for now, because he asked that we raise them 6 per cent. Some of them will not have to pay that 6 per cent. Notwithstanding the inability of the hon. member to grasp that, in conscience I would say that we would not accede to his request and raise those rents.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APPLICATION OF PROPOSED MORTGAGE REDUCTION SCHEME
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. The Minister of Finance said yesterday:
-the restraint program will apply to all agencies and all departments of the Government of Canada.
My question has to do with the mortgage reduction scheme about which there is some uncertainty. Assuming that the scheme is feasible and is recommended by the blue ribbon committee, and is put in place, it will only apply to those who buy new houses. Given the inequity in that situation, will the scheme be broadened to include all those who buy houses, including those who buy resale homes?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member will look at the announcement and the words of the Minister of Finance when he introduced that subject in the budget speech on budget night, he will see that the plan is designed to be available not only to purchasers of new housing, but is designed to be available to small-business men, fishermen and farmers. That is a wider area than the question indicated. The difficulty is that without having the terms of the plan fleshed out by this blue ribbon committee, it is not possible to include the whole universe. Otherwise, we would have a scheme which is the total answer. We know that will not work. We know that the preliminary study of that plan indicates that it is of a limited effect, and that is why the minister has limited it to those four categories for the purpose of studying its feasibility.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am glad that the minister is at least clear on that point. Now we know that this mortgage reduction program will not apply to resale homes.


POSITION OF HOME OWNERS RENEWING MORTGAGES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, what mortgage relief can we expect for the half million Canadians who are facing mortgage renewals between now and October, most of whom are facing mortgage rates of 20 per cent? It is not enough for the minister to say that the
$3,000 forgivable loan will apply here, because if we apply that $3,000 forgivable loan to reduce a conventional mortgage on an average-priced home, it will mean a reduction of one per cent. In other words, those people will get mortgages for 19 per cent, whereas those who are in the privileged category of buying new homes can expect a mortgage reduction of up to 6 per cent. What is fair or just about that?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I take it from the hon. member's question that his reference to $3,000 is the grant provision funded by $300 million in the announcement of the Minister of Finance on budget night. This goes to provide grants to purchasers of new homes or to first-time buyers of existing homes.
1 direct the hon. member's attention to a further provision in the budget, that is, the allocation of an additional $50 million designed to fund the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan, which is addressed specifically to the question raised by the hon. member. That plan provides that, in the face of the renewals which the hon. member has mentioned, those people who have to pay more than 30 per cent of their income toward renewal carrying charges will receive a grant of up to $3,000. There is no interest deferral; it is an outright grant which will be of considerable assistance to the Canadians about whom he has talked.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION POLICY ON RENT INCREASES
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for CMHC. It concerns rental rates on the 20,000-odd units which CMHC is renting out, many of which it acquired by reason of foreclosure. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain had to say and the reply, but I am afraid that the reply was somewhat unintelligible. That might have been because the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did not ask nicely, so I will ask my question nicely and courteously. Is it the policy to escalate rental rates rapidly to bring them into line with so-called market conditions to enhance saleability, or will the 6 per cent guideline apply? Which is it?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the thrust of the questions from the official opposition regarding the portfolio of CMHC under the mortgage insurance fund, for some reason has been the opposite tack to the questions raised today. Many questions by members of the opposition have been directed to me asking why, for example, CMHC is renting properties at what was referred to by hon. members opposite as lower than market rates. For example, they wanted to know why we were offering buydowns in order to dispose of these properties. Now I take it that the hon. gentlemen on the other side have come to the conclusion that in fact the rents are too high. I wish they would be consistent.
The difficulty is that under that fund, and under the National Housing Act, the corporation is required by law to return
July 15, 1982

those funds which were borrowed at the request of the former government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Funds were borrowed to take the corporation through a difficult time with increased foreclosures, and we have that obligation under law.


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether that answer was intelligible to you.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, it seems that the policy of the government with respect to wages and salaries is to freeze them by fiat at 6 per cent, whereas when it comes to rents for CMHC, the policy of government is to get them up as quickly as possible. Is that fair?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I take it that this question had something to do with the first question, so in light of that, and with that interpretation, I refer the hon. member to that section in the speech of the Minister of Finance on budget evening where he made reference to the 6 per cent rule and indicated that that would apply generally but that there were some exceptions which could be made. I have indicated that I will report to the Minister of Finance and to the House on the position of CMHC after we have had the opportunity to study that.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. 1 notified him that 1 would be asking this question. The minister is aware that for some time the maximum annual allowable income for veterans receiving the war veterans allowance has been fixed at S3,100 per year. Recently he admitted that this level was too low and promised that he would take steps to correct the problem. What will the new limit be, and when will the minister be presenting his proposal to Treasury Board for approval?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. We are currently studying the possibility of raising the casual earnings exemption for recipients of war veterans allowance, presently set at $3,100 for married couples and $2,100 for singles. In addition to that, we are also looking at the question of closing the gap on war veterans allowance benefits to those under 65 as compared with those over 65, as well as the question of raising the level of interest deductions allowable under the war veterans allowance. I can tell the hon. member that I raised these three items when I appeared before the standing committee and indicated that 1 was anxious to proceed with all three. I will certainly be pleased to indicate
Oral Questions
that to the hon. member and to all members of the House at a time when we are prepared to go ahead.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Could he tell the House whether the legislation will be introduced this fall, this calendar year, and whether it will apply to the 1982 calendar year, so that those veterans who have worked and earned up to $3,100 can continue to work with the assurance that they will be allowed to earn higher incomes, perhaps even up to $5,000, without affecting their allowances for 1982?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member the assurance that it will be proceeded with in the fall, but certainly I am hopeful that I will be in a position to see a number of these issues resolved during the fall session. I remind the hon. member that in the interim the war veterans allowance continues to be indexed on a quarterly basis and, to that extent, the impact of the cost of living on veterans will be diminished as a result of this particular provision.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MANITOBA MINISTER OF HOUSING
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the Honourable A1 Mackling, the minister responsible for housing, of the province of Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPORT OF NATIONAL GAS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a particularly serious question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When the minister was opposition critic for energy in 1979, he had this to say about a proposed Conservative export of 3.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the U.S. I quote from Hansard of December, 1979:
The worst thing that we could do is to export gas for a fast buck or in order to support a faltering dollar, because then it will mean that down the line we will have to supply our Canadian needs with more expensive and more polluting resources.
Now, under a Liberal government, the National Energy Board is considering an application to export almost ten times that much, and the minister has been south of the border recently flogging natural gas exports. Does the minister intend to assure the people of Canada that he has not changed his

July 15, 1982
Oral Questions
mind about the sellout of resources, and what does he intend to do to prevent that?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the statement that the hon. member read is a great statement. I am glad that he supports it. I support it also.


Mark Willson Rose: I am mystified, but I really should not be because what the Liberals say and what they do is often contradictory.


APPLICATION OF CONTROL GUIDELINES TO ENERGY PRICES
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, oil costs are about to jump 10 per cent on September 1 and natural gas is going up at the same time. The cost will jump another 10 per cent next spring thanks to a federal-provincial agreement. Last year the cost of home heating oil went up $400, and the cost of operating an automobile went from $730 to $945. What does the minister and the government intend to do to see that energy prices conform to the wonderful world of 6 per cent?


An hon. Member:: Nothing.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we have a commitment with three producing provinces. One of those agreements was signed with an NDP government in Saskatchewan which my hon. member will remember. We have a commitment, under those agreements, that the price of conventional oil discovered before 1981 in Canada would never go above 75 per cent of international prices, and under those agreements we have an arrangement whereby we are guaranteed that the price of oil in Canada will remain very substantially below international prices between now and 1986. 1 think we should be very proud of these achievements and the co-operation which we got from the producing provinces in this regard. We should be ready to live with and honour our commitments.


APPLICATION OF SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY TO TELEVISION BROADCASTING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Would the minister be in a position today to announce a policy which would replace the policies that have so far been followed in terms of the implementation of satellite technology for the delivery of television signals? As he knows, the Cancom Company have now scrambled their signals in large areas of rural Canada, particularly the area in northeastern British Columbia that I represent. That area does not have access to television at all. Has the minister arrived at a decision, has that decision been communicated to the CRTC, and what
answers does he have for this large segment of our society that does not have any access to television?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member realizes, I think that the Cancom experience has been a very successful one in allowing most of the outlying regions of the country to obtain decent television coverage from three or four television stations and a number of radio channels. The licensing process has been ongoing. I believe there are over 300 licensees at the moment. I think that the hon. member is concerned about the type of organization that can be licensed by the CRTC. I would undertake to communicate his concerns to the CRTC to determine whether it would indeed be possible to allow the municipalities to become licence holders. That is a matter which I would discuss with the CRTC at this time.


Frank Oberle: I appreciate the minister's answer. He understands the peculiar problems in my area which are similar to those in most rural areas in Canada.


LACK OF TELEVISION RECEPTION IN RURAL AREAS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the situation is that the CRTC has given licences to operators who are not concerned about coverage to the rural areas and that there will be a need to offer duplicate licences to other operators who are willing to broadcast a signal to outlying areas. This is crucially important for farm communities where people often do not have any access to television and, in terms of official public policy, are denied the benefits of our new technological breakthroughs.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raises a very real problem because there are indeed a number of areas in the country where simply cabling a village does not meet any of the requirements of people who live outside the boundaries of the population agglomeration.
I should point out, however, that there is a second problem involved in the rebroadcast type of equipment, in the sense that there is a limited amount of spectrum that is available, and you probably could not license a new operator to rebroadcast four or five channels. Once again, this is a matter that 1 am most sympathetic to, and one of which both my department and the CRTC are aware. I will pursue the matter with them.


PETRO-CANADA SELLING PRICE OF HEATING OIL
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I recently talked to a small fuel-oil supplier in my riding who lost a contract for supplying a local municipality with heating oil. Petro-Canada sold them oil at a cost below
July 15, 1982

that at which this supplier could buy it. I now understand that Petro-Canada is sending every household a brochure advertising cheap home fuel. Is it the intention of the minister to force all small fuel companies out of business by letting Petro-Canada sell heating oil at prices so low that they must be subsidized by their own tax dollars?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is no subsidization of Petro-Canada to provide cheap prices. As a matter of fact I receive complaints from some members every once in a while that Petro-Canada is charging more than others. Petro-Canada is in a very competitive business and if, in some cases, Petro-Canada ends up causing the consumers to pay less for their fuel than they would otherwise have to pay, I am afraid that I cannot complain about such a situation. The consumers of Canada will benefit from a very active competition in the oil and gas business. Petro-Canada should continue to do its job in that regard. Its instructions are to be an aggressive competitor in the industry and to make sure that the consumers of this country get the best possible deal.


William C. Scott: I would like to remind the minister that I recognize, every time I pull into a gas station, that I pay so much to subsidize his Petro-Canada.


EFFECT ON INDEPENDENT FUEL OIL COMPANIES
William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, has the minister considered designating funds to retrain the soon to be unemployed independent gasoline and fuel oil company employers forced out of business by the minister's aggressive marketing of Petro-Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am advised that a large number of distributors of Petro-Canada products are independent distributors who are operating franchises and who are just doing their business as normal, average Canadians earning their living.


HOUSING
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of housing. In spite of all of the language and verbiage that have been thrown around, I would like to ask the minister, for clarification, if he would encourage anyone who desires to purchase a new home to buy one now on the basis that there is some assistance forthcoming in the form of between 3 per cent and 6 per cent interest rate reductions and for those present home owners who are in a situation where their interest rates are such that by renewal they feel they may lose their homes, that they should undertake personal economic planning to hold on to their homes because aid is coming?
Oral Questions


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question 1 would encourage him and any Canadian with that kind of concern to look at the provisions in the budget dealing with housing.
For example, I tried to point out to an earlier questioner today the fact that the Canada mortgage renewal plan had been amended so as to provide security, in order that anybody paying over 30 per cent on renewal would be assisted by up to a S3,000 grant on that renewal. I encourage people to look at the provisions of the $3,000 grant for purchasers of new homes, first-time buyers of existing homes, in fact at all the provisions in the budget. I draw to the hon. member's attention, and every one considering a major purchase, that the purchase is their responsibility and they should have professional help. Also, they should look to Members of Parliament such as the hon. member to find out what provisions are available, not only from the federal government but from the various provinces through some of their plans.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, the reason I asked the question of the minister was because Canadians do not have copies of the budget and they would like to hear what he has to say in that regard.


USE OF DEMAND NOTE FINANCING IN PURCHASING HOUSES
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, might I ask about a very important dimension that has not yet been touched upon by the minister? Because of the unusually high interest rates throughout the past 15 months or so, many people who have been buying homes have been doing so under demand notes or other forms of financing in the hope that some day interest rates would come down and then they would lock into a mortgage. Will people in that situation be able to shift from a demand note to a mortgage when the minister's program goes into effect without any prejudice to them for so doing?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the government's allocation of some three quarters of a billion dollars in the last two budgets is designed to assist Canadians with short-term plans to have long-term security in the purchase of homes. The plan which the hon. member refers to, what is probably called the mortgage index plan, is being studied by a blue ribbon committee. I expect that the question which the hon. member asked me today is one among many which that committee will try to come to grips with before making its report to the Minister of Finance.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of

July 15, 1982
Oral Questions
Justice. Some Indians bands, in particular the Thunderchild Indian Band, have signed exploration agreements with oil companies for which they receive a signing bonus beyond the lease agreement money. Department officials have been asked to rule if this bonus money is capital or revenue, which affects how the band can have access to the money, something which is very important to them. What is the status of this ruling, and when can we expect an answer?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter and hope to have an answer next week.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I find that inexcusable. The minister had notice of the question. It is deplorable that when you give notice of a question to be asked in this House you cannot get an answer on the floor of the House.


ACCESS TO REVENUE
Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I was going to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I had also given him notice. However, he is not here today. Perhaps his staff was not aware of that. Does the Minister of Justice as a former minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development agree that this bonus money should be considered revenue to the Indian bands? What is the government going to do about it so that Indian bands can have easy access to money that they generate, so that they will not be forever dependent upon this government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is exaggerating a bit. He sent me a note about an hour before the House opened and now he wants to have a legal opinion. I said I would talk to my officials and give him an opinion next week. There are some things I cannot do. There is a law and we have to respect that law. The legal opinion will be given and the money will go into one of the two funds. It is their money. However, we have to apply the law as it is. I will give the hon. member an answer next week. He should be more than satisfied with that.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State who is responsible for fitness and amateur sport. Can the minister clarify a report in the news media with regard to an allegation by the hon. member for Skeena that some 50 government officials will be representing Canada in Australia during the upcoming Commonwealth games?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.


Mr. Clark:: You should.


Mr. Nielsen:: A complete surprise.


Gerald Augustine Regan: The position of the hon. member for Skeena was not exactly that which was represented. The member for Skeena said that the Commonwealth Games had been held last September and that 50 members of my department were there. They are going to be held this September. Last September there was a pre-Commonwealth Games tournament in Australia at which there were a number of Canadian athletes. Only two members of my department where there. While this fall there will be many Canadian athletes participating in the Commonwealth Games, the delegation or the authorities from my department will be very, very few in number.
This is an example of how misinformation can come forward. For example, for many days members on the other side have been talking about the Canadian government supposedly sending a gift that was made in the United States to the members of the Royal family. It was not the federal government at all, but rather the Government of Manitoba.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Mcknight (kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the minister responsible for Canada Post. I am sure the minister can answer this question rather quickly. He must be aware of how many provinces there are in Canada. Could he just answer how many provinces he and Canada Post believe there are in this country?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Kindersley-LIoydminster on a supplementary.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am absolutely amazed that the minister is not aware of how many provinces there are in Canada. I can tell the minister the reason for the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PROVISION OF ONE-DAY SERVICE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Canada Post just announced a new one-day service for all of Canada, their priority post. It has only been announced for Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, London, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver, nothing for Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or Saskatchewan. Will the minister explain why four out of ten provinces are exempted from priority post?
July 15, 1982



Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, if the hon. member really wanted to ask a serious question, he could have done so right away, instead of trying to express his views in an entirely devious manner. We are not depriving some provinces of postal services. This is a special service offered in a number of Canadian cities, and I feel it is absolutely outrageous that the hon. member should be playing up provincial considerations when this is a service provided to cities.


REQUEST THAT THREE BYELECTIONS BE HELD
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who will know that 210,000 Canadians in the province of Ontario are denied representation in this chamber because the Liberal government refuses to call three byelections. The citizens of the constituency of Timiskaming have been without a Member of Parliament for nearly six months. When will the government call those by elections? Why is it not calling them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the byelections will be called as soon as the Right Hon. Prime Minister decides to do so.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Solicitor General, who is largely responsible for the provisions of the emergency planning order. Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister what the limits were to the powers of the Crown prerogative in the emergency planning order. He replied he guessed it was the statute. The Solicitor General will know there is no statute to which the emergency planning orders are attached. Would he agree that, in the case of these orders, the powers of the Crown prerogative, and in this case of the Prime Minister, are unlimited?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, 1 believe that question should be directed to the President of the Privy Council.


POWERS OF PRIME MINISTER
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, since the Solicitor General is either too
Sports
scared or too incompetent to answer the question, 1 will direct it to the President of the Privy Council. And since he was occupied with something else, 1 will repeat the question. Some time ago I asked the Prime Minister what the limits were to the Crown prerogative in relation to emergency planning orders. He replied that he guessed it was in the statute. Since there is no statute to which the emergency planning orders are attached, would he not agree that the powers of the Prime Minister in this case are unlimited?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: No,
Madam Speaker.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Wednesday, July 14, 1982, and that he finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a point of order which could even be a question of privilege because it reflects upon this House of Commons. Last night the sloppy, amateur, dissipated Press Gallery slaughtered the Members of Parliament 21-3.


Some hon. Members:: It was 20-3.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was 20-3. I am wondering, Madam Speaker, if you could arrange through your office to require members of Parliament to start practising under the supervision of the hon. members for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) and Oxford (Mr. Halliday), so that we can make a better showing next year!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I think that is an awful shame and that the Members of Parliament should practise all summer!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: However, I think in good spirits we should congratulate the Press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 15, 1982
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief point of order. I had thought that perhaps the opposition House leader might have asked the government House leader about the business. I want to ask the government House leader whether he has given any thought to a request I made last week to have Bill C-96 called, either in whole or in part, in order to have passage at least of sections 11 and 71, in order that the credit unions will not be faced in the fall with the possibility of the same kinds of losses of revenue that they suffered last year with the introduction of the Canada Savings Bonds. 1 would like to ask the government House leader if he would be prepared, between now and whenever it is that we recess, to call Bill C-96. 1 can assure him that we in this party will be prepared to give swift passage to that piece of legislation.


Yvon Pinard: I will be happy, Madam Speaker, to discuss this matter with House leaders at the next meeting, whenever it suits my hon. colleague. I understand he does not want me to discuss that on the floor of the House; therefore, I will wait for that meeting. In the meantime 1 will speak to the minister responsible for the bill and hope that we will have some constructive discussions on this subject.
While I am on my feet. Madam Speaker, I just want to confirm that later on today the President of the Treasury Board will move the appropriate motion under Standing Order 75C, and that the debate will be held later today. Also, the day that we want to be allotted will be tomorrow for the purpose of concluding debate on second reading of Bill C-124.
On Monday next we will be dealing with the second reading stage, at the beginning of the week, of the borrowing authority bill. I understand that unless we make an agreement to change the order of business for next week, we will stay on that bill for the first two days of next week.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, unless the government House leader has forgotten, I did raise the matter of Bill C-96 at a House leader's meeting. The reason I raised it today on the floor of the House is that we have not had a meeting since then.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the reason I did not ask the usual Thursday question was because we knew full well what the business was for the remainder of this week and all of next week.
1 can say now that if the acting House leader for the New Democratic Party discloses again in public, as he just did, the discussions that were held in House leaders' meetings, the whole confidentiality of these meetings will break down. If it is done again, there will certainly be no confidence in his maintaining confidentiality and the place will become somewhat of a shambles.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: There are more than he who can play that game of grandstanding for political purposes and attempting to negotiate on the floor of the House of Commons what is properly discussed in the privacy and the confidentiality of House leaders' meetings.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the opposition House leader that I will do exactly what I did today any time I feel like it.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, may I ask about House business in my capacity as joint chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. It may be, Madam Speaker, that the President of the Privy Council may not be able to give the answer today, but perhaps I can bring it to his attention now.
Under the date May 26, I have a notice of motion down for concurrence in the twelfth report of the standing joint committee. That report requests that there be a minor change in the orders of reference of the committee as they relate to enabling us to scrutinize instruments and their relationship to the Canadian Charter of Rights as well as the Bill of Rights.
On July 7 the Senate concurred in that. We now have a situation where the terms of reference for the report of the Senate are somewhat different from the terms of reference for the report to the House of Commons. I wonder if it would be agreeable to the government House leader that speedy concurrence be given to the twelfth report, perhaps without debate.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will look seriously into this matter and report to my hon. colleague, or his House leader, in the very near future.


PRIVILEGE
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I want to speak to a question of privilege of which I gave notice. Members of the House will remember that three and a half months ago the House voted to table documents related to emergency planning orders. To this date-and I just checked with the Table officers half an hour ago-those papers have not been tabled. It is my contention, Madam Speaker, that my work as a Member of Parliament and my interest in this area is being frustrated because the government is not obeying its own vote. The government voted with us on this particular matter. All but five of the government members agreed that the government was accountable and had to table those papers.
I would like to support my question of privilege with three points. First of all, it seems to me that the government is holding the House in contempt when it refuses to obey its own
July 15, 1982

vote and does not produce these papers. Members will remember that the request was that the government table all documents, memos, telegrams and correspondence in relation to the emergency planning orders and the relationship and meetings they had had with the provincial governments. The government voted to supply those. The Parliament of Canada urged the government to supply those. For three and a half months the government has been sitting on that House order and has refused to obey its own order.
Madam Speaker, it seems to me that we have been very reasonable with the government. I have never called this to the attention of the House before. For three and a half months we have waited but the government has not obeyed its own order. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the government is holding the House in contempt by refusing to obey its own order.
Secondly, the government said at the time-and I understand through informal discussions in the meantime-that its reason for not obeying its own order is that it is translating those documents. Now, Madam Speaker, that brings two very important questions to mind. One is, what is the state of the art in the bilingual policy that this government is endorsing and wants all Canadians to respect? Indeed, Parliament endorses that. All Canada is supposed to respect the bilingual policy of the Government of Canada, of the Parliament of Canada, except this government.
I have sat in committee when a colleague of mine would present an amendment to a bill identical to a government amendment-already translated, with the exception of one word-and presented in only one of the official languages, and I have watched and listened to the hon. member for Madawas-ka-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) pout and rant because one word had not been translated. He has held up the work of a committee for 10 or 15 minutes because that one word had not been translated.


Mr. Corbin:: That is absolutely false.


Benno Friesen: However, he sits here in total silence while the government, for three and a half months, does not obey its own bilingual policy.


Eymard G. Corbin: That is false.


Benno Friesen: I call upon the government to obey its own policy. If it was taking its bilingual policy seriously, it would have been translating those documents as they were being produced and not waiting three, four or five months for them.
I have a third and final point to make. I have received some documentation which leads me to believe that the message the government has been presenting to some of its provincial counterparts is not necessarily in line with what ministers have been saying here in the House and in some publications. I therefore wonder if the government has not been misleading this House by telling us it has been notifying its provincial counterparts about these matters.
Point of Order-Mr. Corbin
I will refer to a letter I have received. I asked one of the provincial ministers about the nature of the discussions regarding the federal power to build and administer civilian internment camps. The provincial minister said to me in a letter:
For your added information, no discussions have taken place to date that have touched in any detail on the question of "extra legally" actions that might be taken by the Federal Government in an emergency and 1 would not care to speculate on what is intended by this expression.
That is a reference to the expression used by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). It is in print. It is in a quarterly published by the news. In print the minister tells us one thing, and yet his provincial counterparts tell me there has been no discussion regarding that dimension of power the government is ascribing to itself. This leads me to believe that the government does not want us to see those memoranda, transcripts of those telephone conversations and that correspondence because the government fears that when we see that evidence, it will not line up with what the government has been telling us all along.
I feel I have a valid question of privilege in relation to this matter, and if Your Honour so rules, I would be ready to move the requisite motion.


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, having listened to the remarks made by the hon. member, I think you might come to the conclusion that the government is making an effort to avoid producing these papers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simple fact of the matter is that this House order only became a House order because hon. members on this side of the House agreed to it. We do have an Official Languages Act in this country which requires that documents which are to be tabled must be tabled in both official languages. These documents are very voluminous. They are very lengthy. Translation has been going on ever since the House order was issued.


Mr. Lambert:: No.


David P. Smith: I am advised, because I have made inquiries into this matter, that in fact the translations have been completed in draft form and that these papers will be tabled, certainly before the House adjourns for the summer recess.

[ Translation]


POINT OF ORDER
Eymard G. Corbin: Madam
Speaker, on a point of order or a question of privilege, my name was used a few moments ago by the previous speaker who was describing events that occurred a few months ago. I cannot recall exactly the incident in question, but, Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to raise a question of privilege to check the accuracy of the facts as set forth in the House by the hon. member.


Madam Speaker:: If I may start with the remarks of the last speaker, there are often discussions in the House about the

July 15' 1982
Petitions
lack of concurrence in the facts, and some hon. members have one interpretation of the facts and others have another interpretation, but basically, this does not constitute a question of privilege. In any case, the hon. member has reserved the right to refer to this matter again; he has that right and I shall recognize him in due course.

The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) is right that an order of the House must be obeyed. Of course, he is absolutely right in this respect. However, in the case of orders to produce papers there is no time limit on the production of such papers. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), has just given what has to be considered an explanation for the delay in producing those papers and has given his assurance that they will be tabled very shortly. I assume that satisfies the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.
I must remind the hon. member that the Chair has no power to determine when documents should be tabled, even if there is an order of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of some 278 Canadians, most of whom reside in the Bow River riding of the province of Alberta. This petition requests that capital punishment be reinstated for deliberately planned murder which is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt. Our society is built on the principle of crime being punished. When the ultimate crime-namely murder-occurs, then the ultimate punishment-namely death-should be imposed. A person who deliberately plans and executes the murder of another human being has no right to live.
My petitioners pray that the government will reflect the thinking of the majority of the people of Canada and reinstate the death sentence for anyone confessing to, or found guilty of, deliberately taking the life of another human being.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition signed by members of the public and supported by the elected leaders of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. In their petition they ask that the fundamental right to bargain collectively for terms and conditions of employment be retained, that existing collective agreements be honoured and that Bill C-124 be withdrawn. This bill goes far beyond wage controls and
removes basic rights and freedoms from Canadians. The right to unionize and the right to bargain have been the object of continuing struggles by the labour movement in this country and throughout the world and must be preserved as basic rights for all Canadians.
This petition is very important, in light of the motion the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) will introduce in a few minutes, which restricts debate on this very important issue.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have followed the proceedings of the second reading stage of Bill C-124 attentively and with great interest. It would seem, on examining the record of these proceedings to date, that the major points hon. members wish to express with respect to this bill have been made. One only has to glance at Hansard to realize that repetition has become the order of the day. It is important that this bill be moved to the next stage, and since no agreement has been reached among representatives of the parties to facilitate that, this motion is necessary.
I might say that members have already made many interventions in the debate. Our friends in the New Democratic Party who have raised a number of objections to it, have been particularly active in intervening. I note, for example, that we have heard from the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), we have heard from the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), we have heard from the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), we have heard from the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), we have heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, but did you listen?


Donald James Johnston: We listened very carefully. I have heard from the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), I have heard from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), I have heard from the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), and I have heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). We have listened to the
July 15, 1982

hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), we have listened to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Eleap), and undoubtedly before the final vote is taken and the bill goes to committee we will hear from other members of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: To this point the New Democratic Party has put forward 11 speakers on this bill. I suggest that their views have been made known to the House in detail and I doubt if they have much left to add.
I would like to commend members on all sides of the House for their participation in these proceedings on second reading. I can assure members that the points raised have been and will be examined very carefully. I am sure the views expressed will be useful as we proceed through the committee stage of Bill C-124.
There is no need for me to recite the circumstances which led to the necessity for the measures contained in Bill C-124. Members on all sides of the House have recognized the serious economic circumstances of the day. As well, recognition has come from several quarters of the need for the government to provide leadership and an example for other sectors of the economy.
The need for the government to provide a clear, strong signal to serve as an example to other sectors of the economy was never more evident. Bill C-124 should be viewed in that light, not as an attack on the public service of Canada, as has been suggested by some hon. members. There is already mounting evidence that the measures contained in Bill C-124 will provide the kind of example to which other sectors of the economy will respond-will respond in a fashion tailored to their individual circumstances but nonetheless with the same objectives of reducing inflation and protecting our competitive trade position.
I would like to take this opportunity to address several particular points which have been raised during these proceedings. Many speakers have raised the question of the effect of Bill C-124 on the equal pay for work of equal value provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I remind members that in response to a specific question in that regard, I have indicated that it was not the intention that this bill would interfere with those provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I said at the time and I repeat, that to remove any uncertainty in that regard I would be prepared to introduce an appropriate amendment to the bill.
The suspension of collective bargaining rights and the right to strike has also been referred to on a number of occasions. We must keep in mind that this is a limited, short-term program designed to deal with a particular aspect of a difficult economic situation. Other countries, and I note particularly the United Kingdom and France, have taken what I would regard as even more stringent measures.
I would also note that the bill does not abrogate all employ-er/employee relationships. For example, in the federal public service it is my view that most of the consultation which takes
Time Allocation
place at the national joint council can continue during the term that this bill would have application. As I have said before in the House, it is my hope and the hope of the government that that will be the case. The measures contained in Bill C-124 are designed to ensure the continuance of existing bargaining structures and that at the end of the program the normal process of collective bargaining can and will be resumed.
Much has also been made in this House of the provision of the same percentage wage rate increase for all levels of the public service. Controls programs in the past have had the effect of severely disrupting existing, worthwhile management compensation practices. The program envisaged by Bill C-124 is designed not to do that.
It is also clear that the bill contains special provisions for executive levels of the federal public service. Members will recall that the tenth report of the advisory group on executive compensation in the public service recommended a wage rate increase for these levels of 9.5 per cent effective April 1, 1982. The provisions of Bill C-124 postpone the normal review date until July 1 and apply the 6 per cent increase as of that date. No other group is treated in this manner. It is also important to note that the compensation for executive levels of the federal public service trails that of their comparable counterparts in the private sector.
It has also been noted in this House that compensation for the lower levels of the public service tends to be more comparable with the private sector; thus the provision is in fact designed to be an equitable provision of wage restraint for a limited period of time. I emphasize "limited", Mr. Speaker.
In closing, I would again like to thank members of the House for their contribution to the proceedings thus far and I look forward to moving to the next stage, as I hope they do.
Bill C-124 is a necessary provision in these times, undertaken with great reluctance but nevertheless undertaken with the firm resolve that it provides the leadership and example needed to help set us on the road to lower inflation and protection of our competitive trade position.
I was interested in a Gallup poll released today which suggests that 80 per cent of Canadians would accept a 10 per cent pay cut in order to save their jobs; surely asking public servants to accept a 6 per cent pay raise to help save the country is not asking too much by comparison.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to rise to speak to this motion because of what the government is trying to do.


An hon. Member:: But you are going to vote for it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We are not going to vote for it. The government has again moved to take away the democratic rights of Members of Parliament to debate legislation by invoking closure. After months and months of delay and indecision while the Canadian economy went into a tailspin, the government brought in legislation to control public service wages and salaries.
19364

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation
How long has this legislation been before the House, Mr. Speaker? What opportunities have Members of Parliament had to sample public opinion in their ridings? How long have economists had to consider the long-term effects of this bill? What chance have union and labour leaders had to consider its ramifications? The government's intention is to trample on public opinion as expressed through Members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, we have had this bill for 11 days. The bill was introduced on June 30, but with typical Liberal government trickery it was not distributed until July 5. The Liberals want to shut off the public debate in that short time. It is indecent haste and it is an arrogant abuse of our rights as Members of Parliament. It is not fair to shove this bill through second reading without giving ample time for the public to consider its ramifications.
This government, Mr. Speaker, is cowering in fear of public opinion. After months of delay and indecision while it pushed through the Constitution and raped the energy industry, it now wants to speed up passage of this particular bill. We believe in the restraint which the bill incorporates. We support the concept of restraint on the salaries of Members of Parliament, but we stand for fairness and equity in discussion. The same government which rushes through this bill also rushed through the 11 per cent increase for political assistants to ministers.
Since the last budget was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) with the concept of wage restraints, we have pointed out the fallacy of the government's position. On the one hand it restrains; on the other hand it increases. Where are the controls on regulatory agencies? Bell Canada applies for a 25 per cent rate increase the day after the finance minister announces restraint. CMHC, a government-owned agency, could hardly wait to raise rents 20 per cent to 42 per cent. Statistics Canada reports to the public that regulated prices-telephones, heating fuel, gasoline, stamps- went up 18 per cent last year. Where is the legislation to control the prices this government has responsibility for? We have developed that theme in question period and pointed out time and time again that the Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, closure is not justified to shut off public debate. What would have happened if the debate on the November 12 budget had been shut off in 11 days? In that case, the Minister of Finance would not have had the opportunity to make 32 changes on eight different occasions. Where did the information for those changes come from? From the public, who understood the ramifications of the budget but did not understand it in 11 days.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) reminds us of the little Dutch boy trying to plug one of the holes in the dike. What about all the other places where this government is hemorrhaging? When is this government going to act as quickly in all those other areas?
Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, have a .right to discuss legislation with their constituents. My constituents in Simcoe North are entitled to that opportunity when they see me on the weekend in Orillia, Midland, Penetanguishene, or on
a concession road. The Liberals have muzzled discussion, they are afraid of debate and do not want public opinion to interfere with their divine right of arrogance.
I want to read to the House the remarks of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) on December 7, 1981 when he spoke on a previous closure motion of this government. That champion of free speech said, as reported on page 13776 of Hansard:
-I have never objected to having any bills, and especially Bill C-48, being given detailed and attentive consideration by the members of this House.
That was the reason given for supporting closure. Where is that champion of freedom of speech now? His parliamentary secretary, who is in the House now, said as reported at page 13778 of Hansard:
During that period, the draft legislation has been subjected to most careful and detailed scrutiny which has surpassed that given to most legislation before this House.
Having made that statement, will that member stand in his place and speak against this motion? I wonder if today he will have the courage of his convictions which he had on that day and speak against this motion. We heard the President of the Treasury Board in what we might call his "we have heard" speech in which he spent a lot of time detailing the members who have spoken. Well, anyone can read that in Hansard. But no matter which opposition party debated the issue, no matter what the point of view of my colleagues to my left is, they have a right to bring forward their constituents' views. This government wants them to take two days, Saturday and Sunday, and come back here and try to express those views, and then it is going to shut them off.
We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the bill affects public servants unevenly. We are concerned about infringement on the collective bargaining process. We want to speak our minds and the minds of our constituents on this bill. But the Liberal government wants to cut off public debate, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. We suggest that the House vote against this motion and that the debate be allowed to continue, so that every member of every party has the opportunity to put forward the viewpoint of his or her constituents.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us which we have the opportunity of discussing will not control one price, create one new job, and certainly will not hold back one further increase in interest rates by the Bank of Canada. At the same time this iniquitous legislation will control public servants' salaries and, by implication from the arguments made by the ministers, make scapegoats of all working men and women in Canada, whether or not they are in the public sector. This bill will effectively hold women, already in a disadvantageous position because they occupy the lowest paying jobs in the public sector, in this position of inequality. Finally, when it comes to certain fundamental rights associated with freedom in the workplace, this bill will deny that freedom. It will say to working men and women in the public sector: not only are we going to control your wages,
July 15, 1982

but we are going to stop you from negotiating clauses in contracts which affect the introduction of technological change. We are going to stop you from negotiating health and occupational safety conditions. We are going to stop you from negotiating reasonable or fair disciplinary procedures. In short, Mr. Speaker, there is a whole range of non-monetary matters which are going to be precluded by this bill, a whole range of rights which in a free society we associate in a basic way as the right of every worker.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, both in terms of what this bill does not do for the economy and what it does do to the fundamental rights of working people, the New Democratic Party-both on the issue of closure and on the substance of the bill itself-is in complete opposition to the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My colleagues in this debate have elaborated at great and convincing length on the weaknesses of this bill. Therefore, I want to ask the question: Why did the government bring it in? Why did it bring such legislation before the people of Canada at this time? Well, Mr. Speaker, when 1 spoke in the budget debate I believed the government was doing this simply because public servants are a useful scapegoat in that they are a tenable and safe target politically.
Today on the front page of the newspaper we learn that the Liberals had access to a comprehensive survey that showed that public servants-and 1 regret this-are not held in equal esteem to working men and women in the private sector. To me, a man or woman who works in a federal hospital contributes just as much to the wellbeing of Canada as a man or woman who works on an automotive line in Oshawa. All of us in this Parliament should stand up for all workers equally. That is basic.
The cynicism of this government is such that it was able to take a comprehensive survey that said two things, and then write the bill from it. It said more than two, but two are relevant to this bill. One is that public servants are a safe political target. The second one is that the people of Canada understandably want some leadership. They have been without it for so long that we can understand that. Therefore, the Liberal government moved, quite cynically and quite hypocritically, knowing that controlling public servants' wages would not affect inflation one iota-maybe a slight iota but not very much at all-but simply to save their political hides in the short run. I want members of the Liberal Party to know that it is too late to do that. Their hides are gone. They will be gone in the next election from being the Government of Canada.
If that explains the cynicism and motives of the Liberals, I want to turn now, because my thoughts are of cynicism, to the activity of the Conservative Party. If anything, the cynicism portrayed by the government on this issue has been exceeded by that of the official opposition. The official opposition has walked on both sides of the street in the debate on wage
Time Allocation
control legislation. The official opposition has done this right from day one. Just consider the record, Mr. Speaker.
On budget night, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said that he praised the controls, that that was the one good aspect of the budget. The next morning the finance critic, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), said they were unfair. The next step in the budget debate is that we find the Leader of the Opposition had once more said that the bill represented trickery on the part of the government and the government was to be condemned for that.
Some Conservative members raised questions. A few of them actually spoke in debate. The hon. members for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski), Joliette (Mr. La Salle), Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) and yes, the Leader of the Opposition himself, all said that there was no price control in this legislation and that inherently made it unfair. How could one support a bill which would be controlling workers' wages but did nothing about prices, said these members at that time.
Then the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) said, very correctly, logically, consistently and factually sound, that with this bill the government was throwing out the very principle of collective bargaining itself.
Then there is the master of two-sidedness, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who said, referring to controls, that they "break unfairly and they affect people unevenly".
The hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) was flat out in his opposition to any form of wage and price controls.
The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) said that the bill was unfair.
The hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) said that the government, according to him, was shifting the blame for its own failures on to the working people of Canada, specifically on to civil servants.
How can a party that has made all of these criticisms, each of which is correct, each of which has been made by my colleagues in this debate, support such a measure? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the only party that can make those criticisms and vote for a bill that is unfair, that does nothing about prices, that discriminates against public servants and denies collective bargaining, is the Conservative Party of Canada.


Mr. Blackburn:: That is Tory logic.


John Edward Broadbent: As my colleague says, it is Tory logic.
The cynicism has been compounded this afternoon by the first Tory speaker, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). He got to his feet and objected to closure. Isn't that sweet, Mr. Speaker? I think there has been a sweetheart deal between the Conservatives and the Liberals on this matter. The hon. member for Simcoe North got to his feet and said that we need more time to speak. That is another classical,

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation
hypocritical act. The Liberals are going to shut us up. But where have the Tories been for five days? In the past five days they have had the right to put up three times the number of speakers the New Democratic Party had. We had 12 members speak. The Progressive Conservative Party had only six. Where have they been? I will tell you where they have been, Mr. Speaker. They have been hiding. Out of one side of their mouths comes criticisms of the bill, trying to appeal to one part of the electorate, and out of the other side of their mouths comes support. 1 think the people of Canada before long will not only get on to the cynicism of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal government, but also the people will be on to the outright cynicism of the opposition as well.
There is a fundamental issue at stake here. It is the faulty analysis of the Canadian economy which has led to the Government of Canada taking away the basic right of collective bargaining from the working people in this country. In that context, I think it is relevant in principle that in Poland it was recognized, and is recognized today, that there is an intrinsic connection between the notion itself and the right of people in their places of work, where they spend most of their lives, to have something called collective bargaining. It led to the most significant workers' movement since World War II. This took place in Europe, in Poland, whose people were committed to the notion of freedom.
I want to say that the parties in this House, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, paid wonderful lip service- I think it is more than lip service-to the right of people to have trade unions and to act freely as members of trade unions in Europe, and that if they are to have any integrity, they have to apply the same principle and the same sense of justice here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That absence of justice and that absence of fairness permeates this legislation, and we in this party will have nothing to do with it. Of course, because we have used our right to speak out against this bill and want to continue to do so, we in the New Democratic Party will oppose the closure motion.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has offered a very manageable target to help all Canadians beat inflation.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Do we have to listen to this again?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Minister of Finance has said very clearly that 6 per cent should be a target for wages and prices, and that is a target well within everyone's grasp.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Tell us why you have to have closure, then.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The minister has made it very clear that he wants to build a world of 6 per cent which will create strength and genuine activity, that he wants to get rid of the world of 12
per cent that generates weakness, loss of jobs, loss of international trade and a continuing decline in our economy.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Why have closure, then?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We have set out a 6 per cent target in the budget because 6 per cent is a target that all of us can accomplish. It is most important we understand that simple idea. Six per cent is a world that we can all accomplish by working together. Six per cent is manageable, 6 per cent is strength and 6 per cent comes when Canadians co-operate together.
Today marks one of the key steps in the initial legislation to bring about a 6 per cent world. Today we are discussing a bill to restrain wage increases in the public service to a 6 per cent ceiling and then to a 5 per cent ceiling. We believe that that represents good leadership, good management and good savings for taxpayers.
First of all, it is good leadership because everyone in the public service is brought under this great umbrella; 500,000 of us are included in the 6 per cent-5 per cent world. It includes Members of Parliament, cabinet ministers, senators, senior executives, postal workers, people working for Air Canada and people working for every Crown corporation, every department and every branch of government. These 500,000 Canadians are included in this first effort toward a 6 per cent world. We have done that because these 500,000 people will provide leadership to the millions of other Canadians who daily make decisions which affect the economy. Through our action we are saying to people that we are prepared to limit our increases to an amount which will create health rather than weakness, a vital first step in the restoration of strength in our economy.
Second, the bill represents good management because $250 million will be saved this year alone and $550 million will be saved next year. Finally, it is a good use of these savings; it is a good reallocation of the $800 million which is being saved here. We are turning that back into our economy. We are turning it into jobs and into housing. We are turning it over to farmers and fishermen. We are turning it into grants for small businesses. We are asking people to create health by limiting their increases, and then we are using that money to generate health in vital sectors of our economy. This is the reason we introduced the bill. We want it for its leadership, for its good management, for the savings and stimulus it generates and, above all, as a symbol of co-operation and advancement in our economy.
Why are we worried about this? Why are we saying that 6 per cent is a manageable, desirable target? Why does the government constantly say that inflation must come down? We say it because inflation is the root disease in our economy. We do it because on the inside of our economy inflation is keeping our interest rates high, inflation is leading to greater unemployment and greater numbers of bankruptcies. Inflation has reached the point where it is creating weakness, and in turn
July 15, 1982

that weakness is creating further damage and further suffering. High interest rates are caused by inflation; high interest rates in turn create bankruptcies, and bankruptcies create unemployment. On the inside of our economy we must stop the disease which is weakening us before the weakness becomes permanent.
On the outside inflation is hurting us equally. On the outside inflation is pushing our prices too high. When the world economy recovers, we want to be there and to join in that recovery. We want the prices for the goods and the commodities we export to be competitive with those in other countries. For example, when the United States has a 6 per cent inflation rate, Canada cannot afford a 12 per cent one, or we will never again sell to the United States in the large quantities of the past.
The government has acted, and this bill is one of those actions. As I mentioned earlier, this bill is a threefold effort. It provides leadership, good management and vital stimulus. It underlines our main message that we must get inflation down and create a 6 per cent growth level. We cannot afford to do that by picking out single people or single groups in society and making them scapegoats. We have heard from our close friends in the New Democratic Party the vital message that we must be careful, that we cannot pick out single groups. They are right about that, but they are wrong to assume that the 6 per cent battle will stop with public servants. The 6 per cent battle must go all through the economy. It must include executives, private businessmen and wage earners in the private sector.
Many of these people are already making sacrifices. I know, because I own my own business and I know the types of problems which inflation and tough times are creating for my business, that businessmen today are making sacrifices. We are asking our associates in the private sector to join with us in making equal sacrifices. We are not seeking our scapegoats. If we all ask for inflation minus a little bit, then for a short time we may all have to sacrifice, but in the long run we will certainly all gain from a stronger economy and from a greater, more vigorous ability to export abroad.
Those are the points behind this legislation-the point that we are in this together, the point that we are prepared to make small sacrifices, and the point that a 6 per cent world is a much stronger, much healthier and much more vigorous place than a 12 per cent world of inflation and weakness. We are aiming for 6 per cent, and we are aiming for that strength.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have to speak again to a closure motion. I understand that the government introduced this motion because it felt the New Democratic Party was filibustering the debate and carrying it on for too long.
I do not think it would surprise any member of the House if I say that I am not very often in agreement with members of the NDP. Perhaps their diagnosis is all right, but their cure is worse than the disease. But I defend the right of the New Democratic Party, its leader, Dennis McDermott, and its deputy leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), to present their views. It is their democratic right to speak, just
Time Allocation
as that is the right of any member of the House. I may not agree with what they have to say, especially when it comes to the solutions which they offer the country.
Their idea of a solution is that if a patient has cancer, kill the patient rather than perform surgery. Nevertheless, I agree that they should be able to speak. I think it helps us all when they speak as much as they can, because every time they speak they help us. This is particularly the case when the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) speaks and The Vancouver Sun publishes his speeches. It ensures that the former hon. member for Kootenay West will return to the House. I encourage liberal and free debate in the House and giving members of the NDP a free rein to speak as long as they wish. Thus, I oppose the closure motion.
I say sincerely that the government wants closure because the legislation before us is very pockmarked. It has many flaws in it. There are many reasons people think it deserves real examination. There are unfair elements in it which ought to be exposed. I think the government is afraid that extensive debate will expose the weaknesses in the legislation. In fact, there is so much hypocrisy in the government's proposal to restrain wages that it does not want to have extensive debate on the matter.
This reminds me of the scenario four years ago when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) travelled to Europe and met with the Chancellor of West Germany. He returned with a marvellous restraint program at the beginning of August. He obtained free television time to announce a new program of restraint. We had finished one just two years previous to that. That was the time when just before the government announced the restraint program he carpeted the dining room upstairs and provided new silverware. In August, 1978 the Prime Minister announced another restraint program. Since then the debt of this country has been escalating.
The hypocrisy of this program is that while it may save the government approximately $200 million this year, as the parliamentary secretary just said, it will have absolutely no bearing on the spending program of the government. Restraint is being carried on the backs of the workers. As we heard in question period today and yesterday, the government is asking public servants to carry a 6 per cent load, but it can increase the prices of its services anywhere from 20 per cent to 50 per cent. It seems to me that if we are to look at all at the principle of fairness, the government ought to impose a 6 per cent increase on the prices that it charges the public if it is asking the public service to carry a 6 per cent load.
I find this worrisome. I am concerned about the fact that there is this sudden and almost cataclysmic turn of events in Canada. I, and I am sure all members, recall last year when the country was subjected to a six-week postal strike. I remember talking to my constituents who were small-business men and paying $3,000 a month to have their accounts receivable statements delivered. This was on the verge of putting some of those small businesses under. After six weeks the government

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation
settled for almost the same amount that was on the bargaining table when the strike began. The settlement was at a percentage far in excess of the 6 per cent level which we are looking at now. I am saying to the government that if they are such good managers, where were they a year ago when it was looking at percentage increases?
The government is also talking about productivity. A year ago, along with that postal price increase, it was negotiating for a 17-week period of maternity leave at which time there is no productivity on the job. Where was the government a year ago? Did it not have enough foresight to plan for the crunch that was coming a year later or to see that it would be in a deficit position? Instead of a $10.5 billion deficit, could it not see that we would have a $20.5 billion debt? A year ago the government settled far in excess of the 6 per cent limit which it is now imposing. Where are these great government planners, which they tend to think they are?
The parliamentary secretary said that the cost of government and the cost of production has escalated because of inflation and we therefore must bring inflation down. I do not argue with that. I now notice that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is deflecting that particular argument. I noted with particular interest yesterday that the Minister of Finance, when answering a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), said as reported at page 19315 of Hansard of July 14, 1982:
Has he stopped to ask himself what is the cause of high interest rates? ... My answer to that question is high prices. Until we get our rate of inflation down, do not ask for relief on the interest rate front.
Now we suddenly get this new economic theory which says that the cost of inflation comes from high prices. It is a truism of this government that it will blame everyone else but itself. Now it is blaming the merchandisers and the consumers. It is blaming the business community for the high prices and the high cost of living. Never mind that approximately $40 billion of government debts will come due next year. Never mind that in order to renew those debts the inflationary costs of the government will spiral.
Third, we have to examine this legislation because of the inherent unfairness within it in two areas. It is unfair in the first instance because it is based on a percentage increase. I remember when I was a member of the IWA working at Fraser Mills years ago. I wondered then about the legitimacy of asking for wage increases based on percentages. In those days I was working for 95 cents or $1 an hour. I was to receive a 5 per cent or 6 per cent increase while the foremen, on a percentage increase basis, were going to get considerably more. I admit that the foremen have a responsibility that deserves more pay, but if we consider the rollbacks under this legislation it will mean that the deputy ministers will have a substantial amount of money left over for their disposable incomes but those who are janitors in local government buildings will have precious little left over in their disposable income.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Vote against the bill then.


Benno Friesen: What is also eminently unfair in this legislation is that it does not provide for any discussion or negotiations of any union contract concerning matters of other than a fiscal nature. It seems to me that in order to preserve the right of collective bargaining, this bill should make negotiations of that type possible so as to ensure that the right to collective bargaining remains in every union agreement.
If the government wants to put a ceiling on wages, that is its business. However, in order to preserve fairness in the labour market and a favourable working climate where there is an atmosphere of conciliation and understanding, the government must make provision in this bill to allow for negotiation of nonfiscal matters such as health in the workplace, safety in the workplace and all those other areas which do not concern financial matters.
Another shortcoming of this bill is that it does not cover non-unionized workers. It is fine for the NDP to speak on behalf of the UAW and all those strong unions, but who will speak for the workers who are non-unionized? Who speaks on behalf of the weak? Six per cent of nothing is nothing.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Certainly not the Tories.


Benno Friesen: This bill will do nothing for the 1.3 million unemployed. Therefore, I oppose the government's move to impose closure on us. We need the freedom to speak even though we, within the confines of this chamber, may not always agree.
[ Translation]


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, since I think this debate has gone on long enough. I was pleased when the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) proposed a motion to limit the debate.
As hon. members are aware, we have been discussing this bill for four days, and the debate has given rise to all kinds of comments, especially by members of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Speaker, it is just unbelievable, all the contradictions, all the nonsense we have had to listen to here in this House. It goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that it is about time the House adjourned for the summer recess. My colleague from Kitchener (Mr. Lang) commented earlier that there was nothing worse for a person's health than listening to the members opposite. I must say I am so astonished at the kind of nonsense I hear at times that I have to pinch myself to make sure I am in the real world. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure I am in the real world because, outside Parliament, I was used to people who managed to earn a living without wasting other people's time. The comments we have had to listen to! These members are up in arms about high interest rates, they are up in arms about the excessively high cost of housing, food and clothing, and the high rate of inflation, and so forth, and on
July 15, 1982

the other hand, they are squarely opposed to the measure that will help bring down inflation.
As I implied at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I am shocked. I think it is outrageous the way these people are carrying on. They remind me of hunting dogs who start barking when they manage to corner a deer and start moving in for the kill.
In any event, one does not need a degree in economics to analyse the present situation. The problem facing us all in Canada right now is, of course, inflation. There are people who prefer to ignore this fact and let others worry about it, but inflation, Mr. Speaker, is something that makes us think about our own habits and those of all Canadians. We have had fat years, and we took advantage of them, and in doing so, we may have gone somewhat overboard. Not just the workers. Often people tend to blame labour and the unions, but it is not just the workers, everyone is involved, including employers, business people and industrialists who started living the good life and spending a bit more on luxuries. For instance, a travelling salesman instead of trying to bargain a little and get a room for $35 or $40-those prices still exist-will take the most expensive room, at $75 or $80. He spends the whole evening at the bar and all this goes on his company's expense account. The company makes everyone pay, including the consumer. That is life, but again, that is inflation. It is as simple as that.
Einstein said that great minds have always been violently opposed by mediocre intellects. So we might as well ignore people who are trying to intervene in this debate. Mr. Speaker, we, on the government side, wanted to take action in areas that are our concern. People are fond of saying that the Canadian government is always interfering in matters that are none of its business. For once it is our business, namely, the public service. This is no punitive measure, and we have nothing against these people. In fact, they are our allies, these are people we work with regularly, people we see every day, people who help us.
So, what is actually going on right now? I think we can agree that inflation exists, and when people complain that the cost of housing and food and other commodities is too high, this is often due to excessive wage demands on the part of various groups, demands made by business, and so forth, as I mentioned earlier. So if we agree that inflation exists and is going to be with us for some time, what do we do to fight inflation? There is a price, if we want to bring inflation down to more reasonable levels. Right now, who is paying the price for bringing inflation within more normal proportions? That price is being paid by the last workers to be hired on the assembly line, who are also the first to be fired and to join the ranks of the unemployed. These are the people who are paying that price today.
The members opposite who are criticizing belong to the unemployment party, because they are promoting this kind of unemployment. They do not want to give others a chance to make a life for themselves. So who is paying the price? First of
Time Allocation
all, the unemployed, who are being laid off because of the general economic slowdown. Businessmen and merchants, who any day may lose everything they own because of high interest rates, are also among those who are paying the price of bringing inflation down to normal levels. However, we also have a group of people whose jobs are safe, and we are telling them: Well, you have a safe job and on top of that, we are going to give you an extra bonus so that you can walk all over the people who are making sacrifices today, namely the unemployed and the businessman who is in danger of losing his business. That is what we are doing, and it does not make sense.
A few moments ago I heard someone say: It is unfair, it is unfair! Yes it is unfair, I agree. Mr. Speaker, if I were a civil servant and I were earning $15,000 a year, I would prefer to go without a raise rather than losing my job or living on welfare. The choice is obvious. What we want to do now with the 6 per cent rule, starting with our own group, is to set an example, and if the Canadian public approves, and this is not even ... Yes, 1 realize my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, I am going to finish. If Canadians would agree to lower their expectations somewhat, we would be able to ride out this recession, which would be only temporary, but on the other hand, if Canadians refuse, it is going to get worse. Often, people like to compare Canada with the United States, and they wonder why, if we are both applying the same monetary policy, the inflation rate in the United States is going down. We must understand that the United States is a free enterprise country and is not as compartmentalized and regulated, planned and controlled as ours. One example that illustrates this is that workers in the automotive industry agreed to a wage reduction. Here, we have no room for manoeuvre and that is why everything is stratified and compartmentalized. That is why our inflation rate is not going down at the same rate. However, if interest rates were to go down, obviously, inflation would be less severe. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, since my time has almost expired, I would like to inform the House that I am very pleased that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has asked to end this debate, and I hope that all our hon. colleagues will support the measure we have just imposed.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, we are now dealing with another example of this government's ability not only to muzzle the opposition but the Canadian public. Our desire was to bring this bill to committee where it would receive total exposure, be reviewed and assessed and we could get the view of the public.


Mr. Kelly:: That is committee, not second reading.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Will it ever get to committee?


Norman Kelly: We are wondering that too.

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation


Thomas Scott Fennell: Instead of backbenchers continuing to defend the position of the government, I wish one day they would stand up and answer to the public who are concerned about losing their jobs, not worrying about civil servants getting a 6 per cent raise in pay. This bill would not have been necessary if this government had not destroyed the economy over the past 14 years.
I would like to quote from the original architect that the Liberal government used. John Kenneth Galbraith has finally admitted it all: "Economists make predictions, not because they know, but because they are asked." Is that not great? There we have the answer about the Liberal policy that put this country on its knees, as it is today. Those are the kind of people the Liberals have attracted to draw up their policy, to bring three budgets forward that have all been destructive to this country. He was the man who started in 1968 giving them their answers. They asked the questions: he gave the answers. He is admitting now that they were not very good answers.
It is the socialist rhetoric of John Kenneth Galbraith and his type that has destroyed the middle class Canadian, those who were born with the thought that at some time they could own a home at a reasonable price. They are now paying exhorbitant interest rates, through exorbitant inflation, meaning an exorbitant cost for the house.
Let us look at this bill. The government referred to this as restraint. If this were restraint in the pure sense-that is, real restraint-yes, I could solidly support it. But how can I support this bill as restraint?


Ian Deans: You are going to support it.


Thomas Scott Fennell: It does nothing more than guarantee that every member in this House, every civil servant in Ottawa, and every federal civil servant around the country will get a 6 per cent increase in pay. We have very close to a million and a half people unemployed and they are not impressed with the fact that we have protected ourselves by this 6 per cent increase in pay. What should have been brought in as restraint is a 10 per cent cut on every budget across the board. We should have taken a 10 per cent cut in our pay-or at least work towards that over the next three years. This is too little, too late.
We requested that a parliamentary committee be set up to review all the estimates, to look at the loopholes, to find out where we could cut back on some of the programs not needed right now.


Ian Deans: You had an opportunity.


Thomas Scott Fennell: We have not had an opportunity because we have been refused by the government that has put us in the place we are today. All the government comes up with is patchwork solutions, and patchwork solutions do not solve a major structural problem. It is like taking a car which has been in an accident, trying to bend the frame into the right position, and then telling the owner that that car is in good order. Everyone in this House knows that once the frame of a car is
bent it is destroyed, it is of no value. That is the problem with our economy.
Yesterday, I spent a very interesting afternoon. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and myself were in the region of Durham before the regional councillors. Many of those people who run a very important region of this country asked us to come because they are concerned. The first point they brought out was their concern over the current monetary policy which has produced and maintained high interest rates, causing enormous economic hardships to consumers and corporations alike. Those people who are responsible for the municipality, representing all the mayors of that area, wanted to hear from us as to what was really happening in Ottawa. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Liberals had been there. I wish that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who happens to be my buddy in that area, had been there to represent the government.
There are many points that the leader of the New Democratic Party and myself agreed on. We agreed on lower interest rates but we did not agree on the method of getting there. We agreed to support the samll-business man and get the economy going. What we were saying yesterday was that the government is bringing in Bill C-124, it provides a 6 per cent increase in pay, but they have not talked about any reduction in their expenditure. Those councillors are concerned. They are concerned about our unrestricted imports. We have done absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, to encourage the private sector to produce, in order to replace such imports. Our dollar is low enough now. If there were a tax incentive there, we could be starting new industries and creating jobs, and that is the name of the game.
We are guaranteeing the civil service that they will have their jobs, plus a 6 per cent increase in pay, but we are doing nothing for the rest of Canada.
This government has destroyed all the incentives of the private sector. They have removed all incentive to foreign investment. This is a very large country. It requires large sums of money. Admittedly, today Canadians are saving large sums of money, but Canadians historically have kept their money in their socks. The foreign investors have put money into industry. I maintain that foreign investment review itself is not working and has helped destroy our credibility in international markets.
We should be going out to encourage European investors and Japanese investors to come into our country. We should be encouraging the Japanese to produce cars here. But they do not know what the position will be like here in six or seven months; they think that we may say: "We do not want you any more, so get your plants out of Canada". Incentives are required, Mr. Speaker, not grants. We need incentives to get Canadian dollars out of the banks and into industry.
The National Energy Program was a total destruction of the Canadian oil industry. Today there are 50 per cent less drilling rigs operating than there were last year at the same time.
July 15, 1982

We have been criticized many times for our mortgage interest deductibility proposal. Would that not have assisted the Canadian public, would it not have assisted the banks? They would have repossessed half the houses, because people would have been able to keep up mortgage payments. That plan would have assisted our general construction economy. We have done nothing but talk about a 6 per cent increase in pay for the civil service next year. That is why we want this bill put into committee over an extended period of time so that we can hear witnesses from across the country.
This budget is like every other budget that the government has brought forward. There is absolutely no foresight and they are too frightened to take hindsight because they look at the morass that they have left behind. This government, in my opinion, is carrying out a financial scam on the Canadian public and it should be stopped. It is time the public had the choice to decide whether they want this government to stay any longer or not.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussion today about the time allocation which is being proposed for this bill. I want to touch on that matter for a moment before turning to the substance of the question before us in Bill C-124.
Quite obviously there is a need to limit debate on matters before the House. We cannot continue to consider issues indefinitely here, especially when opportunities await members to consider the same matters in committee. When we hear allegations of muzzling Parliament or muzzling the opposition, I wonder whether members opposite have considered the British practices which do in fact place real limitations on the time taken for debates in the British House of Commons. I wonder whether hon. members opposite would not find those precedents instructive for our own practices here in Ottawa.
1 hope usefully that the committee currently studying the proposed modifications to our procedures will look at that particular precedent so that all hon. members might be assured that our business can deal with more effectively. Through more self-discipline, we could limit the time that we spend on debates here in the House to the benefit of all.
In the specific case of Bill C-124 now before us, we have had extensive debate involving a substantial number of members. The subject matter will, of course, go to committee where there will be further consideration, and there will be another opportunity to speak about the bill when it returns from the committee to the House.
With respect to the substance of the bill, we have heard allegations, particularly today by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), that somehow the wage restraint program being introduced for the public service for the next two years will neither create jobs nor reduce inflation. It is remarkable that an hon. member would make such a statement, when he and others must know perfectly well that until such time as we
Time Allocation
succeed in limiting inflation we shall not be able to create more jobs nor reduce interest rates. Why do I say that? It is evident that wage increases in Canada in recent years have consistently run at levels higher than those in most of our major trade competitors. Canada is heavily dependent on world trade for its prosperity. Foreign trade amounts to 30 per cent of our gross national product, and of that 30 per cent, some 70 per cent is trade with the United States.
What has been the wage situation in the United States, our major trading partner? During 1981 wage settlements in the United States were, on average, some four percentage points lower than in Canada. That means significant competitive advantage for United States industries over comparable Canadian industries which have had wage increases at a level of about 12 per cent, on average, during the last year.
Not only were average wage settlements in the United States lower than in Canada during 1981, but in the first quarter of this year United States increases in industrial wages for the first year of labour contracts averaged only 2.2 per cent. The Teamsters and the UAW, two major unions in the United States, accepted a complete freeze on wages, so that even if one extracted those two elements, the average in the United States was still only 6.8 per cent during the first quarter of this year, whereas increases in Canada have been running typically at about 12 per cent. I might also note that in the United States public service increases of only 4.8 per cent have been provided for in 1982, in contrast with the 6 per cent level that is envisaged in the legislation now before us.
I do not think it takes any great expertise in economics to understand that with such a wage situation in a highly competitive trade world, Canada is placing itself at a disadvantage.
It is not just that wage restraint in Canada is an essential part of any anti-inflationary policy; it is also evident that over the longer term Canadian industry will be unable to compete in world markets if our wage levels consistently exceed those of our main competitors and, indeed, if those wage settlements consistently exceed productivity increases here in Canada.
Unfortunately, we have had a situation in recent years in which our increases in productivity have been significantly lower than those of our major trade competitors. It is an oversimplification, of course, to argue that the main reason for a drop in productivity in Canada or for slower productivity increases is entirely ascribable to high wage settlements. There are other major factors which also cause productivity changes in any industrial economy. However, it remains true, nevertheless, that when wage level increases in Canada consistently outstrip increases in productivity, it must be that more inflation will result, and it must be that Canada will become increasingly less competitive in world markets.
Against that background, if we really want to help Canadians by setting a standard for the whole of the Canadian economy, it is essential that this legislation pass quickly. If pay

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation
increases are not restrained, we shall not be competitive. We shall not address a major factor in our inflation equation. We shall find ourselves faced with continuing high interest rates and high unemployment.
1 do not know that hon. members opposite, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, have accepted the fact that there is a pressing need for the federal government to set a standard, to set an example for the rest of the major players in the Canadian economy. Prior to the budget of a fortnight ago, we saw that the business community-there were some exceptions but broadly speaking-called for voluntary wage controls rather than mandatory controls. The business community resisted suggestions from various quarters for a sweeping program of mandatory wage and price controls-although some businessmen advocated such a policy-and called instead, for example, through the Business Council on National Issues, for a voluntary program. That voluntary program is now available for them to take up. The opportunity is there. They have said that they want it. The time has now come for them to respond.
The government is providing leadership. The government has said, in the case of its own more than half a million employees, that it will show restraint. The government has said that it will ensure that public service wages will not contribute, as they have in the past, to mounting rates of inflation in our country. It is now for the business community-which wanted voluntary controls-to take this opportunity.
The government is providing leadership; now let the business community respond. Equally, the provinces and municipalities must respond. They must bring forward their own programs of restraint in order to ensure that inflation is not again fueled by excessive wage settlements in either our public sector or our private sector. The situation in Canada has been well stated by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) who, toward the end of last month, stated the following in a speech:
Businessmen, although preaching restraint, often found it simpler to give in to excessive wage demands. In the inflationary environment which developed, it was possible for them, until recently, to recoup higher wage costs by raising the prices of their products. Productivity, once of highest priority, slipped well down the list of goals.
That situation in Canada must now change. The government has provided a new sense of direction and a new leadership. For my part, I do not doubt that the private sector will respond, that the provinces will respond, that the municipalities will respond and, indeed, that we shall see a world where 6 per cent wage settlements for the next 12 months and 5 per cent for the following 12 months will help to provide the necessary conditions for our economic recovery.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues I am somewhat distressed to have to rise once again to oppose a Liberal government motion enforcing closure. In this case it cuts off debate on Bill C-124 respecting compensation in the public service. What is printed in this bill is important, so is what is left out of it and what is left unexplained.
Firstly, I wish to speak of the plight of the old age pensioners; then I wish to say a few words about the Armed Forces pensioners. In the Minister of Finance's budget speech he mentioned the pay limits encompassed in this bill and also the capping of the indexing of pensions for old age pensioners and public servants. He did so in these words:
Effective January 1, 1983, indexation of the pensions paid to former Members of Parliament and public servants will be limited to 6 per cent. The indexing factor will be lowered to 5 per cent as of January 1, 1984.
Effective the same dates, the indexing factor applicable to family allowances and old age security will also be limited to 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
This capping of indexation, Mr. Speaker, is particularly devastating to those old age pensioners who have made some provision by themselves to look after themselves in their old age. The budget singles out for the harshest treatment those pensioners who saved and paid into various private pensions. The payment of the usual indexation on old age security only to those who are also drawing the guaranteed income supplement is a direct disincentive for anyone to try and make plans for enjoying their old age in part on their own resources. Anyone now working and saving for a private pension, annuity or RRSP will now realize that they will be discriminated against by this government and only the portion of their private plan which exceeds the value of the guaranteed income supplement will be of any value to them. Anyone with a private pension, annuity or insurance benefit which gives them something under $240 a month has simply reduced his or her guaranteed income supplement by that amount. The government should not be surprised to find that the steady growth over the years in the percentage of old age pensioners who have qualified for the GIS will now accelerate. The government has provided an additional incentive for senior citizens to arrange their affairs so that they get on GIS. It is the only way their basic pension will keep up with inflation rates.
I have an example which might cause the government to think about this if it were not in such a hurry to force legislation through this House by closure. In Victoria there are two large apartment buildings known as the Lord and Lady Simcoe on Simcoe Street. They house about 270 tenants, almost all of whom are retired and over half of which are widows. It is estimated that only some ten or 20 people in these buildings are still in the work force. The rest are retired and they are truly the fixed income people that one hears about here. On June 9 those tenants received notice of a rent increase. I know rent controls are in the purview of provincial governments but these cases might help illustrate to this unheeding and unfeeling government just what the people out there in the real world face, and the importance of a fair deal on indexation of their pensions.
As you may or may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, there are three categories of rent control in B.C. You can be exempt from rent control on certain types of accommodation- generally public or high priced accommodation-or you can have rent review, which is not nearly as favourable a position to be in if you are renting. The third category is units under
July 15, 1982

rent control where the landlord has to have permission before he can raise your rent. All 270 of the units in this complex I am speaking of are in the second category.
I have in my hand a notice given to a couple in a two-bedroom suite. They tell me that when they rented their suite seven years ago it was $220 a month. It was raised by the allowable limit each year for several years, and last year the landlord managed to increase rents by 15 per cent which put it over the $350 a month limit, thereby taking it out of the rent control area into the rent review area. The current rent for this particular couple is $424 a month, with an increase coming of $98 a month. Therefore, they will soon start paying $522 a month, an increase of 23 per cent. This is what happens to people out in the real world.
I heard the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousig-nant) say that people are being asked to go without a few little luxuries. That is not what is happening; these people are being asked to pay an additional 23 per cent rent on their suites. A great number of them are going to have leave their suites, which they have lived in for years,'and move into rooms in houses. This is not a little luxury for those people, believe me.
I wish to turn now, Mr. Speaker, to another aspect of this capping of indexation which is not mentioned in the bill but should be because of doubt out there about what is going to happen to the people involved. It has to do with the application of the 85 rule. That rule means a retired serviceman will not start to get his pension indexed until his age plus years of service totals 85. It also applies to civil servants but because of different retirement ages it is difficult to talk about the two groups at the same time. Some people have to wait for years to reach that point.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, as a non-lawyer I would inquire about the legality of what the government is planning to do to long service annuitants. The Armed Forces, when serving, pay an additional 1.5 per cent of their pay into the pension fund to cover the cost of indexing. This has always been considered part of their contract. Now, apparently, it is not to be honoured after next January.
As a background to this action the government should bear in mind that the Canadian forces' superannuation account, plus their actuarial liability account, as of March 31, 1981 was over $9 billion. This information comes from the answer to a question I put on the Order Paper. The government has this $9 billion, an increase of $1.2 billion over the preceding two years, and it borrows this money-a paper transaction-at a rate of 2.15 per cent per quarter, which is 8.6 per cent per annum. A very cheap source of money for the government. Yet the government is now prepared to break its contract to index the pension of retired servicemen.
The reason I bring it up at this time is that it is not in the bill and servicemen are wondering what is going to happen. Some of them retired ten years ago and have not yet reached the 85 rule point. When they reach that status they would receive the cost of living increases from the preceding years; not in a lump sum, but they would have gone to the level of purchasing power they had when they retired. They are now wondering what is going to happen. If it is going to be 11 per
Time Allocation
cent this year, will they get that 11 per cent? Will it be 6 per cent? What will it be next year? No one knows, and the government should not leave these people in such doubt.
Those are the unanswered questions about this bill, Mr. Speaker, and they should be answered before the government gags Parliament on such an important piece of legislation. I realize it is going to committee and that will be a great place to talk about it. But I am worried that so many of the government's bills are rushed into committee nowadays. I suspect the reason is that there is a greater audience for the debates in this chamber, thanks to the electronic age, than there is for what goes on in committee. We all know that.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my colleague opposite. I only hope that I can count on his co-operation as we debate this particular motion and, indeed, the entire bill, C-124. Six per cent co-operation would be very helpful. That is all we are asking for in Bill C-124.
I had the opportunity to speak on second reading of this bill the other night so I am not going to go into all the details again.
I should like to comment on some of the things that have been mentioned this afternoon regarding the motion to limit debate. The word "closure" and other terms have been used. Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when all that needs to be said has been said. If we were hearing anything new, it would be different. The government has a responsibility to provide legislation and to run the business affairs of Parliament and of the country. We should get on with curing the economic ills of the country. Bill C-124 is the instrument to bring down inflation which, of course, will result in interest rates coming down and in a reduction in the federal deficit. The entire economic future of the nation is based on Bill C-124.
If hon. members opposite are serious when they speak about the economic ills of the day and about offering cures for them, then I am surprised at their attitude and especially at the official opposition, which announced earlier today that it will vote against the motion. If something new were being said on Bill C-124 or suggestions were being put forward to cure the economic ills of the day, that would be a different matter. There comes a time when we have to get on with running the affairs of the country whether hon. members like it or not, and that is the responsibility of the party in power which sits on this side of the House.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren) spoke about parliamentary reform. I hope that the special committee set up to look into that matter during the summer will examine the delaying tactics that occur day in and day out in this House which prevent legislation from going through. Often members on both sides of the House agree on the basic intent of many bills, but whether to score political points in their constituencies or for whatever reason, hon. members opposite delay, delay, delay. Many more members of the

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation
opposition have spoken on Bill C-124 than members on this side of the House. Of course, their main purpose was to criticize. There has been plenty of opportunity to debate the bill. Our main purpose in this House should be to bring inflation down.
Just the other night I said that federal civil servants could be the heroes of the day through their involvement in this wage restraint program. 1 have heard from a number of them who say that they feel they will be, and indeed are, the front runners in this matter of wage restraint and the battle against inflation. I have heard from constituents who said the same thing. We know that business leaders and many labour leaders agree that something has to be done and that this bill is a step in the right direction.
We should get on with the business of passing the bill, Mr. Speaker. We know very well that it will be debated fully in committee where there will be plenty of time for argument and suggestions and perhaps for amendments as well. I am sure that witnesses will be heard in committee and that there will be plenty of time to bring out the full facts. The bill will come back to the House then for further debate. I do not know why hon. members opposite are so upset because we are trying to cure the economic ills of the day by getting the bill through.
There are other pieces of legislation which should be passed before this session ends, Mr. Speaker. On this side of the House we have been trying to get the bill through to aid home owners who have problems with urea formaldehyde foam insulation. The bill would provide compensation for them and 1 would not like to see Parliament adjourn for the summer without seeing that bill passed; but if we are going to have these delaying tactics day in and day out, then we are not going to get to that very important bill. I think that is a duty and responsibility that all members of the House should keep in mind.
The basic premise of Bill C-124 is to bring inflation down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent over the next two years. All that is being asked is that the federal civil servants and employees of Crown corporations, federally regulated agencies and the like be limited to 6 and 5 per cent wage increases-not decreases. The money saved by this measure will be devoted to much needed job-creation programs. Hon. members opposite fail to bring that point out; nearly $1 billion will be available for job-creation programs which are badly needed.
This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) mentioned that a recent Gallup poll shows that 80 per cent of Canadians would sooner take a 10 per cent cut in pay than be unemployed, so the Canadian public in general is behind this bill. We should get on with it so that we can create those jobs and make money available to help the housing industry, for instance. Many questions are raised about the lack of housing, yet through this bill we are trying to get the money to provide houses so that young people will be in a position to own their own homes.
Basically, I see nothing wrong with limiting debate on this bill. Everything that needs to be said has been said. The bill will be debated further in committee and then brought back to the House and then, we hope, will be passed so that we can go on to cure the economic ills of the day. All that we are asking is 6 per cent and 5 per cent. As hon. members know, members of the House are also going to be involved.
All across the country people are crying for leadership and action. This is one area in which Parliament can provide action and leadership, but it must come from both sides of the House. We have an opportunity to show that leadership by passing Bill C-124. There is no reason why debate should not be limited and I shall certainly vote in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is now five o'clock and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) is standing to be recognized. I should like to indicate to him, so that he can plan, that the Chair will recognize him at eight o'clock tonight if he is present.
Before I go to private members' hour I will deal with the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Works-Future of Daly building in Ottawa; the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes)-Social Security-Funding for services, (b) Canadian Mental Health Association meeting; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)- Medical Care-Extra billing by physicians-Minister's position, (b) Federal funding.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all items proceeding No. 76 stand with unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?
July 15, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 inderstand that dicussions have taken place with representatives of the various parties and that there is a disposition to deal very briefly with two private members' bills. I am advised that in order to do that, and I was informed of this just a moment ago, we will have to revert to motions in order that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders may present the reports from his committee. Therefore, I would request the consent of the House to revert to motions so the hon. member can do that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, is it the purpose to introduce the Senate bill having to do with the change in the charter of BPO Elks? I see the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) is nodding in the affirmative.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry, but I cannot hear the hon. member for Yukon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The microphone for the hon. member for Yukon was not switched on. Perhaps he would like to repeat his last few remarks.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I said that we agree provided that the business, which is the subject matter of the report, is the Senate bill dealing with an alteration to the charter of BPO Elks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will attempt to assist the House. The hon. member for the Yukon mentioned something which to my ears sounded like BP Oil.


Erik Nielsen: It was BPO Elks, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: BPO Elks, my apologies. In that event, I can tell the hon. member that there are two bills which have been provided to the Chair. The first is an act to revive E.G. Klein Limited, and the second deals with the act of incorporation of The Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: All that is going to happen then is the tabling of that committee report. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker? In addition, we will deal with the measure concerning the Elks.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I understand from conversations that we will, in fact, deal with both bills at all stages with very, very limited debate. That was my understanding, and I assume that is what we are going to do.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is not my understanding. The hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke had the courtesy and the honesty with respect to private members' business today to consult with me in connection with the legislation dealing with the alteration in the charter of the Elks. We agreed in that respect to a brief introductory state-
Committee Reports
ment by the hon. member and a response thereto by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott). I presume someone will be responding for the New Democratic Party. We will do that through all stages immediately, but that is all we are prepared to deal with today. With respect to the legislation concerning Klein, this is something which we are not prepared to deal with today.


Mr. Deniger:: Mr. Speaker, I heard the opposition House leader's comment and I am sorry that I did not get a chance to talk to him directly, but I did speak to the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Mississauga South and the hon. member for Simcoe North on the purpose of Bill S-26. It was my understanding that we had arrived at a unanimous agreement. I extended the same courtesy to the whip and the House leader of the New Democratic Party. If I could get the consent of the opposition House leader to proceed with Bill S-26, I would be most grateful.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, while the House leader for the official opposition is conferring, I can verify that conversations did in fact take place exactly along the lines that have just been put before you. Having reviewed the piece of legislation being requested, Bill S-26, together with Bill S-27, I had come to the conclusion that both could be dealt with expeditiously without any major debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have now had an opportunity to discuss the matter. We will deal with both pieces of legislation in the manner in which I have outlined. Once again I want to thank the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for his courtesy in consulting with me before this matter arose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As a result of the discussions the Chair has just heard, I suggest that what the House intends to do is to revert to committee reports, in which case the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Ian Deans: The House will revert to motions, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My apologies; the House will revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
CONCURRENCE [N NINTH AND TENTH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: that the ninth and tenth reports of the Standing Committee on Miscel-

July 15, 1982
Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada laneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, presented to the House on Monday, June 21, 1982, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Pierre Deniger: that Bill S-26, an Act to revive E.G. Klein Limited and to provide for its continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act, be now read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke) moved: that Bill S-27, to amend the act of incorporation of The Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there were no comments made on Bill S-27 at first reading. There has been an agreement among the parties that we will each make a brief statement and then we will deal with the other stages of the bill without debate.
1 am pleased to sponsor Bill S-27 on behalf of The Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my own appreciation to the House leaders and members on both sides of the House for their co-operation in allowing this bill to be debated today at second reading, in Committee of the Whole and third reading in one sitting. It is not controversial and it is a very worthy bill. It is one that means a great deal to many people across the country, namely, members of the Elks themselves and many thousands of people across Canada whom they help.
The purpose of the legislation in question and now before Parliament is to remove the restriction limiting at $100,000 the value of real property which might be acquired by the society or any of its branches. This restriction was incorporated into the act in 1913. In view of the increase in prices generally and of land in particular since that date, it is no longer realistic. Indeed, the origins of the restriction are not entirely clear, although it seems to have been the practice to place such restrictions on branch holdings of other societies incorporated by Parliament at that particular time.
The second purpose of the bill is to enable the society to change its head office from place to place, if necessary.
The third purpose is to substitute a French name for the English name of the society which appeared in the long title of the French version of the original act of incorporation. In this connection there is a further consequential amendment.
Finally, I am advised that the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada now has 360 lodges established in every province of Canada. They have 61,000 members, plus an additional 17,000 members of its ladies' auxiliary.
I am sure that all hon. members of the Parliament of Canada join in wishing the Elks every success in all their very fine work wherever they may live in Canada.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have an opportunity to second this motion. I attended the committee meetings and I understand fully the application of the bill. I congratulate the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) for his work in committee and for arranging easy passage of Bill S-27 through the House of Commons at this time. I think he had the correct approach in speaking to the different House leaders, which approach has been exemplified by the Conservative Party and our House leader.
On behalf of the official opposition let me say that we heartily endorse this bill. Also we take into consideration the good work the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada do throughout this country of ours. We are very happy to be party to giving the bill speedy passage through the House. We certainly wish them all the luck in the world.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to give our consent, as requested, to having the bill dealt with in all stages today. It goes without saying that the Order has provided much in the way of good works for people in Canada. It is a pleasure to be able to do this for them at a time when we have all seen volunteerism build much of what we enjoy. To see an organization such as this flourishing is important for members of my party. We are pleased to have this bill go through all three stages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: My understanding is that it is the intent of the House to revert now to private members' hour.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly do not want to object, but I would like to make two comments. First, I want to congratulate the Elks for keeping the name "Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada".
Second, I wish we had seen the same co-operation last Friday as we experienced today.
My third observation is that I think we should have some notice of changes being made. I do not think these today will
July 15, 1982

have any ramification, but this week I received two notices on Wednesday telling me what was on for Thursday and for Friday. I appreciate whoever is responsible for that, but there was no indication that these changes were to be made. I can understand this at times, but I think hon. members should be properly notified when changes are to be made on private members' days. I certainly have no objections to the ones made today, I think they are worthwhile, but again I think we should have been advised that they were to be made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We will now revert, by unanimous consent, to private members' hour.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the latest signed agreement between the government and the province of Quebec under the Canada Assistance Plan.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think my first remark should be to clear what may be a point of misunderstanding since just recently reference was made to what happened last Friday. I should like to put on the record that the only conversation I had prior to four o'clock on Friday afternoon was with a representative of the New Democratic Party. It was not in order to seek any agreement whatsoever; it was purely clarification of the subject matter which was to be discussed. That was the total extent of the conversation. In other words, there were no discussions of which I was aware between any members on this side and any members on the other side as to the subsequent procedures which were adopted by unanimous consent of the members present.
I think it is important to make that point because there was the inference of some sort of collusion or something of the sort. I certainly was not aware of that. In fact, I publicly express my surprise, but my pleasure nevertheless, at the turn of events on Friday.
The subject this afternoon is the Canada Assistance Plan, a subject which I hold dear to my heart. I have used the request for documents passing between the government and the province of Quebec under the Canada Assistance Plan as the vehicle for this discussion.
I requested these documents, as I have requested the documents applicable to the other provinces, as a result of discussions which took place in the hearings held last spring by the special committee which was formed to look at fiscal transfer payments. We criss-crossed the country and heard a plea from
Canada Assistance Plan
many social service groups that these documents should be available to them.
It may be somewhat ironic that we discussed the freedom of information act at great length and yet documents which are vital to the interest of people on social welfare and receiving social services are not available to the groups who are responsible for the provision of these services. It may be of interest to some members if I refer to an answer I received over a year ago as to the reasons why such documents were not being made available to the public in general. An official from the Department of National Health and Welfare said that in his opinion the province of Ontario, in this case, could and probably would object because that would facilitate their municipalities making interprovincial comparisons. He said that this was, of course, assuming that the schedules for the other provinces were also released. He indicated that such a comparison would lead to whipsawing from one province to another. He also made an interesting comment at that time, which is quite applicable now, that under the proposed free-' dom of information act items which would be detrimental to federal-provincial relations can be exempted from release.
Personally, I do not see any reason why the groups that are responsible for social services in the different provinces should not be able to make comparisons from province to province and should not, as a result, be able to pressure their respective provincial governments into giving them the same services which they see being made available to persons in need in the other provinces.
I have several objections to the way that the Canada Assistance Plan presently operates. At the outset, let me say that this has nothing to do with the total funding. I have said before in the House and I will repeat that I firmly believe in the maximum possible funding at the federal level. I say that because under those circumstances the distribution of those funds from the federal treasury should go to the provinces on an equitable basis, and the raising of those funds at the federal level means that the moneys are raised from those provinces which are the best able to pay.
However, it does not work out this way in the case of the Canada Assistance Plan. I have some figures to illustrate this. For example, let us take my own province of Quebec which is the one referred to in the motion. According to the latest year for which figures are available, the province of Quebec received 39 per cent of the funding under the Canada Assistance Plan, and as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, it has 26 per cent of the population of this country.
There is probably good reason why Quebec, with its greater number of persons in need, should receive a larger share. However, let us look at another province which is also in need. Nova Scotia. Incidentally, the Premier of that province, as late as a few days ago, was bitterly complaining that the federal government was decreasing its transfers to the provinces and making life difficult for the province of Nova Scotia. I read that particular lie in today's Globe and Mail, that the federal government was cutting its funding for post-secondary education and health services. I say "lie" because anyone who looks

July 15, 1982
19378_______________________________________
Canada Assistance Plan
at the figures is aware that the federal funding for both postsecondary education and health services is increased this year and increased substantially. Elowever, one also understands that in difficult times the provision of social services becomes an increasingly hard load for provinces like Nova Scotia which have an increasing number of unemployed and persons in difficult circumstances.
In the case of Nova Scotia, it receives 2.7 per cent of the total moneys that are distributed under the Canada Assistance Plan and it has a population of 3.5 per cent. Nova Scotia is one of the have-not provinces. Obviously it is unfair that that province should be receiving less than even its per capita share, if Canada Assistance Plan funds were distributed on that basis.
Let us look at British Columbia at the other end of the scale. British Columbia, with 11 per cent of this country's population, receives 14 per cent of the funding from the Canada Assistance Plan.
I will continue with these figures to show the inequity which exists in the distribution but will do so in a somewhat different fashion. I have proposed before and I am proposing again now that the various programs which are handled under the Canada Assistance Plan be divided into their two parts, social service programs and income support programs. I am not suggesting any decrease in funding. In fact, I will be suggesting later that my method of handling these programs would result in some increase in funding at the federal level, but that the distribution of those funds would be more equitable.
Once again in the case of my own province of Quebec, the social service payments are the highest of any province. One would think that in a have-not province the income maintenance programs would be the highest in the province of Quebec, but that is not so. We find other provinces that have a higher income maintenance receipt from the Canada Assistance Plan than the province of Quebec. Quebec's social service receipts are approximately 50 per cent of the amount Quebec receives for the income maintenance programs, whereas New Brunswick, which is one of the have-not provinces, receives for its social service programs only about 15 per cent of the amount it receives in the income maintenance programs. Newfoundland receives about one-quarter and it is about one-third in Nova Scotia. It is interesting that the province of Quebec receives about three times the amount in the social service field that is paid in the province of Ontario.
One notes from a chart provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare, for which the latest figures available are also over a year old, that the province of Nova Scotia, one of the have-not provinces, receives $67 on a per capita basis. The province of Quebec at the other end of the scale receives $137. Dividing the program into its two parts, one can look at social assistance where Manitoba is at $36 at the low end of the scale and Quebec is at $93 at the other end on a per capita basis. With respect to social and welfare services we find New Brunswick sitting on the bottom end of the scale at $14 per capita and Quebec near the top at $44 per capita. It should be abundantly clear that the distribution of
funds under these programs is, in my opinion, an unequitable method of distribution.
For clarification I should say that as a result of changes made in legislation some six or seven years ago, many of the extended health care services which originally were covered under this program have now been excluded. I think it is worth putting on the record that the Canada Assistance Plan no longer covers such items as nursing home intermediate care, adult residential care, converted mental hospitals, home care and ambulatory health care. I mention that because one should consider whether in this day and age those particular services, which are often optional in the provinces, should be funded by the federal government to at least encourage the provincial governments, which are responsible for these services, to provide a relatively equal level of services from coast to coast. 1 wish to quote the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) as follows:
The federal government shares in the cost of provincial and municipal social assistance payments as well as certain social service programs referred to in the act as "welfare services". Social assistance programs must utilize needs testing, must have an appeals system, and not impose residence requirements.
Welfare services include preventive and protective services such as day care, home support, and counselling, as well as services to support independent living such as homemakers, and meals-on-wheels, rehabilitation services, and community development services.
The level of financial assistance provided to individuals and families and the range of welfare services available to Canadians vary considerably from one part of Canada to another, since both are established by the provinces. Payments and services are not uniform.
The federal government has little influence on the design and delivery of those programs, provinces can choose to provide any form of social service which they, the provinces, deem necessary.
I do not believe we would intend, and certainly I am not suggesting, that we take away from the provinces their right to make their own decisions in those areas. However, there has been a significant influence on the need for social welfare services attributed to action on federal programs that are a federal jurisdictional responsibility. These include, for example, changes to the CIS, unemployment insurance and the child tax credit. One can also list family allowances, OAS, spouse's allowances, veterans' pensions, the Canada Pension Plan and the rent subsidy program, all of which are direct federal payments to individuals.
Despite these many programs of direct assistance to individuals, it was made clear that the poorer provinces are finding it increasingly difficult to fund their 50 per cent of expenditures needed to support welfare and social service programs.
I am trying to make clear that in the field of income maintenance, the federal government has a tremendous influence on the costs that the provinces will have to bear. Again I quote the Minister of National Health and Welfare as follows:
The provinces sought a maximum of autonomy and flexibility to develop services in response to their perception of needs and priorities. The responsibility of provincial departments of social services to report to their legislatures will ensure that Canadians are well informed on the levels of expenditures for social services.
July 15, 1982

If I may, because it is extremely relevant here, I will quote from a submission of the ministers of public welfare of the Atlantic provinces. It reads:
The Atlantic provinces are an economically depressed area. A smaller proportion of the population is in the working age groups. This smaller group must support services for the old and young, which tend to be the groups that require high-cost services. The Atlantic provinces experience long periods of high unemployment rates. Persons that are unemployed for long periods tend to be unskilled or uneducated and eventually drop out of the labour force. This results in a smaller employment base and consequently a lower level of income per person in the Atlantic area than elsewhere in Canada. During periods of very high seasonal unemployment large numbers of short-term assistance recipients are added to what is already a high, hard core case load of assistance recipients. The Atlantic provinces have a poor economic base upon which to rely for the financing of heavy welfare burdens.
In conclusion, the federal contribution to the Canada Assistance Plan does not serve a national goal, is inequitable, does not provide for differing provincial priorities, and does not take into account inequality of need or inequality of capacity to provide the revenues to support the provincial share of the program.
I know that this session is now coming to an end and that nothing will happen for some time. I therefore suggest that we take a serious look at the Canada Assistance Plan, as the government has tried on previous occasions, and come up with a different formula for the distribution of the funds. I suggest as a start that we might, on the income maintenance side, increase the federal contribution from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. I say that because, as I already pointed out, the federal government has a tremendous influence on the income maintenance programs via the many federal programs which provide direct funding to individuals. Because the federal government has so little influence at all on the social services that are provided, which I referred to above, which are a smaller part of the total program, the percentage offered by the federal government should gradually be diminished on that side. I would look eventually for a phasing out of the payments that are made for those services and the transfer of those funds to the income maintenance side. The effective result will be an increase in payments to the provinces in need. If the federal government accepts its responsibilities, in the final analysis this will be a much more equitable transfer of funds under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) gives us the opportunity to deal with two very important subjects which are part and parcel of the motion. First and foremost is the access to information that is afforded to Members of Parliament and to all Canadian citizens with respect to government policies and programs. Second is the effect of the Canada Assistance Plan, which is the focal point of the social welfare system in Canada. I want to speak very briefly about the first of those two points, namely, access to information.
When you look at motions such as the one proposed by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, the other motions on the Order Paper as well as the questions listed on the Order Paper, and they number in the thousands, you recognize immediately that
Canada Assistance Plan
the Government of Canada is not willing to provide the kind of information that Members of Parliament seek and other Canadians must have in order properly to assess government policies and programs. The motion today is another example of the need to make information available for the purpose of assessing government policies and programs.
We thought in this House of Commons that we had provided part of a solution to that problem when we passed Bill C-43, the Access to Information and Privacy Act, but days and weeks go by and nothing happens. All I can do is again to repeat the request I made on numerous occasions in the past to have this vital legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada, proclaimed by the governor in council and implemented by the ministry of government responsible for this important measure.
If we had available to us the processes and procedures provided by the Access to Information and Privacy Act, we would not in many cases have to make motions seeking information and place questions on the Order Paper and then wait weeks, months and sometimes years for any sort of answer.
Once again I recognize that the broad solution to the problem of information and the availability of information is general legislation. We now have that kind of legislation. I hope the government will recognize its obligation and immediately act to proclaim and implement this particular legislation.
The second matter raised by the motion is the Canada Assistance Plan and its role in social welfare services. It might be worthwhile to record that the plan is simply a statute of the Parliament of Canada enacted in 1966. It outlines in some detail the nature and extent of the services which can be made available through the provinces and municipalities. The services are much broader than people realize.
Basically, the purpose of all the services, those listed in the Canada Assistance Plan, is to provide necessary assistance to those in need. It does not take much imagination to realize what constitutes a person in need. The services that are provided under the plan consist of basic requirements for food, clothing, shelter, fuel, utilities, household supplies and personal requirements. In addition, services may include the special needs of people, like house alterations and rehabilitation of dwellings. The plan can provide services in health care, specifically those services not covered by the universal health care system.
The importance of these services that can be provided for the aged and the handicapped is underlined by our current economic crisis. I would like to make some remarks about the Canada Assistance Plan and our social services system in Canada in the light of the economic crisis and the measures taken in the budget of June 28. It is evident from that budget that Canada is in deep economic trouble, with a $20 billion deficit facing us and an indication that the deficit may be even higher. This focuses attention on the need for restraint in government spending. The people of Canada, and especially

July 15, 1982
Canada Assistance Plan
Members of Parliament, must recognize the need for a restraint policy. We must be careful that in the course of restraint in government expenditure and services we do not deny the basic needs of the citizens. We must carry out our obligations to them, especially to those who are in dire need of these services.
We must exercise common sense and good judgment. We must realize that there are fates worse than financial difficulty. We must recognize that some elements of service are absolutely basic; they were provided for Canadians in the past and people will continue to depend on them in the future. I want to refer particularly to the requirements of women and of senior citizens. They are most affected by the current economic crisis and the high rate of inflation and the lower value of the Canadian dollar. But before that, we must think of the major problems faced by our almost 2 million unemployed. We know there are 1.3 unemployed and looking for work, and probably another 500,000 who have given up seeking work or are employed at jobs lower than those they are qualified for. We must also think of those employed on a part-time basis. In Canada we have an unemployment insurance system which provides, for a limited period of time, assistance for persons who have been working but have lost their employment. In many cases, unemployed Canadians have gone beyond that point, their unemployment insurance benefit has been exhausted and they are simply without any opportunities to earn the money they need for their subsistence. Consequently, many of those people are thrown on the welfare system. Their only recourse is to apply at the appropriate level of government for welfare assistance.
This unemployment problem has an immediate effect on our social welfare system. It has that effect because of the specific method of dealing with the needs of the unemployed in the unemployment insurance program, the funds of which have been exhausted for many of them.
We know that the additional demand on the unemployment insurance funds has caused an increase in expenditure of some $2 billion, but we do not seem to realize that we can expect a similar increase in expenditures in respect of social assistance. It is difficult to project exactly how many million dollars this will cost government at various levels, but we know the sum will be substantial.
This is an open-ended liability for the provincial and federal governments provided for under the Canada Assistance Plan. The services are based on a right which was granted through legislation to those persons who need these services. There is a mandatory aspect to the provisions. Consequently, once these services are put in place and the eligibility method is determined, the individuals who seek these services have a right to them. As the member for Vaudreuil said, there is a means test employed in order to determine eligibility. Appeals can be made by those persons who believe they have been unfairly denied services. We must realize that, in spite of the economic crisis, the government is under an obligation to provide these services.
At a time when there may be pressure on government to change not only the services available but the restrictions and
the criteria for establishing eligibility, in order to limit the financial drain that arises from the increased demand for these services, there arises a problem which must be solved and that must be faced by the government and by all Canadians. We are in a time of restraint and economic difficulty, even a crisis, but we must recognize the obligations that have been developed in the past and must be continued in the future.
It may seem more sensible to restrict or even withdraw some of the services provided through the Canada Assistance Plan in the past because of our economic difficulties, but if we restrict those services or deny them to those in need, we will create greater problems. If we deny basic food, clothing, shelter and health services to those in need, we will create greater problems. It could lead to the splitting up of families, or to children left unattended or uncared for, and that would have a snowball effect, and that social difficulty would lead to even greater problems. Then we would have to look forward to having to support the kind of persons from whom we withdraw services, in institutions, in hospitals, in prisons, in custodial care institutions. We will not escape the problem by withdrawing services or increasing the requirements for access to those services.
I would like to take the time remaining to underline very briefly the importance of some of the services included in the Canada Assistance Plan and in our social services system. 1 want to direct my remarks particularly to the situation in which many Canadian women find themselves, particularly Canadian women in their senior years. We have come to realize that our pension system in Canada does not properly provide protection for women when they reach their senior years. In our concern for restraining expenditures 1 hope we will not fail to recognize the special plight of senior women in Canada. For younger women, particularly women in the work force who may have to work at relatively menial and low-paying jobs, we must recognize the importance of daycare and assistance for daycare. If we do not provide services like daycare services for the children of working parents, and particularly of single women, then we will simply create a social problem we will have to deal with down the road. There again we cannot neglect our obligations with respect to services like daycare as they apply particularly to working mothers because that will simply produce greater problems in the future.
1 want to deal very briefly with the plight of senior citizens across Canada. Many of our senior citizens find it necessary to utilize the facilities provided in homes for the aged and, in some cases, special care homes like nursing homes. Again, much of the financing for that kind of care has been provided through the Canada Assistance Plan and the provincial legislation which implements the Canada Assistance Plan in the various provinces of Canada. We have to realize and recognize that those kinds of services are absolutely essential, even if we continue in a period of restraint.
I know that on previous occasions the hon. member for Vaudreuil has raised in this House the matter of the need to
July 15, 1982

review the whole basis for our social services and, indeed, the whole basis for other services in the health care field, and part of that review should be reconsideration of the test of universality in the provision of these services.
I want to record my appreciation of the concern of the hon. member for Vaudreuil about the situation in Atlantic Canada. Part of the consideration and review of our social services system should be the implementation of the constitutional provisions with respect to regional disparity. We in this House of Commons have passed legislation respecting the Constitution, which contains a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That legislative package was approved by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and endorsed very recently in Ottawa by Her Majesty the Queen. The principle of regional disparity is dealt with in those constitutional provisions; no area or region of Canada should suffer a lower standard of living or a lower standard of government services than any other region of Canada. As the hon. member for Vaudreuil graphically pointed out, if we permit the Government of Canada to finance services in one rich part of Canada on the same basis as those services are financed in a poor part of Canada, we will not be implementing the principle of equalization of government and public services across Canada. What I am saying-perhaps too complicatedly-is that what we have to do is re-examine the financing and the method by which the Government of Canada supports social services across the country.
I think it is very important for Canadians to realize that in poorer provinces like Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick government spends a greater amount of its revenue on the provision of necessary social services and health care services than in richer provinces. The governments of those poorer provinces tend to spend a great deal more per capita to provide services because the people in those areas, because of economic difficulties, require more services from government. These are two important factors which ought to be taken into account in a review of our social welfare system in Canada, and I think that review is long overdue and must be undertaken very shortly, if we are to implement, in a real way, the principle of equal services for Canadians right across the country, which we in this House have endorsed.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry that because of the way things have worked out I will not have more time to go into a more extended commentary on some of the things which have been said about the Canada Assistance Plan this afternoon, particularly since the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and I served on the same task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. If there had been more time, perhaps we could have renewed some of the debates we had about the Canada Assistance Plan at that time.
Basically, I agree with the motion. One of the problems brought to the attention of our task force as we went across Canada was that there are people involved in social service work who cannot seem to find out from their respective provincial governments just what is cost-shared under the
Canada Assistance Plan
Canada Assistance Plan and what is not cost-shared. They get the runaround from their various provincial governments. Any suggestion which would increase the availability of information to people involved in these important services would be a good beginning. Indeed, that is what the task force recommended. It recommended that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) have a Canada Assistance Plan manual compiled to include all guidelines, notes and administrative directives and that this manual be made public, with appropriate provision to respond to questions by the public on its application. It also recommended that the Canada Assistance Plan requirements for statistical and financial information be strengthened to improve understanding of the programs cost-shared under the plan. This need for more information was something recognized by the task force, and I hope it is something the government will look at when it gets around to reviewing the Canada Assistance Plan.
I think there are a great many improvements to the Canada Assistance Plan which need to be made, but one of the anxieties I noted among witnesses at the hearings of the task force was that they had the feeling that whenever the government moves to review something these days, it moves to find out how to save more money and how to spend less money in a particular area rather than how to improve service or how to spend more money. I think there are many people in this country who would just like the government to leave the Canada Assistance Plan alone, with all its warts and all its faults, because we saw what happened when we moved to block funding of health care. We have seen what has happened recently with respect to fiscal arrangements. As much as many people in the country would like the government to review the Canada Assistance Plan in such a way as to help needier provinces and expand the interpretation of what can be cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan so that more innovation can take place and new areas of social service can come under the mandate of the Canada Assistance Plan, and as much as those kinds of things are desired by those who are knowledgeable in this field, they are very nervous and worried that the minute the government begins to review the Canada Assistance Plan the first criterion of that review will be how to push more of the fiscal responsibility for these programs onto the provinces and how to get the federal government into such a position that it is paying out less than it now pays under the Canada Assistance Plan.
For all its need for improvement, the Canada Assistance Plan is still one of the few programs left under which there is federal-provincial cost sharing, and in so far as the task force is concerned and many other people involved in this area would like to see a return to some kind of cost sharing in other areas where cost sharing has been abandoned, we find that the Canada Assistance Plan remains an example of how things used to be before we entered into this period of restraint in which, rather than maintaining its commitment to these programs, the federal government is now trying to find its way out of programs under which there has been so much federal-provincial co-operation over the last few decades.

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please, it being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston:
That, in relation to Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at five o'clock the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) had just been given the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the bill of which debate will be closed on second reading if this closure motion passes, is the primary instrument in the government's fight against inflation. Its provisions are the foundation of the 6 per cent dream world of the last budget. The government is not only restricting debate on the 6 per cent and 5 per cent provisions that affect the wages of federal employees, it is also laying the foundaton of its whole program for the 6 per cent and 5 per cent world.
This evening I believe I am speaking on behalf of all Canadians, whether pensioners, retired federal employees who will be restricted to a 6 per cent increase, or active federal employees who are losing all their rights under this legislation. This bill is flying under false colours, Mr. Speaker. It is supposed to be a bill to control wages of federal employees but it does more than that.
What the government is doing in its attempt to choke off debate on this very important issue, is preventing the public from knowing what the bill actually says. There have been only four days of debate on the bill and of those, last Friday and Wednesday were short days.
Most individuals and groups affected by the bill do not know its provisions. They do not know, if they are active federal employees, that they will be restricted to wage increases of 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. They do not know that women employees, who already receive very low wages, will have a larger wage differential as a result of this program. They do not know that those people who earn $9,000-and we
gave some examples in this debate already-or $10,000 or $11,000 or $12,000 per year, will be making the real sacrifice for those who earn $90,000, $100,000, $110,000 or $120,000 a year.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, there are the Jack Horners of this world who will benefit from this bill and there are the cleaning ladies, the nurses' aides, the teachers' aides and the instrument workers who earn $10,000 per year and may be restricted to 6 per cent increases, which will not come close to meeting the increase in the cost of living. These people have not had an opportunity to find out what is in the bill.
By voting tonight we deny the public the opportunity to participate in the debate. We deny the public, whether they be federal employees, pensioners or others concerned with the bill, the opportunity to find out what is in it and to tell their MPs what they think.
The Liberal government agreed to collective agreements with its employees, but now it will not honour them. Ten months ago the government and its ministers who sit opposite, signed agreements with federal employees for 10, 11 and 12 per cent increases-increases less than the cost of living, despite what our Tory friends think. Now the government is saying that despite signed collective agreements those employees will only receive 6 and 5 per cent increases over a two-year period.
That is a direct contradiction of the answer given today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) when he was asked if the government will also control energy costs which are scheduled to increase by 31 per cent next year. Would the government admit that energy prices should only increase by 6 per cent? No, Mr. Speaker. The minister had the audacity to say in this House that we must honour our agreements. That is the reply from the same government that will not honour the collective agreements which it has signed with its employees. If this debate were allowed to continue, the public would hear about that.
Many of the people who will be affected by this bill do not know about the worst provision it contains. They do not know that it will take away the right of federal employees to negotiate collective agreements with the government. It does not matter whether those agreements include monetary or nonmonetary items. As a result of Bill C-124, employees will not be allowed to negotiate at all. That is the message that is not getting out to the public because there has only been four days' debate on the bill, because the debate is taking place in July and because the media has not covered it very extensively. It means that the people affected by the legislation have not had a chance to make their voices heard.


An hon. Member:: Say something about it then!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, you can see the rabble that 20 years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called the trained seals, rattling away again. They do not care about the public, they do not care about the employees and they do not care about pensioners.
July 15, 1982

I have only a few moments more to speak because of the nature of this closure motion, Mr. Speaker. Last night for the first time possible, the public service unions got copies of the bill out to various parts of the country for informational meetings. Last night, after the closure motion had been put to the House, people in Victoria, in Winnipeg, in Ottawa and in all parts of the country, heard what it contained, for the first time. To close off debate tomorrow, before those people could even get return mail to their Members of Parliament, is bloody hypocritical and bloody ridiculous. Today, Mr. Speaker, the CLC had its first executive board meeting, and only then did it find out that this bill is going to be closed off today. How can they possibly come back to the government with any proposals? But the most important concern is that we have closure on this bill, and today's Globe and Mail quotes some government spokesman as saying that the same thing is going to happen in committee next week. 1 am not sure in which seat that spokesman sits, but it means that this farce-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to close this debate on behalf of the rabble over here this evening. Mr. Speaker, second reading serves two purposes, and I am delighted to have this opportunity to inform the members of the NDP about those two purposes. The first purpose is to debate the underlying principle of a bill. In the debate we have had on those principles the opponents of this bill have argued that it addresses the wrong issue, that it makes perhaps the most vulnerable part of our society into a scapegoat, and that it has the potential of substantially lowering our standard of living. Those who support the bill argue that there must be restraint at this time for, if there is not, the drop in our standard of living will ultimately be more precipitous and damaging than if no action had been taken. They argue that members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government and the members of the civil service must lead by example and by serving as models of restraint. Those are the basic positions generated in this House. I outline these not because I feel compelled to place these positions of principle before the House, but to tell you that every one of these arguments came out on the very first day of debate.


Ian Deans: And they are equally true today.


Norman Kelly: There has been nothing added to those six basic positions in the four days of debate. So I would argue that the first purpose of second reading has already been accomplished.
The second purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to uncover those issues which are inherent in the bill or to project issues into the bill. From what I have heard in this House and read in Hansard, these are the issues which have been uncovered or projected in this debate. They are: the apparent failure of wage control in the mid 1970s; the deleterious impact on the economy of
Time Allocation
withdrawing funds which otherwise would have been spent on consumer purchases; the apparent suspension of collective bargaining, with its particularly harsh impact on females; the arbitrary separation of the Siamese twins, CN and CP; the uncomfortable position of those bargaining units in the twilight zone; that is, units which, not having signed a contract before budget date, and apparently not being included in the transitional bargaining units, have signed in fact on the very day the budget was brought down; the application of the wage restraints to Crown corporations; the flat, iniquitous approach of the 6-5 solution; and the importance of finding sources of money to spend on job-creation programs without increasing the deficit.
Those are all important issues, Mr. Speaker, and the most important thing about them is that they were all put forward in the first two days of debate. So I would argue that, although there have been subsequent speeches, many of them forceful and some eloquent, but most of them florid, there has not been a single issue uncovered or projected in this debate in the last three days.


Ian Deans: Not true.


Norman Kelly: Everyone in this House knows that the real work in Parliament is done in committees. That is where you have the opportunity to bring the general public into the debate, as some hon. members opposite have argued. If the principles have already been delineated in this debate, if the issues have all been raised, if we all know that the only chance the public will have to get involved in this debate is in committee, and we all know that the opportunity for real work on Bill C-124 lies in committee, then why are we abusing the patience and courtesy of this House by prolonging this debate on second reading? Let us go to committee; let us get down to work.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am upset to have to rise in this debate because it is another confrontational debate created by the government party which refuses to pay attention to Parliament, to listen to Members of Parliament or do anything to pay attention to the debate. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), when he introduced this motion, spoke about the concerns of other members and what they had to say, but he never heard them or paid any attention to them because he has not been here for this debate. If this government paid attention to Parliament we would not need this closure motion at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If this government was prepared to listen to Parliament it would understand that we as Members of Parliament are prepared to have our salaries reduced and to take the lead in developing a better economy for Canada. We are prepared to reduce the cost of government, but this government refuses to listen to the suggestions that we, the people who are paying the premium of reducing our own salaries, are prepared to offer. I say to you, sir-

July 15, 1982
Time Allocation


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the member but I would like to ask him why he is against closure-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) has the floor.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, would you listen to the crap you get from members of the NDP who are not even prepared to cut their own salaries? They are more worried about their pay than they are about the condition of this country. They do not care. They are not prepared to lead, but neither is this government prepared to lead. This government is not prepared to listen to where we can cut the cost of government, where we can cut the cost of borrowing, where we can cut the overhead of Canada, where we can give Canada back to the people of Canada.
The depression, the recession, or whatever they want to call it, that we are in, is not the result of labour getting paid too much, it is the result of government spending too much. It is the result of government wasting too much. Most of the waste has been caused by the attitude expressed by the New Democratic Party. As my friend, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) said, "They led them into the whorehouse" and now they stand up and ask, "My goodness, why are you there?"
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! It being 8.21 p.m., the two hours provided for consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75c are now expired. I must therefore interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of this motion.

All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion (Mr. Johnston) agreed to.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,268 and 4,372.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the department and, if so, are they embodied in a code of conduct or other specific document and is the code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. Some of these rules and regulations are contained in acts and regulations while others are contained in directives issued by Treasury Board and by the various levels of management of the department. Although there is no policy specifically entitled code of conduct, there is a departmental discipline policy which applies to all Department of Transport employees and this policy is available to the public.
2. In accordance with departmental discipline procedures and the provisions of most collective agreements, records of disciplinary actions are destroyed two years after the disciplinary action, provided that no further disciplinary action was recorded during this period. In the two years preceding April 1, 1982, there were 1,573 instances where Department of Transport employees were disciplined by way of written reprimand, suspension and discharge. They are grouped as follows:
written reprimands	471
suspensions	1090
discharges	12
	1573
The majority of these reprimands result from illegal strike activity during this period. Because of the provisions of Part
Order Paper Questions
IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the department is unable to provide the names of employees who were subject to disciplinary action.


Mr. Mazankowski: As of (a) January 1 and June 1 for each year since 1970 (b) the first of every month in 1981 and 1982 to date (i) what were the official gold holdings in ounces (ii) what were the total foreign exchange reserves (iii) what were the foreign exchange reserves held in U.S. dollars (iv) what percentage of monthly import payments did the foreign exchange reserves represent?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
table below presents Canada's official gold holdings, total international reserves, U.S. dollar assets, and the ratio of total reserves to merchandise imports (in percentage terms). To calculate the latter ratio, the published level of official reserves (which is in U.S. dollar terms) has been converted to its Canadian dollar equivalent at the closing exchange rate.
Official
			International	Total
Official	Reserves-	Reserves1Official	International	U.S. Dollar	MonthlyDate	Gold Holdings	Reserves-T ota 1	Assets	Imports2(thousand of	(millions of U.S. dollars)	(Per cent)ounces)	Dec. 31, 1969	24,923	3,106.3	1,743.6	268.4May 31, 1970	25,129	4,084.0	2,526.3	341.9Dec. 31, 1970	22,591	4,679.0	3,022.1	452.4May 31, 1971	22,617	4,878.7	3,206.6	355.4Dec. 31, 1971	22,686	5,570.4	4,060.6	419.7May 31, 1972	22,009	6,048.0	4,373.3	328.3Dec. 31, 1972	21,949	6,049.9	4,355.0	397.2May 31, 1973	21,951	5,949.7	4,178.6	264.2Dec. 31, 1973	21,951	5,768.2	3,927.2	209.7May 31, 1974	21,951	6,230.4	4,381.3	203.2Dec. 31, 1974	21,952	5,825.3	3,767.7	208.8May 31, 1975	21,952	5,398.4	3,220.0	176.5Dec. 31, 1975	21,952	5,325.6	3,207.1	190.4May 31, 1976	21,680	5,812.0	3,672.0	172.9Dec. 31, 1976	21,615	5,834.4	3,446.3	190.9May 31, 1977	21,850	5,231.2	2,804.9	138.2Dec. 31, 1977	22,007	4,607.5	2,298.7	143.3May 31, 1978	22,007	4,740.0	2,684.7	120.2Dec. 31, 1978	22,130	4,566.2	2,459.5	125.5May 31, 1979	22,130	4,078.7	1,947.8	83.1Dec. 31, 1979	22,179	3,886.9	1,863.9	94.4May 31, 1980	21,463	4,221.3	2,065.6	85.7Dec. 31, 1980	20,982	4,029.6	2,037.6	83.8Jan. 31, 1981	20,965	3,436.0	1,319.7	68.4Feb. 28, 1981	20,961	3,341.4	1,265.7	66.6Mar. 31, 1981	20,917	3,715.5	1,644.0	63.8Apr. 30, 1981	20,913	3,164.6	1,238.2	52.8May 31, 1981	20,913	3,178.2	1,365.4	54.0June 30, 1981	20,913	3,054.6	1,280.6	48.4July 31, 1981	20,898	2,307.4	725.0	42.4Aug. 31, 1981	20,840	3,292.1	1,735.0	68.9Sept. 30, 1981	20,754	2,997.1	1,430.9	54.6Oct. 31, 1981	20,744	2,807.3	1,249.4	49.5Nov. 30, 1981	20,654	4,555.1	2,974.0	82.6Dec. 31, 1981	20,464	4,371.1	2,865.3	86.7Jan. 30, 1982	20,449	4,297.7	2,710.3	104.4Feb. 28, 1982	20,404	3,500.5	1,862.6	73.9Mar. 31, 1982	20,354	2,968.7	1,531.0	54.7Apr. 30, 1982	20,354	3,521.2	2,174.6	70.5May 31, 1982	20,354	2,870.3	1,603.3	N.A.
1 Canadian dollar equivalent, based on closing exchange rate.
2 Merchandise imports, not seasonally adjusted.

July 15, 1982
19386______________________________________
Order Paper Questions


David P. Smith: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), since he gets so much delight in looking up these questions, why No. 2,329 which has been on the Order Paper since April 2, 1981, has not been answered yet, and has he now determined when I might receive an answer?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to make some inquiries on behalf of the hon. member. I do not have an answer for him yet but I will keep working on it. I am sure we will have one before too long.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. These lists for the festivities accorded President Reagan were all made up before President Reagan came here. Why is it taking so long to bring them into the House?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, these inquiries are under way. I am delighted to do this on behalf of the hon. member.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary would address himself to questions Nos. 3,051 and 3,052 which were placed on the Order Paper on December 1. It is a request for information with regard to the government's advertising budget. When will we be able to get information with regard to the advertising budget for 1979-80, 1980-81 and the projected budget for 1981-82? Also, when he will be able to give us information about the Canadian Media Corporation? What is the reason he has not yet come back with this information?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not have a status report off-hand. I would point out to the hon. member that at this point in this session we have answered 3,473 questions. I can assure the hon. member I will be very happy to look into these matters on his behalf.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, while the parliamentary secretary is doing that, would he also look at question No. 3,506, which was placed on the Order Paper on December 2, requesting information about public opinion surveys commissioned by the government? Why has the parliamentary secretary been incapable of getting an answer to that question?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I have always made inquiries any time the hon. member has asked me to do so. I would be pleased to do so again in this instance. I cannot give him an answer tonight, but I will be happy to look into the matter for him.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire about question No. 4,229 which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) requested that I place on the Order Paper in early April. I raised this matter with the parliamentary secretary, asking him if he would look into the information kiosks established by the Metric Commission across the country and the people who were to be employed in them. He said he would look into the question, but I still do not have an answer. If the minister cannot answer the question now, I would respectfully request that the parliamentary secretary get me an answer before this Parliament adjourns for the summer recess.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that these matters are in hand. I think we will have an answer before too long.


Mr. Siddon:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask about question No. 4,053, which I placed on the Order Paper on February 23 of this year. It is a very detailed question dealing with the shipments of uranium hexafluoride from Canadian ports, through the Soviet Union, for processing for other countries. As the residues and one of the uranium isotopes can be converted to plutonium and weapons grade uranium, the answers to these questions are very urgent. I would ask the parliamentary secretary what progress he has made in the last two weeks to obtain the answers to these questions which I asked him about two weeks ago.


David P. Smith: I have made inquiries. The hon. member is correct, it is a lengthy question. It goes on for two pages. I hope to have a progress report for him on the status of that question very soon.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, July 14, 1982, consideration of the motion of Mr. Johnston that Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, when the House rose yesterday afternoon, we were discussing the

July 15, 1982

problems facing thousands of Canadian businesses which forced them to close down because of the present economic situation and lay off thousands of workers. It is clear that the bill now before the House concerning a wage freeze in the public service is meeting with some resistance on the part of employees, but I think that all employees affected by this bill will agree that in the industries I was referring to earlier, we have people who have no job security at all. In situations like the one we are in now, workers are faced with mass lay-offs. In the public service, however, including Crown corporations and all the agencies listed under Schedule II of the bill, employees will agreee that they do have some degree of job security, and what is more, that their particular group does not have to cope with the pressure experienced by employees faced with lay-offs and by their families who have to cope with all kinds of family problems as a result. As I have just said, Mr. Speaker, the employees in the public service and Crown corporations who are affected by Bill C-124 and the wage freeze do not have to face that kind of problem. I think the federal public services, the provincial public services and most of the municipal services are very fortunate in having job security to the extent that they do.
In fact, what we are asking the people affected by this bill is to share with their fellow Canadians some of the benefits they have been able to obtain and acquire during the years they have been employed in the public service. We are also asking them to share these benefits with other fellow citizens who are faced with the extremely difficult situations we are seeing today. We are not asking them to make such sacrifices gladly. We are simply asking them to share with other Canadians what they have been able to obtain, so that at the end of the two-year period imposed by this bill, there will be new confidence in Canada. We want all Canadians to continue to believe in the vast potential of this country and we want people who have their own business to help as many Canadians as possible obtain jobs and earn a decent wage so that they can make a living and raise their families. Mr. Speaker, it seems that the opposition parties agree to some extent with the wage freeze and the temporary wage reduction in the public service. Each and everyone of our friends opposite may have devised various solutions or commented on some provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, but all have agreed that the government had to take concrete steps to solve the economic problems facing Canada. Of course, we would have liked to obtain useful ideas and suggestions from our hon. friends opposite during this debate but, as usual, they merely criticized the bill without giving us the co-operation we are seeking from all Canadians at this time. Again today, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and other cabinet ministers responsible for economic matters have met with groups and unions in an attempt to obtain from them the cooperation I referred to earlier. It is clear that if we fail to obtain their co-operation, it will be difficult for us to overcome this economic crisis.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
If the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Finance, all the Ministers and all members on the government side can meet with people who do not always share their views, why can our friends opposite not do likewise? Why can the Leader of the Opposition not try to convince his friends across the country that we must address the current problems and seek solutions all together? Why can the Leader of the New Democratic Party not try to sit with his trade unionist friends to consider with them the kind of solutions likely to deal with inflation in Canada? That should be the thrust of our action, Mr, Speaker. It is with this purpose in mind that all members of the House, all groups and individuals concerned with the economic situation in Canada, and eager to find solutions to our economic problems, may help the government perform the task it has taken on.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the private sector will also have a major part to play in this endeavour. If the Prime Minister, the cabinet ministers and all the people concerned about the economic situation meet with representatives of all sectors of private enterprise, it is precisely to try to convince them that they should contribute to the solution of the problem. It is important that the private sector should stand by the government to solve this problem. According to recent press reports, especially following the budget and the meetings the government had with business circles, their representatives are willing to co-operate with the government in seeking solutions. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read into the record part of an article published in La Presse which shows the willingness of businessmen to cooperate with the Minister of Finance's efforts to grapple with the economic situation. I quote:
The meeting which Prime Minister Trudeau and several of his ministers had with about 40 businessmen representing major Canadian businesses ended on an optimistic note. The Canadian business community is willing to co-operate with the government to bring the inflation rate down to 6 per cent and accordingly companies will attempt to limit their price increases to this level.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the board of Power Corporation, Mr. Paul Desmarais, gave the gist of the meeting in these words for the reporters: "There has been a consensus; the businessmen who were there have given massive support to the government. It was unanimous! We have to fight inflation together, the federal government, the provinces, business and labour! We have to bring the deficit and interest rates down to the lowest possible level!" Mr. Speaker, I believe that such a statement following a meeting with 40 businessmen is selfexplanatory. If we now have in Canada-and I shall give other examples later on, Mr. Speaker-businessmen willing to cooperate with the Canadian government to reduce inflation, everyone will have to do his share.
Mr. Speaker, this article in La Presse speaks of a consensus, but first we must obtain a consensus in this House and this is

July 15, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
what I am asking of my friends opposite. Why would they not give this government the consensus which business, unions, workers and organized labour throughout the country are willing to give? Why is it that our friends opposite are not able to do their part, disregard political partisanship and the few votes they could gain in some constituency somewhere in Canada and give us this consensus so that we may use the next two years to get out of the current economic mess? Mr. Speaker, they readily admit that we must fight inflation and attempt everything to solve our present economic problems, but 1 wonder why they do not want to give this consensus to the government. Businessmen and unions are willing to do their share. I am certain that our friends on the extreme left are not very happy to hear that the President of the Canadian Labour Congress came out of a meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) saying he was confident we would find solutions.
Obviously our friends do not really like the president-I was going to say the president of their party-making such statements. However, in view of the present situation, this man was able to sit down and tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance: "It is true that we have problems, but I shall put aside some of my opinions, which may be political or labour oriented, to see whether we can resolve these economic problems together." We have been asking for co-operation since the budget speech. We now ask our friends opposite to co-operate and do not understand their reluctance. While many of their constituents have given this kind of co-operation to the government, why will they not for once, Mr. Speaker, forget their political partisanship? Then this House of Commons and the other place can say that henceforth we shall try to work ourselves out of this economic situation within the next two years so that each Canadian, in each constituency, in each region, in each province, can enjoy his share of the wealth of this country.
Comments throughout the world make it abundantly clear that Canada is a country of plenty that inspires envy. We should all think about this and consider that, for once, we are given the opportunity to unite and co-operate so that Canada may continue to be one of those countries which every head of state wants to take as a model and say: "This is a country whose people, heedless of their own personal and political interests, try to find together a way out of an extremely difficult economic situation which affects the entire world." This is the only thing, Mr. Speaker, we are asking of our friends opposite and the Canadian people. Of course we realize we may be blamed for selecting a group of individuals who are readily identifiable and, as I pointed out earlier, who enjoy some privileges over other Canadians. Employees of the Civil Service and Crown corporations indisputably enjoy advantages and privileges other Canadian workers do not have.
Mr. Speaker, you surely have had the experience in your own constituency office, along with the majority of members, of a 45 or 50 year-old man calling on you because his company has recently closed down. He has come to ask you for a job in a related field of employment and tells you that he had been working with the same employer for 25 or 30 years and never expected his company would close down. He tells you that he has two or three school-age children and can't get a job. Each and all of us have dealt with such cases, but this government has taken steps to put an end to such a situation throughout the country.
We have taken measures to help those people. I may have the opportunity to describe a few programs later on. What I wish to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, since your constituency is made up of public servants, is that I would be quite surprised if you told me that you had received the visits of public servants complaining they had lost their jobs because their company had closed down. I do not think there is any prospect of the federal, provincial or municipal governments doing that. Job security is a great advantage government workers have over the others. This is why, Mr. Speaker, we are seeking their co-operation, so that other Canadians who do not enjoy such job security may get secure employment also. We have taken steps, developed programs and implemented plans in Canada to meet those expectations. Allow me to point out that we have just passed new legislation on occupational training at a cost of $1 billion this year to cope with layoffs throughout the country affecting workers of all ages as a result of technological changes in some industries.
These training programs will enable thousands of workers to acquire new skills in certain fields to meet the challenge of today's technology and to work for other companies in different sectors. Perhaps some of my friends opposite think that we are dreaming, but they ought to face reality and see that courses are now being given throughout the country to retrain workers and enable them to gain experience in new technology so they will get jobs in new fields and in industries which have changed considerably in recent years. Mr. Speaker, those are the various areas where our government has invested considerable amounts of money to retrain the labour force.
Naturally, we do not believe that our new budget and the new programs which have been announced will produce instantaneous results and that they will have concrete repercussions throughout the country tomorrow, the day after or perhaps even next week or in the next few months. Our aim is to take steps right away so that in the coming months and especially in the coming year all Canadians everywhere in Canada will respond and co-operate as we expect them to do, because our objective is to develop the whole Canadian economy so that within a few years it will reach what we believe to be its full productive capacity.
July 15, 1982

Of course, Mr. Speaker, some of our friends say that we always blame other countries, but we do have to keep in mind the international economic situation. My friends opposite and all Canadians who believe that the new budget or the new programs to be launched will enable Canada to solve the economic problems of the world have another think coming. We live in a very prosperous country where natural resources are plentiful, but there is no way that 24 or 25 million Canadians can possibly come up with a solution to the economic problems of the United States, Japan, Italy and West Germany. One of my friends said a moment ago that we are dreaming in colour. Mr. Speaker, they are the ones who are dreaming in colour when they ask the government to find a solution to all the problems of the world.
Naturally, a good many people think that we are taking drastic measures, but we have to, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we must show the Canadian people that they have a responsible government that is prepared to do its utmost over the next two years to restore confidence and the economic climate we had before from coast to coast. It would be utopian to think that within our own country we can take measures that will solve the problems of all other countries. Those who think that, be they in the opposition or ordinary Canadians, are dreaming in colour. We will start off by doing whatever is required within Canada to restore that climate of confidence and help the Canadian people.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to touch on another aspect of Bill C-124 which in the next two years will enable the government to recoup some funds by limiting salary increases to 6 and 5 per cent, and then reinvest that money in the regions of the country that need it most. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to speak of my own region, eastern Quebec, the Gaspe Peninsula, and in particular of the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. It may be that our honourable friends opposite and a few other members of this House are not aware of the fact that in the Gaspe Peninsula and the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine, the rate of unemployment now ranges from 50 to 60 per cent. The people in those areas are Canadians like all the others, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to the same rights, privileges and opportunities as all other Canadians. There lies the responsibility of the government, Mr. Speaker: it must see to it that funds are garnered in other sectors of activity and reallocated with a view to helping the people in underdeveloped areas who also want to share in the wealth of this country. Indeed, with the funds that are reallocated and reinvested in direct job creation, we can, through community development projects, give jobs to those people who, in many cases, some time this summer or in early fall, will have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefits without having had over that period, because of the current economic situation, the opportunity of going back to the seasonal jobs they had in previous years. Those are the people we will help, Mr. Speaker, by allowing them to work for
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
periods of 20 to 40 weeks and so to provide for their wives and children as other Canadians do across the country.
Those then are the decisions this government had to take, Mr. Speaker. And we took them because our party has always strived to ensure that all Canadians, throughout the land, wherever they live and whatever they do, have the same opportunities, the same advantages. Mr. Speaker, obviously, through Bill C-124 and the measures proposed by the budget, we are asking the majority of Canadians, some sectors of the Canadian population, to make sacrifices. But we must, through this bill and the other measures, convince ourselves that we can, if we are to come out of these difficult times, first of all, as the government-and this, I think we have proved-be assured that we can do so. Above all, Mr. Speaker, I feel that every hon. member, every Canadian, must first convince himself that we are able, that we have the necessary means, that we have the ability, that we have the natural resources and wealth throughout the country to come out of this economic crisis.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for an individual to try to convince his fellow citizens or friends if he is not convinced himself that we have the means to do so. That is the attitude, the way of thinking that each and every Canadian must cultivate within himself. With all we have in this country, with our tremendous wealth in natural resources, we can pull out of this economic impasse. That is the only way, Mr. Speaker, for every Canadian, every group, every association, every labour union, every businessman, to convince those around them that we can, that we will achieve that economic renewal we are all seeking and will achieve by the end of those two years, provided every individual does his part. That is what we are asking: first, that everyone do his part in overcoming the current economic situation, and second, that everyone convince himself that we can do so, Mr. Speaker!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Setting aside the merits of what my friend has just said, I want him to know it is a lot more fun listening to, and certainly watching, his cousin.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where were the Tories yesterday, and the day before?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: The important one is here now, Mr. Speaker.
Canada is in trouble, big trouble. We have a desperate need for a solution to aid those suffering from unemployment and all Canadians who are subject to all-time high inflation rates. We need action and we need it fast. The social conscience of our nation demands it.

July 15, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Our unemployment rate is comparable to the rates during the Great Depression when unemployment ranged from 11 per cent to 20 per cent. The unemployment rate of our public sector now effectively stands at 15 per cent. These figures are terrifying and unacceptable to every thinking Canadian. Coupled with unemployment is inflation which is running at an annual rate in excess of 11 per cent. We have record bankruptcies and small business failures, and a lack of confidence in our dollar which really reflects the lack of confidence in Canada as a nation. That hurts, Mr. Speaker, because we know what wonderful, abundant resources this country has; resources in the land as well as its people.
Why, you may ask, why has this happened? How can a country like ours end up in such a mess? I will tell you why. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) put it, there has been an alarming drop in commercial investment and profits. The demand for goods has diminished both here in Canada and in our foreign markets. One quarter of our production capacity remains idle. Over the past few years, our industrial productivity has been rising at the second slowest rate of any major industrialized nation. Borrowing costs in Canada are higher than those in most other industrialized nations. What a sorry state for such a rich country!
To come to Canada's rescue, the jaded knights in shining armour, although sadly tarnished at this point, have devised a plan for the economic recovery of the nation. First there was a budget-the third one-born of desperation rather than inspiration. Shameful is the only word to describe the unjust treatment of the old age pensioners who subsist near the poverty line. They are restricted to the same 6 per cent cost of living increase as the presidents of our renowned Crown corporations. These people are the Canadians who created a better way of life for us than they enjoyed, and in more difficult times than these. This is the way the Liberal government thanks them.
1 think all Canadians would prefer that we treat our fathers and mothers and the fathers and the mothers of all members of our generation with compassion and respect and eliminate this disgraceful provision. Then there is Bill C-124, the public sector compensation restraint act, as it is called, created to curb the wage increases of public servants in an attempt to quell inflation.
Mr. Speaker, restraint is an admirable goal when practised in the right direction. But are we really talking about the same thing? It seems to me that the government has a slightly different interpretation of the term "restraint". Its record makes its dedication subject to proof. The government, in its November budget, aimed to curb its spending at 22 per cent. However, only seven months later, its spending did not reduce but, instead, increased by 20 per cent. Is that the example the Canadian people are expected to follow?
The government should show leadership, but it certainly has not to date. Bill C-124 shows inequitable treatment of those categorized as public servants. Lower ranks in the military, for example, paid at very low levels, are asked to risk their lives in crisis times, to move their families and themselves on short
notice, to pay increasing accommodation and utility costs and to use outdated equipment and bear the burden of understaffed personnel. They are being restricted to the same 6 per cent income increase as top military brass, cabinet ministers and generals and admirals. We should not penalize the lower ranks further.
The potential for creating union problems is manifest in the provisions regarding transportation unions which have traditionally bargained in the same sector. Provisions which make restraint measures applicable against the CNR are not similarly applicable against the CPR. Measures which cap the wages of Air Canada employees do not similarly cap the wages of employees of Canadian Pacific Air, Eastern Provincial Airways, or other regional carriers. It is to be hoped that these measures would in effect apply with equal fairness to all persons within the transportation sector.
Such equity is not envisioned by these measures. While I can support the principle of restraint, I look forward to correcting these inequities in committee so that I, and indeed all Canadians, can support the substance of the bill when it is before us.
I would prefer that the government place before Parliament a comprehensive program to reduce expenditures by supplying government services to all Canadians at the lowest possible cost. It should invest in committees the right to make accountable all those who in the past and in the future by their decisions have or can cost Canadians millions of dollars in waste, extravagance and mismanagement. Cuts or delays in discretionary spending in most departments are imperative. To lead the economic recovery of our nation I recommend the elimination of the capital gains tax and major changes in FIRA in order to attract badly needed capital investment. I feel the use of our resources and the advantages to Canadians can be controlled without discouraging investment in the manner now being done. I suggest the revenue from the capital gains tax is small compared with the benefits which will accrue through taxation of income generated by investment. I recommend that major tax incentives be provided for industrial research and development which can give Canadian industry a badly needed edge in competition for world markets essential to the economic recovery and development of our nation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, more flexible caps on indexing, ranging from full indexation for low-income people to none for fat cats earning $50,000 and over, including the top brass such as ministers, deputy ministers and Members of Parliament is, in my view, a more equitable and fair method of leading the war on inflation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I just forget who said it, but there is a saying that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. That is what is happening today, and that is what happened in 1975. There is another quotation I would like to give you, and I hope some hon. gentlemen from the government side or the official opposition can identify the person who said it. It was to the
July 15, 1982

effect that labour is prior to and superior to capital, and without labour, capital cannot function. I am not sure that any of my colleagues in the other two parties can identify who said that, so for their edification let me tell them that it was said by Abraham Lincoln in 1856. If you have $1 million of capital and no one will work for you, your capital is worth nothing.
The principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. The bill itself is wrong. If you limit through legislation the pay and allowances of one group, if you limit their rights, if you can do it to that one group, then of course the door is wide open to do it to any other group. One would think in these times that the government and this Parliament would bring in legislation which challenges the entire nation, which makes us all equal in this battle, this national economic emergency, and which will bring us out of an economic depression. It is a depression, so let us not delude ourselves with a milder word like "recession". I said that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it, and one only has to look at Hansard between 1928 and 1938 to see the truth of that. Let me give some quotes, such as the following:
During the summer, coming events began to cast their shadow over international finance ... The proposals of President Hoover for a one-year moratorium were heralded as a signal for returning world confidence, but the optimism was unfortunately short lived .. . Well may Canadians look back with satisfaction over what has been accomplished.
That was a fellow by the name of E. N. Rhodes, Minister of Finance, April 6, 1932, as reported at pages 1749 and 1750 of Hansard. He was a Conservative. Let us go to another one. This one was a tirade, and it reads as follows:
There were increases in the public debt, bringing the public debt to a point higher than it has reached at any previous time in Canada ... Where we might have hoped for some evidence of decreases in the general cost of government, there has been but little.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to make it appear that this condition has been due to world conditions.
That was the right hon. leader of the Liberal official opposition, one William Lyon Mackenzie King, April 26, 1932, as reported at pages 2363 and 2364 of Hansard.
Let us go to another one, which reads:
The evidence of business recovery is written incontrovertibly in the recorded facts of our industry and trade.
That is again the Minister of Finance, Mr. Rhodes, as reported on April 18, 1934, at page 2267 of Hansard.
Let us move now to another regime because I am endeavouring to show they are, both of them, still the same old bunch. Here is another quote:
With respect to the income tax, charged as we were with increasing it, the minister was frank the other evening in saying that he had increased it slightly. And so all along the line we have the same position.
That is one R. B. Bennett, March 2, 1937, as reported at page 1391 of Hansard. Mr. Speaker, the then leader of the opposition, following his government from 1930 to 1935, moved an amendment to the Liberal budget which said:
This House regrets that the government has failed to take effective measures to deal with the problem of unemployment.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
What we are getting today? The Herbert Hoover's, the R. B. Bennett's and the Mackenzie King's are now telling us again-they have not learned from history-to tighten our belts, show restraint and pick out some people who are easy victims, easy to pick on. The fellows who said in the dirty thirties that prosperity is just around the corner are telling us the same thing again. All you have to do is to slap on a 6 per cent limit for public servants and Crown corporation employees, and then somehow or other that will automatically result in everyone else in the economy rushing to volunteer to restrict increases in their incomes to not more than 6 per cent.
I have not heard any mad stampede or scramble outside the doors of this chamber, or anywhere else in this country, to volunteer, but the ones who do not learn from history and are now repeating it say things like:
Yes, I would continue to back Mr. Bouey. I agree that our interest rates have to track those in the United states.
That was said by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). Imagine that.
Here is another quote which reads:
We have looked for a solution other than the government's, but we couldn't come up with an alternative ... At this moment, I don't have a better solution.
I presume he meant, other than horizontal with the Liberals. That was the right hon. gentleman from Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) as reported in the Toronto Star on May 5.
By the way, the quotation I read from the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is from a CTV interview on June 7, 1981. The Liberals had not even been in office all that long, and he was already telling us how great Governor Bouey and the Liberals were doing.
We must consider the whole matter of honesty and integrity in federal politics. 1 have another quote which reads:
-our leaders have got to be a little less honest . . . we're not being devious and tricky enough ... I'm criticizing us for that.
That was the hon. gentleman from St. John's West from the "Watson Report" of February 4, 1979.
The same gentleman is reported in Maclean s magazine for July 12, 1981 as saying the government:
-is adrift; it has no answers. If I told you what I would do, we'd never get elected.
The hon. member for St. John's West said that, I did not.
With respect to controls and wages, here is another quote:
What is in the budget? There is one important initiative ... the introduction of restraint on public sector salaries. That is a field in which the government has lagged behind several Canadian provinces. All of which, by the way, during times when we had Tory governments.
This quote continues:
We are relieved that it is beginning to accept that government spending is a major cause of current economic problems ... it is a step in the right direction.
Those words are from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition pertaining to the restraint measures on the public servants and the Crown corporation employees in Canada.

July 15, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Neither one of the parties have learned anything. Neither one of them have the courage to adopt something different from and more than what they tried before.
I am just an innocent prairie boy and I always understood that if you charged people more, it will cost you more. I did not think there was anything complicated about that. If you have higher interest rates, that means the cost of everything goes up. I thought, even when I was in public school, that was automatic. You pay higher prices for everything you buy. You pay higher mortgages. You have higher unemployment. You pay higher costs of production if you are a producer, and generally you have higher costs of living if you raise and keep raising or keep interest rates high. The evidence is in. The jury does not even have to meet. The high interest rate policy has meant higher unemployment, a higher cost of living, bankruptcies and the whole litany.
Why does the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition still clutch on to something that went out of date in the dirty thirties? It did not work then. It is not working now, and it will not work now.
A number of my colleagues have talked about the freedoms that are denied in this bill. I was in this chamber when we voted on the War Measures Act. Those of us who said it should not happen, and those of us who were ruled out by closure were subsequently vindicated by the right hon. gentleman, the former member for Halifax and the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party-and if the Tories had had any brains they would have kept him and he would be prime minister right now-who said a few years later that he wished he had done what Tommy Douglas did; he wished that he had voted against the implementation of the War Measures Act. It may be in the makeup of the person who is the leader of the official opposition to say down the road a few months or a few years that he wished he had voted against this bill because it denies the integrity of a bargaining unit.
This bill does away with protection from sexual harassment. It does away with negotiating for parental leave, it does away with pensions for part-time workers, vacation leave, paid holidays, pre-retirement leave, job classifications, job security, technological changes, contracting out, dental and health plans, improved bereavement leave and grievance procedures. All of those things are done away with. This is a new War Measures Act. This is not the kind of length a Parliament or any political party has to go to in order to bring about an alleviation of what we all know to be an economic national emergency, an economic depression. It is plain for everyone to know, to experience and to see.
We suggest there is a different way. I cannot say we are 100 per cent certain that it will work 100 per cent. But I can say that it is something different, something more than and different from what has been the conventional wisdom. I want to suggest that in order to deal with this matter, in order to get the co-operation, in fact, the enthusiastic support of our fellow citizens, we have to bring in measures that are not only fair but are seen to be fair. The perception out there in our riding is that all of us in this war should stop the depression and start
an expansion of our economy and that everyone should be treated fairly and equitably. I do not believe and I do not think anyone else does that this legislation is going to result automatically in fellow Canadians saying, "Well, they have limited the public servants and the Crown corporation employees to 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the year after." And as a result of that, they are all going to volunteer and take the pledge to limit their increases.
I have talked to my lawyer, my doctor, my chartered accountant and my real estate buddies, and none of them have volunteered to follow suit. In fact, they are laughing. I have not heard of Mr. Bronfman volunteering to fall in line with what is happening to public servants. He only received $1,064,288 last year. I have not heard him volunteering to take only a 6 per cent increase next year and 5 per cent the year after. I do not know why he would not, because 6 per cent would mean another $63,800; then he would be living up to the spirit of this legislation. Then there is J. A. de Grandpre from the mother Bell outfit. Last year the poor fellow only made $626,000. Not even he has rushed forward to volunteer to follow the example which was arbitrarily laid upon public servants and employees of Crown corporations by limiting his increase to 6 per cent, which would amount to a paltry $37,500. I do not see him rushing forward.
Let me turn to the area of Crown corporations. Well, by law CNR employees will receive 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the year after. Dr. LeClair, the new president of the Crown corporation, only received something in the order of $240,000 last year.
An hon. Member; It was $200,000.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Perhaps it was only $200,000. Eventually we will find out from the interstate commerce commission of the United States, but let us assume that it was only $200,000. The poor fellow will have to volunteer to take an increase of only $12,000 next year, which is what janitors and other low-paid workers in the public service receive in the way of entire incomes. I fully expect a grand announcement in another week or two that Dr. LeClair has agreed to a freeze in his salary. He was only obtaining $200,000, but who would not agree to a freeze on $200,000 which will amount to another $12,000.
This is not the way to attack inflation or to solve a national economic emergency. We should not do what was done in the dirty thirties nor what was tried in 1975; it did not work. I listened to a previous speaker talking about putting people to work. This was done by R. B. Bennett and Mackenzie King. 1 saw the relief camps of the dirty thirties-two bits a day and your grub. Their solution is to attack the victims, not the perpetrators. The first people they pick on are the first victims of inflation and the first victims of economic depression-wage earners, pensioners and low-income people. The Liberals, supported by the Tories, as was the case in the dirty thirties, attack these people.
July 15, 1982

If they want to set an example for all Canadians to follow, they should start at the top and work down. They should say to the corporate elite, to financial institutions and to high income people, including Members of Parliament, that they will lead the way. To leave out those who in fact are the causes of economic depression is the worst kind of injustice.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the former minister of finance both think that Gerald Bouey is the best thing since sliced bread. Both of them have said that his policy on interest rates is also their policy. They are fundamentally wrong. In order to get out of this economic depression, this national emergency, square one is interest rates. We say that the government must instruct the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates tomorrow to the level of inflation or not more than one per cent above it. If that means selective foreign exchange controls or total foreign exchange controls, so be it, for the length of the national economic emergency.
Whether someone wants to send $300,000 or $3 million out of the country, we would not allow it. But the ones who want to send hundreds of millions of dollars out of the country to invest in what can be nothing more than greed, selfishness, and traitorous behaviour, in order to make fast bucks out of shopping centres, luxury apartments or real estate in the United States, should be told that they cannot do so. If this country is big enough to make a profit out of, it is good enough to invest in. For a change, the people with investment capital, whether it is a lowly widow, a millionaire, a bank or a trust company, should be called upon to invest in the nation. If they do not, they should be made to do so. They should be given two choices-it is either compulsory or they have to.
This is the case in western European countries and Japan. They not only have planned economies, but in effect they have controlled economies; they always have had. Countries with inflation rates of 7 per cent or 9 per cent or interest rates of 7 per cent or 9 per cent have controlled economies. They have investment policies which collect public and private investment capital to be directed into what are the priorities of the nations.
Surely the priorities are here into which we could direct investment, and investors could obtain a reasonable return on their investment. Let us start with housing. We should not horse around with $500,000. Let us make it $1 billion per year for the next ten years. Then let us turn to transportation and invest in it $1 billion per year for the next 15 years. In fact, $1 billion per year for all modes of transportation would not be enough, but it would be the minimum and it could be public and private investment capital.


Norman Kelly: From where will you get the money?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The money is there. We do not need any more sinkholes like Candu. We could take 20 of the fancy fighter planes of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), which are no good to us and we can never use anyway, and put that money into housing. The capital is there. It is owned by Canadians. That is the tactic, that is the ethic, that is the plan we should be using, not what is in this bill.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, following a report in the media, I put a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) concerning the demolition of a building in my riding, the Daly Building. Yesterday morning a newspaper in the national capital reported that Treasury Board would have approved the demolition of that building. That report caused quite a stir in my riding, and in Ottawa as well, because some time ago the City of Ottawa has designated that structure as a Heritage building.
The Daly Building, Mr. Speaker, is a federal property that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works and not under the jurisdiction of the President of the Treasury Board. This is why I directed my question to the Minister of Public Works, because we know he is responsible for the management of federal buildings. This point has to be clarified, because if the minister applied to Treasury Board, it was probably for some supplementary estimates not earmarked in the budget of his department for that building.
In reply to my question, the minister indicated that he would appeal the decision of Treasury Board and that he intended to put the issue in the context of a study now under preparation of the total accommodation within the Ottawa capital region. Since this is a very controversial issue, I would like to provide a brief history of that matter which has been under consideration for at least seven or eight years. The Daly Building is strategically situated in the centre of the national capital within walking distance of Parliament Hill. This prestigious location offers exceptional view and access. The building is located on the corner of Rideau Street and Sussex Drive, next to the Rideau Centre project, now under construction, as everyone knows, and which brings about $200 million in economic activity to the National Capital. The seven storey Daly Building, which was built at the turn of the century, has a total area of 18,600 square meters; it stands on a lot measuring 4,332 square meters. Designed and built in 1905 as a large department store, the Daly Building was converted in 1919 into federal government offices and was to be demolished in 1979 with several obsolescent government buildings, namely the so-called temporary buildings on Sussex Street which were indeed demolished at the time. The building was purchased in 1921 by the federal government and in turn accommodated various departments. However, since the early seventies, the building has become increasingly outdated which has meant

July 15, 1982
Adjournment Debate
that major repairs have had to be made. In 1974, a first study was made to assess the situation and determine whether there would be any point in renovating the building or whether it would be more appropriate to tear it down. In the meantime, consultations were undertaken with various groups in the private and public sectors, which could have been interested in acquiring the building. It was thus offered to various government levels, provincial and municipal, and private interests, including a co-operative, a group of private interests, Crown corporations and many others, but always without success. In fact-and this is quite amusing, Mr. Speaker-in 1978, the Ottawa municipal council even decided that the building should be demolished.
We know the building has been vacant ever since. For the last three years at least, no one has occupied the building except the rats. However, this does not mean that it is not costing anything since it must still be heated and maintained to prevent complete deterioration in case a decision should be made to preserve it. In my opinion, our decision must be based strictly on economic considerations. If renovation is economically justified, the building should be renovated. However, if renovation costs exceed the cost of a new building, it should obviously be demolished. With this in mind, in 1978 I got in touch with the then Minister of Public Works, Mr. Buchanan, to get an idea of the costs. The minister then indicated in a letter that the study on the feasibility of renovation made in 1974 showed that it would cost over $10 million, $10.3 million to be exact for the building to comply with safety standards. At the time, it was estimated that it would cost approximately $250,000 to tear it down. In view of these facts, the decision to demolish the building was made in April 1979 for several reasons which would be too long to explain now. This was not done and we are now facing the same situation as in 1979, namely a controversy. I do not have the exact figures here, Mr. Speaker, but we can assume that since it would have cost over $10 million to renovate the building in 1978, it would certainly cost between $18 million and $20 million in 1982. As for the cost of demolition, it can be estimated at nearly $400,000. Moreover, according to the 1974 study to which I referred earlier and which had to do with the amortization of renovation costs over a 25-year period, it would have been necessary to raise the rent by as much as 50 per cent over that of a new building. One can reasonably assume that the situation has not changed in 1982 and that the same figures apply, although they may have to be readjusted because of inflation.
Yesterday, the minister told me that he would reconsider the situation. I think, therefore, that we would be well advised to wait for these new findings, in order to understand better the costs involved. That is the reason why I support the Minister in his appeal of the decision of Treasury Board and I will wait for the results of the study of the total accommodation of the federal government within the National Capital Region, study which should be completed by this Fall.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary secretary, I am very pleased to be able to answer my hon. colleague and to confirm what he just said, namely that, yesterday, the minister did indeed say that he would appeal a decision made recently by Treasury Board concerning the demolition of the Daly Building, and that he also was considering the feasibility of using the building for the benefit of the National Capital Region. The federal government has been using the Daly Building since 1918, and I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that, since then, the building was occupied without interruption by various federal departments until 1980 when the last federal tenants left the premises.
In 1977, the building was declared surplus to federal needs, because it no longer met present office standards. Since then, Mr. Speaker, the issue has been a very controversial one and has given rise to some very heated debate. In March 1981, Public Works Canada called for proposals from renovators with a view to using the Daly Building again. After due consideration, the Treasury Board ministers reached a decision regarding the future use of the building. As I said before, the Minister of Public Works is prepared to ask his colleagues to review their decision as you requested, in the light of an overall plan for accommodation in the National Capital Region. Furthermore, he intends to make a thorough study of the cost involved in using the building to accommodate federal offices. In this analysis, full consideration will be given to trends in the office building situation in Ottawa and to effective utilization of government resources.
In concluding, I wish to thank the member for Ottawa-Vanier who raised this question in the House. His abiding interest and continued efforts to improve the downtown area of the National Capital are well known. The Daly Building, and especially the building's prestigious location near the Parliament buildings, demands a serious planning approach. For many years, the member for Ottawa-Vanier has put forward excellent arguments in support of sound urban planning in the National Capital downtown area.


SOCIAL SECURITY-FUNDING FOR SERVICES. (B) CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION MEETING
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to again bring to the attention of the government the fact that bad economic policy produces unemployment and bad economic policy produces stress for human beings. I would remind members of this Chamber that in December 1979 this House rejected a budget that would have created jobs, that would have reduced inflation, that would have produced more help for the poorest segment of our society. Instead, we have
July 15, 1982

bad economic policy, increased unemployment and a financial crisis in many homes.
It is well known that social science literature is full of facts which indicate that when you create unemployment in society you create stress for people. That stress shows up in increased debt, in increased mental health breakdowns, in increased heart attacks, in increased alcoholism, in increased wife beating, and in increased child beating.
If we project on the basis of some of the best scientific literature, when we consider the 3 per cent increase in unemployment which has occurred in the last year, do you know what we are looking at in the year ahead? We are looking at something in the order of a 12 per cent increase in suicides, a 15 per cent increase in homicides, a 12 per cent increase in prison admissions and a 10 per cent increase in hospital admissions. Those people will be the social victims of our bad economic policy.
I have tried to bring those statistics to the attention of this government on more than one occasion, Mr. Speaker. The last time I had an opportunity, on June 14, I brought them to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during question period. Prior to that, statistics of this same kind were rejected by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) and by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), who comes from Windsor, Ontario, where there is evidence of those statistics right on the street. If he got out and visited the people in the riding he represents and talked to them, he would find those kinds of social consequences. That is all he would have to do.
The Minister of Labour yelled out that this was not true. I would like to bring to the attention of the House just three studies; the first being a Statistics Canada paper called "Health and Economic Activity" written by O. B. Adams. That kind of information is contained in that study.
Another study was conducted for the Minister of Labour. It is referred to in popular literature as the Carruthers Report. That kind of statistic is given there. Another one was conducted by the Canadian Council on Social Development. Its report was sent to every Member of Parliament in November 1980.
It is incredible to have to stand here, for the fourth of fifth time, to try to bring to the attention of this government the fact that there are social consequences. There is increased debt, increased homicide, increased suicide, increased alcoholism, increased wife and child beating, which is predictable from bad economic policy. People who are losing their jobs, who are losing their homes, are put under stress. Sometimes that stress is unbearable and these consequences flow from it.
I tried to bring these statistics to the attention of the Prime Minister on June 14. I said: "Mr. Prime Minister, when I see this new, marvellous budget, will there be increased funding for the social service sector, for hospitals, for prisons and for treatment facilities?" The Prime Minister said: "Watch, wait and see. Be patient."
Adjournment Debate
We now have the budget, and the tragedy is that there is no increased funding for hospitals; there is no increased funding for prisons; there is no increased funding for social services. The government is creating victims but is not meeting its obligation to go even a little way toward helping those victims. That is a tragedy for the country and for the victims.
The only significant cut this government has made in its exorbitant spending up to this point is a cut out in transfer payments to the provinces. The provinces deliver these social services, yet each day we are seeing in our newspapers increased evidence that the money is not adequate to help the victims of the policy of this government.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will stand up tonight and make a commitment to increased funding for these groups.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, federal contributions to the provinces for health care are made under the established programs financing arrangements. Under these arrangements the federal government will contribute some $8.5 billion in 1982-83 in respect of three health-related programs: hospital insurance, medicare and extended health care. The formula on which these contributions is based contains an escalator which is derived from a three-year moving average of nominal gross national product. This escalator was chosen to ensure year-to-year stability of the growth of federal contributions.
As far as social services are concerned, the federal government is continuing to pick up 50 per cent of the provinces' cost under the Canada Assistance Plan. The program is open-ended and supports services to persons in need or likely to become in need. Because federal contributions &d4069;-l are tied to provincial expenditures on the basis of a cost-sharing formula, federal payments rise automatically in line with provincial spending.
In terms of the hon. member's second question concerning the Canadian Mental Health Association meeting, it should be noted that although the Department of National Health and Welfare undertakes a number of joint activities with the CMHA, Department of National Health and Welfare officials were given no notice of the meeting to which the hon. member refers. The mental health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare contacted the CMHA and was informed that this meeting is a private meeting of an internal committee of the CMHA and is viewed by CMHA as a preliminary step toward defining the problem areas and identifying possible or desirable action.
It is perhaps worth noting that the Department of National Health and Welfare, primarily through its mental health division, has had a long-standing relationship with CMHA. In addition to the department's sustaining grant of $39,000 for head office administration, several joint projects have been undertaken between CMHA and the mental health division. These were supported by departmental funding. Examples of these are the production of parent education pamphlets, each advising parents on one particular behavioural problem in childhood and a national symposium on perspectives on the
19396

July 15, 1982
Adjournment Debate
care of the longer-term mentally ill held in February, 1982. The proceedings of this latter symposium are expected to form the basis of a more detailed report on the care of the chronically psychiatrically ill in Canada. Finally, a CMHA proposal to promote and maintain mental health in the workplace is currently under review within the health promotion directorate of this branch.
In summary, excellent working relationships exist between Health and Welfare Canada and the Canadian Mental Health Association. Officers of the mental health division serve on a number of CMHA committees, though not on the committee to which the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has apparently referred.
Regarding the specific meeting in question, the department would be glad to receive any suggestions for possible action on preventive strategies to reduce mental health service demands, consequent to employment loss.


MEDICAL CARE-EXTRA BILLING BY PHYSICIANS-MINISTER'S POSITION. (B) FEDERAL FUNDING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on June 11 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) a question about extra billing by doctors. At that time I was after the minister for agreeing with provincial health ministers to control extra billing rather than eliminating it, a position which in my view meant she was backing down from her previous views on extra billing.
On July 14 I asked the minister what she intended to do about lay-offs in health care services in Nova Scotia and the introduction of user fees in the hospitals of that province.
On both those occasions I tried to make the point that the Minister of National Health and Welfare seriously damaged her bargaining power with the provinces when she allowed the reduction in treasury transfer payments to the provinces proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and which took effect when the established programs financing arrangements were pushed through in the spring of this year. I said then, as I say now, that it will be difficult to bargain on the one hand for clarified, tougher and enforceable national standards for medicare when, on the other hand, payments to provincial governments are being reduced.
Nevertheless, in spite of the regrettable mistake of this spring, I wish the minister well in her efforts to bring in, with provincial approval, a new Canada health care act by next year. This would consolidate all existing legislation and incorporate new ways to maintain and strengthen the principles and quality of medicare. It will not be easy to do this when there are so many Conservative governments that are, at heart, actually hostile to medicare for long-standing ideological reasons.
If I have time, I should like to address another related matter. Recently, the Canadian Medical Association commenced a study on the rationalization of health care, claiming that under-funding is causing doctors to have to make life and death decisions, and that some way will have to be found to decide who will receive treatment and who will not. This is a
vicious tactic by the doctors and shows how low their leaders are prepared to stoop. It is embarrassing I am sure, to the many fine, dedicated physicians who still live and work in Canada.
The question of rationalization will not go away. It must be dealt with. Before medicare, the marketplace, tempered by the discretion of altruistic doctors, rationalized health care in this country. Medicare was intended to overcome this problem and it did. As long as there was economic growth and abundant funding, there were no great structural problems. Now that we are in the era of the shrinking economic pie, however, the principles of medicare are being tested.
The response of some, like the Canadian Medical Association, has been to argue for the reintroduction of private, user-based funding which will mean a return to rationalization by the marketplace. Those of us who favour single-source public sector funding will have to do more than just dig in against private funding mechanisms. We will have to find a way to make sure that health care is not rationalized by politics, per se, by federal provincial disputes over funding and by economic policy in general. Perhaps we will have to find a way to separate health funding from the raising of general revenue by governments, so that people can support increased health funding without giving up their opposition to government spending policies in general. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the pressure to reintroduce private money into our underfunded system will become unbearable, and people will finally rebel against the rationalization of health care, and thus their very lives, by the ministers of finance of the country.
This problem must be faced and solved. It must be faced and solved by pro-medicare people, or the anti-medicare people, of whom there are more than meets the eye, will eventually win the day. I invite the minister to respond to these observations.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member rushing his question. He knows I only have a few minutes and that I read slowly, so that helps me. I also appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.
In reply to the hon. member's question, the position of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with respect to extra billing is well known. It has been the goal and belief of the minister, reinforced and supported by the views expressed by Mr. Justice Hall and the majority of the members of the parliamentary task force on federal fiscal arrangements, that extra billing should be eliminated. The way to achieve this goal is through the co-operation of the provincial governments. As you know, the division of responsibilities under the Constitution does not permit the federal government to unilaterally legislate on the delivery of personal health care. Any actions taken by the federal government must not be regulatory in matters falling within provincial jurisdictions. We were able to implement national health insurance programs through provincial co-operation. Therefore, in order to
July 15, 1982

maintain these programs, it is essential that the conditions for the federal contributions be as fully acceptable as possible to provincial governments. The federal government wishes to strengthen national Medicare, not take any action which will weaken or destroy it.
At the May 26, 1982, federal-provincial conference, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) expressed her goal in her opening statement as follows: "I would hope that all of us can agree that we must take steps to eliminate extra billing." It was the minister's hope that all provincial ministers of health would be prepared to work towards the elimination of this practice. As it happened, this was not the case. They did agree, however, that control of extra billing must be addressed in order to protect accessibility-
In this regard, the Minister of National Health and Welfare was certainly successful in moving the provinces closer to the federal government's view, in that for the first time all provincial ministers are in agreement that extra billing is a problem
Adjournment Debate
which could be a threat to medicare, and its control is essential. The question of extra billing is now one that will be addressed. Controlling it will be part of program conditions aimed at ensuring that medicare is accessible. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is pleased with, and enthusiastic about, the demonstrated determination of the provincial ministers of health to approach upcoming discussions with a spirit of openness and co-operation. Proposals made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare are to be discussed at the ministerial and official level prior to the next conference of federal and provincial ministers, presently envisaged for this fall. These discussions are already under way. A significant step forward has been taken toward strengthening medicare for all Canadians. I hope this answer will satisfy the hon. member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, July 16, 1982