1982-12-20

CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Auditor General in his report described the extent of government activity in business as "an enormous iceberg" of which only the tip is dimly visible; whereas the proliferation of Crown corporations has become a "sub-Government" employing 263,000 people; whereas it has become obvious that the Liberal Cabinet and some Crown corporations have become co-conspirators in spending money without parliamentary control, which has raised a number of questions such as: 1. Should the Government be trying to do the things it is with Crown corporations? 2. Should some Crown corporations continue to exist? 3. Should a sunset deadline on Crown corporations be imposed?-I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That action be taken under the Inquiries Act immediately to recommend to this House legislation to control Crown corporations so that money extracted from the public through taxation is not used to pursue goals desired by politicians and bureaucrats to stroke their own egos.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the Fraser River flooding, and move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House express its concern for the victims of flooding in the lower Fraser River valley as well as its concern for the state of water management and flood control in the area; and that this House calls on the federal Government to increases its funding and support for the Lower Fraser Diking Agreement and the long term projects of the Diking Agreement Management Board.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MANUFACTURE OF SUBSTANDARD MEDICAL DEVICES- NECESSITY FOR CONTROLS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that time and time again there has been evidence that numerous medical devices, including contact lenses and pacemakers, have not always lived up to their expectations and at times have caused serious illness and death to their recipients because of malfunction, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Department of National Health and Welfare move more speedily and more expeditiously to correct and eliminate all substandard medical devices and exert more stringent controls on the manufacturing companies to make them more responsible than they have been up to now.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise today on the subject of the public acknowledgement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of failure last night, on the CBC. 1 congratulate him on his lofty detachment that enables him to view the bitterness of the Canadian public without any sense of depression or guilt. Perhaps we could call that the Clifford Olson approach.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stan Darling: I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince-Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House inform the Prime Minister that, while he may be sorry for those who do not have jobs, the Canadian public at large is sorry that he has one, and more specifically the one that he does have, namely, the Prime Ministership.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas last Wesnesday in this House, and last evening in his televised interview, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tried to defend
December 20, 1982

Cruise missile testing in Canada by arguing that the Cruise moves too slowly to make it suitable as a first-strike weapon, and whereas the threat to future arms control agreements posed by the Cruise missile is not that it may or may not be a first-strike weapon, but that it is so difficult to verify its numbers that it renders arms control agreements, in the words of one U.S. navy official, meaningless, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That the Prime Minister take the time to inform himself of all of the ramifications of Cruise missile deployment on arms control agreements before he makes any more public utterances on the subject.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That the Solicitor General, after consultation with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, inform the House whether his officials conducted an independent investigation of the reported car accident in Moscow on December 4 of this year in which an employee of our Embassy, Mr. Michel Leroux, was killed.
If so, that the Solicitor General report to the House in due course when and if he is satisfied that the untimely death of Mr. Leroux was accidental?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, 1 too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that this House is at present taking no steps to follow up on the Science Council of Canada report on regulating the regulators, and in view of the fact that this House must immediately take steps to address such questions as genetic engineering, test-tube reproduction, embryo research, and the legal definition of death, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House show some respect for future life on this planet and immediately convene a special committee to advise Parliament on scientific, technological, moral and ecological issues.
Oral Questions
Regulations on complex scientific issues cannot be left to definition by the profit motive or the marketplace alone. We are on the edge of an ethical frontier which includes the introduction of new life forms which may be self-propagating biohazards. I urge all Members to support such a committee in principle.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


LOCATION OF PROPOSED GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY CENTRE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada is considering placing an application for the establishment of an International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster (Mr. McKnight):
That this House request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to propose on behalf of Canada that the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology be located at Innovation Centre in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and of the Minister of State for Economic Development, I wonder if I might direct this question to the Prime Minister. As we witness the tragedy of 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, the Government is floundering around looking for make-work projects. At the same time, industries such as the petrochemical sector, which could provide some 50,000 jobs for Canadians, are virtually on the brink of collapse as a result of the Government's ill-conceived and misguided energy tax policy. The problem is that it puts the Canadian petrochemical plants at a very serious competitive disadvantage. May I ask the Prime Minister when his Government and Cabinet will act to redress this very serious situation which has already cost some 8,000

December 20, 1982
Ora! Questions
jobs and has forced the Canadian petrochemical industry to operate at 50 per cent capacity?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is seriously misinformed. If he looks around in the other countries he would see that the petrochemical industry in most countries, particularly in that of our neighbour, is in as bad or worse trouble than it is in Canada, and that is due to world demand, not to any tax policy in Canada. If the Hon. Member were a little more open-minded he would look at the whole industry, and not just focus on the effects of the Government of Canada's actions.


PROPOSED LOCATION OF PLANTS OVERSEAS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Right Hon. Prime Minister is obviously not being kept informed of what industry officials are saying. As a matter of fact they will point out that the main problem is Canada's lack of competitiveness as a result of the heavy up-front taxes, which are in the vicinity of 40 per cent to 50 per cent. The Vice-President of Union Carbide Canada Limited said, and I quote:
Our industry cannot withstand this level of front-end taxation because our international competitors are, by and large, being subjected to much lower front-end taxation levels.
He went on to say:
The petrochemical industry is at present in danger of being taxed out of existence-
Those are the facts. Madam Speaker. Furthermore, if the petrochemical industry were in such danger in the international marketplace, why is it that today Canadain petrochemical industries are actively seeking to establish their facilities in places where the fiscal environment is not as hostile, for example, in places like New Zealand, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia? Why is the Prime Minister overlooking that very important component, when Canadian companies are actively seeking to establish their facilities in other countries of the world?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Government is fully aware of the difficult situation existing in the petrochemical industry at the present time.


Mr. Clark:: Oh, come on!


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the Opposition got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Did he have some more leadership problems this week-end? Perhaps we can leave him to his problems and get back to more serious matters. The petrochemical industry is a subject of considerable concern to the government. We have had substantial discussions with the industry during the last few months, and the fact is, that the industry is experiencing the same problems that are facing the petrochemical industries the world over. In Europe and Japan, the same problems arise and even the American petrochemical
industry has started to sell its products at extremely low prices. The Government is looking into these problems, and it should be understood there are no simple answers and no instant solutions. We shall be meeting again with representatives of the industry. The Government has created a task force within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which will be submitting recommendations very shortly.


INDUSTRY'S FUTURE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, we have been receiving these kinds of answers for the last six months. Perhaps it is time to stop the debate and start acting. The fact of the matter is that the petrochemical industry has tremendous potential. It has the potential of producing a $10 billion trade balance and generation of at least 50,000 jobs by 1985, and the Minister again suggests that he has to sit around and talk it over with the industry. He still has not answered the basic question. Why is it that Canadian petrochemical companies are now actively seeking to relocate their plants in other countries of the world?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would invite my hon. friend to examine this with great care.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will.


Marc Lalonde: I am happy he says he is going to examine it with great care, because there are not many other countries in the world where you can establish today-


Mr. Epp:: He just mentioned four of them.


Marc Lalonde: -a new petrochemical plant and really make money with it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He gave you four.


Marc Lalonde: Yes, but have the companies moved? Are they planning to invest? Or is it just, you know, word of mouth? Because the fact is that today there is a surplus of petrochemicals the world over. The problem is not that this country cannot produce, the problem is that there is no demand, or the demand is not high enough. If you go abroad and invest in another plant, you will not be able to sell any more because the problem is low demand and extremely low prices at the present time. So I challenge my hon. friend to go abroad and open a new petrochemical plant. I wish him good luck; he will probably be bankrupt before he leaves the country.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance is indicating that if in fact the world economy were booming and competitors were having difficulties, then Canadian policy would be just right. But those are not the circumstances which exist today.
December 20, 1982


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the former Chairman of Dow Chemical, Mr. Clifford L. Mort, in a recent speech in Toronto indicated that the National Energy Program was a disaster for oil and gas producers, but an even worse disaster for chemical producers. In partical recognition of that disaster, last spring the Minister, and particularly the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan made changes which have benefited oil and gas producers, but so far no changes for chemical producers. In view of the fact that thousands and thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of export earnings are involved, why has there been such reluctance to make the necessary changes to save this very important industry?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very interested in my hon. friend's speech. He is repeating the same speech, with no more foundation than it had before.


Mr. Jarvis:: Too bad you did not listen to it two years ago.


Marc Lalonde: I remind my hon. friend that had his energy policy been implemented those same companies would today be operating with feedstocks at 100 per cent of international prices. That industry is operating today with feedstocks which cost around 85 per cent of international prices. It does benefit from a real advantage, thanks to the National Energy Program which my hon. friend is so quick to condemn. The industry has saved a minimum of 15 per cent on the cost of its feedstock by our program compared to his proposal at the time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nonsense.


Marc Lalonde: That is a fact of life.
As far as the industry is concerned, I remind my hon. friend that other industries have similar problems of lack of demand, whether it is copper, zinc, asbestos or nickel-you name it. You can name all kinds of basic products in this world for which demand is lacking in every country. The petrochemical industry is facing the same particular problem. There is no magic solution to the problem my hon. friend has raised.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, certainly pretending you are an ostrich and shoving your head in the sand is no solution to these problems.


REPORTED INTERNAL STUDY OF INDUSTRY
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Minister indicated there was an internal study of the petrochemical industry being conducted by the government bureaucracy. In a recent book entitled "The Sorcerers Apprentices" by Peter Foster, the author indicated that the National Energy Program was catastrophic in its effect, at least in part due to dependence upon the advice of the same officials who are now preparing this report for the Minister. To prevent that kind of catastrophe from happening again, would the Minister make a commitment to this House to table that report, and
Oral Questions
refer it to the appropriate standing committee, to give an opportunity for critical examination of its premises so that we do not have another dozen projects go down the tube because of false assumptions and then have thousands and thousands of Canadians out of work, with bleak prospects, while the Minister stands and rings his hands over international circumstances?
We are talking about action here in Canada to address a Canadian problem; let us have some made-in-Canada solutions, not prayers that the rest of the world will save us.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my wish for the Hon. Member in 1983 is that he should improve his reading, to begin with. Secondly-


Harvie Andre: You table it and I will read it.


Marc Lalonde: Secondly, I am surprised that his big recommendation, after having made representations on behalf of the petrochemical industry, is for more study by a parliamentary committee or whatever he wants to set up. He does not want action; he just wants more talk and more study. I am sorry to have to recognize that.
*	* V


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, 1 thought, with admirable candour admitted last night on television that the current government job creation programs were not expected to make "a major dent" in the unemployment problem. We in this Party agree with that statement. We are really interested in the 1.5 million unemployed. What does the Prime Minister intend to do about it? Is he satisfied with the job situation which prevails, and when will he bring in some job stimulation programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the latter part of the question, the answer has already been given several times by the Minister of Finance and by myself. We have brought in some job stimulation programs to the tune of $2.5 billion, beginning last June and in the Minister's October statement, whereas the Hon. Member's own Leader suggested a job creation plan of some $1.8 billion. On that we are merely inviting him to catch up with us.
In so far as making a dent in the figures of high unemployment is concerned, that is something we have said before and that is something which the Minister of Finance recognized in his October statement. It will be difficult to bring those figures down because, even with our job creation programs which will bring people back into the labour force, from a statistical point

December 20, 1982
Presence in Gallery
of view the figures will not appear all that different. The important thing is that they will create jobs for Canadians now, and they are in the process of doing so.
Mir. Rose: I think the Prime Minister knows that my Leader called for a program in addition to the one that already exists, which the Prime Minister has said will not put a major dent in the unemployment situation.


GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, this morning 1 checked, and at this festive time of the year all major charities are being over-subscribed, up to about 30 per cent, including the United Way and the Salvation Army. Each of those institutions reports that gifts and donations are up. The people of Canada are prepared to share and care, but they are awaiting leadership from the Government. If the Prime Minister will not move, will he at least admit that his Government is mean spirited, since he refused to permit anything beyond the piddling program which is before us at the moment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member describes $2.5 billion as piddling, then I wonder where is his sense of proportion. 1 point out to him that even if he were to follow his own Leader and add, as he said, another $1.8 billion, it would not put a serious dent in the unemployment figures. The Hon. Member knows that, or he should know it. Further, he would have to ask himself where he would get this additional $1.8 billion since his Leader does not want to increase the deficit. That is a problem with which I am sure they are still struggling over there.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF UNITED STATES
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our Gallery of Mr. Malcolm Baldrige, the Secretary of Commerce of the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF NIGERIA
Madam Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of Professor Ishaya Audu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in his capacity of Minister responsible for the Designated Areas Committee. The Minister is no doubt aware of the demonstration held today by the towns of Rock Island, Stan-stead and Beebe. The purpose was to prove to the Canadian Government that these towns exist and that even if they are on the Canadian-American border, they want to be part of Canada. However, they want a clear, detailed and speedy reply to their application for designation under the federal Industrial and Labour Adjustment Program. Could the Minister give them the assurance that their application is well-founded, and when does he intend to answer this urgent request, submitted first to his predecessor, subsequently to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and now directly to the Minister?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the representation made by the Hon. Member is a very important one and is being considered by the Cabinet Committee responsible for examining the designations in question. The Cabinet Committee is now chaired by the Minister responsible for Economic Development, and I shall immediately bring to his attention the representation made by the Hon. Member and ask to have this file examined as quickly as possible.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is he aware of the problems facing students who are now beginning their annual search for summer jobs? Many mines and secondary industries that have traditionally provided summer jobs for students have announced summer layoffs, hiring freezes, and summer shut-downs. What action is the Minister planning to ensure that there are employment opportunities for students in the summer of 1983?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. There is no doubt that it is a very serious issue. Due to the general economic state in the country, many private employers will not be offering the same number of jobs.
As the Hon. Member knows, each summer we do have a summer employment program for students. Last year we had close to 60,000 students hired under that program. Certainly it will be our intention to repeat that program next summer. We
December 20, 1982

will be establishing a level of funding as soon as the Minister of Finance is able to develop the arrangements and computations which he needs in his budget.
I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be continuing that particular program next summer, as well as the major placement program we provide each summer. The funding will be announced when the Minister of Finance is in a position to do so.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I hope that the funding will be in operation in sufficient time to allow students across Canada the opportunity to apply for these jobs soon enough.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On several occasions the Minister has said in the House that he would hope to be able to make the Government's position known on the statutory rate for the movement of grain before the Christmas adjournment. Could the Minister inform the House whether he will be able to meet that commitment?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, Cabinet is still looking at the question and hopefully will make a decision very soon. The proper announcement will be made then. It is too early for me to comment on the exact date.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Just from what the Minister said, 1 understand that the answer is no.


REPORTED PREPARATION OF MODIFIED PROPOSAL
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Transport if the reason for some of the problems he is having in formulating his policy is that his assistant in the other place now has a new policy which is a modification of the statutory movement, a modification of the Gilson recommendations? If a statement is to be made, will it be made by the Minister of Transport or by his assistant in the Senate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my understanding of the Cabinet system is that all of its members are free to make their contributions until the Cabinet itself makes the decision. Then Cabinet solidarity applies.


Charles Joseph Clark: Another Trudeau absurdity.
Oral Questions


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. 1 would ask him whether or not there are negotiations going on at the present time between the Farm Credit Corporation and his officials in the Finance Department to see whether or not a change can be established in the formula under which Farm Credit Corporation interest rates are being administered, as far as farmers are concerned?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, consultations are taking place between my officials and officials from the Farm Credit Corporation quite frequently and regularly. This matter is being kept under review constantly.


CURRENT TERMS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, as the Minister may know, farmers who are applying for Farm Credit Corporation loans are paying at the present time in the neighbourhood of 15.75 per cent under the formula which has been set from October 1 to April 1. With interest rates dropping at the present time, of course farmers are paying more than they would in terms of the money market itself. Is a change being contemplated and, if so, will it come before Christmas?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to read the press releases which 1 have sent to his office, he will see one from a week ago Thursday that shows that farm interest rates for long-term mortgages are 13.25 per cent, and for those farmers in dire need, for the two-year mortgage, the interest rate is 9.25 per cent, which is the lowest rate it has been for many years.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He will probably know by now that the increase in moneys used by his Department for consultants in 1981-1982 increased to $10 million from $5.5 million the year before. The number of consultants used by his Department last year was 962 compared to the 629 who were used the year before. When this was questioned, the Director of Contracts and Policy Services said, "1 am surprised at that kind of jump," and "my feeling is that the figures are wrong." Has the Minister checked to see if the figures are wrong and, if they are, how are they wrong?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have checked. If my memory serves me correctly, the figures are

December 20, 1982
Oral Questions
substantially correct. It is true that there is a disparity as compared with the previous year, but on an over all basis over the last decade it is not a great variance at all.


Jack Wendele Shields: Over the last decade, it is not a great variance, but it is a 50 per cent increase in 1981-1982 as compared to 1980-1981.


SURVEY OF SURPLUS STAFF
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. One contract was awarded to survey surplus departmental staff. Did the consultant find that there indeed was a surplus departmental staff in the Department? If so, how many were there and, in light of the results, can the Minister think of any way in which he can reduce his Department's expenditures?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker, one of the matters which has been marked with some approbation by the Standing Committee is the very substantial number of man years that my Department has reduced itself by over the last year to two years. It is several thousand man years. I can get the precise figure for the Hon. Member.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister responsible for CMHC. Given the agreement arrived at last week by the Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts on the need to increase expenditures on capital works, and given as well the recent statements by the Prime Minister that housing should be one of the sectors to receive additional funding, what assurances can the Minister give the House that priority be given to federal housing initiatives and especially to increases in the social capital housing budget of CMHC, both as a means of job creation and of alleviating the very critical shortage of housing, especially affordable housing?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member to her role as NDP critic of housing matters. I would suggest that the implication of her question is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, the job creation aspect is served very effectively in the area of housing, not only new housing but in housing repairs, as we have seen by the utilization of the CHRP Program.
In the area of social housing, there is no doubt that there always is an increase in the number of people who want to have access to this budget. It is one which has been consistently improved or increased, but it is perhaps not the quickest or most economical way of creating jobs. For that reason there is a conflict between the two programs.


Lynn McDonald: I would be interested in seeing the comparisons of what other programs might be better creators of jobs.


PROPORTION OF CORPORATION'S BUDGET
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to return to the point about social housing. The Minister has pointed out that the amounts have remained consistent since 1979, but he is surely aware that there were major cuts between 1978 and 1979, and indeed from 1975 on. Would the Minister comment both on comparisons between recent years and those earlier years and the proportion that social housing has been given out of CMHC funding, that is, a proportion relative to profit making for housing?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I would have to check the facts. Perhaps my memory is failing me, but it seems to me that in this Program, the figure of 25,000 units per year was set in 1979. In fact, some years this figure has been slightly exceeded.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that he had a relatively successful Canada Savings Bond sale. Many of those bonds were compound interest bonds. During the sale the Minister did not make any effort to advise people that they would have to pay income tax on the compound interest every three years. What program has the Minister in place to ensure that those people who bought bonds in good faith, thinking they could compound the interest over the term of the bond, the full seven years, will be able to pay tax on the bonds every three years, and how will they know what tax they should pay?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the taxpayers in question are in exactly the same situation as other taxpayers holding bonds and receiving interest payments. They are in no different position from the average taxpayer and they will come under the same provisions as the other taxpayers in similar situations. The previous Minister of Finance announced measures which will become part of the Income Tax Act, which is before the House. As soon as it is passed it will obviously have the full endorsement of the House. These matters are fully public. There has never been any secret about them. They are part of the general taxation regime.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I suppose the Government feels that all people who buy these bonds read the Ways and Means Motions.
December 20, 1982


ANNUAL NOTIFICATION OF ACCRUED INTEREST
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Finance will advise the Flouse whether he is planning to send out T-5 slips every year to Canada Savings Bond holders to indicate the amount of interest accruing on their bonds so that they will know what interest to declare, if they want to pay that interest annually, and so they will know on what interest they must pay tax every three years. Will he give the Flouse an undertaking that, whether the interest is taken up and collected by the bondholders or not, he will send those bond holders T-5 slips, or something of that nature, every year so that they will know where they stand with respect to accrued interest?


Marc Lalonde: 1 take the suggestion of the Hon. Member as a representation which I will study with my officials and with the Minister of National Revenue.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who was quoted in a Montreal newspaper last week as favouring a form of constitutional veto for the Province of Quebec to be exercised through Hon. Members of this House who are from the Province of Quebec. Is that the position of the Government with respect to a veto for the Province of Quebec and, if so, would it also be contemplated that Hon. Members of this House who are from the Province of Ontario would be entitled to exercise the veto for this Province? Would it, indeed, be the general practice that Hon. Members from all provinces will be entitled to exercise the constitutional veto for the Provinces from which they come?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, that is not the policy of the Government. It was raised with my Department by one of my colleagues-


Some Hon. Members:: Seatmate.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -and, as a result of that, it was an idea which was scrutinized.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Albert Gamble: The Minister has not denied, at least, that it seems to be his idea as the Minister of Justice, and I must say that that astounds me, because discord and disharmony in this country surely grow from creating a situation where Canadians from one part of the country are treated differently than Canadians from another part.
Oral Questions


APPLICATION OF CONSTITUTION TO LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN QUEBEC
John Albert Gamble: One of the additional suggestions which has recently been made as a consequence of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in this case by the Premier of the Province of Quebec, is that Section 23 of the constitutional resolution which was passed about a year ago in this House should not apply at all to the Province of Quebec. We know that that particular paragraph has been watered down so that the language of educational rights therein applies, in part only, to the Province of Quebec. Could the Minister tell the House whether it is his intention or the Government's intention to dilute further in any way the application of that Section of the Constitution so that it will not apply at all to the Province of Quebec?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member has suggested, the Premier of Quebec has written to the Prime Minister on this general subject, and the Prime Minister will be answering in due course. However, the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members know that the Government has already taken a strong position with respect to Section 23.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to a situation at Shoal Lake, from which the residents of the City of Winnipeg get their water supply, a water supply which does not need much filtration or extra expense to make it suitable for consumption. As the Minister knows, there has been an attempt to develop some industry at Shoal Lake, primarily the construction of cottages, and that has raised fears in Manitoba in terms of the diminution of the quality of water for the City of Winnipeg. Has the Minister received any assurances from the band at Shoal Lake that raw sewage will not be dumped into Shoal Lake and, specifically, into Indian Bay, which was done this last week?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Madam Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member that assurance. I spoke with Chief Redsky of the Shoal Lake Band. He is not dumping any raw sewage into the water. In previous years he had disposed of garbage on the reserve shoreline. He is not doing that any more. He is taking it across the ice and dumping it in an area very close indeed to the dump where Winnipeg dumps its own garbage. He felt that, by doing that, perhaps it would minimize the complaint emanating from the Mayor of Winnipeg. However, I can assure you, Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the chief of this band has not the slightest intention whatsoever of polluting the Winnipeg water supply.

December 20, 1982
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is rather ironic that he would compare the two to three employees of the City of Winnipeg at Shoal Lake to the number of residents at Shoal Lake, that is, the Indian Band, and the amount of garbage that would obviously be generated in each situation. I think that is a rather interesting position which the Minister takes.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF WATER QUALITY
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I would like to ask the same Minister a supplementary question. In view of his responsibilities and the response that there has been in Winnipeg, and while there is some feeling that there should be some economic development, especially in view of the fishing industry which collapsed at Shoal Lake earlier, will the Minister give his personal assurance that, before any development takes place at Indian Bay, specifically, the quality of Winnipeg's water supply will not be decreased?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, we have already made a very substantial amount of money available to the band to ensure that that very thing does not happen. We are also investing many person years in an attempt to carry on enlightened discussions and negotiations with the Mayor of Winnipeg to ensure that the Indians are not short changed with respect to the worth of that particular property, inasmuch as there seems to be so much objection to any development taking place there. Unfortunately, as far as 1 am concerned, the Mayor, for political reasons, seems to be more interested in whipping up antipathy toward the natives than finding a fair and equitable settlement for the natives.


WILDLIFE
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. 1 see him sitting there, leaning on his arm. I am sure he is aware of the increasing illegal pressure on wildlife which is due, in part, to tough economic times, but also to poaching for trophies and to international purchase of parts for various superstitious purposes. In recent years there has been a dramatic rise in poaching.
My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some Hon. Members:: He is over here.


James Ross Fulton: No, that is the Minister of State for International Trade. My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is sitting over there!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: 1 know you were very interested in the question.
In recent years the rise in poaching by non-Canadians, particularly in national parks, has risen to incredible levels, with such things as bighorn ram heads bringing $35,000 and grizzly bear gall bladders bringing $3,000 and up. What steps is the Minister taking to toughen up on the trade and commerce in Canadian wildlife, in particular, to stop the illegal international traffic in endangered species, covered by the Import and Export Permits Act?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, first of all, the Import Export Permits Act is under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Secondly, this is the first time that particular situation has been brought to my attention. I will look into it and get back to the Hon. Member.


EXPORT OF FALCONS
James Ross Fulton: That is very interesting, Madam Speaker. In the last couple of months I have corresponded twice with the Hon. Minister, and he sent me back very lengthy letters, so he certainly knows what I am talking about.
My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister who, 1 know, has personal knowledge and personal interest in certain endangered species, in particular the gyrfalcon. The only gyrfalcons that have been exported, in Canadian history, were the two taken by the Prime Minister to King Khalid in 1978, or 1980, despite objections from his Minister of the Environment. Seven permits to capture and export gyrfalcons were given this year in the Northwest Territories, and two of those young birds are now on their way for sale in the Middle East.
Since the Canadian Wildlife Service, along with Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs, is responsible for the international convention, and since the Canadian Wildlife Service vociferously objects to the export of these two young gyrfalcons, will the Prime Minister personally intervene and stop the export and trade in this endangered species until such time as there is a scientifically acceptable population survey here in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the more recent cases that the Hon. Member refers to, and I certainly will take his question as notice. But as regards the one bird, as I recall, that I took to the Middle East as a gift to the King of Saudi Arabia, my recollection is that it was a bird which was born in captivity, was bred, was part of a breeding plan; and it was taken out of the country with the complete authorization of the relevant authorities.
December 20, 1982


AIR CANADA
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who will be familiar with reports on the weekend that he had telephoned some of the directors of Air Canada, prior to the decision on Air Canada's headquarters site selection, to warn them of an R.C.M.P. investigation. Would he confirm whether ot not that was the case? If it was the case, will he tell the House what he told the directors?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, indeed it is. I phoned the Chairman of the Board of Air Canada, and I had someone phone the President of Air Canada, to tell them about this particular inquiry. I did so with the approval of the R.C.M.P.


RCMP INVESTIGATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would like to know from the Minister what he told the Chairman, and what he instructed others to tell the President. I would like him to tell us also whether that R.C.M.P. investigation is still in progress, and what it concerns.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport and I have had discussions concerning this matter. I have taken the appropriate steps, and I do not believe it would be appropriate for us to give further detail on it.


DECISION ON SITE LOCATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would like to know what the Minister of Transport told the directors. I would also like to know whether the Minister of Transport suggested that the decisions on a site location should be frozen or delayed until the conclusion of the R.C.M.P. investigation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer in a direct way because I would be indicating what the inquiry is about, and I am under firm instructions from the Minister of Justice not to do so. I just want to proceed in a negative fashion-I did not give instructions on how to vote. I have already indicated what I did, to the Member for Joliette, on a previous occasion.
I was asked at one point if the 14 criteria that had been retained by the Board of Air Canada were sufficient for the decision-making process. 1 was more or less asked if there was a fifteenth or sixteenth criterion that the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the Government, would like to indicate. After reviewing, after consulting, after hearing some representations, I said, no, the 14 criteria are good enough as far as the Minister of Transport is concerned. It is on that basis that the decision was made by the Board of Air Canada.
Oral Questions TIMING OF DECISION


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Is it the position of the Government of Canada that the Board of Air Canada should make a decision on this question of a site selection which is, if I understand what the Minister has said, itself the subject of an R.C.M.P. investigation? Is it the position of the Government that that decision should have been taken before the conclusion of the investigation, and can the Minister tell us what are the reasons why that decision could not have been delayed until after the R.C.M.P. investigation was concluded?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Government, through the Minister of Transport, might have given a directive of some kind to the Board of Air Canada, if it had wanted that criterion to be taken into account.
I have just indicated that the Board, on its own, asked the Minister of Transport, is there another criterion that the Government would like to add to the 14 already indicated. This is the situation. 1 cannot answer the question in a direct fashion because I would be indicating what the inquiry is about and-I should stop here.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. On Friday, after months of negotiation, the federal Government refused to sign a tripartite fishing agreement with the Province of Ontario and the Indian people of Ontario. The agreement recognizes the priority of Indian harvest fishing and makes provision for Indian participation in conservation and management.
If the federal Government agrees with the principles in the agreement, why did it not ensure that there would be no legal roadblocks to signing it? Can the Minister assure the House that these problems will be solved and the federal Government will be able to sign an agreement before the House resumes in January?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in this matter and I know he was following it very closely. It was unfortunate that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and I could not sign the agreement.
The latest draft of that agreement, which we had a very short time ago, had provisions in it which independent law

December 20, 1982
Oral Questions
officers of the Crown felt were not appropriate for the federal Government, inasmuch as portions of them were unconstitutional, therefore not binding. We did not feel it was right to mislead the Indians into signing a document or posturing to sign a document that our own legal advice indicated was not binding. We hope that that can be clarified, as the Hon. Member suggests, and we will be able to sign the agreement probably some time in mid-January. This will be as a result of close co-operation between my officials and the officials of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. At this time of the year I would like to repeat my inquiry with respect to radio and T.V. English network service to northern New Brunswick as well as ask for any indication he can give the House as to plans for expenditure for the new production facility for CBC English television as well. I am wondering if he could indicate his disposition to discuss this with the new President of the CBC, to see if we can have in the not too distant future, hopefully in 1983, maybe at this time of year, an announcement from the Minister of something for this part of the country.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's interest in extending CBC English language services in New Brunswick is of course well known. The Hon. Members on the other side laugh, Madam Speaker. They are obviously ignorant of the fact that there are not adequate English language services from the CBC in New Brunswick. The subject has been raised a number of time by Members from New Brunswick on this side of the House, particularly by the Minister responsible for New Brunswick.
1 would like to indicate to the Hon. Members that I have raised this matter personally with the new President of the CBC, and he has indicated to me his continuing concern with finding ways to improve the English language CBC services in New Brunswick.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. 1 would like
to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has his red meat strategy ready and if it has been passed through Cabinet. If not, is he prepared to respond to the request of the provincial Ministers who have put together a national stabilization program for beef, and discuss this with them and in some way assist the beef and pork producers across Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we had hoped to meet the Ministers before the festive season. It appears we will not be able to do that, but we hope to meet them in the first part of the year to discuss the program.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting House Leader regarding House business. In the absence of the Government House Leader, I direct it to him because presumably he is authorized to speak on behalf of Cabinet.
Now that Bill C-141 has been dragged over the kicking and screaming protests of the Minister of Justice last Friday into the public limelight, and now that all Members have had the opportunity of studying the Bill over the weekend, we would like to make the offer to the Government that, if they were to bring that Bill on for second reading when the appropriate time arrives in our Routine Proceedings, we would be pleased to give the Bill second reading without debate so that it could be sent to the committee for study.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I welcome this change of heart by the Official Opposition to put the interests of the disabled and women first. It is my intention at the appropriate time on motions to so move.


Miss MacDonald:: Will you come to the committee?


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, December 17, 1982 and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
December 20, 1982



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table in my name and on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), in both official languages, the report of an evaluation of search and rescue in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Statements by Ministers.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the tabling of the last document.
I understand that that document was cleared by Cabinet on September 7, 1982. Is there some explanation as to why the release of that document has been kept over all of this fall until just prior to the Christmas recess?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, the reason is obvious. We had to refine some of the recommendations in order to determine just what we were going to do about them. Also, there was the question of translation as this report involved about 500 pages. This is why, therefore, it is being tabled today. I will be ready to answer questions tomorrow if Members have questions on the document.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I believe you called for statements by Ministers and at that point the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) left the Chamber.
I wrote the Prime Minister last Friday in relation to the ongoing dispute over the apparent increase in salary for pension purposes of the former Clerk of the Privy Council. 1 had asked the Prime Minister to deliver a statement on motions today that would clarify the situation. Do 1 take it from his departure at the calling of that item that the Government does not intend-I see the Prime Minister is returning.
The Prime Minister will have my letter in which I asked that he make a statement on motions relating to the increase in salary for pension purposes of the former Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Pitfield. It may have passed his notice, but that item was called on the agenda of the House and he left the Chamber. I wonder if that was by inadvertence or whether the Prime Minister intends now to make a full statement on motions.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I had not called that item yet. I was about to call it. We have finished Tabling of Documents. I had not called that item. Statements by Ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to make a statement on motions,
Statements by Ministers
but since this is the time to answer questions by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), I would say that I had hoped he would ask questions during the question period today. I had hoped that he would have asked some on Friday.
A statement on motions is a time-consuming operation and this is a very complex matter. I am happy to make a statement on motions if the Leader of the Opposition does not want to have an exchange of questions and answers. The difficulty I have with a statement on motions is (a) it is very complex, and
(b)	I am the one who gets the questions. I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition some questions about his letter which, in my view, is full of inaccuracies. However, if the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he is not prepared to ask questions, I will make a statement on motions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, since the decision is left in my hands, and as one who respects the tradition in this House of the Government making statements on motions, I will look forward to the Prime Minister's statement on motions, followed naturally by questions, tomorrow or Wednesday. I should state that I must be absent at the funeral of the late Senator Smith tomorrow; therefore, it would suit my convenience to have that statement on motions on Wednesday. However, if it has to be made in my absence, it will certainly be acceptable for the Prime Minister to rediscover the practice tomorrow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would prefer making the statement today if I could have' some assurance that the exchange will not last more than half an hour; I have obligations that I cannot postpone. Why not have the statement today, and if the Leader of the Opposition has to come back to it on some other day, I am sure we can find time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the statement is as follows. As regards salary, Mr. Pitfield, in accordance with the Government's six and five program, received a salary increase of 5.99 per cent on July 1, 1982. I wish to state in the clearest possible terms that there has been no other salary action of any type relative to him since April 1, 1981. That is the matter of salary. Therefore, any accusation, suspicion or innuendo that there was something of an increase beyond the guidelines is based on a misconception and a misunderstanding. That should be clear.
I would hope that the same headlines which indicated that Mr. Pitfield got an increase beyond six and five, if my statement proves to be unchallengeable, will carry now the fact that the salary increase was fractionally less than 6 per cent on July 1, 1982. That was effective July 1, 1982. The order was passed in recent weeks, but it is effective as of July 1, 1982. There was no other increase since April 1, 1981. That is relatively clear and simple.
As to the pension arrangements, they are somewhat more complicated, but I think I will be able to explain it either in my

December 20, 1982
Statements by Ministers
statement or in answering questions. I would read the following three paragraphs.
As to his pension arrangements, on June 5, 1979 the Government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition passed an Order in Council setting the salary for pension purposes of Mr. Pitfield at the mid-point D-M 3 salary range. Under the former salary administration plan, the mid-point was the job rate. The Order in Council passed on November 5, 1982, some weeks ago, setting the salary for pension purposes only at the job rate of the D-M 3 had the net effect of simply adjusting the wording of the 1979 order to bring it into line with the current salary administration plan.
To put that in as simple words as possible in order that there be no misunderstanding, our Government is endeavouring to provide for Mr. Pitfield precisely those pension arrangements which the Government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition provided for him in 1979. In other words, the same arrangement, beginning with the mid-point, that was provided by the Government of the Leader of the Opposition is provided by my Government, so the pension arrangements have not changed.
I sent the Leader of the Opposition a letter responding to his questions in the House on December 15. On Friday, December 17, the Leader of the Opposition raised additional questions in a letter to me. I will, if necessary, deal with it and answer the questions, but I hope that the preceding words I have spoken set the record straight.
I would like to make it clear, Madam Speaker, that the arrangements provided for Mr. Pitfield are, in the light of precedent, less generous than those which might normally be provided to other Deputy Ministers who have separated from the Public Service in similar circumstances. 1 have myself verified, Madam Speaker, the previous arrangements of Order in Council appointees and 1 can state, and this is quite verifiable, that Mr. Pitfield's arrangements are less generous, and sometimes substantially less generous, than those provided in similar cases to other departing Deputy Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for making a statement on motions. May I say in passing that I hope it becomes a practice to which the Government has recourse more often by its own choice, because it is very clearly a practice which can help the progress of this House by providing information.
Our concern has to do with the very confusion which the Prime Minister has indicated is inherent in the arrangement. He has given us today in his statement on motions two assurances. One is related to actual salary level and he has indicated there was not an increase in salary level since the increase which became effective on July 1, 1982 to Mr. Pitfield, as to other Deputy Ministers. It would be interesting for us to know whether there is any other form of remuneration available to Mr. Pitfield which is not classified strictly as salary, or indeed, available to any other D-M 3 level employees of the Government of Canada.
But 1 understand what the Prime Minister is saying, he is saying that any adjustment in the remuneration level of Mr. Pitfield was an adjustment which did not affect salary received but affected only pension received. In other words, it was an adjustment for pension purposes. Let me now come to that. The Prime Minister has talked about the job rate. The job rate, as he correctly said, was, under the previous classification, at the mid-point of what is called the decile levels of the Public Service, at about the fifth or the sixth point. It is not clear in my recollection exactly what the mid-point was as then defined in 1979. However, by a change in policy by this Government on April 1 of either 1980 or 1981-at least some several months ago-there was a change in definition of the job rate. The job rate which had previously been at the midlevel of the decile range now became the top level of the decile range. It moved from the middle to the top.
Mr. Pitfield, as we understand it, was being paid at the eighth decile level for salary and pension purposes up until the issuance of the November 5 Order in Council. After the issuance of the November 5 Order in Council, he was being paid at the top level, at what was called the "job rate". That is to say, there was an increase for pension purposes as a result of an action directly and explicitly applying to Mr. Pitfield. There was an increase in the remuneration for pension purposes from the eighth decile to the tenth decile.
It may be that no new money came to Mr. Pitfield now, but the question I want to have clarified is whether in fact there was an increase in remuneration to Mr. Pitfield from the eighth decile level at which he was being paid prior to November 5 to the tenth or top decile level at which he was being paid as a result of that Order in Council which affected him exclusively after November 5. That is the question which remains open.
While it has been drawn to light in regard to the case specifically of Mr. Pitfield, it also underlines the fundamental importance of having available here on the floor of the House of Commons a very clear understanding as to just what is being paid the senior public servants of the land, and just exactly what pension entitlement flows from the payments available to those public servants. That is a matter which should not be shrouded in secrecy in this House of Commons. That, indeed, is a matter which should be crystal clear to Hon. Members of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister has indicated that, to his mind, it is not clear. Certainly to my mind it is not clear. The exchange of letters between us, I think, has not served particularly to clarify the matter. The Prime Minister can clarify the matter to some degree by first giving us a commitment to make much fuller and clearer information available to Parliament as to the salary level, the remuneration level, any other remuneration and the pension basis of public servants; and also he could indicate to us whether in fact the effect of the Order in Council of November 5 was to move Mr. Pitfield's remuneration level from the eighth decile for pension purposes to the tenth
December 20, 1982

decile, or in any event to some decile level higher than the eighth decile level.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, today the Opposition says the matter is not very clear. It is certainly somewhat complicated because there has been a change from one system to another, and I will try to explain what that was. I must say en passant that the Leader of the Opposition is now expressing the hope there will be some further explanation. I would have hoped that he would have seen fit to seek those explanations before making the public accusations he did against a very senior and respected civil servant having left the service of the Government of Canada after more than 24 years or 25 years of service. But somewhat belatedly the Leader of the Opposition is now seeking those explanations.
I think I will attempt to explain them, Madam Speaker, in the following way. Until the administrative reform of 1981, there was a salary range which went from one to ten deciles, and that range encompassed the whole of the remuneration of a given public servant, an Order in Council appointee. If the servant was performing in a fully satisfactory way, he was at mid-range, at the fifth decile; if he were giving exceptional performance, he would be put at the seventh, eighth, or in some cases the ninth and, perhaps, even the tenth decile. But fully satisfactory was at the fifth decile, halfway through the full range.
In 1981 a reform was brought in, on the recommendation of the Business Council on Senior Appointments, chaired at that time, I believe, by the Chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank-


Walter David Baker: Lambert.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -Mr. Lambert, although there was a change. Maybe the new Chairman was appointed by then, I am not quite sure, but on the recommendation of that committee, Madam Speaker, a range was instituted which was in two parts. The scope of the range was about the same, in other words, it was from a certain minimum to a certain maximum. The total scope of the range was comparable to the system before, but the new system was brought in on a recommendation that the range be split in two, and that the deciles apply from zero to ten but up to mid-range; so that one who was performing in a fully satisfactory fashion would be at the tenth decile. But that was mid-range of the total range.
Anyone who was performing in a way which was more than fully satisfactory, exceptional or outstanding, whatever it was, was given a bonus, and this bonus covered the second half of the range. Indeed, Mr. Pitfield was scheduled at the equivalent of the former eighth decile, which in the new system meant the tenth decile, plus a bonus of three out of five, it was an exact equivalent. That is why my statement earlier, Madam Speaker, that we translated into the new system a classification which permitted us to reward people by putting them in fact eight-tenths or seven-tenths of the way up into the full range is unchallengable. But it was no longer the seventh or the eighth decile, it was the tenth decile plus a bonus of one, two, three, four or five. Mr. Pitfield in fact was classified at the equivalent
Statements by Ministers
of the eighth decile under the old system, but under the new system it meant the mid-point plus a bonus of three out of five.
Now, for pension purposes, Madam Speaker, Mr. Pitfield would have been perfectly justified to say: "Well, this is where 1 am classified as I retire and 1 would like my pension to be based on that". But in order to prevent the kind of accusation which unfortunately was made against him anyhow by people who seem intent on destroying his reputation without foundation or knowledge, he voluntarily took a sacrifice and said; "Well, I do not want to be classified at mid-range plus three out of five, putting me at the equivalent of the eighth decile; for pension purposes, i want to be classified mid-range . Midrange, of course, is the tenth decile now, but had the Leader of the Opposition read my letter a little more carefully, the one where I thought I would make it simple for his understanding by talking of apples and oranges, he would have seen that the tenth decile is mid-range. It is not eight tenths of the range, it is mid-range.
So rather than blame Mr. Pitfield for having gotten somehow more than his due, though i would want to point out that his due in this case would have been no less than many other distinguished public servants leaving at that time in their career, he voluntarily took a reduction to the tenth decile, being once again, under the new system, mid-point in the range.
Now, I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has a research group in caucus which did not understand that, which did not ask for the explanation. 1 am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition did not himself ask for the explanation before pursuing his vengeance-1 know not why-on a distinguished civil servant precisely after he left the Civil Service. But that is the case and I hope the Leader of the Opposition will now try to understand it. I am at his disposal to answer other questions if he has any.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the reason we pursued the Order in Council after the announced resignation of Mr. Pitfield was that the Order in Council was passed after the announced resignation of Mr. Pitfield. While the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has introduced the practice in the House that we should approve Bills before we see them, we find it difficult to raise questions about Orders in Council before we see them. I should say simply en passant that my duty in the House of Commons is to ask questions of public interest to the people of Canada regardless of the personalities involved, and that is a duty 1 intend to carry out.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now, let me ask, just for further clarification, what were the bonuses being received by Mr. Pitfield prior to November 5, the passage of the Order in Council, and afterwards? Secondly, will Mr. Pitfield be eligible for a higher pension as the result of the Order in Council passed on November 5? Higher, that is, than his previous pension.

December 20, 1982
Statements by Ministers


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the answer to the latter question is clear, Madam Speaker. It will be less high-substantially less high-than had he received a salary based on his place in the range which was eight-tenths of the total range. The tenth decile plus three. So that when the Leader of the Opposition accuses Mr. Pitfield of having increased his salary for pension purposes, precisely the opposite is what happened; he decreased his salary for pension purposes.
Now, obviously, salaries of all civil servants and indeed Members of Parliament, increase over the years. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking if the pension based on his recent salary arrangement will be higher than at some previous time in the past, I suppose it will; but certainly it is less high than Mr. Pitfield would have been entitled to under the salary arrangements he had at the moment of his departure.
Now, as to the moment of his departure, the Leader of the Opposition indicates that the Order in Council was passed after. That is true, Madam Speaker; it was after Mr.. Pitfield announced his resignation. But this was not true only for Mr. Pitfield. The Order in Council of November was really dealing with a whole group of top civil servants retroactively to July 1, and Mr. Pitfield was one of them, one of those who had not received their salary increase on July 1 or indeed since. The increase, therefore, given by that Order in Council of November was one which properly was due to them on July 1. Once again, it was less than 6 per cent and it was preceded by no other other increase except the one I mentioned a year and a bit before.
Now, as to the question of other arrangements, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned bonuses. Well, I explained to him that in the new remuneration system there is a bonus added to the mid-point. If that is what he is asking, yes, there was a bonus added to Mr. Pitfield's mid-point salary, the "job rate", as it used to be called. It indeed was given to many, many other civil servants who performed above the mid-point range. That bonus was explained in my first answer. I do not know what other arrangement the Leader of the Opposition has in mind.


Charles Joseph Clark: Well, 1 apologize for taking the time of the House on this matter but it is, as the Prime Minister is demonstrating, very complex. Is the pension entitlement of Mr. Pitfield based exclusively upon his remuneration level in accordance with the decile range, or is that pension entitlement based in addition upon bonuses? Because if it is based exclusively on remuneration and not on bonuses, then setting aside payments that come as the result of bonuses and moving up in the decile range for remuneration would have the effect of increasing pension eligibility.
Question number one is: Is the pension calculation, the pension entitlement, based exclusively on the decile level of remuneration or does it also take account of bonuses and any other payments that might occur?
Question number two: Did the pension entitlement of Mr. Michael Pitfield increase as a result of the November 5 Order in Council from what it was prior to the November 5 Order in
Council, taking into account the natural increases which occur in pension entitlements? But was there an increase due explicitly and exclusively to the November 5 Order in Council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition reads the blues and reflects on them, he will see that I have answered both questions in my previous answer. He asks if the pension will be based purely on salary-or is that the word?


Erik Nielsen: The salary plus.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is it salary or salary plus?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Purely salary, or salary plus bonus? I answered quite clearly, Madam Speaker, that under the present arrangements the situation of an Order in Council appointee within a range is always salary plus a bonus if there is performance above "fully satisfactory". Therefore, there is a bonus. This bonus, in Mr. Pitfield's case, under the Order in Council passed, had the effect of putting him at eight-tenths of the total range. So three-tenths of that was a bonus; five-tenths of that was the decile system.
This is what Mr. Pitfield would have been entitled to have under the law as a pension-the mid-way plus three out of five. I repeat, Mr. Pitfield gave up that bonus for the purpose of pension arrangements. He voluntarily sacrificed his pension, made it lower in order to avoid the kind of accusation which has been forthcoming nonetheless. Had he stayed at eight out of ten, it probably would not have led the Leader of the Opposition to the confusion of saying that he is at the tenth decile. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand that the tenth decile under the new system is the equivalent of the fifth decile under the last. That is as clear as can be; it may be a bit subtle but it is clear.
The Leader of the Opposition was also asking whether the effect of the order of November was to increase the salary for pension purposes.


Charles Joseph Clark: No, pension entitlement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For pension entitlement. The answer is yes, Madam Speaker. Had Mr. Pitfield not been generous and self-effacing, he would have used his legitimate salary as of April 1 and have said: "I want my pension based on that." Therefore, the Order in Council establishing his salary as of July 1 last would have been the salary as the basis for his pension, because he left after that salary had taken effect.
But once again the question is hypothetical, since Mr. Pitfield said: "I don't want to have my pension based on this new increase of salary; I want my pension based on the midpoint in the range", which is the tenth decile under the new system but the fifth decile under the preceding one, I repeat for the third time.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister, if I understood him correctly, has said-and we will check the "blues"-that Mr. December 20, 1982

Pitfield's pension entitlement did go up. That is what we have been alleging; that is what we have been trying to determine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 would like to know by how much it went up. 1 would also like to ask a very simple question: Is any pension entitlement based upon bonuses?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it did not go up. It could have gone up, had he not renounced it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who is "he"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Pitfield. 1 will repeat exactly what 1 said, though 1 do not think it will be to any avail because I have already said it three times. Mr. Pitfield's pension entitlement would have been at the eight-tenths of the total range had he not voluntarily sacrificed it and brought it down to mid-point of the total range. I do not see how the Leader of the Opposition could stand up again and say that he was always alleging, and that he was right, that Mr. Pitfield has taken a salary based on that increase. Ele has not. He took a pension arrangement based on the mid-point in the range as would "fully satisfactory" public servants, but without any bonus.
1 hope the Leader of the Opposition will not go on and repeat that his pension arrangements were based on some bonus. They were not and they are not. They are based on the mid-point in the range which is established before one begins to pay bonuses. Once again, this is a sacrifice on his part. I know of no other public servant, nor indeed do 1 know any Member of Parliament, who would reduce his salary when he leaves in order to reduce his pension, which is what Mr. Pitfield did.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that everyone is sitting calculating their decile levels all across the country at the moment. I am sure that everyone in the country is grateful to Mr. Pitfield for his generosity. Would it be possible for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to tell us in dollars and cents how much pension Mr. Pitfield will be able to get from the Canadian Government as a result of the service he has given, let us say if he were to draw it down now and if he were to wait until it matures? Might we get something which people sitting in their livingrooms watching this debate might understand so that we can make a judgment about it?
Perhaps while that is being done we could bear in mind that Mr. Pitfield-


Mr. Gauthier:: It is 35, the same as you.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much; that was very helpful. We might bear in mind, in spite of his best effort on behalf of the country, that Mr. Pitfield has managed to do quite nicely from the public trough. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) gave him a fairly substantial sum to go away, and he seemed to find a good use to put it to. Perhaps now that all of this has happened and he has departed, maybe now for the last
Statements by Ministers
time, 1 am just wondering if we could find out what is our indebtedness to Mr. Pitfield in dollars and cents.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would point out that, like other public servants and contrary to Members of Parliament, Mr. Pitfield will not draw his pension until he reaches a certain age; I believe some ten or 12 years from now. Therefore, what his pension will be in those years 1 suppose depends on whether he will live until then and how much he will live beyond that. The Hon. Member shakes his head in some understanding. I would point out to him that if the Hon. Member should decide to depart this Parliament for the good of this place, he would get his pension right away.


Ian Deans: No, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would only be prepared to put it in dollars and cents if it is asked in a genuine spirit of understanding and without the type of scorn which was in the Hon. Member's voice.
1 would say further that 1 would not do it only for Mr. Pitfield, but if the House wanted to know the arrangements of all departed public servants, it might be something which 1 think would be contrary to Government policy and which I would be prepared to discuss with Members on the other side for their personal information. It has not been the practice nor do I intend to instal it-to put precise dollars and cents on private arrangements, on the arrangements of departed public servants. That has been the practice. 1 do not propose to break it on behalf of one particular public servant.
If the Hon. Member were interested in all those who left, perhaps under previous Governments, then he might be able to ask the Leader of the Opposition what arrangements were made for Mr. Pitfield and Mr. Hood at the time of their departures. I would be prepared on a confidential basis to tell the Hon. Member. 1 am certain that it would not be more generous, comparatively speaking, than the Hon. Member will get when he has served 25 years in this place, as Mr. Pitfield has for the Government of Canada.


Ian Deans: I was not being scornful; I just found the whole process somewhat bemusing. I say to the Prime Minister that we are talking about public funds to a public servant, and I think they should be a matter of public record. It is not fishing. It is not a matter of trying to embarrass Mr. Pitfield more than he is already embarrassed. I did not start this thing; I asked simply in order that the public of Canada understand it.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what will be, in dollar terms, the benefit which Mr. Pitfield will receive from the arrangements he has been able to work out with two successive Governments? More important, perhaps, would the Prime Minister at some other point-not necessarily today-care to table the documentation which justifies the changeover that took place with regard to the method of payment and the calculation of payment to senior public servants? I think that would be very helpful in trying to understand more clearly just what is the policy of the Government of Canada with regard to paying, both during the lifetime of work and after they have

December 20, 1982
Statements by Ministers
retired, the benefits which people who work for the Government at senior levels expect to receive.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh the last point, tabling the documents, I would point out to the Hon. Member that they were tabled. Whenever the Lambert Commission or its predecessors or successors made reports, they were tabled in the House. It was as a result of that report that the implementation of this new system was brought in-the recommendation for introducing a bonus system to cover the top half of the range. The Order in Council instituting this is available. It is published. I would hope that if the Hon. Member is earnest in his desire to understand the Opposition, he will join the Leader of the Opposition in a briefing by some of the accountants and people with the Treasury Board who are responsible for applying the system.
As far as the precise figure that the Hon. Member is speaking of is concerned, I would point out to him that there is no great mystery in the general area. It is the precise figure which, by tradition, has never been published. It would be, for salary purposes, within the range of a D-M3 level which is- my memory is not clear on this-somewhere between $90 000 and $110,000.


Erik Nielsen: One hundred and fifty thousand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is joking. It is $90,000 to $110,000 or $115,000, I believe. That is the range and I can give the precise figure of the range to the Hon. Member. He can determine for himself what eight out of ten of the range would approximately put one at, or what half of the range would put one at. He would then know what the salary for pension purposes was. Knowing that, he would just have to look at the Public Service Superannuation Act and relative Acts and calculate what it was. Obviously, in this case I have already gone beyond what we have done in the case of other civil servants because 1 have indicated the precise place and the range. That was necessary for the purposes of the exchange with the Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will try to terminate this with two questions. First, I recognize the Prime Minister's concern about practice as it relates to publishing specific figures, but he must bear in mind that a specific Order in Council was passed in relation to this particular public servant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister says no. My reading of the Order in Council of November 5, which I think he has in front of him, is that it refers quite explicitly to Mr. Pitfield.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in light of the unusual importance of this matter, since he understands that it is a question that speaks not to the reputation of an individual but the reputation of the Government, if he would be prepared to be specific and tell us in dollar terms what the salary of Mr. Pitfield is after the Order in Council and what it was before
the Order in Council; what the bonuses to Mr. Pitfield were before the Order in Council and what they are after the Order in Council; as well as what the pension entitlement for Mr. Pitfield is as to salary and/or bonus both before and after the November 5 Order in Council. I would like first to have that set of figures tabled.
Second, am I correct in my assumption that if Mr. Pitfield receives his pension at age 60, in 1997 he would be getting 48 per cent of whatever a D-M 3 at his level would be getting in 1997-


Erik Nielsen: Which is $150,000.


Charles Joseph Clark: Which could well be $150,000 or more, because there will be escalations. Can he indicate that that assumption is correct, that Mr. Pitfield at age 60 would be receiving 48 per cent of whatever a D-M 3 at his decile level would be receiving in 1997?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in answer to the last question, 1 would point out that there was no particular arrangement for Mr. Pitfield in that regard. He comes under the Public Service Superannuation Act and related Acts and they apply to all departing public servants at their various levels of service. Once again, I do not know what the figure is. As I told the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party, the Leader of the Opposition simply has to have his caucus research group look at the law and make the calculation. I do not know what it is.
With respect to the two previous questions, they were asked textually by the Member from the NDP. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition was gathering his thoughts to ask exactly the same question. If he refers to my answers, they apply exactly to the same questions asked by the Member of the New Democratic Party.


Charles Joseph Clark: I asked you to table it. Would you table it?


PETITIONS
Stan Darling: To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned Members of the Katrine Leisure Club senior citizens organization, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the proposed increase in postal rates, which will have risen from 17 cents to 32 cents in little over a year, imposes a significant hardship upon pensioners whose incomes are already greatly restricted, and who depend upon correspondence with old friends and distant family members as a substitute for most other forms of entertainment; wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to oppose this change, and to
December 20, 1982

demand that the Canada Post Corporation reorder its priorities so as to better deploy the resources they already have. And as in duty bound your petitioner will ever pray.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) asked for leave to introduce Bill C-669, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (civilian Canadian Forces electors).
Some Hon. Members:: Explain!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the aim of this bill is to amend the Canada Elections Act so as to allow all Canadian citizens working abroad for the Canadian forces, in whatever capacity, to cast their vote. Several hundred Canadians working on Canadian military bases abroad are unable to exercise their voting rights which are, as you know, guaranteed under Section 3 of the Constitution of Canada. The bill is therefore aimed at expanding the General and Special Voting Rules in Schedule 2 of the Canada Elections Act.


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


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-670, an Act to amend the Narcotic Control Act (forfeiture).
He said: Madam Speaker, very briefly, the Bill would authorize the forfeiture of the assets of drug traffickers. It is very similar to legislaton passed by the United States Congress in 1978 which has proved highly effective in that country.


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


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Government would be prepared indeed to move that Bill C-141 be put through all stages today without debate. However, since I understand that it would accommodate both Opposition Parties better, at this time I move, seconded by the
Order Paper Questions
Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet):
That Bill C-141 be read a second time without debate and that it be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for consideration.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if the motion is in the standard form, simply moving second reading and reference to the committee, that will be acceptable on the assurance that we have already given, that there will be no debate on this side.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, you will recall that on Friday last we offered to accommodate the Government in this regard by having it do exactly what it is doing now. Therefore, I can hardly now withhold unanimous consent, having asked the Government to do what it is doing. I might say in passing that the content of the Bill is very much in keeping with suggestions made by my hon. colleagues.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,522 and 4,533.


Mr. Wilson: 1.	Did Eldorado Nuclear Limited select an American Firm to assist in the liquidation of the Beaverlodge plant and, if so, for what reason when there are plenty of qualified and competent Canadian used-equipment dealers and plant liquidators?
2.	What form of bidding process was undertaken to obtain a plant liquidator firm?
3.	Were there bids and, if so, what were the results of the bids?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows: 1. Yes, ENL did select an American firm to assist in the liquidation of the Beaverlodge plant and equipment.
The American firm submitted a proposal which was clearly superior to other proposals received for the following reasons: (i) The firm included an "up front" advance payment; (ii) The firm accepted the cost of transporting the equipment from Uranium City to an Edmonton marshalling and display area; (iii) The firm provided a guarantee to purchase at Eldorado's option all the remaining equipment unsold at the termination

December 20, 1982
Order Paper Questions
of the agreement for 40 per cent of the established minimum price; (iv) The firm undertook at their cost to prepare equipment for resale including cleaning, painting and reconditioning as required; (v) The firm agreed to use Canadian labour throughout and to give preference to Canadian firms for any services required.
2.	In its search, Eldorado contacted several mining companies, suppliers of used equipment and consulted trade journals. Due to the extensive publicity given to the mine closing, Eldorado also received numerous calls from companies interested in disposing the equipment. From these discussions, seven companies, capable of handling a project of this size were selected for further discussion. These were invited to visit the mine site to view first hand the scope of the work required. All but two accepted and spent a couple of days at the mine.
The companies were then invited to tender their best possible proposals, covering all areas of concern. One company dropped out of the bidding due to their inability to meet the deadline. Of the remaining six bidders, four made personal presentations to Eldorado staff in Saskatoon to explain or clarify their proposals, while the other two expanded on their submissions by telephone. All bidders were asked at this stage if this was their best proposal and were given an opportunity to make final changes or improvements.
3.	Following the procedure outlined in part 2, all bids were thoroughly analysed. The best proposal was made by an American firm.
The other proposals were rejected for the following reasons: (i) One firm offered the lowest commission rate. However, the firm proposed to hold an auction at the mine site and offered no guarantees as to sales revenue. The logistical problems of holding an auction sale at the mine site and the risk of receiving low returns on expensive mining equipment led Eldorado to conclude this was not the best method of liquidation; (ii) One firm made an interesting proposition based on a combined public auction/private sale concept. The firm was not prepared to risk any of their own money in the venture and expected to rely on Eldorado's personnel to complement their lack of expertise in the mining field; (iii) One firm submitted a proposal similar to the successful bidder and had the experience and personnel to do the job. However, the firm expected a 25 per cent commission for their marketing contribution and was not prepared to take any risk; (iv) Two other firms did not have the resources and skills to do the marketing job required for the project and made no provision for warehouse and storage facilities.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was a "building use study of Roy Thomson Hall, Toronto" conducted on behalf of the National Research Council and, if so (a) for what reason is this subject of interest to the Council (b) to what use does the Council intend to put the information gained by the study (c) on what basis was the contractor selected and what expertise does the contractor have in this area (d) what amount did the study cost and what were the major expenditures?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the answer is as follows: A study has been undertaken on the "building use study of Roy Thomson Hall, Toronto", by The Behavioural Team of Toronto, on behalf of the National Research Council acting in co-operation with the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. A final report is due on February 28, 1983.
(a)	The study is of interest to the National Research Council as part of its over-all program on the study of building performance under actual conditions of use, particularly of public assembly buildings.
(b)	Studies of crowd movement, egress, etc., demonstrate the interaction between people and the building and indicate any design deficiencies, unsafe conditions, etc. This information helps in the prediction of crowd movement in emergency conditions (such as fire) and provides a data base for building codes. It also assists the architectural profession in improving the design of hallways, stairways and ramps, doors, amenities, etc., to provide greater safety for building users and better access for handicapped persons.
Due to the considerable length of time in the development of the Roy Thomson Hall and the many specialists contributing to it, the building incorporates a number of features and concepts which are not traditional to other Canadian halls. It was considered appropriate to make a close examination of the performance of this building under actual use by the public in order to assist future concert hall designers and increase scientific knowledge related to building use.
(c)	Research programs employing social science principles and procedures for the use of architects and engineers is a fairly recent endeavour, and few companies or individuals have the background and experience to effectively undertake such studies. The Behavioural Team has had considerable experience in studying crowd movement and building performance generally, has been involved with the Roy Thomson Hall project since early 1978, is a local (Toronto) firm and was chosen for these reasons.
(d)	The study was preceded by a small contract for $5,000 to develop a work plan, detailed estimate of costs, etc. The main study will cost $32,000 of which $25,000 is the share of the National Research Council. It was a very labour intensive study so the major expenditure is the cost of labour (92 per cent of the total) for the senior consultant in the firm and technical assistants.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 20, 1982



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 17, consideration of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 21697).
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, in rising to address Bill C-132, which is now before us, and the amendment that stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), I would like to refer back to a phrase-a quotation of a former member of this House, a onetime leader of my party, who said on a number of occasions: "Whenever they say," 'it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing', you can always be sure it's the money".
We have heard much talk during debate, during report stage and earlier in second reading, especially from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), with respect to the fact that she believes that the principle of universality and all of the principles involved in making payments to the mothers and families of this country should remain intact. But, all she is doing is taking money away while she disputes the fact that the money is leaving. However, when we look at the minutes, either of the debates in this House or of the committee, it becomes very clear that not only will the amount of payments to families across Canada and, indirectly, to the children of this country be reduced, but also it will be reduced and transferred in such a way that the moneys they do receive will come at a time when they do not need them. At least, they will not need them anywhere nearly as much as they do on a regular basis.
The Minister has also been engaged in considerable playing with figures and principles. While much of what she says sounds fine in so far as statistics or figures or abstract theories are concerned, when one gets right down to it she must be very confused or else she must think that the people of this country are very confused if they are to believe the kind of things that the Government has been saying. In the minutes of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs dated December 7 of this year, the Minister went so far as to say that if as much as one dollar remained in the Family Allowance payment per year, that would still be a universal program. I do not know if that suggests that there is something more in store for other programs which the Minister claims will still be universal or whether universality will or will not continue in the old age pension and Old Age Security systems or in a number of other Government programs.
What does this spell out for the future? If one dollar in the Family Allowance scheme means that it is still a universal program, then if one dollar is left at some point in the basic old age pension system, will it still mean, in the Liberals' view, that that is a universal old age pension program? Just what do we have left? The Minister may not be the universal soldier,
Family Allowances Act, 1973
but she may well be regarded as being the universal "pass the buck" artist, if her description of universality stands, i would suggest to her that she ought to consider very closely that old phrase of Tommy Douglas; "It's not the principle of the thing, it's the money". At least, that is what is important to those hundreds of thousands of Canadian children in Canadian families who have relied upon the Family Allowance system for a certain portion of their regular income.
Unlike the Minister and, so she says, also the Hon. Member for Calgary West, I did not study the social sciences in an academic way in any academic institution. Thus, I do not suffer from the ivory tower handicap from which those who consider problems only from the top down suffer. I have, however, studied the social sciences from the ground floor, from the street level of society, and that living experience, coupled with a fair smattering of reading in the behavioural sciences, has not only allowed me to-in the Minister's own words-"recognize the importance of the psychological element in any economic objective or goal", but it has also allowed me, in other words, to see through this old style "now you see it, now you don't" shell game as being the PR con game and flim-flam that it really is. That is exactly what we are getting here. The Minister and the Government had admitted to the fact that this but a sword in their arsenal in their war on inflation, and if that is not a PR con job, if that is not a shell game, then 1 for one do not know what a shell game is.
If one looks at the impact of this measure. Bill C-132, a measure to partially deindex Family Allowances in Canada, and considers its impact through the eyes of Family Allowance recipients in these hard economic times-and the timing here is crucial-one cannot help but realize that it is not only a bad and unwise measure, but that it is also a measure which is occurring at the worst possible moment, both for those who normally receive it and for the economy of the communities in which they live, as well as for the economy of the country.
The Minister says that those who, in her own words, "really need help" and are eligible for the Child Tax Credit will receive an increased tax credit at the end of next year. She says that the amount of the credit will make up for what they will not receive every month as a result of the cuts in this Bill. However, the problem faced by the economy and many small businesses, as well as low-income families and mothers, is a lack of consumer purchasing power and a lack of cash flow now and in each and every month, and the receipt by families of a payment with their tax returns once a year in one, singleshot crack will not help. That method has failed. Only regular income coming in at the time that they must pay their bills will help them, particularly in the kinds of situations in which many Canadians find themselves, hopefully temporarily, at this time.
Family Allowance received every month can add up to quite a bundle. A family with three children receives approximately $80 a month. Family Allowance received every month is often the only regular cheque that many families receive, especially

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
when breadwinners are laid off and on U1C or out of UIC. Thousands are being dumped off the UIC rolls every month or are on welfare. Worse yet, many are not even receiving welfare. As has been reported in this House, this is turning into a chronic situation in many communities. Many times the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has pointed out that in the major community in his constituency, Kamloops, many people are having to go to food banks or soup lines because they fall in between the unemployment insurance system and social assistance programs. That is the only cheque that these families and many others get, and they count on it.
For a family who is "in need", as the Minister likes to describe it, a little lump sum once a year is of little help, and it is of no help if the breadwinner, as we hope, has his or her job back by the time, in the next year, that they would get the little extra that is going to be added on to the Child Tax Credit. Thousands of people every month are running out of unemployment insurance benefits but their house payments, their car payments, or just their regular bill payments, continue. That goes on and on.
Statistics released at the beginning of this month, Mr. Speaker, show that now more than one-third of the unemployed are heads of families. We now have a number of unemployed equal to the whole combined labour force of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Manitoba, fully one-half of the Provinces. Those figures also show that more than one-quarter million men and women have been unemployed for over a year. We have it on recent authority from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and from the musings of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on television last night that things are not likely to get much better; in fact, he has stated that things are likely to get worse. That means that more people who will not be eligible for a tax credit in the coming year are going to find themselves out of work and relying on unemployment insurance or worse. Just at the time that this plague is becoming chronic and people, who are used to decent incomes and good average incomes, will often end up with no income at all, the Government implements a measure which even in the best of times would be unjust.
One out of every 13 people in British Columbia will be dependent on welfare by the end of this winter if the current economic slump continues. Those figures are from statistics released by the Government of that Province. One of the problems has been that people have had to go on social assistance because the bureaucratic bungling of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has meant that either there is delay at the time they try to establish their unemployment insurance claim, or if they go on one of the quickly thought-up make-work projects that he has put them on, they end up by being dumped off the UIC rolls. It is at times like these that families, children and mothers across this country need all the help they can get. Why then has the Government, even if it could argue that at some perfect time
within its odd rationale of the concept of universality or fairness that it would be better to do it the way it has, why has it chosen this time to do it? Simply for some cooked up propaganda campaign to persuade people of the glories of six and five? It is a hell of a price to pay-


Mr. Cullen:: Your language!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is a heck of a price to pay. For people who are so sensitive to a little bit of language, they show remarkable insensitivity, Mr. Speaker, to the problems that hundreds of thousands of Canadians are facing. Somebody ought to tell that bunch over there to get their priorities straightened out a little, because that kind of nonsense, polite as it may be, just does not serve any logical social purpose.


Erik Nielsen: Was that the Member for Sarnia?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: "Sarnia-Lambton".


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: These families need cash every month. If they expect to get a Child Tax Credit to make up, in sum total, for the amount they are going to lose by this reduction in the expected increase in Family Allowances, that Tax Credit is going to be based on last year's income, but last year or this year they may in fact have been earning an income that placed them above the level at which they would be eligible to receive a Child Tax Credit.
This is not only a recession, or a depression, which the Minister of Finance called it, that affects only the people at the bottom rung of the economic ladder in society. This is a recession/depression that has caught hold of and dragged down many people who thought they had it made and felt secure. Surely people in that kind of situation and their families are undergoing enough difficulty without having a Government that is going to chip, chip, chip away at what little income they have left, just when their economic world is being pulled out from underneath them.
Another aspect that I want to touch on briefly is that this is an time when many Canadians, especially over the last 10 or 15 years, have been making noises, with a lot of justification, calling for the establishment of various and sundry financial schemes and Government programs that would allow women who are raising families, the homemakers of the country, to be able to regard some income as being theirs-whether a salary for homemakers, pensions for homemakers and/or other reallocation of income. Why do we now choose this time to destroy the only program in existence that at least leads towards some financial independence for many of the women who are raising families in the country? It is contrary to anything that has been said by the Minister responsible for the status of women or other Ministers in that field, and by many other organizations across the country. Why destroy the basis of the only program that provides direct income to the practising heads of families?
The Government loves to set up commissions and conduct pension and income studies. We have had, it seems to some of us, dozens of them over the last few years. What is the purpose, however, of talking about new schemes if they now set
December 20, 1982

out, for just the picayune amount of money and savings involved, to dismantle the one program that does provide some basic and minimal incomes for the family.
1 just want to recap for a moment-I see the Minister has come back into the House-to ask her again even at this late date to reconsider. When she suggests that the same basic floor income is going to be provided by means of the Child Tax Credit, that just does not do the job for people who have seen their incomes fall and who need that cash flow and purchasing power on a month to month basis. They need it to pay their grocery bills, and it does not help to have it come one year later or two years later when what they are short of is cash at the end of the month.


Miss Begin:: What about one month later?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They are not getting it one month later. No one is getting it one month later. If the Minister wants to come out from behind the curtain we can have an exchange, but we can find many, many people who will not be eligible for a Child Tax Credit this year because of their previous year's income and who have now found themselves laid off. Those people number in the hundreds of thousands and they will not get that money.
Perhaps most Liberals come from Provinces where so many people have been unemployed for so long that they do not recognize that the status of a lot of people is changing. There are other parts of this country that have different political histories and economic histories. It has not been until their gross mismanagement of our economy in the last few years that those people have had to face these kinds of problems.
The Government would have done far better to put to work the kind of ingenuity it has obviously taken to work out this half-baked scheme, with the amount of money involved in preparing it, and rather put that imagination, drive and Public Service time allocation into figuring out what could be done to increase the purchasing power of families being cut off unemployment insurance. Perhaps it could have extended benefits. This would help to ensure that we do not have the absolute paternalism which Liberal and Tory Governments have been responsible for in this country almost since its inception.
That is the point at which I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party and most social democrats and democratic socialists the world over disagree with the fundamental philosophy of the Liberals and Conservatives. We want a society with laws that give strength to people and their democratic organizations so that they do not have to rely on any Government or major corporation for hand-outs. Given the power and the ways to devise their own means of livelihood and their own structures in society, they can take control of their own destiny and get rid of the hand-outs for which this Government has been so famous, but which are done in such a terrible and wasteful way.
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. Recently 1 spoke on Bill C-91. I felt very strongly about that Bill. It seemed to give the Government powers which it should not have and it could have a serious effect on property owners in this country.
I feel even more concerned about the possible effects of Bill C-132. It is not to a great degree a threat to property owners in this country. Rather, it affects those people who cannot afford to buy property, people who are tenants, quaking in their boots that the next knock on their door might be the landlord waiting with an eviction notice.
It will be yet another slap in the face from the cruel hand of fate for single mothers, many of whom work at low-paying jobs and who perhaps do not know if there will be anything to eat for supper. Perhaps it will be the last straw for some unlucky woman abandoned by her husband and left with the responsibility for the care of her children. Such a Bill will do no harm to the lobster crowd. The Kraft dinner people will bear the burden of this, the latest in a shoddy series of so-called restraint measures by this Government.
It is not the children receiving video games under well-laden Christmas trees who will suffer this year. Rather, it is those mothers who cannot even afford the Christmas tree, let alone the gifts to surround it who will suffer. By effectively eliminating the increase in Family Allowance payments, our great Santa Claus from Sussex Drive is guaranteeing a colder, harsher Christmas for years to come, he can rest assured that Kraft dinner will be the item of choice for future dinners and that thousands of underprivileged children will continue to be nattily dressed in hand-me-downs. I understand that the price of such garments does not rise with the index of inflation.
In the last two weeks we have seen a colossal demonstration of insensitivity to the needs and wishes of the poor, the elderly and the members of the Public Service by the reintroduction of Bills C-131, 132 and 133. Although the Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have the utmost respect for the idea of restraint, we often find ourselves wondering why such measures often seem to be at the expense of the underprivileged members of our society.
What kind of credibility does the Government have when it takes away pension money which has already been paid for? Who can believe in an administration which attempts to limit wages of hourly paid civil servants-


Erik Nielsen: They need it for advertising.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: That is right-but ignores large increases at the management level? When the Liberals attempt to skim off a few dollars from a program which needs them desperately, such as mothers' allowance, it does not leave much credibility to be damaged.
If indeed the word "restraint" is to have any meaning, the Government must show first and foremost restraint in its own dealings. Perhaps then the public would more easily accept programs such as six and five. Perhaps they would more easily

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
comprehend why it is sometimes necessary to limit spending on social assistance programs. However, the average Canadian is bound to feel bitterness toward a Government which is endeavouring to cut back on spending, if he sees in the paper and on television gross examples of waste and overspending.
Need I mention the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) spends over $150,000 per year on travel expenses? Of course, that does not include the salaries of his army of speech writers who must work long hours along with his printing staff, making sure that every Member of Parliament receives double-spaced copies of every glowing word he ever said.
It is no secret as well that over $60 million per year is set aside for the translation of documents. This is not only largely unncessary but almost unconscionable in light of the poverty which afflicts many thousands of unseen and voiceless Canadians. Certainly if I require translation of a document, or if some other Member does, there should be facilities available; no one would argue that. However, to have every single word ever uttered translated into the other official language is absolutely absurd.
I could go on to list the examples of waste and excess in every facet of Government administration, but I would not want to keep Members here until past midnight. The examples speak for themselves and I need not pursue this fact any longer. To sum up my thoughts on the issue of priorities in spending, 1 would like to suggest that this Government follow the philosophy: "Do as I do, not do as I say". By showing a good example of fiscal responsibility, the citizens of this country will be encouraged to do so as well.
I am glad that I am presenting this speech at a time when the yuletide spirit is rampant in the streets and I can allude to Christmas symbols to illustrate my argument. One could compare Bill C-132 to a Christmas tree standing in the corner all bare and neglected, no ornaments on it, presenting a not very satisfying appearance. But add a few decorations and some tinsel, place a star on top, and you have a delightful spectacle. The star on top of the Christmas tree is the Child Tax Credit proposal for compensating those whose Family Allowance cheques leave them financially less well off than in the past.
No, the Government is not just leaving that bare tree for us to ignore. It is dressing it up so that we will buy it and love it. Fortunately, there are some insightful people around here who see the Child Tax Credit for what it is, a fraud. Let me explain why it is a fraud. In this latest thrilling little diversion offered by the entertainment committee of our Liberal counterparts to pacify the militant objectors to the Government's tinkering with mothers' allowance, a nice little $50 increase per child in the Child Tax Credit in the next two years is offered. This means that in the tax year 1982, the value of the Child Tax Credit will go from $293 to an astonishing $343 per child. Therefore, the Government reasons, the poor people who can least afford to pay their taxes will not have to pay out as much in tax.
The richer families in the higher tax brackets will benefit less than the poor from this amendment. Anyone making less than $26,000 will receive the full Child Tax Credit. However, there are two negative factors involved in this. The first one is that there will be another mountain of paperwork in deciphering the mathematical complexities of relating income to the amount of Child Tax Credit receivable. Add this puzzle to the other 295 pages of the Income Tax Act amendments and we should make work for a few thousand unemployed accountants across the country.
Second, the over-all cost of the program-in other words, the net result of enriching the Child Tax Credit and partially deindexing the mothers' allowance-is that the Government will spend $95 million more than it would have in 1983 and 1984 had it not touched the programs at all. Where will this $95 million come from? It will come from the middle-class citizen, as usual, the one who does not have the accountants and lawyers to find all the loopholes. He will pay, but he is also the one who will vote this Government out of power in the next election.
Changing a program with supposed beneficial results should not result in an added expenditure of $95 million. Why even attempt to change the program to begin with if the net result is going to be an added burden for the taxpayer? When the amendments to the Family Allowances Act were discussed about two weeks ago by one of our Liberal colleagues, he mentioned that inflationary trends in modern society are partly due to psychological factors. He added that that is why the central Government should take action to implement measures that will have a psychological impact, that much of the six and five program is in fact psychological.
My question to the Hon. Member is this: Is poverty psychological? Is hunger psychological? Does living at a standard well below the poverty level constitute a psychological phenomenon? I think not, and I think most Hon. Members in the House would agree with me. I think these very sad, and not only sad but real, problems are vividly and tragically lived out in countless households across this country. There is nothing psychological or abstract about these problems.
We need real, concrete and effective means of dealing with this poverty. Reducing Family Allowance cheques sent out to provide needy children with the necessities of life is not the way to go about it. We are talking about the future of this country. The well-being of our children, Mr. Speaker, must be our number one priority, and when you restrict increases in such assistance, you are in effect cutting allowances in real money due to the inflationary factor.
There has been much talk about stopping inflation. However, the battle against this much talked about enemy must start with those who are responsible for it. Are the mothers and children of this country responsible for inflation? Emphatically not. I think it is the high rollers in comfortable political boardrooms and people in overpaid Public Service posts who are playing monopoly with the taxpayers' money. It
December 20, 1982

is they who are indulging in fantastic expenditures which are not warranted or approved by this Parliament.
Not only that, but this Government, to an unprecedented degree, is allowing the development of parasitical Crown corporations. Hundreds of millions of dollars are involved here. Why cannot the cutbacks start in these areas? Then, and only then, will the taxpayer heed the Government's restraint preaching with an attentive ear. We must attack the inflationary beast in its vital organs, not scratch its ear with Mickey Mouse programs such as this. Let us impose strict controls on Crown corporations and their spending bazaars, and allow the flourishing of independent business with its spin-off effects of competition, low prices and employment opportunities which Canadians want. That is what we need.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to quote from the great sayings of that inimitable builder of our country, Sir John A. Macdonald. He said: "The great reason why I have always been able to beat Brown is that I have been able to look a little ahead, while he could on no occasion forgo the temptation of a temporary triumph". Bill C-132 is but a temporary triumph. I implore the Members of this House to look ahead a little and reject the policies contained in this Bill in order that we may yet win the battle against inflation somewhere down the line, but not crush the underprivileged in order to do so.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon 1 would like to go on record as saying that my Party will be supporting the amendment which is now proposed of dropping the 5 per cent limit on this Bill in 1984, but that we will not be supporting Bill C-132, which intends to put indexation of six and five on Family Allowances. We are fast approaching Christmas time, all of us here are aware of that, and it is unfortunate that during the very week of Christmas we are discussing a Bill which is going to cut back what has become, I believe, almost a sacred event of Canadian family life, the program of Family Allowances.
In the Christmas story as it was told by Dickens over 100 years ago, he outlined the problems of his age, but he did it in the course of a story about a Christmas Day in England. He was a critic of the free enterprise system of the times and he demonstrated that system through the person of Scrooge. He indicated the people who were making the money for Scrooge through the family of Cratchitt; and the little crippled boy, Tim Cratchitt, who was part of the Cratchitt family, represented the poor, the weak, the outcasts of society in England at that time.
During this time the Members of the House of Commons and many people across Canada will rejoice again in the story. It is a great parable. It is done in modern literature, it is done on television, it is done as a movie, but basically it was a parable about the disparity which existed in English life 140 years or 150 years ago. In this week just prior to Christmas we are playing out in another form part of that story. We have around us the great evils of recession and unemployment which are biting into and injuring the families of so many Canadians, but here in the House of Commons we are discussing Family Allowances; one of the basic ways in which families can stay
Family Allowances Act, 1973
part and parcel of Canadian life, and this Bill is going to cut back in a regressive way the income of Canadian families.
We are discussing the children. Christmas is a children's time. These are the children who some day will sit in this House of Commons, the children who some day will take over the jobs in our country, the children who will build the economy of this land. They are the ones we are talking about today. These are the ones who will have to plan the pension plans for you and me and for a lot of other people. I have discussed pension plans with some of my nephews and nieces and they tell me they are not interested in planning pension plans for me.
At a time like this it is important that our children understand the importance of having all sectors of society well looked after, beginning with them. In the England of 150 years ago of which Dickens spoke, the beginning of the industrial revolution, there was no consideration whatsoever for the care of families built into the system. If you worked in a coal mine or factory at that time, you received a certain income. It did not matter whether you were married with ten children and supported a sick grandmother, there was just that one little salary. That free enterprise system never addressed the problem. It was only then that people in Government decided that that injustice really could not continue, that there would have to be some kind of a social system so that children, people who did not have a job, the aged and the sick would be looked after no matter what happened in the economic system. That happened because of visionaries, people who saw that the economic system could not address the problems of all people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I happen to be in my fifties and I suspect there are a lot of other people here in their fifties. My mother never received a Family Allowance cheque for me, but I do remember when the first Family Allowance cheque came into our family. It was a very important event, and it remained so every month afterwards because, as far as I can remember, it was the only money that my mother ever received directly for all the work she ever did in our family. I always look upon my family as one of the great privileges of my life. I come from an extremely happy home, one where there was great understanding and where we shared everything. But my mother never received any money directly except for this Family Allowance cheque, which made a difference in our family. It meant that we were sure in those difficult economic times that we were going to be receiving a certain amount of money each month on a certain day.
The basis of this idea, which was introduced by the CCF around 50 years ago, was to address those problems which became more clearly identified during the 1930s, problems similar to the ones identified by Dickens in his own time. So this legislation, which was finally brought in by the Liberal Government following World War II, is good, basic legislation in the sense that it addresses the needs of children and wives and mothers who receive no other basic income.

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
But today, Mr. Speaker, the kind of family life which 1 had the great privilege to grow up in is not shared by many people. I am not blaming anyone, but there has been a change in the basic moral and cultural values of our society so that today there are many families which are divided, and single parents are part and parcel of our society. I do not think there is a greater amount of happiness because of this, but it is part and parcel of our society. Because of that, the question of Family Allowances is much more important now than when there was a stable basic family unit. Today, because of so many changes in our society and in our times, it is extremely important to remember that the old family structure from which many of us come and want and hope for others is not present. That is a fact. So a change which will affect the income of single parents, mothers who are looking after one, two or three children on their own, somehow or other goes against the very basic principles that were set out by this Elouse of Commons over the years for the protection of women, children and families.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are many people sitting on that side of the House who really do not believe that this six and five legislation being proposed should apply in the area of Family Allowances. I suspect that my colleagues over here in the Progressive Conservative benches likewise do not want to see it happen. It is eating away at the basic principle of universality, whether we like it or not. It seems to me that mobilization of six and five presumes that suddenly the world will become six and five. But it does not happen.
1 have no children of my own, Mr. Speaker, so I do not have to buy a lot of things which mothers and fathers have to buy. Therefore, I do not really know the cost of a lot of things. However, I picked up the phone and called a few places to see how six and five is affecting mothers. I called a store to see about the cost of shoes, the salesperson told me that there was a minimum 10 per cent increase on children's shoes. I phoned a grocery store to find out about milk. Two litres of 2 per cent at $1.95, up from $1.79 on November 1, or 9 per cent. That is not six and five. Now, shoes in winter, milk every day, these are necessary things but they are not six and five. But it is Christmas time and winter time, and part of that for Canadians is skating in winter time. So I phoned a sporting goods store to see what the cost of a pair of skates is. Well, the man said that skates are up about 30 per cent from last year. That is not six and five. The six and five principle being used in all these Bills is to sort of mobilize the idea that inflation will be cut back. But then to put it on the backs of mothers, the unemployed, senior citizens and retired civil servants, to say that is where the cure is, is basically wrong.
So, Mr. Speaker, the reason we are protesting against the Bill is that we feel that a section of society, the Crachitts of the world, the underprivileged, are being used as a scapegoat to bring about something which is way beyond their control.
Now, if you remember the Christmas story, Scrooge was converted. Right now, during Christmas week, we still have the hope that the Scrooges across the way might be converted
and realize that all this six and five being laid on the backs of the poor could easily be turned back. The Scrooges should listen to the ghost of election 1985.


An Hon. Member:: Is that when it is?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Well, I am not sure.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw my remarks to a close at this time by indicating that my party, as has been expressed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), will be seriously taking into consideration this amendment. We will support it because it is cutting off part of the whole procedure. Second, our caucus will be voting against Bill C-132 because we do not believe in playing Scrooge at Christmas time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973. Of course, we all know that it is another part of the six and five restraint program announced in the June budget.
We in the House may agree that Canada today is facing some very serious economic problems. We are facing a situation where the present Government of Canada has created the present economic situation. Its vast amounts of waste and expenditures have created a massive deficit that this year alone equals the total 1974 budget of the federal Government.
There is something fundamentally wrong when Members on all sides of the House are asked to address a reduction in Family Allowances to families in need. There are poor people in the country who depend upon the Family Allowance. Mothers in the low-income group look forward to these benefits. I am referring to single mothers; treaty Indians living on reserves, some of whom are in very abject poverty; our native people, some of whom are unemployed and living in real poverty situations. But the Government, with the support of backbench Fiberal Members, introduces an attack on Family Allowances which go to these people in need. Something is wrong with the thinking of any Government which would allow this to happen.
Why did the Government not look at the Family Allowance Program and work in a system which would take these benefits away from people earning $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 and $100,000 per year? Why in God's name would the Government not look at that situation and redirect the funds? In essence, it would save more than it will save by attacking people in need by reducing their Family Allowance benefits, reducing their expectations in terms of Family Allowance payments, or reducing the real purchasing power of those cheques by $5 and $10 per child over next year and the year after.
December 20, 1982

As Members of Parliament we represent constituents, the majority of whom are living on low incomes, yet the Government is attacking that group. It will not matter a whit that it introduces six and five on Family Allowance payments to families with incomes of $30,000 per year. It will not even be noticed by people earning $50,000, $60,000 or more per year. It will really affect families with net incomes below the poverty line. Those are the people who are being attacked.
Make no mistake about it, we will not hear a hue and cry from people in the upper, the middle-upper or middle-income levels. The hue and cry and hurt will be felt in low-income groups. I ask all Hon. Members to think about this for a minute. They should travel with me to Athabasca, Slave Lake, Paddle Prairie, East Prairie or Fort Chipewyan. In the case of Fort Chipewyan, its residents pay double the price for a quart of milk as those in the cities of Ottawa, Toronto, Edmonton or Vancouver. By introducing this six and five, the Government is taking away two or three quarts of milk per month from children of low-income families. There is something fundamentally wrong.
We must address the problems as they exist. Certainly we must restrain Government spending; I am in agreement with that. Why is the Government not looking to areas where it could actually save money without attacking people in the low-income levels? Every piece of legislation in the restraint program attacks elderly people, people on fixed incomes, people on Government pensions or senior citizens. We should be making every effort possible to ensure that they live out the remainder of their lives in comfort and without worry.
What does the Government do? It introduces legislation to cut back on the fixed incomes of some of our senior citizens, and we now see it attacking Family Allowances. I am not in agreement with the present structure of the Family Allowance. For example, 1 do not believe that my wife should be receiving a Family Allowance cheque from the federal Government when I am perfectly capable of handling the expenses in my home. Then we get into the universality of Family Allowances; yes, there is a real problem there. If we do not have a universal program, then we have somebody sitting there trying to determine whether a person is in need, is a worthy recipient, meets a means test or something like that. I do not agree with that either, but there is a middle-ground somewhere. Certainly, if we had co-operation in the House and sat down in an allParty committee, we could come up with a solution to the problem.
There is no way that someone earning $40,000 or $50,000 per year should be receiving Family Allowance, but there is a real case to be made for families living in poverty or below the poverty line and for low middle-income earners. The $25 to $30 per child means that some children will drink milk, orange juice or perhaps have some fresh fruit. The Government is attacking families who cannot afford to lose $2, $3 or $4 per month per child over the next two years.
We have heard the Government described as Scrooge. I believe that the Government has serious difficulties; I truly believe it. When I look at its deficit figures and its runaway spending, they worry me. I think we have to be responsible, but
Family Allowances Act, 1973
there are ways to reduce the deficit and bring money into the coffers of the federal Government without attacking those people for which the Family Allowance was set up to help. Why is it that every policy in the restraint program hits hardest lower-income groups? Why is it not hitting the senior civil servants and some of the high-income earners in the country? Those people are willing to share, so why not take away or reduce the Family Allowance from the upper-income earners? The Government is wrong in proceeding in this way.
We should set up a tribunal or a House of Commons committee with a view to drafting legislation for the control of Crown corporations in order to examine those 300 or 350 corporations to find out how much money they are wasting. Let us determine whether they are accomplishing what they were set up to do. We should determine how much money is being spent on Crown corporations and how much of that money is being wasted. The Auditor General has said that the ability of the Crown corporations to run holus-bolus in the country without any controls has caused a hole in the pocket of the taxpayers of Canada. Indeed, it would appear that there could be collusion between Ministers of the Crown and Crown corporations so as to allow these Crown corporations to do as they see fit to meet the aims and objectives of either a Minister of the Crown or the corporation itself.
Let us remember that it is the taxpayers, including we as Members, who are paying for the Crown corporations' existence today. These corporations employ 263,000 people across Canada. Excluding the RCMP and the Armed Forces, there are more people employed by Crown corporations than by the federal Government itself. All Hon. Members in the House of Commons who represent the constituencies of taxpayers who are footing the bill have absolutely no control over those Crown corporations in which millions and millions of dollars are involved.
Instead, the Government introduces a six and five program that attacks the mothers, and the families in the low-income group by nailing them and reducing their Family Allowance by $3 or $4 per month over the next year and the year after. Where is the priority of this Government? I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) does not agree with this. I am sure that she would not agree without strongly voicing her opinion to her Liberal caucus.
As I have indicated, I believe that a reduction of $3 or $4 in Family Allowance benefits does not concern those earning in excess of $30,000 per year, but it does concern many of my constituents who live in isolated communities. I have visited some homes in those isolated communities. Believe me, there is no turkey for Christmas and there is no meat on the table. Last summer 1 visited an elderly lady in one of those isolated communities. She is a grandmother who is supporting three grandchildren on her pension and Family Allowance. Although she was supporting three children, she could not receive social services or welfare because she received a pension. I do not exaggerate for a moment when I say that there was not even a crust of bread in that house when I visited her. All that the children were eating was relish from a gallon jar that she was

December 20, 1982
Adjournment Motion
able to pick up. She could not afford any more since it was three days until her cheques arrived.
Those are the kinds of people we are allowing this misguided Government to attack when we permit it to cut back on Family Allowances for lower-income families. 1 see some Members smiling who believe that this is simply rhetoric. It is not rhetoric. This is exactly what is happening in the country. It is wrong and all Hon. Members know that it is wrong.
There is another way to deal with the problem. A system can be devised whereby the universality of the program can be maintained with those in the upper-income bracket being taxed 100 per cent on their Family Allowances. This money can be returned to the Government. When tax returns are submitted at the end of the year, it can be determined whether the taxpayer is entitled to the Family Allowance.
Let us provide the aid where it is needed. We should determine how much money can be saved from Crown corporations. As well, we should review our own operations in the House of Commons to determine what savings can be made here. One can see the waste that occurs here every day. One only has to walk up and down the halls of the House of Commons to see the thousands of dollars which could be saved every week on the amount of printed recycled paper which flows through my office and i am sure through the offices of all Hon. Members.
When a business gets into trouble and does not have enough revenue to cover its expenditures or to pay its bills, it looks at ways to cut back in all areas. It does not simply disregard areas which may only save $20 or $30 but considers everything. A business reviews its expenditures and then curtails its expenses. That is what we should be doing, determining how we can curtail expenses in every department. We cannot curtail expenses by attacking Family Allowances, particularly for those in the lower-income levels. Those families depend on that monthly cheque.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), may I deal with the proceedings of the adjournment motion this evening.
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 Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Metric Conversion-(a) Application to milk producers, (b) Increase in cost of milk; the Hon. Member for Bruce-Gray (Mr. Gurbin)-Finance-(a) Energy taxes paid by farmers, (b) Application of farm equipment purchase tax credit; the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)-Nuclear Armaments-(a) Request for free
vote on issue of Cruise missile testing, (b) Request that Government allocate day for debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Hawkes (p. 21697).
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I am rather saddened to have to rise to speak to Bill C-132 and the motion which was moved by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). One would have thought by this time, considering the arguments made by Hon. Members in the House and by the groups which appeared before the Committee, that the case would be very clear to the Members on the Government side that this mad money grab is an act which should be stopped and considered quite disgraceful. This is the time of year when we look forward to joining with our friends and families. It is a time for children, a time when we reflect on the year past and what is coming up. It is the time when we reflect upon the values of our society, of ourselves as individuals, as family units, and as communities and neighbourhoods. It is not the time of year when the Government ought to be trying to jam legislation through the House to grab money out of the hands of the mothers and children of Canada. If there is a Scrooge in this country today, it would have to be considered as being the Minister of National, Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).


Erik Nielsen: The Grinch.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Here is an individual who is presumably suggesting that the mothers and children of Canada are some of the critical inflation creators in this country, or that, by cutting back on the income to children, we can make significant savings for the Government of Canada.
Let us examine those two premises. First, we find that the amount of money that we are considering, in 1982 terms, amounts to $26.91 per month per child. In other words, the children of Canada receive a cheque through their mothers, on a monthly basis, up until age 18, for $26.91. The Minister of National Health and Welfare says that this must change, that we must reduce the money going to mothers and children in Canada. I would ask, why on earth would anyone put forward that proposal?
December 20, 1982

We hear from Hon. Members opposite and the Minister herself that, well, this is part of the Government machete to hack away at inflation in this country and that, in fact, by introducing the six and five program to Family Allowances in Canada, it will cause a significant dint in the rate of inflation. Does anyone really believe that the mothers in Canada, who receive $26.91 a month for each child, represent that group in society which has created and fueled this inflationary rate?
When one considers the statistics put forward by Statistics Canada, one finds that 900,000 children in this country are living below the poverty line as defined by the Government. The mothers of Canada and their 6.7 million children under the age of 18 have not created inflation in this country. If we are serious about the inflation creators, we must start considering some of the sloppy Government spending which the Auditor General brought to our attention a few days ago. We must also consider Government agencies which have now been unquestionably identified as the major creators of inflation and which have allowed increases to occur far beyond the rate of inflation, far beyond the typical wage and salary settlements of workers across this country. We must consider how the banks fell over themselves in the pell-mell rush to encourage people to spend and to borrow in the late seventies, in 1980 and in 1981 and, as a result, made massive profits, embarrassingly large profits, and then said, of course, that it was in our best interests to have interest rates of 20 per cent to 22 per cent. They said that was the best thing to happen to Canadians, that same year that the banks of Canada made such massive profits.
We must consider the corporations which borrowed beyond their means and, indeed, individual Canadians who borrowed beyond their means, jumping at a chance to expand their operations without having the necessary capital-debt ratio in hand. I suspect that many of us in the House know of individuals who ran out and borrowed beyond their means to cash in on this inflationary mad dash in an effort to make quick profits. Among these were real estate operators who were Hipping properties, daily in some cases and weekly in others. These were the individuals who fueled the rate of inflation, not the mothers and children of Canada.
For the life of me, I cannot imagine why on earth the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be fighting inflation on the backs of Canada's mothers and children. However, 1 suppose one could make the case, if one stretched logic to unimaginable limits, that, indeed, by capping the increases on Family Allowance payments and by readjusting the Child Tax Credit limit, it would save the Government of Canada money.
However, when one carefully considers the data and calculates what savings will accrue to the Government of Canada, it becomes very interesting. The reduction in Family Allowances will indeed save the Government $320 million over the next two years. However, the increase in the Child Tax Credit will cost the treasury $250 million. If one also calculates the tax loss which will result in the reduced incomes based on the Family Allowance cutbacks, one finds that, indeed, there will be a tax loss to the Government of Canada amounting to about $60 million over the two-year period. Calculated together, we
Family Allowances Act, 1973
find this six and five capping on Family Allowance will save the Government $10 million over the next two years. That is the financial saving, $10 million over the next two years! That is the price of the wings of one F-18, the value of keeping three or four Senators in place, or the cost of one of the small grants to the multinational oil companies.
One could go on and on concerning the ways and means of seeing this $10 million saving in some context. Good grief! The Government probably spends that amount in three or four weeks on advertising or propaganda, yet that is not where we are seeing the cutbacks. We are not seeing the cutbacks in areas where Government spending could be drastically reduced. Yet we are seeing the Government cutting back on the money going to Canada's mothers and children.
It becomes obvious, then, that the six and five inflation argument is invalid, that the mothers of Canada have not created inflation. If we consider the savings to Government argument, we find that that no longer is appropriate. Obviously, a $10 million savings is hardly reason to bring this kind of program into place. One must closely consider the rhetoric we have heard, particularly from Hon. Members opposite. They say: "We must all share in this six and five program together; it is something we are asking all Canadians to embrace". It is one thing to ask a person with an income of $90,000 to participate in the six and five program, but quite another to ask a single parent trying to raise two or three children and not receiving any decent maintenance payments to restrict her income as well.
The participation in the six and five program of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, herself or any other Minister, will only result in an increase of their salaries next year of $5,400. How many mothers in this country would love to have that as a total package? I think the greatest irony of all is evident when one considers one of the individuals who has been touring the country, talking up the benefits of the six and five program and the need for sharing and caring together, Mr. Ian Sinclair, the chairman of the board of Canadian Pacific Enterprises. He said: "I will volunteer as well; I am prepared to reduce my salary next year to only a 6 per cent increase". For him, of course, that will mean that he will receive an increase of $46,000 next year. But he is prepared to share.
There is no fairness in the way this program has been introduced. Certainly, one can say that as a result of this unfairness, it is the lowest blow of all. It is the lowest political blow that a Government could conflict to ask those who are powerless in terms of lobby groups and so on, those who do not have an effective voice in Parliament in many respects, the children of Canada, to bear this kind of burden.
However, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said: You should not be too concerned, those of you who are opposed to this particular Bill, because we are going to give a $50 bonus in 1983, an increase in the Child Tax Credit; just

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
for one year we are going to give that $50. When one looks again carefully at what that means to the average mother receiving Family Allowance payments for her children, it will result, when calculated, in an increase in 1983 of $34 a year; but in 1984 it will result in a loss of $35 per child on a permanent basis. In 1985 it will be a $38 loss per child, and in 1986 a $41 loss per child.
The question has to be asked, will full indexing ever reappear? What happens after 1985? Are we going to see the reintroduction of full indexing? Of course, there is no promise that that will necessarily happen. There is nothing in the Bill that would give that assurance. What about the Child Tax Credit of $50? Are we actually going to see a $50 increase in 1983? That $50 increase requires that Bill C-139 must pass in its entirety and it has barely been introduced in this House. So really the Minister is asking us to buy a pig in a poke. She says they are going to get a $50 increase, but in fact only if that legislation is reintroduced in the House, goes through all the stages, remains intact and passes some time in 1983.
I think one of the most moving experiences that we have had, looking at this particular Bill, was when we heard the various groups come before the committee and give their testimony, to try to bring some sense to the Members of this Government, to indicate clearly what the impact of Bill C-132 would be. I was particularly moved by one piece of testimony, and I want to read just a small part of it. A woman said: "We also need to keep in mind the number of families who have separated, not officially and on paper, but who are living on their own with their children. They may have no maintenance payments, any money they get may be very sporadic, and they are in great difficulty because they do not qualify for any other social benefit program because on paper they are still married and thereby should be receiving part of the father's income, though they may not be receiving any money at all.
We also hear that women in a household receiving Family Allowance presently with spouses maybe in the $40,000 or $50,000 range do not have any financial problems. Again I want to point out a portion of another piece of testimony:
-you cannot assume that because a husband is well off, his wife is well off. If the husband makes $40,000 a year, it could be that the wife is living in poverty; legally, she has no right to the money her husband is making at all, while they are married. This is the law of Canada. Every province in Canada says the husband has to support his wife at home, but he does not have to give her any cash-except in Manitoba where she can have pocket money.
Mr. Speaker, this is the time when as older Canadians our thoughts turn to children and grandchildren and future children. I know as a parent with young children, seeing the costs that accrue today to keep children in winter boots, mitts, winter jackets and hats, and to keep them prepared for their studies at school, they always have to have a little extra here and there. For so many families today that really count on that Family Allowance cheque arriving to get them through the month, even if this Bill results in a single dollar reduction in Family Allowance, that is going to be catastrophic in many family circumstances.
1 am thinking of the argument that Members have put forward that with the Child Tax Credit mothers will get $350 at the end of the year. The point is that there are so many
families now in this country on unemployment insurance benefits. Many are on walfare because they do not qualify for UI benefits, or they have exhausted LI I benefits and cannot wait until the end of the year after they file their tax returns to get these few hundred dollars. That money is not going to make any difference; they need the money now. As a result, as my hon. friend from the Kootenays indicated, people in this country, now more than ever before, are receiving hand-outs from churches and from various giving agencies and societies. It is a tragic situation for tens of thousands of Canadian families, and especially for the tens of thousands of Canadian families where there is only a single parent.
At a time when the families of Canada have never been under so much strain, when mothers are struggling in so many cases just to provide the very basic necessities for their children, when this is the time of year when our thoughts turn to brotherhood, to sharing, caring, loving, this Government is bringing in legislation that is going to be taking money out of the hands of Canada's mothers and children forever. In spite of what many Members opposite have indicated, the base rate on which deindexing will occur for the rest of time will be lower than before the six and five program was introduced. What we are saying is that the mothers and children of Canada will be receiving less support from their Family Allowance payments forever as a result of this callous, thoughtless and uncaring piece of legislation.
We are going to be voting against this particular Bill, and we are going to be speaking against it for as long as we can. In the few hours before us between now and Christmas, I ask Members opposite to think of what this Bill is doing. It is not going to reduce the rate of inflation in this country; it is not going to save the Government money; it is not a fair program. Would some Member opposite please explain why we need to introduce this program now, before Christmas, or at all?


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat ashamed that in 1982, in a country with the resources that we have, that I have to stand up and defend Family Allowances, the universality of Family Allowances and the whole principle that the children of Canada should take priority in this country for Government expenditures.
I would like to consider why we are in this position. The situation, I think, was signalled approximately a year ago when a parliamentary delegation went to Europe and I had the pleasure of being with that delegation to visit a number of European organizations. One of those organizations was the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. I suppose the signal was given then, and maybe I was remiss at the time in not really seeing the significance of the presentations that were given to us by people associated with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
One of the things we were told at that time was that for Canadian, U.S. and West German workers in the western industrialized nations, the benefit packages were too rich. We were told we ought to consider our role with regard to world
December 20, 1982

competition and how those benefits affect the prices of commodities in world trade. Those packages which include holidays, benefits for health care and working conditions were not the cause of unemployment in the western world.
Today some nations have taken action to reduce those benefits to workers. We must consider whether those benefits such as pensions, holidays, working conditions and Family Allowances led to the decline in trade in the western world or whether there were other factors.
Who is controlling the destiny of workers in the western world, Canada in particular? Is it Government, Government policy, the financial institutions which are becoming so powerful, or the multinational corporations which have access to and expenditure of capital? Is it the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States or the Bank of Canada which has led to the situation where Members of Parliament are now in this House to debate whether the Family Allowance increases should be kept to six and five over the next two years? Is it Government policy or is the policy which led to the high unemployment in the western world a policy generated in the United States by the Federal Reserve Bank and the administration there, supported in Canada by the Conservative and Liberal Governments?
That interest rate policy has driven a great number of businesses into bankruptcy, caused massive unemployment and the loss of homes, farms and fishing vessels. That policy, which was to cool inflation by high interest rates and monetarism, has carried western nations, including Canada, to the point that we now have such difficulty that we do not know how to balance budgets and put people back to work. In fact, we are starting to attack those least responsible for inflation more than anyone else.
I have talked about the old age pensioners whose pensions will be deindexed over the next two years to six and five. As well, we are attacking the retired public servants, RCMP personnel and Armed Forces personnel who paid for their pensions and made extra contributions. The Government is attacking them because it does not know where else to go. Obviously the federal Government has no indication and cannot indicate to Canadians how long we will be faced with high inflation and high unemployment.
Bills C-131, 132 and 133 have attacked the basis of social programs in this country. They have put into question the principle of universality which this Party fought for and so adamantly supports.
Public servants were the first to feel the wrath of the federal Government under Bill C-124. Their salary increases were capped at six and five with the whole-hearted support of the Conservative Party. The atmosphere in Canada allows Governments to attack programs which in the past have been very beneficial in an electoral sense to the Liberal Party. They were brought in at the insistence of the public and in some cases at the insistence of the New Democratic Party in a minority Government situation.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
I sense in my riding a certain amount of support for the six and five program. That is because people are afraid of losing their jobs. They have gained the impression that the only way out of the situation is for Canadians to sacrifice even more. It is not bad enough that we have 15 per cent unemployment in the area I represent or a national average of 12.7 per cent. What is even worse is that those who are employed are afraid of losing their jobs. They are rightfully afraid because of growing unemployment in this nation.
In my Province of British Columbia there are an estimated
100,000	people on social assistance and far more than that are unemployed. There is a growing fear in Canada, caused by high unemployment, high inflation and uncertainty, about the plans of this Government to alleviate the problem.
There is a willingness and an acceptance of the fact that by and large public servants do get too much money, that their salaries should be controlled, that senior citizens do not need total indexation any longer and that Family Allowances are no longer as important as they once were. Mothers who count on the Family Allowance cheque will have to sacrifice in this battle against inflation. We are proud that there is a willingness in our communities to create employment through makeshift and temporary programs. They are making the best of the little bit of money that goes into those communities which suffer very high unemployment.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) likes to indicate that unemployment is coming down because of the six and five program. Inflation is not coming down because of some mythical six and five program which only affects those segments of society such as public servants, Family Allowance recipients and old age pensioners. The six and five program is not working because of the Government's advertising campaign. It is working because the forest industry in British Columbia and the mining and manufacturing industries across this country are on their knees, there is massive unemployment and a massive lack of confidence in the Canadian economy. Those who are lucky enough to be working are putting their money in the bank and saving it because they are uncertain about their job security. We have a recession, if not a depression, in this country.
I am not sure whether the Government knows how to get out of it. The six and five program is simply a PR gesture to satisfy those who are unemployed. It wants them to think it is doing something. However, it is not creating employment or confidence.
The amendment to Bill C-132 before us will be supported by my Party, not because it is all that important and gives the Government one year on this program, but because it might be a slight improvement to the Bill.
This attack on universality and on Family Allowances could only come about now because Canadians are grasping at anything to improve the economy of this country and the situation in their households. It could never have been imposed by this Government unless Canadians had such fear that it would not go away. I am somewhat surprised at my colleagues to my right whose amendment we will be supporting. I am
21756

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
surprised at the lack of force with which they are fighting this Bill.
1 saw the Conservatives stand up and protect the rights of the multinational corporations, and the bells in this House rang for 15 days. They made horrendous noises about how dictatorical the legislation before us was, and in fact made some improvement in terms of having a very massive energy Bill split up because of their determination to protect the profits of their friends in the oil industry. Certainly, that is something which they can use this House to do, and they did it well. 1 saw last week similar actions to protect the agribusiness in Canada under Canagrex, and through points of privilege the Conservative Party was able to delay and waste two days of the time of the House. I hardly see the same kind of determination on Bills C-131, C-132 or C-133, which Bills they are supposedly opposing, but really they are not making any concerned effort to support those witnesses who came before committee to indicate what the damage to the recipients of Family Allowances, old age pensions and superannuates' pensions would be. I do not see the same determination from the Conservative Party regarding that. They are giving some lip service to supporting universality of these programs, however, they are really not too serious about it. Their position, I think, was adequately indicated on Bill C-124 on Public Service wages and in their eargerness to have those capped at six and five. Therefore, I do not think they are really fooling anyone in this Party as to their real motives on these particular Bills.
The Family Allowances which goes to mothers is used by them to provide for young children, whether in the form of food or clothing, or maybe even to provide their children with some social experience they would otherwise not be able to have. I think it is important that children in our country be not only well fed, well clothed and well sheltered, but it is important for them to have some experiences, whether cultural or recreational in terms of sports or arts and crafts. Mothers should be able to have within their own income some access to money to provide an opportunity to take their children to swimming lessons, or art lessons outside of school, and to provide those kinds of experiences which children of parents with higher incomes accept as something natural in their homes. That is not always true of low-income families. It is certainly not true of single-parent families where mothers, if they are working, are normally not in highly paid occupations and have to scrape any kinds of money they can together to provide for their children. The principle of universality in Family Allowances is something that we in this House of Commons should not have to be debating. It should be sacrosanct. The mother's allowance, which is basically the only income she has in many cases, goes to the upbringing of her children.
I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that 1 will be very pleased to stand up and vote against Bill C-132. I will be supporting the amendment that is before us, although I am not enamoured
with it or its intentions, or its eventual contribution if, indeed, accepted, but at this time the Government has an opportunity to change its mind on Bill C-132. It is not a Bill which is going to gain a great deal of revenue for the Government, but it is going to do irreparable harm to the principle of universality and it jeopardizes the whole concept of universality, not only for Family Allowances, but for pensions. And if the Government gets away with the Bill before us now, there is nothing to stop it from whittling away at other social programs and cutting back on expenditures just at a time when this society needs these programs to support families, senior citizens and all Canadians. I would implore the Government to reconsider what it is about to do under Bill C-132.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak this afternoon.


An Hon. Member:: Filibuster.


David Michael Collenette: I notice that the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party are charging me with being part of a filibuster, but we have just listened to three or four NDP Members in a row. It had not been my intention to speak, but after listening to such gall and hypocrisy from the NDP 1 felt compelled to get on my feet.


David P. Smith: The truth must come out.


David Michael Collenette: We are prepared to vote on this measure, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to vote on it before six o'clock. We are prepared to vote on it at eight o'clock. But, obviously, the NDP is trying to prolong matters.


An Hon. Member:: Of course we are.


David Michael Collenette: They are force-feeding Canadians with a lot of drivel, and it is time someone got up and refuted it, and I hope some of my colleagues will do the same, if they persist this evening. First of all, we have had the allegorical meander-ings of people like the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) going back to Dickensian England. To compare Dickensian England with Canada today is absolute nonsense. In Dickensian England they did not have universal medicare. They did not have universal old age pensions or family benefits. They did not have a generous system of unemployment insurance benefits.


An Hon. Member:: They did not have Fiberals, either.


David Michael Collenette: 1 am waiting for the Hon. Members of the NDP to start talking about poor houses and forced labour, and the chimney sweep going down the chimneys at the age of eight. This is what they are trying to sell Canadians on.


Erik Nielsen: You will get us there.


David Michael Collenette: What they are trying to sell Canadians on, Mr. Speaker, is that conditions in Canada are much worse than they really are. We have a serious economic crisis. We have real problems in this country. But for the Opposition Parties to use such hysteria, such hyperbole, as they are doing
December 20, 1982

in the debate on Bill C-132 on Family Allowances is really to do a disservice, I believe, to Canadians. I think it is about time that some Hon. Members in this House set the record straight. We heard from the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East, a great man, a great humanitarian. 1 have great respect for him, but he had the unmitigated gall to say that family breakdown in Canada today is due to the six and five program-


An Hon. Member:: He did not say that. You were not listening again.


David Michael Collenette: -which is only just now being implemented. 1 agree with him that there has been a breakdown in family life in Canada in the post-war era, and it is something that we all lament, but what it had to do with, Mr. Speaker, is the inflationary avarice, which we are trying to end by the six and five program. It is the rapid rise in expectations, the inflationary psychology, which has contributed a lot to social instability in this country, and we are trying to rectify that by the six and five program.
The Hon. Member who spoke last-I think he represents Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller)-at least was honest and admitted on the record that his constituents support this program. I would submit that his constituents are somewhat more intelligent than he is, because they realize that the six and five program is essential to reduce inflation and to try to restore some economic balance in this country.
The Members of the NDP talk about universality. We have dealt with this red herring throughout this debate. This Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with universality. Universality is not under attack. Not at all. What will happen, Mr. Speaker, is that next June, on the anniversary of the six and five program being announced in this House, we will see inflation down to 6 per cent. The recipients of Family Allowances and old age pensions will not have lost anything because inflation will have been brought down to the 6 per cent level.
Now they say: why introduce it? Because, Mr. Speaker, the Government had to show a way of bringing inflation down. How could we do it? The only means at our disposal, without provoking needless confrontations with the Provinces and other elements of Canadian society, was to show the way in our own jurisdiction as best we could. If any of the Members opposite can tell me next June that women and children in this country have suffered as the result of the six and five program because inflation will be down to 5 per cent, then they are better than I.
Inflation is coming down, Mr. Speaker. The Governor of the Bank of Canada gave a speech in the last couple of weeks where he said that inflation is now running at about 8.5 per cent. That is only about 2.5 per cent away from the 6 per cent. We will be there next June, Mr. Speaker, because in fact inflation is coming down more rapidly than we thought. The six and five program is being adopted by the private sector across this land. It is being adopted in the daily lives of individuals. People are restraining their expectations.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Now let us talk about the universality aspect from another angle. I said this is not a debate about universality, but the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has talked about universality and he does not want it in social programs. He is at odds with his Leader who has been stomping across this country saying the Progressive Conservative Party does not believe in ending universality. But one of his own Members this afternoon has just torn that to shreds. This is again an example of the Official Opposition being at odds with itself. It is another example of their having two or three policy positions, pulling them out of their hip pocket and delivering them in speeches depending on their audience. That is what the Conservative Party is doing, not just on the six and five program but on every issue in the country. They are pandering to the biases of respective communities. They are not consistent in their logic. They hope to form a government on that? My goodness, I would think that the Canadian public has more intelligence than to accept that kind of faulty logic.
However, Mr. Speaker, while we have the spectre of the Official Opposition arguing against this program, in the amendment before us at report stage we see that there has been tacit acceptance. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has accepted the 6 per cent solution. Then why not, Mr. Speaker, continue it to its logical conclusion and make sure inflation is squeezed even more by continuing this program for another year? In fact, I would give some of my time to the Hon. Member for Calgary West to stand up and defend his logic. I know he has spoken once, but with unanimous consent let him try and defend his faulty logic.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, in my speech I made it clear that my Party would vote against 6 per cent at third reading stage; because of procedural limitations we could only deal with the 5 per cent year-in report stage. We are encouraging Liberal backbenchers to get rid of the 5 per cent year because it will be 1984. We do not know what the economic situation will be in 1984, and surely the other side should have enough conscience to take that uncertainty away. We intend to vote against the 6 per cent and the 5 per cent on third reading.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to give a preview of our new rule changes by yielding the floor to the Hon. Member to allow him to demonstrate some true cut and thrust, but all we got was just a flapping in the air. The Hon. Member did not defend his logic. He said he was going to vote against six and five at third reading stage, yet in this amendment he wants to restrict it to one year. I do not see the logic. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is accusing me of a filibuster but it is quite obvious that a Member of his own Party is seriously engaging in meaningful debate on this particular issue. I think it is rather insulting for his House Leader to accuse me of filibustering and thereby intimidating his own Members from getting up to participate in this debate. Shame on him.


Erik Nielsen: You will not let us vote.

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973


David Michael Collenette: Shame on him. I do not think I need to speak any longer, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: I have made my point. I have always noticed in my years in the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, that when you provoke a storm on the other side it is because the point that you are making is hitting the truth.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Remember why you jumped up, David.


David Michael Collenette: If 1 was talking a bunch of nonsense, if I had nothing to contribute, there would be silence in the Chamber. It is obvious that we have them on the defensive because of the faulty logic which has been used in this debate.
Anyway, to summarize, the six and five program is the best damn program to come along in a long time. It is the first step in economic recovery in this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Talk about Family Allowances, Dave.


David Michael Collenette: It in itself will not do the trick. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the Government have acknowledged that, and that is why we had the economic statement on October 27; that is why we will have a budget in the new year as well as a speech from the Throne. The six and five program is but the first step to economic recovery in this country. As 1 said before, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke earlier on second reading, the Opposition Parties do not want the six and five program to succeed. The NDP in particular thrive in an inflationary society. You know why? They have no concept of economic reality. They have never been in a position of government in this country and are never likely to be. So they can throw good economics to the wind. They do not have to think about responsible economic policy.


Pauline Jewett: You do not know anything about the West.


David Michael Collenette: It is because they thrive-listen to this roar, Mr. Speaker.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are trying to drown out the drivel.


David Michael Collenette: It is because 1 have hit a sore point.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member, in the spirit of parliamentary reform to which we both subscribe as Members of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, would submit to a question?


Mr. Irwin:: Take the easy ones first.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware, given his remarks about the NDP never having been in government, that there have been NDP governments in B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan-


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: All defeated.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -and whether or not he might want to repent of this particular Ontario view of reality.


David Michael Collenette: I am glad the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) asked a question because it just substantiates the point I have made. He has resorted to the picayune to point out-


Pauline Jewett: Picayune?


David Michael Collenette: -to point out a mere oversight. Obviously the NDP has been in power in some of the Provinces. I was talking about the federal Government. But the fact that they have picked up on that small oversight just substantiates my position, i defy the Hon. Member to ask a substantive question about what I have said in my speech. Let him stand up and ask a decent and intelligent question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, first of all it is the first time in my life 1 have been called picayune. Secondly, if I could find anything of substance in the Hon. Member's speech, I would have asked a substantive question.


David Michael Collenette: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time that I wrapped this up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: I do not think Hon. Members know what they are doing to me. Here we have the whole phalanx of the NDP. If only our viewers at home were permitted by the rules to see this panoply of tired Socialists imbedded in the rhetoric of the 1930s who are not willing to face the challenges of the 1980s. If the people at home could see this tired group, they would know that the policies advocated by the Government in this program and in this Bill are the only sane and rational ones, and that the Opposition in this country is flailing around. It is not really serious about attacking our policies. It is making small points-I call them picayune-but it does not address the major issues: to get inflation down, to get Canadians back to work, and to get the economy going again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, if the previous speaker suggested that there was a particular Party here interested in sandbagging, holding up or otherwise blocking this Bill and that it was the New Democratic Party, he was absolutely right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: He accused us of lack of idealism, vision, lack of imagination, lack of brains, lack of everything. From where I come, in terms of the Liberal Party there is a distinct lack of Members. It is because of his expression of attitudes like this that there are no Liberal Members in the West. There is no one in the West, as far as he is concerned, who is not picayune.
Tragically, on every street corner in this festive season-and he talked about getting people back to work-as we indulge in lights, Christmas trees, Christmas cards and Christmas cheer, we find in virtually every community across the land that radio
December 20, 1982

stations and newspapers are launching plaintive yet urgent appeals for help for the very people that Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133 are designed to cripple. This what the Liberal Party is doing, and everyone should know it.


An Hon. Member:: They are Grinches.


Mark Willson Rose: I do not know about that. I am sorry the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) is not here, but let me point out that appeals have been made frequently over the radio by the same right-wing hotliners who fought every progressive attempt to build a social system in the country so that the poor could at least reach up to the poverty line. They fight all year, every year, against progressive social legislation, and then they get on the air at Christmastime and beg for charity. They beg and beg and beg because they do not believe in Government intervention or Government intrusion into these matters. They would rather go into an orgy at Christmastime of giving, and guilt-tripping, begging and saying what nice fellows they are. Yet when it comes to supporting a social system that would prevent poverty, unrest, unsettlement, tragedy, crime and all other things which plague society, they are not there then as they do not believe in social support systems because there is no money in it.
What they really need to remember is that problems exist in our social system which private enterprise or private charity, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot solve. They have not learned that yet. I hope they will learn it by suffering along with the people who are frequently held down by their archaic attitude.
There are Sally Ann officers in front of every liquor store, there are Santa Clauses on every street corner ringing their bells for donations to help the needy, and tonight ironically the House has chosen these festive days to cut back on the old, young, weak and unorganized. We shouldn't be proud of ourselves for that, all in the name of beating back inflation! What nonsense, what drivel.
The general public knows what it is like out there. The people whom 1 represent, and the people whom Members on both sides of the House represent, know how tough times are. They need a little encouragement and leadership from their Government. When it comes to their own personal donations, commitments and generosity, they are right there. I did a little checking today; 1 did some telephoning. While the Liberals are cutting back on Family Allowances, which is often a major source of income most women have, the Salvation Army has found that its street contributions are up 30 per cent over last year and that its mail-in contributions are up 38 per cent. The Scrooges over there are cutting everyone back by 5 per cent. People instinctively know that if their Government is cutting them back, they have to give, through their own resources and initiatives, not because of any drive or advertising, gifts to the Salvation Army rather than Christmas gifts to one another. Donors should be congratulated for it.
Let us put that in the light of what we are doing with the three Bills which we have been debating for the last couple of weeks. My Party will not let them through before Christmas;
Family Allowances Act, 1973
we are determined not to let them through before Christmas if there is anything physically we can do to prevent their passage. The United Way, on a national level, indicated that its contributions are up 5 per cent over last year but that in places like Ottawa, where the recession has not hit quite as hard, they are up 20 per cent and 30 per cent, while total corporate donations have not increased at all. Representatives of the Kamloops food branch, according to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), indicated that it is going very well. The food bank cannot qualify as a complete success, but many people are donating food and money. The sponsors are really pleased that they are getting such a tremendous and positive response. The community services of Mission City in my constituency reported as late as Friday that its donations are running at $1 per capita, which is more than double the giving of last year. More support is desperately needed.


Mr. Benjamin:: They cannot get to everyone.


Mark Willson Rose: Charities certainly cannot get to everyone, and no one should pretend for one minute that they can. We should congratulate those people who give their money, talent, effort and energy so that others with less can have more. While they give more generously, why should the Government be so cringingly parsimonious? It should not. It is unacceptable.
It is fair to admit, as the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) said, that there is probably not a great deal of fuss being generated by the deindexing of the OAS or Family Allowances. In fairness, we should be prepared to admit that there has not been a great deal of fuss. I think there are a couple of reasons for the silence. One reason is that people who receive Family Allowances and old age pensions will get a raise in January. The only difference is that it will not be as big as it should be. They will not really know what happened to them because they have not taken the time, nor are they able in many instances, to study what the differences will be to them as individuals. Further, they will not know until it catches up with them. Nobody told them that they were supposed to get $10 or $11 more next year and that they will only get $6. No one told them, but they will find out.
The second reason is that there has been a very strong propaganda battle launched against indexing itself over the last number of years. I think there is a powerful lobby led by some political interests. I think there is also an investment lobby and an insurance lobby, financed by those people who control the investment plans and the private pension plans. These interests do not want indexing because they would be forced to provide it in their plans. They have mounted a tremendous attack on indexing. I think some people have responded to this lobby and feel that if indexing is not illegal perhaps it is only slightly immoral. These are two reasons there has been no real, large public outcry so far over what the Government is attempting to do-to scapegoat low income people.
I would like to develop that subject in somewhat greater depth, if I may now call it six o'clock and reappear here in a later reincarnation at eight o'clock this evening.

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock and the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) requiring two hours in order to reincarnate himself, 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 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 6 p.m., the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) had the floor.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, again after being interrupted by the dinner hour, to the thunderous applause of my caucus behind me.
What I was attempting to say earlier is that 1 agree that there has not been a massive outcry against the deindexing of the various pensions, perhaps with the exception of the Public Service pensions. I was advancing the argument that I believe the outcry did not occur for two reasons. First, parents or pensioners have not yet realized what has happened to them and therefore they are unaware of the consequences. Second, I believe that there has been a somewhat powerful and significant lobby operating against indexation in Canada which has fostered the belief that indexing is somehow unclean or perhaps even mildly immoral.
I think that the savage attacks on the indexed pension plans by open-line hosts, employers and others, are shoddy and fraudulent. I believe that full indexation is crucial because without it our incomes would fall in proportion to the inflation rate. I first learned about the word indexing from Robert Stanfield when he was the Leader of the Tory Party. He recognized, as did his Party, that unless indexation was provided each year, incomes would fall in proportion to the inflation rate, which is unfair. Simply put, without indexing, the dollar that I or my constituent received last year is really only worth 90 cents this year since the inflation rate is running at approximately 10 per cent, in five short years, with the value of a person's dollar being reduced by 10 per cent, the dollar would only be worth 65 cents. This means that the dollar is shrinking to the point where people earning the same income fail to receive the same purchasing power. Therefore, I am opposed to deindexing on a matter of principle.
Indexation is the only way one can protect oneself from the ravages of inflation. That is why I and my Party are absolutely opposed to the Government's capping proposals under Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133.
The main argument against indexed pensions seems to stem from the opinion that while Public Service pensions, whether federal, provincial or through Crown Corporations pensions, are indexed, the majority of private pension plans are not. I suggest that this is no valid argument for being against indexing. First, approximately half of working Canadians do not have any pension other than the Canada Pension Plan or the
old age pension. The majority of the other half of working Canadians are working in the private sector and are denied indexed pensions. Rather than wiping out indexing in the public sector, I believe that Parliament should be making a pronounced effort to require indexing to apply in the private plans. 1 do not believe in the logic that, since indexation exists in the public sector and not in the private sector, it should be eliminated from the public sector. Instead, we should be encouraging indexation in the private sector. This is where the problem presents itself. Many private pension plans exist on an actuarial assumption that if one spends his entire working life investing in the high cost dollars, due to inflation, one should happily retire and be paid back, in cheap dollars. We do not believe that that is acceptable or equitable.
1 do not want to involve you in this, Mr. Speaker, but I can see that you accept the logic of my argument. If I cannot convince any of the Members across the aisle, I am quite certain that 1 have reached you and the general public. I am pleased that you have nodded sagely in this matter, as you do in your rulings on many occasions.
I am concerned that this Family Allowance legislation is not an isolated example. The Family Allowance legislation. Bill C-132, which we are debating tonight, is only one in a package which includes the deindexation to 6 per cent of Old Age Security, the Family Allowance and the public service pension.
The first and probably least publicized Bill, C-131, deals with people on old age pensions, such as my mother. My mother does not receive the supplement.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Or the Family Allowance.


Mark Willson Rose: My friend says nor the Family Allowance, but that is irrelevant. The full impact of the 6 per cent limitation on old age pensions next year has not hit pensioners yet. In 1984, the pension of senior citizens will be cut back by $77. The following year it could be $219. This is a total cutback of approximately $300.
When we consider that the base pension has been diminished, when indexation is reintroduced following this two-year period-there is no assurance that it will happen-we will see that senior citizens will have lost a total of approximately $1,000 per family. Of the approximately 2 million people on Old Age Security, over half receive the supplement. In this light, one can readily appreciate that this program will cause great difficulties for close to a million people, and not just a few thousand.
Let me return to the Family Allowance legislation. The Family Allowances will be given the same treatment as old age pensions. There has been some kite-flying that there will not be a means test openly applied to the universal Family Allowance; it will continue to be paid to everyone who has children, regardless of income. However, what are the results of capping the increases in Family Allowances in 1983 and 1984? If you face an increase in the cost of shoes for your children of $10, you will receive $6 to help meet that cost. For many people who depend almost entirely on Family Allowance-not
December 20, 1982

entirely but, rather, immeasurably-capping is, in a time of inflation, a very severe blow. Therefore, if shoes for the children cost $10 more next year and one only receives $6 in terms of one's increase to meet that cost, that will mean, according to the figures of our research department, a total of $102 for a family with two children over the next two years. Who is the person who will be hit most by that, the single parent? Perhaps it will be the low income people, of all kinds, some of whom are native people in Indian reservations, and it is at this group that the Government is stricking. Therefore, it is another example of hitting the poor. It is not the poor who fill out income tax forms for tax credit, by and large. Some of those people cannot fill out any form. Some people do not have either the knowledge or the counselling to assist them in applying for the tax credit. Anyway, this is the second element in the package.
The other element in the package involves hitting the retired public servant. 1 would like to tell Your Honour of someone who has been affected by circumstances which are very dear to your heart. We received a letter from a retired public servant in a community known as Maple Ridge, which I represent. This man has served his community, not only in his capacity as a civil servant but also as a volunteer, with great distinction. He wrote, "Over the years I contributed 6.5 per cent of my salary, plus 1 per cent for special funds, to cover the cost of indexing." To me, he wrote, "This is a breaking of faith. This is a breaking of contract, and this is the kind of thing that makes me very cynical of my government".
I would like to tell Your Honour in the one minute remaining to me that we will oppose this Bill for all the reasons we have discussed. This cut against the poor, the old and the unorganized will not bring inflation down, any more than will the admission of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last night when he said, "I do not think that our job creation program will bring unemployment down". Therefore, what I am asserting here is that what the Government is doing here is scapegoating. What we should be doing, when, for example, one out of 13 people in my Province is facing welfare this winter, is to provide a massive job producing program so that people can get to work, pay taxes and collect wages instead of welfare. Then they would begin to purchase again and contribute to society. This is a much worthier objective than cutting their throats, as this Bill would tend to do. Therefore, we will vote against it, and I thank Your Honour very much for your kind attention.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in speaking against Bill C-132 at report stage, the Bill which would cap indexing of Family Allowances to six and five, as part of the Government's over-all six and five program, I would like to refer to a point made by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) earlier this afternoon when he mentioned the irony of the fact that we are debating this
Family Allowances Act, 1973
Bill to cap Family Allowances at a time of the year, Christmastime, when so much effort is being put into the raising of money for charitable purposes to aid the many families who ordinarily require that sort of help, and also to meet the needs of the greatly increasing number of families who are requiring it. It seems to me that we have a good opportunity to reflect on the difference between two different world views, if you will. I hoped that we, as a society, had transcended one view, which relies mainly on charity and on voluntary contributions for the alleviation of poverty caused by our economic system. The other view holds that we ought to build mechanisms into our social and economic structures to prevent people from reaching that state where they need help. Of course, even that which we have done so far, in terms of developing the welfare state, has still not created a society in which we have-


Mark Willson Rose: Insulated.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -families who need no help at Christmas time. However, it seems to me that we are retreating from the second world view with the six and five program, with the ongoing debate about retreating from universality and with the entire politics of despair, as I like to call it, the politics in which the Liberal Party and Government now wallow, the politics which has it that we have reached the limit of our ability to share; that the pool of funds which we have available for social purposes has reached its limit and that we must now do what we can with what we have left.
What has really happened is not so much that we as a society have reached the limit but, rather, that the Liberal Party has reached the limit of what it is willing to do, because in order to share more in our society it would have to challenge certain financial and economic interests. It would really have to be in favour of fundamental economic change, and that is what it is not able to do and that is why we have the six and five program. That is why we have this attempt to create what is called "a better investment climate", and that is why the Conservatives support the six and five program-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -because they believe in an investment climate. They believe in catering to the profitability of the multinational corporations and others who make their decisions here in Canada based on profit alone. That is why, overall, they support the six and five program. That is why, in particular, they are only putting up token resistance.
Tonight we are speaking on a Bill which will affect Family Allowances. I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to those who are watching, that the reason they see one New Democrat after another speaking on this particular Bill-


Some Hon. Members:: And a Tory amendment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -and Tory amendment, is that the Progressive Conservatives have caved in on this matter-


Mrs. Mitchell:: Exactly.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -as they have all along, putting up only token resistance to the six and five program. This is a reflection on

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the Tories, because what is it that really irritates the Progressive Conservative Party-


Mr. Clarke:: You!
Mir. Blaikie: -besides me? And someone said that 1 really irritate them.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is a compliment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is a compliment. Indeed, I hope that it was entered into the record. However, the Conservatives become really irritated not when pensioners' income is affected, not when the income of mothers and children through Family Allowances is affected and not when the income of superannuates is affected through Bill C-133. The only time these Conservatives really get up on their hind legs in this House to tie up the place and, I think, to an inappropriate degree, almost to the point at which one could suggest that they do not have enough respect for Parliament, is when the interests of the multinational corporations or the investment community are affected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Then they really become fired up. However, do they become really fired up concerning pensioners, mothers or children? No, not at all.
Recently the Conservatives threw an ideological tantrum over Canagrex. Some say that the big to-do over Canagrex had more to do with what will happen, whatever that may be, in Winnipeg in January than with Canagrex. However, it was amazing to watch. It was another example of the two faces of the Tory Party with regard to the six and five program. They support six and five in principle. They voted for Bill C-124. However, when it concerns these particular little Bills, when it comes to pensioners and Family Allowances, oh, they are against them. They think they can have it both ways. I will say one thing for Members of the Liberal Party. They decided they will have the six and five program and they have been dumb enough to carry on with it. They are stubborn and they think they are right. They are actually wrong. Nevertheless, there is some consistency in their program. This is unlike the Conservatives who, of late, have become absolutely frantic for power, frantic that power must not escape them as it escaped them once before in the last election. So they are saying anything to anybody, whatever they think will be pleasing to the ear of the people in whose company they happen to be.
With reference to Canagrex, at one time they supported Canagrex; now they do not support it. They changed their mind, apparently, on the basis of the recommendations of the Auditor General that there was not enough accountability of Crown corporations in spite of the fact-


Mr. Stewart:: It is communism.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Someone said over there that Canagrex is communism. I would like that on the record.


An Hon. Member:: John Wise.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -that the Bill that was First introduced by a Progressive Conservative agricultural Minister is communism. What we have just heard from that Hon. Member is the kind of philosophical garbage we have had to listen to, day in and day out.
1 do not know what the people to my right would do if they were in another country where there was no elected Government. You can only throw around words "dictatorship", and "communism", and all this sort of thing, for so long before you cheapen the use of the language, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is what is happening in this Parliament. If we ran into a real dictatorship we would not know what to call it because the Conservatives, in their frantic rhetorical search for power, have cheapened every concept that was ever developed in a political science textbook, in the last three or four weeks. Anything they do not like is communism. Anything they do not like is a dictatorship. I do not have any more use for this Liberal Government than anyone else, but I have some respect for the English language. I wish that some people over here on my right would show some respect for the English language and some disciplined intelligence for a change, instead of just ranting on like a bunch of idiots.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to show that on six and five, as in other areas, we have a case of schizophrenia. In fact it is almost a multiple personality when it comes to the Progressive Conservative Party. We have three or four Parties warring within the bosom of one caucus over here so you can hardly tell just who is speaking for them. There are those who are against universality-and there are many in the Progressive Conservative caucus-and who are against indexation of pensions, period, never mind capping them at six and five. Many of them have been against the indexing of pensions all along. Yet we have them standing up and saying how angry they are that the public service pensions are being capped at six and five when they did not want pensions indexed in the first place, and everyone knows it. How long do we have to put up with this?
We have two faces of the Tory Party on universality, on indexing of pensions, on foreign policy. Who speaks for the Progressive Conservative Party? Is it the Hon. Member for York Peel (Mr. Sinclair) or is it the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald)? Is it the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) or is it someone who shares the views of the Member for York-Peel?
It is important, in a democracy, that Parties have identifiable and consistent positions so that the voters can at least have a stable target to shoot at, or something to choose. With the Progressive Conservative Party, talk about a moving target! It is moving all around.
Two days before the Progressive Conservatives tied up this House on Canagrex they voted for an amendment of ours to a motion of theirs that said that this House affirms the past and
December 20, 1982

future role of Crown corporations in Canada as an important instrument of developing an independent and socially responsible Canadian economy.
Two days after that they tied up the whole House on the issue of Canagrex, which would be a Crown corporation with a budget of some $4 million.
Now you tell me, Mr. Speaker, who is playing games around here. Over here they are so desperate not to vote with the Liberal Government that they will vote for anything.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct recollection from my memory of Standing Orders that reflecting on past votes is not in order when one is debating, even an amendment.
I would respectfully request the Chair to call the Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) to order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) has been taking a broad range of an argument concerning the position of one of the Opposition Parties. The Chair has been following the argument, but the Chair cannot in all honesty rule remarks out of order at this point.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have some understanding of the Standing Orders and I understand that it would be unparliamentary to reflect on the motive of an individual, but to reflect on the reasons why a whole Party might vote the way they do seems to me to be fair ball, and exactly what 1 was trying to do.
1 was talking about the six and five program, one Bill of which we have before us today, and how the Progressive Conservative position on the six and five is illustrative of a general malaise, a general sickness, which afflicts that particular Party at this point, and that is that they cannot make up their minds, it seems, on anything, except when it comes to a Crown corporation. Then they really go right off the wall to try to stop it.
Would it not be wonderful if members of this Party on my right, who, because they are the Official Opposition, have so much more ability to pressure the Government in many respects, procedurally and in other ways as well, could get as excited about protesting the Cruise missile as they do about Canagrex. When we were asking the other day when the umbrella agreement and the agreement on the Cruise missile was going to be signed, were they tying up Parliament, demanding to see the nature of that agreement? No, instead they were tying up Parliament on Canagrex.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, I think the Member is straying from the subject of the amendment to the motion before us.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I prefaced every paragraph with the following, that in speaking of six and five, I was trying to show how their position on this Bill which we are debating tonight is illustrative of a general problem. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that as much as you can you will bear with me. What 1 am trying to do is to draw certain analogies with the position that my colleagues on the right are taking on this particular Bill.
Where do they finally come down on this? I think in the final analysis it will have to be for the Canadian people to
Family Allowances Act, 1973
judge whether they want to vote for this gaggle of voices, this "Tower of Babel" that has come to be known as the Progressive Conservative Party, which holds every position in the book, from one end of the spectrum to the other, and allows different people to go traipsing about the country saying whatever they like. Something is wrong there, no leadership or something, because they cannot seem to get their act together. One person says one thing and another person says another. But enough of the Tories, Mr. Speaker.
We are opposed to this Bill C-132 because it does erode universality, in spite of many of the arguments that have been advanced by the Government and advanced by Members of the Government who probably really genuinely believe in universality. 1 think they have convinced themselves that this does not erode universality, but it does. Whenever you act in such a way as to cause the Canadian people to perceive a universal program as something which has to be curtailed in order to solve the economic problems of the day, you are in effect eroding the concept of universality. This is because you are eroding the confidence which Canadian people rightly have in universal programs, as part of the larger social and economic fabric of the country. That is why we are opposed to the capping of the indexing at a political and a conceptual level, apart from the fact that, as many have said, we are opposed to it because of the needless, negative economic impact it will have on families.
We hope, as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) said earlier this afternoon, that there might yet be hope, as in the story of Tiny Tim and Scrooge, when at the end Scrooge was converted.
1 have not been around here long enough to give up hope entirely. 1 was going to say, in the combined efforts of the Opposition, but it is really not a combined effort any more, because the Tories are not even here tonight. In fact, there are only two Tories in the Chamber. Let that show on the record. I hope that others will take up where I have left off.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, tonight we are speaking on a report stage amendment to Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973. This Government Bill will in fact limit Family Allowances to a 6 per cent increase this year and a 5 per cent increase the year after that. We have spoken against this Bill. It is consistent with what we have spoken against with regard to the other six and five Bills.
We fought Bill C-124. We kept the House here in July and August to fight Bill C-124. We fought Bill C-131 which would restrict old age pensions to 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the following year. We continue to fight to prevent he passage of Bill C-133 which will limit pensions of retired civil servants to 6 and 5 per cent increases.
When 1 say we are continuing to fight, 1 mean exactly that. Since day one we have been the only ones fighting this legislation. We fought Bill C-124, the original six and five Bill which

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
limited wage increases to Government workers to 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the following year. The Bill restricted the right of those workers to bargain. It broke signed collective agreements which this Government had signed with its own workers.
As I said earlier, we fought that Bill in July. We kept the House working through July and into August. Here we are on December 20 fighting Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973. This Bill will hurt the women and children of this land. It will not hurt the millionaires, but it will hurt the vast majority of Canadian women and children. This is the only income which many women in this country receive in their own name. For many children, it is the only money that is earmarked for their food, clothing and education. That is very important.
I have made a very big deal about the fact that we are fighting. I wish to make a strong point about the fact that we alone are fighting to prevent this legislation from passing before Christmas. We are the only Party in this House that is fighting this legislation. As would be expected, the Liberal Party is supporting this legislation. We cannot expect much more from the majority of the Liberal backbenchers. As Mr. Speaker well knows, the majority of Liberal backbenchers will support any legislation introduced in this House. Mr. Speaker knows that better than most people.
We have been told by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that he will fight this legislation. We have been told by the Tory critic, who is in the House tonight, and by other critics in the Conservative Party that they will fight this legislation and the Act to restrict the old age pension to 6 and 5 per cent increases.
The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Blaker) said at a rally on Friday that his Party would never allow Bill C-133 to pass. He said they will continue to fight to ensure that the legislation is never passed. When I look at the number of speakers who have spoken today, I notice there has been one Conservative Member and one Liberal Member, and 1 am the seventh New Democrat to speak today. The only reason this legislation has not passed and become the law of the land is that the NDP Members are fighting it. We would like to see the Conservatives get up and fight the Liberals for once.
We do not pretend to fight, we do fight. We do not believe in the rhetoric of fighting the Government. We believe in the action of fighting the Government. When we say we will vote against a Government Bill, we show up in this House to vote against it. As you well know from where you sit, Mr. Speaker, every time a six and five Bill has come forward, with the exception of Bill C-124, the Tories have said they were against it, yet when we have the vote in this House, the Conservative Members were absent in sufficient numbers to ensure that time after time the Liberal Government would get its way. That is the truth of what is happening in this House.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) referred to Canagrex. He spoke of the fact that the business of this House was held up for two and a half days last week
because the Conservatives had a great issue of principle. They believed there should not be another Crown corporation even though, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill mentioned, it was actually a Bill of the Conservative Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). It was his Bill, and all of a sudden they are leading the fight against that Bill.
They also held up the Bill on the issue that it was another Crown corporation that would not be controlled by anybody. They forget that the NDP Wheat Board critic introduced a series of amendments which would put that Crown corporation under the restrictions of the Auditor General and that that Crown corporation would be reviewed by the parliamentary Committee responsible for that area. They forgot all about that.
We had the unusual, and I cannot use the word hypocritical, but the unusual situation of the Leader of the Opposition getting up in this House and saying that he is fighting it because it is another Crown corporation, even though it was a suggestion by his own Minister of Agriculture. He said that the measure would not be controlled by Parliament even though this is something that the Auditor General has sought. He said that even though we in the NDP and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) ensured that amendments would be passed to make sure it came under the control of Parliament and under the control of the responsible Committee. What 1 am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we will fight where it is necessary, where people are being hurt. We will not make speeches or stall the business of this House to make completely false statements, but that is what is happening with the Official Opposition of this House. They pretend to be fighting, but they are only fighting on Bills they themselves introduced, Bills which they see some political motivation in now opposing.
We will fight, we will speak, and we will introduce motions and amendments, which is our right, where people are being hurt. We will fight for the old age pensioners, for those who receive Family Allowances, for those who have a contractual agreement, a verbal one, but nevertheless a contractual agreement with this Government that they are entitled to indexation of their Government pensions. It is only this Party, Mr. Speaker, in the House of Commons, which will prevent Bill C-131, Bill C-132 and Bill C-133 from passing prior to Christmas.
If I may digress for a few seconds and speak about a similar Bill which is also before this House, it is Bill C-133, because it is relevant. It is part of the same package.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I accepted your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the comments of the earlier speaker, but the Hon. Member for
December 20, 1982

Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has referred to false statements of Members of this Party, and I am sure that is unparliamentary. Now he is introducing a totally different Bill into the debate which is on an amendment to Bill C-132. I would hope you would call him to order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The second point of the Hon. Member is well taken. The first point with respect to reflections in general on Members of another Party, it seems to me, has been part of the tradition of Parliament for many years. But the second point which the Hon. Member raised appears to have some validity. Would the Hon. Member for Churchill please take note.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Basically, why 1 wish to refer to Bill C-133 is because I believe-


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain that Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133 are not only consequential but are part of the same package, and I wish to explain how we are approaching it, which is not just as one Bill but as one of three Bills which are part of that same package. What 1 wish to say, and I will be very short, Mr. Speaker, is this: we in the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) and myself, have managed to get the agreement of Conservative and Liberal Members to prevent Bill C-133 from coming back to this House prior to the Christmas break. That is constructive criticism, that is constructive fighting, and that is the type of work which should really be going on in this House of Commons. We have the unanimous agreement of a parliamentary committee studying one of the Bills which brings in the six and five legislation. We not only got the support of the one or two Conservative Members who showed up finally at that meeting, but we got the support of all the Liberal members who showed up for that committee meeting. We had a quorum and we all agreed that that Bill will not come back and will not be voted upon until after Christmas. That is constructive criticism and the way this House should be working. It should not be a matter of rhetoric where the Conservatives say they are going to take the Government to the wall, and then only one to four of their Members are in the House. That is not constructive criticism. It is not a matter of having only one speaker today, December 20, in opposition to a Government measure. If what the various critics for the Conservative Party have said that they would be fighting this Bill, were true, they would have more than one speaker up today. They would be fighting this legislation, because it only takes a few more speakers to kill this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) rises on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am sure the Hon. Member would not like to mislead the House. There has been more than one speaker for the Conservative Party today, and we have spent more time in the two days of this debate than the New Democratic Party cumulatively have spent so far.
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary West has made the point that there was more than one speaker of his Party today. The Hon. Member for Churchill has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be in the position of giving the wrong impression in this House. If there were two Conservatives who got up today, I am certainly willing to give the Conservative Party credit for putting up two speakers to our seven.


An Hon. Member:: One was invisible.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I do wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are the Party which has one-third the membership of the Conservatives, and, therefore, if we put up seven speakers, they should have put up 21. It is not the other way around, that we put up seven and they put up two. And all the previous speaker had pointed out is that the Conservatives have put up two speakers. As my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), our critic on this particular piece of legislation, has pointed out, we are not debating the Government Bill, we are debating the Conservative amendment to the legislation, and they are not even here to speak on their own amendment. They are invisible in this House. And if they continue that, they will be invisible after the next election.
I do not want to spend all my time talking about the absenteeism of the Conservatives, or about the fact they speak big, but not very often. I want to talk about the legislation itself. 1 am not speaking directly to the amendment, 1 am speaking to the proposed legislation. This legislation, which my seatmate, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), talked about as being a measure which he would expect from Scrooge at Christmas, is also a measure which shows that the Government has come down to a very low level in terms of its Government's policy. It is an example of a Government that no longer talks about economic leadership. It is an example of a Government that no longer talks about providing social justice.
I have mentioned in this House a couple of times, and I am ashamed of it now, but out of pure honesty I will say it, that I voted for the Liberal Party in 1968 because of what it was saying in 1968. Some of my colleagues said that that will probably kill me in Western Canada, and they are probably right, but let me tell you that in those years the Liberals talked about social justice, about a just society. But we look at this legislation now and it is the exact opposite of the platform of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at that time. This legislation is not about those who can afford to sacrifice. It does not talk about those who need help getting help. Instead, it is a program which talks about taking from those who receive Family Allowances, those who receive old age pensions, those who are entitled to Government pensions because they paid for their pensions in the years they worked for the Government. It talks about those people making sacrifice. That, Mr. Speaker, is not a just society, which is why the Liberal Government is losing more and more credibility across Canada.

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
We do not need Liberal backbenchers and others saying it is up to the NDP to defeat this legislation or prevent it from going to committee. We are certainly willing to do it, as 1 spent the last 15 minutes saying, but it is up to every individual whatever his or her position in this House to fight this legislation. If the Liberals really believe this, they had better fight against it and make sure that the old age pensioners receive their pensions and do not become victims of Senator "Scrooge" Davey's effort to kill Christmas. Let every Liberal remember that.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak on the amendment to Bill C-132 which attempts to reduce the effect of the six and five program on Family Allowances. I think that most Canadians know that the Government is attempting to reduce the indexation of those programs to a level of 6 per cent in 1984, and 5 per cent in 1985. The Family Allowance program has been with us since 1944. It is a unique program because it recognizes the cost of parenting and the role society ought to play in that cost. The program was a good idea, but it has had some problems and 1 want to spend a little bit of time reviewing those problems.
There have been a number of articles in the press recently the conclusion in which has been that it costs approximately $500,000 to raise a child in today's society. That is made up of the actual out-of-pocket expenses, extra hours of unpaid labour, and it includes the income forgone by the mother when she stays home to raise the children. The recognition of that contribution, and in recognition of the great asset society has in its children, we have the Family Allowance Program. It is not a great deal of money, but it has made the point that society is taking part in the raising of children because they will be assets to the economy in the future.
From 1945 to 1973 the amount per child was approximately $7.50 per month. In 1974 it was upgraded considerably to $20 per child, while at the same time making it a taxable benefit. In addition, it was indexed so that we now have a Family Allowance in the $27 per month range, although there have been interruptions to that indexation. I believe it was 1976 that indexation was stopped as an economy measure. This time it is being stopped to fight inflation. Without these interruptions it would be almost $40 per month instead of $27, and now we have a proposal to reduce the indexation to near six and five for the next couple of years.
I am not convinced, Mr. Speaker, that doing this will do anything to fight the inflationary psychology, which is the government's argument. 1 will just quote briefly the Minister of National Health and Welfare's (Miss Begin) explanation of the Government's argument. In a committee hearing she said the idea was to mobilize all Canadians in fighting this battle against inflation. So apparently we are in a war on inflation. A few years ago we were simply wrestling with it, but now we are mobilizing all Canadians, right down to the new-born babies. Everyone is in the act. The Minister said this:
The government's philosophy in the Cabinet discussion, which is what you want to understand, was made like this: In the June budget, we decided we had reached the time where the phychological dimensions of the too-high inflation we were witnessing in Canada had to be recognized and dealt with by another psychological weapon, which was a sword-
I never studied psychology very extensively, Mr. Speaker, but I do not recall the sword being a great weapon in the understanding of psychology. Apparently it is now with the six and five program. She goes on:
-and I know the words might make you smile-a sword of a national campaign of solidarity of all Canadians, mobilizing all Canadians toward cutting in half the forecasted rates of inflation of 12 and 10 to 6 and 5. It was an arbitrary-to my knowledge-choice of common purposes for Canadians to try to embark all partners into, as I said-
Well, anyway, the mobilization has gone on and I am not sure just what it is doing. It seems to me that it is having a very real effect on the incomes of the very low income people. We are told later on, in a testimony she gave, that there are about 900,000 children who are living in poverty, whose mothers need every cent of the child allowance to give them food-not just clothing or education or trips to the movies, but food. These are the people we are mobilizing to fight inflation.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be a phony war. We are fighting inflation at the same time that we are increasing unemployment. It is very likely that a great many of those
900,000	children are being raised by single parents, usually the mothers, who are on welfare. A reduction affects such people in a very real way. Along with its fight against inflation, the Government has been reducing expenditures on items which create jobs. Some people who have fathers in their families are finding that their fathers are unemployed as well. The Government is busy fighting inflation, but at the same time it is creating a situation where the demand of 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the population is being cut to the point where adequate nutrition is difficult to obtain. Also this group is faced with reducing some of its other wants and is having problems finding enough jobs.
Many witnesses appeared before the hearings of other committees. They told us that what was wrong with the country was the lack of demand, yet the Government reduces the incomes of people who will create some of the demand. It is a very backward way of going about it from an economic point of view. From a social point of view, it is abhorrent to reduce incomes, no matter how slightly, for people attempting to live on these kinds of income.
I see no justice in it. I see no way that it can be justified in terms of philosophy or rational thought. It makes no sense from an economic or social point of view. It is a reversal of a longstanding policy which has attempted to assist and recognize the role women play in raising children.
I should like to refer to some of the testimony by the Ottawa-Carleton Low Income Support Service group when it appeared before committee to reinforce the effect this reduction will have upon low-income people. It pointed out that monthly Family Allowance cheques are extremely important
December 20, 1982

to the people it represents and that any reduction, even SI per month, would be keenly felt. For those who need these monthly payments just to get by, the increase in the Child Tax Credit, while welcome, will be received in a lump sum at the end of the year and will not help them to meet their monthly expenses. The reduction in the Family Allowance benefit will hurt these people very much. The following testimony appeared:
We also need to keep in mind the number of families who are separated, not officially on paper, so again for those mothers who are living on their own with their children, may have no maintenance payments and any money they get may be very sporadic, and they are in great difficulty because they do not classify for any other social benefits because on paper they are married and thereby should be receiving part of the father's income and, indeed, may not be.
Some further testimony reads:
I guess what I could basically talk about is a case example based on a single female self-support parent with two children under the ages of ten who lives basically on $7,000 a year through the provincial federally-sponsored social assistance system which is called family benefits allowance. Under that system, the woman receives a cheque once a month. Now that cheque once a month, I mean basically trying to exist on $7,000 within the Ottawa-Carleton area with the current housing shortage, etc., and the price of food, is impossible at best. That family allowance cheque is not a frill. It is something that puts food on the table and also that family allowance cheque is not something that pays for Christmas presents or for extras. It is absolutely for food.
I think we have made the point that the allowance is absolutely necessary for a large chunk of the Canadian population. The allowance has been attacked a number of times for a number of varying reasons. When it comes right down to it, the main reason for it was to attempt to save money.
During second reading debate we heard the Minister contend in the House that the Government would be saving $320 million over the two-year period for which Bill C-132 would exist. However, deducted from that amount was $250 million, the two-year expenditure on the Child Tax Credit. Thus the real saving is only $70 million. The Government should take note of the fact that forgone revenue, such as the gross payment on Family Allowances, was not included. The federal Government should also take into account that it will be losing those tax revenues. As a rule of thumb, the Department of Finance uses an average marginal rate of between 18 per cent and 20 per cent. If we multiply the $320 million, which the Minister said the Government will be saving, by 18 per cent to 20 per cent, we will find that the federal Government is only losing about $60 million over that two-year period. In reality, the savings from this program will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $10 million. It is hardly worth the disruption caused, the avoidance of the recognition of the part women play in raising families, or the extra stress which very low income families will be placed under by living in an inflationary world and having their Family Allowance benefits reduced.
For those reasons we will be voting against this Bill. We will support the amendment before us at the moment to set it back, inadequate though it may be since it assumes that the Bill will pass. It simply reduces some of the effects of the Bill. We will support the amendment as a stop-gap measure, but we will oppose the Bill in any way we can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join my colleagues in this debate. We are now discussing the amendment of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), and considering the proposition of the Government to limit the allowances, which have been indexed to this point as part of Government legislation, to whatever the consumer price index will be in any given year. The amendment itself has been well-explained. It simply suggests that we should not go for a two-year period, that we should only approach the first year, and that we omit the second year of the program. That is very reasonable and rational. On any criteria we choose to use, whether it is the Government deficit this year, the expenditures or almost any economic performance, the Government does not have any idea what will happen six months from now, let alone a year from now. It makes consummate sense that we look at a program such as this on a one-year basis. I strongly support the amendment and urge the Government to consider it seriously.
The six and five program is one which has a number of interesting ramifications. As far as I am concerned, the most important and interesting ramification is that this type of legislation would not be necessary if the consumer price index and inflation were not at their present high levels. The main reason for this legislation is the level of inflation and the consumer price index. Measures such as this would not be necessary if inflation were at 6 per cent or 5 per cent, as it is and has been in other countries.
An important fact for Hon. Members to understand is that we are faced with this situation today because the Liberal Governments have led us to this point as a result of their many and various programs which they have introduced since the late 1960s. The consequences of these programs are beginning to catch up with all Canadians, including mothers, children, farmers and businessmen, because we now have to pay for the Government's ill thought out programs over the years which can be no longer maintained. One might say that we have been caught with our hand in the cookie jar. We are now faced with legislation that is designed to withdraw from programs that were introduced at a time when we could afford them.
It is important to note that the main cause for this inflationary increase has been the Government itself. It accounts for the major portion of the inflationary increase that we have seen in the last few years. Its control over spending and price increases have been the main cause of the increased rate of inflation with which the present programs cannot keep pace.
As a result of this Bill and others which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is responsible for introducing in the committee and the House, I am interested to know what her priorities are. It appears that we will save approximately $15 million in this specific program. Although the absolute figure may be somewhat higher, the real saving to

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
the Government, after all calculations are made of what the Minister is achieving through this legislation, is $15 million.
I sat at the committee hearings and listened to the Minister discussing her priorities. In answer to a question from a Member on the committee about whether or not she supported the purchase of BP by Petro-Canada-a $600-million purchase-she very clearly stated that in her mind it was more important than maintaining the same level of indexation on Family Allowance.


Monique Bégin: That is a complete lie.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The Minister suggests that I may not have been telling the truth. The Minister is a very good politician. She has her own sense of morality and ethics and she will have to read her own words in the committee minutes if she wants to know whether she said that.


Monique Bégin: It is a complete lie. Is that clear enough?


Gary Michael Gurbin: She may not be concerned if she said that because I do not think she is concerned about very many of her statements. She recently said in the House that she was having negotiations with provincial ministers which were ongoing negotiations. Every provincial minister to whom we have talked has denied having any kind of negotiation with the Minister for some time, except in a negative manner.
This Minister's priorities become clear when she states that in her view it is more important to purchase BP for $600 million to support Petro-Canada's purchase of other oil interests at a greater cost to Canadians, including those from whom she has taken money, than maintaining indexation. Since she has established her priorities in this way, I must question whether she is the most appropriate Minister to act on behalf of the welfare systems in Canada. We have a good welfare system in Canada, but if the Minister responsible for it allows her priorities to support the purchase of a $600-mi!lion gas station rather than a Family Allowance system, for which support had been promised by her and others in her Party, I question whether the people of Canada are in the best hands. This is matter which Canadians must seriously question.
The third matter I would like to discuss concerns universality. I have heard the Minister often speak about her concept of universality and dedication to it. I do not know what dictionary the Minister uses because the concept of universality has been gone for a long time. Universality no longer exists in the national health care system, and its concept is disappearing from tax credits. It has disappeared from the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Minister is supporting in words something to which none of her actions recently have lent any credibility. It may make good political sense to argue for the concept of universality while introducing measures at the same time, particularly this one and the Old Age Security measure, which completely deny that concept.
I realize that some of these programs are not ones we can easily afford, but this brings us back to the question of priorities and the orientation of the Government. I do not believe
that the Minister should indicate her support for universality while gradually eroding the base of that universality through measures such as we see before us at this time.
The final point I would like to discuss deals with the pressures being felt by Canadians who receive various forms of social assistance. I originally indicated that one reason for these many pressures is inflation and high interest rates. There are many families experiencing these pressures since many more Canadians have fallen below the poverty line, and the Minister has guaranteed that many more will follow as a result of the measures she is introducing now and the ones she has supported in the past. This pressure comes as a result of various forms of legislation which she has continually supported. For example, she has supported legislation introduced under the National Energy Program. This does not involve legislation for the purchase of service stations. She can support that, if she wishes. It concerns legislation that increases the Government's share of what Canadians pay at the gas pump. Presently, 35 per cent of what Canadians pay at the pump goes to the Government of Canada. That accounts for approximately $12 billion. This amount, which Canadians are paying into the Government coffers, I assume, is used to buy gas stations, among other things. This was done to pay for many years of mismanagement and, I am sorry to say, misrepresentation by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to that constituency which she has an obligation to serve. I believe she is clearly eroding the universality that she professes to support. I think that even she must admit to that fact. I think that this is legislation which, at the very least, should be minimized by the amendment which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West, has entered.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am feeling the urge to rise in support of the amendment to Bill C-132 as proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), which seeks to remove the 5 per cent cap on the increases to Family Allowances in 1984. I must confess to being at least partially moved by the activity to my left, from the region of the NDP.


An Hon. Member:: We'll keep you moving, too.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I suppose I was really a little bit upset and amazed, more than anything, by comments by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie). He seems to be much less interested in the debate since he has disappeared, along with his Leader and most of his caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Who? What is this nonsense?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I am pleased to see that-


Mr. Keeper:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Hon. Member would explain what he meant when he said that most of our caucus is gone, when there are
December 20, 1982

more New Democrats in this House than there are Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: 1 was planning on explaining that, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Deans: Where are all the Tories? Explain that!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: And I do not indulge in false statements, as does the NDP, nor alleged false statements, either, and unless the Speaker cocks his head in wonder at my comments, I challenge the NDP concerning what its Hon. Members said in reference to false statements coming from this side of the House. Your predecessor in the chair, Mr. Speaker, indicated that that was acceptable parliamentary debate. Anyway, I do plan on explaining that I speak in facts whenever I can-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Twelve NDP Members were in their seats, and that was after the acting House leader-


Some Hon. Members:: Thirteen!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)-that was before the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain came in. Then, Mr. Speaker-


Ian Deans: 1 was listening, too.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -that fits in with what I said, that most of the NDP caucus disappeared along with their Leader, and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill had been telling us how righteous he and his colleagues were, yet even though they want to agree and several NDP Members have stated they want to support this amendment, they have been here all night, preventing this amendment from coming to a vote in the House.
I am sure there are Hon. Members opposite, those on the Government benches, who will agree, because they have been sitting there faithfully, waiting to vote, that the vote has been prevented from coming to the floor of the House because of the NDP.


Ian Deans: We prevented it.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the NDP talk a lot. What do Members of the NDP talk about? They talk about the Progressive Conservatives, what the Progressive Conservatives say and where the Progressive Conservatives are. I am glad to say that I have been joined by quite a number of my colleagues and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -it might be worthwhile to put on the record the fact that about 60 per cent of the Progressive Conservative caucus is involved in a very important meeting in this very building, and if the NDP would allow the business of the House to come to the floor of the House and be voted upon, 1 can assure the House that my colleagues would be here.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
I also sat here and listened to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), another one of those self-righteous people who has disappeared from the House. He sat here and heard himself speak, or, I guess, he stood here and heard himself speak, and got himself into totally irrelevant remarks.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member who has the floor, notwithstanding his lack of knowledge of the rules, knows full well from previous experience that although one may make reference to a lack of Members in total, one may not make reference to the absence or presence of individual Members in the House.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that he also knows that the two Hon. Members to which he referred are both in committee at the moment, fighting mightily against the Government's legislation, trying their very best to keep the Government from passing in committee, legislation which we frankly know is unacceptable to the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: And so I would ask Your Honour to rule.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of any rule-


Ian Deans: Well, it is there.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -which the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain says should be there. However, the Speaker is nodding his head, and 1 should accept his ruling to that effect. However, I may say something about what the Hon. Member for Churchill said when he was in the House-


Ian Deans: Before he went to the committee.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Before he left. He was referring to Family Allowance and how necessary it was for food, education and clothing of, presumably, the children whose mothers or single fathers received this benefit. Because 1 suppose 1 should declare my conflict of interest, 1 would like to say that Family Allowance cheques come into our household and, of course, the Liberals, in their usual tricky, clever way, made sure that that amount in my hands was taxable. Therefore, although it is my wife who receives the benefit and, when she is home she carries out the duties of a mother and does not earn income, it is taxed back from me as if it were received by me.
I want to return to that very important point that was mentioned earlier. However, 1 was forced to make a comparison between the amount of Family Allowance on an annual basis, $322.92, and food costs, which were mentioned by the Hon. Member for Churchill. 1 suppose that $26.91 might just cover the milk bill of an infant. It certainly would not cover the milk costs of an older child who perhaps has taken to milk in a big way.
Referring to education, and I suppose we must start somewhere, if a working person wants to send a child to a daycare centre, we have a very good one here on the Hill, and I am also

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
becoming an authority on the costs of daycare. I can tell the House that it amounts to $312.50 a month. Therefore, the Family Allowance for an entire year would barely cover one month of daycare on Parliament Hill. Of course, if one is discussing education for children one can say that once they get into the public school system there is no cost, so the Hon. Member is full of feathers and wet behing the ears, as usual. Concerning the cost of children's clothing, this has been mentioned by some other Members in the House, and the relationship between food, education and clothing, as the Hon. Member for Churchill said, is totally irrelevant to this debate.
The Hon. Member for Churchill said that the NDP was also the only Party in this House that was fighting this Bill.
IVlr. Deans: That's right.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Right now we are discussing the amendment, which I notice that not all Hon. Members have addressed, and f also note that this is our amendment. I hope, although there has been no evidence of it, that the NDP will have many amendments to bring forward-


Ian Deans: No, you can't amend something that is unamendable!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -if its Members will allow this to come to a vote.


Ian Deans: How do you amend something that is totally wrong?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I notice, and again I speak in facts, that on Fridays the Party over to the righteous left had one Hon. Member to speak on this very important amendment. They could not get anyone else up on Friday, but today they complain that we are not putting anyone else up. The logic of the New Democratic Party is, as usual, just not there.
Again, the Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), did not talk about the amendment. He referred to the Bill a couple of times, but he also spent his time talking about the bad performance of the Tory Party, and asking where all the Members were, I think I explained, Mr. Speaker, there are over 60 Members of this caucus in another meeting in this very building.
The Member for Churchill made another false statement, Mr. Speaker, and I say that without fear of contradiction. The Member for Churchill, when called to order on it, admitted that he had made an 100 per cent error in that he had said that precisely half the number of speakers from the Progressive Conservative Party had spoken as was the fact. When this was later pointed out to him, he admitted to that.
If the Party to my left is so indignant and wants to prolong the debate, how is it that in an hour only three or so of them spoke? They must know the rules of the House. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) was trying to tell us what they were, and they should know that short speeches and no amendments is not the way to delay a Bill, if
that is what they want to do. Maybe they would like to take lessons from the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I am sure he could give them some ideas.
I want to say a word about restraint, because that is what this Bill which is being modified by this amendment is all about, the six and five. That is restraint, and certainly the Progressive Conservatives are for restraint. I think we have indicated that in our actions in the House, and we have also argued in favour of fewer Crown corporations, for example, less Government expenditure, all of these things that add up to more restraint and lower deficits, which would bring us to a position of lower inflation. If we had lower inflation, then of course we would not have the need for this kind of a capping Bill.
I made reference earlier to the taxing back feature of the Family Allowance Program, and for greater clarity 1 just want to say that although the mother or principal caretaker of a child gets the amount of money, the amount is deemed to have been received by the person in that household earning more, the higher earning parent, usually the father, but that is immaterial, really. Therefore the maximum benefit from the Family Allowance plan goes to the families and the children and the mothers that need it the most. I think that is fair; 1 think that is the way it should be.
Having said that, if we analyse what capping does, it means that the higher income people will pay less income tax because they will have less income on which to pay tax. This obviously means-and I can only think that the Minister did not realize this when the whole program was accepted-that the lower income Canadians are the ones who are going to be penalized by this measure, not the higher income Canadians who are suffering already from the tax back feature of the Family Allowance payment.
I have heard it said that the whole capping procedure is going to save $320 million, and then another figure has been introduced into the debate which indicates that it will cost $250 million this year for the higher tax credit that has been given to parents, and a net cost of $70 million is what is being quoted. But that ignores the tax back, Mr. Speaker, and my figures tell me that, considering that the higher income earners do not receive the Child Tax Credit and do pay tax on their Family Allowances, the estimated saving will be something like $15 million. This Government could lose that in about a day and a half, as 1 recall, the way things go over there.
I think the ultimate aim of my intervention on this amendment of my friend, the Hon. Member for Calgary West would be to try to persuade some of the Members opposite to allow the next session of Parliament-if indeed it ever comes, and that is becoming doubtful now as we carry on through two and half years in this session-to decide what financial mesures should be taken in 1984. If inflation is bad, or if it abates, then maybe the cap should be a different amount. Perhaps it should be higher in 1984; perhaps it should be lower in 1984; perhaps there should not be any cap in 1984.
December 20, 1982

In fact, in debate in this House in recent days, 1 have heard Government Members say that they have noticed, they have been told and they are convinced, that the rate of inflation is actually coming down. The other day, talking about the old age pension capping, the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) was telling us about how supportive his mother was of that legislation. He said in that debate that inflation was coming down. 1 said in that debate: if it is, why do we need to bother with the 6 per cent cap on indexing of either the old age pensions or, in this case, the Family Allowance? You cannot have low inflation and a desperate need for a cap. They just do not add up; they are not compatible, those two situations.
I can only conclude therefore that the Members opposite do not really believe what they say when they say that inflation is coming down, or else they do not believe that there is a real necessity for this Bill, because I really think that the Government itself can probably add still, and those two things do not add up together.
I just want to say finally that I appeal to those Government Members to reserve for themselves the right to decide next year, one year from now, what the program for capping Family Allowances-or any other program, but in this case we are talking about Family Allowances-should be in 1984. Let them decide one year from now, not try to decide now, especially in view of the predictions they are making for such a rosy future.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I might say that it is a real pleasure for me tonight to speak following the Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) and the Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), who must surely both together be God's Christmas gift to the insomniacs of Canada.
I cannot believe that 60 Conservative Members would be at some other meeting, except maybe at the meeting in Winnipeg, or some other meeting, to get rid of you know who. As a matter of fact, the story is around in Toronto today, 1 do not know if you have heard it, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) rushed to Toronto last weekend to hear The Who concert. He thought it was for him. He heard there was a retirement party, and he wanted to be at it.
The Member who last spoke did say-and 1 take this seriously, as 1 do all his speeches in the House, at least the ones that I can remember-that Family Allowances would be taxed back. He gave himself as an example of a parent who was receiving Family Allowance. Anybody in Canada who is not a millionaire or not in a really high tax bracket can tell you that we have a disgracefully inadequate and unjust tax system, that the poor and the middle income people pay most of the taxes in this country, and that the big companies, especially the oil companies and the taxpayers who earn a large amount, do not pay a fair share. I do not see how he can rely on the kind of a taxation system that we have. Besides, the Canadian Council on Social Welfare has said that the budget specified that the 50 per cent rise in the Child Tax Credit received in 1983 is a one year temporary increase, and that the $50 will not be carried over to subsequent years. It seems to me we have a
Family Allowances Act, 1973
terribly bad taxation system, and it is not going to be helped here.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), whom I know very well because he represents a neighbouring constituency, said that the NDP should have a lot of amendments. How can you have a lot of amendments to a Bill that is entirely wrong? He said that the Conservatives had amendments, and that the logic of the NDP was bad.
1 offer this to Hon. Members and to the people of this country. What kind of logic is it for the Conservative party to vote for six and five because they thought the polls reflected what is that people wanted to deal with the terrible problem we face? Suddenly they realize that six and five means penalizing the children, the old people and the poor people of this country. When these Bills started coming down, Bills C-131, C-132 and so on, suddenly they draw back and have to vote against them. Who is logical and who is hypocritical? The Conservatives are illogical and hypocritical in dealing with this. They are trying to get off the hook with this amendment because they want to support the 6 per cent freeze. I have heard some Conservatives say that they would even like to see rollbacks.
I am criticized by my thick-headed friend to my right who says that the NDP voted against the salary increase. Let me put that to rest. We voted against the six and five, and in the six and five Bill salary increases were dealt with. Logically, and it is reflected in this amendment, you had to vote against six and five or support these other Bills all the way down. That is where the Conservatives were illogical. I challenge them on that. They are illogical, hypocritical and not fit to be the alternate Government in Canada.
These are tough times. All Members will agree, including the heckling Members on my right and the silent Members, as they say in French, "les navettes ", across the way. The Liberal backbenchers from Quebec who take no part in this Parliament will be replaced, and God help us, in the next Parliament by Pequistes, and then we will have problems. They do not take part and they are prepared to vote against Family Allowances and against helping the poor people in the Province of Quebec. 1 suspect even they would agree we have tough times.
We have 12.4 per cent unemployment and the growth of our GNP is down. Hon. Members do not have to take that from the socialists. 1 refer them to the Financial Post, not exactly a socialist paper, of December 18. It reads:
By the third quarter of this year, real GNP was down 6.9 per cent from its peak in the second quarter of 1981. By November, the jobless rate had risen to a seasonally adjusted 12.7 per cent from 7.1 per cent in the summer of 1981, and almost 600,000 jobs had fallen by the wayside.
If one reads this paper, one will see stories about those who are out of work, students, those in the manufacturing industries, people out of work all across the country. I repeat, Members opposite recognize that there is a problem. The Members to my right, as much as they are misguided in their

December 20, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
nineteenth century philosophy, recognized that there is a problem in this country.
Willy Brandt, the former Chancellor of West Germany, former Mayor of Berlin, head of the socialist party, a respected Chairman of the North-South Committee on the problems between the developed and developing world, was here last week.
Mr. Brandt made a good point that all Members should consider when thinking about this amendment, this Bill and the six and five policy. He said that workers and ordinary people are prepared to sacrifice. The people in my riding are prepared to sacrifice, but they want the sacrifice to be just. They want it across the board.
We have been given what I call the Coutts-Davey phony program of six and five, a grasping at straws. As we in this Party said, it will first fall on the public servants, then Public Service pensioners, the old people, and now even the children will have to bear the burden. Under this system, it will be the consumer, the worker, the retired public servant and the children who bear the burden. Is that fair and just? That is what this Bill is about.
This is not complicated. Family Allowances are indexed to help people keep up with the rise in the cost of living. According to the Financial Post, not some socialist phamplet, we are going to have an inflation of about 8.9 or 10 per cent. Therefore, families will have to pay 8.9 or 10 per cent more for the boots, clothes, ski suits and everything else for their children while their Family Allowance has been restricted to 6 per cent.
One does not have to be a financial genius to know that if the inflation rate is 9 per cent and the Family Allowance is restricted to 6 per cent, there will be a 3 per cent gap and people will lose. Instead of being better off, they will be poorer. The answer of the Government is that they are helping to fight inflation. Do we want to fight inflation on the backs of the children and retired Government employees? Is that where we want to fight inflation? I am not an expert in this area.


Monique Bégin: It shows.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I heard the Minister. I am giving very simple facts. I acknowledge that. However, I know a little bit about energy and I know that there will be a 30 per cent rise in the cost of energy. I stood up in this House and asked the Energy Minister (Mr. Chretien) about capping the price of gasoline at 6 per cent. I suggested six and five for that. He said that could not be done. However, they say we can cap the Family Allowance.

Mr. Speaker, I see that clause 1 of this Bill would limit the indexation of family allowances to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. Prices will go up 9 per cent, but we are going to increase the indexation of family allowances by only 6 per cent. As an ordinary citizen of Vancouver, I figure that as a result, families in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada will lose money. I am saying to the Liberal Party that they are being
unduly harsh with families in Quebec and that they are creating difficulties for them.


Monique Bégin: And as well for families with a $30,000 income. Does the Hon. Member want a kleenex?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister knows that it is difficult for the family. She knows she had to agree to stay in Cabinet. The two great socialists sitting there, at least they think of themselves as socialists in the Cabinet, they are great socialists. I put this directly to the Minister. She is sitting there with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc). They pride themselves as being sort of on the left of the Cabinet. Let me put this to the Minister directly. They have agreed to $8.7 billion in the next five years going into petroleum incentive program grants to the oil companies. They have agreed to a 30 per cent raise each year in the price of heating fuels, which will affect old people.
I notice they are not heckling me any more. They have agreed to that raise in the price of heating fuels, which will hurt families with children.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) entertain a question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Certainly.


Monique Bégin: I thank the Hon. Member. I wish he would tell me why he is against a bill which will increase the rate of indexation, but only by 6 per cent, for one-child families with an income exceeding $26,330 and up to $40,000. I am aware that the New Democratic Party now represents very wealthy people who are protected by strong unions, but not ordinary Canadians. Is he against a bill which will limit to 6 per cent the rate of indexation for families earning more than $26,330? Is that what he has the nerve to tell Canadians this evening?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In French!

Maybe I will explain it in English. There are a number of reasons. One reason is you are taxing it back. That is what 1 said in my speech, if you had listened at the beginning. There is not a fair system of taxing it back. Another reason is the child tax rates for one year, on a one-year basis. Another reason is that these families will be affected, and they need the money also.
I want to put a question to the Minister. Why would the Minister agree to a program that would give Dome Petroleum $500 million? The Minister has to decide this in Cabinet. You have to get your priorities straight. Why would you give Dome Petroleum $500 million and take away from the families of Canada? I do not understand that.
I would like to ask the Minister this: if you really wanted to have a program which would deal with inflation, why not control prices? Why go after wages? If you go after wages you
December 20, 1982

are going the reactionary route. You should go after prices. That is the route you should go. 1 would like to ask the Minister another question. If she wants to ask me questions, 1 will give her a chance. The Financial Post, again, as I said, not a great supporter of my particular position usually, has this to say, and 1 quote from the issue of December 18 on page 10:
Listen to consulting economist Michael McCracken, president of Informetrica Ltd., urge Ottawa to stimulate the economy through tax cuts and increased government spending. Says McCracken: 'Further delays run the risk of triggering a major falloff in business investment, a collapse of private and public institutions, and a tearing of Canada's social fabric.'
As the Elon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) pointed out, why would you cut back on giving income to families if you wanted really to prime the economy, because that is the way of priming the economy? If you give them money, they are going to spend it. Instead, you make a choice. You choose to give money for Dome. You choose to give $8.7 billion in grants. You choose to give that kind of bailout to different companies, Chrysler and other companies. That is the policy you make. The Minister, it seems to me, is hung on that policy.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that people are afraid in this system, in this economy, and they do want solutions. They want security for their kids and they want solutions. We all agree that there is trouble in the country, that there are economic problems, and we have to make some choices. And the Minister has to make some choices. It really cuts to the heart of our politics where we are going to make the choices. I just got back from Vancouver this morning. Yesterday 1 was with a group of Philippino people, new immigrants to Canada. It was called the Philippino Diamond Society. There were no judges there. They were a very sincere group, and every one of the speakers there echoed the remark which Pope John Paul made in Manila, and that was that our great hope is in our children. I think most people would agree on this. So then why do we penalize our children? Why, as Willy Brandt said, are we fighting inflation on the backs of the people who can least afford it? Why do we not have a just solution for this? Why, if we are going to stimulate the economy, do we restrict giving money to the very people who it would help by letting them go out and buy things? Why do we give it to the Michael Pitfield's of this country? They are not into the six and five program because they are rich and established. Frank Scott, a great poet, once wrote this poem. He talked about the Canadian dream and he said this:
Hidden in wonder and snow, or sudden with summer,
This land stares at the sun in a huge silence Endlessly repeating something we cannot hear.
Inarticulate, arctic,
Not written on by history, empty as paper.
What Mr. Scott is saying is that we can fill in that country. We can create a country and we can create a just country in which we all bear the burden. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) started out with in 1968, and now he has fallen into a system where we are faced with this Bill today, with an
Adjournment Debate
inadequate Conservative amendment which basically says, "Let's fight inflation on the backs of the children of this country." We in this Party stand here together. Let us all in this House tonight say, no never, and vote against it.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here this evening because I feel that it is really crucial to be involved in this debate. It is by participating in this debate that we hope to buy time so that the Government will wake up and withdraw this Bill rather than keep on trying to ram it through the House of Commons. Bill C-132, is an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, the essence of which is an application of the Government's six and five policy, its so-called economic policy which it is attempting to merchandise all around this country. The central point which has to be made about the application of the six and five, is that the six and five should not be applied to Family Allowances because, first of all, as an economic policy it is a sham, and as a social policy, as applied to the Family Allowances, as applied to pensions, as applied to Public Service pensions, is socially destructive. The six and five so-called economic policy is no substitute for an equitable social policy as it affects Family Allowances or pensions, and it is no substitute for real economic policy.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you want me to call it ten o'clock at this point, and we can reconvene tomorrow afternoon?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has agreed to call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a couple of points relating to a question I asked in the House. I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) how he could justify a price increase in milk, which resulted in a 40-cents per package increase, at a time when families were having a difficult time putting enough food and milk on the table to feed themselves.
The businesses that packaged the milk were also experiencing some financial difficulty. They expressed some concern about this added cost due to the fact that this Government is forcing metric by Order in Council on not only the three sectors, but on the milk producers as well. The Minister's answer was nothing; he did not even discuss milk he discussed

December 20, 1982
Adjournment Debate
a petition which had been presented in the House of Commons and I will deal with that at a later date.
What I would like to deal with now are some of the facts which would substantiate a concern on the part of the people of Canada over the likelihood of an increase in the price of milk because of our change from quarts to litres. I would first like to refer to an article from the Toronto Star under the headline "Metric Conversion May Boost Milk Price". Dean Archer, a chairman of the Ontario Dairy Council, is quoted in this article. He said:
It is going to cost us a lot of money to make the change-
Those expenses are going to have to be either swallowed or passed on to the consumer. And it's been my experience that if they're swallowed today, they'll just be passed on at a later date.
He also said "We really don't know whether we'll succeed," in the fight against the ... legislated change to metric.
He said the new milk packages will probably cost about 40 cents more-
Even if the increase is not passed on at this point in time it will mean a price increase at a later date. Then his last remark here:
Shoppers sure aren't going to like that-
That was the chairman of the Ontario Dairy Council.
Let us take a look at the industry. I have here an inter-office memo signed by one of the commissioners of the Metric Commission, a Mr. S. Volk, sent to Mr. Boire, who was Executive Director of the Metric Commission. The document states:
1 called Mr. Lowe, President of Beckers Dairies to review information contained in the above newspaper article.
Mr. Lowe stated he had never seen or heard of the article. He was extremely upset that metric conversion was being forced on his industry by federal bureaucrats, including MCC and Agriculture Canada. He contended there were no benefits for the consumer resulting from the conversion of milk. It was his belief they were being "cheated and ripped off' with the conversion of milk and food products.
He tried to explain that it was a voluntary process and he used as an example the Ontario Dairy Council. Well, there is nothing voluntary about it, Mr. Speaker, because the Ontario Dairy Council is the group I just quoted which is complaining about being forced to go into metric packaging.
He goes on to say that he has since resigned, and due to pressures from the Metric Commission he is resigned to the inevitability of metric bag milk. The president then went on to say:
Yes, and it's all because of metric conversion.
It continues:
Judging from the extremely hostile reaction my call solicited from Mr. Lowe, he is not a strong advocate of metric conversion.
He concluded his remarks stating he could supply the names of all the company presidents who are against conversion-with whom he dialogues daily-and maybe he should be "hollering from the rooftops more often".
It is grossly unfair of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to call a press conference and say that the move to metric is voluntary except in three sectors, that of gasoline, home furnishings and measured, weighed-out grocery produce because it is obviously mandatory in the milk packaging industry as well.
It should also be noted how grossly unfair it is for the present Government to indiscriminately allow people to use imperial measurement in some parts of the country and at the same time to harass and threaten the same type of retail outlet in another part of the country. It should be noted that in Eckville, Alberta, it is okay to sell in gallons, which they do. Consumer and Corporate Affairs banded the weigh scales and then removed the bands after a period of time and allowed the retailer in Eckville, Alberta, to go ahead and sell in gallons. He is still selling in gallons today, two and a half years after he started to do so.
It is unfair that they threaten prosecutions in Toronto, Etobicoke and Mississauga for selling in gallons, while allowing it to occur in the Province of Alberta. I suggest that that is probably because the Premier of Alberta has asked his Attorney General to defend anyone who is prosecuted for using imperial measurements.
It is grossly unfair of the Government to threaten to prosecute in the Province of Alberta against a retail carpet dealer who has the nerve to sell her carpet in both metric and imperial measurements, while at the same time to ignore dozens of retail outlets in the City of Toronto which advertise daily in the Toronto papers with floor coverings in 12 foot widths and prices per square yard. Sears Limited of Canada has advised the Metric Commission in writing that there are the dealers in Richmond and in Vancouver that have been selling and are continuing to sell in yards, while at the same time the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said he would proceed to prosecute maybe a dozen, maybe only ten, who are violating the Order in Council.
Not only has Parliament been misled, but the people of Canada have been misled by a Minister who refuses to acknowledge that the process of moving to metric in Canada is difficult at a time when the United States is moving back to imperial. They just converted 19,000 Shell service stations in the United States back to gallons; they just completed it this week. Chevron and Amoco are following suit. Why do we not get the true story out to the people, that an irresponsible Minister refuses to admit the inevitable, that it is too difficult for Canada to be forced into metric at the consumer level at a time when the United States is going back to imperial?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the Hon. Member that just because the United States is doing something does not mean it is right. Continuously we hear Members opposite telling us about the horrors of creeping republicanism and how we have to be aware of not becoming too American-like; and now he is saying that just because the Americans do it, it is right. Just because they had 17,000 stations which converted to the metric system and are now converting back, does it mean we have to follow the same process in Canada?
December 20, 1982

To get to the subject of this evening's discussion, the Hon. Member quoted a number of people in the dairy industry in Ontario. I think it would be interesting to check the accuracy of all those statements, because we know that a number of statements which he has made in the House have proven not to be entirely as originally stated. We must certainly be talking to different people because the information 1 have is that in the mid-1970s the participants of the dairy industry in Ontario agreed to convert to metric. They chose metric container sizes for the conversion. The industry committee which planned the conversion agreed that the single-quart container would be replaced by one litre, the two-quart container by two litres and the three quart container by four litres.
The key to the planning process for metric conversion in every sector of the economy has been for the industry to ensure a cost efficient and economic conversion. In the case of the dairy industry, because the majority of three-quart sales were at the time in the form of returnable plastic jugs, the industry wanted to be able to use up its stock of three-quart jugs before switching to the four-litre size. Therefore, the conversion to the four-litre size was delayed.
It is not as if we are imposing a draconian change or rule or sudden cost upon the industry. This is something which goes back probably eight or nine years. The conversion, furthermore, of all other container size of fluid milk in Ontario was finished by 1979. That is, the one-litre and two-litre containers have been in use for three years. It is now only four years later that the conversion to four-litre containers is being completed. The date for the conversion, or deadline, is April 1, 1983, again allowing milk processors and dealers sufficient official notice of this long awaited change.
If you understand the simple economics of increasing the volume of the container size, you will realize that if four litres is 17 per cent larger than three quarts, there must be a corresponding increase in the cost to the consumer. I thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight.


FINANCE-ENERGY TAXES PAID BY FARMERS. (B) APPLICATION OF FARM EQUIPMENT PURCHASE TAX CREDIT
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to get further elaboration on a question which I posed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on December 7. The basic issue I raised in the question concerned the amount of money that was coming from the agricultural sector, that is the farmers across Canada, into the pockets of the federal Government as a result of the increases in energy prices which had taken place since the February, 1980 election.
Just for farm fuels alone, gasoline and diesel fuel, at least an additional $300 million has come out of the pockets of Canadian agricultural producers and into the federal treasury. The Government has argued that this is not taxation but another form of revenue. However, that was not the point of my question. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has given that answer.
The essential point is that this money is being taken at a time when the agricultural sector is facing a great amount of
Adjournment Debate
pressure. It is possible that the net farm income will go down as much as 30 per cent in some sectors and decrease by 15 per cent over all. Bankruptcies will probably reach 400 this year which is a level that has never been approached before.
Despite all these occurrences, the Minister of Finance responded by talking about the prices that the Conservative Government of 1979 was considering. He also went on to deal with other matters. These did not concern the point of my question. Matters concerning the Conservative Government of 1979 are irrelevant at this time. Certainly, we did not have a signed energy agreement, which the government has pointed out.
What is important is that the Minister of Agriculture has promised energy rebates. Our agricultural sector is presently paying approximately 40 per cent of its energy costs to the federal treasury. That sector is in difficulty and needs to be considered as a primary producer similar to the petrochemical industry. There were questions asked today concerning that industry which is currently not building plants or creating jobs for Canadians because the up-front taxation that the federal Government is taking from the feedstock prevents that industry from being competitive in Canada. That industry is looking elsewhere. Because of the world recession and over all problems in the petrochemical industry, it will not be expanding in the near future.
The manner in which the Government establishes prices at this time for the agricultural sector and petrochemical industry, which produces fertilizer for agriculture, can have an influence on the regeneration of our economy. If we cut them off, if we make it impossible for them to be competitive or put additional pressures on them so that they fail, we will not have that recovery in the economy. We will continually depress our economy with resulting loss of jobs, loss of the productive ability we should have in Canada, and we will never get anywhere. We are, therefore asking the Minister of Finance to consider the energy tax rebate for agriculture which the Minister of Agriculture repeatedly promised, particularly during election time.
I was asking the Minister of Finance whether or not he would respect the promise of cheap gas and oil which he made to all Canadian consumers. His response was that he knew it was hurting, but he would not do anything about it. He went then into a long diatribe about what might have been otherwise, but that is really not the point. I would like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) has to say.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reminder from the Hon. Member that no one likes taxes, and I agree with him. No one does like taxes. However, I would hope that someone in the House would apply somewhat better logic, and would to distinguish between tax forgiveness on the one hand and

December 20, 1982
Adjournment Debate
genuine economic activity on the other. We will not automatically create a regeneration of economic activity by forgiving taxes. The Hon. Member has used that argument but 1 must differ with him on that point.
The role of farmers, across Canada, is of course very important. I visited his riding and had an opportunity to listen to some very concerned and sympathetic people who discussed with me the difficulties they were having raising beef. It seemed to me, as I listened to them, that their problems were not with taxation but, rather, with high interest rates and low consumer prices. I asked whether relief from taxes would give them the relief they needed to survive, and their answer was no. They needed higher prices and some shelter from the economic storms that were hitting everyone.
If we were to follow the line of thought the Hon. Member has just given, we would have to start distinguishing between the activities of Canadians. We would have to say that farmers are a deserving group and should, therefore, be forgiven taxes. However, what about medical doctors? Are they not a useful, important group in our society? They must drive cars. Are they to be forgiven the fuel taxes on their vehicles if they drive to see a sick patient or to a hospital? Many people obviously do these important jobs. What is much more important here is to zero in on the economic problems from which the people are suffering and to try to solve those problems.
Let me point out to the Hon. Member to some of the activities of the Government. The $400 million extra injection into the Farm Credit Corporation is one good example of how we have attacked a basic problem by trying to shelter people from high interest rates, giving them relief under that Corporation. That, it seems to me, is a much better cure than a hodge podge on the tax system which discriminates in favour of one Canadian and against another, or chooses to artificially set taxes for one activity with none for another.
I thank the Hon. Member for reminding me of the importance of the farm community, but I must tell him that the cure he has proposed is not to be a genuine cure for the problems of the farmers.


REQUEST FOR FREE VOTE ON ISSUE OF CRUISE MISSILE TESTING. (B) REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ALLOCATE DAY FOR DEBATE
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in response to a question of mine in the House of Commons, said he would welcome a debate on the Cruise missile test plans, yet he refused to allocate a Government day for that debate. He suggested that the New Democratic Party might use an opposition day for such a debate. I think he knew we had no opposition days left before the end of the year. The urgency of the debate is such that I do not believe we can wait until some time in the new year whenever that might be, and whenever the Conservatives might agree that we have such a debate on an opposition day.
The Government has been assuring us, through the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), that the new weapons agreement being drawn up in secret with the Pentagon is about to be signed-the framework agreement-and that the Cruise missile testing within that agreement has been agreed upon in principle, and the details will be worked out. This is imminent. In fact the Minister of National Defence said a couple of months ago in a letter to me that it would be within a few weeks. It could very well take place, therefore, during the Christmas adjournment. It was for this reason that I urged the Prime Minister to set aside a Government daysince we, as I say, do not have the NDP opposition day left before the end of the year. We have alrady used an opposition day on the Minority Report on Security and Disarmament. That debate did not deal with Cruise missile testing. The Prime Minister on that occasion said, as indeed he says will be true on every opposition day, that he will treat it as a vote of confidence and, therefore, will not allow a free vote.
The purpose of having a Government day with a resolution presented by the Government to the House delineating the framework agreement and the cruise missile testing agreement under it, is that the Government would not have to regard a vote on that as a vote of want of confidence. This would accomplish what the Prime Minister says he wants to accomplish, namely a debate, although I must says I have my doubts. He says he views the Cruise missile testing matter as extremely serious. This would give us the opportunity to have a debate.
I reminded the Prime Minister that the last time such a measure of magnitude in the field of defence was being undertaken, and agreement sought with the United States, was the NORAD agreement in 1958. This weapons testing agreement, nuclear weapons testing in particular, is the most significant matter, in my view and I think the view of all Members of the House, to come before us involving Canadian-American relations in matters of defence. At that time the Government of the day, under Mr. Diefenbaker, first of all said no to the Liberal opposition request for a Government resolution to bring the matter before the House. On May 19, 1958, Mr. Pearson, then the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said:
Is it the intention of the government in respect of this very important intergovernmental agreement to follow the normal procedure of giving the house an opportunity, by the submission of a resolution, to express its views?
The then Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) in answer to that question replied:
-I would say no.
The next day, however, May 20, 1958, the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Diefenbaker, did agree that on a matter of this importance there should be a Government resolution, that the matter should be debated and should come to a vote. That indeed, is what happened. That is the precedent I asked the Prime Minister to follow, and he has refused.
December 20, 1982


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) was certainly not here this evening when her own colleagues candidly announced that they intended to use all the time remaining before the Christmas adjournment to debate and indeed to filibuster the Bill now before us. Of course, as she was absent all evening, she may not have heard her colleagues, say this, but if she had heard them, she would have realized that the members of her own Party have decided to use the time remaining until the Christmas adjournment in two days to oppose a Bill which is important to the Government. How can she come before us this evening and seriously ask for a day to discuss the Cruise missiles when all her colleagues vigorously oppose discussing anything but the Bill introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin)? I believe that she is speaking from both sides of her mouth, which is quite natural for NDP Members. She tells us-


Pauline Jewett: We asked for last Wednesday.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, she asked for last Wednesday and she could well ask for next Wednesday also. We had a chance to discuss this issue during the oral question period and on many other occasions, and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) invited the Hon. Member to use an Opposition
Adjournment Debate
day on our return to discuss this issue, and 1 am convinced . .. The Hon. Member says that her Party does not have any allotted days, but her House Leader could certainly confirm that the NDP will have allotted days next year which they can use-


Pauline Jewett: Not before the adjournment.


Jean-C. Lapierre: I understand that. They will not have any before the adjournment, Mr. Speaker. 1 am under the impression that the Hon. Member will not get to Christmas at the same time as everyone else. Mr. Speaker, her Party has decided to delay passage of a Bill and resort to filibustering tactics and the Hon. Member is asking us on behalf of her Party for time to debate that issue.
Right after the Christmas break she should ask for a debate on this matter and we shall be happy to consider it. If it is a priority for her Party at that time, we shall be quite willing to debate this issue ad nauseam during an allotted day as the Hon. Member probably wishes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock. 1 wish to thank all the Hon. Members.
At 10.28 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, December 21, 1982