1982-07-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas there are more than nine million young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 35 years, whereas they need and want jobs to secure their futures, and whereas the government has known they were in the system and should have created a business climate so that they could secure their futures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Liberal cabinet, the Liberal backbenchers and the Liberal Party of Canada stand condemned for not maintaining a business climate so that these young Canadians might have jobs; but instead have policies such as the National Energy Program and a budget socialist philosophy which have in fact taken jobs away from young Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Conservative member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) said Monday that, and I quote, "We should close down the Port of Churchill and let that grain go through the Great Lakes-," thus illustrating the Conservative insensitivity to the prairie economy and the effects on our farmers of such an action, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby be granted the Jack Murta Award for the Conservative member most proficient at Churchill-bash-ing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, I rise also under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns Michael Kirby, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) eminence grise and his second senior adviser. In view of the fact that Mr. Kirby was appointed with much fanfare to head a task force to solve the problems of the Atlantic fishery and then to become deputy minister of fisheries, and in view of his recent admission that he would never have agreed to take on the task force if he had known how complicated the fisheries field is, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House commend Mr. Kirby's frankness as the first completely honest admission of failure of the Liberal government; and that the Prime Minister allow Mr. Kirby to withdraw gracefully from a task too onerous for him-in other words, let Mr. Kirby off the hook-so to speak.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. In June the largest increase in unemployment was amongst females aged 15 to 24, an increase of some 21,000. This group could benefit greatly from training and retraining programs, and yet of 31,000 trainees enrolled in the government's non-traditional occupation training programs, only 2,000 are women. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):

July 30, 1982
That this House urge the government to take immediate steps to remodel its present inadequate training and retraining programs drastically to ensure that young women in Canada have every opportunity to acquire the skills necessary for available jobs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


HOUSING
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Amidst a considerable amount of fanfare the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) announced a $3,000 grant program for home buyers. Fewer than 10 per cent of those eligible for this program thought the incentive enough to make any inquiry at all about it and only 251 Canadians actually applied. Of that number only 33 applications have been processed during the one month this program has been operational. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the government give Canadians some credit for their intelligence by dropping the gimmicks and getting on with a program that would provide the only meaningful incentive to home buyers, that is, a reduction in current mortgage interest rates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND THAT BYELECTIONS BE HELD-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion for which I am sure there will be unanimous consent. Noting that Canadians in three constituencies, namely, Timiskaming, Broadview-Greenwood, and Leeds-Grenville, have been without representation in the House of Commons for many months; and noting that during this period, people in these areas have experienced lay-offs, mine closures, housing problems and other difficulties directly involving federal government responsibility, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to live up to his moral responsibilities by calling byelections to take place in these constituencies on a date no later than September 30, 1982.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because of the continued inability of the Minister of Transport's assistant in the other place, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board Senator Argue, to acquire for grain producers a return over their costs of production, and because of the minister's assistant's own words to the effect that he is a "retread" and the criteria for his ministerial appointment was because "he was able to sit up and take nourishment," I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the transport minister's assistant in the other place be allowed to return to being a flat tire and spend his leisure time taking nourishment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DECLINE IN PRICE OF RYE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last year the rye growers in southern Ontario received some $4 a bushel for their product. This year the market not only started at a depressed price of $3 a bushel, which was reduced to some $2.89 a bushel in the last sales, but this past week when farmers took their rye to the brokers they were told it could not be taken at any price. Surely the government could have foreseen this failure in the rye market and could have informed the producers beforehand and thus prevented the possibility of disking these crops under and taking losses in the tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the government take immediate steps to rectify this unacceptable problem in Canada's agricultural industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
July 30, 1982


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the Liberal government is continuing a policy of harassing west coast importers of Japanese cars, thereby threatening employment of importers, truckers, longshoremen, auto dealers and salesmen, ostensibly to protect the jobs of those in the auto industry in central Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Minister of State for International Trade explain to this House how it is that Lada cars, made in the Soviet Union, seem to have no difficulty coming into Canada, even though they may be guilty of dumping and are thereby taking jobs away from central Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION MONDAY BE RECOGNIZED AS PARLIAMENTARY HOLIDAY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, since British Columbians will be celebrating B.C. Day on Monday, and since Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Northwest Territories will be observing a civic holiday on Monday, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House recognize Monday as a parliamentary holiday.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION RESTRAINT ACT
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Whereas Bill C-124, currently under consideration by this House, proposes to reduce the current salaries of the staff of MPs, and noting that this bill is supported by both the Liberals and the Conservatives, and whereas this group of workers has no collective bargaining rights, no job security, and is for the most part
Oral Questions
already underpaid, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House condemn the government and the Conservative opposition for this clearly vindictive act and call upon the government to remove this particular proposal from Bill C-124.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Maislin Trucking Company is in trouble because poor management made wrong decisions, buying companies in the United States in the face of deregulation, and it will continue to lose money. There are a total of approximately 67,000 trucking jobs in Ontario and Quebec. Any federal money will not increase that number one bit. It will not increase the GNP, but it will increase animosity in the United States where legislation is under way to prevent further take-overs. In light of this, is the Minister of Transport prepared to announce whether or not cabinet has approved a massive loan to its Liberal friends at Maislin and, if so, under what conditions?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, we have been discussing with Maislin the basis for an offer of a loan guarantee-not a loan-to assist the company to restructure on the basis of it agreeing to certain conditions, including involvement in the six and five per cent guideline program. When matters are at a final and definitive stage, I will be happy to make an announcement.


John Raymond Ellis: The guarantee about which we have been talking will cost at least five times per job that which was spent for guarantees to Massey and Chrysler. No one has seen a financial statement for Maislin for at least the last 18 months.


AVAILABILITY OF ASSISTANCE FOR OTHER TRUCKING COMPANIES
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, is the minister now open to proposals from trucking companies in other parts of Canada? I can assure him that that amount of money would guarantee at least 7,000 jobs in other well-managed trucking companies in eastern Canada which

July 30, 1982
Oral Questions
may be eager to buy Maislin on the open market but do not have the political clout of the Bronfmans and other Liberal friends in Montreal.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to bring to the attention of my colleagues the situation of companies that are in similar restructuring difficulties. If the hon. member has specific companies which he wants to bring to my attention, I would be happy to receive the information about them.


REASONS FOR GRANTING ASSISTANCE TO MAISLIN COMPANY
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, finally I would like to ask the minister, if indeed it is true, that only one job out of four in the Maislin corporation is in Canada and that in fact, in giving this guarantee to Maislin, they are rewarding a company for its ineptitude, and giving it a further financial edge by forcing its unions into a six and five agreement, whereas other companies in Canada are not being forced that way.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my information is that half of the jobs of the company, some 2,000 of them, are in Canada.


Mr. Trudeau:: Out of 4,000.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Some 2,000 out of the total 4,000 are in Canada. If the company and its employees are respecting the six and five guidelines, surely that is something my hon. friend would encourage, not just for them but for other trucking companies, in light of the support by himself and his party for the guidelines program as exemplified by their votes in the House.


FINANCE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Despite a recent and minimal lowering of prime interest rates by Canadian chartered banks, the level of interest rates in the country is still far too high. Thousands of Canadians are still expected to lose their homes because of the astronomical cost of renewing their mortgages; thousands of businesses are still going bankrupt, causing the loss of thousands of jobs. The minister, through his June budget, asked all Canadians to get behind his 6 per cent solution. In light of the continuing damage to our economy by high interest rates, would the minister consider applying his solution to these rates and having them immediately lowered by the much touted 6 per cent?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that one of the major objectives contained in the budget is aimed at bringing about a substantial drop in interest rates, and urging all Canadians to join their efforts in reducing inflation down to six and five per cent within the next two years.
Until this joint effort has produced tangible results, the government will implement transitional measures to help home buyers, farmers and small businesses. The purpose of these measures is to reduce interest rate levels and to provide financial assistance for those who want to buy homes. However, we must be patient and persevere in this joint effort if we are to bring down inflation and put our economy on the road to recovery. If we do, interest rates will go down as well. Meanwhile, Canadians can take advantage of the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his last budget to help the people of this country get through the difficult period that lies between us and an improved economy.


EMPLOYMENT
Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, the minister is well aware of the thousands of Canadians, almost half of them in Ontario alone, who have recently been told they will be laid off, or have already been laid off. Massive group lay-offs gain media attention because they involve a large number of workers employed by big businesses in major centres, but not those being laid off by smaller firms in rural areas where the unemployment situation is even more critical.
The situation in my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka is a good example of the magnitude of this disaster. In a one week period this past month, 800 more people were registered for unemployment benefits than during the same time a year previously, which is an increase that has had a devastating effect on the entire nation, when considered across the country. Is the minister preparing to implement employment programs which would be of benefit to smaller communities across the country where the plight of the 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work is more deeply felt?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the point raised by the hon. member in which he refers to the many lay offs taking place is actually related to a much broader issue I mentioned earlier, which implies that we must fight inflation, improve our productivity,
July 30, 1982

and be more competitive on all markets. The hon. member was asking for ad hoc job-creation programs to help those who are currently unemployed to find work. These programs already exist. In fact, they were announced this week by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Millions of dollars are being spent on job-creation programs, and if the hon. member makes this information available to his constituents, they will be able to take advantage of these programs which will help them get through this very difficult period for all Canadians.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER SET DATE FOR BYELECTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians who live in the constituencies of Timiskaming, Broadview-Greenwood and Leeds-Grenville have been denied political representation in the House of Commons for many months. Considering that Canadians in these areas, as well as elsewhere in the country, have been experiencing record levels of lay-offs, problems with mining shutdowns, housing problems, not to mention other difficulties directly involving federal responsibility, will the Prime Minister now live up to his moral responsibility and name the date for byelections in these three constituencies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will do so within the time provided for in the law.


RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, would the Prime Minister explain to the members of the House of Commons and, more important, to the Canadians living in these areas who have a great deal of difficulty in coping with the problems of the Canadian economy, why he will not give them the right at least to have an elected Member of Parliament, from whatever party happens to win those byelections, in the House fighting on their behalf and doing a job for them? What moral right does the Prime Minister have to deny them their representation in the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants me to explain to him why the law says what it says.


John Edward Broadbent: No, that is not the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am telling the hon. member that I will comply with the law with regard to byelections. That is my answer.


MORAL OBLIGATION TO PEOPLE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the law of Canada permits people to lie to one another, but that does not make it morally acceptable. The law of Canada does
Oral Questions
indeed permit the Prime Minister to wait many months to call a byelection, and he knows he can set it for many months after that date. We are not interested in the precise question of what is legally permitted to the Prime Minister. We want him to live up to his moral obligations to those people, and their right to have representation in the House of Commons. Therefore I ask him will he not give them the right to elect a member to this House to do work on their behalf, work that they need done in these difficult economic times?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the House of Commons had made the same distinction between morality and legality as the hon. member seems to be making-


John Edward Broadbent: Pretty basic.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -he would then be suggesting that the members of the House of Commons acted immorally at the time, by providing a certain delay. If the House of Commons felt that a shorter time was morally right, I am sure its members would have voted for a shorter time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of National Defence. This seems to be pork-barrel week in the House of Commons. Can the acting minister inform the House what tactical or strategic reasons have convinced the Government of Canada to move Naval Reserve Headquarters from Halifax to Quebec City?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to take notice of the question and provide the hon. member with an answer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's not good enough.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: This was surely an important decision and must have been discussed in cabinet. I can hardly accept the fact that the Acting Minister of National Defence knows nothing about it.


REASONS FOR RELOCATION TO QUEBEC CITY
Allan Bruce McKinnon: All our reserve headquarters are located on a functional basis. For instance. Air Command has Reserve Air headquarters in Winnipeg. The headquarters of our reserve army is co-located with Mobile Command at St. Hubert. What on earth could the Government of Canada be thinking about, to disrupt this functional system by moving the Naval Reserve Headquarters from

July 30, 1982
Oral Questions
Halifax to Quebec City? If the Minister of Veterans Affairs is unable to answer this, perhaps the Prime Minister would answer.


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, I have indicated that I will be pleased to take notice of the question and provide the hon. member with an answer.


GOVERNMENT DECISION ON MOVEMENT OF NAVAL RESERVE HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, it poses a great difficulty to the opposition that the Minister of National Defence is not in the House to answer this important question. The acting minister has no knowledge of it, so I will address my question to the Prime Minister. Will he, on behalf of his cabinet colleagues, deny that the government intends to move Naval Reserve Headquarters from the City of Halifax to Quebec City in order to increase the presence of the Canadian navy in the Province of Quebec? Is that plan afoot? Will that happen? Will he admit it, or will he deny it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is attending graduation ceremonies at Canadian Forces Base Moose Jaw, in Saskatchewan. He is a very regular attendant in the House. I think the acting minister was quite correct in saying that he would take notice on the minister's behalf. The question will be answered on the first day that minister returns.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ACT ON ISSUE
Howard Edward Crosby: I think, Madam Speaker, that the Prime Minister of Canada knows the traditional history of the City of Halifax in the Province of Nova Scotia in relation to Canada's naval force. We have just had a $500 million expansion of the dockyard in Halifax. We have always associated the Canadian Navy with the east coast and the City of Halifax. Will he now undertake not to do anything drastic with respect to removal of Canadian naval facilities and resources from the City of Halifax in the Province of Nova Scotia to the Province of Quebec, purely for the purpose of increasing the presence of the Canadian Navy in the Province of Quebec to satisfy the demands of persons in that province, and not in connection with National Defence or with our role in NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I repeat that the question will be properly answered by the minister, but I would want to make it quite clear that the minister never acts in an arbitrary sense, just because, as the hon. member says, some Member of Parliament asks him to do a certain thing. I am sure that if he has made any decision in that area he will have made it after a very extensive consultation and with the support of the Armed Forces themselves.


LEVELS OF ADVANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport on increasing the levels of financial limits under the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act. I had prior discussion with the minister, prior correspondence, and have given him notice of the question. Is the minister now in a position to announce that the levels will be increased, bearing in mind that the last time they were increased was in 1975, and also bearing in mind that if those levels could be increased it would give some help to hard-pressed prairie farmers who are in a cash-short position, so that when the new crop comes off they will be in a position to pay their bills, which not only will benefit themselves but the whole western economy?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member before, there was a preliminary discussion of that possibility in one of the cabinet committees. It was decided to put this issue in the wider context of western grain policies. Consequently, I will not be in a position to confirm or deny the possibility of increasing the maximum until some time in the fall.
In the meantime, I would like to underline the fact that today is the last day of the crop year. I would also underline the fact that Canada has done extremely well in the last year. Almost all records with regard to types of grain and ports have been broken. Therefore, there is a compensation for the lower price in the fact that the quantities in this crop year have been extremely high.


POSSIBLE BENEFITS TO WESTERN COMMUNITIES
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, what the minister says is true. I submit to him that the reason we have these record levels of exports is as a result of many of the things put in place by the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: Also, it is small comfort to prairie farmers that, even though there is an increase in exports, they are being paid less per bushel.
Let me point out to the minister a couple of matters he should take into consideration when talking about increasing the levels of cash advances. First, he will know that the Canadian Wheat Board borrows money at prime minus one quarter per cent. That is something he should consider when he is looking at whether to raise the cash advance levels. As an economist, he will know that for a very few million dollars he can put money into circulation to roughly 150,000 Canadian farmers. That would benefit virtually every community in western Canada, as well as having a ripple effect throughout the whole economy. I ask the minister to consider those points
July 30, 1982

seriously and give us a reply on whether he will use those arguments to convince cabinet to raise the cash advance levels.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will consider those arguments, and others. On the subject of grain performance, I would underline the fact that in the last several months Canada has signed four long-term grain agreements with the U.S.S.R., China, Algeria, and recently with Brazil. This is a great year indeed. Something else that is rather interesting is that a number of spot sales have been made, for example, to China, made possible by our capacity to deliver very rapidly the grain being ordered. That again indicates the importance of the transportation system in Canada, the primary objective in the western innovations that we are pursuing at this time.


HOUSING
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, the new program known as the Canada Home Ownership Stimulation Plan was announced approximately one month ago. Will the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation give this House an update on the status of the program, and an indication of how many Canadians are availing themselves of the $3,000 grant made available to buyers of new homes or to first-time buyers of existing homes?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of State for Finance indicated, $300 million was set out in the budget for this program to assist young Canadians. I am very pleased to report that, as of yesterday, 100,053 people had inquired about the plan, 51,941 had received application forms, 5,735 had returned the application forms, 2,641 had been approved, and 2,139 cheques were issued in the space of two weeks, helping the industry, creating jobs, and helping young Canadians find accommodation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and his parliamentary secretary, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. On Wednesday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a total job-creation package which, at most, may provide 57,000 low-paying jobs; and only 14 per cent of the funds-the special response feature-will be partially used to help those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.
Oral Questions
Considering that some half million Canadians will run out of unemployment insurance and go on welfare this year due to the long-term stagnation caused by Liberal policies, and that Wednesday's measures will constitute less than a 6 per cent solution to their problem of long-term unemployment and expired benefits, what additional non-political programs is the government prepared to pursue in order to provide productive jobs to these jobless Canadians all across Canada, and not just in Liberal ridings?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is well aware of the situation. He has the matter under study and will undoubtedly be able to give a reply to the hon. member in the House very soon.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO CONSTITUENCIES
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question should properly go to the Prime Minister. Yesterday we learned that much of the allocation of employment funds will be to Liberal ridings, mostly in eastern Canada. Now we have evidence of a politically directed allocation of employment fund opportunities in ridings within western Canada as well.
I have information from officers within Employment Canada, for instance, that, "The Prime Minister's office has been providing projects. They have to be approved by Lloyd Axworthy. There are no regional allocations." I would like to ask the Prime Minister, in relation to the immediate employment stimulation program, why are funds being directed by Liberal Senators in British Columbia, and Saskatchewan, and why is program direction coming from the Prime Minister's office instead of using the accountable, both financially and politically, process of local advisory boards, which would save money for the taxpayers and provide more jobs and more bang for the buck?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that this is one of the most accountable systems ever introduced in this country. Every Member of Parliament has a choice either to appoint an advisory committee or to do otherwise. The scheme is implemented along similar principles, and 1 am very surprised that the hon. member would attempt to discredit the program at this stage.


FORESTRY
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the Canada-Nova Scotia forestry agreement. As the minister is aware, it expired at the end of March. Is the minister now in a position to tell the House when we can

July 30, 1982
Oral Questions
anticipate this agreement being renewed, and when he expects it to be signed?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the agreement which was worked out with the Province of Nova Scotia has been affirmed by the cabinet. I hope to have it signed as soon as possible. I want to thank the hon. member for the work she has put into moving us toward this objective.
Gilson report. Today is July 30. Is the minister prepared to make the government's position on the Gilson report public, or is he going to wait, as I suggested he would, until the House has adjourned so that he will then be safe from the attacks that the opposition plans to mount?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I expect that the House will be sitting in the coming days. The Cabinet has reviewed the Gilson report and will be in a position early next week to give the first response to it.

* *
*
V *	*


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the Canadian Wheat Board minister. Last night in reply to a question that I asked, his parliamentary secretary stated that the policy of the government, as it was last evening, is to continue with the minimum of $5 a bushel and maximum $7 for domestic Red Spring wheat for human consumption and a minimum of $5 for durum. That is what the parliamentary secretary said last night. If that is true, can the minister advise why he has not taken into account the 25 per cent increase in the cost of input in the last two years, 1980 to this year, and why he would not increase the domestic price for grain in Canada by that amount of 25 per cent because of the cost farmers are facing as a result of grain selling below the cost of production? This should be very simple and rudimentary for the government to perform.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that my parliamentary secretary also said that a review of this particular subject is going on. In the meantime, we are continuing with the range that exists in the act now. This is under review and we probably will have an announcement to make in the future on the subject.


RAILWAYS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that we are going into a new crop year on August 1, and that farmers are selling grain below the cost of production. He spoke of large wheat sales, but farmers cannot make more money by increasing volume when they lose money on every bushel they sell. We assume that the minister intends to implement a 45 per cent increase in the next three years in the cost of transportation for western grain. In this House he assured us that by the end of July he would announce the government's policy regarding the


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice I will direct my question to the Acting Attorney General or to whomever can speak for justice on the government benches.
In view of the fact that the government dropped charges against Mrs. Zoritza Kasparian of Calgary because she had violated Section 7 of the Weights and Measures Act, which says that she was not allowed to advertise her carpets in imperial measure, and in view of the variety of positions taken by the government on the Kasparian case, what advice will the Department of Justice be giving to the Metric Commission with respect to Section 7? Will it be to modify or remove altogether the compulsory aspect of this law which forces metric advertising only?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, this is an issue which has been discussed by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Discussions are going on with the industry at the moment, as the hon. member opposite is aware. The charge under Section 7 of the Weights and Measures Act was withdrawn because of technical problems that were being encountered in the specific circumstances. Accordingly, we feel that it is appropriate to undertake further consultations with a view to clarifying Section 7 of the Weights and Measures Act and the regulations, and in order to make them more precise so that Canadians can better understand their rights and obligations under these provisions.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, quite obviously the government could not make Section 7 stick. If it is unenforceable we can only assume that any further prosecutions will be held in abeyance until Section 7 is cleared up.


REQUEST THAT MEASUREMENTS BE PERMITTED IN BOTH IMPERIAL AND METRIC SYSTEMS
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might put a question to the Prime Minister in a more general vein. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now carrying on discussions with the industry and is
July 30, 1982

reviewing the regulations pertaining to metric. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the government will consider a tandem system of measurement in both imperial and metric, for packaging? This is particularly important when we see the devastating effects being experienced by farmers with their crops when they are forced to interpret metric only measurements.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is no doubt aware that when we announced the introduction of metric scales in retail food merchandising, we also said that for two years, in all communities where metric scales were to be introduced, prices would be posted for both metric and imperial weights. Now, I have not looked into this, and T would have to check with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, on the feasibility of using the hon. member's suggestion for a tandem system of measurement in both imperial and metric. I shall look into the feasibility of the hon. member's proposal.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation perhaps an acting minister could answer my question.
The Corporation was established not only to reduce the dependency on the taxpayers of Canada but also to improve service to Canadians who use the mail. In the first year we had an unbelievable increase in postal rates and an unacceptable definition of the term letter, which tightened up the monopoly. Now we are told there will be a reduction in service, that being the removal of Saturday rural delivery. There is something wrong in "Warrenville", Madam Speaker.
Will the minister tell the House whether the problem lies with the Crown corporation or with the deficit reduction program laid down by the government? Could he also tell us what steps are being taken to correct the situation?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, this kind of question is always rather difficult to answer. All the members of this House would agree that the government should reduce its spending and should try to operate as much as possible on a cost-recovery basis. On the other hand, we realize that the Canada Post Corporation has a deficit that is increasing from year to year, and yet, when the Corporation suggests how it could bring down its deficit, hon. members ask the Corporation
Oral Questions
not to drop the service in question. Madam Speaker, I myself come from a rural area where we have Saturday mail delivery, and I think that people in rural areas are prepared, like other Canadians, to accept a five-day delivery system, as is the case for most Canadians living in cities. I do not think this is tantamount to depriving Canadians of essential services.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, we see again why this is called question period, and not question and answer period.


REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE STUDY REDUCTION IN SERVICE
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since there is in excess of $400 million of taxpayers' money going to the Crown corporation this year, could the Prime Minister assure Canadians that there will be no reduction in mail service in this country until the implications of such reduction are studied by a committee of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will do what the responsible minister would do, and undertake to refer the hon. member's representations to the Crown corporation for consideration.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Announcement!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, we have the usual rash judgment from hon. members opposite.
In view of the government's apparent willingness to provide a loan guarantee to Maislin Transport whose Canadian employees, according to my information, number closer to 700 than 2,000, can I now offer companies in my constituency that are facing bankruptcy an assurance of loan guarantees from the Government of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, one of the programs of this government that has been in place for many years is the Enterprise Development Program. One of its components is to make loan guarantee assistance available on a last resort basis to help in the restructuring of companies in difficulty, in order to assist them to return to long-term viability.

July 30, 1982
Oral Questions
I would be very happy to have my hon. friend, in his usual efficient and hard-working manner on behalf of his constituents, bring cases to my attention which may qualify under the rules so that we can discuss them at the level of ministers.


FINANCE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. The question concerns the liquidity position of Canadian enterprise and commerce. Since the last quarter of 1980 the Minister of State for Finance will be aware of the serious problem faced by Canadian business, the loss of working capital, loss of cash flow, and loss of equity position. He will know that the consequence of this has been
400,000	fewer jobs in that period of time.
Is the minister aware of this critical situation, and of what will happen if interest rates continue high, and is he aware of the vulnerability of Canadian business and Canadian jobs in this situation?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the situation described by the hon. member is another consequence of the present recession. I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to an important document that was tabled with the budget in June and is now being analysed by a group of businessmen and experts. As soon as the committee has finished its assessment and made its recommendations to the Minister of Finance, and as soon as a decision is made, it will be possible to provide funds at reasonable interest rates and thus make cash available to Canadian enterprises. This would certainly help alleviate the difficult liquidity position referred to by the hon. member.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM ON INTEREST RATES
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I understand the documents presented by the Minister of Finance with his budget statement and the proposals to be examined by the blue ribbon committee suggest that the lowering of interest rates for business, farmers, and home owners will be by way of government grants to pay down the interest rates. Will the Minister of State for Finance tell us what sort of leverage the government will have by lowering interest rates in this way?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member must have read a
very brief summary of the document that was published and which provides an in-depth analysis of proposals for reducing interest rates by subtracting the component due to inflation. I would ask the hon. member to re-read the document carefully, and he will realize that there is no question of grants but of a formula for adjusting the taxation system so that it applies to the interest paid, minus the component due to inflation.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is still government policy to flight test the air-launched Cruise missile, or whether the fact that the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, START, have more or less gotten under way has caused the government to reconsider its earlier decision to flight test the missile?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, the START talks have been adjourned for the summer, I believe until September. We are more interested in the INF talks. Unless they show very substantial signs of succeeding, Madam Speaker, we still want to continue with our plans.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I think the Prime Minister would know that the air-launched Cruise missile is to be part of the U.S. strategic force, not the European nuclear force. That would be the ground-launched Cruise missile. Because that is the case, and because we hope the START talks will resume in the fall,
I	would like to know whether the Prime Minister will therefore consider our not becoming involved in testing the air-launched Cruise missile, in line with his own suggestion at UNSSOD II that the real problem is that technological advances are going on ahead of reduction talks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not want to disagree with the hon. member because the answer would be the same anyhow. The Pershing
II	and the Cruise are part of the INF arsenal, and the ones which would be tested in Canada would be regulated under the INF talks. The answer would be the same in both cases, that until progress has been made at the START talks or the INF talks we have no cause to change our policy. I made that quite clear in my speech at UNSSOD. The Soviet negotiators should not assume we are going to change our minds unless they themselves are prepared to talk seriously about the INF missiles.
July 30, 1982


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Recognizing the carnage and death of thousands of Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians and Israelis in Lebanon, what is Canada's position regarding either an ad hoc or UN multilateral disengagement force? Is the Canadian government currently engaged, directly or indirectly, in bilateral discussions or negotiations through the UN regarding the establishment of and the participation by Canada in such a force?


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we have not been asked to participate in a peacekeeping force but, as Mr. Danson, the former Minister of Defence, has said, we virtually invented peacekeeping, and if we are asked, if the parties agree, and if it is constructive, we will participate.


HOMELAND FOR PALESTINIANS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell us what the government's current position is regarding Palestinian rights to national selfdetermination and security through the establishment of a homeland for the Palestinians?


Ron Irwin: Madam Speaker, I would not use the word "self-determination" that the hon. member has used, but I think Canadians would want us to show the same compassion to Palestinians that we have traditionally shown to Israelis. Therefore, we do support a homeland for Palestinians. I think Canadians would want this government to do that, and that is what this government is doing.


HOUSING
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. In the last few days there have been meetings between the Government of Canada and the mayors of various Canadian cities. Are there any meetings planned with provincial governments particularly with respect to rent review programs? I have in mind my own province where rent review boards are now granting rent increases of 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 35 per cent and 40 per cent, at a time when the Government of Canada is trying to bring us to the six and five world. These two things are incompatible. Is it the minister's intention to initiate such meetings with the appropriate provincial ministry wherever it is applicable, and particularly in Ontario?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, as the representatives of the municipalities indicated after the meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance yesterday, there are many areas, probably most, under
Oral Questions
which municipalities have to respond to provincial legislation and they cannot act independently. Rent controls are obviously a matter which impinges upon municipal operations through their housing authorities, but it is under the authority of the province because, under the Constitution, they have responsibility in that area.
As I have indicated, Madam Speaker, where the federal government has any operational impact we have announced that rent increases will be kept within six and five, such as projects under CMHC control. In that area, where we have the option, we are adopting the six and five rule. Where the provinces have jurisdiction, they will have to make up their own minds. I have talked to a half dozen of the provincial ministers, and I hope to conclude that in the next few weeks in discussions with other ministers. However, as I say, we are doing what we are able to do under the jurisdiction available to us.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING BE CONVENED
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister a direct question. Is it his intention to convene a federal-provincial meeting with provincial housing ministers to look into the question of rising rents for people who are going to become more and more affected by curtailment of income? I would hope the answer to that question will be yes, because those people are being impinged upon as a result of rent review cases and landlords increasing rents. Surely that must be stoppted if there is to be any justice in the six and five program?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I just indicated to the hon. member that I have already met with six of the provincial ministers of housing and I intend to meet with the balance in the next few weeks. We discussed many items right across the board. In so far as the federal responsibility is concerned, and the leeway that we have, CMHC has indicated that rents will not increase above the six and five mandate. In order to achieve that, as you know, the six and five applies to the wages of people employed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There are ways in which the federal government has demonstrated we can act to protect people in those rental projects. We hope that the example of the federal government will be followed and adopted by the provinces and by municipal corporations.


CANADA MORTGAGE RENEWAL PLAN
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for housing. The only response by the government for those 500,000 Canadians facing mortgage renewal apparently has been the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan, which would provide grants of up to $3,000 for those whose mortgage interest payments exceed 30 per cent of gross income. The minister knows, or should know, that CMHC is currently

July 30, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
receiving approximately 60 applications a day. CMHC has its hands tied because the government has failed to give legislative action to this proposal in the budget of last June. Does the minister intend to bring in the necessary amendment to the National Housing Act so this very important part of the government's response to the housing crisis can become operative immediately?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, there are a number of changes in the plan, for example, the opportunity to provide grants rather than deferred interest. The extension of the program for an additional year requires legislation which was supported by the hon. member and his party this year, but that will have to be done when the act is returned to the House in the fall. I assume from the thrust of the hon. member's question that the response of the opposition to this very serious problem will be a lot faster than it was last year when it took us three months to get approval for that plan.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventeenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-PRESENTATION OF SEVENTEENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, 1 have the honour of tabling the seventeenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, this morning under Standing Order 17, I gave you notice of a question of privilege that I wished to raise. I want to say at the outset that I think you are aware that I raise questions of privilege very rarely in the House. I do so now only because I feel that our privileges collectively as private Members of Parliament, and my privileges as a Member of Parliament,
have been affected by a motion that appears on today's Order Paper.
I was very careful to spend some time this morning reading Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms as to what a question of privilege means concerning the work of Members of Parliament. On page 11 of Beauchesne we find Citation 16, which reads:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions-
I will not quote any more but Beauchesne refers to the fact that privileges also refer to the services of Members of Parliament being unimpeded. In other words, we have the right as Members of Parliament to provide services to our constituents unimpeded.
My question of privilege, and I will not get into the arguments on a substantive basis, arises out of Motion No. 3 to amend Bill C-124, appearing on today's Order Paper. I will paraphrase the motion. It says that the salaries of members' staff-in other words, the staff of Members of Parliament, both the parliamentary staff here in Ottawa and our staff in the constituencies-will, when the bill is passed, be rolled back. Bill C-124 treats this staff radically different from the public servants in our country who will not have their salaries rolled back but will have their salaries limited to a 6 per cent increase next year.
If we are to serve our constituents well and if we are to do what we have been elected to do-I assure you this is not a partisan issue-we have to depend to a great extent on our staff and their morale is very important. If we are to keep our staff, it is very important that their salaries not be rolled back; otherwise certain of our staff will leave. If we are to attract good staff, it is important their salaries be at an adequate level.
You are aware, Madam Speaker, that on March 31, 1982, the staff of Members of Parliament received a salary increase of 11 per cent.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just one moment, please, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I think I would have to reverse that and say to the hon. member "Just one moment, please." My impression is that the hon. member is debating the motion which is going to come up for debate later this day. He does not have a question of privilege but a matter of debate. I invite the hon. member to debate the issue when the motion is called precisely for that purpose.
I have listened to the hon. member and I have not been able to detect a trace of a question of privilege in what he has said. It is quite obvious to me that he is debating the motion. Of course, the hon. member has the right to debate that matter, and 1 hope he will when the motion is called.
July 30, 1982


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to refer you to Beauchesne, in particular pages 11, 12, 13 and 14, under the definition of "Privilege". I will not waste the time of the House to quote in detail, but I want to say to you that I believe the staff we have play a very essential part in helping Members of Parliament with their constituency work and in performing their duties.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 am grateful to the hon. member for not quoting the whole definition of a question of privilege to me. I had that in mind when I said to the hon. member that I felt he was debating the motion.


FINANCE
Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in the House a set of documents on the revision and consolidation of the Trust Companies Act and the Loan Companies Act. The documents include a draft revision of the legislation, a working paper and a summary of those two documents.
Madam Speaker, I feel that the information I am tabling will provide an excellent opportunity for all parties concerned to make their views known to the government before a final decision on policy is made.


PETITIONS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians who are opposed to the testing of the U.S. Cruise missile on Canadian soil. These people ask that the government scrap its plans to test this missile since such testing indicates a willingness on the part of the Canadian government to support the insane arms race that is currently being waged by the superpowers. The petition also asks that Canada be declared a nuclear-free zone.
This petition, Madam Speaker, also has the support of 3,650 residents of Manitoba who have signed cards opposing Cruise missile testing and advocating a declaration of Canada as a nuclear-free zone. These cards are being delivered to the Prime
Order Paper Questions
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) right now. It is my hope and the hope of the petitioners that he will heed their call.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, today I have the honour to present to the House a petition on behalf of people in my constituency concerning Bill C-53. The petition respectfully calls upon Parliament to retain prohibitions on spouses charging one another with sexual assault, that the age of consent not be lowered, that the law continue to prohibit acts of gross indecency and that there be a class of sexual assault or rape retained.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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. 2,379, 2,380, 2,381, 2,382, 2,383, 3,697, 4,170, 4,195, 4,196, 4,248, 4,261,4,311 and 4,390.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Does the actuarial report on the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) as at December 31, 1972 state there were 256,958 contributors to the PSSA on December 31, 1972 and does the report as at December 31, 1977 state there were 246,059 contributors on January 1, 1973 and, if so, by what amount were the actuarial liabilities of the PSSA reduced as a result of the reduction of 10,899 contributors from the rolls on January 1, 1973?
2.	(a) What annual rate of salary increases resulting from promotions did the actuarial report as at December 31, 1972 assume would be received by PSSA contributors (b) what annual rate of such salary increases did PSSA contributors receive during the period January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1977 (c) what annual rate of such salary increases does the actuarial report as at December 31, 1977 assume will be received by PSSA contributors?
3.	(a) What was the average age at which the actuarial report as at December 31, 1972 assumed PSSA contributors would retire in the future (b) what were the average ages at which PSSA contributors retired for each year during the period January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1977 (c) what is the average age at which the actuarial report as at December 31, 1977 assumes that PSSA contributors will retire in the future?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
While there appeared to be a reduction of 10,899 reported active contributors as at January 1, 1973, there was also an increase of 668 in the number of reported pensioners. For purposes of the report as at December 31, 1977, it was estimated that as a result of the reported change in the number of contributors the liabilities may have been reduced by about $176 million. However, this figure is extremely difficult to estimate and the true figure may have been very much less. There would have been practically no change in the actuarial liabilities for the 668 cases whose status may be assumed to have merely changed as at January 1, 1973. If, in addition, the

July 30, 1982
Order Paper Questions
remaining 10,231 cases could be assumed to be employees whose service terminated before January 1, 1973, but who were included in the 1972 valuation, the implicit reduction in the actuarial liabilities as at January 1, 1973 might have been of the order of only $8 million or 0.16 per cent of the estimated total 1972 liabilities.
2.	(a) Promotional salary increases assumed for purposes of the 1972 actuarial report were in accordance with the following table:
Age	Males	Females	Age	Males	Females18	0.385	0.396	19	0.401	0.412	20	0.418	0.429	45	0.887	0.89921	0.436	0.447	46	0.898	0.91022	0.455	0.466	47	0.908	0.91923	0.475	0.486	48	0.917	0.92824	0.496	0.507	49	0.926	0.93625	0.517	0.529	50	0.934	0.94326	0.539	0.551	51	0.941	0.95027	0.561	0.573	52	0.948	0.95628	0.583	0.596	53	0.954	0.96229	0.605	0.619	54	0.960	0.96730	0.627	0.642	55	0.965	0.97131	0.649	0.664	56	0.969	0.97532	0.670	0.686	57	0.973	0.97933	0.691	0.707	58	0.977	0.98234	0.711	0.728	59	0.980	0.98535	0.731	0.748	60	0.983	0.98836	0.750	0.767	61	0.986	0.99037	0.769	0.785	62	0.988	0.99238	0.787	0.802	63	0.990	0.99439	0.804	0.819	64	0.992	0.99540	0.820	0.834	65	0.994	0.99641	0.836	0.849	66	0.995	0.99742	0.850	0.863	67	0.997	0.99843	0.863	0.876	68	0.998	0.99844	0.876	0.888	69	0.999	0.99970	1.000	1.000
(b) Information on promotional salary increases actually received during the five years ending December 31, 1977 is not available. However, studies carried out in connection with the 1977 report indicated the following progression of salaries from age to age.
Age	Males	Age	Females	20	$1,000	20	$1,000	25	1,396	25	1,233	30	1,750	$1,000	30	1,497	$1,000	35	1,976	1,129	35	1.744	1,165	40	2,094	1,197	$1,000	40	1,944	1,299	$1,00045	2,175	1,243	1,038	45	2,096	1,400	1,07850	2,236	1,278	1,068	50	2,198	1,469	1,13155	2,283	1,305	1,090	55	2,263	1,512	1,16460	2,321	1,326	1,108	60	2,303	1,539	1,18565	2,344	1,340	1,119	65	2,322	1,551	1,194
(c) Promotional salary increases assumed for purposes of the 1977 report for females were the same as for the 1972 report (see 2(a) above) and for males were in accordance with the following table:
Age	Males	Age	Males	Age
18	.357			
19	.390			
20	.424	30	.742	4021	.459	31	.767	4122	.493	32	.789	4223	.525	33	.808	4324	.558	34	.824	4425	.592	35	.838	4526	.624	36	.851	4627	.655	37	.861	4728	.686	38	.871	4829	.715	39	.880	49Males	Age	Males	Age	Males.888	50	.948	60	.984.895	51	.953	61	.986.902	52	.957	62	.988.908	53	.961	63	.990.915	54	.965	64	.992.922	55	.968	65	.994.927	56	.971	66	.996.933	57	.974	67	.997.938	58	.978	68	.998.943	59	.981	69	.99970	1,0003.	(a) The rates of retirement and mortality assumed for purposes of the 1972 report produce probable average ages of retirement of 63.75 for males and 63.83 for females.
(b) Actual average ages at retirement
1973-74	62.9
1974-75	62.5
1975-76	62.4
1976-77	62.2
1977-78	62.3
(c) The rates of retirement and mortality assumed for purposes of the 1977 report produce probable average ages of retirement of 62.24 for males and 62.29 for females.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	Does the actuarial report on the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) as at December 31, 1977 show a deficit of $61.5 million in the valuation balance sheet of the PSSA as at December 31, 1977?
2.	What would be the deficit in the sheet as at December 31, 1977 if the 1977 PSSA actuarial report had examined the PSSA in accordance (a) with the assumptions used in the actuarial report as at December 31, 1972 (b) with the 1972 PSSA actuarial report assumptions of 0-0-4 per cent for annual inflation, salary revision increases, and interest rates respectively and in accordance with the 1977 actuarial report assumptions for all other factors (c) with economic assumptions of (i) 0-0-314 per cent (ii) 0-2!A-3!4 per cent for annual inflation, salary revision increases, and interest rates respectively (d) with an assumption of 3 per cent annual inflation, 5l/i per cent annual salary revision increases, but with an annual interest rate assumption of (i) 6'A per cent during the period PSSA participants are employed in the public service and are eligible to receive public service salary revision increases (ii) Vh per cent during the period PSSA participants are no longer eligible to receive public service salary revision increases, that is 3!6 per cent on the liabilities in respect of current and future beneficiaries calculated so that employer contributions made in respect of former contributors who have taken a return of contributions and the unreturned interest earnings in respect of the employee-employer contributions of these former contributors are assigned between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries according to the proportion of liabilities in the PSSA as between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries?
3.	What would be the deficit in the sheet as at December 31, 1977 if adoption of the 3 per cent inflation scenario contained in the 1977 PSSA actuarial report, namely adoption of economic assumptions of 3-5'A-6!4 per cent for annual inflation, salary revision increases, and interest rates respectively, had been accompanied by an amendment to the PSS Act providing that the first 3 per cent of annual indexing of PSSA benefits paid on December 31, 1977 and thereafter would henceforth be paid out of the PSSA and would be regarded as PSS Act benefits?
July 30, 1982

4.	What is the employer contribution rate, expressed as a percentage of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA, that would be required to provide all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service if the actuarial examination of the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 had been carried out in accordance with the assumptions and conditions described in parts 2 and 3?
5.	What is the amount that would have to be credited to the PSSA on December 31, 1977 to reduce the employer contribution rate by 10 per cent of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA to finance all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1977 under the scenarios described in parts 2 and 3?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
Yes.
2.	(a) $713 million, (b) $1,002 million, (c) (i) $1,906
million, (ii) $2,908* million (includes $909 million for accrued supplementary retirement benefits), (d)	$3,884 million
(includes $1,124 million for indexed accrued supplementary retirement benefits).
*For comparability with 2(d), notional assets were valued at 3.5 per cent which increased them by $4,166 million. This was partially offset by a reserve of $2,710 million for salary increases of the same size as implicitly included in 2(d), i.e., providing for increases until 1983 greater than the basic 5.5 per cent assumed in 2(d).
3.	$3,884 million (includes $1,124 million for indexed accrued supplementary retirement benefit).
4.	Employer contribution rates expressed as percentage of effective employee contribution rate.
Assumptions as for 2(a) above 2(b) above 2(c)(i) above 2(c)(ii) above 2(d) and 3 above
Employer Multiple* 105 per cent 115 per cent 140 per cent 170 per cent** 150 per cent**
*These figures are subject to modification when CPP/QPP contribution rates are increased above 3.6 per cent of contributory earnings.
**For purposes of consistency between 2(c)(ii) and 2(d) and 3, it was assumed that employees contribute to the public service superannuation account a total of 7.5 per cent of salary less CPP/QPP contributions (i.e., including the 1 per cent supplementary retirement benefit contribution) and that all benefits are paid out of the account.
5.	There does not appear to be any way to determine an amount equivalent to a reduction in the employer contribution rate the indefinite future.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What would be the deficit or surplus in the valuation balance sheet of the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) if the actuarial report as at December 31, 1977 had used economic assumptions of 0-216-3!6 per cent for annual inflation, salary revision increases, and interest rates respectively?
2.	What would be the deficit or surplus in the sheet as at December 31, 1977 if the 1977 PSSA actuarial report had examined the PSSA in accordance with
(a)	economic assumptions of 6-8V6-916 per cent for annual inflation, salary revision increases, and interest rates respectively (b) an assumption of 6 per cent annual inflation, 816 per cent annual salary revision increases, and an annual interest rate assumption of (i) 916 per cent during the period PSSA participants are employed in the public service and are eligible to receive public service salary
Order Paper Questions
revision increases (ii) 316 per cent during the period PSSA participants are no longer eligible to receive public service salary revision increases, that is 316 per cent on the liabilities in respect of current and future beneficiaries calculated so that employer contributions made in respect of former contributors who have taken a return of contributions and the unreturned interest earnings in respect of the employee-employer contributions of these former contributors are assigned between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries according to the proportion of liabilities in the PSSA as between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries (c) economic assumptions of 6-816-916 per cent for annual inflation, salary revision increases, and interest rates respectively and if the PSS Act were amended to provide that the first 6 per cent of annual indexing of PSSA benefits paid on December 31, 1977 and thereafter would henceforth be paid out of the PSSA and would be regarded as PSS Act benefits?
3.	What is the employer contribution rate, expressed as a percentage of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA, that would be required to provide all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service if the actuarial examination of the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 had been carried out in accordance with the assumptions and conditions described in parts 1 and 2?
4.	What is the amount that would have to be credited to the PSSA on December 31, 1977 to reduce the employer contribution rate by 10 per cent of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA to finance all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1977 under the scenarios described in parts 1 and 2?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
$2,908* million deficit (includes accrued supplementary retirement benefits).
2.	(a) $1,281* million surplus (PSSA only), (b) and (c) $4,141* million deficit (includes indexed accrued supplementary retirement benefits).
*For consistency and comparability, notional assets in each case were valued at the assumed rate of interest. Moreover, the actuarial liabilities include reserves for salary increases until 1983, such that 1 and 2(b) and (c) may be compared with question 2,380 part 2(d), and 2(a) with question 2,380 part 1.
The premium included in the value of notional assets and the special reserve in each case were as follows:
1.	above
2.	(a)
2. (b) and (c)
Premium on Assets $4166 million $879 million discount $879 million discount
Special Reserve $2710 million ($2 million) $15 million
3.	Employer contribution rates expressed as percentage of effective employee contributions.
Assumptions as for
Employer Multiple*
1. above
170 per cent**
2.	(a) above	65 per cent2.	(b) and (c) above	130 per cent**
These figures are subject to modification when CPP/QPP contribution rates are increased above 3.6 per cent of contributory earnings.
**For comparability with question 2,380 part 2(c)(ii) and 2(d) and 3, it was assumed that employees contribute to the public service superannuation account a total of 7.5 per cent of salary less CPP/QPP contributions (i.e., including the 1 per cent supplementary retirement benefit contribution) and that all benefits are paid out of the account.

July 30, 1982
Order Paper Questions
4.	There does not appear to be any way to determine an amount equivalent to a reduction in the employer contribution rate into the indefinite future.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What would be the deficit or surplus in the valuation balance sheet of the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) if the actuarial report as at December 31, 1977 had used economic assumptions of 0-2-3 per cent for annual inflation, salary increases arising from both promotions and salary revisions, and interest rates respectively?
2.	What would be the deficit or surplus in the sheet as at December 31, 1977 if the 1977 PSSA actuarial report had examined the PSSA in accordance with (a) economic assumptions of 3l/2-5V2-6l/2 per cent for annual inflation, salary increases arising from both promotions and salary revisions, and interest rates respectively (b) an assumption of 3'/2 per cent annual inflation, 5l/i per cent annual salary increases arising from both promotions and salary revisions, and an annual interest rate assumption of (i) 6xh per cent during the period PSSA participants are employed in the public service and are eligible to receive public service promotions and salary revision increases (ii) 3 per cent during the period PSSA participants are no longer eligible to receive public service promotions and salary revision increases, that is 3 per cent on the PSSA liabilities in respect of current and future beneficiaries calculated so that employer contributions made in respect of former contributors who have taken a return of contributions and the unreturned interest earnings in respect of the employee-employer contributions of these former contributors are assigned between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries according to the proportion of liabilities in the PSSA as between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries (c) economic assumptions of 31/$-5l/2-6,/2 per cent for annual inflation, salary increases arising from both promotions and salary revisions, and interest rates respectively and if the PSS Act were amended to provide that the first 3'A per cent of annual indexing of PSSA benefits paid on December 31, 1977 and thereafter would henceforth be paid out of the PSSA and would be regarded as PSS Act benefits?
3.	What is the employer contribution rate, expressed as a percentage of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA, that would be required to provide all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service if the actuarial examination of the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 had been carried out in accordance with the assumptions and conditions described in parts 1 and 2?
4.	What is the amount that would have to be credited to the PSSA on December 31, 1977 to reduce the employer contribution rate by 10 per cent of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA to finance all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1977 under the scenarios described in parts 1 and 2?


Pierre Bussières: 1.
$3,589* million deficit (includes accrued supplementary retirement benefits).
2.	(a) $312* million surplus (PSSA only), (b) and (c) $4,252* million deficit (includes indexed accrued supplementary retirement benefits).
*For consistency and comparability, notional assets in each case were valued at the assumed rate of interest. Moreover, the actuarial liabilities include reserves for salary increases until 1983, such that 1 and 2(b) and (c) may be compared with question 2,380 part 2(d), and 2(a) with question 2,380 part 1.
The premium included in the value of notional assets and the special reserve in each case were as follows:
	Premium on Assets	Special Reserve
1. above	$4795 million	$3169 million2. (a)	$1166 million	$1305 million2. (b) and (c)	$1166 million	$1539 million3.	Employer contribution rates expressed as percentage of effective employee contributions.
Assumptions as for
1.	above
2.	(a) above
2. (b) and (c) above
Employer Multiple* 185 per cent**
90 per cent 125 per cent**
These figures are subject to modification when CPP/QPP contribution rates are increased above 3.6 per cent of contributory earnings.
**For comparability with question 2,380 part 2(c)(ii) and 2(d) and 3, it was assumed that employees contribute to the public service superannuation account a total of 7.5 per cent of salary less CPP/QPP contributions (i.e., including the 1 per cent supplementary retirement benefit contribution) and that all benefits are paid out of the account.
4.	There does not appear to be any way to determine an amount equivalent to a reduction in the employer contribution rate into the indefinite future.
Note: The assumptions underlying the figures in respect of part 2 and the corresponding part 3 do not include the usual provision for promotional salary increases.


Mr. Knowles: I. What would be the deficit or surplus in the valuation balance sheet of the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA) as at December 31, 1977 if the 1977 PSSA actuarial report had examined the PSSA in accordance with (a) economic assumptions of 6'/h-8	per cent for annual inflation, salary
increases arising from both promotions and salary revisions, and interest rates respectively (b) an assumption of 616 per cent annual inflation, 816 per cent annual salary increases arising from both promotions and salary revisions, and an annual interest rate assumption of (i) 916 per cent during the period PSSA participants are employed in the public service and are eligible to receive public service promotions and salary revision increases (ii) 3 per cent during the period PSSA participants are no longer eligible to receive public service promotions and salary revision increases, that is 3 per cent during the period following their employment in the public service when they and their survivors are entitled to immediate and deferred PSS Act benefits calculated so that employer contributions made in respect of former contributors who have taken a return of contributions and the unreturned interest earnings in respect of the employee-employer contributions of these former contributors are assigned between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries according to the proportion of liabilities in the PSSA as between actively employed contributors and beneficiaries (c) economic assumptions of 616-816-916 per cent for annual inflation, salary increases arising from both promotions and salary revisions, and interest rates respectively and if the PSS Act were amended to provide that the first 6'/r per cent of annual indexing of PSSA benefits paid on December 31, 1977 and thereafter would henceforth be paid out of the PSSA and would be regarded as PSS Act benefits?
2.	What is the employer contribution rate, expressed as a percentage of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA, that would be required to provide all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service if the actuarial examination of the PSSA as at December 31, 1977 had been carried out in accordance with the assumptions and conditions described in part 1 ?
3.	What is the amount that would have to be credited to the PSSA on December 31, 1977 to reduce the employer contribution rate by 10 per cent of the effective employee contribution rate to the PSSA to finance all PSS Act benefits in respect of current service after December 31, 1977 under the scenarios described in part 1 ?


Pierre Bussières: 1. (a)
$1,365* million surplus (PSSA only), (b) and (c) $4,585*
July 30, 1982

million deficit (includes indexed accrued supplementary retirement benefits).
*For consistency and comparability, notional assets in each case were valued at the assumed rate of interest. Moreover, the actuarial liabilities include reserves for salary increases until 1983, such that 1(a) may be compared with question 2,380 part 1, and 2(a) with question 2,380 (part 2(d)).
The premium included in the value of notional assets and the special reserve in each case were as follows:
Premium on Assets	Special Reserve
1 (a) above	$879 million discount	$218 million
1 (b) and (c)
above	$879 million discount	$347 million
2.	Employer contribution rates expressed as percentage of effective employee contributions.
Assumptions as for	Employer Multiple*
1 (a) above	45 per cent
1 (b) and (c) above	110 per cent**
*These figures are subject to modification when CPP/QPP contribution rates are increased above 3.6 per cent of contributory earnings.
**For comparability with question 2,380 part 2(c)(ii) and 2(d) and 3, it was assumed that employees contribute to the public service superannuation account a total of 7.5 per cent of salary less CPP/QPP contributions (i.e., including the 1 per cent supplementary retirement benefit contribution) and that all benefits are paid out of the account.
3.	There does not appear to be any way to determine an amount equivalent to a reduction in the employer contribution rate into the indefinite future.
Note: The assumptions underlying these figures do not include the usual provision for promotional salary increases.


Mr. Gamble: 1.	With reference to the Second Conference on Latin American Women held in Winnipeg on November 28 and 29, 1981 funded by the Department of the Secretary of State, who attended and, in each case, what was his/her organizational affiliation?
2.	Who applied for the conference grant and what were their organizational affiliations?
3.	What was the amount of the grant?
4.	Was the grant for the total cost of the conference and, if not, what were the other sources of funding and the amounts involved?
5.	(a) Which conferees were from foreign countries and, in each case, which country (b) on what basis were visas granted to foreign conferees?
6.	Were any persons attending Cuban and, if so, had they fled Communist tyranny or were they spokespersons for the Communist government of that country?
7.	Were any persons attending from El Salvador and, if so, were they supporters or opponents of the anti-Communist government of El Salvador?
Order Paper Questions
8.	Were any persons attending of Chilean background and, if so, were they supporters of the current anti-Communist government or of the former Allende Marxist government of Chile?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Secretary of State and the Department of External Affairs as follows:
1.	As this conference was not organized by the government, the names of individuals attending the conference are not known to the Secretary of State and the Department of External Affairs. However, organizations invited to participate at the conference were as follows: Provincial Council of Women, Manitoba; Young Women Canadian Association, Winnipeg; Canadian Advisory Council of Women, Winnipeg; Manitoba Provincial Council of Women; Manitoba Federation of Labour, Equal Opportunity Committee; Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women; Chilean Canadian Cultural Centre, Women's Committee, Winnipeg; Manitoba Council for International Cooperation; International Centre, Winnipeg; Match Internation, Winnipeg; Oxfam, Winnipeg; Chilean Information Centre, Winnipeg; Committee of Solidarity with Latin America, Winnipeg; Unitarian Church, Winnipeg; Nellie McClung Theatre, Winnipeg; New Democratic Party, Status on Women Committee, Winnipeg; Voice of Women, Winnipeg; Association of United Ukranian Canadians, Women's Branch 224, Winnipeg; Congress of Canadian Women, Winnipeg; Manitoba Peace Council; Pregnancy Information Centre, Women Health Clinic, Winnipeg; Community Task Force on Material and Child Health, Winnipeg; Central America Solidarity Committee, Winnipeg; Indian Metis Friendship Centre, Winnipeg; United Church, Winnipeg Presbitery; Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, Winnipeg; United Jewish People Organization, Winnipeg; Women's Bureau, Manitoba Department of Labour; Red River Community College, Women's Coordinator, Winnipeg; Lombard Jaycees, Winnipeg; Women and the Law, Winnipeg; National Farmers' Union, Winnipeg; Meno-nite Central Committee, Winnipeg; Manitoba Metis Federation; Metis Women's Association, Winnipeg; Women Employment Service, Winnipeg; United Nation Association, Winnipeg; Religious Society of Friends, Winnipeg; La Ligue des Femmes, Montreal; Conseil de la Paix du Quebec; Calgary Chilean Association; Voice of Women, Calgary Branch; Voice of Women, Toronto Branch; Voice of Women, B.C. Branch; The Catholic Church of Saskatoon; Learning Centre of Quebec; Solidarity with Democratic Chile Committee, Toronto; Toronto Chilean Association; Regina Chilean Association; Saskatoon Chilean Association; Edmonton Chilean Association; Montreal Chilean Association; Vancouver Chilean Association.
2.	Mrs. Elizabeth Willcock, executive director of the Citizenship Council of Manitoba, applied for the grant. The Citizenship Council of Manitoba is affiliated with the Citizenship Federation of Canada.
3.	The amount of the grant was for $4,650.

July 30, 1982
Order Paper Questions
4.	The amount was for partial assistance only. The remaining costs of $3,410 were assumed by the Chilean Canadian Cultural Centre, Women's Committee, Winnipeg.
5.	(a), 6, 7 and 8. See answer to part 1.
5.	(b) All those who attended from outside of Canada would have been admitted to Canada according to the criteria set out in the Immigration Act and regulations.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare aware of the medical report recently released by the Center For Disease Control in the United States that links the occurrence of Reye's Syndrome in small children who receive aspirin or ASA when suffering from influenza or other viral diseases?
2.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare or any of its agencies currently undertaking studies of its own to verify those already undertaken in the United States and (a) if so, what is the status of the studies (b) if not, on what date will the department begin the studies?
3.	Is the department or any of its agencies aware of any other study or studies beyond the results recently released by the center that has linked Reye's Syndrome and the use of aspirin or ASA in small children suffering from influenza or other viral diseases and, if so, will the minister make the reports available to the public?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is aware of the report released by the Centre for Disease Control in the United States. This report describes an association between ASA use and the occurrence of Reye's Syndrome, but it does not claim a causal relationship between the two.
2. (a) and (b) No. The Department of National Health and Welfare is not carrying out any new studies at this time. It is however in constant contact with the Canadian Paediatric Society, The American Academy of Pediatrics and The Food and Drug Administration and monitors their activities in the follow-up of the Reye's Syndrome problem. The U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Resources has directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to plan an educational campaign to parents and doctors and to look into means to label ASA products with a warning. The Health Protection Branch is consulting with the Canadian Paediatric Society in respect of information to be provided to the public. The Health Protection Branch is also exploring the feasibility of co-operating with the provinces in the development of a uniform system of reporting and monitoring cases of Reye's Syndrome across Canada.
As well, other aspects of studies on Reye's Syndrome are being carried out by investigators supported by the Medical Research Council (MRC). MRC has provided funds in 198283 to Dr. S. H. S. Lee and Dr. K. R. Rozee of the Department of Microbiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, for a research project entitled "Viral pathogenesis: the role of interferon and other factors". Part of this research is concerned with the role that emulsifiers commonly found in the environment may play in the development of Reye's Syndrome.
3. Neither the Department of National Health and Welfare nor the Medical Research Council are aware of any new studies. However further information on Reye's Syndrome cases which occurred in Ohio has been published recently in the The Lancet (January 23, 1982). Also a report by the National Institute of Health Consensus Committee on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Reye's Syndrome as published in The Journal of The American Medical Association (November 27, 1981). Both these journals are widely read by Canadian physicians.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of Eldorado Aviation Limited or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Eldorado Aviation Limited reports as follows: The requested information is considered to be of a managerial and administrative nature between Eldorado Aviation Limited and the corporation's employees and, therefore, cannot be released to the public.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Were loans made to any employee of Eldorado Nuclear Limited or its subsidiaries since March, 1980 and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and title of the employee (b) on what date was the loan taken out and on what date is it due (c) what was the amount of the loan (d) what interest rate is being charged (e) what was the purpose of the loan?


Marc Lalonde: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows: The requested information is considered to be of a managerial and administrative nature between Eldorado Nuclear Limited and the corporation's employees and, therefore, cannot be released to the public.


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


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs does not have a code of conduct per se. The department issued, in 1974, "Instruction on Employee Ethics" covering subjects of: conflict of interest,
July 30, 1982

confidentiality and release of information, public appearances, statements and publishing, acceptance of gifts, entertainment and other forms of hospitality, political activity and employee organization activities. These guidelines are given to every new employee on his/her first day of work and are available to the public upon request.
In addition, the departmental Personnel Management Manual which is readily available to all employees provides information on hours of work, leave, holidays, discipline, termination of employment, and employee performance review and appraisal. Information on standard of conduct is also provided in the Treasury Board Administration Policy Manual for subjects such as contracting for services, travel and removal regulations, etc.
2. The department keeps records of disciplinary measures taken for two years only. To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.
The following list indicates all suspensions that have occurred from January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1982. There has been no discharge during that period.
Suspensions January 1980-March 1982
Order Paper Questions
tions of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?


Monique Bégin: 1. Yes, written rules are embodied in a document entitled "Conflict of Interest Guidelines", provided to all employees during orientation, and this document is available to the public.
2. In accordance with departmental discipline procedures and the provisions of most collective agreements, records of disciplinary action are destroyed after two years have elapsed since the disciplinary action was taken, provided that no further disciplinary action was recorded during this period.
In view of the above mentioned requirements, departmental records reflect 112 disciplinary sanctions imposed in the five years preceding April 1, 1982.
1977/78	Written Reprimands 6	Suspensions 7	Discharges None1978/79	5	9	11979/80	8	8	21980/81	30	9	31981/82	12	10	2Year	Month	Date	Suspension1980*	June	16	8 days16	10 daysOctober	6	1 day6	3 months14	2 days14	2 days14	5 days16	2 days17	1 day20	5 days20	5 days20	5 days23	2 days27	12 days1981	March	4	1 monthApril	1	2 days21	10 daysJune	1	10 days2	1 day9	2 daysAugust	11	2 daysSeptember	29	2 daysOctober	6	5 daysNovember	30	15 days
*None from January to May 1980.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of National Health and Welfare have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the department and, if so, are they embodied in a code of conduct or other specific document and is the code or document available to the public?
2.	In the five years preceding April 1, 1982, were any employees of the department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for viola-
To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): Since September 30, 1979, how many complaints were lodged against the RCMP at its complaints section and how many were (a) disposed of informally
(b)	found to be substantiated?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Total complaints reported from October 1, 1979 to December 31, 1981 were 5,150.
(a)	Out of the 5,150 complaints
(i)	2,708 (53 per cent) were informally resolved. (Informal resolution relates to minor complaints which could be resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant in an informal manner at the local level without conducting a full investigation).
(ii)	2,442 (47 per cent) were formally resolved. (Formal resolution relates to any public complaint of a serious nature including those which could not be informally resolved and therefore required a thorough service and/or criminal investigation).
(b)	Out of the 5,150 complaints
(i)	1,075 (21 per cent) were substantiated. The allegations were supported by sufficient evidence and this category includes complaints of a minor as well as those of a serious nature).
(ii)	722 (14 per cent) were unsubstantiated. (There was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation(s) or the complaint was withdrawn or not proceeded with).

July 30, 1982
Order Paper Questions
(iii)	3,353 (65 per cent) were unfounded. (The allegation(s) did not occur or the member(s) acted lawfully or properly).
Statistics from January 1, 1982 to May 1, 1982 are not available.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did the Department of External Affairs supply funds at any time to a United States publishing firm to print a book entitled "Understanding Canada" to be used in American universities to encourage the study of Canada and, if so (a) what was the cost (b) what were the names and nationalities of the persons contracted to produce the manuscript and what amount did it cost the Canadian taxpayer for their services?
2.	Was a Mr. Norman London, Academic Relations Officer at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, D.C., involved in the project and, if so, what was his function and did he ever receive a grant at any time from any department?
3.	Was the Department of External Affairs involved in any transaction at any time to sell the copyright for the book to the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States and, if so (a) for what amount was it sold (b) was any money supplied to the association at any time by any department in the form of grants or gifts?
4.	Does the department have any plans to revise and translate the book into foreign languages for an upcoming high school edition and, if so (a) what amount will this venture cost the Canadian taxpayer (b) who authorized such a plan and what were the names of all persons involved in this undertaking?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Department of External Affairs did not supply any funds to a United States publishing firm for the printing of this book. As for the payments made to U.S. academics who were contracted to prepare the manuscript, please see reply to question 4,318 answered June 17, 1982.
2.	Mr. London, who joined the staff of the Embassy in August, 1980, has not been involved in this particular project.
3.	(a) Please see reply to question 4,318 answered June 17, 1982. (b) The Association for Canadian Studies in the United States receives from time to time grants from the department under the latter's mandate to promote the teaching and research about Canada in institutions of higher learning abroad.
4.	No.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Mr. Nickerson:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. First of all, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council for providing so quickly an answer to a matter which I brought to his attention earlier this week. He did it in one day; that must be a record.
That experience prompts me to ask something else of him. He will undoubtedly be aware that under Section 9 of the Canadian National Railways Act, 1961, respecting the line
from Grimshaw to Great Slave Lake, it is a requirement of the government to table in the House the annual financial statements of that company. This is normally done with respect to financial statements from the preceding calendar year either in April, May, or occasionally in June. It is now the end of July, 1982 and the financial statement for 1981 has not yet been tabled. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would be good enough to look into this matter.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, needless to say, I am intimately familiar with that act and, I will be happy to look into the matter on the hon. member's behalf.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Madam Speaker:: As hon. members are aware, there are 18 motions standing on the notice paper at the report stage of Bill C-124, respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada.
Motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), gives the Chair some misgivings as to its procedural acceptability. The long title sets out, in general terms, the purposes of the bill and should be amended only if and when amendments of substance are made to the bill which would necessitate as a consequence changes to that title. For the benefit of the hon. member, I refer him to page 465 of May's which reads in part:
Both the long title and the short title are amended, if amendments to the bill made it necessary.
And not the other way around. This is further substantiated by Citation 780(1) of Beauchesne's which reads as follows:
The title may be amended if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.
Unless the hon. member wishes to present argument on this point later, I intend to rule motion No. 1 as not acceptable.
Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 should be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: Motion No. 3 should be voted
July 30, 1982

separately, and a vote on motion No. 5 will also dispose of motions Nos. 2, 6 and 7.
Motion No. 4 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 should be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: The question will first be put on motion No. 9 and an affirmative vote on that motion will dispose of motions No. 8, 10 and 11; and a negative vote on motion No. 9 will necessitate the question being put separately on motions Nos. 8, 10 and 11.
Motions Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 should be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: An affirmative vote on motion No. 12 disposes of motion No. 13; a negative vote on motion No. 12 necessitates the question being put on motion No. 13; motion No. 14 should be voted on separately; and an affirmative vote on motion No. 15 disposes of motion No. 16, with a negative vote necessitating the question being put on motion No. 16.
Motions Nos. 17 and 18 should be debated and voted on separately.
Before recognizing the hon. member for Churchill, I should like to say to the Elouse that Bill C-124 was reprinted with an error, that is to say, it was reprinted as it was; it did not include a change which was made subsequently. Clause 6 should read in line 44 at page 5 as follows:
Section 4, be entitled to the merit increases, incremented increases or-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 7 to 11 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
" "compensation" means wage rates and benefits directly related thereto, other than pension and paid maternity benefits, but does not include the monetary value of hours of work, leave entitlements, leave for union activities, standards of discipline or any other working conditions;"


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 2 the following:
"(3) The following provisions apply, notwithstanding anything in this Part that is inconsistent therewith:
(a)	every person referred to in paragraph 3(2)(a) and every research staff member of a political party that is represented in Parliament on the day this Act is assented to shall, as of the day this Act is assented to, be entitled to receive, in lieu of the wage rate to which he would, but for this paragraph, be entitled, a wage rate equal to the product of the wage rate to which that person was entitled on March 31, 1982 and one hundred and six per cent;
(b)	wage rates in effect under paragraph (a) shall continue in force for the twelve month period immediately following the day this Act is assented to;
(c)	wage rates continued in force under paragraph (b) shall not be increased by more than five per cent for the twelve month period immediately following the period referred to in paragraph (b); and
(d)	every compensation plan to which paragraphs (a) to (c) apply shall be extended for a period of twenty-four months from the day this Act is assented to and the terms and conditions of the compensation plan, other than wages rates, shall continue in force without change for the period for
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
which the compensation plan is extended, subject to such changes as the
Treasury Board may authorize where it deems it appropriate."


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended by striking out Clause 4.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 24 to 34 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"four months from the day immediately following the day on which the
compensation plan would, but for this section, expire, where no increase in
wage rates is to occur under the compensation plan on or after June 29, 1982."


Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-124, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada, be amended by striking out Clause 6.
He said: Madam Speaker, 1 believe you did not call motion No. 4.


Walter David Baker: It is to be voted on separately.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I apologize, Madam Speaker; it was my error.


An hon. Member:: Good.


Rodney Edward Murphy: My error seems to make some people happy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I realize the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) has been recognized, but I should like to interrupt him for a moment and to indicate to hon. members that there are available copies of Madam Speaker's ruling with respect to the various motions. I am not sure whether hon. members have copies of it on their desks.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then I ask the pages to distribute photocopies of Madam Speaker's ruling in both official languages to hon. members.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the report stage debate of Bill C-124. I should like to commence my remarks by referring to an article which appeared in yesterday's edition of The Citizen. Of course, I am referring to the fact that the research bureau of the Liberal Party of Canada is starting what it calls "the good news syndrome". The bureau is providing good news to be disseminated by Liberal Members of Parliament and senators across the country in their householders and through other mechanisms, so that people do not realize the current problems facing Canada. This means that the Liberal government will be able to minimize the problems facing Canadians. In other words, to quote Charles Dickens, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times-". The Liberal government wishes to focus on the best of times so that Canadians will forget the very real problems which they face.

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
In the newspaper article I found something else which reminded me of Dickens. I am referring to a quotation of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in response to an interview by Mr. Ben Tierney and Aileen McCabe, wherein he said:
I would reject controls. And I wouldn't allow my PMO to be issuing rumours that they were coming in while I was saying that they weren't. I think that controls wont't work.
Now I should like to turn to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say concerning the budget. He said:
We are relieved that it is beginning to accept that government spending is a major cause of current economic problems ... it is a step in the right direction.
Earlier I referred to "A Tale of Two Cities" because in this city we are getting two tales from the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, we have witnessed that same approach during the debate on Bill C-124 and its many amendments which are in front of us at the present time. Conservative members at the end of second reading debate voted, with the exception of one, with the government on this piece of legislation.
In committee the hon. members of the Conservative Party time after time pointed out the very glaring errors that are in this bill, yet they talk about voting for this bill. I have just pointed out that the leader of that party has two completely opposing positions on wage controls. What are we to believe?
In regard to the substance of the amendments that we have before us at this time, we have suggested amending Clause 2, the definition of compensation. Let me quote from motion No. 2:
'compensation' means wage rates and benefits directly related thereto, other
than pension and paid maternity benefits, but does not include the monetary
value of hours of work, leave entitlements, leave for union activities, standards
of discipline or any other working conditions;-
The purpose of that specific amendment is to make sure that when this bill is put into force, as 1 presume the government and the opposition party will make sure this bill is passed, people are still able to negotiate for paid maternity leave; that they are still able to negotiate for pensions which will affect those individuals who will be going on pensions in the near future, not for two years but for the rest of their lives.
We believe that in this particular instance of paid maternity leave and pensions that this government, and hopefully the opposition party who supports the government on this bill, will recognize the very serious problem that would exist in this country if people are prevented from negotiating pension increases and if people are prevented from negotiating paid maternity leave as a result of this clause as it now stands.
The rest of that amendment basically provides that people be able to negotiate on standards of discipline and on other working conditions, and that the monetary value of leave entitlements, leave for union activities, etc., would not be included in the six and five regime that the government wants imposed on this country. So it is an amendment to clarify that compensation is basically the wage rates and the major fiscal benefits of the compensation plan.
With the present definition as proposed by the government we are afraid we could have a situation where the union wants to negotiate for two of their members to be off to investigate
health and safety provisions, that these people could be booked off to do this very vital role of making sure that the workplace is safe, that union people are educated about workplace safety and that as few lives as possible are lost, but under the provisions of this bill it is possible that any attempt to negotiate leave provisions would be considered part of the six and five regime. Therefore, workers would lose even the six and five per cent increases allowed under this bill if they wanted to have some of their union representatives working on health and safety.
So this is a very constructive amendment which I hope the government and the official opposition will accept, because if this bill is, in reality, an attempt to keep down wages and hopefully fight inflation through that method, then a definition of this sort is a constructive definition, a definition which would only increase the good working relationships between union and business and union and government in this country and, as I mentioned earlier, to allow for paid maternity benefits without hurting the financial situation of other workers in that same barganing unit.
The position of the government, I understand, is that they will now allow, although I am not sure how they are going to allow-I cannot see that in the amendment they propose- paid maternity benefits, that that can now be negotiated through some mechanism. Again, 1 am not sure what that mechanism is, because the bill and the government amendments do not clarify what they intend to do to allow for collective negotiations.
If the government does allow for collective negotiations in some manner of speaking, then we do not want to see paid maternity benefits included as part of the 6 per cent and the 5 per cent benefits that workers are entitled to or are restricted to under this legislation. We do not believe that paid maternity leave could only be given if all of the workers are to suffer as a result of that.
We believe it is a benefit which Canadian women are entitled to. It is a motion which we have suggested not only at this stage but at the committee stage. We certainly believe in paid maternity benefits, but we do insist that the government exclude that from the six and five regime.
Other amendments that are proposed by us to be debated at this time include amendments 5, 6 and 7. In amendment 5 we are saying that we strike out Clause 4, and in amendment 6 we are modifying Clause 4 if we do not get our way on motion No.
5.
We do not like Clause 4 for a very major reason. Clause 4 allows the government to break its word with government employees. The government has signed collective agreements for 9 per cent, 10 per cent and 11 per cent increases, not much more, because government workers are getting less money and less increases than those workers in the private sector. But this bill provides that the government can ignore the agreement that it signed with its workers for 9 per cent, 10 per cent or 11 per cent increases, that the government can break those
July 30, 1982

contracts that the government itself negotiated and signed and impose a 6 per cent and 5 per cent regime over a two-year period, despite the fact that the government basically gave its word by signing a collective agreement that people would be entitled to 9 per cent or 10 per cent increases.
Yet this is the same government that says it must not break the agreement it has signed with the provinces and with some oil companies to allow them to have increases of approximately 31 per cent in energy prices over the next 18 months. So on the one hand, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and other ministers of the Crown in this Liberal government have said that they must honour agreements with the provinces, that they must honour agreements with the oil companies; on the other hand, they are saying they have no moral obligation to honour agreements with their own employees.
The government has stated through the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and through this piece of legislation that it wants the co-operation of all sectors of the Canadian economy, including business, the provinces, government workers and private sector workers. How can the government even pretend to expect co-operation when it breaks the collective agreements that it has already signed with its employees, or agreements which Crown corporations like CN have already agreed to with its workers, and when it breaks agreements by way of amendments it introduced in committee that private sector railways have signed with their workers?
Certainly the municipalities, the provinces, small and large businesses and workers generally want to see the government get the Canadian economy back on the right track again. All Canadians, wherever they come from in Canada, want to see the government improve our economic situation which is still in difficulty, despite the good-news bad-news atmosphere the government is now pretending exists. While the government pretends there is good news about economic recovery, it is not so.
I would like to refer to a Gallup Poll which was recently conducted. This poll asked, "Which of the following do you consider to be the best way to cure Canada's economic problems?" The response was that 42 per cent favoured job-creation, 37.1 per cent said lower interest rates, 6.4 per cent indicated greater public controls over investment, and 6.8 per cent said public sector wage controls. In other words, 80 per cent of Canadians believe that job-creation and lower interest rates are the way to solve the problems that we face, while only 6.8 per cent of those polled believe in a program such as that introduced by the government. Canadians do not believe that this program will work, I do not believe it will work, nor do members of my caucus.
One must wonder what the real intent of this bill is. During second reading of this bill I referred to a government document which was leaked to our party over a year ago. In that document fiom which I quoted it said that wage control programs would be a public relations effort by the government
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
and that these controls would probably not work. It would have the advantage, however, of giving the appearance that the government was concerned about correcting Canada's economic problems.
That facade is what concerns our party about this bill and that is the reason for our proposed amendments. We are concerned that the government is conducting a public relations program which it has admitted in its own document is not likely to work. The government has indicated in its own document that it would be a public relations program which would give the appearance that it is doing something. That is not acceptable. Over 80 per cent of Canadians who want the government to take action on job-creation and lower interest rates do not find this program acceptable.
The government should have been implementing programs for job-creation and lowering interest rates last month instead of having us discuss this during the hot month of July and now into the month of August. It should have introduced some concrete economic planning instead of giving us this public relations job.
As I mentioned earlier, the government has primarily asked under this proposal to be allowed to break its faith with its employees. How can it expect its employees' co-operation under those circumstances? After all the witnesses which the government allowed to appear before the committee, the government then included 36,000 more workers under this proposal as a result of the amendment stage of this bill. While some of the representatives of those workers did appear initially, they were not allowed to appear after the government made that proposal. Initially, only workers in Crown corporations such as CN were affected. Their representatives made some presentations to the committee but when a further
36,000	members of those unions were brought under these controls, the members of the committee did not allow other groups to come back. Not only did the government refuse permission for union representatives to attend and explain how unions under the Canada Labour Code can be included under this bill, but government members on that committee would not allow their own Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) to appear and explain his responsibilities as Minister of Labour to workers under his jurisdiction under the laws of Canada and how they would be affected.
That was the position of the government majority on that committee. That same government majority refused to allow different groups to appear before the committee on ten different occasions. I moved motions asking for the minister responsible for the status of women to be allowed to appear and explain how this bill would affect negotiations on issues of concern to women and how it would affect the large wage disparity between the basic group of women workers and the top echelon which is primarily composed of males. The minister responsible for the status of women met with the national action committee on the status of women who told her that they were concerned about some major problems inherent in this bill. However, nothing came of those representations. The

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
minister responsible for the status of women should have been invited to attend before the committee to explain some of the difficulties with this bill, but the Liberal majority on the committee would not permit it.
Mr. Ian Sinclair, head of the private sector six and five community, who is president of Canadian Pacific, has now had his workers affected by these provisions with the good graces of the government. Those workers are now on a mandatory program of 6 per cent and 5 per cent, with the blessings of the government. The Liberal government has paid off Mr. Sinclair quite royally. He is now preaching the gospel of this crusade. He is receiving the attention of the press as he explains why everyone should have a voluntary 6 and 5 program. Immediately after Mr. Sinclair endorsed that program, the government placed CP workers under the mandatory provisions of this bill. This bill is entitled "An act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada". The government has now included the private sector and Mr. Sinclair has benefited from it as a result.
We believe that that person who met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), and a number of their cabinet colleagues, to convince them that this program, which is necessary in his eyes and to his pocketbook, will perform a great public service in relation to the six and five rule. That person should have been invited to speak to the committee to explain why the six and five program would work, why all the private sector companies would allow it to work and how they would participate. But again, the Liberal majority defeated the motion by the New Democratic Party to have Mr. Sinclair appear before the committee.
Bell Canada has said that it will not go along with restricting its prices to 6 per cent and 5 per cent, although it has already restricted the wages of its middle management workers. If Bell Canada is to restrict its wages but refuses to restrict its prices and instead asks for a 25 per cent increase in the telephone rates in the province where it operates, its president, Mr. de Grandpre, who earns $650,000 a year, should appear before the committee to explain why he was quoted a saying he wanted mandatory wage controls for the public sector after meeting with the Prime Minister. He does not want price controls for his own company, but he wants to be able to lower the wages of his own employees. However, he does not want to lower his own wage of $650,000 a year. Again, the Liberal majority on that committee would not allow such witnesses to appear. I will not go through the list. I did mention earlier that I moved motions relating to ten different groups, including the Public Service Commission, the Business Council on National Issues, which of course took credit for suggesting this program to the government, the Letter Carriers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the National Union of Provincial Government Employees. We requested that all those groups be asked to appear, both those in business and in labour, to explain their positions.
It is interesting that the government has suggested that this program would set guidelines for the crusade, that the government would put in wage controls on the public sector, that it wanted the provinces and the private sector to follow suit, and wanted the unions to accept them, but would not even let the representatives of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees come forward to discuss the bill. If this bill is really more than a PR program, as the government would call it, and if it is really the hallmark of the crusade, as the President of the Treasury Board calls it, and if it is to be followed in other sectors of Canada, then we should have been allowed to hear from the representatives of the groups which are supposed to join in, if not with enthusiasm, at least with co-operation.
We will not be voting for the bill. We suggested that a number of clauses be deleted from the bill. We have also proposed amendments to improve the bill, about which I will be speaking later. Although we oppose the bill and will vote against it, we believe it is our responsibility, as Members of Parliament, to try to take away some of the very harsh provisions contained in the bill. If we do not succeed in doing that, we have an equal responsibility to try to modify the legislation so that people can negotiate for pension increases.
As I have said earlier, if one cannot negotiate pension increases now, or if one is restricted to 6 per cent and 5 per cent increases in one's salary, a person who retires at the end of the two-year period will not only suffer for two years, but for the rest of his life. Inflation may increase by 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent over the next 15 to 20 years. We do not like it and we certainly wish it were not true, but it may happen. If workers' wages increase by only 6 per cent and 5 per cent because of the provisions of the bill and the decisions of the government, if they cannot negotiate better pension plans, as there are areas which are fairly weak or have some substantial holes in them at the present time, then these people will be punished for longer than two years. If they join in the government's crusade over the next two years, they will make a sacrifice for the rest of their lives, a sacrifice which they will never be able to overcome because of the way in which the bill is presented. Our caucus has proposed amendments to ensure that pensions can be negotiated and that the pensions of those who are approaching retirement age will be calculated as if their wages had risen with the cost of living and not merely by 6 per cent, because we know that the cost of living will rise much more than 6 per cent.
We have also proposed amendments dealing with maternity leave. That is not a matter which should be included in the six and five program, but it should be a basic human right to help women workers and their families achieve some equality and to provide more hope in the workplace.
We will be speaking again to the various specific amendments which are before us, but I am worried about the whole purpose of the bill since the government has stated that it is a bill which is basically a public relations program. We are worried that the government, despite yesterday's announcement, will really not allow for collective bargaining because,
July 30, 1982

according to the President of the Treasury Board, the motion to provide collective bargaining and negotiation to proceed in some rational manner basically states that the government will determine whether or not it will exempt certain groups of employees from the provisions, of the act.
I do not know how the government can pretend that that type of amending clause will allow workers the right to negotiate. That clause would seem to indicate that the government, in its benign, so-called wisdom, will determine whether or not the workers in certain unions, such as CN, may negotiate with their employers. It will also decide whether or not workers in any of the other Crown corporations may negotiate with their employers. It will decide whether or not government workers can negotiate with the government. To be quite honest, that is not a power which should be entrusted to this government.
The whole purpose of passing legislation in the House of Commons is to ensure that rights are clearly spelled out. I am not talking about rights of government. I am talking about the rights of unions and companies. If the government really wants negotiations to proceed in some normal pattern, and even if it wants to keep the 6 and 5 per cent limitations in place-and we do not like those limits-and allow for collective bargaining on either monetary or non-monetary items, it should say that in this bill.
Do not just give us a namby-pamby amendment which says that the government, if it so chooses, will decide whether you can negotiate. That is not restoring collective bargaining. That does not let unions, individuals and companies retain the rights and obligations they presently have under the Canada labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The great Liberal so-called amendment to restore negotiations and collective bargaining is nothing but a refinement of this public relations job. Every so often the government throws in the towel on one amendment or another, an amendment to this clause or that clause. There is a string attached to that towel, because it comes right back to the government as soon as you look at the details of what the government has done.
There has been great press throughout the country yesterday and today saying, "Good, the government will let people negotiate again; isn't that wonderful?" The government has finally seen the wisdom of members of the New Democratic Party and some members of the Conservative Party, not all of course. We are not sure where the Leader of the Opposition stands; he is on both sides as usual.
There has been great press, great public relations for the government, but then you look at the amendment. When you look at the clause you find there is nothing there. It is strictly up to the government to decide who can negotiate and who cannot. It does not even say on what grounds the government made that decision. I presume that if it is a union which supports the Liberal Party, it will have a better chance of being able to negotiate. If it is a company which supports the Liberal government, I suspect the workers will not get the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
right to negotiate. Fifty thousands dollars a year can buy a lot of support from that party and that government.
Even if I was not cynical, and I must admit that I am, I believe the problem is that the government has no real commitment to negotiate. This government has no real understanding of workers' rights, no real appreciation of the fact that for the vast majority of collective agreements in this country there has been a peaceful resolution through the negotiation process. This government is cynical. The minister responsible for this bill has a history of union-bashing. He has appeared in front of all sorts of groups, basically business groups such as the Conference Board, saying you cannot allow designations, that the government must have more power to designate.
The minister has gone in front of the Conference Board and said that all levels of government-and I quoted him in committee-have been too soft on the unions and it is time we did something about it. He certainly did do something about it. The minister, his fellow ministers in cabinet and Liberal backbenchers had better not pretend that this is a bill to solve the economic problems of Canada, because that is not true. The Leader of the Opposition had better not say that this is a step in the right direction one day and the next day reject controls because he does not think they will work. He and the members of his party had better not pretend that this program is going to solve the economic conditions that Canadians face. The cabinet, the President of the Treasury Board, Liberal backbenchers and the vast majority of the Conservative Party had better not pretend in their speeches or in their votes in this House that they are out to solve the problems of Canada. They are out to assist some members of the Liberal cabinet and some senior officials in the Liberal back rooms. They are out to ensure that the public relations job sells.
I hope that the Conservative critics, and I see all three in the chamber, will speak about the real problems with this bill. I hope that they will convince their leader to speak out of only one side of his mouth for the next few days. If the three members here cannot convince their caucus, I hope that they can convince their members that this bill is a PR job and that the Conservative Party is being sucked into that PR job. It is doing a wonderful job of convincing Canadians that this is a Liberal-Conservative coalition. It is out to bash workers, to break collective agreements that this government has already signed. It wants to outlaw collective bargaining in this country. That is what is happening.
I hope that in the next few days, instead of introducing amendments which are a PR job, that do not give the right to negotiate and do not allow real increases or benefits for pregnant women, this government will reject the PR approach. I hope it will look at the 80 per cent of Canadians who believe that job creation and lower interest rates are the way to solve the problems that Canada faces.
That is what Canadians believe, our leader believes and our caucus believes. Only 6.8 per cent of Canadians believe that the program which the government and the official opposition are supporting will work. They want something to solve the

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
economic problems that Canada faces. They want to see this government do something concrete, not just another PR job.
That is why we sat here throughout July after the government introduced this bill at the end of June, and will be sitting here some time into August. It it because this bill is not only unfair and allows the government to break its word with its workers, but it will do nothing to help Canadians pay their mortgages. It will not help Canadians keep their small businesses. It will not help those Canadians who have to leave the resource communities in northern Canada because they have lost their jobs or their homes. It will not improve the economic situation or solve the personal hardships faced by Canadians.
That is the reality of this bill. That is why we cannot support it and will do everything we can to make sure the bill does not pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will obviously recognize the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), but it is one minute to one. He might want to start his remarks at two o'clock, rather than now.


Donald James Johnston: 1 will call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) was about to rise and cut my salary! Over the lunch hour I gave some consideration to what might be done about that, but in recognition of the impartiality of the Chair and with some misgivings, the Chair again recognizes the minister.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendments to Bill C-124 which were grouped by the Speaker and ruled upon earlier. I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) who, 1 suggest, restated much of what we heard in committee.
I should like to speak briefly to one point that he made, however. He emphasized and re-emphasized that in his opinion and in the opinion of his caucus and party, the program would not work. I should like infer from that that if he thought the program would work, he would support it. We on this side of the House and 1 believe many members on the other side believe that this program will work. Not only do we believe it will work, but we are dedicated to making it work. That is the spirit I should like to see among our friends in the New Democratic Party.
The hon. member also made a few cynical remarks- perhaps they were not cynical-about some of the major companies such as CPR and others, which I find difficult to accept when we know full well the liaison that exists between
that party and Mr. McDermott. I should like to hear from the hon. member for Churchill and from Mr. McDermott. I should like to know what the hon. member for Churchill thinks about this program. I should like him to stand up before some of his constituents and explain why it is necessary that this program work in the interests of all Canadians.
Not only do I say that we are convinced the program will work, but clearly it is already working. I have seen a list, which I do not have with me, of company after company after company which has said it is going to abide by the program, I have been the reaction of other provincial Premiers. I have seen what happened in British Columbia just this week, and so has the hon. member for Churchill. We have seen what happened in New Brunswick. We have even seen the statements of some union leaders who have been supportive of a restraint package of this kind.
Bill C-124 is intended to provide compensation restraint mainly in that part of the economy directly under the control of the Government of Canada, either in its capacity as employer or in its capacity as owner. Such a measure recognizes the need to exercise restraint in a time of considerable fiscal difficulty. More importantly, it recognizes the need to provide a strong, clear signal to the economy in general that this element of our cost structure must be restrained. It must be restrained if we are to reduce inflation and maintain our competitive trade advantage.
Bill C-124 is a very serious measure placed before the House by the government only after considerable and thorough deliberation. It is a measure designed to restrain compensation only in those organizations to which it applies.
At the same time, as 1 will point out in the course of these brief remarks, it is not a one-sided measure. Bill C-124 will limit compensation increases over the two years of its application, yet it does contain provisions allowing wage rate increases to take place. It does restrict bargaining and the right to strike; however, except for parliamentarians and some others who will be affected by an amendment which I will be moving, it does not reduce wage rates or take away terms and conditions already in place on June 29, 1982. It goes further by ensuring that those terms and conditions which were freely arrived at between the parties through the collective bargaining system will be continued, thereby ensuring the continuing functioning during the course of the program of many important aspects of union-management relationships.
During the course of the examination of the bill in the House, during the proceedings before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, and as a result of representations by both labour and management, several important changes have been proposed which would improve the functioning of the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have made representations to us, and I include members
July 30, 1982

of this chamber. They have been particularly valuable in formulating proposals for changes to the bill. I would particularly like to commend the members of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and its chairman, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), for their diligent, thorough and expeditious examination of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: In the course of various exchanges, Mr. Speaker, much has been made of those provisions of Bill C-124 which restrain collective bargaining during the term of its application. In response to that we introduced at committee stage an amendment to Clause 7 which provides that the parties to a collective agreement may amend the non-monetary terms of that agreement by mutual consent. This will allow the parties to make changes to such important areas as safety and health, grievance procedures, and so on; any non-monetary items which may be desirable to change during the course of the program.
The bill does restrict collective bargaining during the course of its application, but even such an august body as the International Labour Organization has recognized the necessity to do so under certain circumstances. In ILO Principles, Standards and Procedures concerning Freedom of Association, (ILO Geneva-77), at page 15 the following statement is made:
-the (ILO) supervisory bodies have not ignored the serious problems that may arise in certain circumstances in the economic field, and they have accordingly stated that it would be difficult to lay down an absolute rule concerning voluntary collective bargaining because, under certain circumstances, governments might feel that the economic position of their countries called at certain times for stabilization measures during the application of which it would not be possible for wage rates to be fixed freely through the medium of collective bargaining. Nevertheless, any such restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect worker's living standards.
Bill C-124, Mr. Speaker, when tested against that statement of the ILO, meets all of those conditions. It is being imposed as an exceptional measure. The restrictions imposed are only to the extent necessitated by the economy. The program has a two-year definite term of application and contains safeguards to protect workers' living standards and to maintain other important terms and conditions. The bill is an extraordinary measure necessitated by the extraordinary times in which we find ourselves, but it ensures a return to normal practices.
Suspension of the right to strike has been strongly criticized. Such criticism comes at a time when Canada has had for many years a very high rate of days lost due to strikes. For each of the last four years, man-days lost due to strikes have exceeded 825 per 1,000 employees. This places us in the unenviable position of being among the world leaders in this regard. Canada's rate was more than twice that of the United States in the years 1979 and 1980. This is taking place at a time when productivity is seriously low. Curiously, even today we see strikes taking place in industries which can ill afford them; strikes taking place where work is available but the strike itself is restricting activity; strikes taking place where there is and can be little economic benefit to the employees engaged in the strike.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Both myself and all other members of this party and this government, Mr. Speaker, recognize the importance of the right of employees to withdraw their services in our labour relations system. However, in listening to the criticism levied against this aspect of Bill C-124, it is almost as if the right to strike has become the raison d'etre of labour relations in this country. I suggest to this House, Mr. Speaker, that surely employer-employee relations have a higher purpose.
Bill C-124 already imposes strict restrictions on the process of collective bargaining, and some are promoting a form of compulsory arbitration in this bill. Those who promote that notion are in reality suggesting that in addition to those restrictions, with which they profess to agree in terms of restraint, we should further impose on the system a process of compulsory arbitration. Such an imposition would apply to corporations and unions where it does not now exist and where it is regarded with considerable disdain by both unions and management. Not only that, the proposals, such as one we will be looking at, would impose arbitration of items which are not even subject to arbitration under the relevant provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
It would be ideal, Mr. Speaker, if we Canadians as a people were prepared to restrict our demands for wage rate increases to levels compatible with increases in productivity in this country. That has not happened. We hear the NDP saying: "Let us continue collective bargaining. You, government, set the limits on wage rate increases if, in your judgment, they are needed". Labour says: "Don't ask us to agree to them." Some members of this House, including members opposite, have said: "Yes, we can agree with the need for restraint. We can even agree with the limitations proposed in Bill C-124. But at the same time we should allow free collective bargaining to take place within those limitations".
Mr. Speaker, we have determined the limits; Bill C-124 provides that. Already it is providing a positive example to other sector right across this country. By the amendment to Clause 7 introduced at committee stage we have provided that parties to collective agreements may amend non-monetary terms and conditions of their collective agreements. This obviously allows for collective bargaining in those areas. It is limited, to be sure, but some collective bargaining in these very important areas of health, safety and others can take place.
A further amendment which we will be looking at, Mr. Speaker, will introduce possibilities with respect to collective bargaining under this program, and I will deal with that amendment at some length when the time comes for debate on that particular clause. At least, I hope I will have that opportunity. I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and I was heartened to see her comments to the effect that this is an amendment which should help workers at the lower end of the wage scale. She is also quoted as saying:
-I think it will give much more equity within the six-five limit.
It certainly gives the union the opportunity to bargain on behalf of their employees. It restores that aspect of collective bargaining and that's what we wanted.

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
She is quoted as going on to say:
-the amendment could allow lower-paid workers above-ceiling increases if others within their bargaining group accept lower raises.
Generally speaking, I am pleased that the hon. member has adopted a positive approach towards the amendments we have tabled. The provisions contained in this bill set limits, and within those limits employers and employees have the right to bargain and the government has the right to release them from the application of the law. But as I say, we will be addressing that particular amendment in due course.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that 1 urge all members of this House to support the overall thrust of this bill and to recognize the extent to which collective bargaining is being preserved and protected by the amendments which have been introduced.
In this group of amendments which we are presently considering is motion No. 3. I must say that it is with some regret that I have proposed this amendment, which was in response to repeated requests and admonishments from the Conservative Party, more particularly from the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Going back several weeks, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said that ministerial staff should be singled out for a particular kind of treatment, which is discriminatory, because they alone, of all political appointees, would be subject to this kind of treatment. The treatment would have the effect of putting them under the program at a time when no other groups in comparable circumstances would go under the program.
I pointed out in this House and I pointed out in committee that ministerial staff received a wage rate increase-we do not know what individuals received-determined at 10 per cent in a decision of the Treasury Board on May 13. Their year runs from April 1 to March 31. They go into the six per cent and five per cent program, as the law is presently drafted, in the spring of next year, as every other group does. But the group with which they work and who are members of the parliamentary precinct in ministers' offices are, of course, parliamentary staff, also all political appointees, staff of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), staff of the Tory research bureau, staff of the NDP research bureau and the staff of Liberal Party research bureau.


Mr. Deans:: We do not want you to do it, so don't include us in it.


Donald James Johnston: All of these people are part of this major component. The latter group received a wage increase of 11 per cent. I did not hear the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton say much about that. Nevertheless, when questioned on that subject with respect to an amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton before the committee earlier this week, 1 said that I would be prepared to look at a fair amendment, fair in the sense that it would treat everybody in the same circumstances the same way.


Ian Deans: This is not fair, Don.


Donald James Johnston: This amendment has been put forward to treat everybody in the same circumstances in the same way. Unfortunately, that way will require a rollback to 6 per cent for that entire group of employees, in the same manner that Members of Parliament, ministers and senators have, in effect, been rolled back.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald James Johnston: If the proposed amendment is adopted, it will come into effect at the time this bill receives assent. Political appointees under this amendment will be treated the same way. It is not only the logical extension of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton-


Walter David Baker: It is worse if you know what you are saying.


Donald James Johnston: -it is a necessary corollary of what the hon. member has put forward.
I also take this opportunity to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the parties and that it has not been possible to reach any agreement under the provisions at the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-124, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada.


Ian Deans: It isn't any wonder. You keep changing the bill. It is not even the same bill that you brought in.


Donald James Johnston: Therefore, I wish to give notice, Mr. Speaker, that at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, to allocate one sitting day to each of the said stages of the said bill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: A holiday rush again.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the first matter in which my name was used in the House with respect to the authorship of motion No. 3. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my dear friend, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), that I have heard cheap shots before and I have heard viciousness before, but when it is laced with untruthfulness it becomes intolerable.
I have to say to the minister that he had better read motion No. 3 again. When he reads motion No. 3 again he will find that what the government has done to the staff of Members of Parliament, who are employees of the House of Commons, is not to equate them with Members of Parliament; it is, in fact, to make their situation different and less, in quantitative terms, than that of Members of Parliament. I do not have the figures with me, but we have worked at those figures and I know that is true.
I want the House to know, I want the employees of the House to know and I want the public to know what the situation is. The position of this party has been, is and will be that the staff of Members of the House of Commons, and ministerial staff were to be treated equally with the public service, that
July 30, 1982

staff of Members of the House of Commons and ministerial staff were not to be treated differently.
This amendment-and I ask members of the House of Commons to read it-treats the staff of the House of Commons differently. In fact, it puts them on a rate term comparison in a position inferior to the staff of Members of Parliament. I want my friends to go to their offices and explain that to their staff later on. When it is explained to their staff, I want them to show the staff motion No. 3 and that it stands in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, who has tried to make a cheap political point on the backs of the staff of the Members of the House of Commons.
That is what I want to tell him. It is the Johnston amendment. It is the cheap Johnston amendment that is at stake here; let us make no mistake about it. I hope that the President of the Treasury Board before this debate is over will have the guts, the integrity and the intestinal fortitude to admit that he made a fool of himself. He has used hardworking people in this House of Commons to make a cheap political point and I hope that he will withdraw that stupidity and inequity from the statute books of this country. That is what I want him to do. 1 hope that the backbenchers of his own party will realize what it is.
The Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming) has the figures in front of him now. They were given to him by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). I hope he will join in a request to remove an inequity.


Mr. Fleming:: The inequity started with your amendment.


Walter David Baker: I want to turn to the bill at hand. 1 am sorry the debate had to start off on that foot. This debate and the problems facing the country have, I think, been dealt with in this House of Commons with a reasonably equal hand on those counts. I believe that most Canadians are worried to death about the situation in which the country finds itself. Most Canadians are not interested in cheap political shots at the expense of the country or the people in it. Most Canadians do not want to see particular groups of people penalized and certainly they do not want to see groups within groups doubly penalized.
That is the view of most Canadians. They are worried about the country. As they worry about the country, they are joined by others who have commented on how we got to this state. The C.D. Howe Institute, in its blistering commentary a few days ago, reported:
Canada's primary problem has been mismanagement of its economic affairs since the early 1970s by its federal leadership.
This commentary says that Canada may well have reached a point where it is impossible for its leaders to secure the cooperation needed to make a positive response to the country's economic predicament.
When the minister says that people believe or hope that this program will work-and even those who say it will not work hope it will work-I say that whether we believe or hope the
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
program will work, it must work if we are to advance ourselves. Therefore, it has to be given an opportunity to work. Public servants are no different from anyone else. When it comes to belief in their country, they are not second-class citizens. Public servants as a group are prepared to participate in what the minister called a crusade a week or so ago. I say to government members that when they say that, they do not want to look over their shoulders and see the empty ranks behind them.
This is why I asked a question today in the House of Commons about what the government intends to do in its relationship with the provinces in terms of ever-increasing rents which tenants will have to pay while salaries become limited. This is why the meeting with municipal mayors yesterday was important. Every segment of society will have to join in if it is to work, not for the government, but for the country. That is the position which this party takes as we enter this debate. People are hoping against hope that it will work. That is the important aspect.
Let me deal with another matter which I think is important to us, important to the country, important to peace and important to establishing a basis for understanding in Canada. One thing which concerned me about Bill C-124 when it came out was its absolute assault on the collective bargaining process. There are some people in Canada who look upon that process as having only one ending; it can only end in a strike. Well, it does not always end in a strike. An interesting thing about public service bargaining is that there is a choice. These employees have an opportunity to choose the arbitration route or the conciliation-strike route. The statistics indicate that it is still the arbitration route which the largest number of public servants chooses to go because they want their disputes settled, and they want them settled peacefully. No one likes these things hanging over their heads. But I worry about a trend of more and more choosing the conciliation-strike route because of some narrowness in the grounds upon which matters can be arbitrated.
What worried me about Bill C-124 was that there seemed to be a fear on the part of the government that public servants were salivating in anticipation of going out on strike. That is not the case at all. I thought Bill C-124 was an assault on collective bargaining, but the minister and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) are correct that, after hearing the evidence from all sources which came before the committee and after hearing the pleas of members of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, so admirably chaired by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the government decided to relent and give some flexibility.
What concerns us about the flexibility is that it is still within the right of government to say whether or not any discussions can begin at all. 1 do not think that is fair, balanced or reasonable. This is why there appears on the Order Paper an amendment in the name of the hon. member for Rosedale which we will discuss in detail a little later. It would preserve the right to
19876

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
bargain collectively for monetary and non-monetary issues. It would ensure that whatever the result of that bargaining would be, the costs thereof would not exceed 6 per cent in one year or 5 per cent in the other, to give effect to the question of restraint.
It would allow, as the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) worried about the other day in the House, some flexibility so that there could be some adjustments between lower and higher incomes of people within the Public Service of Canada. But our amendment goes a step further. It says that it is not enough just to make a statement about it, that there ought to be some way in which a dispute could be resolved. It says that of course there should be no strike within the period of two years. Of course there should not be. I do not think Canadians would tolerate it; they certainly would not like it. I think a large part of the public service would not like it either. There must be some way in which disputes can be resolved, so it provides a system of compulsory arbitration to settle within the cap of 6 and 5 per cent and to allow that flexibility.
It is important that the House, in the course of its deliberations, look carefully at the amendment. It will guarantee where essential-because everyone talks about essential services- that the services carry on and not be stopped by frustrations which build up from time to time in legitimate labour-management relations. It will guarantee, even in areas which are considered by some to be non-essential, that disputes will be settled. I believe it is important that disputes be settled.
The most striking testimony which the committee heard was that of Dr. Carl Beigie of the C.D. Howe Institute. He arrested members of the committee, not only by painting the depths of the problems faced by the country, but also in terms of their attitude toward the bill, by the faith and conviction which he had in the strength of the country and its people. He did not make any excuse for bad government, but he said that in a country which has suffered under bad leadership something had to be done. He believed that there was sufficient strength in the Canadian people that they were prepared to rally around such an attempt.
He also said something that was important from the point of view of the people who are subject to Bill C-124. He said that it was unnecessary for the government to do away with collective bargaining. Collective bargaining just does not mean that an employee make a request of an employer, and that the employer can decide whether or not the request will be granted or whether the request will even be entertained. Collective bargaining means a discussion in good faith, hopefully leading to resolution. In the context of our amendment, it also means that in the event there is no absolute resolution-and recognizing the necessity the 6 per cent and 5 per cent, which for the purposes of this bill we are not debating-there can be some resolution of the difficulties.
I urge upon my colleagues in the House that in the long term, if the program works-and God knows everyone hopes it will work-it will result in a much better atmosphere and will not leave a residue of resentment behind it. This program not
only covers, public servants under the authority and jurisdiction of the President of the Treasury Board, but it covers employees of Crown corporations and employees of private companies for the first time. That is a venture-out which none of us want to have go awry. All of us want to have available the ways to resolve difficulties.
It is important not just to make a statement that collective bargaining is a good thing, but for the House to demonstrate by the way it handles the debate and votes on the amendment that collective bargaining is a good thing, and that appropriate settlement of disputes can take place under this bill. The amendment that we have put forward in the best of faith, I believe, is one way that can be accomplished with the compulsory arbitration aspect with respect to any disputes.
I think I have placed the position of our party fairly and squarely before the House. There is going to be further debate on many of these amendments. The position of the party is that we must begin the process of restraint. We hope others will follow the lead that is going to be taken by the public service. The public service is unhappy that its members are in the vanguard; they are prepared to accept that they are in the vanguard, but they want to make sure that some others come along too. The government has a duty to those they ask to lead to ensure that others do come along too.
As Dr. Beigie said in the course of his testimony, this is not something to save the government; this is not something to save the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-God knows he should have gone long ago; this is something to begin the process of saving the country.
That is the approach. We hope it works, but that is the approach this government has chosen and time will tell whether they are successful or not.
In any event, Sir, I ask the government to consider the amendments with respect to collective bargaining and the fairness of the position they have taken with respect to the staff of Members of Parliament and ministerial staff, because I think that is a gross indecency that they have committed.
I want the government to know that we are watching, that Canada is watching, the public service is watching; and looking over their shoulders to make sure that others have followed. Because if they have not, then this program will have failed.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-124 and specifically Clauses 2, 4, 5 and 7. I want to start off, if I may, by referring to a letter that I wrote to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with regard to the budget that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) was so pleased to announce that British Columbia is bringing in. I would like the people to know the hardships that it has created, so I am going to refer to part of a letter that I wrote on May 31, 1982;
I am writing to express my concern over recent events at one of the hospitals in my constituency. Because of the recent budget in the Province of British
July 30, 1982

Columbia, the Cranbrook and District Hospital has been forced to lay off 35 full and part time employees. This will mean the loss of 20 acute care beds and four staff positions, with the loss of no beds, in the extended care area.
Prior to British Columbia's April budget the acute care area of the hospital was already being used at 113 per cent of capacity. In the extended care area, these cuts will leave only 30 staff in total for 50 patients.
Those are the kinds of ramifications that come about when limits are put on the kinds of services that must be provided. I want to say to the members of the Conservative Party and to the members of the Liberal Party, the government, that while they may feel that this has tremendous effects and could have some ramifications towards bringing the economy back, it is going to have some very, very serious effects on social programs and on labour relations in Canada.
I want to refer to that a little bit also, Mr. Speaker. We were forced out of this House by closure so as to bring the bill into committee. This bill sat in committee for exactly one week and one day for debate and for witnesses to come forward. There was a lot of input that came forward, but when specific changes are being made that are going to affect Part III, Part IV and Part V of the Canada Labour Code, I believe it is important that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) come before that committee. I insisted so at the committee, I insisted so when the motion was made, and I insisted so after the motion was made that they continue on with clause by clause study.
What did the government do? They put the Minister of Labour under wraps; they sent him away and hid him. they did not want to have his officers come before that committee, the mediation officers, the labour relations officers, to be questioned. But the minister must be questioned if we are to have some kind of peace and order across Canada. You do not just automatically take free collective bargaining rights away from over half a million people and designate them individually. It is not only deceitful, it is cruel and unfair. Before that was done the Minister of Labour should have come to the committee. His department head should have been there and we should have been discussing the kinds of problems that we are going to face across Canada.
Another minister who should have been before that committee is the minister in charge of the affirmative action program. Much has been said in this House with regard to equality for women and increasing their opportunities in the workplace. In fact, the Minister of Labour and the minister responsible for the status of women stated in Toronto less than two months ago that if the private sector did not start to recognize the problems with regard to women in the workplace, they may have to look at compulsion in this area.
This bill is poorly drafted. It has taken away whatever opportunities these people would have had to try to upgrade facilities and bring about some of the much needed changes that would bring about equality in the workplace, that would have given some sort of fair bargaining process.
I want to talk for a moment about the employees of the Members of the House of Commons. They do not belong to a union. They cannot belong to a union in the House. They are not protected in any way. Many of their salaries are low, and
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
for this government to single them out I think is morally wrong and something should be done about it.
The bill was poorly and hastily drafted. I am almost certain that there was virtually no input from the Department of Labour or the Minister of Labour, or he would have been before that committee and given us some reasons for what they are trying to do.
Ian Sinclair, the chairman of CP Investments, is heading a committee of businessmen and expounding the virtues of the wage control program. I want to say as a member of this House that we have watched Ian Sinclair manipulate his company. We saw the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) dance to his tune when they wanted to take some of the railway systems off. We saw the government take over responsibility for the losing operation of VIA Rail. I have seen the estimates and the costs produced. They are not satisfied to present a bill for 12 months of the year of their operation. They submit an extra billing; 13 months they charge, and they show their extra billing on that thirteenth month bill. Is Mr. Sinclair prepared to withdraw charges like that in the interest of restoring the economy?
We now have the President of the Treasury Board dancing to Mr. Sinclair's tune and including his company under the guidelines. That is quite an award to give the chairman of CP Investments. He no longer has to worry about bargaining for the next two years. In fact, there will be rollbacks which will provide him with large sums of money which had previously been committed. The effect of this bill is to steal money from the pockets of Canadian workers to pay for the mismanagement of this government.
This summer, or early this fall, it will be the time for the Minister of Transport to dance to the tune when Ian Sinclair comes forward to ask for changes to the Crowsnest agreement. It will then be the farmers' turn to pay the price. We can see it coming. It will come as sure as we are standing in this House. But we will be here to defend them and to examine the company's activities, which has received taxation agreements which will prolong its tax schemes. The company has received grants from the government. The government has the gall to have him head a committee without ever having the opportunity to bring him before the committee so that we could question him on his views. This is an example of what is happening in our country, and I say it is deceitful for the government to be telling Canadians that it will designate over
500,000	people in Canada to have their wages controlled in order to bring down inflation.
I would like to refer to a statement made by a former President of the United States, Mr. Carter. Two years ago, after announcing civil service pay increases, Mr. Carter said: "A President must balance economic consideration against the fact that federal employees face the same kind of problem with inflation as other citizens. In doing so, I have concluded that the dedication of these loyal public servants deserves no less relief than we would allow for other workers."

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
Surely our governments must recognize that civil servants are falling behind and have been falling behind for years. To attack civil servants and make them scapegoats for a new economic policy of the Government of Canada is morally wrong and unfair.
I would like to say a few words about the long-term employees who have paid into a pension scheme. Their pensions will generally be based on the average of their salaries for the last five years. This means that someone aged 63 who will possibly be receiving a pension in the next two or three years will, as a result of these guidelines, only receive wage increases to the extent dictated by the government. This employee will receive a pension for all of his pension years based on his average salary over the last five years. When he leaves the workforce he will be spending the rest of his life living on a pension which was determined by this government's restraint bill. That is an example of the unfairness which has been caused by the government and the hardship it will create.
The railway system in our country is essential. An essential part of the system has workers working hundreds of miles away from their homes. These workers must be able to enjoy a labour relationship based on co-operation. If that co-operation and confidence does not exist, the result is a confrontation between the workers and management. The Canadian government does not need that confrontation now. We need cooperation between businesses, workers and all levels of government. This cannot be achieved with the confrontation attitudes of this bill.
This bill was hastily drafted. From what I have read in the bill, I suggest it will do nothing to bring down inflation. For years the President of the Treasury Board has been attempting to smash the public sector trade union movement. He has been trying to remove the very few bargaining rights that the unions have and destroy the very system they have to try to improve their lot. We have heard about what happens to union members when they step out of line. They are fired with virtually no chance to come back. Many employees have no trade union behind them to do their bargaining because the government has disallowed it. For example, I have seen members of the janitorial service in the House of Commons, who have worked as long as 12 years, being banished to the basement for some time because they did not toe the line of the administration. Shame on the Government of Canada to allow incidents like that to happen. Shame on the government for attempting to push through the House in less than a week a bill which will directly affect more than half a million workers across Canada.
The government did not allow the Minister of Labour or any other ministers to come before the committee. This Liberal government is one of the most blatant dictatorships of any government this country has ever had. We will have to live with it.
For a moment I would like to talk about the Conservative party. How can it be so conciliatory? I cannot understand why the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and the hon.
member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) would meet with railway workers in advance to say that they will express their concerns and attempt to have them dealt with in the bill. All that has happened is that CP workers have been added to the misery of other workers. Those Conservative members have also played the tune of Ian Sinclair. The corporate elite has reached those members and has told the Conservative Party to get into line and follow the attitude of the corporate elite. That is what is happening.
The workers do not have an opportunity to defend themselves. They have not had an opportunity to explain what hardships they are facing. Less than a year ago, 70,000 workers came to Ottawa to demonstrate against the high interest rate policy and show what it is doing to them. Many of these workers cannot make their payments now and will be facing renewed mortgages at increased rates. When these new expenditures take place these workers will be held to a 6 per cent increase. If they are unable to make their payments now they will not be able to do so under these guidelines unless the government takes quick action to reduce interest rates to a more acceptable level. This is particularly true of those who are paying mortgages and trying to keep their homes.
A small businessman in my riding approached me to tell me of the problems he was facing due to the inventory of stock remaining on his shelves. Small businesses are having difficulty staying in business and others are going bankrupt. According to the budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the government will take over $500 million out of the pockets of consumers. Will this create new jobs?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Sidney James Parker: Show me how. We have already been told that the government would have received 20 per cent more revenue in the form of income tax had it not cut wages. One and a half million unemployed are drawing unemployment benefits. Is there anything productive about that? It would seem to me that we should have a bill which will invest in the workers of Canada, bring them back to work and make them more productive. If we cannot even so much as bring them to those areas, surely to goodness we could do it with our environment, our lakes and our lumber industry by putting in roads. It would make much more economic sense than to give handouts in the form of unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Lapierre:: Job-creation programs.


Sidney James Parker: "Job-creation programs'', my friend says. My goodness, we have a million and a half unemployed and the hon. member tells us that the government is creating job-producing programs.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes.


Sidney James Parker: I have not seen any real, productive job programs from the government in all the time that I have been in the House.
July 30, 1982


Mr. Kelly:: Well, you haven't been here very long. You're part of the vote against 60,000 jobs.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, not only have the Liberals denied me the right to be heard in committee and denied witnesses the right to come before it, but now they also want to interrupt my twenty minutes in the House.
In closing I want to say that the workers of Canada will recognize what this government has done. This government will rue the day that it did not call upon those in the trade union movement, the business groups and the working people of Canada to come together to discuss the situation. Instead of bringing in confrontation legislation of this kind, the government should have accepted its responsibility and brought in the business sector, the communities, the provinces and the workers of Canada to deal with our problems in a truly constructive way. Legislation such as this will not produce the results needed for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to speak to report stage of the bill, it might be worthwhile if I reminded the House of exactly what we were talking about when the bill was in second reading stage. The reason for doing so is that over the past number of days, while we have been dealing with specific amendments to the bill, much of the understanding of the principles involved has been obscured. As we come to the close of the discussion on the bill, it might be worthwhile to remind ourselves of what those principles were, how they fared during the committee stage and how it appears they will fare throughout the report stage and third reading.
There are two principles in this bill. There were two principles at first reading, two at second reading and there are still two principles. The first is the principle of restraint. During second reading I had the opportunity, as did many others in the House, to indicate, to all who were willing to listen, my views concerning whether or not it is necessary to have restraint in the economic life of the country at this time. Our party believes that there needs to be restraint at this time. We do not believe that that is all that needs to be done, either by people in the country or by the government, but it is one part of the solution. Anyone who sat throughout the committee hearings and heard economists of all stripes testify would have confirmation of one's belief in the necessity of restraint. That is why our party supports the first principle of the bill, that is, the principle of restraint.
There are some who do not believe that restraint is necessary. There are some who believe that economic growth can continue in the manner it has for the past 25 years. That is absolutely, 100 per cent wrong. The economic view held by those who argued that we can continue without the inclusion of restraint provisions as part of a package of recovery is clearly now in disrepute. Economists who offer that view and people who believe in it are fooling themselves. In my view it is irresponsible for any political party to argue in 1982 that we
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
can have economic recovery without the inclusion of restraint as part of the package of that recovery.
The second principle involved was the principle of collective bargaining. There are some who believe that we can have restraint without collective bargaining. That is the view of the government. There are some who believe we should have collective bargaining without restraint. That is the view of the New Democratic Party. Throughout the committee hearings, our whole endeavour was to arrive at a situation whereby the country could get what it needs, that is, a program of economic recovery involving restraint, while preserving a collective bargaining system which has protected the rights of people, particularly those with low income, for many years, and ensuring that those who depend on those rights can continue to depend on them throughout the two-year period of restraint.
That is why, in posing our amendment with respect to collective bargaining, we set forth the enact way in which the government ought to have gone. In a moment I will discuss why I believe the government did not take that route, although it was the most reasonable one. It makes sense to people. The amendment, as written in the Order Paper, would first of all preserve the 6 per cent and 5 per cent restraint on total compensation. It would preserve the principle of restraint. In that context, we agree with the government. Second, our amendment would have precluded the exercise of strikes during a two year period because, in our view, the program deserves the opportunity for success without the disruption caused by strikes in the public service. Quite frankly, the government has as much power as it needs because the recent Supreme Court decision gives the power to the federal government to determine what is essential and to deny the operation of the right to strike in essential services. However, since the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) sought, at every turn of the road, to bring up the bogey man of the right to strike, we agreed, and I proposed an amendment in a motion which would preclude the right to strike, with arbitration in its place. The government voted against that. Our amendment would not only have preserved the restraint of 6 per cent and 5 per cent and would not only have precluded the right to strike for the operation of the two year program, but it would also have allowed for collective bargaining when issues remained unresolved and in dispute. It would also have permitted arbitration in order to deal with unresolved issues.
That was an excellent amendment. Any fool could go along with restraint and not worry about the protection of the rights of people through collective bargaining and any fool could go along with collective bargaining while not worrying about restraint. It takes real skill, hard work and attention to detail to know that there can be both. The government should have a restraint program, not only one affecting the public service, but one which is also a beacon to other people, leading the way to restraint while not destroying 50 years of collective bargaining tradition. By adoption of that amendment, and the government still has the chance, it can do that.
That brings me to the operation of the committee. I would say at the outset that the committee was chaired by the hon.

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The only reason I raise that point is that although he is a Liberal member, he did an excellent job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: The other Liberal members are so little used to receiving compliments these days that I want simply to pay my respects to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his chairmanship of the committee. There it ends, because the government's actions throughout the whole of the committee hearing were appalling. For the first time in the history of this country, we were dealing with the removal of peoples' rights to collective bargaining. No matter how you felt on that issue, there should have been the courtesy to the committee, the members of this House, the public and certainly the people affected, for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) to have been there. We asked for the Minister of Labour to attend. It was indicated he could not attend on the Friday or Thursday because he was in Toronto. He did not ask if he could attend at another time.
We waited until the middle of the week. When we knew he was in Ottawa, indeed a half hour earlier in the House of Commons, again we extended an invitation. It should be noted that the Minister of Labour did not come to the committee at any time.
Anybody who argues that is was not his business, that it was the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board, does not understand how the collective bargaining process works in this country. The Minister of Labour is responsible for the Canada Labour Code. There were rights of people under the Canada Labour Code taken away in a half hour without even a comment from the Minister of Labour.
I know the Minister of Labour. I know he would have attended had the government allowed him. That is the truth of the matter. The government made sure the Minister of Labour would not attend because he would have wanted to say, "Don't do this, look for the compromise that allows collective bargaining to be in place while at the same time you seek restraint." That is what he would have done, but not the perverse government that he serves.
Second, we sought from the President of the Treasury Board the reason why collective bargaining was going to be suspended for the public service. We heard from his officials and himself. Check the record. The reason was that it was going to be inconvenient for the staff to administer collective bargaining while at the same time administering the new bill. Terrific. That is when most of us knew that the government was about far more things than simply restraint.
Third, the amendment came from the President of the Treasury Board to deal with members' staff. It has been some time since I have seen anything quite that mean and quite that low. The government says that it was pushed into it. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) indicated that the salaries of ministers' staff were increased before the six and
five arm came down. Therefore, they wanted to retaliate. How did they retaliate? They took people who worked for Members of Parliament and ministers, somewhere in the order of about
2,000	people, at least 70 per cent of whom earn in the area of $22,000, $21,000 and less, no more than that. In fact, if members check their offices they will find people who earn $19,000, $18,000, $15,000, $14,000 or $12,000. These are low-income people. Most of them are women. Many of them have family responsibilities. What kind of position are they in now? Had the President of the Treasury Board brought in an amendment to put them under the same restraints as those imposed on public servants, that would at least have been fair. If the government did not want to do that and wanted to teach us a lesson, why did it not give them the same treatment as that accorded to Members of Parliament?
Under this whole program we now have a category of people who are low income, with family responsibilities, mostly women. Not only are they going to get less out of this than the public servants, but they will get less than the Members of Parliament. They are in the lowest categories. The government did that because it wanted to get back at the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. That is meanness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: When members opposite go back to their offices and finally figure it out, they will all be on to the President of the Treasury Board on Monday telling him to try to fix it up, telling him he does not understand. When they do understand, they will be as angry as I am.
Fourth, in every process of the committee and daily as they add more amendments, whether they hurt people or not, what we have is a problem of a government that is making policy on the run. It does not think anything out any more, it just does it. There is going to be a day of reckoning. People know when the government is not thinking things out. They know when they are being hurt. They know when things are not there.
Somebody in the New Democratic Party said, what about restraint? The people in this country know the need for restraint. Indeed, for the past three or four years most people in this country began to exercise their own personal restraint. They did it in their kitchens, bedrooms, houses, the things they do and the things they have to cut back on. They know that in their own personal ways, in a thousand ways they could think of, they have restrained themselves in order to cope with the cost of living. The government is not inventing restraint. People invented it. The government is trying to catch up. It is the making of policy on the run that is causing these inequities.
I hope that members will take one last look before they vote on amendment No. 9, which allows a restraint program and still keeps in place the collective bargaining process. Anybody who wants restraint without the right of collective bargaining can go with the government. If you want collective bargaining without restraint, you can go with the NDP. If you want to have both, operating at least with some semblance of fairness, then support this amendment.
July 30, 1982

Every member of the House should look at amendment No. 3, go back to his staff and explain why it is that a group of 1,500 to 2,000, mostly women, mostly low-income people, are now being restrained more than the public service and more than Members of Parliament. It is simply because we have a government that no longer has policies. It is simply trying to catch up with the rest of the world, trying to deal with a policy which reflects the fact that it had no policies for the past four or five years. The problem is that they are now hurting people in putting through a program of restraint.
I wish in many ways that I did not have to support this bill, but I know the important thing is a restraint program. I wish in my heart I could say no to that government because it is so inequitable in terms of its application.
One last thing. The New Democratic Party, which stands up for no restraint, does not understand the people who elected them, does not understand the people who live and work hard in this country. It does not understand that all the people who support the program of restraint are ordinary people who know that if we are to have recovery, everybody has to pitch in. Some day the New Democratic Party will understand that, but their ignorance does not justify the government. The government should act more equitably, and I wish they would.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to address a few words to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) with regard to this bill in an area where he knows I have had considerable concern from the time the bill was first introduced.
1 listened very carefully to what my colleagues, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) have had to say. They made it very plain that within the context of this bill, we accept the need for restraint as being a fundamental principle. We have also urged, over and over again, the need for equity; the need for the restoration of the collective bargaining system within the global figures that the minister has imposed in the restraint program.
I have a special interest in the equity in this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I have expressed it on many occasions both in the House and in committee. That interest is in how the bill will impact on women in the public service and other areas that it affects.
The minister referred to my reaction to what was proposed last evening in one of his amendments. My reaction came in response to a press statement the minister issued earlier in the day in which he said that he was going to restore certain aspects of the collective bargaining system on monetary measures; in other words, that he would allow the public service, "to work out through their own arrangements in respect of new compensation packages, as long as the 6 per cent and 5 per cent limits are respected".
It is true that I welcomed that when I read the press release but I had not realized the intent of the amendment on the Order Paper. I took the words in the press release at face value
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
and I hoped what was stated in it would mean exactly what it said. I interpreted it to mean that people within the various categories would be able to negotiate their compensation packages, no matter what they were, as long as the over-all figures of 6 and 5 per cent for that category were retained; that within that limit, people at the lower end of the salary scale could perhaps receive a 9 per cent increase if those at the upper end received a 2 per cent increase. I accepted that that was what was meant. I now have severe doubts that it was.
As I said at the time, this was a way in which those at the lower end of the salary scale could still improve their position. As I have pointed out time and time again, in the public service a great number of people at the lower end of the salary scale are women.
Statistics show that 39 per cent of the total number of men in the civil service earn $23,000 and under, while 79 per cent of the total number of women in the public service earn $23,000 and under. That is a tremendous difference, Mr. Speaker, and it is the kind of inequity that I hope will continue to be corrected during the time that the bill is in effect.
I see inequity of salaries in the public service as part of an ongoing pattern of this government. Women receive far less pay than men. Women receive far less attention in all the Liberal government's programs than do men. As with other programs, the intention of this bill with regard to women is to put them in a worse position than they were before and to keep them there. The government is forever postponing programs that would improve the lot of women.
One of the major questions before us at the present time is pension reform. The people who would benefit most from pension reform are women. The people who are locked into poverty in their old age are women. For over a year the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has been promising a green paper on pension reform. She promised it last fall, last winter, last spring, this month-each time it has been postponed-until August, until the autumn. I sometimes wonder if we will ever see the green paper on pension reform. That makes the lot of women worse, Mr. Speaker.
The government's affirmative action programs bear examination, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Treasury Board referred to the improvement in the lot of women in the public service, saying that a great deal is being done through affirmative action programs. Again, the statistics show that five years ago, in 1977, in the upper echelons of the public service, in the senior executive bracket, there were 1,156 men and 38 women; in 1981 there were 1,532 men and 68 women. In those four years, in the upper echelons of the senior executive level, an additional 376 men had moved into that category but only 30 women.
At the lower end of the scale, the support category, the statistics show that of those on the lowest incomes in 1977, 52,833 were men and 58,730 were women; in 1981, 46,328 were men and 59,965 were women. In other words, at the lowest end of the scale there had been an increase in the number of women in the public service; some 1,235 had been

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
added to the lowest category. But there was a drop in the number of men in that category of 6,505.
The affirmative action program is simply a joke, Mr. Speaker. The status of women in the public service has not improved at all over the years. I say again to the President of the Treasury Board that this is another example of the way the Liberal government ignores the needs of women in this day and age.
Today in question period I mentioned that in the training programs the government is putting into effect in the nontraditional areas, there are 31,000 men presently enrolled and
2,000	women. Again, this is continuing discrimination against women. Whether it happens to be with regard to pensions, affirmative action programs or retraining, there is always this continuing discrimination against women by the government.
What we have seen in the clause of the bill before us for debate today, motion No. 3 introduced by the President of the Treasury Board, is not only the latest but is the most vindictive example of the government's total lack of regard for the status of women in this country. It is the meanest, most vindictive move I have ever seen. It is spiteful. The President of the Treasury Board is taking his spite out on a group of women who are relatively low paid, who do not have the protection of the public service, who do not have tenure and who have no security of employment. He moves in against those people, and who are they? The great majority of them are women. I would ask him to look at the office staff of any Member of Parliament in this building; he will find that the majority of staff are not men, they are women.
Once again the government has deliberately decided to move against women.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It has moved against women in its failure to enact pension reform and in its total disregard of affirmative action programs. It has moved against women in its retraining programs, and by putting forward this particularly vindictive amendment, which the President of the Treasury Board has initiated in order to get even, to take out his spite and indulge the lowest and meanest characteristics any individual can have. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Treasury Board, who should have some regard for the work of the staff around here, should not be putting them in this category, an action by the minister which is even more punitive than anything else he has considered introducing with regard to any group of employees, no matter where. The office staff of Members of Parliament are women, low paid and without security, and he has moved vindictively to put them in the lowest category that he can possibly find. He ought to be downright ashamed of himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have great doubts about any wage restraint program being fully successful without a restraint program on prices as well. If prices continue to rise and the workers have no right to bargain, how
will they live? It is a simple matter; if wages are frozen and prices are not, them someone is going to suffer. It may be the families of those workers. Therefore, I am urging the government to make sure that prices are restrained as well as wages. If that is done, then I think the program will be reasonably satisfactory. Most workers, Mr. Speaker, want the right to buy the things their families need. If they are able to do so on their wages, there is little difficulty. However, if they are unable to make both ends meet, then they would want the same thing you and 1 would want, that is, more wages. It is really as simple as that.
I want to bring to the attention of the hon. minister a particular case in that regard. 1 have been endeavouring to get the eye of the Speaker in the last several days during question period, but without success. That is understandable because an awful lot of people want to ask questions. However, it fits right into this particular debate anyway. The government is restraining the wages of employees in the Banff National Park. I do not think any of those employees are asking to be exempted, not at all, but at the same time that restraint is being applied they are being assessed an increase in rent by the government. It is a different department but the same government. I would like to bring to the attention of the government that this is a case where the government can practise what it preaches and set an example for outside industry. If the workers are going to have a 6 per cent restraint program-and it appears they will under this program-then surely the government should also restrain the rental increases. There can be no better example of a responsible government; there will be no better example of irresponsibility if the government insists on the 15 per cent to 35 per cent rental increase while at the same time restraining wage increases by 6 per cent.
This is the second increase in rental accommodation these workers have had this year. There was a $100 increase in January and there will be another $100 increase on August 1, a couple of days from now. With the 6 per cent restraint program they just cannot make both ends meet. So the minister should roll back the rental increase to comply with the six and five restraint program. I emphasize that this matter is entirely under the control of the government. These people are not complaining about the 6 per cent wage restraint, and if the government rolls the rental increase back to 6 per cent I do not think there will be one complaint out of the entire Banff area and all of the employees. It would be a wonderful example to the rest of Canada that the government practises what it preaches.
The second point I want to raise with regard to this particular debate is the fact that in a restraint program what we are really doing is asking workers in the public sector to share some of their wages with those who are not working. I do not think anyone objects to that when it is put in that particular way. After all, most of us want to share and would share anything we had with someone who was hungry and came to
July 30, 1982

our door. It is when inequities show up that people are really bothered.
I want to bring an inequity to the attention of the hon. President of the Treasury Board in the hope that he will see that it is corrected. For example, the contract of staff in ministers' offices will remain in full force and effect until April 1, 1983. I checked that with the minister's office and I was told that is correct.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And two years of restraint after.


Gordon Edward Taylor: However, the contract made with the Canadian Airlines Employees' Association, CALEA, in September, 1981, is due to expire in September, 1983. The inequity is that while the contract with the staff in the offices of ministers will remain in full force and effect until April 1, 1983, the contract with CALEA will be cancelled effective September 1, 1982.
Where is the fairness in that type of thing? If there is going to be a recognition of collective bargaining, and I hope there will be, surely if a contract has been worked out with both sides and duly signed, it would be much fairer if it were permitted to run to completion before applying the 6 per cent guideline. This probably would not apply to very many, but it is fairness that I am interested in. Certainly CALEA has every right to complain. Its three-year contract is going to be cancelled in September, 1982, whereas the contract of the office staff of ministers will run until April 1, 1983.
The minister should clean up these inequities that irritate people if he really wants full support for his restraint program. The two cases I have mentioned are not difficult to handle. I think they are clearcut. I cannot see why the minister would have any difficulty with them. Both cases are based on fairness and equity. Surely that is what we want to have in our public service.
The third point I want to mention is one that I raised a couple of weeks ago in the House. It concerns the indexation capping of pensions of retired civil servants, members of the armed forces and members of the RCMP. I shall not go into detail because we have dealt with the matter during question period and also during the adjournment debate. I would suggest that if we want equity and fairness, we should not be capping this indexation of pensions for retired civil servants, members of the armed forces and members of the RCMP. In the first place, I question the authority of the government to do so. These people contributed 6.5 per cent into the regular pension fund and a further 1 per cent for the purpose of indexing. They had no choice. Most would have contributed if they had had a choice in any event. This money was deducted from their salaries. Because they had this pension and the indexing to go with it, many did not bother taking out other pension schemes. They relied on the government to keep its word.
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act
I strongly recommend to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that this indexation capping be cancelled entirely. We must not try to take from the retired civil servants, who now have no voice nor any union to speak for them, part of their income when their average income is only in the vicinity of $8,000. They are not in the $30,000 or $50,000 class. They are not in the $100,000 or the $500,000 class, as Ian Sinclair is; they are down in the lower echelons. I would think that the government would want to make sure that these retired civil servants will have enough to live on. We should keep our faith with those people who have worked for the country, many in the armed forces and RCMP who risked their lives serving this country in the hope that eventually they would be able to retire on a reasonable pension.
I have mentioned only three cases but they involve thousands of people. Everyone has a sense of fairness and equity. All I ask of the President of the Treasury Board is to consider the fairness of this measure with respect to the three classes of people that I have mentioned. I hope that he will accede to my request.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have this afternoon I would like to gloss over very briefly three of the items discussed today. The first is the Baker amendment, accurately and honestly described as such.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Cheap shot.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Whose name is at the bottom?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Motion No 3 is not the Baker amendment. Motion No. 3 is an amendment that stands in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Shame on him.


Walter David Baker: When staff of the Members of Parliament find out the cheap trick that has been played on them, they will call it the Johnston amendment.


David Edward Crombie: It is the Johnston amendment.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: You started this whole business.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, certainly there is no question about his name being on the legal title.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You bet your life there isn't a doubt.


Norman Kelly: But there is also no question about who the spiritual father of this amendment is. There is no question whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The government's ploy is to go after the women.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, could you give me some assistance? Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 30, 1982
Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act


Norman Kelly: One of the delightful aspects of this afternoon's debate is to see the official opposition wriggling like worms on a hook fashioned by themselves earlier in the debate on preceding days.


Walter David Baker: We see the worm.


Norman Kelly: Let us take the accusation that by introducing this amendment we are taking a cheap shot at that party and at one gentleman in particular. For a moment let us dignify that rebuttal as being intellectually honest.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You are not honest about anything, intellectually or otherwise.


Norman Kelly: As a preface to my remarks I point out that hearing members of that party accusing us of taking cheap shots rings somewhat hollow since it is the members of the Conservative Party that have raised the cheap shot to an art form in this House.
I assume that the hon. member and his colleagues argue that we have misrepresented his position on this aspect of Bill C-124.


Walter David Baker: I argue that you are cheap. Cheap Johnston joins you.


Norman Kelly: Have we misrepresented the position of that gentleman or that party in this particular topic?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Indeed, you have.


Norman Kelly: If you do not want to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker, if you think I may be involved personally in cheap shots, let me refer to what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said, as reported in Hansard for July 9, 1982, at page 19187.


Walter David Baker: Quit while you are ahead.


Norman Kelly: Let me read into the record what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said in the House when he first raised this issue, an issue he is now trying to sidestep because it is coming back to haunt him. When the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was talking about salary increases of exempt staff-


Walter David Baker: Of ministers.


Norman Kelly: -of Liberal ministers, we find this in Hansard:
Roll it back. Be direct, be honest, treat everyone the same, as my friend from Rosedaie (Mr. Crombie) says.
What is there in this bill that contradicts the sentiments expressed by the hon. member in the debate in this House on July 9? Nothing whatsoever.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us whether or not he has read motion No. 3. If he has read motion No. 3 he will see that there is a gross inequity in it. It is plain to anyone who can read.


Norman Kelly: I have read the motion. 1 have read it very carefully. It is on the basis of that reading that I would like to continue my assessment of that party's position and my analysis of this particular issue.
Let me just see whether I can turn around the debate and change the perspectives, to show if in fact that party in this debate is misrepresenting our position on the issue. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said that motion No. 3 applies to all House of Commons staff. Of course that is wrong; it does not apply to all staff of the House of Commons. It does not apply to committee clerks. It does not apply to library staff. It does not apply to the translators. It does not apply to anyone outside the staffs of members of the House of Commons. I hope that anyone reading Hansard, reading or seeing a media account of the statement uttered earlier in the day by the hon. member, wherein he said that this applies to all House of Commons staff, will realize that it was an inaccurate, distorted and unfair representation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: All you want to get is the majority of women. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) is always trying to do something to get at women.


Walter David Baker: It is even more discriminatory than he thought.


Norman Kelly: I do not want to be contentious in this debate. I just want to be honest. That is all that any member has to bring to a debate in the House-his honesty. But we do not get it often. It is interesting to see how the other side responds when we catch them in a mistake or an error which they made earlier in a debate. Sometimes I wish they had the courage to admit that they made a mistake or to admit that they made an error in debates such as this one.
The second accusation of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was that this amendment created a very special category of workers on the hill who have been singled out for a vicious, mean-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Spiteful.


Walter David Baker: You are beginning to understand.


Norman Kelly: small group of Liberal workers, and apply special rules to them.
Mir. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Now we are getting to it.


Norman Kelly: He suggested that they should not be treated like everyone else and that we should amend that proposed law of the land in a particular way which would exempt that very small group of people. He claimed that that singling out of a small group of people from one particular party represents justice.
Well, does it? Is it fair to take a small group of workers and say that the law should not apply to them, that they must be singled out for particularly harsh measures? I think that is unfair. If one is to be a person of principle or a party of principle, then one must argue that all members of political staff on the Hill, in the House of Commons and presumably in the Senate, whether ministerial or non-ministerial, whether Liberal, Conservative or NDP, should be treated in the same way. If we concede and agree that we should not single out a small group within a larger group for special attention but we should apply the change to all members of the group, then we have to recognize the legitimacy of this motion and support it in the debates and votes of the House. To do otherwise would be mischievous.
I do not want to imply that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has been mischievous. I am just pointing out to him that if he is the man of principle that he claims he and members of his party are-and that is the way we accept him in this chamber-surely he should recognize that the law must not apply to only a tiny group inside a larger one, but it must apply to all members of the group.
Although he has not spoken on behalf of this amendment, I hope, being a man of principle, that he will later vote in support of it when we come to vote on these issues next week. We are not attempting to take this larger group and treat them any differently from other public servants in Ottawa and across the country. We are not creating artificial and arbitrary distinctions in the way in which these two groups will be treated by Bill C-124. Every person who comes under Bill C-124 will at one time or another go into the six and five program and will come out of it after two years. I do not think the hon. gentleman will deny that. That is accurate, that is true.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Norman Kelly: After I finish. I would like to continue with my remarks now.


Walter David Baker: You will not face a question.


An hon. Member:: It is his right.


Norman Kelly: When there are two groups which will be going in and out of the six and five restraint program over a two year period, the only difference-
Charitable Donations


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is where you have made your mistake.


Walter David Baker: You do not know the bill.


Norman Kelly: The only difference between those two groups is when they go into the program and when they come out. That is the only distinction one could legitimately raise that we created between these two groups. All we are saying in the bill is that this group of political workers will go into the six and five world of restraint earlier than most of their colleagues in the public service-that is all it says-and this means that that group of political workers come out of the six and five restraint program earlier than their colleagues in the public service. There is no other distinction, and frankly I do not think it is worth the hubbub created by hon. members opposite.


Mr. Bosley:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the parliamentary secretary care to show the House where in motion No. 3 the staff ever get a 6 per cent increase? They never do.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps I can assist in the resolution of the problem by calling it four o'clock.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all items preceding No. 3 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 9, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. Roche:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to give individual taxpayers the option of claimming charitable gifts as deductions from taxable income or of deducting fifty per cent of the value of charitable gifts from income tax payable, and amending the present $100 standard tax deduction for medical and charitable purposes to apply only to medical expenses.
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, all members should welcome the opportunity provided by this notice of

July 30, 1982
Charitable Donations
motion to debate this question. We are all agreed on the importance and the value of the contribution which voluntary charitable organizations make to our society.
The issue before the House today is in what way and to what extent should governments be assisting this effort through provisions of the Income Tax Act. The extent of such governmental assistance through the tax system is already substantial. The figures for 1979 show that more than $500 million in tax revenues were forgone in the form of tax allowances by the federal government and, of course, by the nine provinces, the personal tax levies of which are linked to the federal tax law under tax collection agreements.
We are, of course, familiar with the fact that Quebec, which levies its own income tax, also grants a similar deduction for charitable donations. This represents a substantial proportion, perhaps as much as one third of total contributions by individuals and businesses to these charities.
I should like to explain that the present income tax system has two provisions relating to charitable donations. First, an individual who has donated more than $100 in charitable givings may deduct the total of those donations from income in computing income tax. The claim must be accompanied of course by individual receipts. The deduction cannot exceed 20 per cent of net income for the year, although any excess may be carried forward and deducted in the following year. This 20 per cent ceiling is a limiting factor for a very few taxpayers only.
Second, the tax system allows a flat $100 deduction from income for taxpayers whose combined charitable donations and claimable medical expenses do not exceed $100. For all practical purposes, this standard $100 deduction is relevant to charitable donation alone. This is because taxpayers may claim deductions for medical expenses only when these expenses exceed 3 per cent of net income, and only a relatively small percentage of taxpayers qualify for such medical expense deductions. This is an important factor when we come to consider one of the proposals in the motion relating to the $100 standard deduction.
I suggest there are three principal considerations to be borne in mind in discussing what whould best be done on this issue.
First, the government should provide some incentive for charitable giving, and not just any incentive, regardless of cost. There is not much point in granting a $10 tax incentive in order to generate a $5 charitable gift.
Second, the incentive should prefereably be an equitable one. This means that donors at different income levels should receive equal incentive benefits for donations of equal size.
Let me note that these first two considerations are the base and have been put forward as the basic objectives outlined by the national voluntary organizations in their submission to the Canadian government.
Third, in this period of fiscal restraint, hon. members must be very concerned at what will be the impact on our budgetary deficit of any new tax provision.
It is on that last point that we run into the most serious problem with the proposal before us. It is estimated by the Department of Finance that to implement these suggested changes would cost more than $500 million in forgone revenues in addition to the current tax incentive costs. In effect, we are being asked to double the level of fiscal support for charitable giving.
Such an increase of half a billion dollars in the over-all deficit position of governments cannot be justified under the present circumstances, if fiscal restraint is to have any meaning at all. Admittedly it can be argued that the proposed changes could provide some additional incentive for charitable giving, and ensure some more equity in our tax arrangements. These are worthwhile objectives, but I suggest we wdl have to look at the price tag.
We have on this side of the House been deeply concerned, as everyone else has, by the grave growth of problems in the economic situations throughout the world. We have seen that this has brought about a kind of fiscal problem because when you have a recession in the world, when you have a recessionary economy, then naturally your businesses will not flourish, they will not make as much profit, individuals will not be as well employed, they will not be making as large a salary, and therefore the income that is derived is smaller, and the revenues for the government therefore will become smaller.
One of the major byproducts of this, as we have seen, is that in the new budget a large part of the increase in our deficit has come from the need to provide increased unemployment insurance and also which is very important, we find there is a reduction in the size of the income that is derived. We are receiving a smaller income into the federal treasuries, less revenue. Some of us perhaps are aware of the fact that there are two ways to make money, one is to earn it and the other is to save it. When less money is coming in it is just as bad as if you were spending more money. That is the practical problem.
This proposal before us now means an addition to the half billion dollars that the government is already forgiving or providing as a tax incentive to the people of Canada. In other words, the Canadian tax system provides relief of approximately one half billion dollars now to the taxpayers who can use these funds as they contribute to charitable causes and charitable donations. This one half billion dollars less, is something which already is being used as an incentive by the federal government to bring private contributions to charitable organizations. That is a contribution, which means one-half billion dollars less money to the treasury.
Now, the new proposal which we have in this resolution is something with which I greatly sympathize. But what I have to point out, in order to recognize responsibly what it means, is that the figures that have been estimated by the finance department to be the costs would add another one-half billion dollars of tax forgiveness. That means that one-half billion dollars less would be going into the federal treasury. That would mean, in effect, a total subsidy of $1 billion.
July 30, 1982

1 do not feel too concerned about this fact for a number of reasons which I would like to explain. I must say, however, that I do find there is some sad inconsistency when members of the opposition rise daily during question period to call for additional spending by the government on programs to relieve the hardship suffered by Canadians because of the economic problems which exist today in Canada and the world. As those members rise to speak daily, they call for greater government relief, which means spending more money but, on the other hand, these same members or their colleagues rise on another day to criticize the government for the fact that it has projected a high fiscal deficit for the year. Indeed, one can see that if they were to be consistent they would do either one or the other. You can hardly call for more spending which increases the deficit and at the same time criticize the government for the large deficit which exists.
This particular resolution is an example of the kind of worthwhile project that might be suggested but which would cost money. If it were a project that were suggested during affluent times, when there was a growing gross national product, it would be easier to understand that it could be implemented. However, at a time when we are calling for restraint, this suggestion creates some difficulty for us.
This means that we have to ask ourselves why the official opposition cannot get its act together. I would call upon those members to find a more integrated or rationalized policy through which they could provide a consistent approach. If I were to look at it in a less than kind manner, I might suggest that it might be good politics for the official opposition to plead for more spending to help those who are hurting while calling for restraint to please those who know that we cannot just throw money away to solve our problems at this time. In that way, maybe it is thought they can get the best of both worlds.
In some ways perhaps the NDP can be considered to be more consistent since they call incessantly for increasing spending without calling for the same restraints at the same time.
We on this side of the House know that the buck stops with us. It is a tragedy that we cannot spend more on programs to reduce the suffering of Canadians because we have to exercise restraint. We see a similar policy being carried out in many other countries at the present time. We see this policy in western European countries and in the United States.
No one could be more aware than I of the importance of charitable donations. No one could be more sensitive or feel more sympathetic than I to the objectives expressed in this resolution. I support the ideas proposed in this motion, but nevertheless I must assume the responsibility of pointing out that it will cost a price. I must also point out that at this particular juncture in our economic recovery in Canada, it is not exactly a most welcome time for such a change.
Why do I feel sympathetic to the proposals in this motion? I feel that if responsible voluntary groups receive more money
Charitable Donations
they can make better use of the money than if the government had to spend it. If all things are equal, if a program must be carried out, I feel that it can be carried out with greater personal devotion, commitment and dedication by a responsible charitable or voluntary organization than it can be by a federal, provincial, or any government. Therefore, I am quite persuaded that if a program must be carried out, I would much rather contribute the money, in terms of using less money to be spent with greater effectiveness, to the organization in question than contribute to the treasuries of an impersonal government.
I believe that dedicated workers can achieve more than bureaucrats, not because bureaucrats are heartless people but because the very system tends to defeat the ability to create that sense of commitment and devotion through its largeness and impersonality. The same is not true of a voluntary organization.
Having worked as the national director of the League of Human Rights of B'nai Brith, which is a charitable organization, I had an opportunity to experience this at first hand. With respect to some of the programs which we conducted with voluntary help, I know that it costs the province 26 times in paid employee time to conduct the same kind of institutional or educational conference. We could do it for less because we had dedicated volunteers who contributed endless amounts of time, overtime and effort to the cause as well as facilities which were already available in terms of overhead. In other words, there were contributions in kind, contributions in terms of employee commitment and volunteer commitment. Without that volunteer commitment the province had to pay 26 times more for the program than it cost the organization.
Not only have I seen this as someone who has administered a national charitable institution, I see the same things in my riding. I have seen that non-profit charitable organizations can do far more with the same amount of money.
For this reason I think governments tend quite correctly, to give grants to such organizations because they know it will be handled more efficiently and provide greater flexibility when carried out by non-profit charitable organizations. For example, there is the Italian-Canadian Benevolent Corporation which was able, through its personal attention to human feelings, to create an amazing and unique type of senior citizens' program in a setting which would be familiar to the origins of those people. They provided an atmosphere for people in their old age which enabled them to feel that they were in an environment which had flowers and fountains similar to what they had in their country of origin. In that sense, one can find that in the voluntary work of an organization which understands the people for whom it is working, which understands the needs of those people when it was constructing the residence known as Villa Columbo. The same situation is true so far as the new apartments it is constructing are concerned. The same thing could be said for St. Hilda's Towers. A second tower is now being completed for older adults. It has been created to provide a community feeling for

July 30, 1982
Charitable Donations
those people, a feeling which they could not experience in an impersonal, if you will, bureaucratic or government institution.
The applicaton of voluntary assistance, work and dedication of this type demonstrates part of Canada's way of life. I simply want to say that from my own personal experience and from what I see in my riding, when I look at the Baycrest Centre for geriatric care and a number of other places which are run by volunteers, I believe that the money given to them is more sympathetically and carefully spent than if it were given to a bureaucracy. On the one hand, if money has to be spent it is better to provide that incentive and to contribute to voluntary institutions and the voluntary sector. Consequently, the Income Tax Act should be amended to provide that incentive. On the other hand, we have to take into account what it would mean to take $500 million more out of the federal treasury if we are not going to spend it anyway. I suggest they will not spend it in any way right now.
In conclusion if I were able to be encouraging about what we should do here, in the future, I would say that a committee of Members of Parliament should consider, study and discuss how the Income Tax Act can be adjusted so that it will be more equitable in the field of charitable contributions, a committee which would make realistic suggestions in terms of our restraint program, yet provide encouragement to that sector of our society which can do the job more effectively than the federal government or, for that matter, the provincial and municipal governments.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) to follow up on his last proposal. He may wish to refer to the records of the House and to the proposal put forward by the Clark government to establish a task force on voluntarism. He may wish to encourage the government that he supports to move in the direction of that proposal. It is indeed timely of the government to agree to enter into today's debate on how it might come to support the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society.
In entering this debate, I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), on making such a well-marshalled defence of the motion he originally tabled here in the House on June 9, 1980, so that hon. members have felt that today's continuation of the debate is not only warranted but that it is a motion which they can genuinely and generally, in a non-partisan way, advocate on all sides of the House. I look forward, as do Canada's over three million volunteers, to a signal from the government that it has used these intervening two years to develop a comprehensive framework for the early implementation of tax changes embodied in the motion. 1 hope that the government is not totally preoccupied with the familiar arguments we have heard echoed from the Department of Finance.
It is important to recall the intent with which this motion was originally introduced. The hon. member for Edmonton South said:

The purpose of the motion that I am bringing before the House today is to help voluntary organizations make a greater contribution to the quality of life in Canada. Specifically, I am urging the government to amend the Income Tax Act; first, to remove the standard $100 deduction for charitable donations and, second, to replace the standard deduction with a 50 per cent tax credit along with the option of continuing to deduct charitable contributions from taxable income if it is in the taxpayer's interest to do so.

We note that spokespersons from the government side have often spoken of their appreciation of the irreplaceable contribution made by Canada's voluntary sector. What they have never done, however, is to indicate the concrete ways in which the government they support can provide much needed incentives to Canadian taxpayers for the increase in charitable contributions.
The tax reforms spelled out in this motion were first advocated by the national voluntary organizations, a coalition representing over 120 large and small Canadian agencies. Known widely as the give-and-take proposal, and the type of bulletin I have in my hand has gone into all members' offices, these reforms are the product of years of expert research and extensive consultation with Canadian volunteers, as well as negotiations with officials from the Department of Finance, National Revenue, and the Secretary of State.
The most recent results of this ongoing research-negotiation process indicate confirmation of the original national voluntary organizations' position, that is, if the give and take proposal had been implemented in 1980, as the hon. member for Edmonton South suggested, federal and provincial governments would have saved money. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the recently published results of Statistics Canada's 1980 audit of returns provided to Revenue Canada by all registered charities provide government-funded evidence. It is time the government incorporated this evidence into its policy and its thinking rather than continuing to parrot the type of comment we have just heard.
Indeed the chief statistician of Statistics Canada, Dr. Martin B. Wilk, has indicated this in writing to the N.V.O. in a memorandum of June 16, this year:
Since, in 1980, the total cost of the charitable deduction system was $762 million, it appears that the contention the N.V.O. have been making for three years, (that the government could switch to a 50 per cent tax credit at no additional cost), is correct.
Government supporters are quite right in pointing out that as these reforms are implemented, the cost to the government in forgone revenues will increase. Experience with the implementation of the tax changes affecting donations to political parties has shown that it takes up to six years for a behavioural change in the patterns of taxpayer contributions to become evident. Current estimates indicate that it will take up to five years, after implementation, for the cost of give and take reforms to be known. At that point the cost to government
July 30, 1982

in forgone revenues, which concerned the hon. member, will be $ 1 for every $2 going directly to charity.
The last time this motion was before the House, over two years ago, government spokespersons complained about the cost of implementing this motion. Indeed, the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) said:
-at a time when we are worrying about reducing our present federal deficit, we should not be thinking about adding another half billion dollars to the combined federal-provincial deficits.
The same member made a similar complaint during the November 24, 1980, debate of my private member's motion to:
-provide volunteer agencies with financial aid to support their communications and fund-raising activities, so that a greater portion of available funds could be freed for their intended charitable uses.
And again, in the June 5, 1981, debate on my private member's Bill C-233, an act to encourage the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society, another government spokesperson complained that:
-we must not always depend upon the government. Charities already have available to them various mechanisms to obtain assistance.
As you see, the government has long maintained that acceptance and implementation of the reforms as put forward in the motion before us again today are too expensive because of an apparent worsening of the federal deficit position.
I believe that the new information available from the Statistics Canada research, from the work of the national voluntary organizations and from the important investigations carried on in our universities, such as the contribution made by Professor Douglas McCready in the Department of Business and Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University, clearly demonstrate a new direction which the government would be well advised to follow.
Let us for a moment consider the ultimate costs to governments in forgone revenues resulting from the implementation of the give and take proposal, about which we have just heard a litany, and the cost to the federal treasury relating to large scale, multi-million dollar job creation schemes, familiar under this government.
Let me ask the government and its supporters to think of the voluntary sector as an engine for employment creation. Let us begin to think of this motion's tax reforms as a mechanism for government investment in creating jobs during record unemployment, instead of thinking in terms of increased government spending, which hon. members opposite are quite right in saying we can ill afford given the current disastrous deficit levels.
Unfortunately, this government has never measured the employment capacity of the voluntary sector. We have been waiting since January 1981 for a strategy on the voluntary sector. It was promised by the previous secretary of state, reiterated by the present Secretary of State (Mr. Regan), but is yet to see the light of day.
Charitable Donations
To my surprise this government has never developed a mechanism to begin measuring the number or type of employment opportunities created by the voluntary sector. This is so despite the fact that there are 47,000 charitable agencies, units, if you will, presently active in this country. I invite hon. members to compare this total with the fact that there are only 31,000 manufacturing units operating in Canada. The government has never bothered to measure the contribution made by the voluntary sector to Canada's gross national product. While it is difficult to be sure of the number of jobs provided by charitable agencies, it is quite clear that this is an extremely labour-intensive sector. High technology is too expensive. These are people at work, often in their two's, four's and six's. Not only that, the vast majority of those employed by charitable agencies are women, youth, handicapped persons, low-income and laid-off workers, the very segments of our population currently experiencing such tragic unemployment levels and alienation.
Let me make another reflection on why this government ought to reconsider its definition. Think for a moment of the voluntary sector and its ability to train and retrain. This has always been an essential feature of the voluntary sector as it seeks to meet the changing social needs of our society. Women learn skills which help them to bridge the re-entry phase in joining or returning to the work force. Our youth receive initial training and skills which they ultimately put to use in the challenging employment of serving their fellow Canadians. There is no parallel for the training of young people that is inherent in the voluntary sector.
In terms of cost effectiveness, this training and retraining aspect surely deserves the attention of a minister of finance anxious to deal with the deficit and a minister of employment and immigration anxious to somehow equip and motivate Canadians. For example, the professionals who now support the irreplaceable services across this country of the YMCA were in their youth in large part initially trained by the same voluntary agency.
What I am asking the government to do in support of the very positive and manageable motion brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton South, is to consider the charitable tax credit before us as an employment creation tool in terms of its present strategy. Here is a sector which has enormous potential to employ those target groups about whose current unemployment we are all so concerned. At the same time as these people find gainful employment, they will be filling the gap left behind by the government's withdrawal and threatened cutback of many of the social services which can no longer be financially supported. I encourage the government, and I invite the parliamentary secretary in any response that he may make, to reflect upon the changes of the last two years since this bill was introduced. I urge him to rethink the relationship between the Canadian taxpayer and his society, between the old-style big government social spending schemes and the proven record of our voluntary sector. I urge the government to set free through the early acceptance of this mechanism the nation's voluntary and charitable agencies in

July 30, 1982
Charitable Donations
order that in a time of deep national crisis, the morale, sense of purpose and sense of belonging which is unique to those three million Canadian volunteers may be fully employed from the Atlantic to the Pacific in this land.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief. I want to talk about some of the implications for the tax system in this proposal. My colleague from Shef-ford, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Lapierre), has some comments to make about the give-and-take idea and the proposals of the national voluntary organizations. Therefore, I will be quick.
First, this is a worthy idea to study. It is certainly deserving of our continued support to see if it will indeed fly as a good idea. We have to make a balance between the needs of a voluntary society and the need to avoid dependence on the tax system. 1 think the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) will agree with that.
I would like to suggest some of the complexities in this whole area that he has not raised. These are quite apart from the matters of voluntary activity or the question of merits of the individual groups which would benefit from an expanded tax credit.
Last November during the tax changes introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), a debate arose about the use of the tax system to create incentives similar to this one. Should we use deductions in the tax system to create incentives or should we use the tax system simply to finance government? That is a very important point.
When the minister introduced his changes last November, he did two things. He removed some of the prior incentives in the tax system. He also reduced the marginal tax rate. He returned the savings to the taxpayer. In many cases those were very substantial savings.
When we develop tax incentives, as we found both last November and in our experiences following last November, we also develop an encouragement for people to use those incentives for purposes beyond which they were originally debated and designed. We create incentives for all kinds of activities in one area at the exclusion of other areas. We develop a very complicated set of encouragements in the tax system to channel money to avoid taxes, to shelter money from taxes rather than to simply encourage the worthwile behaviour, in this case the voluntary activity.
Some of the changes introduced last November affected business activity or personal activity. They were all considered by various taxpayers to be worthy deductions. In each case there were people ready to defend those deductions. However, the fundamental point is that those deductions had created incentives for taxpayers to shelter income from the tax man. Sometimes those shelters were not the ones that had originally been designed or intended.
The government has asked people to remember some very simple principles about tax incentives. Tax incentives are tax expenditures. Take as an example ten people living on a desert island. If in this heavenly example it costs $100 to operate the desert island, each of those ten people would pay $10 toward
the operation of that island. If one person came along with a desired goal and talked the others into giving him an exemption, then everyone else would have to pick up that person's share of the burden. Where everyone had previously been paying $10 each, they would now have to pay $11 and change to operate the island. If we add a few zeroes to my example the point is the same for the finances of the Government of Canada. If we start to give people more and more exemptions from their tax, then the rest of the country has to pick up the slack. In many cases people are able to take advantage of shelters in a way the rest of us would not approve of; they are able to find a channel into a tax shelter that the rest of us would not accept, yet we are paying for that extra burden.
It is not enough to say that we should give exemptions because these are worthy volunteer organizations. We have to come back to a more basic point and ask whether it is possible for taxpayers to use these exemptions in a way that genuine volunteers would not accept or whether it is better to avoid the problem altogether and put out the money in the form of a grant, instead of using the tax system which looks so easy but in fact is practical and easy for a lot of people, not just for the intended beneficiary.
Perhaps it would be better to give a grant the way we do under the New Horizons program, where a group of people put their minds to a project and design something that fits our goals and then gets a grant for it. We could then justify to our friends across the way and to the general public that expenditure of their money. We could say that one group came within the acceptable limits, that another group was subject to audit and that yet another group did not misspend the money. We could give that kind of assurance to Canadian taxpayers.
It is easy to say that tax incentives should be used and that volunteer groups should get some recognition from the government. I think I would agree generally with hon. members on that, but I question the method of using tax incentives.
In the desert island example, if ten people pay $100 and suddenly there are just nine people who have to find the $100, then they have to pay $11 instead of $10 and we have to justify to the nine why the tenth should be exempt. We have to make sure that we do not set up a special route where people can slip money in and hide it from the tax man.
I started out by saying that there are really two questions to answer, Mr. Speaker: how do we encourage voluntarism and how do we avoid dependence on the tax system. I hope the hon. member for Waterloo will turn his mind to the question of tax incentive versus grants. I think that question has to be answered. It is a pretty fundamental issue of public accountability, and taxpayers can go down our list of expenditures and see what we have put their money into. Hon. members, like the hon. member for Waterloo, can ask about the wisdom of each expenditure. He could not do that if we had tax incentives buried in the tax system, but he could do so with a grant
July 30, 1982

system. I wonder if the grant system is not better because of that openness.
There are some other limits to the suggestion which I think the hon. member has not discussed with us, and I hope he will give us better answers than he has so far.
In 1979, $500 million was forgone in tax revenues under the $100 standard deduction or, alternatively, under the receipted reductions. That is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker. It is a very respectable amount of support for voluntarism across the country. According to my information it represents about $ 1 in every $3 that Canadian people give to charitable organizations. If we start with these facts we realize the enormous support the government is giving as an incentive toward charitable donations. If we were to follow the scheme proposed in the motion, we would spend another $500 million annually, according to the information I was given. That $500 million would be offset, to a degree, by the kinds of considerations that the hon. member has recommended. I think we have to address ourselves to that during the period of financial restraint.
If we follow the tax incentive idea rather than a system of grants, we should also look at the problem of tax deductions or tax credits. It seems to me that a tax deduction tends to assist higher income people while a tax credit will encourage both lower and higher income people to make a contribution. It may be more equitable and more of an encouragement.
We also have to look at how we handle the medical aspects of the current flat $100 medical and charitable deduction. If we just made that a $100 medical deduction it could cost us up to $250 million annually. I do not know if we want to encourage that during a time of restraint.
Those are specific concerns that the Department of Finance has about the proposal, Mr. Speaker. We do not offer them to be a wet blanket or to ruin the proposal, but they have not been answered. There is still the problem of using a grant or tax incentive and how either is to be paid for.
I think the hon. member, who keeps thinking about these issues and presenting new ideas in a positive and inventive fashion, should be congratulated. I hope he will give us some answers to these technical questions.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by strongly endorsing the proposition that Canada needs a national policy on voluntarism. Part of that consideration should be a review of the income tax provisions relating to contributions to charities and volunteer organizations in Canada. I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) who brought this resolution before us for debate. It deals specifically with the income tax provision that is now in force and recommends what so many volunteer organizations have endorsed as a new provision known as the give-and-take provision.
I want to deal specifically with the proposition outlined in the motion presented by the hon. member for Edmonton South and discussed by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). First of all I should like to deal with the current provision and indicate how unfair it has become.
I am sure that hon. members are aware that the Income Tax Act provides a tax benefit in relation to charitable donations.
Charitable Donations
Approximately 88 per cent of Canadian taxpayers took advantage of that $100 deduction for charitable donations and medical expenses, whether or not they contributed any of it to charity, according to the last statistics available to me. This fact has become known over the years. It has been the subject of research and scientific inquiry, and we know that in fact 88 per cent of taxpayers who claim the $100 deduction do not donate that money or any substantial part of it to volunteer organizations. Statistics indicate that only about 20 per cent of those dollars are donated.
So we have established the fact that this deduction is not working to the benefit of voluntary organizations and charities in Canada. In addition, we have had this figure of $100 in force for almost two decades. We know, with the inflation rate we have experienced, that a proper amount by today's standards would be probably in excess of $500. So when members of the government party stand in this House and say this is a worthwhile proposition they are being less than candid because they know the deduction is not being used to benefit charities; secondly, the amount permitted is tremendously out of line given the inflation we have experienced over the last number of years. The government has to come to grips with this problem because what is at stake is the tremendous effort made by voluntary organizations across Canada, and I want to deal very briefly with that in the time remaining to me.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that my information comes from the Committee of National Voluntary Organizations which represents approximately 130 voluntary organizations across Canada. That committee pointed out in a report to a special committee of the PC Party on the budget and the economy that the total number of Canadians to participate in voluntary work approached three million, and that is a very substantial number. That group contributed approximately 373 million working hours, the equivalent of 218,000 person-years of voluntary labour. That represents $3.5 billion in wages forgone.
So when we talk about the volunteer movement in Canada, we are talking about a very substantial economic force and one to which the government ought to give full credit. It would give that credit, Mr. Speaker, by supporting the volunteer movement and recognizing the difficulties present in legislation and by moving to make those changes in the manner proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton South, and endorsed by organizations such as the Canadian Council on Social Development and the committee of National Voluntary Organizations.
Let me deal very briefly, Mr. Speaker, with the give-and-take proposals which were endorsed in a 1977 report by the Canadian Council on Social Development entitled "Toward a National Policy on Voluntarism". First of all, the whole purpose of the give-and-take proposition is that we remove the $100 deduction and replace it with a tax credit whereby a

July 30, 1982
Charitable Donations
contributor will receive 50 cents for every dollar contributed, up to a limit of probably 20 per cent of his taxable income. Of course, if the contributor wants to take advantage of the existing provision to contribute 20 per cent of his net income to charity, he can do that but it would only apply to persons with incomes in excess of $50,000. We know that most Canadians do not have an income in that range, so what we have to do is to get ordinary Canadians contributing to these organizations. We are not going to do that with the current provision because in fact it is regressive, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and his officials know it. Not only does it not encourage contributions, it in fact discourages contributions.
We know from the debate so far, Mr. Speaker, that there are probably 50,000 volunteer organizations and charities registered under the Income Tax Act. As I said, they represent millions of Canadians. But here we are as the legislators for all Canadians actively discouraging contributions to these organizations. That is a shame not only on Parliament but particularly on the government.
I want to take the opportunity to place on the record the remarks of the chairman of the Committee of National Voluntary Organizations who pointed out the political difficulty these organizations face because they are non-partisan in nature and they suffer as a result. Their point is not always brought forward, which is simply a request for fair treatment and the development of a national policy on voluntarism to correct this unfair treatment. We have heard in the debate so far references to restraint and the need to curb government spending, but the fact of the matter is the contribution made by these organizations is a very positive one and it must be encouraged in a period of restraint. I am thinking particularly of organizations like post-secondary schools, universities and hospitals across Canada which will be faced with cutbacks in government funding. Universities, for example, receive almost 85 per cent of their funding from governments, and the other 15 per cent has to come from student fees and the private sector. We all know that students cannot afford substantial increases, in fact any increases, in tuition fees. Where will the
additional funds come from? They have to come from individuals willing to support universities in this time of need. That applies not only to universities but to hospitals and a number of other institutions which receive their funding from government and are now facing cutbacks. So when we talk about voluntary organizations, we are not only talking about organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion, 500,000 strong, which has contributed so much to volunteer services, or the voluntary firemen; we are now talking about institutions like universities and hospitals.
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary wants to make a contribution, but my experience has been that I never received any benefit from the Liberal Party in this House in the matter of speaking in debate, and I think the previous speaker on that side overshot his time. So I will tell the parliamentary secretary something about the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan) and voluntarism in this country. I have here a picture of the Secretary of State, and you know what he is doing? He is presenting a cheque for $7,800 to the Nova Scotia Volunteer Week Committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Do you know what that $7,800 was used for? I have the return right here in my hand; it was used to pay a $3,600 salary to the wife of the deputy clerk of the Privy Council. That is how they use charity funds. Take that message back to the Secretary of State. Take that message of how he abuses the charity and voluntary organizations in Canada, and come back some other time to the House of Commons to explain your stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday, August 2, at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, August 2, 1982