1982-11-30

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   COMMUNICATIONS LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE FEES CHARGED TO RESIDENTS OF TOTTENHAM, ONT.

['No.']
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the residents of the Village of Tottenham, in my riding, are being charged long-distance telephone rates for calls to the Toronto area, despite the fact their distance from the nearest switching centre is only a few miles. In light of the fact that the present long-distance charges constitute an undue financial burden to the residents, who place well over 50 per cent of their calls to the Toronto region, and because Bell Canada has waived its rules in other areas of the Province, in similar circumstances, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Communications instruct Bell Canada to provide extended area coverage to the residents of Tottenham.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in view of the precarious state of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this House instruct the Government to release the shipbuilding policy review it has kept under wraps for the past two years, despite the urgent need for increased protection and support for Canadian shipbuilders.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Inasmuch as many elderly native persons in Canada's North do not receive Old Age Pension benefits as most do not have birth records, speak very little English or French, or even know that this benefit may be available to them and, as a result, must rely on family members and friends to survive, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the House calls on the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take immediate steps to correct this deplorable state of affairs by informing native persons living in isolated communities that they may be entitled to an old age benefit and of the procedure to be followed to apply for such benefit.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, many enterprises in Canada are suffering loss and, as a consequence, cannot take advantage of tax credit programs and tax allowances as their activities are not profitable. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the House instruct the Government to follow the advice of the Economic Council of Canada and introduce legislation to provide that shareholders of a corporation that registers losses for which tax credits cannot be obtained immediately be allowed to deduct from their personal taxable income an amount paid by them in a subscription for new shares to cover this deficit.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

November 30, 1982
21110_______________________________


S O. 43 RAILWAYS CANOLA FREIGHT RATE INCREASES
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, whereas the CPR and CNR have announced freight rate increases of over 40 per cent for canola products, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the Minister of Transport immediately take the appropriate steps to limit the rate increases to 6 per cent as per the six and five program.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, last year the travelling expenses of Cabinet Ministers and their Parliamentary Secretaries in the Liberal Caucus soared 70 per cent to almost $2 million, while they lectured other Canadians on the need for restraint. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That those big spenders meet after Question Period today to prepare a statement for the House tomorrow, justifying how they can now slash Old Age Pensions and Family Allowances in the name of fiscal responsibility, after they themselves have made a complete and utter mockery of that very principle.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in a callous disregard for the well-being of thousands of Canadian men and women who have been unemployed for a year or more and will be unable to obtain unemployment insurance benefits, refused to extend the benefits program for such people, saying that they should be forced to go on welfare. This is a policy that this Party categorically rejects. In view of this, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That the Minister of Finance reconsider this decision and announce that the Government will extend unemployment insurance benefits by a further 26 weeks.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


UNITED STATES HEARINGS ON IMPORTED CANADIAN LUMBER
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, and trust that all Members of the House will see fit to support this motion. Recognizing that Canadian lumber shipments to the United States last year amounted to $1.8 billion, recognizing that the forest industry is a critical component of the Canadian economy, and recognizing that the United States is presently considering the imposition of a countervailing duty on imported Canadian lumber products, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Canadian Government demonstrate its concern by having Canadian officials at the hearings presently taking place rather than an embassy staff person and, in addition, by encouraging provincial Governments, expeciaily British Columbia, to do the same.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the British Columbia provincial Government has proposed the construction of a federal/provincial maximum security prison for women in North Burnaby and that this decision was made without any consultation whatsoever with the residents of the community, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House call upon the Solicitor General to refuse to co-operate in the construction of any federal/provincial maximum security prison for women in North Burnaby pending the outcome of such consultations and only in the event that the citizens of Burnaby agree to such construction.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 30, 1982


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian Transport Commission has continued to make decisions on rail line abandonments, even if it does not have any idea of how much income the railways will receive from the movement of grain. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That, since the Minister of Transport lacks the insight or courage to do so, this House instruct the Canadian Transport Commission to stop having rail line abandonment hearings.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very urgent matter, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Inasmuch as children are Canada's greatest resource, and present family allowance cheques do not pay even enough for the price of a pair of jeans, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the Liberal Government stop eroding family allowances by six and five cutbacks, allowances which are the right of all Canadian children, and that it concentrate instead on reforming the tax system to pay for essentia! social security programs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) today tabled a letter written by his predecessor explaining the reasons why they did not proceed with the prosecution of anybody with respect to conclusions arrived at by the McDonald Commission, and in light of this precedent by the Minister of Justice, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
Oral Questions
That this House direct the Minister of Justice to table the legal opinion as to why the officials in Canada, in the Solicitor General's Department in particular, did not proceed with the prosecution of the alleged spy, Hugh Hambleton.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that fluorescent lighting has now been linked to cancer in both working men and women, and that the Department of Public Works has refused to instal incandescent lighting in some Members' offices in the Parliament Buildings, while the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has had the Department of National Health and Welfare pay to have alternate lighting installed in her office, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That all Members who wish to have alternate lighting installed in their offices have it paid for by the House of Commons.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday we learned in a British courtroom, not a Canadian one, that Hugh Hambleton, who is charged with offences under the U.K. Official Secrets Act, was a Soviet spy for more than 30 years in constant touch with Soviet agents, that he had had dinner in a Moscow apartment with the head of the KGB, and that he was found with the most sophisticated Soviet-built espionage equipment in November, 1979.


Mr. Nielsen:: In Montreal.


Chris Speyer: This morning in that same courtroom we learned that he had not only turned over to the Soviets thousands of NATO documents but that he turned over 80 of the most top secret documents classified as "Cosmic", to the

November 30, 1982
Ora! Questions
Soviets. In light of the fact that there are thousands of Canadian troops stationed in Germany, has Canada gone out of the business of prosecuting spies?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, that is a rhetorical question. Of course, in a proper case where the evidence was there, where the Official Secrets Act would be effective in obtaining a prosecution, there would be a prosecution brought. I would remind my hon. friend that the evidence to which he is referring has been led by the prosecution. There is a case under way now. One assumes that the defence will want to put in evidence as well. I would urge all Hon. Members not to make statements in the House or to characterize evidence in a way which could, if communicated to Great Britain, jeopardize a fair trial. There will be time for discussing matters like this after decisions have been reached by courts in Great Britain.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, this is the Government that will prosecute the Toronto Sun and Peter Worthington, but will not prosecute a true spy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, on May 23, 1980, in this House, in answer to a question directed by the late Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville, the Solicitor General said:
-there is a question as to whether any official secrets at all were obtained to be given to foreign governments. Second, there is a question of whether any of the information that was given, secret or not, was damaging to our country.
That was May, 1980. In light of the statements made by the Attorney General of Great Britain this morning that 80 of the most secret documents which NATO had, were conveyed to the Soviet Union-


Erik Nielsen: From Canada.


Chris Speyer: -was the Solicitor General ignorant of those facts when he gave that answer on May 23, or was he just not telling the truth?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am not going to confirm any facts in the matter for now, but I can tell the Hon. Member that I was fully informed about the basis on which the decision was reached by the officials in the Department of Justice and by the law officers of the Crown. As I indicated before, there will be a time when I will be prepared to be more forthcoming about the evidence which we had and the way in which the decision was made, but I urge my hon. friend not to press me to do that now.


STATEMENT MADE BY RCMP OFFICER
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, yesterday in answer to questions that I posed, the Solicitor General said that there was the highest degree of co-operation between the
British authorities and those of our Security Service. I would ask the Solicitor General to confirm reports that appeared for the first time, to my knowledge, in July, 1982, that a Frank Pratt of the Special Services of the RCMP told Mr. Hamble-ton not to go to London or he might be in for "a hostile reception". Is that accurate or is it not?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, it is true that the Security Service had a continuing contact and exchange of information with Mr. Hambleton from the time that the decision was made that there should be no prosecution, and that he was told that if he did go to Great Britain he could meet a hostile reception. But Mr. Hambleton was determined to go, and decided on his own that he would.


EXPLANATION SOUGHT FOR GOVERNMENT DECISION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Government of the late Mr. Pearson decided that it had sufficient prima facie evidence to strike the Spencer inquiry to look into the activities of a postal employee. The Government also thought it had sufficient prima facie evidence under this Prime Minister to prosecute one Peter Treu. Can the Solicitor General explain to the House why in this case a spy, self-confessed, had been operating for some 30 years, much of that time in Canada, travelling on a Soviet passport, seems to be immune from arrest and prosecution in this country?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, one of the factors is the difficulties with the Official Secrets Act.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's nonsense.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My friend has mentioned two cases. I ask him to look at the opinions expressed by the courts about the Official Secrets Act in both of those cases.
The Department of Justice has revisions of the Official Secrets Act under consideration. They have not been brought forward-or were not brought forward-at the time of the Hambleton decision because the McDonald Commission was sitting. It was anticipated that the McDonald Commission might produce recommendations which ought to be taken account of in any amendment or improvement of the Official Secrets Act. That is one of the reasons.


BACKGROUND TO GOVERNMENT DECISION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, is the Government conducting any inquiry into the circumstances of this case in order to determine why Hambleton was able to function for as long as he did in this country, and is the Government looking particularly at the Gouzenko files to see whether or not this man was identified at that time? Did the Government receive any information from any other security service, particularly the CIA, identifying Hambleton and, if so, when?
November 30, 1982

I would also like to know when the opinion was given by the Department of Justice that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, because that is what I take the Solicitor General to mean, not insufficient evidence to support a prosecution, a prima facie case against Hambleton?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the decision was made during the month of January, 1980. The Hon. Member asks if we know a great deal about Hambleton's activities in the country. We do know a great deal about his activities.
As I indicated yesterday outside the House, we learned a great deal more about his activities after the Security Service informed him of the decision reached by the Department of Justice about prosecution. That information was communicated not only to the British but to other friendly intelligence services, one of whom took advantage of the opportunity to come to Canada and interrogate Hambleton further.
Indeed, the Security Service has produced information about Hambleton, has communicated it to the British, and in fact a member of the Security Service is in Great Britain, ready to provide assistance to the prosecution that is under way now.


NATURE OF DECISION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 have one brief supplementary question, if the Minister of Justice will allow me to interrupt his discussion with the Solicitor General for a moment. When the Solicitor General says that a decision was made in January, 1980, was that in the form of an opinion from an official in the Department of Justice to the officials of his Department, was it in the form of a recommendation, or was it an outright decision by the Government at that time?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The event in January, 1980, was a meeting between officials of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, the Security Service, and the Department of Justice.


Erik Nielsen: Officials?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Officials.


QUERY RESPECTING PROFESSOR'S ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister on the same subject. As he knows, Mr. Hambleton is being charged in Great Britain for activities that he undertook in part before 1961, and in part for activities that went on from 1961 to at least 1979. We know that he left NATO's employment in 1961.
Since the RCMP discovered all kinds of interesting spy equipment in his possession since then, what precise kind of activities was Mr. Hambleton involved in after 1961 while he was here in Canada? What information does the Government know was being passed on to the Soviet Union in that period?
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have information on that subject but I would prefer to discuss that information after the trial is concluded. The Hon. Member is asking for the evidence that will be adduced or might be adduced in the case. I think it should come out in the case.


EVENTS BETWEEN 1979 AND 1982
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will try another tack which has everything to do with the Government's decision either to prosecute or not, and something to do with the efficacy of the RCMP. We know that the spy equipment, which was clearly identified as being Soviet made, was found in his quarters. We know that he was a self-confessed KGB agent for 30 years. We knew that a couple of years ago. The Minister said at the time that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, but he said in the House yesterday that, by the time more evidence was acquired after 1979, Hambleton had left the country. I would ask the Minister what happened in the three-year interim. What was discovered between 1979 and the time that he left that was not discovered before? Why was effective action not taken earlier?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, there is an answer to that question but, again, I would prefer to give that answer after the trial in Great Britain has been disposed of.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL REASSURANCE ON CANADIAN SECRET INFORMATION
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask another question, Madam Speaker, and I hope the Minister will be a little more forthcoming in his answer to this one. He did not say in 1980, when questions were raised in the House, that there were no official secrets obtained by Hambleton, nor did he deny that such official secrets were passed on to the Soviet Union. Today will the Minister, in the House of Commons, at least reassure Canadians by saying that the Government does not believe that any official secrets were obtained in Canada, and does not believe that they were passed on to the Soviet Union? Will he at least reassure us of this?


Miss MacDonald:: He cannot.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, that is another question that I cannot answer today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REASONS FOR RCMP ACTIONS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Solicitor General, who will understand, as one of the law officers of the Crown, that the

November 30, 1982
Oral Questions
sub judice rule does not apply to proceedings in the United Kingdom, or in Russia, or in the United States, or in any other country.
Why did the RCMP try to prevent Mr. Hambleton from going to the United Kingdom when they had all this information about him? What were the reasons the RCMP interceded and told him not to go or he would get a rough time in the U.K.?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, a basis of co-operation was established between Mr. Hambleton and the Security Service after Hambleton was informed by the Security Service that the Department of Justice had advised against prosecution. That co-operation resulted in a considerable additional amount of information being given by Hambleton which would probably not have been given if the relationship had been a hostile one.


An Hon. Member:: Given to whom?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Security Service considered that, in view of that relationship, it woulld be appropriate for them, knowing that he was determined to go in any event, to warn him that he might encounter a hostile reception. Therefore I think that the Security Service behaved entirely properly in the matter but, at the same time, the Security Service co-operated fully with British authorities and, I would insist, during their surveillance of him in Canada, were acting very much to assure effective national security in Canada.


ADVICE GIVEN BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice, whose officials gave the legal opinion with respect to the failure to prosecute Mr. Hambleton in Canada. I want to inform the Minister that our Official Secrets Act, which has been under such criticism by his colleague, the Solicitor General, is far broader than that of the United Kingdom and allows for prosecutions "for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State", with respect to any foreign power, and that of the United Kingdom relates to an enemy of the United Kingdom. I would like to know what was the basis of advice given to the Solicitor General's Department and the police not to prosecute Mr. Hambleton.
Will the Minister of Justice, in the precedent that he set this morning in releasing his predecessor's letter with respect to the failure to prosecute people as a result of the McDonald Commission, table in this House a full explanation and written opinion as to why the prosecution did not take place?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, various comments which have already been made from the Opposition side indicate an awareness that the law has not been interpreted in the same way in Canada as it has been in B itain. The British
Government has been very successful with prosecutions under its Official Secrets Act.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, they would at least try!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The law involved in the two cases is different. Obviously, the facts that are involved in the two cases are different and, in light of the fact that this case is sub judice in the courts of-


Some Hon. Members:: It is not here.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Hon. Members opposite say that it is not here, Madam Speaker. It is not, technically speaking, here, but this is a country with which we have the friendliest relations, it is a country with which news is freely transmitted back and forth, and I suggest that hon. gentlemen can restrain their curiosity, to enable a fair trial to take place in the United Kingdom.


Erik Nielsen: Curiosity? It is absolute astonishment!


ALLEGED SOVIET OFFER OF ELECTION FINANCING
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question with respect to this matter. Has the Canadian Government requested any explanations from the Soviet Government concerning the alleged offer of Mr. Andropov to finance the election of an alleged spy to this House of Commons, given the fact that that allegation is contained in a statement-and assuming that it was a voluntary statement-given the accused in London? Has there been any explanation for this, and has there been any investigation conducted with the Soviet Government about this allegation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I had no knowledge of this allegation. Therefore I do not know if an explanation has been requested. I will inquire.


POSSIBILITY OF ELECTION CONTRIBUTIONS
Walter David Baker: Now that the matter has been raised in the House and the Prime Minister has knowledge of it and will make the usual inquiries, does the Government have any evidence of any contributions made by the Soviet Government to the election campaign of any Member of the House of Commons in the last decade? This is an isolated case, apparently, the only case that we know of that has come to the surface. Are there any other cases where the Soviet Government has attempted to intervene, and would the Prime Minister extend his inquiry to that?


Erik Nielsen: Fred Rose, probably.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the allegation having been made or sustained, but I will make inquiries.
November 30, 1982


PROVISIONS OF OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General will remember that the very earliest opinion emanating from the Department of Justice about the Hugh Hambleton matter was the preposterous proposition that, because Canada's national interest was not in any way abrogated by this man, even though he clearly admitted giving away secrets of both NATO and the United States to the Soviet Bloc, this did not infringe upon Canada's Official Secrets Act. 1 now ask the Solicitor General, in the two and one half years that he has had that office, has he done anything to attempt to rectify this alleged gap in the Official Secrets Act.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As far as
giving away secrets are concerned, or the expression in an earlier question about being a "self-confessed spy", it is true that Mr. Hambleton did indicate publicly that he had been giving information to the Soviet Union, but he indicated that it was open source information, and that is normal. That has happened in other cases.


Erik Nielsen: Like the Spencer case.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is not something that the Government would want to encourage, but if open source information is given, as Hambleton claims he was doing, that would not have brought him under the Official Secrets Act, from the definition of what a secret is.


Erik Nielsen: Exactly the same as the Spencer investigation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As far as the security of Canada is concerned in the Official Secrets Act, that is a matter that the Department of Justice is dealing with in considering revisions to the Official Secrets Act, based on the cases that have been fought and lost in Canada before, and based also on the recommendations of the McDonald Commission.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE ARRANGEMENT WITH ACCUSED
Allan Frederick Lawrence: If the
Solicitor General will review his files, of course he will find that there is not only evidence in Canada but there is evidence emanating from an American source as well as to the alleged traitorous activities of this man.
Obviously some deal was struck by the Security Service with this man. Some commitment was given by the Canadian law enforcement agencies to this man in order to extract more information from him, so the British could proceed. Would the Solicitor General mind telling us now what that commitment was?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I can
assure the House that there was no deal but what did happen, as I indicated, was that the individual was informed that the Department of Justice had formed the conclusion that no
Oral Questions
prosecution could be founded against him. He was told about the state of mind of the Government in relation to a prosecution.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On that basis a relationship of confidence was established, for which there were no other considerations.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, Canadians of all levels of income, but especially lower and middle income Canadians, are experiencing difficulty as they find their costs increasing very quickly. My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. While he requires most lower and middle income Canadians to restrict their increases to 6 per cent and urges all Canadians to follow suit, it is interesting to note in his own Department he has allowed increases of 16 per cent, and in the budget of his Minister of State for Economic Development he has allowed an increase of 150 per cent this year.
Would the Minister explain why he expects lower and middle income Canadians to restrict their increases to 6 per cent while he is prepared to accept a 16 per cent and a 150 per cent increase, for the Department of Finance and the Department of Economic Development, respectively?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I want to point out quite clearly and categorically to the Hon. Member that no official in the Department of Finance has got more than a 6 per cent increase for next year and 5 per cent the year after, according to the law passed by this Parliament. That applies to all public servants and all Crown corporations that are subject to the rules. There has been no increase in favour of any official in excess of what has been the criterion adopted by this Parliament, and that has been supported very widely across the country. My hon. friend is not comparing apples with apples. I would like to add that there have been reorganizations and reassignments inside the Department. I have also requested that there be an increase in the number of people in the Corporate Financing Branch and also in the Economic Analysis Branch. I have appeared before the Parliamentary Committee to provide all of the information in this regard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, as the minister of hypocrisy, that is the kind of statement one would expect. While the rates have been restricted to 6 per cent for various agencies, the budgets for the Minister of Finance and for the Minister responsible for economic development obviously have not been restricted to 6 per cent; quite the contrary.

November 30, 1982
Oral Questions BANK OF CANADA


CHANGE IN MONETARY POLICY COURSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: My next question is for the Governor of the Bank of Canada but, unfortunately, he is not here, so I will have to direct it to the Minister of Finance. It would appear that Governor Bouey has changed his course and has now abandoned M1 as a serious aspect of his monetary policy. He has now admitted that he is going to tie interest rates in Canada, in order to regulate Canadian exchange rates with American currency.
Will the Minister please explain, when the American deficit is expected to be nearly $200 billion, which will obviously drive up American interest rates, why he is agreeing to tie Canadian fiscal policy more closely with that of the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 would urge the Hon. Member to resort to a little more intellectual honesty in his analysis of the situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the second part of his question is concerned, I will be very pleased to send him a copy of Governor Bouey's speech of yesterday. It is all spelled out there. I hope when he reads it he will come to the right conclusion.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. May I ask him whether or not the RCMP Security Service recommended that the Government proceed under the official Secrets Act to prosecute Mr. Hambleton?


Erik Nielsen: Yes or no.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, it is not the responsibility of the Security Service to recommend prosecutions. That is the responsibility of the Attorney General's officials.


Erik Nielsen: Did they or did they not?


POSITION TAKEN BY RCMP
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General if he is asking this House to believe that that force which prosecuted Mr. Treu, Mr. Worthington, and even attempted to prosecute Tom Cossitt, sat back silently and acquiesced in another country prosecuting an alleged Canadian spy and never objected for one minute to the lack of prosecution in this country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have no doubt that many members of the Security Service, many Members of this House, and many members of the RCMP, regret the limitations in the present Official Secrets Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I know that was a factor that was much in their consideration.


Erik Nielsen: That is for a judge to decide, not the Government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Beyond that, it would be speculation for me to try to guess what particular members of the Security Service might have thought.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: But you have not done anything about it.


LOCATION OF SOVIET INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. The problem with the Official Secrets Act is that it is too broad, not too narrow. I want to ask if any of the Soviet handlers of Mr. Hambleton are still in the country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 remind Hon. Members that Canada has perhaps the most active policy of declaring Soviet diplomats to be persona non grata and that recently, during the period when the Members opposite were in office, a considerable number who had been cases in the works within the Security Service were persona non grata. I cannot and will not answer specifically in the House whether any of the individuals who dealt with Hambleton are still present in Canada, but I think I have said enough to show that there is an effective surveillance on members of the KGB who are here in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, since there is a long and honourable tradition in countries with a parliamentary government of high officials and Ministers resigning over security matters, and I bring to the attention of the House and the Minister the case of former Chancellor of West Germany, Willy Brandt, who resigned from that country's highest office because of a security problem, has anyone opposite even remotely considered that course of action in this matter?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member what particular defect, or error he considers has been made by the present Solicitor General in relation to those matters.
November 30, 1982


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who has already referred to Governor Bouey's statement in Toronto yesterday, when he indicated that the Government's Ml policy is not a useful guide to policy. Will the Minister offer an explanation to the House why we have been asked to follow a policy so slavishly for many months, if not years, which has resulted in unemployment jumping since July, 1980, by over half a million Canadians, with some 20,000 concerns going bankrupt in this country, all in the name of fighting inflation, which has only gone down one-tenth of 1 per cent? That policy is now judged to be wrong. How does he explain it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Governor has explained extensively the reasons why at the present time he is not going to refer to Ml as the proper criterion. Ml is not a policy. It is a criterion to which the bank refers in its conduct of the monetary policy of the country. There have been significant changes in the banking system which have made the definition of Ml quite inadequate in defining what is actually happening in terms of the currency in circulation and demand deposits. In light of this evolution, which is parallel to a similar evolution in the United States where the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that it is abandoning Ml as a criterion, the bank has come to the conclusion that it should develop broader criteria and refer to the general situation in terms of the exchange rate and the inflation rate as a reference.
As I said, this reference to Ml has been in existence since 1975, but the evolution of the last few months has shown that it is not a useful criterion. The policy remains the same. The policy of the bank is to try to encourage a reduction in the rate of inflation. We have met with considerable success in the last few months in that regard. We hope we will continue to meet with success, and reduce inflation in this country, which will lead to a reduction in interest rates, the creation of more investment and more jobs.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Clearly this Government never learns when it is faced with the most brutal evidence that any Government could ever wish for to show that its policies are wreaking havoc rather than solving anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


QUERY RESPECTING NEW MECHANISM
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, will the Minister indicate to the House, if he expects us to accept his prattle, how he can explain Governor Bouey's statement made last February that Ml is particularly useful as a check against cumulative error in monetary policy over the longer
Oral Questions
term? What is the new check that the Governor is going to offer so as to ensure that tens of thousands of more Canadians are not ruthlessly cut down by the monetary policy of the Government?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Governor has indicated that, with the development of new methods in the banking system of overnight investment accounts, personal deposit accounts with both chequing and savings features, et cetera, the calculation of Ml did not represent the actual situation in terms of the money in circulation and the demand deposits. Therefore, in light of these developments which have been paralleled, as I indicated, by similar developments in the United States, the Governor has decided that it would be more appropriate to have broader references than merely M1. I hope this will help us reduce the level of inflation in this country, and create an environment where we will have more investment and more jobs.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Japanese system of having many small groups made up of equal numbers of management and labour working together in plants to improve productivity, quality and design, has proved far more successful than the Canadian system of confrontation between management and labour, will the Government give leadership by taking steps to encourage Canadian industry to adopt the far more successful Japanese method of industrial operation, and in that way make it possible for Canada to become a leader rather than continue to be a follower in today's very competitive world?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, during the past two and one-half years as Trade Minister, I have benefited substantially from the Hon. Member's advice and counsel. Thus, I want to assure him that any suggestions he makes will be considered very seriously by this Government. With respect to the specific representation that he makes, my colleague, the Minister of Labour, and I have been in consultation with labour and management in terms of setting up task forces with the Government to do exactly what the Hon. Member suggests. In fact tomorrow I am meeting with the automobile industry, both labour and management, and hope to be able to announce something with respect to a task force, with the co-operation of the three parties, as he indicated.
21118

November 30, 1982
Oral Questions HEALTH


FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the Minister explain why federal funds for the Planned Parenthood Association of Canada have been slashed by 50 per cent, from $250,000 to $130,000, when we know that over 1,000 teenage girls in Canada become pregnant every week, many of them 13 and 14-year old children having children? The incidence of venereal disease has reached epidemic proportions. In view of this trend, why is the Minister reducing instead of expanding grants for Planned Parenthood for the kinds of programs that will develop responsible sexuality in young people in Canada?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, for one very good reason, namely, that this falls completely within the responsibility of the Provinces. We do not have the power to be in the business of the direct delivery of either social services or health services. Had I received notice of the Hon. Member's question, I could have checked the figures. Although the figures are of some magnitude, we are in a phase-out procedure with the Provinces, at their request, because they want full responsibility in this area. We will continue to help the national association with which we have had discussions for years, in fact prior to my time, with regard to this happening and the fact that it had to happen with the sharing of power.


INCREASE IN TEENAGE PREGNANCIES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am ashamed to hear the Minister speaking this way on behalf of Canadians. Does she not realize that Canada has signed international agreements endorsing access to family planning as a basic human right, and yet we are denying this right to Canadian young people? There are many programs which the Planned Parenthood Association plans on a national level that are of federal responsibility, such as media programs. Why has the Minister ignored reports from her own Department wherein public health nurses from across the country have told her that the number one health problem in Canada is the increase in teenage pregnancies? What does she intend to do to counteract this trend, and let's not say leave it to the Provinces?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite is telling me that I should do away with the Constitution and the existing division of powers. I am very sorry to insist that I cannot do that. There are many Canadians of good faith who wish there were no provincial Ministers of this, that and the other, but this is not our jurisdiction, Madam Speaker. I cannot provide direct services in the field of social services or health. Do not forget that the Provinces receive billions of dollars to do just
that. I think the Hon. Member should put the pressure where it belongs so that the provincial Governments give priority to planned parenthood services. This is a priority.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, if I understood what the Solicitor General said today, he has said so far that he did not have enough evidence with which to charge Mr. Hambleton, that Mr. Hambleton was told that, and as a result Mr. Hambleton co-operated, and that cooperation produced new evidence which is now part of the charge in Great Britain. I ask the Solicitor General, Madam Speaker, what precisely was the commitment to Mr. Hambleton. Was the commitment that no charge would then be laid, or that no charge would ever be laid? If the commitment was not that no charge would ever be laid, why, when the later evidence was available, was he not charged?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, no commitment was made to Hambleton at all. What I indicated, I repeat, is that he was told that the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, had concluded that no charges could be laid against him. On the basis of having been given that information he agreed to co-operate with the Security Service and produced considerable additional information which, as I indicated, was widely shared with friendly intelligence services.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, it at least seems possible that Mr. Hambleton co-operated because he knew he would not be charged.


NATO CONVENTION
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, in addition to the earlier testimony referred to in London today, further testimony indicated that there is a 1949 Convention among NATO countries requiring each country to protect the other's secrets. Was NATO consulted on the decision not to prosecute, and if not-in effect if the Convention was ignored-on whose authority was that decision taken?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My
understanding is that national security information is shared by security services directly and not through NATO.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the proposed Canada Health Act and its implementation. In response to a question from the Hon.
November 30, 1982

Member for Oxford on November 16, the Minister misled the House when she stated:
-negotiations are still going on between Ministers and officials.
In fact, Madam Speaker, negotiations have not been going on. There have been no meetings with provincial Ministers, with the exception of the Minister of Health of British Columbia on September 29, at which time the federal Minister of Health said she was preparing draft legislation for approval by Cabinet. In fact her press secretary, Mr. Dozier, has confirmed that there are no negotiations now. Will the Minister admit that she in fact misled the House and she is now acting on the proposed Canada Health Act in a unilateral way, without provincial co-operation or negotiations?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): The Hon. Member is wrong in his statement, Madam Speaker. I repeat, in case he did not understand what I told his colleague a few weeks ago, we are continuing the work of negotiating with the Provinces. He may not be aware of how these things take place. They are done at times between provincial and federal Ministers in an official meeting; at other times through officials; at other times between Ministers in a bilateral way as well. This is what negotiations are all about, and we are proceeding with them exactly the way I said the other day.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my understanding, from direct contact with provincial Ministers of Health, suggests that in fact negotiations are not proceeding according to the commitment that the federal Minister made last May.


PROVINCIAL RIGHTS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, is the Minister of Health aware that the changes she is proposing in the Canada Health Act will infringe on traditional provincial rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, infringe on individual rights, and will threaten the ability of hospitals and communities to care competently for the increasing health needs of Canadians? Is she aware that, on the basis of the May proposal, the provincial Ministers might take this to the courts and that she indeed might be starting another federal-provincial constitutional war, and if so, what does she intend to do about it?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, if the movie E.T. was not such a friendly one, 1 would ask the member if he was coming from that other planet. What he refers to is extraordinary, really. I think it would help me understand the extraordinary statements of the Member if he could name the provincial Minister he is referring to who told him these things privately, and what is exactly the problem.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON EXPANSION PROGRAMS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who will know that yesterday in his speech the Governor of the Bank of Canada warned against the development of new expansionary economic recovery programs. He will also recall that three weeks ago at the Liberal Convention he promised Canadians that he would be announcing a five-point expansionary economic program. My question is simply this: what is the Government's policy? Are we going to have expansionary economic recovery programs or not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Government's policy can be seen in the statement made by the Minister of Finance when this part of the session began in late October. It was to find $1.1 billion to create jobs, and to do that by reallocating money from other areas.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT TO LIBERAL PARTY CONVENTION
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister may recall that he was not quite so modest three weeks ago when he said:
-we will put in place a national program to rebuild our communities, restore our infrastructure, and renew our industrial strength. Right across Canada in every region, in every city, in every village, there are roads to be built, sewers to be constructed, community projects to be advanced, ports to be deepened, or railway tracks to be laid.
-we will take federal dollars and use them to stimulate spending decisions-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: All right, where is it?


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


An Hon. Member:: You said it better, David.


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, there is no question that I said it better, but as to the substance of the question surely the Prime Minister must square that rhetoric with what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said yesterday, and come clean with the Canadian people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member recognizes, I am indebted to him for having read, much better than I, that section of my speech. The applause from this side was an indication of that.
If the Hon. Member will look at the announcement of the Minister to which I referred, he will find in there several examples of hundreds of millions of dollars being allocated to various projects such as the ones described in my speech, and efforts made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration as well as by the Minister of Finance and other Ministers to involve the Provinces and the private sector in the spending of those moneys in ways which will get the Provinces or the

November 30, 1982
House of Commons
private sector to contribute. There are already several indications from Provinces that they would be willing to involve their own funds in creating jobs in the way indicated by the Minister and myself. That is the way it is done, Madam Speaker.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General who, just a few moments ago, told the House that no agreement or deal was made between Hambleton and the security forces, but rather this gentleman Hambleton had been presented with an opinion of the Attorney General's Department which indicated no prosecution would be made, after which he then released additional information.
I ask the Solicitor General did the Attorney General's Department then examine the issue of prosecution, having regard to the additional information made available to it, and did that Department then determine no prosecution should be launched?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, at the point after the decision was made about which the Hon. Member asks, there was a focus of attention in the Departments of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General on improvements to the Official Secrets Act, so that it would be a more effective instrument in the protection of national security. This is not to say there would not be a prosecution ever under this Statute, but as McDonald recognized and many other observers recognized, that Act is due for a major overhaul.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General has specifically avoided answering the question I posed to him. He told us that with some information the Attorney General concluded, through his office, that no prosecution should be levelled against Hambleton. He then told us that Hambleton released additional information. 1 asked him whether, on the basis of that additional information, the Attorney General was still of the view that a prosecution should not be levelled against Hambleton. He has not specifically answered that question and I think that throws light on the entire process. To suggest that the issue was then whether the Official Secrets Act should be amended and not whether this man should be prosecuted, must throw light on the way the Government rewards mass murderers and traitors.
I want to ask the Minister if the rule to be applied is that all these people have to do is to keep back some information that
later can be handed over to the Security Service, so that they will be treated leniently by the Government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think that is a ridiculous question. In fact the Security Service did not return to the Department of Justice with its additional information, to seek a further ruling. It gathered that information and communicated it to other intelligence services. It was anticipated that other ways would be found to counter the activities of Hambleton, which indeed were effectively countered from the moment it was realized he was engaged in giving information to the Soviet Union.


FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION OF HON. STANLEY KNOWLES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, 40 years ago today, on November 30, 1942, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was elected to this House of Commons. I understand that the Hon. Member is being honoured in Winnipeg today. I think it should be noted in Hansard that this is a rather important anniversary.
1 note that in a book entitled "Stanley Knowles, The Man From Winnipeg North Centre" by Susan Trofimenkoff, he is quoted as saying, when first elected, that it felt "pretty good". I think we should express on behalf of the House that many backbenchers as well as other Members feel "pretty good" that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre has been a Member of this House of Commons for 40 years, as of today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Apart from the fact that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been in the House for a long time, I think we would all want to recognize that his contribution has been tremendous.
I would remind the Hon. Member, however, that he is not allowed to make commercials!


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order-I do not remember whether it was a question of privilege-I would like to say that I appreciated the absence of my official critic today. However, I know he is in his riding, celebrating his forty years in politics, and we on this side of the House wish to join his party in offering him our warmest congratulations.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have another point of order, but I would also like to emphasize the exceptional career of the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and offer him my very best wishes on this occasion.
November 30, 1982


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 just want to draw the attention of my colleagues to the business of the House. Today, as agreed, we shall consider Bill C-131, and even if the bill does not pass second reading by the end of the day, and that would be unfortunate, since I hope we will finish second reading today, but if we do not, the agenda for tomorrow will be Bill C-132. In other words, whatever the result of the debate today, tomorrow we shall be considering Bill C-132, which deals with family allowances.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the distinguished chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Reports of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS-PRESENTATION OF FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Committee's Fourth Report, and with the consent of the House, I intend to move its adoption later today.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
*
* *


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, Peterborough has often been referred to as the test centre for corporations and Governments for products and programs. It gives me great pleasure today to present a petition to the House of Commons signed by 3,400 petitioners in the federal riding of Peterborough.
The petition of the undersigned residents of the federal riding of Peterborough now avail themselves of their ancient
Order Paper Questions
and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that this Hon. House will provide a remedy.
The 3,400 signatories hereto affixed to this petition, to be turned over to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), state as follows:
We support the goal of general disarmament and mandate our Government to negotiate and implement, with other Governments, the balanced steps that would lead to the earliest possible achievement of this goal as in duty bound-
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present this petition.
* *
*
[ Translation]


Marcel-Claude Roy: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), that the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its consent?


Erik Nielsen: We agree, Madam Speaker, on the understanding that all the Committee is requesting is an extension of time within which to present the final report to one week. We agree to concur without debate.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the Hon. Member asked. We agree.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,246 and 4,495.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Does the Department of Agriculture have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department

November 30, 1982
Order Paper Questions
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?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes. There is a departmental Code of Conduct called the "Conflict of Interest Guidelines". This document is applicable only to Agriculture Canada employees and, as such, it is an interna! document which is not normally of interest to the public. It is, however, available to the public on request. In addition, the departmental discipline policy is contained in its Personnel Manual and is accessible to all employees.
2. Employees were disciplined for breach of the Conflict of Interest Guidelines and pursuant to the principles outlined in the departmental discipline policy. The details are as follows:
(b) (i) $100. (ii) $202.14. (iii) $30.
3.	(a) Seven.
(b)
New Brunswick	5
Newfoundland	12
Nova Scotia	11
Prince Edward Island	1
Ontario	21
Quebec	12
Manitoba	7
Saskatchewan	3
Alberta	4
British Columbia	7
Yukon Territory	2
Northwest Territory	1 86


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
April/77-March/78	Employees Reprimanded 6	Employees Suspended 9	Employees Discharged noneApril/78-March/79	6	8	3April/79-March/80	13	10	noneApril/80-March/81	6	14	noneApril/81-March/82	6	5	3Total	37	46	6
To be consistent with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act we are not providing names.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	What amount did (a) Parks Canada (b) the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (c) the National Capital Commission spend on the ceremony marking the unveiling of a plaque commemorating Sir Edmund Walker Head in Major's Hill Park in Ottawa on September 19, 1982?
2.	(a) How many program booklets were (i) printed (ii) distributed (iii) discarded by Parks Canada or the Board commemorating the plaque unveiling (b) what was the total cost of the (i) design (ii) production (iii) distribution of the booklets?
3.	How many ceremonies, receptions and other public functions were held by the Board since January 1, 1980 in (a) the National Capital Region (b) each of the ten provinces and two territories?


David P. Smith: 1 am informed by the Department of the Environment and the National Capital Commission as follows:
1.	(a) $3,907,50. (b) None, (c) $200 for erection of stand and placement of plaque thereon.
2.	(a) (i) 300. (ii) 175. (iii) None. There are 125 booklets in stock which Parks Canada will distribute over the next year.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 25, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, this Bill has been before us on more than one occasion. There have been interruptions in the debate and therefore 1 think it is worthwhile, as we begin another round on the matter, to recall the import of the Bill.
Those of us who are taking part in the debate no doubt started out by reading Clause 1 of the Bill. In the massive verbiage on the first page we find Clause 1, which reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this section, the amount of the full monthly pension that may be paid to any person for a month in 1983 shall be the lesser of (a) the amount that, but for this subsection, might have been paid for that month-
It goes on, but basically the explanatory note tells us what is the effect of the Bill. We should all recall that the amendment would limit the indexation of the pension to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984 and that it is an amendment to the Bill on Old Age Security.
November 30, 1982

Some facts which are worth recalling at this stage were brought to my attention during the summer recess. I refer to the Times-Colonist of August 28, 1982 in which some interesting extracts from the report of the National Council on Welfare appeared. The article dealt with poverty, which is basically what we are talking about today. People who rely on the old age pension as their only income are in many cases very close to the poverty line. Part of the article indicated that a family of four was poor if it was surviving in a big city on less than $18,243 annually, and that the same family in a rural area was poor with an income below $13,419. Also it indicated that couples in big cities were poor if their income was less than $11,800 and, if they are in rural areas, less than $8,669.
We are talking about poverty, and I think that must be made clear at the outset. The 1980 figures provided by Statistics Canada show that there were 3,475,000 Canadians under the poverty lines. This is a disgraceful situation, and we are talking about reducing the indexation of the incomes of many of these people.
A further piece of information which I think is worth putting on the record appeared in the same article. A CP report from Ottawa indicated that these 3,475,000 poor Canadians represented 15.1 per cent of the total population of Canada. They have been singled out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to receive less than they would be receiving if the six and five rule were not imposed upon them, as the Bill intends to do.
Further in the article it was indicated that the Council reported that most poor Canadians lived on incomes which were hundreds and often thousands of dollars below the poverty lines. Also it indicated that 80 per cent of poor families are 10 per cent to 20 per cent below the poverty lines and that 75 per cent of poor single persons are more than 20 per cent under the poverty lines.
One of the reasons people are in this dreadful situation is inflation, which is a component part of the debate. The Minister is intending, for those people who are old and on pensions, that we should ignore inflation and impose upon them the six and five formula which would provide them with increases in their income well below the inflation rate.
My final reference to the article is this. It indicated that incomes have been eroded by an inflation rate of 12.5 per cent in 1981 and will be eroded by 11.5 per cent in 1982. We now have the context in which the debate is now being set.
There is a scheme afoot in the Bill to impose upon those with fixed incomes increases of no more than 6 per cent in 1983 and no more than 5 per cent in 1984, while I am afraid we can bet our bottom dollar that the inflation rates will be three and four points higher than that for each of those years.
We are being asked to agree in Parliament to offering those on old age pensions to accept less than the inflation rate. I think this is absolutely disgusting. Also it explains why not one Liberal, aside from the Minister, has stood up to defend the Bill. The Minister alone has had the nerve to rise and suggest the imposition of this iniquitous six and five formula on pensioners. Obviously the Liberals are staying away in droves
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
and are counting on their overwhelming majority to do the trick for them, to impose on their mothers and grandmothers, those who gave them the opportunity to get to this place, the six and five formula. It is a disgraceful performance if ever 1 saw one.
Some of us on regular incomes and still in the work force can afford the six and five formula. There are promotion prospects for some, but pensioners are on fixed incomes with little prospect of bettering them. There are limits if they receive too much in the way of incidental income. They lose one part or the other of that income. It will be a great deal tougher for them.
It is worth looking at some other facts or trends in the aging of our population to indicate how the problem will be aggravated in terms of numbers. I hope it is not for this reason that this shoddy Government is hoping to save money, but the population of Canada is aging. There are almost 700,000 fewer Canadians under the age of 20 than there were ten years ago, but there are 800,000 Canadians over the age of 60. That is the group which the Government is attacking. If we want to project even further into the next century, it is estimated that by the year 2020 there will be only two or three workers in Canada to support every non-worker. These are the ones who will have to pay the taxes to provide assistance for those who have retired from the work force.
Is this the reason the Government is trying to save money today, in order to look after those people 40 years down the line? I wonder if this also has something to do with those public servants who manage to arrange for themselves a posting to Paris to live on $170,000 a year, or those who manage to arrange to be sent to the French Riviera to learn French at almost as iniquitous a sum? These disgraceful misplacements of priorities, these iniquitously, wasteful public expenditures, make it more difficult, I would have thought, to defend a Bill of this sort. It certainly must have a bearing on the attitudes of those on the other side of the House who are afraid to stand up and say something, although 1 see some of them are making notes. I hope they will stand up when the time comes to defend. I would rather see them fight the proposal that is made by their Minister. I wonder whether there is a single one of them who has the courage to do that.
I think it is worth looking at poverty levels. I have been looking at them and we have been talking about poverty levels. In essence, we have been dealing with poverty levels at this time because the Government is thinking of imposing-I will not be a party to it-on those who are within the poverty range its six and five formula. But what about out there in the harsh world? The inflation rate from one year to the next will go up. I suspect it will be 9 per cent or 10 per cent next year. I do not think, and I am sure there is no one on the Government side who in his right mind believes, that the six and five formula will bring the inflation rate down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in the next two years, especially when this formula is going to

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
be imposed on those who cannot afford it. With inflation stalled at 11 per cent or 12 per cent-maybe even 10 per cent-the 6 per cent imposition will hurt. Do you know whom it is going to hurt, Mr. Speaker? It will hurt our parents, our grandparents and our uncles, those who have provided a good life for us. Those are the people who will be hurt, and this is the Government that will follow the leader and try to impose this formula on that segment of the population.
I think it is worth putting a few figures on the record. I am going to deal with couples. I could deal with a family of four, but by the time people have reached retirement age it is normally a couple-hopefully a couple and not just a single person, lonesome, by himself-a couple who have reached the age when they are relying on the Old Age Security payments. The OAS payment for two, according to current levels, is $246.92. This would produce a grand total of $5,924 in a year. In addition, if that were their only income, they could perhaps draw on the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which would give them another $4,587; together with the $5,924 that would give a couple a total of $10,511. Let me repeat that figure: a couple would get a total of $10,511. The poverty level has been variously calculated by a variety of institutions, the principal of which is the Senate report on poverty.
I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of those who are planning to vote for this Bill to a recent publication which came to me on November 8, compliments of the Senator in charge of the Committee on Poverty. The poverty lines in 1981, according to the Senate committee poverty line criteria, amounted to $12,300. According to the StatsCan revised low-income cut-off, the amount is much lower, but let us take the higher figure of $12,300 as the poverty level. If your annual income is below that figure, you are in want. I think that is what poverty means. In 1981 if you received $12,300, you were in need.
I think it is also worth drawing to the attention of Hon. Members that in 1971 the poverty line stood at $4,040. If we put those figures side by side, we will find that between 1971 and 1981 the poverty level has trebled. Inflation has managed to triple the poverty line. The level at which people are in dire need is an amount of $12,300 today. What about the figure I have just quoted, the maximum that two people both drawing Old Age Security and the GIS can get, of $10,500? There is a difference there of some $2,200, which gives a percentage variance between what they are drawing and where the poverty line is of 11 per cent, the percentage of inflation. These are the people on your right-hand side, Mr. Speaker, who propose to impose the six and five formula over the next two years upon those who will be $2,200 below the poverty level.
How is that trend of tripling inflation in ten years to be contained for those on fixed incomes? The six and five formula will not do it. The six and five formula will not do it for those on fixed incomes at all. There will be pressures elsewhere on society to inflate-to ask for more-because of the inflationary factor that I have suggested will be 10 per cent and 11 per cent.
Furthermore, savings have been discouraged by this Government by making fulsome and false promises which are now being somewhat hedged. There was an indication that the just society-just for the Liberals, I suppose-of "Don't worry, we will look after you" will have to be reneged. The Liberals will have to qualify that promise.
Investment has been discouraged by this Government over the years by interfering unduly in the marketplace. Let us see where that interference has taken place. For example, Pacific Petroleums was acquired not because there were resources and futures in the ground, but because it gave a storefront image to the Government. Merit in British Columbia was also an outlet for refined products. To my recollection, Petrofina will cost $1.5 billion without producing one single drop of new oil, let alone a barrel, just to provide another storefront in eastern Canada for Petro-Canada. We were recently told that it would cost approximately $300 million to acquire BP Canada. That original figure has now risen to almost $600 million.
This total amount gives us an indication of where the Government's priorities lie. They do not lie with those who have provided us with what we have today. They are the people who are being affected by this proposal today through the six and five formula. They are less able to shield themselves from its effects than the rest of us are.
I have spoken in the House previously about the current consumer price index. I have suggested previously and I will suggest again that there should be a new index for those to whom the old index does not really apply. I would like to go through this index and explain which areas I believe are completely unsuitable to those it is being applied to.
For example, food is supposed to be responsible for 21.5 per cent of the total index. Consumption of food at home represents 16.8 per cent and meals away from home represent 4.6 per cent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how many pensioners are able to spend a quarter of their food money at restaurants? I suggest that there are very few and, in fact, probably none. That figure makes a distortion of this aspect of the consumer price index.
Housing is supposed to represent 34 per cent of the index. The breakdown of that figure is 19 per cent for shelter, 8.6 per cent for operations and 6.4 per cent for furnishings. I wonder whether that percentage for furnishings, which is approximately 20 per cent, is really needed by old age pensioners or could even be purchased by them. They have spent their lives accumulating their treasures and their tables and chairs and other furnishings; they do not need to spend that amount of money on furnishings. Once again this is a distortion of the housing portion of the index.
Clothing represents 10 per cent of the disposable income. This percentage is then broken down among men's clothing, women's clothing, girls' and boys' clothing, infant clothing and other clothing materials and related services. This portion could probably stay in its present form.
November 30, 1982

Another segment of the CPI concerns transportation. It represents almost 16 per cent, 14 per cent of which relates to privately-owned transportation. How many of the people with whom we are concerned today-those who are living 10 per cent below the poverty line now-can afford private transportation? Only 2 per cent in this index is attributable to public transportation. Nearly all the old age pensioners I know use public transportation because they cannot afford to drive their own cars.
Only 4 per cent of the CPI is attributable to health and personal care. A greater percentage is likely needed in this area for those in this particular age bracket. I suggest there is a distortion in this area as well which should be corrected.
This distortion is evident when we see that 8 per cent of the CPI is for recreation, reading and education. That is twice as much as health care. I think the breakdown on recreation, reading and education is worth putting on the record. Of that 8.3 per cent for this item, 6.6 per cent is for recreation. What does this recreation involve? Skiing or the purchase of ski equipment? Is 6 per cent of that 8 per cent recreation for people over the age of 65? Let us be serious. This is an index that is not prepared or applicable to those old age pensioners. Reading represents 1.7 per cent of that 8 per cent. I suggest that this figure is probably higher, while a great deal of reading material, of course, comes from public libraries. Tobacco is almost 2 per cent; I hope that percentage is dropping. With respect to alcohol, how many pensioners can afford to spend 4.3 per cent of their disposable income for recreation, reading and education purposes on alcohol? That is one-half of what the amount attributed to reading, recreation and education.
Therefore, I suggest that a separate index for the elderly is required which is properly geared to the purchasing patterns of those who are in this particular age bracket. This is the type of index which should apply to the increments in the Old Age Security and to the GIS.
The whole concept that a consumer price index can be applied universally across the country is a matter of folly. Therefore, I speak up for these pensioners because they are defenceless, both financially and economically. I also speak up for them because they are our mothers and fathers and in some cases our grandmothers and grandfathers. They gave us this country and the benefits we enjoy. Why is the Government planning in this legislation to rob them of the benefits they gave us to enjoy and which they should be able to enjoy themselves in their declining years?


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in the debate on Bill C-131, which, Hon. Members will recall, is part of our anti-inflation measures. First of all, I have been wondering why Members of the Progressive Conservative Party were opposed to a Bill that placed restrictions on increases in old age security benefits for persons who were
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
relatively well-off. We must remember that the Canadian government has maintained full indexation for all senior citizens receiving the income supplement and has also agreed to indexation of the basic amount for this group. I wondered why so many Members of the Progressive Conservative Party were opposed to a 6 and 5 per cent ceiling on indexation, a measure senior citizens are being asked to accept as part of the fight against inflation. While listening to the previous speaker,
I asked my colleague how old the Hon. Member was. In fact, he is getting his old age security pension, and I now understand why the Members of the Progressive Conservative Party are not standing up for needy senior citizens and are taking up the cause of senior citizens with big pensions to keep them from being affected.


Donald W. Munro: How do you know?


Mr. Olivier:: Shame!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members on the Progressive Conservative side should be honest with themselves. During the short time they were in power, they were ready to throw out universality of pension benefits. In fact, it was worse than that, and I feel that this House cannot afford to be hypocritical and play politics with a subject of this magnitude.
Mr. Speaker, when I realized that Hon. Members on the Progressive Conservative side were defending their own interests in connection with Old Age Security benefits, I decided that I would not give their arguments further consideration. Mr. Speaker, unlike Hon. Members on the Progressive Conservative side, this summer Members from Quebec worked instead of going on trips. I chaired a committee which included a number of my colleagues, a committee which met with senior citizens groups throughout Quebec to discuss inflation and the 6 and 5 policy, and any other subjects that were of interest to them.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of the committee were: Senator Yvette Rousseau, the Hon. Member for Verdun (Mr. Savard), the Hon. Member for Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand), the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens) and the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Dion). Mr. Speaker, while all our colleagues on the Progressive Conservative side were probably travelling around Europe, we were working and truly defending the cause of our senior citizens. The groups we met included the Senior Citizens' Forum, the AQDR, the FADOQ and also members of senior citizens' clubs and individual senior citizens, the real people and not senior citizens who sit in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, at these meetings we explained what the Government of Canada was doing for senior citizens. Both Progressive Conservative and New Democratic Party Members have told us only about incomes, and I may remind Hon. Members-since the Progressive Conservatives failed to mention this, either on purpose or because they forgot or

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
because they are not aware of the program-that the Canadian Government is maintaining full indexation for senior citizens receiving the income supplement. This supplement is fully indexed to the cost of living and the same applies to the basic pension paid to individuals who are eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is also important to remember all the other programs that are geared to senior citizens-programs that are concerned with income, housing, health, recreation, cultural activities and home care. I think all Hon. Members are aware of the Canadian Government's basic pension, Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's allowance programs, which are three of the most important programs to which all Canadians have access in connection with Old Age Security benefits. There is also the Canada Pension Plan, and for Quebecers, the Quebec Pension Plan. As for housing, it is unfortunate but among the people we met, I am sure that many were not aware of all the programs the Canadian Government is financing, either alone or jointly with provincial or municipal Governments. First of all, we have what is known in Quebec as low rental housing. In this area, the Canadian Government finances 50 per cent of the operating deficit for subsidized housing, and in Quebec, it is probably true that between 50 and 56 per cent of such housing is occupied by senior citizens, who are thus able to pay lower rents than they would do otherwise. Another program wholly financed by the Canadian Government-here again, there is a high percentage of senior citizens, is Co-operative and Non-Profit Housing. The program is 100 per cent financed by the Canadian Government and is allowed an annual subsidy in order to maintain interest rates at 2 per cent for 35 years, and on top of that, there are start-up fund grants for groups, which operate autonomously.
There is also another area, which provincial governments prefer not to mention, and which also falls under housing. I am referring to senior citizens' homes, which are extremely important for this age group. The housing units set aside by the Canadian Government under Section 56.1 for 2 per cent financing are very often used by the Province of Quebec-I must say I am more knowledgeable about the situation in this particular Province-for senior citizens' homes. Unfortunately, the Province of Quebec, and I suppose the same applies to other provincial governments, does not mention the Canadian Government's contribution in financing these homes.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, another area that is very important to senior citizens is health care, and everybody is aware that 50 per cent of the cost of operating Local Community Service Centres or other health care services is paid by the Government.
Another area is that of home care services for senior citizens. In addition, we have recreational and other activities for senior citizens. As far as home care services are concerned, I
mentioned earlier in this connection the Department of National Health and Welfare and the financing of Local Community Service Centres which provide home care services. Most ridings also seem to have community development programs or summer employment projects. These projects are used by groups to create jobs and also to provide home care services for senior citizens. I know that in my riding, since I became a Member, the first two or three projects that are approved usually have been home care service projects for senior citizens.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, every riding, every parish and every village has its senior citizens' dub. Before, senior citizens had to stay home and twiddle their thumbs. Now they have activities that are geared to their needs and especially designed for them, and this has been happening all across Canada, in every village, city and municipality, thanks to the New Horizons Program. Senior citizens groups themselves define their own programs, and the Department of National Health and Welfare, and its extremely efficient minister, are responding to the needs of these people.
Mr. Speaker, with the Quebec Caucus Committee on Senior Citizens, I would like to offer a few conclusions, since my Progressive Conservative colleague held a meeting of all Progressive Conservative Members aged 65 or over to find out whether they would go along with the 6 per cent ceiling on indexation or preferred full indexation. First of all, we received a press release:
The Forum of Senior Citizens and the pension program
-a press release issued by this group after their meeting with the Quebec caucus members, and I quote:
The Forum of Senior Citizens of Montreal is pleased with the anti-inflationary measures recommended by the Federal Government, and it has agreed to accept the indexing of the basic pension under the old age security program at 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984.
Mr. Speaker, this is a group which truly represents the real needs of senior citizens in the Montreal area.
We also have an article from a newspaper in the riding of my colleague from Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand), which reports the conclusions of the meeting, and I quote:
Another program was approved outright by the people at the meeting, namely, the 6 and 5 program-
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Members from Quebec are not afraid to take a stand, but we are not about to stand up for the same interests as the Progressive Conservative Party. Fortunately, not all Members of the Progressive Conservative Party are defending only the interests of the very rich, but in any case, we are here to protect the interests of senior citizens, of people who are indigent. These are the people we met, and they supported us in our intention to vote for this Bill, because these people know perfectly well that the fight against inflation is going to help them. We have a very good example of this in the area of subsidized housing. Even if
November 30, 1982

we did maintain full indexing of pensions, the Government of Quebec, through its Minister of Housing, Mr. Tardif, has announced that the rates for all subsidized housing in Quebec would be increased by between 20 and 30 per cent. So of course, senior citizens preferred to take our side, not so much because they approved limited indexation but in order to convince the Government of Quebec and the other provincial governments and the private sector that they would have to do their part to bring inflation down to six per cent.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I wish to congratulate the Minister for the work she has done in the health sector in general and for what she has done for senior citizens. I can assure you that I shall be proud to vote in favour of this Bill and thus help those who need it most.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to say that I listened with great pleasure to the distortions of the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part). It was the nature of his speech and the fact that he decided to make a speech in the House that caused me to rise.
There has been a full two days' debate in this House. It was begun by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) putting forward her proposals. As she put them forward I watched her face, and I thought that if ever I saw a Minister not convinced about the righteousness of her brief, a brief which attacked the senior citizens of the country, that she on platform after platform had said she would defend, it was on that day in the House.
Although she and I sit on opposite sides of the House of Commons, I want to say that my heart went out to her.


Monique Bégin: Where is it?


Walter David Baker: An indication of just how bad the atmosphere is in the Government Party is that today, well into the debate, is the first time there has been a private Liberal Member of Parliament rise to make a short speech extolling the virtue of attacking the senior citizens of the country, those people who receive Old Age Security in Canada. These people are more exposed in terms of inflation and uncertainty than any other group.
The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is behind the curtain nodding his head and saying it is not true. I want to say to the Member from Ottawa Centre, come into the House, go to your place and defend this attack on the senior citizens of the country. At the same time defend the attack of your Government on the public servants of the country, on the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, on those who served the country as members of the Armed Forces, and their widows and families. State the position. Do not stand behind the curtain; come into the House and state the position. Are they going to stand with those pieces of legislation, or are they going to vote against them? I have heard people say they are against this Bill as it is written; they are against another
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Bill as it is written. I want to know when the votes are counted where they stand.
I want to say to my friends, those who have remained silent over there on Old Age Security, that there is a power in a Government caucus if a Government caucus is prepared to exercise it. This seems to be the only Parliament in the western world where all of the discussions take place in private. I was in the United Kingdom a week ago yesterday and watched a debate and finally a vote in their House of Commons, where the Conservative Government of Great Britain was attacking a socialist program. I listened to Conservative Member after Member after Member of the Parliament in Great Britain stand up and attack the proposal by the Government. When the time came they did not scuttle into their seats to vote confidence in the Government; they abstained, and one of them even voted against the Government.
That is how Government listen. I and my other friends make speeches in this House of Commons but no one on that side listens. Those members of the Treasury benches will not listen. That is the way the system works. We can state a certain position. The Government will be accountable at the next election.
If there is real opposition to something, whether with respect to pensions for Old age Security recipients or with respect to public servants, members of the RCMP, the Armed Services, their widows or their families, and if there is an honest belief that what the Government is doing is wrong, then it is morally wrong for Members of Parliament not to stand up and vote against, or abstain, but never to use the excuse that confidence in the Government is at stake, that the Government may fall if they exercise their right of independence. Yet that is what they are saying. I say that is wrong. There is not a self-respecting person in the country who thinks about the system who does not believe that that is wrong.
The situation is this. If the Government of Canada was defeated on Bill C-133 or defeated on this Bill involving Old Age Security-of course, it is an important Bill-I will wager that they would not dare face the country on their attack on senior citizens. You bet they would not, Mr. Speaker. The next day they would be in here with a motion of confidence. That is when the Liberal Members and others who have confidence in the Liberal Government would have the chance to vote confidence. But not with respect to a piece of legislation; that is not how the system works.
The Pearson precedent has certainly affected the question of confidence in the Canadian House of Commons, but it does not only affect those who are against the Government because of where we sit in the House or because of how we feel; it also affects those who support the Government.
I want to say to my friend from Ottawa Centre and to all my friends opposite, whether we are dealing with this Bill C-131 or Bill C-133 with respect to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act for the broad Public Service of the country, that there is an opportunity for them to stand up and defeat their Government on the Bill. I will wager them dollars to donuts that the next day they will have a chance to stand up

Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
and support their Government in terms of confidence. That is the essence of the Pearson precedent in 1968.
When I read stories about certain Members of Parliament changing their ground just a wee bit, I have to ask myself, why? Who is so mesmerized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he says it is a matter of confidence? If it is a matter of confidence, I wonder how some of those Members would appreciate going to the country on the basis of attacking senior citizens-which is how it will be construed-or attacking those Pensioners under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. That is the raw politics of it.
It goes beyond raw politics in this Bill. I hold it as a principle that those who are outside the work force, those who are making no contribution in the real sense in terms of work, in terms of making demands, those who have run their course in terms of a regular work day and ask nothing else but that they have a chance to live in a reasonable amount of peace, ought not to be the tools or the levers for Government redistribution of income. It is as simple as that.
We brought in indexing and all of us supported indexing. Why? Because we said those people were different, they do not have the levers to bargaining power that others have. They need to be protected. Whether it be a new index, a senior citizens' index, the consumer price index or whatever it is, we must protect them. It is no protection, in my judgment, for that group to see their indexing limited.
The Public Service accepts that the indexing of their wages and salaries should be limited. They do not like it. Members of Parliament do not like it when it happens to them, but they accept it. Why? Because they can bargain again and hopefully make it up. But the problem is that those people in the latter years of their life cannot do so. You just do not lose those two years; you lose the progression upwards with the index whenever it is taken off.
If the Government will not forecast anything in the economy in terms that are reliable because they say it is impossible, how can they say with certainty today that inflation will be reduced to six and five? I hope it will be, but how can they say that? Why should they leave those people exposed?
That is the issue of principle, pure and simple. It is not just a little matter of administration, shifting funds from here to there. Whether talking about this bill, Old Age Security, or about the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, there is a contract, an agreement and an understanding.
This Bill goes right to the heart of social programs. It is the basis of it. There is much more than just an agreement or contract; there is a moral obligation on society. It is becoming apparent that that moral obligation is getting greater every year. The statistics are startling. I will not trouble the House with them because I understand another Member wants to follow me and I will listen to her. However, the statistics in terms of the aging and our obligation are growing.
November 30, 1982
They are growing in a time when we have decided to undercut the elderly in terms of our obligation. That is wrong. Therefore, I intend to vote against the Bill. No amount of petty-fogging, no amount of meetings with groups of senior citizens in Quebec and no amount of meetings of any kind will stop me from doing that.
I do not say this because senior citizens in my constituency have been in touch with me. Long before I saw this Bill, I held it to be morally wrong. It is morally wrong for this Parliament to support that proposition. Parliament has a special obligation to senior citizens. They look to us to answer that special obligation. They look to this Minister to answer that special obligation. I do not know what they are saying in Quebec to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, but they are saying something different to the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton and, I dare say, to other Members of this House.
The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie said that when we, Members of Parliament, were travelling in Europe they, the great Liberal Party, were defending the Old Age Security payment. Some defence! A couple of days of debate, one Minister and one Member getting up to defend it, not on the basis of this program but on the basis of other programs the Government has put in place. We agree with those other programs. There is no argument there. The argument with this Bill is solely and simply whether it is right to cap that index in terms of recipients of the Old Age Security.
If that index was put there to ensure that those who are defenceless are defended, in the sense that we in Parliament on both sides of the House defend them, then indexing had a purpose. We ought not to forget the purpose. Those who are defenceless look to us to protect their standard of living. This is not going to be done willy-nilly in the dark of night in a budget speech of which there was no advance warning. We voted against that budget speech which contained exactly this provision.
I want Members opposite to go to their senior citizens and then get up in this House, every one of them, and tell the country that they are supporting denying full benefits to the senior citizens of this country. I do not want them to sit there silently but to get up and speak. There must be someone opposite who agrees with me. I cannot believe that the Liberal Party is so bereft of the principle it once stood for; I cannot believe that is the case.
I want those opposite to go to the Government House Leader and ask him to remove their gags so that they can get up to speak on this very important Bill. This Bill is going to be fought in the House of Commons for as long as we can fight it, using every legitimate parliamentary means. When it goes to committee, and I assume it will at some time if the Government is so determined, we will fight it there.
I say to my friends opposite that it is quite safe for them to vote against a Bill involving changes in Old Age Security. It is quite safe to vote against a Bill to change the arrangements with respect to supplementary retirement benefits. The Government will not be defeated. Does anyone think the Government would go to the country standing behind in the polls as it
November 30, 1982

is at present? Can anyone imagine going to the country on the backs of the senior citizens of Canada? I would lay dollars to doughnuts that sitting in the Government House Leader's file already is the motion of confidence that would be brought in the next day. Therefore, you can all support your Party and support your Government-and I must say I have a prejudiced view-with all its supposed strengths, but still take a stand in terms of the senior citizens of this country.
I want some Members opposite, not just one, to stand up and say they have had enough of this. That is the essence of Parliament. The Canadian Parliament is light years behind the British Parliament in terms of how it deals with matters of confidence. Every time I go overseas, I never cease to be amazed at the courage of backbenchers, whether Liberal, Labour or Conservative, and I assume members of the new party whom I have not seen in action. Their independence is amazing. The first question asked by the Prime Minister of Great Britain or the Leader of the Government is: "Will the caucus stand for this; what will the caucus say?" That is the last question asked in Canada.
This is a chance for my friends on the other side. I will ask them to do this only one more time this session, when we deal with Bill C-133, the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. It is one chance for them to stand up for a principle that there is a special obligation owed by the Government and Parliament as well as the people of Canada to whose who are no longer part of the work force and cannot defend themselves through unions and other things. I will ask them one more time to stand up and be counted on the side of what is morally right in terms of the people whom this Government and this Parliament pledged to serve.
I thank the House for its attention. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie for rising to his feet to defend the indefensible with the eloquence of the condemned. In the event of a vote against the senior citizens of this country, those who vote had better know that they are going to be watched by a growing constituency in Canada.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in the House I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my immediate predecessors who served here with distinction; John Gilbert, now His Honour Judge Gilbert, and Bob Rae, now the Member for York South in the Ontario legislature who is seeking to end 40-odd years of Tory rule in Ontario and establish the first Social Democratic Government in Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: Another of my illustrious predecessors is still a Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees). I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment. He said he would be out looking for a fist fight in the corridor, and if he could make it back he would be back for his honourable mention! I share with these gentlemen the
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
honour of representing a very fine riding, Broadview-Greenwood, and 1 am deeply grateful to the citizens of that riding for having elected me in one of the more colourful, interesting and stormy by-elections in recent years on October 12.
I have chosen to make my first speech on pensions because this is a matter of utmost importance and one on which I have personally done a lot of work, both as an activist in the women's movement, a founding member of the Ontario Committee on the Status of Women, as president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and as a member of the Ontario NDP Women's Committee. I regret that I am joining this debate not on a matter of pension reform but on cutbacks. Reforms are what we surely need, and Bill C-131 is one of the nastiest, stingiest and meanest pieces of Liberal legislation to come before this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: It takes money away from our pensioner population, for the most part people on low, fixed incomes, the people least able to bear the load. It is unfair in the extreme and is aimed at people who have worked and raised families, survived the depression of the 1930s and lived through difficult economic times before there was unemployment insurance. It is aimed at people who have low private pensions, if any, a great number of them, especially women, with no private pensions at all or the least possible under the Canada Pension Plan.
I want also to protest the hypocritical way in which this legislation has been introduced. The principle of the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Lalonde's) economic statement was not to "abandon the victims of the recession", not to "put the axe" to the social security system which has been decades in the making. I know pension reform has been a Government concern over the past few years. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has called it the highest social policy priority of the Government. A national pensions conference was held in 1981 at which women's organizations, among others, participated and where reform was the agenda. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself has spoken on the issue, I recall in the election of 1979, specifically dealing with ways to improve pensions for women. I even went to a Liberal Party function to hear the address, which will show my great devotion to duty in this respect. Then what happened? Instead of reform we have cutbacks. The Minister of National Health and Welfare even has the gall to present this legislation as an invitation to voluntary heroism and self-sacrifice for the national good. I quote from her speech of November 18:
We are asking 1.1 million old age pensioners to help lead the way in the fight against inflation. I am very conscious of the sacrifice we are asking of them.
I have to stress that it is not without reluctance that we make this request.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a very devious way to refer to a Bill which in fact has nothing voluntary about it at all. If the Minister meant what she said, she would send out a letter to the pensioners concerned and ask them if they would like to lead the way in fighting inflation. They would have the option of sending a little card back saying they wanted to have their pension cheque cut in order to fight inflation to the ground. If

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
they were not willing to engage in this heroic action, then their pensions cheques would be indexed fully as they would otherwise be without this legislation. That surely would be the honest way if it were truly a voluntary program.
Let us consider for a moment how this sorry state of affairs has arisen. We all know the Minister is not in fact a monster who takes pleasure in making pensioners live on less money. She is under pressure as a result of the Government's woeful mismanagement of the economy.
With regard to unemployment and falling tax revenues, the Government's job is clearly difficult. It cannot rely, as it has in the past, on selling off our resources because in a world recession the demand for these resources naturally falls too. An adequate income security system requires a healthy economy to support it and that is precisely what we do not have in Canada. That is why my Party is continuing to stress the strategic problems of our economy and the need for major reform through an industrial strategy. But in the meantime, without substantial economic reform, there are alternatives.
By the Minister's own estimate 1.1 million pensioners will lose $55 each in 1983, which would save the Government $61.5 million. That happens to be approximately the cost of Government advertising in one year. We could cut out the entire Government advertising budget, save the money, and it would spare us a great deal of propaganda.


Erik Nielsen: That is only half the cost.


Lynn McDonald: That money is a drop in the bucket in terms of corporate give-aways and military expenditures, which the Government still plans to increase. It is the kind of money which can be made up merely by cutting luxuries like foreign embassies and other unnecessary expenditures. The NDP has been scrutinizing Government expenditures for moneys to divert for job-creation programs. We have come up with far greater success than the savings from these Old Age Security cutbacks.
Clearly with a modest effort the Government could come up with a more equitable way of finding the money. This is a sort of no-win situation. If inflation is really only 6 per cent or less, clearly we do not need the Bill at all. If inflation is around 6 per cent or a little bit higher, it is not going to save very much money, so why bother? But if inflation is really substantial, then the Bill is unconscionable. So in all three cases, we really do not need it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: We in the NDP feel particularly strong about pension cutbacks because it was our party and our predecessors who fought for a public pension system in the first place. A few points in this history are well worth noting because they are still relevant today. It was back in 1925 that we had the first success in establishing public pensions, long after a number of western European countries instituted them. It was then a minority Government situation. J. S. Woods-worth and A. A. Heaps, as labour representatives-because this was before the CCF was formed-made a pensions Bill a
condition of their support. They offered to support either the Liberals or the Conservatives, whichever would bring in a public pension Bill. The Conservatives said no, the Liberals said yes. A Bill was duly passed but then turned down by the Senate.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here because the Conservatives suffered a serious defeat in the next election. After that election the Bill was reintroduced, passed in the House and then the Senate, and thus Canada got its first public pension for persons 70 years and over, based on a means test, and it was $20 a month.
Expanding and increasing the old age pension has continued to be a priority of the CCF and NDP. Universal Old Age Security at $40 a month was achieved in 1951. Indexing began in 1966, and full indexing in 1972. But note that the only increase in real terms-that is, beyond inflation-took place in 1973 when again we were in a minority Government situation and again it was pressure from the NDP which got this real increase. The sad fact is that the amount of the Old Age Security has remained low. When introduced in 1951, it was 17 per cent of the average industrial wage, and has now fallen to about 14 per cent. Now the NDP is urging reinstatement to the level it was back in that very regressive decade of the 1950s. This is scarcely a radical demand.
Even with the Guaranteed Income Supplement, Mr. Speaker, the income of elderly couples hovers only around the poverty line, and for the single elderly, mainly women, the amount falls below. It is women who are mainly dependent on public, non-contributory pensions, for it is they who have spent most of their lives caring for children and there is no pension for doing that most important work.
As a new Member of the House I am proud of the role my predecessors in the CCF and the NDP have played in pension reform. I am proud to be in the caucus with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has been the most vigorous and successful fighter for public pensions in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: Pension reform is a subject on which I promise to be very active myself. I am glad to see the Conservatives now joining us in fighting the Government on Bill C-131, but I regret to say that it is a little bit too late.
We have heard stirring speeches, notably from the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), but where were the Conservatives when we needed them last summer when the Government introduced six and five? Alas, the Conservatives voted for six and five then. They are making speeches now so that they can tell their voters, especially their senior voters, that they opposed the Old Age Security cutbacks. But they did not oppose the Bill and the principle when it really mattered. It was the New Democratic Party that fought alone last summer when the Tories, with their superior
November 30, 1982

numbers, could have stopped the Government. Instead, they shamefully supported it.
Finally, let me point out that there is still much that can be done for pension reform, even with the present constraints. We could, for example, act immediately to improve contributory public pensions. The Canada Pension Plan is an excellent plan in universality and portability. Its main defect is that the pension is too low. Our object is to raise the CPP to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage. This is a long-term ambition, but we could at least begin the process now.
Another important reform is to include homemakers in the CPP, at least by instituting the drop-out provision. It is true that Ontario vetoed this measure, but Ontario has since had a Royal Commission on Pensions that recommended accepting it. When have the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare last spoken to Premier Davis about this? Surely now is the time to put pressure on Ontario to move.
Next, we could improve private pensions with regard to portability, vesting, survivors' benefits and the splitting of pension credits on marriage dissolution. We could end discrimination by sex in annuities. We know what is wrong with private pensions and it will not require public expenditure to put that right because these are contributory pensions. What is required is legislation, regulation and co-ordination with the Provinces. Surely this is an important enough matter to give it really high priority.
In closing, let me return to the immediate question of Bill C-131. The answer must be no, no, no! Whatever our economic problems, taking it out on the elderly on fixed incomes at the poverty line is not an acceptable solution in a decent society. If the Government cannot be progressive, imaginative, creative, or competent, let it at least be decent. I ask the Government to withdraw Bill C-131.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, while I do not agree with all the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), I want to congratulate her on the excellent maiden speech she just delivered to the House.
I welcome the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, because I am deeply concerned about the welfare of our senior citizens and particularly the 11,000 who live in my riding of Leeds-Grenville. This legislation, introduced into this House by the Government of Canada, is going to add an undue measure of hardship to a sector of our community that cannot even begin to find the resources with which to cope.
This morning I attended a public forum organized by the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. The chairman, Frances McHale, had the pleasure of going to Vienna to attend the United Nations World Assembly on Aging and did a lot of work at that Assembly. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), was also a member of that delegation. In Brockville today the forum is
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
discussing the problems faced by senior citizens. I think it is very apropos that we, too, discuss this matter today.
In the few weeks that I have been a Member of Parliament I have received a great number of representations from senior citizens in my riding. They are concerned about the effect this legislation will have on their day-to-day lives. They are becoming increasingly troubled about falling further and further behind in their never-ending battle to keep up with inflation.
The majority of senior citizens in Leeds-Grenville and indeed the majority of single pensioners have had to resort to living in senior citizens' housing because they could no longer afford the constantly increasing expense of owning and operating their own homes-homes in which they have rich and fond memories of growing up and homes to which they returned after marriage to raise their families.
We have a tremendous number of beautiful old homesteads all over Leeds-Grenville and I am appalled at the great number that are up for sale, the great number that have been converted into multiple dwellings because the elderly who lived in them for the past 60 years or so can no longer afford to pay a heating bill that runs into hundreds and hundreds of dollars per year, or the hydro bill, or the cost of putting gasoline in their car to drive back and forth to town to see the family doctor, or buy the groceries needed to sustain themselves. These people do not want to give up their homes, but they have been put into a position of having to do so because the economy of this country is in such a tragic state.
The alternative is being forced to move into senior citizen housing where they have a room or a suite with a common recreation area. Certainly this accommodation is adequate but the choice, the freedom of choosing, is an option that has been taken away from them. Surely this is not what they deserve for having devoted their lives to raising the future citizens of this country.
I have spent many afternoons talking to senior citizens in Leeds-Grenville, visiting them in their apartments, rooms and homes. They tell me time and time again that they do not want to be put out to pasture like tired and faithful old horses. They tell me they want to remain productive and useful. They want to remain an important part of our society, a society they were instrumental in building. But without the necessary income, our senior citizens will not be able to continue participating in the activities of the community.
In my riding, and I know this is the case throughout the rest of the country, the elderly try to be active year round with outings on bus trips, seminars and social events. I would hate to see them have to curtail their activities simply because they no longer have that extra dollar or two to spend on these so-called luxuries. These people have knowledge and wisdom to offer us, gained through years of experience, and they should have the opportunity to do so. Instead, they are forced to sit at home and waste away. They should be able to grow old with dignity, not with despair.
In the past, the old age pension had been indexed to the rising cost of living in an attempt to enable pensioners to keep

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
pace with the increasing cost of day-to-day expenses. On November 18, in an answer to a question asked by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, as reported at page 20773 of Hansard:
The Hon. Member talks of protection against inflation. It is to protect Old Age Pensions and Family Allowances against inflation that the Government introduced indexation many years ago.
Yet today we are debating a Bill the Government introduced that will take away that same protection he was so magnanimously talking about.
The Government is using this legislation as a means to get senior citizens to practise restraint. 1 suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Government is completely out of touch with reality because pensioners have already been practising restraint in every aspect of their daily lives. They already have to restrain themselves from buying many of the basic items of food and clothing. Yet the Government has the audacity to ask them to practise restraint and to do without that added 4 per cent cost-of-living increase they so desperately need to keep up with the continually rising price of food, clothing, transportation and shelter.
There are 100,000 poor and near-poor affected by this proposed legislation. 1 am particularly concerned about the single pensioner who will be most affected by the Bill. Women are the majority in this category and have only the old age pension to fall back on if their spouses are no longer living and they have not been employed in the labour force at any time in their lives. Single pensioners who receive only the basic old age pension of S246.92 per month will be the ones who will fall further and further behind, while those eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement will have their supplements to assist them in keeping pace with the rate of inflation and, therefore, will have a somewhat small chance of stabilizing their standard of living.
But what about the 50 per cent of pensioners who receive only the basic pension? They are among those who have worked all their lives to ensure, hopefully, a comfortable retirement-seniors who have scrimped and saved over the past 30, 40 and 50 years; seniors who have invested their hard-earned dollars over the years in order to be able to live above the poverty line in retirement; seniors who have sacrificed those many evenings out, a new winter coat or a new car, so that their retirement savings could grow and build for the future.
Our senior citizens of today are the people who built the country to what it is now. They are the people who are the backbone of our great nation. They are the people who defended our borders in two world wars to give us the freedom and democracy we enjoy today. They are the people who survived the bread lines and the soup kitchens of the great depression. They are the people who toiled and sweated through 10, 12 or 14-hour days so that their children could enjoy some of the luxuries of life they never had when they were young. We
cannot ignore the contribution our seniors have made to Canada and to us as individuals, but if the Bill is allowed passage through the House, we will be doing just that.
The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has said time and time again that she cares about our elderly, that she cares about their needs being met and that they are being properly looked after. If she really cared, if she was really concerned, the Hon. Minister would have prevented Bill C-131 from being introduced in the House, so that seniors could still have a fighting chance to maintain their standard of living as they have tried to do in the past.
The Government is not only limiting the indexation of the old age pension through the Bill; it is also limiting the indexation of personal income tax to 6 per cent under amendments to the Income Tax Act. That means the Government is not only making our seniors pay once, it makes them pay twice; it goes back for more through the Income Tax Act. This is hardly the response one would expect from a caring Government or a caring Minister.
Instead of helping them at a time when they need it most, the Minister has gone along with the wishes of her Cabinet colleagues who have only just begun to realize that it is time to restrain the extravagant and ostentatious spending in which their Government has been engaged for the past 14 years. To save their own political necks, they pick on the most vulnerable section of Canadian society to pay for the gross mismanagement of an economy gone wild. The Government has a cold-hearted, callous attitude toward the senior citizens of the country, not the warm-hearted one it claims to have.
Our seniors deserve far better treatment for their many years of service than the Government is giving them in this legislation. They have fought for the country, they have helped it grow into a great nation, and they have raised a nation of workers who are struggling to maintain the standard of living established by their fathers and mothers. It is time the Government repaid them for so many years of service rather than penalize them for being over the retirement age.
We are all in favour of the Government restraining its spending, but surely the mistakes of the Government should not be a burden the elderly are expected to bear. Let us look at how much the Government will be saving by limiting indexation on pensions-$10 million. This is not a great sum when we put it against an increasing deficit of almost 1,300 times that amount. There are many other areas in which the Government could save this $10 million. Just to give one small example, in the last fiscal year the Government is reported to have spent $10.5 million on what it terms "hospitality", meaning food, entertainment and liquor, hardly essential items for the bureaucracy during times of advocating restraint. The amount it spent on hospitality is just over the amount of money it will save through the Bill on the backs of our senior citizens.
This is at a time when over 600,000 of our elderly are living in abject poverty. Yes, I have spoken to these people. I have seen what they put in their shopping carts in the grocery store.
I have visited with them in their homes. I know their fears of
November 30, 1982

wondering how on earth they will make ends meet. The Government should be looking at itself for ways to save this sum of money. Where is the equity? Where is the fairness of saving money at the expense of the elderly who have contributed so much to the country? Where is the protection of which the Prime Minister spoke last week? What has happened to the Liberal philosophy of looking after those who cannot look after themselves?
At a time when we are faced with the worst recession in 50 years, the Government is taking money out of the pockets of those who need even more, instead of helping them when it is obvious they require all the assistance they can get. I should like to see the Government explain to all senior citizens why they should be the ones to give up so much so that the Government can save so little. This is a savings of a few million dollars pitted against a climbing deficit of over $100 billion. It will not even make a dent in this outrageous, continually growing deficit.
All the Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the spouses' allowance payments put together account for only 2.5 per cent of the nation's gross national product. That is a drop in the bucket for the Government. But the money lost to senior citizens is worth much more to them. To them it means a lowering of their already falling standard of living, more and more hardships for them to face, and more financial burdens to bear for those who no longer have the strength or the determination to cope with these problems.
What about the future? What about the seniors of tomorrow? We are only too painfully aware, or should be aware, of the fact that there will be a decreasing number of workers to pay into pension funds which will have to look after an increasing number of pensioners. There will be a major drain on the old age pension, the Canada Pension Plan and retirement plans in about 30 years when those of the baby boom generation hit the age of 65. There will not be enough people paying taxes or contributing to private and public pension plans to support the drain on revenues expected at that time.
We need to prepare for the future, and we can do it in a number of ways through pension reform and re-educating the young people of today so that they will not have to rely on Government-subsidized old age pensions for their retirement. Fortunately, a switch to alternative retirement income is already beginning to happen. The number of people eligible for GIS is decreasing steadily despite the increase in the over 65 population. In May, 1978 53.9 per cent of pensioners qualified for GIS while in May, 1982 only 49.9 per cent required the same benefits. But we need to do more.
The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare has spoken many times of bringing in a green paper on pension reform, but we have yet to see it. 1 urge the Minister to consult with all Parties to bring about immediate discussion on pension reform. We can no longer afford further delay in an area where there is such urgency. We must consider areas of reform which will take us away from assuming greater public debt. There must be determination to progress and meet this challenge of the future.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
In conclusion, the younger generation of today has to be given direction now to prepare itself for retirement 25, 30 or 40 years down the road. We must concern ourselves with providing incentives and direction so that those who follow will be able to provide for themselves in the future. I hope the Government will turn away from penalizing the present senior citizens with legislation to limit indexing to 6 per cent and 5 per cent and turn its attention toward preparing the youths of today for the future of tomorrow.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that one has the pleasure of listening to two maiden speeches in a row in this House and to find them both very well done. I wish to compliment the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) and the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I cannot, because of the tradition of the House, quarrel with anything that was said by either one, and I would not want to do so in any case. But next time, it will be fair game.
I do not rise with pleasure to speak on Bill C-131. The remark usually made by speakers at the commencement of a speech is: "It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on Bill" such and such. This Bill gives me a great deal of pain and anger. Bill C-131 should not be before the House. In fact, it should never have been written. Why the Government decided to introduce this kind of legislation at this time is beyond me.
We are in favour of restraint. Our Party believes in restraint, but we have never intended that restraint to be applied against senior citizens in this country. Yet here we have Bill C-131. One gets the impression that the Government looked around to see where it could make some cuts. The Government could not cut anything from de Havilland, Canadair or PetroCan, nor could the Government get a cheap price on Petrofina. The question was, where could the Government cut? It must have thought about the cheques being sent to the old age pensioners. They cannot hurt them much, so they apply their cuts to them and to the civil servants.
Let me digress for a moment. There seems to be some confusion in the House about this triad of Bills that we have in this broad area of six and five. Bill C-124, which the Conservatives supported last July, was a six and five pay raise cap. This Bill also had a provision for a pay cut Members of Parliament. Bill C-124 was supported by the Conservatives, moved by the Liberals and opposed by the New Democratic Party.
Bill C-131 now comes before us and it is to cap the indexation of old age pensions. It is not an indexation of supplementary pensions, but to cap the indexation of old age pensions.
Bill C-133 is to follow. This Bill is to cap the indexation of pensions paid to federal civil servants who have retired, Members of the Armed Forces, members of the RCMP and others. The hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) mixed these Bills, unintentionally I am sure, when he was speaking on Bill C-124. Votes are taken separately on each of these Bills and it is quite possible to vote yes for one and no for the other, which is what the Conservatives are doing. We voted

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
yes on Bill C-124, which capped pay raises for civil servants and had a pay cut in it for Members of Parliament, and we intend to vote against Bill C-131.
I like to speak on a Bill such as this because the constituency from which I come is the senior citizen capital of Canada, the retirement city of Victoria. I was pleased when in 1980 a former colleague of ours from Leeds-Grenville put a question on the Order Paper asking what constituencies in Canada had the highest percentage of senior citizens, persons 65 years af age and over. The answer tabled in due course was that the ten constituencies with the highest percentage of senior citizens, persons 65 years of age and over, in descending order were: Victoria, B.C.; Vancouver Centre, B.C.; Joliette, Quebec; St. Paul's, Ontario; and Winnipeg North Centre. If I could pause there for a moment, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, (Mr. Knowles) unfortunately is not in the House today. I am sorry he is not here because he would not like this Bill, I can assure the House. He is well known on all sides of the House for his tremendous, indeed indefatigable, efforts on behalf of pensioners. Personally, I owe him quite a bit of gratitude for the number of times I have been able to ask for his advice and clarification on very obtuse points that one comes across in Government Bills at times. I suspect it is his presence that attracts senior citizens to Winnipeg North Centre in such great numbers.
I will continue with the list of the sixth to the tenth constituencies having the highest number of senior citizens living in them. Next comes Mount Royal, Quebec; Hamilton West, Ontario; Vancouver Quadra, B.C.; St. Henri, Quebec; and Don Valley West, Ontario.
As Hon. Members will notice, the Province of British Columbia has three of the ten constituencies having the highest percentage of senior citizens living in them, Victoria being right at the top. That, I suppose, is partly because of the salubrious climate. But the people of Victoria, of which 22,500 are old age pensioners, have grown accustomed to their presence and have found an ability in them to be a productive and an outgoing part of the community.
I might just say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that the New Horizon grants have been of good value in Victoria. They are well used and they do much to give a quality of life to the senior citizens which they otherwise would not have.
However, our society is now evolving differently. We have fewer people in the younger one-third of the population and even more people in the older, top one-third of the population. We will have to address the problem of life after 60. We will have to address leisure time and what to do with it. Technology is finally getting its point across that automation and the use of robots in factories will enable production to carry on without a great deal of personal effort. We will have to look at shorter work weeks and shorter work days. This in turn leads to more leisure time, yet we seem not to be looking at that. Leisure time is something that must be addressed and I hope that in future Bills we may see something in that order.
It is strange the way this Government has moved since the first old-age pension was introduced in Canada in 1926. It was a pretty meagre pension in those days. It was subject to a means test and a person had to be 70 years of age. The amount paid was $20 a month.
Then things began to improve a little for old age pensioners. I recall that my father had prepared for his own old age in a rather modest way. He found it great amusement, because he was almost a life-long Conservative, to have a Liberal Government suddenly present him with an old-age pension at age 70. In the very month that he reached 70 years of age, the means test was done away with and my father received his pension, about which he chuckled in the years left to him. We recall when the Conservative Government was headed by the former right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who pointed out that pensions were in no way keeping up with the inflated cost of living. His Government brought in a decent pay increase for old age pensioners.
From there we go on to Liberal times in the 1960s and eventually we come to the indexation of old age pensions, a measure suggested by the Hon. Robert Stanfield in the election campaign of 1972. The Liberals who opposed it, saying that it was impractical, brought it in shortly after the election. There was a steady effort made by the Government to improve the lot of senior citizens. But the government began to change its policy during the last five years. We saw the introduction of one small restriction and subsequently other restrictions which I will elaborate on later.
This particular proposal is a first. The Guaranteed Income Supplement has been established and we now see a Bill which will significantly change the complexion of the senior citizen's old age pension by having it indexed to only 6 per cent unless the pensioner is drawing the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The fact that we have two categories of old age pensioners will be even more pronounced. There are those who draw the basic pension and those who draw the basic pension plus the old age supplement. The current scale of the Old Age Security payment is $246.92 per month for a single person. The Guaranteed Income Supplement, which applies to pensioners whose income is at a certain level, which I believe is below $8,500, is $247.89. The total of these two pensions is $494.81, which amounts to an annual payment of $5,937.72. Of course, that is the current amount and it will increase as quarters go by.
As individuals approach their retirement years, they have understood and become accustomed to the fact that senior citizen pension incomes were indexed to the cost of living. Therefore, they were able to plan for their so-called golden years in the knowledge that they would have a certain amount of money. If individuals could anticipate receiving $494.81, and perhaps another small income, the old age pensioner would be able to pay for an increase in his rent, transportation costs or health care because of the indexing factor in the pension.
November 30, 1982

As well, those who are on the old age pension without the supplement also expected that their pension would be increased according to the consumer price index. It turns out that this will no longer be the case. They will have to lower their standard of living and this is extraordinarily difficult when you are a senior citizen. It usually entails lowering the cost of accommodation.
I have seen the situation quite frequently in Victoria that when a pensioner's income will no longer meet the rent they have to find a place where that pension can meet the rent. This means giving up what might have been a two-bedroom suite and moving into a one-bedroom apartment, or indeed a single room. This is perhaps the most demeaning of all the experiences one runs into as a result of this demeaning Bill.
How did we arrive at this pass under the benevolent and capable current Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has always given me a very clear impression that she favoured the welfare of senior citizens? Yet she has brought in this Bill which will obviously affect the standard of living of senior citizens, particularly those who do not draw the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I believe that an earlier speaker, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), mentioned that it is customary in other parliamentary systems for ministers to resign if they cannot look after their portfolio or department, cannot either introduce suitable policies or maintain the ones in existence. That is not the case with this Government. A Minister writes a Bill, introduces it in the House and whips everyone into line to vote for it.
I cannot avoid mentioning that only one Liberal, apart from the Minister, has stood up to give his opinion. I would particularly like to have the Member, who in essence is my MP when I am in Ottawa, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), stand up and tell us why he thinks it is fair that the retired citizens in his riding should be receiving less disposable income in the future than they are at the present time.
The Minister said in April, when speaking about this possibility: "We have no intention of changing the rules of the game; we want to maintain indexing of the Old Age Security pension and the supplement every three months".
There is another statement which I think shows what the Minister used to say. She seems to be no longer following the same course. On November 4, 1980, at page 4402 of Hansard, the Minister of National Health and Welfare had this to say in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) when she was in receipt of a document prepared by the Canadian Council on Social Development:
But the universal pension as well as the GIS supplementary pension are indexed fully to the cost of living every three months and these people will be protected fully against these increases.
The Minister has changed. They got to her. Those Members do as they are told in that Party and to heck with the constituency they represent in the broad sense. As a result we are faced with a Bill like C-131 which essentially is the first one that has taken direct aim at the senior citizens of this country and which is resolved to hurt them.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The Minister has frequently said that pensioners will be getting more money next year than this year. She is quite right to say this if the Government is trying to confuse the general public about whether they will receive more money next year than this year. I agree that they will get more money but it will be limited to an increase of 6 per cent if they are not receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement. If inflation is more than 6 per cent, they will be getting less disposable income.
People in this particular situation will not have the spending power which they have had this year. The Minister has pointed out that this Bill provides for an increase in the supplements that will be large enough to compensate for the shortfall in the pension itself due to the 6 per cent cap. Of course, this means that if we have a 12 per cent increase in the cost of living in 1983, the basic Old Age Security payment will go up 6 per cent and according to my calculations the Guaranteed Income Supplement will have to rise 18 per cent. These are rough estimates since the two pensions are almost equal in value at the present time. The Guaranteed Income Supplement will have to rise approximately 18 per cent if the recipient of the GIS is not to lose any purchasing power. I hope that that will clarify it.
My immediate reaction upon hearing that people on the Guaranteed Income Supplement would get what is called a triple indexation if their estimated 6 per cent was half of the increase in inflation was that the figures were wrong.
The Minister had told us that 55 per cent of the people are drawing the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and I am confused about that because our figures indicate that the number drawing the Guaranteed Income Supplement has been falling. This was thought to be because, as the years go by, more people who have paid into the Canada Pension Plan are coming into that age bracket. Consequently, our figures are quite a bit different.
The private retirement incomes held by recent retirees and the steadily expanding coverage of the Canada and Quebec Pensions Plans are working in there, and it is our impression that considerably under 50 per cent of the people are receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement. However, I expect the Minister will probably have another opportunity to speak in the debate and she may take that opportunity to correct these figures if they are indeed incorrect.
I would like to discuss British pensioners for a while. The Minister will recall that I raised this subject four years ago. They are getting very shabby treatment in Canada. It may be because we are unable to come to some agreement between Canada and Britain. However, it should be pointed out to the general public in Canada that these people are being placed in a terrible position. In 1976 the laws were changed with regard to the length of time one must live in Canada to earn a full pension. It had been ten years but it was cut back.
What I believe to be the first kind of attack on senior citizens by the Government of Canada was that they had to live in Canada for 40 years to get full entitlement. If they

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
came here from another country and lived here for ten years, they would then receive one quarter of the old age pension. The Government said: "We will pay them the Guaranteed Income Supplement which will help them". However, it will not help them beyond the limit of the Guaranteed Income Supplement which, right now, is a maximum of some $247. If one has a full old age pension and no other income, one receives the GIS and is limited to this $247. However, if one came here from Britain ten years ago, one only receives a quarter of a pension, which means that one will then have a total income of $309.62. One will receive an old age pension of $61.73 and the Guaranteed Income Supplement of $247.89; that is, if we are discussing the situation this month. Whereas a Canadian or someone who has lived here for 40 years, a single person, will receive a total of $484.81 from the Government, one who came from Britian ten years ago will only receive $309.62, which is a difference of about $185. These people are definitely not able to live on that amount and it is a very difficult situation in which the Government has put them. This applies only to people who came here after 1976.
I must say that I am rather startled at the number of people who have come to Canada since 1976 and been misinformed by the immigration people as to the rules governing pensions in Canada. These people, in applying for their pensions, find to their horror that they will not receive an old age pension of $246.92 but, rather, one of $61.73, which is pretty awful.
I would like to quote from Hansard of May 27, 1980 wherein the Minister's statement from December of 1978, four years ago, was quoted. It was in reference to an answer to a question I had asked in December of 1978. At that time the Minister stated:
I am investigating the possibility of reciprocity of pension but the Brits really are not helping at all. 1 hope this will be put on the agenda of our two Prime Ministers if they meet very soon-
Parenthetically, they met a week or so later.
-which is what we heard in the press yesterday.
I will continue with the quote of the minister. It reads:
As soon as I know whether it is to be on the agenda or not I will inform the
House and that will, of course, change completely and speed up, I hope, my
course of action. That is my priority. Italy was a priority, Great Britain was
one. Italy is done and I am very proud of it, but I want to unblock the Great
Britain dossier. It is very important.
It was not as important as she thought, I guess, because there is no visible evidence of an inch of progress having been made since that day when she made that statement in the House of Commons in December, four years ago. While it may not mean a great deal to the Government of this country, it means a great deal to the people involved that the governments should get together and accomplish what must be done to prevent these sincere, hard working, elderly people, who have contributed considerably to this country, from suffering.
I expect that this Bill will pass. Despite what we heard a little while ago in the House, if the Liberals produce a Bill and none of them has the courage to vote against it, it passes. There was no way the Government could be defeated last July on the original Bill of this triad, when the pay was capped. There is no way, if it is given the normal course of voting in
this House, that the Bill will fail. I deeply regret the fact that the Bill is here, and I deeply regret my foreboding that it will pass, because it should not pass. It is a cheap, petty attack on those people who should not be attacked in such a fashion.
To be among that group now, one must have been born before November 30, 1917. Those who were born before that date now qualify for an old age pension and those born after do not, but some of them soon will. If one were born before November 30, 1917, that means that one was born during the First World War. One would have had about a good ten years in one's early childhood of living through the twenties, which were referred to as the gay twenties before the word "gay" became totally inappropriate. We will have to think of another description for that decade when Canada was prosperous and going ahead and it seemed to be a great place. We soon found out differently in the 1930s when these people went through a great deal.
The bright promises for the future during the 1920s soon faded in the realities of the 1930s when the Second World War came along. Then there were a couple of good decades when very much progressive legislation came through and the Government seemed to have a realization of the part that was to be played if these senior citizens were to be treated honourably.
However, the Government seems to have become forgetful of the contribution which was made by these people and is now determined to cut its deficit or to be able to afford more purchases for its pet projects. For example, Petro-Canada might want to buy another oil company and it would only take another bit off the incomes of old age pensioners if the Government went forward with it. I think it is a shameful performance and I really look at some of my friends across the aisle and wonder how they can possibly put up with it, but they are.
That concludes my remarks, except to say that I wish we could find another dozen voters somewhere to give the Bill the treatment it deserves, which is defeat.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Bill because I remember clearly the June budget and the six and five program that were brought in to attack inflation in Canada. I recall the general acceptance across the country of the six and five program when it was first brought in. In my experience from talking to people in my own constituency, going across the country, going on hot line shows or making speeches across the country, I find there still is considerable acceptance of that program.
I remember clearly that Hon. Members in the Conservative Party took some time to express their support for an attack on inflation. Many of them were directly or indirectly supporting the six and five program. I was grateful for that support, then.
I think that some of the comments that we have heard from the Conservatives and the NDP continue in that vein, but they are healthy reminders to the Government that we must be
November 30, 1982

careful even in an important attack like this one against such a deep economic problem.
I believe the speech that we have just heard from the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) reflects not only his concern for a fight against inflation, but also reflects a genuine compassion for senior citizens and a desire to remind the Government to go gently. I would have welcome that kind of reminder and 1 am sure most of here would.
Because we have been talking this afternoon about principles and about who would be willing to stand up and defend this idea, I want to remind the House that the basic principle still holds true today. We still must engage ourselves in a fight against inflation. It is inflation that causes the worst problem for all Canadians but especially for senior citizens and other people on fixed incomes.
The greatest compassion that we could show to anyone on a fixed income is to provide them with security and stability to meet their cost of living. If people can look ahead to next year and say that the cost of living will hold steady, then that will be the greatest contribution we can make to their lives. It is not misguided to attack inflation. It is not misguided to give pensioners security on the price of food, the price of housing, the price of transportation, the price of clothing and the price of gifts for their grandchildren and their children. Those are things that matter deeply to people, and pensioners want to have the security of stable prices.
In my riding I think pensioners understand that the six and five program is giving them that kind of security and that kind of a target. Senior citizens support the attack against inflation. I have called radio stations and been on hot line shows across the country, including at a station in Victoria, and the question that comes to me constantly from seniors is whether we are going to give them stability of prices and security on the cost of living. People are not asking us about indexing their pension. People are asking whether we are going to get the reason for the indexing under control.
When I talk to pensioners they note that the six and five idea has in the way the Government is applying it, an element of fairness in it. We are applying the six and five idea wherever our reach extends. We are applying it to companies, to prices as well as to wages, and to our social assistance programs. Seniors, in my experience, are saying that it is effective. The six and five program is enlisting co-operation from businesses, from labour, from ordinary people and, most especially, from other Governments. The six and five program is generating an effective attack against inflation.
Finally, seniors have noted that the way we are using the six and five program is helping to rebuild the economy. Pensioners in my area can see how effective, for example, the $3,000 housing grant is becoming in the housing market in Mississauga. That grant is financed by the reallocation of funds from programs like these. We are not simply cutting back; we are using the funds to stimulate the economy in other places, to create jobs and to give people some confidence that there is lasting help. Those are things pensioners want us to do.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
As a Liberal I am very conscious that we must help people who are vulnerable and I am very proud of the record that we have with our various pension programs. I have listened to the recitations and the histories of pension programs in Canada coming from Members on all sides, and I am conscious that it was Liberal Governments that introduced those programs. It was Liberals who gave pensioners a great security net in their pension schemes. But that does not mean that those schemes must constantly be written in stone.
Pensioners today remind us that the basic problem of inflation is that it is attacking their security net. Pensioners themselves tell us that high prices are ruining the security that they have in those pension programs. They are telling us that inflation is the biggest threat they face. They do not regard the six and five program as an attack on senior citizens; they regard it as an attack on the worst problem facing senior citizens and as the logical development in the security of a pension scheme.
Seniors across this country want food costs, rent costs, transportation costs, clothing costs and all the other basic costs brought under control. They have been telling us to not throw money away by constantly increasing the protection they have against inflation, but instead to get inflation down. Senior citizens know that inflation is causing us to lose jobs, causing us to lose the markets for our businesses, causing us to lose the security and comfort that all of us have come to expect from our economy. Senior citizens know that high inflation is creating high interest rates and creating that terrible daisy chain of economic woes that we have been experiencing recently.
Senior citizens are prepared to join in an attack against the root cause of our woes-inflation. They see co-operation from many Canadians and they are prepared to be co-operative in that effort. They have noticed that the federal Government has moved in other sectors, has controlled telephone prices, has controlled CMHC rents, has controlled scores of prices that would otherwise have gone up beyond the 6 per cent ceiling. We have used the money earned from savings in the 6 per cent program to help farmers, fishermen, small businesses and workers in all walks of life.
Above all, senior citizens have seen that the pension program itself is still intact. Next year the pension program will have a 6 per cent increase. The principle of the pensions and their indexing is there. On top of that is the principle that the poorest pensioners are the most protected. That remains intact. By the ingenious joining of the GIS and OAS systems, we have been able to protect those pensioners who need every dollar they can get out of the pension system.
These are basic ideas in this program. I have been asked by people across the way about my principles and whether I will stand up and vote for this Bill. I say I will do it proudly. I do not do that from any sort of external coercion; I do it because 1 am proud of this program.

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I have been asked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) to give him some of my time. Apparently he feels the challenge that has been made. If Members of this House want to hear about his principles and ideas, they will let him take a few minutes out of my allotted time to say that he, too, is prepared to support this Bill.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) wants to speak, he has had all afternoon to stand up. It is proper that a Member on this side now be recognized. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer):
That the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is a perfectly acceptable motion, but I wonder if the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would do the Chair a favour and not put a motion which I may eventually have to put to a vote. I think what he wants is recognition of the Hon. Member. The Chair is inclined to see that Hon. Member. I would rather not deal with a motion that might become votable. If the Hon. Member has intended that I deal with a votable motion, I will, of course, respect his right. Otherwise, may I simply proceed as I ordinarily would. I understand there is not unanimous consent to recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). I would now look to my left in the usual order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: On that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-131. I find it incredulous and I am amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), would stand here and say that he will take great pride in voting for this Bill. He is going to vote for this Bill because he supports it. What he really wants to do is cut back on the pay senior citizens are receiving in spite of the fact those senior citizens have done absolutely nothing wrong over the past 10 or 15 years.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about compassion. He claims the Liberals are compassionate. When I get into my comments, I will show that the Liberals have not been compassionate with the Canada Pension Plan, inflation or students. Over the last 14 years they have put us in a deficit situation. We have a deteriorating business climate which is getting this country into deep trouble. I will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they do not qualify for the appellation of being compassionate.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about fairness. Howe fair is it to take a senior citizen with just the OAS, S3,000 a year, and limit that to 6 per cent or $180, compared to what is earned by a Member of Parliament, $62,000 and what will amount to an increase of $3,900 next year? That will be our increase, yet we restrict senior citizens to $180. What about the Deputy Ministers who earn $90,000 and next year will automatically receive an additional $5,400 while the senior citizen receives only $180? The Parliamentary Secretary talks
about fairness and compassion. It is a bunch of ballyhoo, and I do not accept it.
He talked about the great Liberal Party that put into place the medicare system, the hospital insurance system and the Canada Pension Plan. That is correct, but the Liberal Party of 15 years ago is not the Liberal Party that stands before us today. It is an entirely different Party.
Classical liberalism, which many of us stand for, the right of the individual to build something and profit from it, has been taken away. With all of their intervention, thousands of statutes and regulations and Crown corporations, they have taken away that right that we all stood for as classical liberals compared to the tyranny of state capitalism.
Members opposite should have a history lesson in economics. I will give it to them. Before 1750 we had in this country state capitalism. At that time there were kings and monarchs. They made all of the decisions with respect to the division of capital and how it was applied to the nation.
In about 1750, as a result of a long process, we got into classical liberalism where the individual owned the capital. The capital was divided into millions of individual segments and the individuals were allowed to make the decisions. When that swept through Europe, it created more wealth than had ever been created in the entire history of mankind. Even the poor in the western nations were far richer than the kings had been under state capitalism.
Since World War II we started with the new form of liberalism, state intervention. After 200 years, from 1750 to 1950, we started on a steady move back to state capitalism, exactly the same point in which individuals found themselves before 1750. We have now ground down to where individual Canadians are at exactly the same point as the peasants were before 1750. That is what the new Liberal Party is doing. Is that something to be proud of? The Parliamentary Secretary should hang his head in shame.
Thirteen Progressive Conservatives have stood up to oppose this Bill because it is wrong. Three Liberals have stood up with a mish-mash of comments on compassion and fairness. It was a bunch of nonsense. There were four NDP who spoke against it. This is another example of the Government since 1968, the new Liberals, the new state intervention. They are the new kings of the land.
The individual Canadian now has to pay the price. There is a special price for our senior citizens who worked hard all their lives. Their standard of living is dropping and will drop more if we do not get these people opposite out. 1 am pleased to report that senior citizens are banding together. They see the threat of the current Liberal Party. They will be active in the next election and will do their part to throw them out.
This Bill is part of the six and five program. Wait until January when the new rules come in. Members will speak for 20 minutes and there will be a 10-minute question period. I can hardly wait until Members opposite read their departmental speeches. The odd one prepares his own speech, but most
November 30, 1982

are prepared for them. We will have a lot of fun. Members will have to know what they are talking about. I can hardly wait.
The Government is virtually extorting from senior citizens their proper fee. Let me talk about Bill C-133. All during their careers, retired public servants paid into the pension plan. They paid an extra 1 per cent pursuant to a signed and negotiated contract. They paid that amount and now they are entitled to indexing at the rate of inflation. They paid an extra 1 per cent-pursuant to a signed contract and they are entitled to the benefit. The Government took the money, put it into a special-well, it did not put it into a special account but there is a bookkeeping entry. The money was frittered away, but it is on the books and there is a surplus of about $14 billion, if I remember correctly. But the Government is not going to honour the contract, and that is extortion. If private enterprise did that, those guys opposite would be up yelling and screaming. But because their Cabinet has done it, they are going to stand up and vote for this Bill, and all their claims to independence do not mean a sweet thing because they are not independent. They are being called to support a Cabinet which should not be supported. If they really represented the true interest of their constituents they would let the people have a choice. We know what the people will do, they will turf them out.
When any of these Bills are being discussed, Mr. Speaker, we should never forget about where we were in this country. Let us go back to 1968. We had a small national debt, just a drop in the bucket. We had a balanced budget, yet even with that we had a health care system second to none. We had hospital insurance and a medicare system under which the doctors were happy. We had post-secondary education for thousands upon thousands of people who were able to come from both the farms and the cities and go to university. We had a first class agricultural industry which exported to ail countries of the world. We had a manufacturing infrastructure in Ontario second to none. Our standard of living was second from amongst of the OECD countries, which meant we were second in the world. That is what we had in 1968 and we could truly be proud. Not only did we have Old Age Security, we had a Canada Pension Plan and a regular retirement benefits program for senior citizens under which they could feel secure and know that they had done well throughout their life, built a nest egg for their retirement, and they could look forward to their old age. There is no doubt we were one of the finest countries in the entire world.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what has happened? Have the citizens changed? Did we do something to deserve being where we are today?
Let me tell you where we are today, Mr. Speaker. The first thing the Government did was to change the rules so that Members of this House were no longer in control of the purse strings. During the normal course when the Estimates come along, they are automatically approved. It does not matter
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
what this House or the standing committees do. From the moment financial accountability to this House ended, you can chart the deficit as it went up in direct proportion to what the Government has been doing to this House since then. As a result we are no longer second in our over-all standard of living, we are thirteenth. We are in fiftieth place in our financial standing in the Euro-money market. So practically everyone else in the world is doing better than us.
Government Members always stand up and say, well, inflation is affecting the entire western world and we are trapped just like everyone else is. Well, that is true, but why have we dropped from second place to thirteenth? It is because of their policies over there, nothing more. Let us not fool ourselves. When they force this Bill through, they are forcing through a law which breaks a signed and sealed contract. The federal civil servants delivered their end of the contract, they paid the extra 1 per cent. In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, the Government should say that, well, we have taken your 1 per cent for all these years and now we are breaking the contract, so we will give you your 1 per cent back. That would be the fair thing to do, but the Government is not doing that. In fact, it is continuing to collect the 1 per cent from the employees today. So federal civil servants are being forced to pay the 1 per cent, but if they have to retire today they are not going to get the extra inflation benefits. Surely the Government should be consistent; if it is going to break the contract, it should give them their money back.


Gordon Edward Taylor: They would not break the contract with Buchanan, though.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I said that in 1968 we had almost a negligible national debt. It is now over $140 billion, and if we add in the Government's contingent liabilities for the guarantees it has given to the Massey-Fergusons, the Domes and the Petro-Cans of the world, the exposure is well over $200 billion. We have gone from balanced budgets to a deficit of over $24 billion a year or $2 billion a month, Mr. Speaker. The interest to service the debt is going to be about $17 billion or $18 billion. As I have said before, that is not insignificant because it concentrates wealth in the hands of people who are already wealthy.
If someone has $1 million, they are not going to put it out into business; they are going to lend it to their own Government and get 19.5 per cent, as they did last year. That has the effect of making the rich even richer, and it does away with our middle class. When we do away with our middle class, Mr. Speaker, we will lose that enormous buffer against extremism, whether it be political, ideological or religious extremism. As the Government destroys the middle class, it destroys Canada, and we will end up like the Third World countries where there is a small group of the incredibly rich and a huge group of poor.
Is that what Liberalism is about? Is that what compassion is about? Is that the fairness that the Hon. Member for Mississauga North speaks about? He stands up and is proud of that

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
system. I would like to see what the senior citizens of his riding think of that.
How did the Government do this, Mr. Speaker? Canadians are a bright people, but as they get more education it seems that this Government wants to impose more regulation on them. Is it not ironic that when Canadians were developing and building this country-under Conservative Governments and old Liberal Governments, the classic Liberals-we did not have to have regulations and rules to affect our people. Now that we have them educated-we have probably the highest standard of education in the world-we think they need to have millions of statutes and regulations to hold them down. That is what Liberals have done to the people of this country. They got us into this enormous trouble, for which we are now paying a severe price. They did it by offering very attractive programs in practically every area, including many under the sole jurisdiction of the Provinces. At the same time as it offered these programs, the Government kept taxes low and borrowed the difference. It is great at the start. Maybe 5 per cent of tax revenues go to service interest on the debt. It is 10, 15 or 20 per cent and now it is up to 30 per cent. At 30 per cent the Liberals are alarmed and want to cut back. When it was 20 per cent some of them said that the trend line was wrong and, in time, would get us in trouble. The Liberals kept saying that if people voted for them, they would get cheap gas. Suddenly, they want to draw the line at 30 per cent. Why 30? Why not let it go to 35, 40, 50 or 100 per cent? If Liberalism means that programs can be offered, based on low taxes and the difference borrowed, then why is 30 the magic figure?
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) will direct his mind to that question. Why is 30 per cent of the tax revenue going to service the debt? Why is that the point chosen to cut it off, rather than 25 per cent or 15 per cent? What does the Hon. Member think the ideal figure is? I should like his views on that.
Senior citizens are being asked to cut back. Those are the people who will have to use the medicare system and the hospital insurance system more, as they grow older. As early as last year, by cutting out the revenue guarantee, which was really a fiction, the Government cut back on contributions to the Provinces by several hundreds of millions of dollars. As a result, the Provinces cut the flow of money to hospitals and doctors, and now senior citizens will have to pay more out of their own pockets for these services.
It is a two-edged sword, Mr. Speaker, and senior citizens get it both ways. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is shaking her head. All revenue sharing was fiction.


Monique Bégin: You are a fiction too!


Blaine Allen Thacker: I was a member of the committee and I heard the evidence. It had been negotiated away by the Minister of
Finance when the last agreement was negotiated. It was revived again as a peg on which the Government could hang its hat.
I would not expect the Liberals to honour a contract, Mr. Speaker; they never have. They will look you in the eye, sign a contract with you and next day stick a knife in your back. They started that in Alberta in 1971 with a verbal agreement on energy. The very next day, Donald Macdonald stood in this House and put a knife in Alberta's back. The next time Alberta came to discuss a natural gas pricing agreement, they would not accept the verbal agreement of a Cabinet Minister and insisted that it be in writing. And 24 days later the Minister, Alastair Gillespie, stood in this House and arbitrarily broke that contract that had been signed, sealed and delivered.
Now the same thing has been done to senior citizens. I am not surprised when the Liberals break their contracts because they do not know what a contract means in terms of honour, integrity and honesty.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Unless it is with a Liberal; then they will not break it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Senior citizens will be hurt by the effect of this legislation on the health insurance program and on medicare. Students will be hurt by its effect on the postsecondary education system. We no longer have jobs for everyone as was the case in 1968 and yet, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why there should not be.
The whole purpose of Government strategy throughout the years should have been to create a business climate that would provide jobs for our youth. It has not only failed in that goal, but has attacked it. The National Energy Program cost thousands of jobs in the West alone and, indirectly, has cost thousands of jobs in the manufacturing infrastructure of Ontario.
This nation has grown on megaprojects. Under the program proposed by this Party for an 18-cent tax on imported oil and a special tax on the companies, the funds would have been used for such things as Fundy tidal power, the expansion of the James Bay project in Quebec, the Nelson River project in Manitoba, the Alsands and Cold Lake plants-that money would have been used for investment to create jobs. The spinoff in Ontario and Quebec would have been enormous.
Is my time almost up, Mr. Speaker?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: No, it just seems like forever!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is a problem of relevance.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, in corroboration of my main point, I was showing that this Bill hurts all parts of the community, not only senior citizens but the youth of the country and everybody else.
What about the Canada Pension Plan?
November 30, 1982


Mr. Evans:: We are not talking about the Canada Pension Plan.


Blaine Allen Thacker: But you should be!


John Leslie Evans: We are talking about Old Age Security.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals try to isolate these matters in separate Bills and then ask you to enforce the rules of relevancy so that Canadians will never see the broad picture. 1 am trying to show them the broad picture-a concerted attack by the new Liberals. They are not like the old Liberals, who were fair shooters.
What will be the effect of these deficits and this Bill on senior citizens? The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the effect of inflation on senior citizens and about the cause of inflation. He said that senior citizens want to bring inflation down. That is true, but they want it to be done fairly. 1 should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me if he can look senior citizens in the eye, knowing that he and I will receive an increase of $3,900 in salary on January 1, when they will only receive $180. Does that not cause him any problems? He is shaking his head to indicate that it causes him no problems at all. Well, it causes me problems, Mr. Speaker.
If the Government wanted to attack inflation it could do so by proposing an across-the-board increase, so that people at the lower end of the income scale would receive more, and those at the higher end of the scale would receive less. This would have the effect of bringing us closer together. There would be a broader middle class and not the extremes of the incredibly rich and the incredibly poor. That is what should be done in times of inflation, because inflation does create a rich class and a poor class. Surely that would be Liberalism. It is Progressive Conservatism.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You are slipping into bed with the NDP.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I enjoy these debates, Mr. Speaker, because there is no doubt that when I speak it gets those boys agitated over there. Even the ladies are agitated.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Even the ladies?


Blaine Allen Thacker: They hate to hear it from the hip.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It would be nice to hear it from the head!


Blaine Allen Thacker: We call it straight, from this side. There is no pussy-footing around. They particularly hate it when a man stands up-even a lady stands up, and tells them that they are not really the Liberals they thought they were.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Even a lady?


Blaine Allen Thacker: They are not the compassionate, fair people they thought they were. It cannot be maintained today that Canada is a land where fairness prevails. Things are occurring that are not fair. That is not consistent with the principles of Liberalism, it is not consistent with Progressive Conservatism and it is not consistent with NDPism.
It is not fair that in times of high inflation, a percentage settlement is given so that a man making $90,000 per year
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
receives an increase of $5,400 while senior citizens only receive an increase of $180. That is absolutely not fair. Across-the-board settlements are called for in times of inflation, so that we do not fall into the Third World country category.
What have senior citizens done to deserve such treatment? What sin did they commit, to be treated like this? It is true that some of them voted Liberal, but that may be the only mistake they made and I am sure they will not make it again- or at least not those who understand what has occurred in the country.
There is no doubt in my mind that people have to re-take their sovereignty. For too long, individuals have trusted Governments in this country, and I think we have gone too far in that respect. People now need to re-take their sovereignty. They need to spend two hours a week insisting that their Member of Parliament explain matters to them. They need to read about what Governments at all levels are doing and then make their opinions known. We get away with murder in this House as far as our disposition of public funds is concerned.
I could continue for a long time pointing out what the Liberal Government has done and why it should be voted out of office. The Government proudly sets out in this Bill the basic old age pension at $246.92 and what it will be in 1983 and 1984. By October 1984 the senior citizen about whom we are talking will be receiving $274.83, a magnificent increase from $246.92! It is incredible, it is peanuts. It will hardly buy three meals by 1984.


An Hon. Member:: They have soup kitchens in Toronto now.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is true. The memo pointed out that we are talking about people who are already below the poverty line as established by our friends in the other place. The poverty line for singles is $8,912.40. These people are already below that, and the Government is imposing upon them a 6 per cent increase. It is just not right. Married couples are in the same boat. Pensioners who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement will be protected to a lesser amount, but that is not the principle we wanted in Canadian society. We wanted them all to be treated fairly because they have paid their dues. We are all prepared to pay our dues.
The crowning irony which makes me more bitter than anything else is that if our taxes had been increased since 1968 when people were offered programs, if they had been presented with taxes at the same time so that they could have really chosen what they wanted, we would not be in the current jam. If those of us who made much more than the ordinary citizen had paid more taxes in 1968, 1969 and 1970-especially during the 1970s, the good years-we would not be in this jam today. When all the rest of the countries in the western world that chose to go into deficit positions were in really deep trouble, we could have been stepping out and genuinely borrowing to retool our industries. Keynesian economics will

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
work, provided the Government uses both sides of the equation. In short, Keynes says that when there are tough times the Government should borrow to stimulate the economy. The other side of the coin is that when there are good times the Government should repay the debts so that it is in a balanced position and, if bad times come again, it can borrow in order to retool factories and to start megaprojects.
The Government opposite did not follow that rule. During the good years from 1968 and into the 1970s, but particularly the 1970s, the Government continued to offer programs, keep taxes low and borrow the difference. Because they had low taxes, Canadians went out and bought houses that were too big. They took on mortgages which were much larger than they should have been. They paid more for businesses and for land than they should have. They were being deceived. They had the programs, they were paying the low taxes, but they did not realize the deficit was piling up.
If we had a Government that was straight up with people and offered a corresponding tax with a program, people could have really chosen. I think about where we could have been if we had a balanced budget today and we did not have a national debt draining $17 billion just to service it. We would not have had concentrated wealth in the hands of a few people. We would be balanced so that we could borrow now in order to get the country moving again. In that way we would not have been faced with Bill C-131, for which the Government will stand and vote and which we will oppose. We would not have to be here at all. Also the senior citizens of Canada would not have been faced with inflation, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare could have continued to be incredibly proud of her programs.
I am sure the Minister must be frustrated because she more than anyone else sees the need of these people. She speaks eloquently of their need but because of other people in Cabinet who have created the enormous deficit, she is being hurt; her position and reputation are not what they were because of this. It is a tragedy, but let us not let them off the hook. There are political consequences when people make such mistakes. I say to Hon. Members opposite that they should rise and say to the Cabinet that it has done wrong. They should indicate that Canada needs a major program to get out of the present situation, which does not include increasing the travel allowances of Cabinet Ministers and their Parliamentary Secretaries by 70 per cent when senior citizens have to take less; that is not right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-131, to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), and to commend the action of the Government.
We have listened to some eloquent speeches. I have great admiration for the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who unfortunately today was a typical master of false assumption. With vigour and great eloquence he defended his
wrong assumption that only he recognized our special obligation to the elderly. I should like to read into the record the conclusion of a letter from the Guelph Senior Citizens Council which reads:
There is a great deal of respect among elderly Canadians for the efforts you have made on their behalf, and also for the Ministry of Health and Welfare under your jurisdiction.
Of course the Council was referring to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and her Department.
The Minister is well known throughout the country by the elderly Canadians, for her compassion, her interest and her determination to ensure that they live well and happy and with justice. I hope I have laid this to rest at least for the moment. While the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton may be eloquent, he should save it for assumptions that are right, not false ones.
Also I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we heard much this afternoon about voluntary sacrifice and heroism. It seems to me that there was a feeling across the floor that only they recognized these facts. Again these assumptions are false. I do not know of any Party which has ever held power in the House that has had so much consideration for the elderly. It bothers me that there seems to be a feeling that the Bill has something to do with removing something from somebody. It is really making an offer to somebody. It is allowing senior citizens to share in the combat, if one likes, against inflation. They want to share. Certainly senior citizens, a vast number of them to whom I have spoken, are saying, "Can you do something about stabilizing our income and about stabilizing things so that the money we now have will go further or at least as far as it used to go?" Our six and five program is an attempt to do this. May I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-External Affairs-International institute of applied systems analysis, (b) Attendance of Canadian National Railways Vice-President; the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass)-Veterans Affairs-Study of income level applicable to war veterans allowance, (b) Request that adjustments be made retroactive; the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Pipelines-Proposed water pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to Regina, Saskatchewan, (b) Request for assurance of employment.
November 30, 1982

It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2) be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at six o'clock, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) had the floor.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted at six o'clock, I was talking about the broad program of six and five and its attempt to fight inflation. This Bill that we are debating today and which we have been debating since last week is just part of a broad program to put the six and five program in a position where the Government can continue to fight inflation. I would like to draw to the attention of Members on the other side that none of us would be supporting Bill C-131 if it were in isolation. But we must remember that it is part of an over-all package to control inflation. Bill C-131 is part of a comprehensive plan. It is part of an over-all package for economic recovery, and it cannot be taken in isolation. If that were true, none of us could support this action.
What we are trying to do with this legislation and through the six and five program is to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. We are asking everyone to make a contribution, except those who are in the greatest need. We are saying that we can reduce the burden on the taxpayer and it is a matter really of non-contributory versus the contributory plan. We are looking at such things as the GIS, the Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan. We know which of those are contributory and which are non-contributory. We know that those programs designated to assist people in the greatest need are the GIS and the child tax credit programs. What we must do, above all, is to defeat inflation. Equally important, we must restore economic growth. If we do not restore economic growth, there will be an even greater pressure on the social programs than there is now. Therefore, our six and five program and Bill C-131, which is part of the whole package,
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
are to fight inflation but they are also to restore economic growth.
The reason I feel that I can support this legislation is that the Government is asking for a small contribution from all of those who benefit from programs funded by the taxpayer and from those who work for the taxpayer. What are the choices? A bigger deficit? A burden on the taxpayer? I do not think so. But today, if we think about it, who is in greatest need? I have no doubt that all of the things we have heard about the plight of the elderly today are true. I agree times are difficult for them. Times are difficult for them because they have lost stability, mainly because of the economic times which have arisen, principally because of inflation. Who is in the greatest need?


Neil Young: Dome.


James Duncan Schroder: I think it is the unemployed who will lose their life's work. What about youth, 25 per cent of whom are unemployed? We must have the funds to generate employment. After all, if we do not generate employment and if we do not restore our economic growth, who is going to pay for tomorrow's pensions? How will we generate the funds to take care of those people who will be in the greatest need?
It is very easy to identify with those people. As I said earlier in my speech today, I would not like anyone to believe that only the Opposition cares about the aged. After all, I want to emphasize that anyone who thinks about them will recognize that for all of these years this Party has been a caring Party. It was our Party that established the legislation. There has not been any sudden change. This afternoon an Hon. Member asked whatever happened to the Liberal Party of 1968. How has it changed?


Neil Young: It has changed in a thousand ways.


James Duncan Schroder: I wonder whether that Hon. Member has ever heard of evolution. We have to change with the times. The economic times of today in the world are different. We have had to change. If we all contribute today, we will be able to provide for a brighter tomorrow. Certainly, those with the greatest interest in the ability of taxpayers to fund these programs are retired. We seem to forget what this Bill is all about. This Bill is all about helping those people least able to help themselves. There is no question that there is a crisis in our national life. The Government has called upon all Canadians to share in a determined effort to fight inflation and bring it down. It is only right that those Canadians who are not in need are entirely prepared to share in the serious sacrifices that are required to bring our current economic crisis under control. It requires the co-operation of Canadians to overcome this formidable challenge.
At a time when the Government is calling upon Canadians to tighten their belts and strive even harder to overcome the

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
evils of inflation, I find it gratifying to see that the Government's total commitment to protecting and ensuring that those benefits it wishes to give through those programs that are designated to assist our fellow Canadians most in need will not be reduced. One can see that this is provided for in the Bill.
The Government is proposing in the Bill which is before us today to limit indexation of the Old Age Security benefits to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. I want to emphasize the point that full indexation of these benefits will resume on January 1, 1985. However, this Bill also ensures that the lowest income pensioners will be fully protected from the limitation of the indexing factor. This fact seems to have been forgotten. The Guaranteed Income Supplement for pensioners with lower income will continue to be fully indexed. In addition, everyone receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement will receive an extra increase to fully offset the limitation of indexation of basic Old Age Security payments. This same protection from the limitation of the indexing factor will also be extended to recipients of a spouse's allowance.
When this is all put into context with what we have heard from the Opposition so far, one sees that their allegations that the Government is removing benefits and reducing what those in the greatest need have are false. That is not the fact.
I would like to concentrate on these particular aspects of the Bill. Low income pensioners will continue to receive the benefit of fully indexed pensions. This means that pensioners in receipt of a Guaranteed Income Supplement or a spouse's allowance will receive a benefit that will continue to be indexed to the Consumer Price Index. In addition, the benefits will be increased by an amount corresponding to the loss associated with the reduced indexation on the basic income.
This approach maintains the income guarantees of the present program. In fact, there are now some pensioners who are just above the qualifying income level for the Guaranteed Income Supplement who will be eligible for this benefit because of the limited indexation of the basic pension. I want to emphasize that no pensioners loses out. This is an important fact which the Minister has been trying to point out. This is the purpose of the program.
As I have said, those who are not in need are being asked to make some contribution in the fight to reduce inflation. This is the purpose of the six and five program. Those benefits which pensioners have received in the past will be retained during 1983 and 1984. They will continue to receive them in 1985 when full indexation is restored to the program as a whole. We can be proud that the guarantees made to low income pensioners are being honoured and fully protected by this Government.
It is most encouraging that in spite of the economic constraints, after objectively analyzing our social policies for older Canadians, the Government has been able to maintain a firm stand and give assistance where it is most needed. This legislation is most important because it emphasizes the Government's continuing concern and commitment to the needs of our persioners. All Canadians have seen the effects of recession and spiralling inflation on the economy. However, some groups, such as low income pensioners, are particularly
vulnerable to the impact of inflation. Even at a time when great restraint is in order, it is reassuring to see that the Government is very aware of the plight of those older Canadians who are most affected by inflation.
In Canada, at the end of the nineteenth and into the twentieth century, the increasing level of industrialization led to a change of lifestyle and weakened the traditional extended family responsibilities. The individual increasingly became responsible for saving and providing for his or her own retirement. At the same time, the new industrial structure meant that increasing numbers of older workers were being forced into retirement. Poverty among the elderly was widespread because few pension plans existed and personal savings for retirement were inadequate. Increasing pressure was brought to bear on the federal Government to aid the elderly who lived in poverty.
The federal Government assumed the major responsibility for the welfare of the elderly in 1951. Section 94 of the British North America Act was amended in that year to authorize Parliament to make laws in relation to old age pensions.
It was only 16 years ago in December, 1966, that the Guaranteed Income Supplement Program for Old Age Security recipients was approved. In January 1967, pensioners born on or before December 31, 1910, who had no other source of income, became eligible for a 40 per cent supplement to the Old Age Security pension. The Guaranteed Income Supplement Program was initially designed to provide financial assistance to those persons who would not be eligible or would not fully benefit from the introduction of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans in 1966.
I have lived long enough to remember the days when we lived in the so-called gold watch syndrome when all that one received after working many years was perhaps a handshake and a gold watch. These earning-related social insurance programs providing for the income protection in the event of death, disablement or retirement of labour force members, offered no benefit to those already retired and only limited benefits to those retiring during the ten-year phase-in period. We had problems even at that time.
The Guaranteed Income Security was to be a transitional program gradually phasing out as the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans were phased in. The extent of the Guaranteed Income Security Program when it was first introduced was to provide a basic minimum income to those pensioners who had no other source of income. It served as a floor below which pensioners' income could not fall. The Guaranteed Income Security was never intended to provide an adequate income but was simply designed to financially assist pensioners with little or no income who could not fully benefit from the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans.
It was soon realized, howver, that these earning-related plans would not replace the need for income assistance to the elderly. Therefore, the Guaranteed Income Security was made a permanent feature of the Old Age Security Program. This became effective in 1971.
November 30, 1982

Since 1971, the guaranteed income approach to alleviating poverty in this country has been acknowledged as one of the most important advances in social policy in Canada's history. It is a way of ensuring that the basic needs of pensioners with no income or very limited income other than the basic Old Age Security pension can be met without subjecting them to the indignity of a means test.
Another significant change in the program occurred when, in 1975, a second income-tested benefit, the spouse's allowance, was introduced. This income-tested benefit was payable to the 60 to 64 year old spouses living with Old Age Security pensioners. The program was intended to meet the needs of many married couples in Canada who were being forced to live on a single Old Age Security pension and a Guaranteed Income Supplement, because only one spouse was over 65 and eligible for these benefits. In the traditional pattern of marriage in this country, the husband was generally older than the wife, and very often, especially in the case of older couples, the husband had been the only wage-earner. It was quite reasonable, therefore, to ensure that the minimum income needs of the couple would be basically met through this program. It did not make much sense, for example, that a couple receiving Old Age Security program benefits might also have to seek provincial social assistance to meet basic income needs.
The Old Age Security program and, in particular, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, are widely perceived to be the only practical means of ensuring that Canada's elderly have adequate incomes. This program now plays a vital and important role in Canada's retirement system. Indeed, the Guaranteed Income Supplement is the only part of the retirement income system that presently guarantees a minimum level of income to virtually all of Canada's elderly population.
The cost of improving benefits in any program is not negligible, but the importance of these income-tested programs has been fully recognized and protected. In 1979, and again in 1980, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's allowance programs were enriched. The benefit rates were increased by $20 per pensioner household on January 1, 1979 and again by $35 in July of 1980. The role of these programs is so important to those pensioners requiring this additional financial assistance, that in those years when inflation was inflicting severe financial difficulties, the Government took decisive action to increase its commitment to these people.
The Government is striving to protect the improvements that have been made thus far in our effort to fight poverty and to ensure that our elderly population is guaranteed a basic minimum income level. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has repeatedly said, sacrifices by those who can throw a lifeline to those struggling with inflation and economic hardship must be made. Our country will recover from the ravages of inflation. That is what the program of six and five is all about and that is what this Bill is trying to do. It is trying to ensure that we will succeed with this program. I think one of the major reasons we are hearing so much criticism from the Opposition is the fact that the program is succeeding, and the fact that
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
inflation is being reduced and these elderly people will eventually be better off.


Neil Young: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the Hon. Member permit a question?


James Duncan Schroder: At the end of my speech, I will be quite happy to answer the question of the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is not the responsibility of the Chair, I suppose, to explain that that is not a point or order, but I should indicate that if there is an indication by the Hon. Member who is now speaking that he wishes to entertain a question, then that might become a matter of consent for the House. However, it is not a point of order which the Hon. Member has raised.


James Duncan Schroder: I believe that we can all take great pride in maintaining and fully protecting the rights of our low-income pensioners in these hard times. We have said over and over again that this is the Government which has been known for doing just that. The social contract between the Government and the people of Canada has not been broken, nor will it be broken. We in Canada can be proud of the system of retirement income planning that presently exists, a three-tiered retirement income system to which this government is fully committed. The first tier of the retirement income planning system is the Old Age Security program. It is the cornerstone upon which a solid foundation for the future retirement of every Canadian can be laid. It provides a guarantee that pensioners will receive a minimum level of income when they retire.
The second tier consists of benefits from the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans. These Plans are part of the compulsory contributory social insurance plans which I mentioned earlier, plans which enable members of the labour force to acquire and retain protection for themselves and their families against the loss of income due to retirement, disability or death.
Finally, the third tier of our retirement income system consists of private income sources such as employer-sponsored pension plans, registered retirement savings plans, and the other savings and acquired assets of a lifetime.
It is probably important that we recognize that these later acquired assets of a lifetime are one of the major things which are being hurt by inflation. People who have saved diligently, who have put money away for a rainy day because of inflation, are finding that these dollars are no longer sufficient.
We have said earlier, as did my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), that the Government is doing its best to control those prices over which we have some jurisdiction, but it is incumbent on all of those who are earning and all of those who are not in need to try to make some contribution to this fight against inflation. Therefore, we see these three components, old age security, public pension plans and private resources, diminishing as inflation continues. Therefore, the fight against inflation, the reduction of inflation, enhances our savings on which we have been

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
counting to support us as we grow old, when we are no longer capable of earning.
These three components constitute the framework of the three tier retirement income planning system in Canada. Retirement income is planned over a lifetime and this Government, by confirming its commitment to the Old Age Security program has shown great strength and leadership. This Government has reaffirmed that the concepts of universality and indexation shall and must be protected and retained for our present and future generations.
I do not think I can put this in any stronger context than by saying that the Government is concerned about others. We are concerned about those people who have been so eloquently described by the Opposition as people in need. It is satisfying to me that the need has been identified on both sides of the House. This Government has recognized that need through all these years and has established programs to look after these needs.
Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to make sure that those in greatest need in this country will be looked after. They will not be forsaken. I hope they will be reassured by the statement from Members of the Government who are supporting this legislation and that they will not be frightened into thinking something is being taken away from them or that they are going to lose what they were counting on having.
This legislation, not only this Bill C-131 but the total package of legislation of six and five, is to protect our senior citizens and to make sure that what they get from the Government and what they have saved through their lifetime will meet their needs.
I would like to reaffirm that this concept of universality and indexation shall and must be protected and retained for our present and future generations.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity of speaking to Bill C-131 because of a long-standing interest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, 1 was notified by my House Leader that the next speaker on the roll would be from our Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That will teach you to listen to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would not want the Hon. Member to have as many difficulties as the Chair does in attempting to find some reasonable juxtaposition as between Hon. Members who wish to speak. My impression is that it is a reasonable time for one of the Members to my left to speak, but if the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke would like to pursue it I promise to consider whetl er he ought to be
the next speaker. My impression is that I ought to recognize the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) and I think, following him, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.
If Hon. Members in the House are satisfied with that tentative approach or that judgment, then I can sit down and relax. If not 1 will listen to any Hon. Member who has a problem.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to hold up the proceedings of the House, and I will respect the Chair.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in fairness I have to say that we have had three speakers since the last NDP speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) makes a very gentle point, and it is much appreciated by the Chair.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I might just begin my comments again by saying that I have been waiting a long time to speak on this Bill as the debate on it has progressed over the several afternoons and evenings. It would be a much happier occasion if we were addressing a Bill which was improving the lot of pensioners, and establishing a benefit, instead of making it more difficult for our senior citizens to make their way in these difficult economic times. Pension reform will have to wait until after the November 1981 Budget, and after the borrowing Bills, the sports pool and several other bits of legislation which will come forward between now and the end of the session are taken care of.
Bill C-131 proposes to limit the costs of living increases in old age pensions to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984 without regard to the rate of inflation. Exempted from that six and five formula will be those pensioners receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement. By limiting Old Age Security increases to six and five the Government estimates that it will effect savings of some $105 million. I would ask my colleagues and those in the opposite side of this House to keep that figure in mind as we proceed through these comments.
This figure raises a number of issues, not the least of which is the amount of Government spending. The purpose of this Bill and the purpose of the six and five program, of which this Bill is a part, is to save the Government money and to increase its revenues. We on this side say that it is about time that the Government cut back on spending, which has been out of control for quite some time. In our wildest dreams we had not contemplated that the six and five restraint program would begin on pensioners, the persons who have worked throughout their life and now can least afford to bear the brunt of this kind of attack. They are in the front lines while the Government Department heads are free to continue to bring foolish expenditures and frills to the front of spending, but not to the front of the six and five formula which they have so effectively promoted over the last several weeks.
How is it just and equitable, Mr. Speaker, to cut back on pensions while spending millions of dollars on Government
November 30, 1982

advertising? Would it not make more sense to eliminate that advertising and keep the pensions fully indexed? All Members have been receiving a considerable amount of mail to that effect, and 1 am sure my colleagues have been impressed by the spirit that has been shown by senior citizens who say that they will carry their load and pay their way.
Several senior citizens in St. Catharines have written to me saying that they feel it is their duty to participate, to help Canada get out of this difficulty in which the Government has placed us. They are prepared to cut back on the amenities of living; they are prepared to trim their grocery budgets; they are prepared to "make do" another year with their present wardrobes, and they are prepared to encourage others to follow their example.
That kind of spirit, determination and willingness to sacrifice is alive and well in Canada. The Government would be well advised not to squander the last semblance of trust that is in existence now between the people of Canada and this Government.
I do not have to point out that quite apart from the political consequences that would ensue there is a far more serious consequence of loss of faith and trust in this Government itself. Once that trust has been lost, years and years of rebuilding will be required to regain the credibility that is essential in our democratic process.
The spirit being shown by our senior citizens and the trust that they are placing in the federal Government with regard to the six and five program is based on the premise that all Canadians and all levels of Government are going to play their part. Their determination to help Canada is not based on the assumption that they put up with less so that others can spend more.
Unfortunately, that is the case that exists at the present time. Senior citizens receiving the OAS are being asked to forgo $105 million; public service pensioners are being asked to forgo $100 million; Members of Parliament, Senators, House of Commons employees, public servants, RCMP, Armed Forces personnel and employees of Crown corporations are to forgo $800 million. Mothers are being asked to forgo $155 million in reduced family allowance benefits. In addition to these savings, the Government is increasing personal income taxes by $1.3 billion, or an average of $137 per taxpayer. It is slashing, and I emphasize slashing, $582 million from selected Government programs. The restraint total is $3,042 million.
Who really is doing the belt-tightening in this country? We can see that selected sections of our society are forgoing $1.16 billion in reduced salaries, pensions or benefits and that the tax-paying public in general is contributing $1.3 billion more in taxes, for a combined total of $2.46 billion, or better than 80 per cent of the Government's entire restraint program.
The Government, which claims to be leading the way, can only find of this grand sum $582 million to cut from its expenditures. What a shabby example this Government is giving to the people of Canada as it tries to convince them we should try to join together in a program of restraint, a program
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
that is so essential in these difficult economic times, forced upon Canadians by this extravagant Government.
If pensioners are going to be asked to tighten their belts and rally around the flag, then the frills will have to go first, the extravagant use of Jetstars, the Petro-Canada energy advertisements on television and radio and in the newspapers, the free briefcases provided for public servants. The list goes on and on. Also, as we see in today's paper, there are the excess expenditures over last year for Ministers' travelling expenses. These items added up to over $500 million in 1979, so they are not an insignificant amount in 1982.
More important, however, wasteful spending sends a message to Canadians that they are being taken for a ride. Let us look at that for a moment. When the press continues to show waste and useless expenditures of this Government, how can Canadians be expected to co-operate? They are being taken for a ride. While they scrimp and save, the Government tends to spend and squander. In these difficult economic times, indeed at any time, the Government cannot afford to leave such an impression with the public, especially the Canadian public, yet we see no action being taken to correct those abuses.
Our Leader has proposed that a parliamentary committee be established to track down waste in Government spending and be empowered to put a halt to it, putting in place a committee or agency to cut such spending where it is found. However, the Government vetoed that proposal. It was not acceptable because it might cut into some of the Government advantages or perks.
We in the Opposition do everything possible to bring forward examples of waste so that the necessary action can be taken, but rarely is anything ever done. Does the Government not care about using the hard-earned money of taxpayers in such a frivolous way?
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) recently raised a small matter of $6,000 spent on a courier service to deliver maps and photographs to 576 newspapers across this country. Couriers were used instead of Canada Post, incurring this expense of $6,000 for no just reason. In the eyes of some, it might be a small amount. They may say, "What's $6,000?" I emphasize that because I want to tell Hon. Members opposite what $6,000 means. Six thousand dollars represents the amount paid in taxes to the federal Government by two average taxpayers from the City of St. Catharines. In other words, those two taxpayers worked all year, paid their bills, kept up their rent or struggled with their mortgages and contributed $3,000 each to the coffers of this Government. They might have put that $3,000 to much better use themselves, but they thought the Government would use their money, wisely spend it on necessities and as needed. In one single thoughtless moment, that trust was dissipated. The Government squandered what those two taxpayers had contributed after working for a year.
Who could argue that those two individuals could not have put that money to much better use in these days of high

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
interest rates, high mortgage costs, they could have made a contribution to their own welfare instead of having it frittered away in that thoughtless moment.
Who on the Government benches cares if some poor individual in St. Catharines has his or her $3,000 wasted on courier services? To them $3,000 is just a drop in the bucket.
It is the attitude that counts, not the amount. If you do not care about the individual taxpayer's money and if you do not care about the pensioner's forgone cost of living increase, it is high time you packed up and left the job to someone who cares, someone who is prepared to respect the taxpayers' hard-earned money. That is why attitude is of so much importance. As long as this indifference of the Government continues and as long as waste and extravagance are the order of the day, there is no way that we on this side of the House can support a Bill such as the one before us.
Waste and frills must be cut first; trimming and tightening of departmental budgets must be next, then wage, pension and benefit restrictions will follow. Those are the priorities that might logically have been set by the Government, but with this Government, it is the reverse. All we are doing now is cutting the incomes of people to cover the cost of the waste and frills, which means that we are making no headway whatever.
In the interest of relevancy, I am leaving aside the major policy adjustments that could go a long way and should be made if we are to recover from this recession which besets us, but it should be understood that more than restraint alone is needed.
My comments today are clearly not going to change the Government's attitude. The Government will not withdraw the Bill and adopt the proper priority program as it is politically wed to the six and five program. It will see it through no matter what. This being so, and being determined as they are, I want to make a few comments on the Bill in the expectation that when the Bill gets to the committee, level heads will prevail and suggestions will be brought forward into amendments.
We have heard a lot of talk from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on how this Bill does not hurt the needy or affect those in need. That is pure nonsense. The six and five comes into effect for a single pensioner when that pensioner reaches or surpasses an income level of $8,900. Statistics Canada would classify such an individual as being below the poverty line in any major city in Canada, and Canada, and 40 per cent of all Canadians over 65 do live in metropolitan areas with populations of over 500,000.
* (2050)
Married couples join the six and five program when their household income exceeds $15,099, hardly a king's ransom today. In all, some 100,000 pensioners are hovering at these minimum income levels, and they are going to have their cost of living increases frozen at six and five while their rent or mortgage, food, heating and clothing costs will continue to rise, often at a rate in excess of that of inflation. It is evident that using the GIS as a basis for deciding who is in and who is
out of six and five is not satisfactory. The GIS is designed to keep pensioners at a statistically arrived at minimum level needed to live; it is not designed to provide a few extra dollars for movies, dinners out or holiday trips. Accordingly, if the GIS is the lowest acceptable income level, how is the pensioner earning just $1 more than the cut-off level for the GIS better equipped to see his or her pension cut?
I would propose, Mr. Speaker, as an absolute minimum, that the GIS base be scrapped and the Senate committee poverty line be adopted. This is still not being extravagant or generous, but it is a major step closer to putting some truth in the Minister's statement that adoption of the six and five will not affect those in need.
I further propose that money saved by limiting pension increases be specifically allocated to a program clearly identifiable as one of assistance to senior citizens. Whether this be for housing assistance, the New Horizons Program, national park fees or whatever, it can be decided on the basis of need and priority, but it is to assist those who need it. 1 believe it to be absolutely essential that pensioners affected by six and five know exactly the sacrifice they are being asked to make and where the money is to go. This Bill asks everyone to participate except the Government. Let the Government give leadership and then, if necessary, after it has gone through an accepted list of priorities, call on the pensioners and they will respond.
I cannot and will not vote for this Bill, and I will not support any similar effort to shift the burden of economic mismanagement-including resource mismanagement-onto those who have lived their work-a-day lives and are now least able to bear that load.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I want to open my remarks on Bill C-131 by saying that it is a sad day in this House when the Government has the gall to bring forward this Bill, especially today, the fortieth anniversary in this House of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a man who fought a hard fight to bring about universality of our pension plan.
When I came into this House, Mr. Speaker, as a bright young Member, I watched the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with a great deal of intensity. I watched her stand up in this House and defend time after time, day after day, her commitment to bringing about pension reform. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Liberal Government has destroyed the compassion that the people of Canada expected from it. The people of this country looked forward to the Minister bringing in the innovations they were expecting. I want to say that I had some personal dealings with the Minister. I went over and discussed programs and policies, and the problems I had with some of my constituents. She told me at that time, "you see, we can be compassionate". I thought at that time, yes, we do have responsible Members of Parliament, responsible Cabinet Ministers who do listen. But now we have a situation where the six and five world has started to take over.
November 30, 1982

No one has mentioned the "Blue Chip Committee". What happened to that six and five program committee headed by Ian Sinclair, President of Canadian Pacific? They were travelling across Canada, expounding the six and five program.
I wonder if Ian Sinclair is still so proud of this program, now that it is starting to affect pensioners across Canada. His salary is in the neighbourhood of $500,000 a year and he is expounding on the six and five program. I want to make it clear that no one can justify cutting pensions to meet the six and five program limits, particularly at times such as these.
1 heard the Parliamentary Secretary talk about how we must have restraint. He knows that just the other day in this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced a new Royal Commission into Canada's economic future. The salaries of the people on that Commission are going to be in the neighbourhood of $700 a day. Mr. Macdonald is going to be the Chairman of that Commission, and he created the problem at the time he was Minister of Finance.
This Bill is going to rob over a million pensioners of a portion of their pension which they have earned. Pensioners will lose in two ways. First, they are going to be out of pocket because indexing over the next two years will not keep up with inflation. Inflation this year will be at least 10 per cent, but the indexing will be limited to 6 per cent. The optimists tell us that next year inflation will be 9 per cent or more, but the pensioners' indexing will be limited to 5 per cent.
The Minister claims, Mr. Speaker, that the people hit by this legislation can afford to sacrifice. The Minister knows that in many cases that is not true. Many pensioners who do not benefit from the GIS now live at the poverty line. The single pensioner's eligibility for the income supplement ends when outside income, including Old Age Security payments, reaches a total of $6,123. That means that a single pensioner with a total income, including the Old Age Security, of $9,200, is still going to lose nearly $300 over two years. The Minister must be aware that an income of $9,200 is already $500 below the poverty line for people living in large cities.
The National Council on Welfare has estimated that over 100,000 poor and nearly-poor Canadians will have their incomes reduced as a result of this legislation.
Another thing the Bill does is to whittle away at the universality of pensions. The Minister has denied this, but it is the truth. The relative value of the Old Age Security, which is universal, is being whittled away while the income tested Guaranteed Income Supplement, is being increased.
In my term as mayor of a city, a young couple came to see me. They were visiting Revelstoke to see their elderly parent. He was trying to survive in his own home and to look after himself. As you can understand, Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens are proud. This young couple told me that he needed help. I went down with them to see him. We discussed his problem and I got all the information I could. I tried to find some way of helping. About a week later, through the social assistance programs in the area, I found that some moneys
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
were available for help. Proud as could be, I went down to advise this elderly person of the help that was available, but he informed me in a very proud way that he had gone through the hungry thirties without relief and he did not want relief now. I think it is very clear that the Guaranteed Income Supplement is a means test.
In the last election campaign the Liberals spent a lot of time talking about pension reform. It is interesting to note what they mean by that. I say to the Minister, shame on the Government for attacking our senior citizens at a time when they need help. She knows that they need help. She knows that the reform is required now and that we should be heading in that direction.
Perhaps the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), who is responsible for the status of women, would like to explain this pension reform to the senior citizens in her constituency. More than half the people who will have their Old Age Security payments cut, are women. I am sure they would be interested. 1 am sure half of the population on or near the poverty line, who are women, would be interested in hearing from that Minister.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare has said in the past that pension reform was her highest priority. The Bill illustrates what Jesse James meant when he said banks were his highest priority.
The Government has intentionally split up the debate on this Bill, bringing it one day for debate then bringing in some other Bill in order to take the attention away from it. Members of the Government have refused to speak on it. They are ashamed of it, and well they should be.
The Conservatives also have a few questions to answer. When Bill C-124, the six and five program, was adopted, the Conservatives expounded on it at great length. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) called it a "good beginning" but said that the Government had not gone far enough. Now the Conservatives have finally seen the light about the six and five program. Today I heard several Conservatives speak about contracts. They had no hesitation in breaking contracts under the six and five program, with labour groups going to the International Labour Organization meetings in Geneva to appeal the breaking of contracts in Canada.
The Conservatives said that we did not go far enough with that program. They talked about action, but now they realize their mistakes and are trying to defend their position. Whilst that is going on it is interesting that none of the Conservative Members who represent the multinational corporations, such as the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) or the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble), has made a speech promoting the rights of senior citizens and their pensions. The Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), that great baron of the oil companies, has not stood up in this House to express his concern.
Where are the Tory speakers who oppose this Bill? Where are the representatives of big business? Why do they not stand
21150

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
up and talk about universal programs for health and pension services?
On this side of the House we know what is happening. We saw this sort of thing start in the United States where Proposition 13 was adopted and, as a result, the social programs affecting the poor, the elderly and the sick, were the first to suffer. We know where the Tories stand on this type of legislation. They claimed to oppose Bill C-133. I should like to read from Hansard what the Conservative House Leader (Mr. Nielsen) said when asking about the business of the House on November 18. Referring to Bill C-133, as reported at page 20775 of Hansard, he said:
-relating to the pensions of public servants, whether he will bring it forward tomorrow so that we could deal with it expeditiously.
In other words, the Conservative Party wanted to deal with Bill C-133 expeditiously. But that is not what the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said at a public meeting in Ottawa, when he indicated that his Party opposed the Bill and would fight it.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) rises on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been good enough to give us a quotation from Hansard in support of his argument about what the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said. Perhaps he would be good enough to give us the citation for what he claims the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) care to reply to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis)?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, if there are any questions at the end of my speech I will be pleased to answer them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: Where is Joe?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke has the floor.


Sidney James Parker: At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put forward the position of the New Democratic Party on pensions. We believe that an adequate pension is a right and not a privilege, and should be available to all senior citizens regardless of sex, marital status, income class or previous work history. An adequate pension system must have retirement incomes high enough so that retirees remain, as nearly as possible, on the same level as the average standard of living.
These are the kinds of things about which we are talking. Retirement incomes must be above the poverty line regardless of pre-retirement earnings. Pensions must be viewed as intergenerational transfers which connect the standard of living of
pensioners to the general standard of living. Only the federal and provincial Governments are in a position to level taxes, remit the transfers and ensure supporting legislation to guarantee an adequate standard of living. Public pension schemes must be expanded immediately to guarantee a poverty-free, secure standard of living for Canada's two million senior citizens. This is the kind of reform we should be discussing in the House today, not the regressive legislation which the Government brought forward.
It is sad that all the blame should rest on the shoulders of the Minister of National Health and Welfare because she is a very compassionate Minister. Also it is sad that her colleagues have turned on her and left her to defend a policy which we all know is wrong, wrong, wrong. It must be stopped. I urge the Minister in the strongest possible way to rise in the House and request that this piece of legislation be withdrawn immediately, to stop any further suggestion of erosion of the cost of living which many senior citizens know they will be facing in the next couple of years.
There is no guarantee. The Government has given absolutely no guarantee that inflation will come down, yet it is telling senior citizens that they will have to bear the burden of reducing it. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) rose in the House and expressed his concern with regard to inflation and how it must be battled to the ground. That same Parliamentary Secretary did not bat an eye when the Government spent over $50,000 promoting its six and five program. It sent out stickers and pamphlets to our constituency offices promoting that program. Little did any of us realize that the old age pensioners of Canada would feel the bluntness and cruelty of the Government.
My Party will be opposing this legislation in the strongest possible terms. The Whip of the Conservative Party asked me whether our speakers would be rising in the House to speak on the Bill. We will rise to speak on it as long as it remains in the House. I have a fear that it may not be for very much longer because the Liberal Government is nervous about what is happening. It is splitting up the Bill, bringing it in one day and hiding it behind a piece of legislation the next day; bringing it forward another day and hiding it once again behind another piece of legislation. Liberal backbenchers do not have the courage or the decency to rise on behalf of their pensioners in their ridings and say that they have had enough and that it is time to get on with some real changes to the pension scheme which will help pensioners rather than take away benefits from them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate this evening. I am certain that we have special responsibilities to speak on behalf of Canadian food producers, on behalf of small business and on behalf of the unemployed, particularly when there are nearly 1.5 million unemployed people at present. Throughout the debate on Bill
November 30, 1982

C-131 we have had an opportunity to speak on behalf of another sector of the community, the people who have contributed so much to the development of economic activity and stability in Canada, namely, our senior citizens.
I have a special interest in senior citizens because I come from an area in southwestern Ontario in which the City of St. Thomas is located, the capital city of my constituency. It may come as a surprise to some Hon. Members that this city of roughly 30,000 people has the second highest number of senior citizens on a percentage basis in the country, second only to the City of Victoria. Although it may not be very relevant to the Bill, I am pleased to have an opportunity to tell the House about that situation. Of course I would not let such an opportunity go by, within reason, without speaking on behalf of the senior citizens in my riding of Elgin.
Although Bill C-131 is only five pages in length, it is over 17 years in backwards thinking. It drives a nail in the heart of the pension program set forth in 1965 by the then Prime Minister, the late Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson. Basically, the Bill is part of the Government's six and five restraint program. It limits increases in the basic old age pension to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. Previously the pension was fully indexed to the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index. I firmly believe that was a commitment by the federal Government to the senior citizens of Canada and that it should be kept today.
Currently the old age pension amounts to $246.92 per month. That is hardly a princely sum. Since the pension is adjusted quarterly, by October 1984 pernsioners will be receiving some $274.83 per month if the Bill is enacted. Habitually, senior citizens have always had to bear the brunt of inflation because any adjustment in payment always came three months after the fact. Now they are being told to make a further sacrifice in a nation where inflation has been running at levels beyond 10 per cent. They are being told by the Government that they must accept the six and five restraint program. The gap between the six and five per cent and the real rate of inflation will mean a major sacrifice in the purchasing power of those who receive only the old age pension, those who do not receive any GIS or spouses' allowance. Currently, single persons over the age of 65 do not receive any Guaranteed Income Supplement of spouses' allowance if their total income including basic old age pension is greater the $8,912.40, a level of income $10 below the poverty line for single persons living in metropolitan areas with populations of 500,000 or more.
Today approximately 40 per cent of the 65 and over population live in metropolitan areas which include the Cities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Winnipeg and Hamilton. Approximately 1.2 million of our senior citizens will be affected. Senior citizens will lose $290 over the next two years if inflation remains at 10 per cent. The other group detrimentally affected by this Bill are the elderly married couples with incomes of just over $15,000. They will suffer a loss of income over the next two years of some $580.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
These are the cold facts of the Bill. It will be our senior citizens who will have to bear the full impact of these cuts in their pensions. They will have less money to spend on food and on accommodation, and consequently will have less money on which to live.
It is interesting and yet ironical that at the Liberal policy convention held recently on November 5, 1982, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
When conditions change, Liberals adapt. When old solutions fail, Liberals think anew. Above all else, when economic diversity strikes. Liberals act.


Philip Derek Lewis: He means they cop out.


John Wise: And act they have. The Liberals have acted by cancelling a contract. They have acted by breaking a promise and by disregarding a commitment and they have acted by tearing the heart out of our Old Age Security system.
At the same time as the Liberals were acting against our senior citizens, forcing the six and five restraint upon their incomes, these same Liberals were not acting with comparable dedication against other sectors in our society.
For example, on October 21, Treasury Board announced that certain CBC editorial employees would receive an increase in salary of some 11.5 per cent. As well, the same Liberal Government has refused to roll back the scheduled price increases in oil and gas costs. Oil prices will increase some 46 per cent over the next two years and natural gas prices will increase by nearly 50 per cent over that same period. Yet pensioners who own homes and drive cars will be expected to pay for these increases out of their six and five per cent increases in their pensions.
Again, on July 28, 1982, the National Energy Board, which is a Crown Corporation of this Government, announced a tentative increase in the tolls paid to TransCanada Pipelines. In reaching its decision, the National Energy Board approved the company's wage offer to its employees of 12 per cent in 1982 and 7 per cent in 1983.


Philip Derek Lewis: Shame.


John Wise: On August 1, as a result of changes in the Customs and Excise Tax Act, certain excise taxes have been increased to the extent of 15 per cent. Unemployment insurance premiums are another example of what is paid by workers and employees. These premiums were increased by some 50 per cent in the economic statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Canada Pension Plan premiums were increased by 12.1 per cent. Over the weekend I was visited by a farmer from my riding who gave me some information which was sent out as recently as October 13, 1982. This information was in the form of a notice by CN Rail to certain industries and certain grain elevators regarding the private siding agreement. Although CN Rail is complying with the Government's six and five restraint program, the notice states that at the end of this program, these contracts will be renegotiated, reopened and,

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
indeed, in the year commencing January 1, 1985, these private siding agreements will increase by nearly 40 per cent.
VIA Rail is another example where increases on certain fares have been increased, not by 6 per cent but by 10 per cent. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority authorized an increase of 10 per cent in seaway tolls for the next year. Rents charged by the federal Government have increased by 25 per cent in certain cases, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has increased its rents by some 37 per cent in certain cases as well. Although Canada Post has announced a 6 per cent increase in postal rates for 1983, it should be remembered that less than a year ago that same Crown Corporation, Canada Post, received a 76.5 per cent increase on the understanding that mail service delivery could be improved. I wonder if the people in rural Canada who have had their Saturday delivery discontinued and other people who have had the indication that Canada Post will be closing more of its wickets on Saturdays would really agree that service has been improved.
These exceptions make a sham of the Government's six and five program. If the Liberal Government can afford to make these exemptions, it can afford to exempt our senior citizens from this imposition as well.
The Government indicated that it will save between $15 million and $20 million in this move. I would not want to be associated with a certain Liberal who commented at one time, "What's a million?" I think $1 million is a tremendous amount of money, particularly if it happens to be public funds. Certainly, $15 million or $20 million, which the Minister on behalf of the Government hopes to save out of this measure, is a great deal of money. But without a great deal of difficulty, I am sure this Government could easily come up with the additional moneys required to pay the full indexing in payments to our senior citizens.
1 could cite a list of examples as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker, but I must remind the Liberals that the Government has spent $150 million on a defunct Ottawa computer company, another $100 million on a monument in Algeria.


Edward C. Lumley: Come on.


John Wise: I see the former minister of international trade is getting a little edgy. But it costs about $1 million a month to keep the Jetstars flying. The Government spent some $17 million last year on the purchase of paper alone. It spent $3.5 million on taxi fares. The Government spent $16.7 million on telegrams and cables. Hospitality amounted to over $10 million. An amount of $50 million was spent on photocopying. And advertising came to some $63 million.
I do not think it would create a great deal of difficulty with a bit of mediocre management to come up with $15 million or $20 million to honour the commitment to the senior citizens.
Let us take a look at the travels costs of some of the Ministers of the Crown. We find that the travel costs of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) increased by 350 per cent. The travel costs of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) have increased 218 per cent. The former minister of energy, mines and resources, who is now the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), increased his travel costs by some 263 per cent. The list goes on and on. And what about the former minister of national revenue? His travel costs have increased by 274 per cent. I want to be honest and fair about citing some of these travel costs of Ministers. After checking on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), I find that at least she can claim that her increased travel costs are well within the six and five program. I believe her increases in travel costs amounted to some 3.5 per cent. Her increase in travel costs should be a lesson to other Ministers. It is possible with a bit of effort to stay within those guidelines when it comes to travel costs. I should also indicate that the travel costs of the former minister of veterans affairs and the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) are down considerably, by about 49 per cent.
With this type of attitude, it can be seen that this Government has a great contrast in the way it manages its affairs, the way in which it treats senior citizens and the way in which the Government treats its friends. For example, Joel Bell, the newly appointed President of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, has received a ten-year, no-cut contract from Cabinet. Our professional athletes are not granted such contracts any longer. His qualification for such a contract, as far as I can tell, is that he was a former economic adviser to the Prime Minister. Our former colleague and my friend, the Hon. Judd Buchanan, the former Liberal MP from London, was able to arrange a sweetheart deal for his company-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect, the Chair is having some difficulty relating the Hon. Member's remarks to the Bill before the House.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I respect your intervention, but what I am trying to establish is the fact that there is a difference between the Government's attitude toward our senior citizens and its attitude toward people with whom it is dealing. I am trying to make that case before us tonight.
Another example in making this case concerns Arthur Erickson, a Vancouver architect and friend of the Prime Minister who was selected to design the new Canadian Embassy in Washington despite the fact that his name was not on the list of those architectural firms recommended to Cabinet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rule of relevance is difficult. It is a difficult decision for the Chair, but I would appeal to the Hon. Member to direct his remarks more specifically to the Bill before us.


John Wise: Again, I appreciate your interjection, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that some of my comments perhaps create some uneasiness in Liberal Members.
Let me continue by saying that at the same time the Liberal Government extends such generosity to its friends, it is cutting the pensions of many of our elderly people. Rather than
November 30, 1982

enacting this ill-conceived Bill which attempts to help bail out this present Government from the consequences of economic and fiscal mismanagement, the Government should be looking at other ways of pension reform.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. With respect to relevancy of the Hon. Member's speech, I could perhaps draw his attention to the fact that this Bill is part of the broad scheme which is not to save money but part of the six and five program which is designed to reduce inflation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is making a point of debate, not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) has the floor.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my hon. friend across the floor is somewhat on edge. I have some knowledge of the input and representations that are being made to me as a Member of Parliament representing the constituency of Elgin. My hon. friend's constituency is within 100 miles of my riding. I am sure that his uneasiness is caused by the fact that he is receiving similar representation from his senior citizen constituents.
I have more latitude because I do not occupy the position of Parliamentary Secretary at the moment. I appreciate that he has a definite obligation to cite the official Government position. I am not hampered by those same guidelines which govern my hon. friend.
The population in Canada of those over 65 has risen by more than 600,000 in the last ten years. This age group has been growing at the rate of 3 per cent per year. This means that without any increase in real benefits the economy will have to grow 3 per cent each year just to provide the necessary revenue to support pensions for these people.
If we do not move on pension reform, we will find ourselves encouraging a far larger public debt. Therefore, we should encourage people to begin planning for their retirement from the moment they enter the labour force. We should encourage people to prepare private pension plans instead of totally relying on the Canada Pension Plan. This would involve making private pensions plans and personal savings instruments such as Registered Retirement Savings Plans more accessible to people who have to move from one job to another, who work part time or drop out of the labour force, as is the case in particular for women in our society who do so to raise families. It means making it possible for women to work in the home to build up pension entitlements in their own right. It means early investing in private pension plans. These are but a few measures which the Government should be undertaking.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said, every year we let slip by without action makes it more and more difficult to avoid real crisis when the elderly become the largest single aid group in the population. If we fail to prepare for it, we will have no excuse because the warning has already been given in the age group statistics of the 1981 census.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Unfortunately, this Government apparently does not want to prepare for the future. Its complete lack of vision can be seen in this Bill. This Government believes that our senior citizens can do with less. My colleagues and I do not believe that single pensioners earning just over $8,900 or married pensioners earning just over $15,000 can do with any less than they are receiving now.
Again, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) stated in his eloquent speech on November 18, as reported on page 20812 of Hansard:
Senior citizens have already paid the price and we should not ask them to pay more. They should have the right to live well now.
That sums up our position. Our senior citizens have already sacrificed enough for the benefit of our country through their hard work, their dedication, their spirit and, last but not least, through their taxes. In return for their sacrifices this Government now plans to cut many of their pensions as a result of the measures contained in Bill C-131. We look at the way Government issues exemptions and exceptions from its six and five program for other federally controlled sectors of the economy and the way it deals with its close friends. This contrasting treatment is nothing more than blatant hypocrisy on the part of this Government. Our senior citizens deserve better treatment and they need better treatment. Bill C-131 is untimely. It is the cancellation of a contract and the breaking of a promise. It shows complete disregard for a longstanding commitment and is nothing less than an insult to the senior citizens of this country.
The end result of this Bill will be the removal of benefits to a sector of our society which needs it the most at a time when they can afford it the least.
It is a pleasure for me to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the senior citizens of this country and the senior citizens of my riding of Elgin. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Government Members opposite as well as the Minister of National Health and Welfare for whom I have a great deal of respect, that, in all honesty, I must indicate that I will certainly welcome the opportunity to vote against this Bill.


Mr. Doug Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the Members opposite this evening, not only the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) but the Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) and the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) as well.
During the next 20 minutes I would like to clarify some of the statements we have heard about the Bill with which we are now concerned. It seems to me that Members of the Opposition have done a disservice to the elderly in Canada. There have been many misrepresentations about the intent of Bill C-131 toward our elderly. I realize that Members on all sides tend to make speeches in the House which are then mailed to their constituents. I venture to say that if many of the speeches made by Members earlier this evening are mailed to their constituents, they will certainly receive a lot of misinformation.

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I will begin by commenting on some of the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke which he made earlier this evening. He talked about the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) not being very compassionate toward the poor of this country or toward the elderly in our nation. In my view, he went on to mix two very important themes which the Liberal Government has had since the speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980. One must take into context what is said when one begins not to differentiate pension reform as it was called in the Throne Speech from Bill C-131 which is before us this evening. He said that, as an example, the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola), who is responsible for the Status of Women, should be ashamed that half the women in or near poverty will be adversely affected by the Bill. He said that the Minister of National Health and Welfare had reneged on her commitment to universality of social programs in this country.
Let me just single out those two as examples. The 50 per cent in or near poverty will not be affected by the contents of Bill C-131. We on this side of the House have consistently said that one must understand the social security system that is in place in Canada today to understand properly the context of the six and five program as it relates to our elderly, in particular. It goes without saying that the Old Age Security is the first basis of protection for our senior citizens.
I return to this fact becuse he said that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not a compassionate person, and that was a reflection on the Liberal Party. However, it has been a very compassionate Liberal Party which has largely laid the foundation for our social security system in Canada today. Whether one is in the lower income scale or whether one is an elderly person in this country, the Liberal Party has had a tradition of protecting such people who need help most.
As I said, the first basis of our senior citizens' protection is known as Old Age Security. Any person over the age of 65 is eligible for Old Age Security without any attempt at a means test. In addition, if one is among the 53 per cent who qualifies by a means test, then one is eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement plan. Over the years, of course, we have added a protection relating to the spouses' allowance program for those people who are between the ages of 60 and 65 and who, because of the need for extra money, are eligible for a special allowance.
In discussing those three areas of concern I should say that I think the elderly in Canada should be made aware of exactly what Bill C-131 means to the average elderly person in this country. What we have said is that for the unfortunate 53 per cent of Canadians in need there will be no reduction or capping of the indexation of the Guaranteed Income Supplement plan. That will continue to go with the rate of inflation. The only ones who will be affected by the Bill are those who qualify for Old Age Security on the basis of age.
Let me further explain the need of people who are over the age of 65 who do not qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. They, too, have a vested interest in the six and
five program which the Government has chosen as an economic course to follow. Lor instance, many people over the age of 65 who qualify for Old Age Security may also qualify for a private pension plan from a private source. The greatest difficulty involving private pension plans has been the annual rate of inflation in Canada. Many Canadians are fortunate enough to have a private pension plan, but when inflation rises by 10 per cent, there are very few who happen to have a cost of living allowance added to their private pension.
Let me separate these three very important factors under Bill C-131. First, it will only affect those people over the age of 65 who qualify only for old age security. Second, it will not affect those who are eligible for spouses' allowance or Guaranteed Income Supplement. They will be maintained, fully indexed, ensuring protection against income loss.
I would like to return to some of the things mentioned by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke tonight. He spoke of the lack of commitment by the Liberal Party and by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to pension reform, yet if anyone has been active in this whole area, it has been the Minister of National Health and Welfare, along with the Liberal Party. We began with a national conference on pension reform back in April of 1981. We have proceeded by going across this country to explain the idea behind pension reform. We are presently in the process of developing a Green Paper to look after that matter.
1 noticed that the Hon. Member for Elgin also mixed up the two areas, private pension reform and Bill C-131, which is before the House tonight. The Government indicated its commitment to private pension reform in the Speech from the Throne in April of 1980. We have never wavered from our desire for pension reform. I am sure there will be some progress in the reform of private pension systems before the present mandate is finished.
If I can, I want to further explain the rationale linking economic and social policy. It is very important to realize the kind of world in which we were living in the first six months of 1982. I know that many of the Hon. Members of the Opposition tend and wish to blame most of the economic conditions presently facing the Canadian people on the Canadian Government. Let us consider some of the economic conditions existing today and those that existed six months ago in the OECD countries. Six months ago the inflation rate in Canada was running between 10 per cent and 12 per cent. In the U.K. it has been running at 14 per cent. Our unemployment rate six to eight months ago was hovering around the 10 per cent mark. Were other OECD countries doing any better?
The inflation rate in France, in Italy and in the U.K. were running approximately the same or higher than the rate in Canada. In the United States there was roughly the same percentage of unemployment, but, admittedly, it had a better track record in controlling inflation. I suppose we had many alternatives, in terms of economic policy, by way of which to address those issues. Some people in the Opposition were calling for drastic Government program cuts, but they did not
November 30, 1982

wish to specify in which programs they wished to have cuts made. They were calling on others, particularly the Government, to increase the size of the deficit and to stimulate the economy, despite the fact that they knew that would have added to inflationary pressures in Canada which, in turn, would have disastrous effects on productivity and on our ability as a trading nation to export our goods.
Who has the vested interest in high inflation? Who gains by high inflation rates? I would venture to say it is not the elderly who gain by high inflation rates or the poor in our society, who are largely non-unionized and whose wages are unprotected by cost of living arrangements. It is mainly the larger groups in our society, which are protected by cost of living allowances, by union contracts and by their companies, which are protected from the ravages of inflation. I then say to myself, if they are the only ones who gain, how can Hon. Members call the Minister of National Health and Welfare an uncompassionate woman, or say that the Liberal Party does not stand for compassion? If we are to be compassionate in the world, we must ensure that the ones who need protection the most are protected by Government, which is a fundamental requirement. Those people are the ones on fixed incomes, and I would assume that most people over the age of 65 fall into that category. We must also protect those who are non-unionized and the poor.
How will we do that through Bill C-131? In terms of our compassion and the protection shown toward those who are poor, non-unionized and on fixed incomes, I would suggest that it is evidenced by the fact that we have not touched those people on Guaranteed Income Supplements and we have not touched the spouses' allowance by capping the indexation, and these people will be fully protected from inflation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has moved, along with the Government, to help those who need help the most.
Admittedly, some people over the ages of 65 will share some of the burden of the six and five program. It seems to me that it is a moot point to determine who in Canada will bear the brunt of the six and five program. We can all share in the success of the six and five program. I do not believe there is any reasonable Member of the Opposition who firmly believes that a 10 per cent and 12 per cent world is better than a six and five world. If the economic course of six and five, as set out by the Government, is the best one to follow, then we must all share in it. Admittedly, people receiving Old Age Security will share some of the cost, but I would like to correct some of the information given out by Hon. Members of the Opposition. I am sure it was not done deliberately, but I think that the record has to be correct as to what will be the cost borne by those people over the age of 65.
The Hon. Member from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) mentioned in her speech that there will be 1.1 million Old Age Security recipients who do not receive Guaranteed Income Supplements and who will lose $290 over the
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
next two years, $70 in 1983 and $220 in 1984, due to the proposed limit on indexation.
My understanding is that the Member for Kingston and the Islands based most of her figures on a release from the National Council of Welfare shortly after the June 28 Budget. The National Council of Welfare assumed an inflation rate of 11 per cent in 1982, 10 per cent in 1983 and 9 per cent in 1984. I am happy to point out to the House that largely as a result of the political direction and the economic direction that we gave in that June 28 Budget to a six and five world, we have in fact had success in the last four to five months. The numbers projected over the years 1983 and 1984 significantly reduce the cost to those Old Age Security recipients. According to recent estimates, the average pensioner receiving Old Age Security will lose only $29 in 1983 and $52 in 1984. That is going to be some reduction to those people-we are not trying to dispute that. Nor are we trying to say that the limit of $8,900 makes that person particularly rich in our society. Where those people on OAS have a vested interest in the six and five program, and I am speaking of those people who only receive OAS, is that large numbers of them have access to some form of a private pension plan that is not indexed. If we are successful in the six and five program in reducing inflation from a 12 per cent and 10 per cent world to a 6 per cent and 5 per cent one, they will make up that money by having the income from their private pension source not subject to such high inflation.
If you are needy, poor, over the age of 65, require the Guaranteed Income Supplement or spouse's allowance there will be no reduction, no capping on the indexation of those programs, and I want to stress that point.
The Member for St. Catharines and a large number of the Members of the Conservative Party pointed out a lot of the wastage in Government programs. It is not only the Opposition who are concerned about wastage in Government programs. We, too, have a vested interest as Members of the Government side. Many times in the House during this last six months either the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has welcomed suggestions by Members of the Opposition in areas and programs in which they feel there is wastage. Both have been willing to investigate those programs and eliminate that wastage where it is required.
I think what we have to realize is that under an Old Age Security system you have to be aware of the size of the program to put this in perspective. I notice that the Member from Elgin mentioned that there was a Cabinet Minister who spent some $177,000 last year in travel across the country. I believe the average person sitting at his home would probably be astounded at that amount of money being spent, but I think in order for us to be effective as the national Government we have to get the message of the Government programs and policies, to all regions of the country, and receive their input. In order to do that we cannot just stay in Ottawa and not go to Vancouver or the Maritimes or the other regions of Quebec and consult with the various groups-

November 30, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Elon. Member again I am calling to his attention the rule of relevance, and speaking to the subject matter of the Bill.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I thought it was relevant, but I appreciate your ruling on it. I just wanted to point out that the Government of Canada, through its programs and through its economic direction, has developed a very successful program under six and five. It has been successful for the last four or five months.


Philip Derek Lewis: It has done wonders for Sudbury.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I think the majority of Canadians now realize that all groups in our society are going to have to get behind the Government programs to develop a six and five world. I think if we are realistic and intelligent enough about it, regardless of which Party we represent in this House, we must realize that if we can get inflation rates down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in this country in the next two years, the social security system will be much stronger in this nation than it is under a 12 per cent or 10 per cent world.
I would hope that in the ensuing debate over the next few days the Members of the Opposition would not give out erroneous statements about the effects of Bill C-131 and not bring in extemporaneous debate on the need for national pension reform, which we have no doubt is required in this country. Senior citizens are worried in this time of economic uncertainty; they worry about the fact that they are on a fixed income, and when they hear a Member of Parliament giving out information they assume that information is correct.
It is very important that the research people supply correct information on the background for speeches, so we do not have a deluge of letters such as have been received by the Minister of National Health and Welfare and various Members opposite, stating all kinds of untruths with respect to Bill C-131 and the intentions of Government.
This Government is going to win the hearts and the minds of the Canadian people with the six and five program, and the social security system will be that much better for it.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker,
I just have one comment for the Liberal Member who just sat down-you have got to be kidding!
We are debating Bill C-131 tonight, which is an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2) and the first reading was on October 28, 1982.
Under the explanatory notes it says here:
Clause 1. New.
This amendment would limit the indexation of the pension to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984.
We all know we have an inflation rate of about 10 per cent. That clearly indicates how senior citizens will fall behind in a very short period under an arrangment like that.
I want to congratulate some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party on the excellent contribution they have made to this debate on the Old Age Security Act and in particular my
colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) who, when speaking a couple of days ago on the Bill, stated:
Mr. Speaker, normally I receive a great deal of pleasure in speaking to the various Bills which come into this House, but this afternoon I speak to Bill C-131 with a certain degree of sadness and regret.
All of us on this side of the House support that statement.
Because of this Bill I see the destruction of what I think is a fairly good pension system for Canada. This is certainly a backward step with Bill C-131.
The Member for Okanagan North went on to say:
Our pension system rests on four tiers. We have the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement which give a basic amount of money to people who retire, we have the Canada Pension Plan which supplements that amount of money for those people in the working force, and we have private pension plans, which are many and varied. Finally, of course, we have personal savings, which include our house and mortgage and RRSPs. This system provides a fairly good pension system in this country.
He goes on to quote statements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare which supported those pensions, but this Bill certainly takes the steam out of anything she said in the past.
May I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, following my questions concerning Mr. Michael Kirby's attendance at a recent meeting of the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis held in Austria this month, I received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Lapierre) noting that the members of IIASA, as it is known in its acronymical form, are "non-Governmental organizations". The letter further states that the United States Government for "primarily budgetary reasons" withdrew its support from IIASA and also that Canada makes an annual contribution to this organization of about $400,000 per year.
Mr. Kirby, according to this same letter, was there as a representative of the Canadian committee. Mr. Kirby apparently is a veritable renaissance man. Like Benvenuto Cellini or Leonardo Da Vinci. This man appears to be an expert on everything: On the Constitution, can anyone forget the famous
November 30, 1982

memorandum; or on the Atlantic fishery, can anyone forget his recommendations there, although some of us would like to; or lately on railways and transportation, since he is now heavily involved in CN as a vice-president? Apparently the man has time left to contribute to the world scientific community. He is truly a remarkable man. Of course, I am not surprised, considering some of his illustrious namesakes, whom we all know. However, I am not fully satisfied with the raison d'etre for us being involved with this particular organization, Mr. Kirby notwithstanding.
First of all, it appears that the withdrawal of the United States from this organization was not for budgetary reasons primarily, as the explanation stated, but rather out of apprehension that a Soviet official who occupied an administrative post at 11 ASA was involved in intelligence activities. An American official was quoted recently in a scientific publication, that the Reagan administration has been concerned that Soviets and Eastern Europe scientists had access to Western data bases through western computers and also that Soviet scientists working at that institute might not be bona fide scientists.
In fairness, this is not an unanimous view in the United States scientific community, but it is significant that the highly respected Royal Society in Great Britain is also getting out of this organization at the end of this year, adding further weight to my contention that our country has better things to do with its money and its bureaucrats than taking part in this organization.
These withdrawals were caused by Soviet abuses of the society's stated aims. The Soviet Union placed into its administration an espionage agent name Arkady Belozerov who was identified by a Norwegian double agent as his Soviet control. Consider as well recent reports from Reuters News Agency which quotes from a United States Senate report. Again I quote:
So dominant a role does American technology place in the Soviet's military and industrial scheme that it is likely that they have come to think of U.S. research and development programs as their own ... Acquisition of American technology has enabled the Kremlin to make giant strides in military strength at a minimum of risk in investment and resources.
This type of information, however, has not impressed one of our federal bureaucrats. Dr. John Stone, a policy advisor in the Department of Science and Technology, who spelled out publicly on behalf of the federal Government that Canada will continue to support the work of the institute, as the criticisms of the institute are hogwash and inspired by new McCarthyites in the Reagan administration. Thirty years after Senator McCarthy, officials and even Ministers in this Government seek to confuse and frustrate legitimate questions on security by this kind of intellectual hogwash.
What troubles me is that the continuing participation by our country, officially or unofficially, in 11 AS A exemplifies our Government's naivete in its dealings with Communist countries.
It accepts all source of dubious characters attached to diplomatic postings here in Canada who come from Eastern
__________________________________21157
Adjournment Debate
Europe, while allowing Warsaw Pact countries, for example, to supply us with their people who may or may not be working in Canada's best interests in those locations where we have embassies and consulates.
We are not at all interested, it would seem, in correcting the situation whereby the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia pressures Canadian citizens who have present or former connections with that country, and our Government continues to ignore the passport problems, and tolerates the practice by some Czech-Canadians of travelling to Eastern Europe on Eastern European passports. I know of Public Servants, former Czech citizens, who use Czech passports validated by the Czech Consulate in Montreal on their trips to Czechoslovakia, and use their Canadian passports on the return trips to conceal some of their travel details. We seem to be the leading example among Western countries of Lenin's famous doctrine, "that capitalists will ultimately sell the Communists the very rope that Communists will use to hang them."
I do not think anyone advocates an attitude of complete hostility or paranoia toward Communist countries, but surely we should show a little concern for the area of high technology that the Soviets and their allies are so anxious to obtain from us, in all probability to use against us. We should also, I suggest, have the proper governmental officials speak to people like our Dr. John Stone, who apparently feels free to make remarks of a quite distasteful nature about the administration of President Reagan. I will be watching with great interest to see how IIASA progresses, and I trust that sometime soon we will either achieve some tangible benefits for the world scientific community and, hopefully, for our own country, or we will cease supporting it. Perhaps my hon. friend, when he responds to my questions, will tell me just what benefits we have received so far and how long he thinks we can justify supporting IIASA at a time when we are desperately short of research and development funds in our own country.
I remind the House that one large company in West Germany, for example, the Siemens Company, probably has more resources and more people working in its corporate structure than we have in our entire country, yet we feel quite free to continue to financially support this organization under these conditions.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by telling my hon. friend that I share his view on the experience and reputation of Mr. Michael Kirby. He is a remarkable man, and that is why I am very proud to see that he has agreed to serve with this institute and participate in its work. We all agree that he is a distin-guised maritimer and he would not participate in any activities which would threaten either the security or reputation of Canada.
We know for a fact that the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis is a multilateral non-governmental

November 30, 1982
Adjournment Debate
research centre, established in 1972 to promote the development and application of systems analysis to the complex management problems facing contemporary society. My hon. friend refers to espionage agents and Soviet abuses. It is very hard for us to understand how an espionage agent could be useful when we know that all IIASA's work is non-confidential and published openly. If the Soviet Union needs an agent to read that stuff, I tell my hon. friend one is not needed, and there is no reason for him to play the Sherlock Holmes game- because in this case this is all public information. Any member of any country can use this material.
In keeping with the nature of the institute, the members are all non-governmental organizations. Canada was a founding member and is represented by the Canadian committee for IIASA. There are 14 other national member organizations from the Soviet Union, the United States, Japan and many European countries. The U.S. government has, according to our information, for primarily budgetary reasons withdrawn its support for IIASA. If the Hon. Member has other facts, we will be happy to check them for him.
Canada's contribution has been $400,000, and it is the responsibility of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) to decide every year what the contribution will be. The Hon. Member will certainly have the opportunity when the Estimates are brought in to ask questions of the Minister on the relevancy of supplying moneys to this institute. But I want to reassure him that we do not have any worries about any information which could be gathered by some foreign sources. We are proud to say that it is published, nonconfidential and for the use of any country that wants to use it.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-STUDY OF INCOME LEVEL APPLICABLE TO WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE. (B) REQUEST THAT ADJUSTMENTS BE MADE RETROACTIVE
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue in more detail a question I directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) on November 19, 1982, dealing with the possibility of raising the casual earnings exemptions for recipients of war veterans allowances, which are presently set at $3,100 for married veterans and $2,100 for single veterans, to a more reasonable level.
The War Veterans Allowance was designed to provide a little extra for veterans who could not claim disabilities under war veterans compensation, and to acknowledge their sacrifices. The War Veterans Allowance Act was brought in 52 years ago. At that time, it was subject to a means test and paid $20 a month for veterans 60 years of age. The Old Age Pension established in 1927 was greatly increased over the years. The means test was removed from the basic pension, and the age was reduced from 70 to 65 years. Yet, the War Veterans Allowance qualifications have remained the same. They have kept the maximum income level at a rate which is certainly unreasonable for 1982. The allowance has changed from being that something extra to being a payment available
for people with incomes below the poverty line. This was not the original intention.
Prime Minister Robert Borden in a speech made to Canadian troops at Vimy Ridge in 1917, stated:
The Government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of your people at home . . . and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the Government for having broken faith with the men who won and the men who died.
This Government has not taken up that duty of showing proper appreciation of our war veterans' efforts of courage. Many of them now reproach their Members of Parliament explaining the unfairness of the present annual allowable income level for War Veterans Allowances. We must realize, and the Government obviously does not, that a person who works for 30 or 40 years deserves his share of the national wealth and productivity. Our veterans are now older and should be justly rewarded for their years of service to this country. Many, being between the ages of 18 and 24, gave the best years of their lives in service for our country.
I approached the Minister of Veterans Affairs on the issue of annual allowable incomes on two separate occasions. On July 15, 1982, the Minister agreed that the annual allowable income for veterans receiving War Veterans Allowances was too low and he promised that steps would be taken to correct the situation. When asked what the new limit would be and when the new amendments would be made, the Minister replied that he was studying the possibility of raising the casual earnings exemption for recipients. He assured me that he was hopeful new legislation would be introduced by the fall of 1982.
On November 19, Mr. Speaker, I questioned the Minister on the present status of his study and when legislation would be passed concerning the annual allowable income for war veterans. The Minister then stated, or rather he enlightened me, that legislation does not have to be passed on this issue; rather an adjustment can be made through the War Veterans Allowance Board. If indeed it is simply an adjustment that needs to be made, why has action not been taken? In the name of all of our war veterans, what is the Minister of Veterans Affairs waiting for? Fall has passed and winter is here, and we have not as yet heard any results from the alleged study. I feel very strongly that the veterans have waited long enough, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs to give this matter a priority status and report to the House without further delay.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer the Hon. Member's observations. I am somewhat taken aback by the excessive comments which would seem to indicate that the policies of the Government have been less than adequate in terms of its concern and commitment to the wellbeing of our veterans, the non-partisan attitude I have found in committee and to our approaches to make sure our veterans receive the best there is.
November 30, 1982

Further to the Hon. Member's question of November 19, 1982, respecting casual earnings exemptions for recipients of War Veterans Allowance, the Minister indicated in the House that the casual earnings levels were last adjusted in July, 1980. He also indicated that he had asked the Chairman of the War Veterans Allowance Board to review the total area of casual earnings and to bring forward a report.
The Minister expects to receive this report shortly. In addition to the report from the War Veterans Allowance Board, it is anticipated that draft amendments to the War Veterans Allowance regulations and Civilian War Allowance regulations will be brought forward. Hon. Members can be assured that action will be taken on the report as expeditiously as possible.
The Hon. Member also asked the Minister for some assurance that if the legislation was brought forth after 1982, it would refer back and include 1982. As has already been brought to the attention of the Hon. Member, War Veterans Allowance continues to be fully indexed on a quarterly basis.
We can make amendments to the regulations as recommended by the War Veterans Allowance Board, and I am hopeful that Hon. Members on all sides of the House will support the recommendations. In this regard the Chairman advised the Minister that the proposed amendments are based upon the most current information available.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify one point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not in order at this point.


PIPELINES-PROPOSED WATER PIPELINE FROM LAKE DIEFENBAKER TO REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN. (B) REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, on November 2, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what progress had been made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in his discussions with the Province of Saskatchewan, particularly with regard to a proposal to build a pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to Buffalo Pound. Such a pipeline could supply Regina and Moose Jaw with a much needed supply of fresh, clean water.
This project became a major topic of discussion during the fall municipal elections in Regina. All major candidates running for aldermen and for the position of mayor supported it. In fact, the City of Regina committed itself to support the pipeline financially. There is an arrangement between the workers of Ipsco and the management of the plant to back the idea of a pipeline. They have formed a committee in Regina, the Good Clean Water Committee. In fact, it is an example of labour and management in co-operation. The company is willing to sell the pipe at cost. Approximately 600 jobs will be created in the manufacturing of the pipe and some 570 jobs will be created laying it. It is a project for which there is a tremendous need. Obviously now is the time to build the pipeline.
Adjournment Debate
The response of the Prime Minister to my question was to say the least somewhat flippant. The need for a source of fresh water has been growing in the City of Regina and in fact in the City of Moose Jaw for a number of years. As the City of Regina in particular has grown, so has the need for new, clean, fresh water grown.
A study was commissioned jointly by the City of Regina, the Province of Saskatchewan and I believe the City of Moose Jaw at the beginning of 1981. That committee reported some 14 months later. It recommended that the new source of fresh water for the Moose Jaw and Regina area be delivered and that such a project be undertaken. During the election, the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan committed itself to bringing a new source of fresh water to Regina and Moose Jaw during the next four years.
The reason the project should proceed now is that over 1,000 steelworkers have been laid off at the Ipsco plant. Large public projects such as the pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to the Buffalo Pound should be undertaken in periods when there is high unemployment. Therefore, the time to undertake the project is now.
When the Prime Minister responded to my supplementary question, obviously he was not aware that Ipsco had never experienced such a massive lay-off of its workers until the Tories became the Government in Saskatchewan. That makes the difference and it is the reason the project should be undertaken, because of the large number of unemployed workers. This is a way by which these workers could be put back to work. Rather than having them take home unemployment insurance payments, they could be earning real wages. They could be productive and produce pipe needed for this project. Therefore, I was somewhat dismayed at the flippant remarks by the Prime Minister. I hope the Government will take this opportunity tonight to indicate whether it has had further discussions with representatives of the Province of Saskatchewan and whether we can expect an announcement before Christmas that this project will proceed, so that the workers at IPSCO will have some assurance that there will be some work for them at least in the New Year.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, a proposal was indeed put forward last summer to the Saskatchewan Government by the Regina based company Ipsco to construct a pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker to Regina and Moose Jaw to provide fresh water to these two areas. The proposed 90 to 100 mile pipeline would not only provide fresh water to the municipalities, but could provide employment for Ipsco workers who have been laid off, or who may face lay-off if conditions in the economy do not improve.
The Saskatchewan Government has received the proposal and established a one-man task force to look into provincial water problems. A report was to have been submitted to the

November 30, 1982
Adjournment Debate
provincial Government in November, but the deadline has been extended until the first week of December. Recommendations on the pipeline can be expected from the task force. Our understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the Saskatchewan Government will review the recommendations brought forward in the task force report and then decide on options for solutions.
In the meantime, federal Government support has been given to the task force by providing the technical expertise of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Agency. The PFRA will advise the task force on water development needs and potential in Saskatchewan. Since the federal Government has not yet been officially approached by the provincial Government for involvement in the proposed pipeline construction, we have not participated in any discussions with the province. The Government, however, would be willing to consider any recommendations from the Saskatchewan Government that would provide better water, as well as increased employment opportunities to that area.
As Hon. Members know, the federal Government has recently signed an agreement with the Saskatchewan Government to increase employment in that province. The New Employment Expansion and Development Agreement will
provide $15 million for employment in Saskatchewan. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who is also Chairman of the Western Affairs Committee of Cabinet, has noted the co-operative nature of the negotiations on the NEED Program. Water and soil conservation in the Prairie has been examined as a priority issue by Members of the Western Affairs Committee. We will thus be open to recommendations from the province concerning the pipeline initiative.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.24 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, December 1, 1982