1982-12-21

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD SUGGESTED ANNUAL ANNOUNCEMENT OF PAYMENTS TO FARMERS

['No.']
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Failure on the part of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to announce, on a regular, yearly basis, payments to western farmers with regard to the western grain stabilization and the Canadian Wheat Board payments leaves western farmers with a great deal of uncertainty with respect to their year end business and the operation of their farms. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House request the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to make regular yearly announcements pertaining to the Canadian Wheat Board payments and the western grain stabilization payments, thereby taking the political manipulation out of the system, by using a reasonable business practice.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

CONDOLENCES TO FAMILY OF LATE HON. RfiMI PAUL


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday, it was with a sense of shock that we heard of the sudden decease of the Hon. Remi Paul, Justice of the Provincial Court in Quebec City and illustrious citizen of Louiseville, in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere. Remi Paul was a member of this House from 1958 to 1964, under the Hon. John Diefenbaker who was then Prime Minister of Canada, he represented the same riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere I have the honour of representing today. Mr. Paul is particularly well remembered for his frequent attendance in the House, his speeches and as Vice-
Chairman of Committees of the Whole. After a very busy career of more than seven years in the House, Mr. Paul was called to represent his fellow citizens in the Quebec National Assembly from 1966 to 1974, where he was appointed Speaker. Quebec remembers him especially as the Minister of Justice when the Hon. Daniel Johnson was Premier of Quebec. In 1974, Mr. Paul was appointed to the Provincial Court and became known as a conscientious and humanitarian judge, which will not surprise those who knew him. The people of his riding will remember him as a Member who was very close to his constituents and entirely dedicated to their cause. In him, Quebec has lost a great citizen who used all his talents given him by Providence to serve the people.
Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and by the entire House:
That this House offer Mrs. Remi Paul, her children and relatives our heartfelt condolences on this very sad occasion.


Madam Speaker:: The feelings expressed by the Hon. Member on behalf of the House will, I am sure, touch the hearts of the family of our former colleague.



Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, a 1.5 per cent payroll tax introduced by the NDP Government of Manitoba is severely affecting the operation of Manitoba hospitals. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House direct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to launch an immediate inquiry into the devastating effects of this cruel and harsh NDP hospital tax, to ensure that health care will not deteriorate and to make certain that hospital staff will not have to be laid off because of this additional NDP hospital tax.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

December 21, 1982


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, on November 25 Canadian Pacific's West Toronto station was demolished. This loss to Canada's heritage and the way it was carried out underline the urgency of establishing legislative reform to protect historic railway buildings. Canadian Pacific argues that it is exempt from provincial or municipal regulations pertaining to heritage buildings, but the Canadian Transport Commission states that there is no relevant federal law concerning this matter, either. In view of the fact that the CTC already protects the natural environment, which is threatened by railways, but balks at protecting the built environment because its mandate must be clarified, and because it is important to have a way to halt the demolition of historic railway buildings which are valued by the community, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That the federal Government bring in legislation clarifying the CTC's right to hear argument on the social value of railway property and to block destruction of those assets if necessary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, which I believe will receive unanimous consent of the House. This week the Congress of the United States restored $4 million to construction funding for the Garrison Diversion unit, a project which could devastate the marine environment of Manitoba and cause damage to the fishing and tourist industries. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) and the Hon, Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael):
That this House reaffirm its commitment to oppose the construction of the Garrison Diversion unit as originally authorized, and direct our ambassador in Washington to convey to the United States Government our dismay and disappointment that this project is still proceeding.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion moved by Mr. Murta, seconded by Mr. Epp?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is aware that there have been some 400 bankruptcies in agriculture in 1982, and hundreds of other farmers who just simply sold out. Production costs are continuing to climb at an unbelievable rate, and yet the price of the final product is staying stable or, in fact, in many cases falling. Countless numbers of farmers across the country have lost money in production this past year. They are being told that in 1983 they should plant the crop on which they will lose the least. They are also being told by their financial institutions not to count on operating funds for next year's crop. Between now and spring the family farm in Canada faces the greatest risk to its existence in the history of this country. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That immediately upon the resumption of this House, in January, the Government strike a special Committee of Agriculture to hear witnesses from the industry and arrive at a program to save the family farm in Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, the amending formula under Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1981, permits constitutional change affecting provincial powers without (1), the agreement of any of the three most western Provinces, which are British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan and, (2), without the agreement of the three large Atlantic Provinces, which are Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, and, (3), without the agreement of Quebec which represents one integral part of the duality of this nation, and, (4), without the agreement of Ontario, which represents 35.5 per cent of the population of this nation. This formula may, in the future, be divisive to national unity. Therefore I move:
December 21, 1982

That this House request the Prime Minister to place for discussion on the agenda of the Constitutional First Ministers' meeting in March, 1983, the amending formula under Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1981, and that every effort be made to change the amending formula in this Section to require two-thirds of the Provinces having 80 per cent of the population instead of 50 per cent of the population of the Provinces, and that the opting out feature be deleted.
I do not have a seconder, Madam Speaker, so I do not want you to put the motion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE DR. LEN COWLEY EXPRESSION OF CONDOLENCES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and move, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House express its sympathy to the family of the Late Dr. Len Cowley, Assistant Deputy Minister of Atlantic Fisheries Service.
1 am sure that we express the sympathy of all the Members of the House of Commons who have dealt with him on matters relating to the fishing industry. He will be greatly missed for his outstanding contribution and his dedication to the East Coast fishing industry. I ask unanimous consent on this motion.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House, through the voice of the Hon. Member, has expressed feelings which will very much touch the family of the late Dr. Cowley.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Many Canadians of Philippine origin, and others, have protested against President Ferdinand Marcos' oppressive dictatorship in the Philippines. Producers of opposition newspapers, clergy and lay leaders of the Churches, and officers of labour unions, have been intimidated, arrested, and held without trial, even though martial law was supposedly lifted. Marcos has asked Canada for an extradition treaty so that he can bring back residents of Canada to the Philippines to be arrested for opposing him. Now Prime Minister Trudeau (Mr. Trudeau) has announced that he will visit Marcos in January. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Prime Minister assure this Parliament that when he visits President Marcos he will refuse to discuss an extradition treaty and will ask President
Oral Questions
Marcos to release political prisoners and cease intimidation of church leaders, union leaders and opposition leaders.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence who yesterday tabled in the House an interdepartmental report on search and rescue in Canada, called the Cross Report. Among other things it describes search and rescue as confused and poorly managed, and in some very strongly worded recommendations it speaks to the fact that Canada lacks a contingency plan to deal with a major marine or air disaster.
Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Defence, who I presume is the lead Minister in this area, is this. The Ocean Ranger went down last February with the loss of 84 lives. Off Nova Scotia we will have four rigs with anywhere up to 1,500 men, and off Newfoundland we will have three rigs with anywhere up to 900 men. Given all that, why do we not have in place at the present time a contingency plan to deal with an emergency at sea or in the air?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to correct the Hon. Member when he said that the search and rescue operation was confused and that the people manning it were not competent or were badly trained. I think the Cross Report, if you have read it, says completely the contrary. The people are very devoted, motivated, well trained and competent people who are risking their lives on many occasions for search and rescue operations. I think that is what it said.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lamontagne:: As far as the East Coast is concerned, I know the concerns of the Hon. Member because he has questioned me in the House quite a few times on this subject, and I have written also to him quite a few times concerning search and rescue on the East Coast. He asked at one point why we would not put fixed wing aircraft in Newfoundland. This I will answer in a moment.
On the second question about our SAR resources on the East Coast, I think in the Cross Report it is well stated on many occasions that the facilities and the capabilities of search and rescue on the East Coast are well located. The Report does not suggest relocating any of our facilities at the present time.

December 21, 1982
Oral Questions
As far as fixed wing aircraft are concerned, following an answer in this House a few months ago I have pursued this request with my Department and other qualified people, asking them what would be the advantages of fixed wing aircraft in Newfoundland. The consensus was that this would not be advantageous, that it would be much more advantageous if they had an increased helicopter capability. That is what we have done. There are now three Labrador helicopters. Among these three are the new Labrador helicopters which have been updated with increased capabilities and which will be much more useful in the Eastern region than could a fixed wing aircraft.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Minister is trying to put words into my mouth. 1 did not describe our personnel in search and rescue as incompetent; neither did the Report. What the Report says, and what I say, is that this Government has been incompetent in managing search and rescue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the point of the Report and that is what the Minister has failed to address in his reply.


PROVISION OF FIXED WING AIRCRAFT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Report refers to, and I quote:
-better fixed wing aircraft coverage is needed for the far reaches of the area- off Newfoundland, the Arctic and offshore to 30 degrees west longitude.
That is in the report and that is quoted from the Minister's own officials in SAR and the RCC in Halifax. In addition, Judge Soper, in his report on the sinking of the Patrick Morris, released in April, 1971, asked for wider dispersal of aircraft and personnel. The Minister's own commanding officer at the RCC Centre in Halifax in December, 1980, said we need more fixed wing aircraft in Newfoundland, and more personnel. Given these facts, why does the Minister insist on flying in the face of the recommendations of his own personnel and not provide more dispersal of fixed wing aircraft and more personnel to man the RCC?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I never said, as the lead Minister for search and rescue, that there would not be a possibility for improvement if we had more resources or more capabilities. 1 would like to stress the fact to the Hon. Member that the Cross Committee was asked by the Government to evaluate the present situation of search and rescue in Canada and to tell us exactly how we should best handle it. He has referred to 1971; well 1 am referring to 1982 and to this Government at the moment. We are acting on the three identified issues of search and rescue-that is: improving management, prevention, and the operation itself. I think it is indeed a very positive step
forward to try to refine and improve the search and rescue operation across Canada.
When he asked a previous question about a major system by which we could prevent a major disaster at sea, I think the Hon. Member could look at the Prinzendam case where all our resources were sent to try to prevent any loss of life. The Prinzendam was a success as far as our search and rescue effort was concerned. Many of the incidents which have occurred in the last ten years have been success stories for search and rescue.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Minister will know that the principal recommendations contained in the Cross Report, which he tabled yesterday, were contained in a document by Mr. Cross that was released to Cabinet on February 1, 1982, immediately following the sinking of the Ocean Ranger. These recommendations were contained in that report to Cabinet in February of this year.


NECESSITY FOR FUNDING
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister is threefold. First, why did the Government not act on the recommendations of February of this year, by Mr. Cross? Second, can we now expect that there will be a single envelope to finance search and rescue and that there will be an increase in expenditure to provide the additional equipment and personnel recommended by Cross? Third, will there be a single Minister responsible for search and rescue to try to bring management into this chaos which is costing Canadian lives?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, as far as the last sentence of the Hon. Member is concerned, I would like to correct it also. In the Cross Report it was indicated that in the incidents which have happened so far no increased capabilities or facilities could have saved any lives. In other words, it was telling us that search and rescue reacted, and acted very well, in all incidents, and that additional lives could not have been saved if our SAR authorities had more capabilities and more facilities. I do not think there has been a cost in lives due to search and rescue competence or incompetence. As far as the Hon. Member's other question about-


James Aloysius McGrath: The budget.


Maurice Lamontagne: -the budget, it is obvious that the Cross Report stated that the lead Minister and the administration were well co-ordinated and that they should have their own envelope as far as resources are concerned. The question of the envelope for search and rescue; this is something we will have to discuss with Cabinet soon, before the end of this fiscal year.
I will recommend, instead of having part of the budget come from DND and MOT, that we have a budget which is strictly search and rescue and independent of any other envelope.
December 21, 1982


REQUEST THAT CONTINGENCY PLAN BE DEVELOPED IMMEDIATELY
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, thank you for the privilege of asking a short supplementary question. Will he, as the lead Minister, act now to put in place a contingency plan which can address a disaster at sea or in the air before more lives are lost?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been at the press conference this morning, he would know that General Manson answered that question, saying that they were already working on such a plan which could be implemented in the case of disaster.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. Now that the plan to tax northern benefits has received scathing criticism from a number of respected organizations, including the Canadian Mining Association, Northern Chambers of Mines, and mine workers, will she give a commitment to the House and to the tens of thousands of unemployed mine workers in Canada that she will fight the Government's plan to phase in this new burden on the troubled mining industry? Or on the other hand, does she still support this regressive plan which the President of the Canadian Mining Association has compared to "throwing an anvil to a drowning man", when the man needs a life preserver?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I do endorse the plan, and I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he have further conversations with people in the mining industry who have accepted the fact that the plan is fair in that the moratorium does last for another year and the taxation benefits will be phased in to allow for contract negotiations.


REQUEST THAT PLAN BE WITHDRAWN
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, it appears that the Hon. Minister does not read her mail. Whatever the magnitude of this tax, it is taking revenue from northerners and the mining industry of Canada.
My supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. The President of the Mining Association has said that this plan will reduce exploration and new mine development, erode the ability of northern minerals to compete on world markets, result in premature closing of existing mines, create labour unrest, and an exodus of people and capital from the North. In other words, this is a plan to depopulate the North. Will the Minister of Finance accept the advice of the President
Oral Questions
of the Mining Association and withdraw his December 2 decision to tax the mining industry out of existence?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I disagree totally with the assessment of the President of the Canadian Mining Association. The plan has been announced. It is a generous plan in so far as certain people of the North are concerned in comparison to others. The plan is here to stay and it is not going to be changed. 1 suggest that the President of the Mining Association should go on to something else.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. According to the law as passed by this Parliament, retired federal employees would be entitled next month to an increase in their pensions equivalent to the increase in the cost of living. It is reported that the President of the Treasury Board told reporters yesterday that the Government of Canada intends to break the law of Canada by restricting pension increases to some 6.5 per cent. Under what authority does the President of the Treasury Board act when he says the Cabinet of the Government of Canada is going to break the law of Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I did not at any time say that this Government intended to break the law. What I did say to the parliamentary committee and reporters was that there are two lines of precedent that could be looked at. One line of precedent suggests that when a Bill of the kind we are talking about receives second reading and approval in principle by the House, the Government could proceed with the ultimate action depending on the final decision by Parliament. The other line of precedent suggests that the measure would have to be passed completely.
In any event, it is certainly not our intention to break the law. The cheques are not ordinarily sent out until after January 25. This House resumes on January 17, and I understand it is the intention of the Government House Leader to ask that the Bill be given priority. I suggest, therefore, that my hon. friend's question is quite hypothetical.


John Edward Broadbent: I suggest to the Minister, Madam Speaker, that respect for the rule of law is not hypothetical, and, given the past practice of this Government, that it is, indeed, a very relevant question.


REQUEST THAT INCREASE BE GRANTED UNDER EXISTING LAW
John Edward Broadbent: I would like to obtain the assurance of the Minister that he is now telling the House

December 21, 1982
Oral Questions
that, unless the Bill in question, and 1 refer to the Bill pertaining to the pensions of retired federal civil servants, is passed through all stages and becomes the law of Canada, the Government will adhere to existing law? That is to say, until that event occurs, will the Government maintain the law and provide the pension increase under existing law to which those retired civil servants are entitled?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, it is certainly our intention to respect the rule of law, and our intention not to send out cheques involving amounts in the area recommended in Bill C-133 until that Bill has been passed into law. I would suggest to my hon. friends that they do everything possible to co-operate in allowing the House to make a final decision on the Bill so the concern he is attempting to develop will be, as I said before, totally hypothetical.


John Edward Broadbent: I want the Minister to know that Members of this Party are opposed to all three Bills and we will debate them in terms of all the time that is required.


REQUEST THAT INDEXING OF PENSIONS RESPECT RULE OF LAW
John Edward Broadbent: My final question is for the Minister of Justice. Will he give some assurance to Parliament and, more important, to the people of Canada, that the Parliament of Canada, as represented by the Cabinet, will maintain the principle of the rule of law? Will he, as Minister of Justice, assure the House that increases for family allowances and retired federal civil service pensioners will be increased next month according to existing law? Will he give us that assurance?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that any advice that I give to Cabinet will respect the rule of law.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It appears from the Minister's response to questions that I put to him last week, as well as from other statements arising from the provincial Finance Ministers' meeting, that any announcement of federal Government action to create new jobs will take place after a budget next year which is expected some time in late February or March. Why is the Minister delaying any action on job creation until half way through what will undoubtedly be the worst winter of unemployment since 1933?
non. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that the Government has put forward several billions of dollars in projects involving jobs, some of which are direct job creation, and some for job
creation by the private sector. Some of those jobs will result from the implementation of Bills that are currently before the House-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Where did the jobs go in the first place?


Marc Lalonde: -in particular from the Income Tax Act that the Opposition has refused to debate up until now. The Opposition has dragged its feet and has let the bells ring rather than debate this Bill so that Canadian taxpayers will get their refunds and the companies will get their benefits.
I suggest to my hon. friend that, before asking for more, he should at least let Parliament decide on what has already been announced and is awaiting Parliamentary approval.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Minister of Finance knows full well that we have not refused to debate that Income Tax Act. If he or his predecessor had brought that Bill forward when it should have been brought forward in June, July, or September or October this year, it would have been passed by now. He also knows that that Bill will reduce the number of jobs in this country instead of increasing them.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING OF FINANCE MINISTERS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Minister is opting for more high visibility programs which make it appear that jobs are being created, rather than looking to the economic benefit of acting now to create jobs that are desperately needed today. Since there is no definite date for another meeting of provincial Finance Ministers, and since this meeting, if called, will not take place until some time in February, will the Minister today show some concern for those who are without a job and set a specific date for the next Finance Minister's meeting with the Provinces so that he can put forward a direct action plan to create jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would just remind my hon. friend that, at the time we were supposed to debate the Income Tax Act, the Official Opposition decided to resort to the childish game of hiding behind the curtains rather than being in the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -to debate the legislation. They decided to waste time by letting the bells ring again. It is up to them to decide whether they want to do it or not, but they should have the honesty to recognize what actually happened in the House when the Official Opposition refused to assume its responsibility and debate the legislation that is before the House.
As far as the programs are concerned, I indicated in my October 27 statement that $1.1 billion of expenditure will have a considerable job creation impact. Out of this expenditure there is a special program called NEED, to which we have allocated $500 million and with which the Provinces have cooperated so that we will have more than $700 million allocated to this very Program and its funds will begin to be expended in the course of this winter.
December 21, 1982

I invite my hon. friend to look at the facts and see that programs are being implemented at the present time to come to the rescue of those unemployed in the country, and I invite him to show real concern and attention to the problems of these people by beginning to get Parliament working to pass the legislation that these people need.


PURCHASE OF F-18 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT-MANUFACTURE OF COMPONENTS IN CANADA
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When Canada ordered its $5 billion fleet of F-18 fighter aircraft, we were to get approximately $3 billion in industrial offsets. This was to create 24,000 aerospace jobs based on the United States production run of 1,366 planes. Is it not true, if the U.S. production total is lowered, that the contractors' obligation to buy F-18 components and assemblies in Canada, and their over-all industrial benefits obligations, will be proportionately lowered? Would the Minister comment on the present status of that proposed $3 billion offset package and if the expected creation of 24,000 jobs is assured?
Flon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):
Madam Speaker, I believe my colleagues, the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of National Defence, indicated in a press conference several weeks ago that, with respect to industrial offset benefits as a result of the purchase of the F-18 aircraft, we already were ahead of our initial forecast and it is fully expected that we will meet the guidelines that we set down for ourselves before we purchased the aircraft.


POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN SIZE OF PURCHASE BY UNITED STATES NAVY
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister, or for the Minister of National Defence. In a press interview last week, the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations said that the American production target was now unrealistic and that the number would likely be reduced to a total of 700. What impact will this reduction have on the Canadian industrial offset package and on the $5 billion contract that we offered the United States on a controversial airplane? Why did the Government agree to accept an offset package based on a specific production total, and why did the Government not negotiate for a firm and fixed amount? How many jobs will be lost now?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the alleged statement of the officer of the U.S. Naval Operations cited by the Hon. Member. I will check that statement and get back to him.
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week my colleague from Sarnia-Lambton asked the Minister whether or not he would accept the recommendation made by the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council for a limited amnesty with respect to illegal immigrants resident in Canada. In view of the concern which this recommendation has generated in the country, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, can he assure the House that the Government will not accept this recommendation?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, let me first indicate that, in response to that particular report, I have appointed a special adviser who will undertake consultation with a number of groups since the report contained a number of recommendations concerning enforcement actions, and others related to the control of illegal immigration. I would underline that at the present time the Government has no plans for amnesty. It was simply a recommendation from the Advisory Council. We would not take any kind of action until the special adviser reports back to me in April.


GARRISON DIVERSION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the bi-level government delegation to Washington, headed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Manitoba NDP Minister of Natural Resources, to oppose continued development of the Garrison Diversion Project has obviously failed, due to the fact that the U.S. Senate has just reinstated $4 million of interim funding to proceed with the project, will the Minister tell the House what he will do about this failure, and what his immediate plans are to try to get the message across to the U.S. Senate?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, it is true that the funds which have been removed in Congress have now been restored by a joint meeting of the Senate and the House. But I think the Hon. Member can draw some comfort from the fact that there is an explicit assurance in the provision of those funds that none of the money will be used in a way that will affect the flow of waters into Canada, affect Manitoba waters or the Manitoba fisheries. That seems to me to be the important objective that has been sought by the Minister of Employment and Immigration and by his counterpart in Manitoba. That has been the aim of the Government of Canada for many years

December 21, 1982
Oral Questions
in opposing the development of the Garrison Diversion in a way that would have an adverse impact on Canadian waters or fisheries. That will not happen as a result of the funds that have been added to the project.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I hope the Minister will consider another representation to Washington.


REPORTED STATEMENTS MADE BY NORTH DAKOTA OFFICIAL
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, the Attorney General of North Dakota has stated that the Garrison Diversion Project will not be stopped by the Canadian Government and that the recommendations of the International Joint Commission will be ignored. Has the Minister made representations to the Government of North Dakota to protest these outrageous statements?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not considered protesting these statements which I would regard as unacceptable, as the Hon. Member does.
I think it is important to bear in mind that the new Bill to which he has referred includes a very definite stipulation that none of the funds can be used for the construction of project features affecting waters flowing into Canada. That really looks after the concern of the Hon. Member, at least at this point, and the concern of the Canadian Government. We would have been much happier if the funds had not been reappropriated, but there is a provision that provides they will not be used in the way I have described.


PENSIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. Due to the kindness and thoughtfulness of my colleagues in my caucus who thought I should ask two important questions today-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: At least it will be for the first time.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question. I wish he would proceed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I just wanted to make sure you could hear me. It is also because my mother is in the Gallery today, on her 78th birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare I direct my question to the Prime Minister. I would like to know, 2.4 million Canadian pensioners would like to know, and my mother would like to know why he is going to reduce the increase in her Old Age Pension, and would he give an undertaking to the House that he will ask his Cabinet colleagues to reconsider, repent and relent, and withdraw Bill C-131?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would want his mother to know the truth about this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is reassuring that he would ask the Government to speak the truth so that his mother can understand it. I want to point out to the Hon. Member that there is no intention of reducing the Old Age Pension.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Reducing the increase.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the contrary it will continue-yes, those were the words which the Hon. Member used. The Government will continue to increase the Old Age Pension. We intend seeing it increased by a rate of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984 and since we hope that inflation will be at 6 per cent or below in 1983 and at 5 per cent in 1984, hopefully, with the co-operation of all Members and of the provincial Governments, we will be able to establish a 6 per cent rate of inflation, in which case the old age pensioners will be reimbursed for the exact amount of CPI.


POSITION OF WIDOWS OF RAILWAY PENSIONERS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, a minor correction to the Prime Minister-I said a reduction in the increase of the pensions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to know, and thousands of railway pensioners would like to know, and my mother, a widow of a railway pensioner, would like to know, whether or not he will prevent the railways from cutting off widows' pensions at age 70 and cancelling their railway passes.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that the Hon. Member's mother is a very intelligent person and also that she negotiated very hard, either herself or her representative, with CP on those pension terms. I might meet her afterwards to get to know more about the actual agreement that exists between CP and herself, her group of employees. All this is to say that the Government does not tell CP what pensions to give. This is the result of a collective agreement, I presume, and consequently we have no right to intervene in these matters and force CP to pay more or pay less.
December 21, 1982


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will recall that on December 9 of this year, regarding the new Air Canada headquarters building, I asked the Minister whether he had asked for an investigation, considering the enormous difference between the two tenders. The Minister's answer was that the fourteen criteria established by Air Canada were enough for him to let Air Canada go ahead. Yesterday, he admitted to the Leader of the Official Opposition that he had warned the President of Air Canada of an RCMP investigation. In the circumstances, could the Minister inform us today, considering the fact that he had already warned the President of Air Canada that the RCMP was going to investigate the contract, could he inform us why-and I think that the Canadian people have the right to know this-he did not recommend, as I asked him to, that Air Canada suspend its decision made on December 9 of this year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, of course I would like to tell the Hon. Member today what this investigation is about, and he would probably understand .. . But whatever I say, it will be misinterpreted. 1 am under orders by the Minister of Justice not to divulge the purpose of this investigation, and I intend to follow these orders.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. Now it seems that there are figures that prove there is a difference of $12 million between the first and second tender. For the Prime Minister's information, the Minister had warned the President of Air Canada that the RCMP was going to investigate. I asked the Minister, on behalf of the Canadian people, to ask Air Canada to postpone this very important decision. In the circumstances, will the Right Hon. Prime Minister, in the interests of Canada and after informing the President of Air Canada, suspend the President of Air Canada until the RCMP investigation is able to shed some light on this particular contract?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there is one rule I have always followed since I became Prime Minister, and it has always served me well: Never interfere in any way with investigations being conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 1 would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would take the same position and let the RCMP continue its investigation without our intervening of interfering.
Oral Questions


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what his intentions are with respect to the implementation of recommendation No. 130 of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, which calls for the designation of a Minister of State for the status of disabled persons, who would be directly responsible for the affairs of disabled persons, in addition to his major portfolio?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am considering that question. The Hon. Member will know that a great number of the recommendations, 1 believe two-thirds of them, have already been acted upon. We are examining what we should be doing and how to respond to the other one-third, and as we are doing that I would consider the opportunity of designating a Minister, as the Hon. Member suggests.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, if I could just remind the Prime Minister, we appreciate the work that has been done by his various Ministers, and particularly by the Secretary of State, but we recognize the fact that he is able only to co-ordinate the efforts of his various Departments. It now being almost two years since the report came out we hope that the Prime Minister will be willing to recognize the fact that disabled people have been waiting for some while, and would he make this change as quickly as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member is asking the same question in another form. I will eventually consider designating a Minister. However, the Hon. Member recognizes, in his question, that the co-ordination has been proceeding well. I do not think, from the point of view of the disabled, that it is all that important whether one Minister or another is responsible for that particular area of government concern. The important thing is that we have acted and will continue to act on that report.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns Quebecair. Could the Minister give the House a

December 21, 1982
Oral Questions
progress report on the discussions being held by Air Canada and his Department with representatives of the Government of Quebec and Quebecair?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say that discussions between our negotiators and provincial spokesmen have been sufficiently realistic to pave the way for negotiations on restructuring Quebecair rather than creating a new company, Quebecair 2.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. On November 1 1 asked the Minister about a decision made by the foreign owned or American owned Ayerst Company to transfer its pharmaceutical laboratory facilities from Canada to New Jersey, thus threatening about 300 jobs in our country, and which would also mean the loss of about half of Canada's pharmaceutical laboratory facilities. At that time he said he would look into the matter. This morning, seven weeks later, the workers were told that the federal Government would be starting a feasibility study which might run about two or three months.
Can the Minister assure and guarantee the House, either today or tomorrow, before we recess for the Christmas holidays, that those 300 jobs will remain here in Canada and not be transferred to the United States through the manipulations of a foreign-owned company in this country?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I believe the situation is somewhat more complicated than described by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. However, I will look into the allegations which he raised with respect to representations that were made to the workers this morning. I, in fact, met with some representatives of the laboratory in question, together with another institution in the Province of Quebec which is interested in integrating some of the activities of the laboratory with its own. The matter is also being examined, 1 understand, by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and if there have been any developments 1 will be happy to convey them to the Hon. Member.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence,
concerning which I gave him notice a few minutes ago. Did 1 understand the Minister correctly, when he was responding to a question from the Hon. Member for St. John's East a few moments ago, to say that there were contingency plans in place whereby the SAR system could meet major marine disasters similar to the sinking of the Ocean Ranger oil rig off the coast of Newfoundland last February, which claimed 84 lives? Are contingency plans now in place?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I did not say that they were in place. I said that ICSAR, which is the interdepartmental committee, when asked at the press conference this morning if there was such a plan in existence for major marine disasters, stated that it recognized the need for a plan and that it was already working on it to make sure that it is better than what is now in existence. There is not necessarily a contingency plan in existence, but there are of course some facilities that we can use. For instance, concerning the Prinzendam, we used every resource available to try to save the lives there, and we succeeded. However, ICSAR recognizes that this is not enough, and it is indeed working on a plan to improve our capabilities in this regard.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to hear that because, as the Minister well knows, that was one of the observations made in the report, that such a contingency plan is absolutely essential.


TIME NEEDED TO FORMULATE CONTINGENCY PLAN
Erik Nielsen: In view of the fact that at 1 p.m. Major General Manson confirmed to reporters, at the press conference of which the Minister spoke that, in fact, no such contingency plans existed, and he did not mention anything about consideration currently under way to bring into existence such contingency plans, would the Minister say what time frame we are considering to the point at which such a plan will have been completed to meet the major disasters which will undoubtedly recur in the regions of the East Coast as well as the West Coast?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, in answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Yukon, I must tell him that most of the 58 recommendations of the Cross Report have been accepted by us as being very logical and should be implemented. Many of them have already been implemented during the last six months or so.


Erik Nielsen: Where is the contingency plan?


Maurice Lamontagne: And we intend to look immediately into the others which have not been implemented.


Erik Nielsen: When will the contingency plan be ready?


Maurice Lamontagne: Well, the Hon. Member for Yukon knows very well that it is very hard to put a time frame on a recommendation like this, but I can assure him that two members of ICSAR, the chairman and the vice-chairman of ICSAR,
December 21, 1982

which is the Interdepartmental Committee on Search And Rescue, are very much aware of the urgency of having a plan such as this just in case such an emergency happens.


PROVISION OF HELICOPTER FACILITIES AT MASSET, B.C.
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, the interesting aspect about the report on search and rescue which is in front of us is that it really means no advancement at all to the system we have in place. The title has been changed and minimum presentation has been reorganized but, in my opinion, the report is really a sham.
The statements by the Minister are largely self-serving. In the winter, the disaster involving the Prinzendam would have seen 500 people at the bottom of the sea, and it was largely a question of luck. There are some very notable and very serious problems. Would the Minister give us a commitment as to when he will put the helicopter base and equipment at Masset, which will fill a very large gap? Will he give us an assurance that he will not take that resource from some other base in Canada, robbing Peter to pay Paul? Would he give us an indication of what kind of resources he will put along the Gulf of St. Lawrence which will prevent death in the water, such as on the Hudson Transport? Will he hire enough people to-


Madam Speaker:: Order.
[ Translation]
Eton. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):
Madam Speaker, I think that if saving lives were a matter of luck .. . We have a saying in French that luck is always on the side of those who know how to play, and I think there must have been a lot of knowledgeable people in Search and Rescue.

I know that the Hon. Member is interested in the West Coast, coming from Comox-Powell River. I can tell that he probably has not read the report at all, because, by the question he has asked, he is not aware of what we have done in that area. I can tell him that there have been many improvements in the SAR capabilities on the West Coast. For example, we have a third hovercraft which we did not have last year. We have a 600 class cutter and two-


Raymond John Skelly: Those cutters have been taken away. It's not true!


Maurice Lamontagne: Well, even if the Hon. Member does not want to hear the answer, he might as well listen to it. There have been improvements to the different Coast Guard vessels, and there is also a new helicopter in Comox, which is one of the new upgraded SARCUP versions of helicopter. Therefore, I think that, as far as the West is concerned, capabilities have been greatly improved so far as search and rescue is concerned.
Oral Questions


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your recognition. 1 direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is responsible for Canada Post. I wrote to the Minister in September of 1980 concerning the issuance of a stamp to commemorate the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists in Lower Canada in 1783 and Upper Canada in 1784. It would be most fitting to mark this important migration, since it played such a significant role in the development of our nation, as the migration consisted not only of English people, but also of Mohawk Indians, Germans, Swiss, Dutch, French and Spanish people. I would like to ask the Minister why a commemorative stamp has not been issued to mark this bicentennial in 1983 and 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I take the representation of the Hon. Member, and 1 will be discussing the matter with the Canada Post Corporation. I understand that the program for 1983 is now complete. I understand that the members of the advisory committee saw fit to retain this proposal for 1984. Therefore, the Hon. Member should expect that such a commemorative, will probably be in the 1984 program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION
William John Vankoughnet: My supplementary is to the same Minister, Madam Speaker. 1 appreciate his remarks, but I would just like to say that is why I notified him in 1980, in order to give him enough lead time to consider the stamp. I would like to suggest to the Minister that it seems very disappointing that, in 1976, Canada Post issued a bicentennial stamp recognizing the American revolution, so 1 would certainly hope that this Minister, as soon as possible, would make this representation. I also ask the Prime Minister to make representation to Canada Post that this be given serious consideration. Could I get that commitment?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, of course I shall transmit the Hon. Member's representations to the Canada Post Corporation.

December 21, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Gurbin


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the three hundredth and fifty-seventh report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) on Monday, December 20, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate requesting this House to unite with the Senate in the appointment of a Special Joint Committee to consider ways by which the Senate of Canada could be reformed, and also to select Members of this House to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: I would like to ask the Government House Leader, Madam Speaker, to confirm what his office was good enough to inform my office of today, that we will be proceeding with continuation of proceedings on Bill C-131 today and tomorrow as well. Would he please confirm that for the record?


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I indicated this morning to my colleague, subject to change with reasonable notice.


POINTS OF ORDER
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I would just like to make sure that Hansard records that earlier on under motions under Standing Order 43, I raised a matter and received unanimous consent of the House. The motion was seconded by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-lnterlake (Mr. Sargeant) and also the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael). Therefore, it had all-Party agreement.


Madam Speaker:: That will be recorded in Hansard.


MR. GURBIN-UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE OF MISS BEGIN
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to the proceedings of the House last evening. During the course of my speech in the debate on Bill C-132, the Minister of National Health and Welfare
(Miss Begin) made two comments, both of which 1 believe are unparliamentary language or represent unparliamentary language. On the first occasion her words were: "This is a complete lie", the second intervention was: "It is a complete lie. Is that clear enough?"
First, on the basis of its being unparliamentary language, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be asked to withdraw those interventions. Second, I would like to reserve the opportunity at this time to prepare a case for a question of privilege, which I think is substantiated by the comments I made which caused the Minister to react in the manner she did.


Madam Speaker:: This does come under the heading of a point of order. The Hon. Member is making a point of order and I think we can deal with it on a point of order. There is no necessity to bring up a question of privilege once this particular point of order has been settled.
I have Hansard here and indeed I see it is confirmed that the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) did use those expressions twice. I have to say that these matters should be dealt with at the time at which they occur. It is very difficult for the Chair to adjudicate these matters the next day because it has to do with the proceedings, the normal operations of the House. In the course of these operations, when these things occur I would like Hon. Members to raise them at that time and not 24 hours later. However, that being said, I have to agree with the Hon. Member that this kind of language is considered to be unparliamentary. I suppose the Hon. Minister will probably want to withdraw those words.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, in the parliamentary spirit, although what I said was true, I will withdraw the words I used.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: And-

-I will say that the Hon. Member is a sophist, which happens in the best of families. I therefore take back what I said.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, when unparliamentary expressions are used, the practice in this place is for an absolute, unqualified withdrawal. It was hardly a withdrawal by the Minister when she said "although the words I used were true, I will withdraw them". That is not good enough in keeping with the practice of this place. The withdrawal should be total and unqualified.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Begin) has clearly shown that she knows the

rules of parliamentary courtesy. She said that she took back her words, and I think the example in question was set by Members opposite. I think Members who said withdrawals should not be qualified are not exactly paragons themselves. In the case of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister indicated that the Member could have remained closer to the truth but she withdrew the expression she used, and, I think, thus complied with the Rules of the House.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what you said at the beginning concerning the interventions. Those interventions had to be confirmed by Hansard before I could present my point of order, and this is the first opportunity since Hansard was printed to find out whether it was reported. There are many statements made during the course of debate which may or may not be represented in Hansard; therefore, we had to check on that before we could make representations.


Madam Speaker:: I understand that, but if those words were heard during the course of the debate, they should be dealt with immediately. I am just warning Hon. Members that these matters should be dealt with at the time they occur. There are two conditions for disallowing unparliamentary language. The idea of disallowing unparliamentary language is because it could create some kind of commotion in the House. Obviously, if these words were not immediately heard, or did not insult the Hon. Member at the particular time, there was no commotion. However, I take the point; the language was unparliamentary. As for the prefacing, I have heard several prefacings of this nature when 1 pleaded five or six times for Hon. Members to withdraw certain language, which they finally did. Therefore, I have to be fair to the Hon. Minister. I have accepted it in other cases and I have to accept it in her case.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: I have great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of some 603 Canadians living in the riding of Bow River, in the Province of Alberta. This petition requests the reinstatement of capital punishment.
This petition is from the High River-Okotoks area of Bow River constituency. Two young women were mutilated and their remains set on fire in this area and the petitioners feel very strongly that capital punishment should be reinstated for deliberately planned murder and where a person is found guilty of same beyond the shadow of a doubt. When the ultimate crime, namely murder, occurs, then the ultimate punishment, namely death, should be enacted.
Petitions
My petitioners humbly pray that the House of Commons will reflect the thinking of the majority of the people of Canada and reinstate capital punishment.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadian citizens who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to thus present a grievance common to your petitioners, and they ask the House honourably to provide a remedy. The petition is that Bill C-133 and Bill C-131 will reduce the pensions of senior citizens through the capping of indexing of pensions of public servants and old age pensioners; and the undersigned humbly pray and call upon all Members of this House to oppose this legislation.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a petition with 3,699 signatures on it from people right across Canada. It comes from an organization known as "Operation Humbug", which is against forced metric. I present this petition to you, Madam Speaker. This is prompted because the petitioners who have been petitioning this House have been accused by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) of forging signatures. The signatures on this petition bear a printed name, address and signature. If this is not sufficient for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I am prepared to supply the phone numbers on the next petition.
I present this petition on behalf of petitioners from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The petition says:
We oppose the imposition of the metric system and request that this system be continued on a strictly voluntary basis.
That is the same motion as in the petition presented by the
135,000	petitioners just a short time ago.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by 1,714 people in Manitoba who are opposed to the Government's plans to test the Cruise missile in Canada.
Cruise missile testing has been the subject of much debate outside Parliament. In fact, on October 30, 1982, 15,000 people marched on the streets of Ottawa to protest the proposed testing of this vehicle of annihilation. Canadians have made their views clear on the steps of Parliament; they urged the Government to refuse the Cruise. Unfortunately this matter has never been debated inside Parliament. As the representative of the people of Selkirk-Interlake and as the New Democratic Party spokesperson on defence issues, I am

December 21, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Shields
pleased to be able to table this petition against the Cruise missile in the House today.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to present a petition today calling upon the House to oppose the testing of the Cruise missile on Canadian soil. I am presenting this petition to express the views of over 560 residents of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, who feel that the Cruise missile is a new and dangerous weapon in the nuclear arms race and as such is a threat to all peoples and nations of the world. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon this House to oppose the testing of the Cruise missile on Canadian soil.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, like other petitioners I, too, rise and present my petition with the words that I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of concerned residents of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The purpose of the petition is to ensure that a balanced portrayal of two competing theories, namely evolution and creation, be given fair and representative time in our public institutions, and specifically on the CBC.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of 37 Canadians who reside in various places in the constituency of Bow River. The petition requests capital punishment be reinstated for crimes of first degree murder where a person is found guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. The Government has a responsibility to reflect the thinking of the people in its legislation, and these petitioners pray that the Government will bring a Bill to the House of Commons reinstating the death sentence for anyone found guilty of deliberating taking the life of another human being.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there would be any possible way to find out how many petitions are presented in the Russian Parliament concerning deployment of the SS 20 missile?


Madam Speaker:: 1 am afraid I cannot help the Hon. Member. He might ask a question on the Order Paper or somewhere else.


Mr. Towers:: Ask the NDP.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26

Madam Speaker:: I have notice of a motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 26 by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the House has just had presented to it petitions coming from thousands of Canadians opposed to the testing of the Cruise missile on Canadian soil. Just before I move the motion, Madam Speaker, I would say that this matter is of considerable urgency because a deal of some kind has been negotiated between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, the details of which will be announced before Parliament comes back after the Christmas recess. It is therefore our view that such a matter of profound importance ought to be debated here in Parliament.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 26, Madam Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the advisability of the Government of Canada concluding an agreement with the Government of the United States of America to test Cruise missile weaponry in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has given the Chair a statement, as required by Standing Order 26, of the matter proposed to be discussed. The Hon. Member argues that the matter is a genuine emergency because he has been advised that the text of the agreement has been agreed upon, that the House will recess tomorrow and that, in the past, international agreements have been debated in Parliament.
I cannot quarrel with the two last statements, but I do have some difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that there is a genuine emergency because the text of the agreement has been agreed upon and the House will adjourn tomorrow. My predecessors and I have consistently defined "genuine emergency" as a sudden occurrence. That condition is not met in this case.
The matter of an agreement for the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada has been raised in this House under various forms on numerous occasions. More particularly, on April 29, 1982, the Hon. Member proposed a non-confidence motion under supply calling for, inter alia, no Cruise missile testing in Canada, which was voted upon and lost.
I would refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 288, which reads as follows:
The Speaker is bound to apply to motions made under S.O.26 the established rules of debate, and to enforce the principle that subjects excluded by those rules cannot be brought forward thereon, such as a matter under adjudication by a court of law, or matters already discussed or appointed for consideration during the current session, whether upon a substantive motion, upon an amendment, or upon an Order of the Day.
December 21, 1982

Although I recognize the importance of the subject, I cannot find it to be appropriate for debate under Standing Order 26.
In relation to the fact that the House will recess tomorrow, may I finish my ruling by quoting to the House in part a decision rendered by my predecessor on July 24, 1975, on page 7905 of Hansard for that year. At that time he said:
Finally, I must also note that the hon. member suggested that a factor involved is the impending adjournment or recess of the House, if that is in fact a reality, and therefore this is a matter which places before the House some problems of critical proportions. Surely the hon. member realizes that if I were to apply that standard to every matter of national importance put forward under that condition as a subject for debate under Standing Order 26, it would be a rather anomalous and difficult situation for the House to deal with. For those reasons, I feel that special time ought not to be set aside for this subject matter.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,325, 4,435, 4,524 and 4,534.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For each of the past five years for which statistics are available, what was Canada's international deep sea trade in terms of (a) dollar value (b) tons of cargo loaded and unloaded in Canadian ports?
2.	For each of these years (a) what was the government's best estimate of the total freight charges for Canada's international deep sea trade (b) what percentage of Canada's international deep sea trade was carried in Canadian registered vessels?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Transport Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) The value of Canadian deep sea trade totalled $24.2 billion in 1976, $25.9 billion in 1977, $30.5 billion in 1978, $38.4 billion in 1979 and $48.5 billion in 1980.
Deep sea trade is defined here as including all Canada's international trade except with the United States; it includes all modes of transport, including air, with other countries. It
Order Paper Questions
should be noted, however, that air cargo data are considered to be relatively minimal. On deep sea exports, air cargo represents less than 10 per cent of the value of the trade. A split of imports by mode of transport was not available at the time this reply was prepared.
(b) Deep sea trade loaded in Canadian ports, including transshipment, in metric tons, amounted to 71.9 million in
1976,	73.6 million in 1977, 75.5 million in 1978, 92.2 million in 1979 and 101.5 million in 1980. The deep sea trade unloaded in Canadian ports, including transshipment, in metric tons, amounted to 26.9 million in 1976, 29.0 million in 1977, 29.1 million in 1978, 26.8 million in 1979 and 28.9 million in 1980. In this case, deep sea trade is defined as all Canada's international trade except with the U.S. and covers only waterborne movements.
2. (a) The Government did not make any estimate of this kind. Statistics Canada collects data on earnings and freight payments for purposes of constructing the Canadian balance of international payments. These data, however, exclude freight payments to non-resident operators for export, and for resident operators for imports and therefore, do not fully answer the question raised.
Taking these limitations into account, it is noted that gross payments on imports to foreign ocean shipping operators recorded in the Canadian balance of international payments amounted to $561 million in 1976, $611 million in 1977, $615 million in 1978, $759 million in 1979 and $829 million in 1980.
Gross payments on exports to Canadian ocean shipping operators amounted to $189 million in 1976, $200 million in
1977,	$231 million in 1978, $328 million in 1979 and $370 million in 1980. These two sets of figures both exclude payments collected within Canada/U.S. trade. The table below provides more complete data.
(b) In terms of tonnage, Canadian registered vessels carried 0.2 per cent of our deep sea trade in 1976, 0.3 per cent in 1977, 0.2 per cent in 1978, 0.5 per cent in 1979 and 1.0 per cent in 1980. Statistics on Canadian registered vessels only, underestimate Canadian participation in deep sea trades since Canadian companies own and/or charter ships registered in foreign countries.
Freight Bill on Canadian Deep Sea Trade Partial Figures ($ millions)
Transaction	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
Freight Payments							
Gross earnings of Canadian operators on exports (1)	219	177	189	200	231	328	370Gross earnings of foreign operators on imports (1)	570	582	561	611	615	759	829Sub-total	789	759	750	811	846	1,087	1,199Index (1974 = 100)	100	96	95	103	107	138	152Value of Deep Sea Trade	Exports	11,058	11,637	12,557	13,428	15,796	21,077	27,871
December 21, 1982
Imports	Order Paper Questions 10,335	11,138	11,692	12,521	14,674	17,299	20,652Total	21,393	22,775	24,249	25,949	30,470	38,376	48,523Index (1974 = 100)	100	106	113	121	142	179	227Freight sub-total/trade	3.7%	3.3%	3.1%	3.0%	2.6%	2.8%	2.5%
(Per cent)
(1) Excluding earnings collected within Canada/U.S. trade.
Source: Statistics Canada, Exports (65-202), Imports (65-203), The Canadian Balance of International Payments (67-201, 1977 and 1978) and Quarterly estimates of the Canadian balance of international payments (67-001, fourth quarter 1981).


Miss Carney: 1.	Is Beverley Hendrickson of 700 W. Georgia St., Vancouver, British Columbia an employee of the Government and, if so (a) what are her duties and responsibilities (b) to which Cabinet Minister does she report (c) what is her annual salary?
2.	Has she taken trips at Government expense in the last year and, if so, in each case (a) where did she go (b) what was the purpose and nature of the trip?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No. (a) special assistant, (b) Senator Jack Austin, Minister of State for Social Development, (c) Salary range: up to $36,300.
2. No, trips were paid out of the Minister's budget, (a) Castlegar, Penticton, Dawson Creek, Kelowna, Castlegar, Calgary, Cranbrook, Prince George, Dawson Creek, Victoria, Penticton, Kelowna, Ottawa, Cranbrook. (b) As directed by the Minister.


Mr. Siddon: Did the Government expend any funds for the photographic sessions conducted by Yousuf Karsh with the Prime Minister on October 18, 1982 or thereabouts and, if so, what was the total amount expended and for what purpose will the photographs be used?


David P. Smith: No.


Mr. Ma/ankowski: Was a study conducted on behalf of the Department of the Environment to "develop a strategy to reduce the use of leaded gasoline" and, if so (a) to whom was the study contracted (b) on what basis was the contractor selected (c) what amount did the study cost (d) what conclusions and/or recommendations were reached (e) what action will be taken or has been taken based on the results of the study?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Yes.
(a) Several contracts have been awarded to various organizations for detailed study:
Contractor (b)	Selection Basis	(C)	Cost ($)MHG International Limited	competitive bids	86,000MHG International Limited	competitive bids	32,000Hickling-Smith Inc.	competitive bids	32,000Peat, Marwick and Partners	competitive bids	84,000MHG International Limited	sole source	27.500Hickling-Smith Inc.	sole source	13,000Hickling-Smith Inc.	sole source	8,000National Research Council and	sole source	1,800Alberta Research Council	MHG International Limited	sole source	27,500Davis Engineering Limited	sole source	15,900HMW Associates Limited	sole source	4,500Pilorusso Research Associates	sole source	9,600Inc.	Pilorusso Research Associates	sole source	14,900Inc.	Davis Engineering Limited	sole source	4,500MHG International Limited	sole source	8,000Econosuit Inc.	competitive bids	42,300WT Consultants	sole source	4,900Hickling-Partners Inc.	sole source	12,000MHG International Limited	sole source	19,000(d)	No final conclusions or recommendations have yet been reached. The studies are part of a detailed socio-economic impact assessment on the use of leaded gasoline which has not been completed. Environment Canada has not yet received the results of all the studies, and the results of those studies which have already been received are now being reviewed by Environment Canada.(e)	No actions will be recommended until the completion of the socio-economic impact assessment.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, a couple of times now I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council for an answer to my question related to the Public Service Bill which is in committee today. I have been assured that I would be getting that information; I have been
December 21, 1982

assured by the Minister that I would get that information. Given that the debate of clause-by-clause study of Bill C-133 starts in ten minutes, when are we going to have that information?
Mir. Smith: Madam Speaker, I assured the Hon. Member that 1 would make inquiries on his behalf, and 1 did that. At such time as I receive the answer from the Minister, 1 will of course deliver it to the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We were promised by the Minister in committee that we would have that information. The committee meets in ten minutes. Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that the Minister will keep his word and provide that information to us before we have to vote on the Bill?


David P. Smith: 1 would be delighted to convey the concerns of the Hon. Member to the Minister.


Mr. Neil:: Madam Speaker, in connection with question No. 4,101 which has been on the Order Paper since March 2, it is a very simple question to the Department of Agriculture requesting information as to the names, the courses and so on of individuals who have been given extended leaves of absence to further their education. I cannot understand why it has taken so long for the Department to answer.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to look into the matter on behalf of the Hon. Member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North) moved:: That Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be amended by adding immediately after line 27, at page 5, the following new Clause:
"3. The special (1983 & 1984) supplements to GIS shall be included in the
OAS benefits in 1985 and thereafter OAS shall be fully indexed."
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the third time 1 have had the opportunity, if one cares to call it an opportunity, to speak on Bill C-131. On the first occasion I indicated to the House that I was not very happy with the prospect of speaking to what I consider to be a very rotten Bill. It is a very unpleasant task to have to waste the time of the House speaking to a Bill which should never have come before it.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Before dealing with my proposed amendment, 1 would like it clearly understood by Hon. Members that having brought forward this amendment in no way indicates that my Party or I will support the Bill when it eventually comes to a vote. We are certainly not in favour of Bill C-131. No amendment whatsoever, could improve the terrible burden it places upon the elderly. This amendment can only perhaps relieve the burden after a period of two years.
The Bill as it now stands before the House mentions nothing about what will happen in 1985. In order that the House understand the intent of my amendment, I should like to read it again. I really propose to add a Clause 3 to the end of the Bill which is really a wrap-up Clause that defines what should happen at the end of 1984 when supposedly full indexation will be brought back. My proposed Clause reads as follows:
The special (1983 & 1984) supplements to GIS shall be included in the OAS benefits in 1985 and thereafter OAS shall be fully indexed.
Under its six and five program and under Bill C-131, the Government proposes to reduce the indexing to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983. Presumably the inflationary index will be considerably higher than that. At this moment it is just below 10 per cent. If it stays there, presumably old age pensioners will lose purchasing power to the extent of 4 per cent. The Government is saying that it does not want people under the poverty line to lose any purchasing power, so it is adding that 4 per cent to the GIS for the two-year term of the Bill.
The result of that will be to decrease the importance of OAS. At the end of two years, if inflation continues at its present rate, we will find that the importance of the GIS program will be much more than it is now and, correspondingly, the importance of the OAS program will be reduced and indexing will continue in 1985 based upon a reduced OAS and an increased GIS. Therefore, all people just above the poverty line will continue to be indexed on a reduced OAS. It will have a long-term, tremendous effect not only upon elderly people but upon everyone in the country, because ultimately they will receive that much less.
At one time the OAS was a very basic part of our retirement program. Canada was proud to have such a program which was universal in its application. Every person could look forward to receiving that pension when they reached age 65 whether or not they had other pension plans. In 1964, OAS accounted for about 20 per cent of the average wage and salary in the country, but its importance has been downplayed. It has not kept up with inflation or with general salary levels. The rate is now below 14 per cent. Therefore, we can see that that basic program has been decreased in importance. This horrendous Bill C-131, sponsored by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), will further reduce the importance of that program.
By my amendment 1 am really trying to stop this from happening. My amendment cannot possibly completely solve the damage the Bill will do, but to some extent it will help overcome the damage. I do not see how any Government Member can fail to vote for the amendment because it does exactly what they have been saying. On several occasions Hon.

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Members and 1 have attacked the Bill in the House for eroding universality. The Minister of National Health and Welfare became very upset when we did that and was quick to defend it. If she is correct in what she says, if she is honest in what she says-and I am sure she is-and if she wants to help the elderly of Canada-and I think she wants to do that even though she obviously lost her battle in Cabinet-she will support this amendment, as will all Government Members, because it will do what they indicated they wanted done.
Certainly the proposed Bill C-131 affects OAS and universality. To some degree my amendment will correct that imbalance and put the entire pension system in 1985 back on the track on which we are now. That is why I am putting forth the amendment at this time.
Certainly Bill C-131 places us in a very unhappy situation. What is happening here, and most people who attended committee hearings can identify with this, is that through Bill C-131 we are not only saddling the elderly with a reduction in their capacity to spend, but also with the imposition of a regressive tax, particularly those over the age of 65. Several groups have estimated how much the imposition of Bill C-131 will cost each senior citizen. It will reduce the indexation to 6 per cent, and the amount a senior citizen loses will depend, of course, on how you calculate the average inflationary indexation for this year and next year. There are those who have calculated that every pensioner will lose as much as $300 in the next two years. There are others who say they will lose only as much as $50 a year.
Let me take the figure of $100 per year to show how regressive this tax is. First of all, Old Age Security goes to everyone 65 years of age and over. A fairly well-off senior citizen who pays income tax at the top rate will receive only 50 per cent of that indexation. If that person is entitled to $100 in the coming year, he will receive only $50 with the other $50, being taxed away. Under this scheme we are reducing the amount of money a wealthy pensioner would receive by $50.
By comparison, what are we doing to that pensioner who is existing at just above the poverty level? None of the increase to his Old Age Security would be subject to taxation, so that individual would be losing the entire $100. What we are doing to the poor pensioner, therefore, is taking $100 in purchasing power out of his pocket. We are taking only $50 in purchasing power out of the rich pensioner's pocket.
I find this a very unfair approach to retirement income in this country. Surely this is the first time this Government has ever done anything like this. In the past it has not been that bad in terms of its support for the retirement income policy, and when I say "in the past" I mean in the last two years. What has happened in the last two years is almost beyond belief. This Government has attacked every aspect of retirement policy through its taxation and budgetary policies, and now we have this series of Bills before the House. It is for that reason I suggest the Bill is rotten and really regressive taxation
at its worst. I hope that before debate is completed the Minister will see fit to withdraw the Bill.
I should now like to refer to another point. I listened very carefully to Hon. Members during this debate, and 1 have noted that in respect not only of this particular Bill but the ones on Family Allowances and civil service pensions Hon. Members in the NDP to my left have continually referred to Conservative support for the six and five formula. Rather than talking about what this particular Bill will do to pensioners, Hon. Members of that Party have spent much time talking about the inconsistency of Conservative Members who supported the six and five formula and are now objecting to Bill C-131.
Perhaps we should explain to the Canadian public that this Party supported Bill C-124, which started the six and five formula, because it limited indexation for MP's salaries and the salaries of civil servants. Basically what it did was identify to a large degree the fact that Government spending in this country was increasing at a higher rate than inflation. In fact, federal, provincial and municipal spending on services and salary has been feeding inflation to the extent of 14 per cent to 17 per cent. It seems to me that Bill C-124 was perfectly logical because it did attack that feeding of inflation in all those areas where the federal Government could impose that legislation.
I often wonder what prompts Members of the NDP to argue vigorously in support of raising salaries and pensions while at the same time refusing to cut their own salaries.


An Hon. Member:: It has nothing to do with salaries.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: I guess that follows real socialist philosophy, because that philosophy is apparently based on back alley slogans such as, "What is yours is mine, and what is mine is my own". That is the kind of socialist philosophy they seem to support. I have had discussions with other people trying to find out why those Members are making this attack on our position in respect of Bill C-124, first of all because we supported it, and secondly because we are now fighting for senior citizens in this country.
I guess it really boils down to the fact that they are reading the opinion polls. They have discovered they are losing out badly, according to those polls, and they have now decided it is better to have policies than slogans. They are very concerned, like the Liberals, and are attacking us as the front runners. Presumably their whole policy regarding the fight against inflation is to spend more money.
They are very much like their socialist counterparts in France who elected a socialist President some time ago. They started off by taking over the banks and spending more money in order to fight their way out of the recession. They found that a little more difficult than they first thought. That is the policy apparently advocated by the NDP to our left.
Let me talk about the misery index. Let me point out to Members of the NDP that as a result of following that policy in France, the misery index there is only slightly less than it is
December 21, 1982

here in Canada where our Government has been following a similar policy. The misery index in Canada is around 22 per cent, composed of a 10 per cent inflationary rate and an unemployment rate of about 12.7 per cent. In France this misery index is almost as high as ours, being about 18.3 per cent. I point out, therefore, how totally wrong the socialists are in trying to solve the inflationary situation in this way. That is really why those Hon. Members are so upset about any kind of rational policy to put this country back on its feet.
While the six and five policy might have been reasonable, its application to pensioners is the most unreasonable thing this House has ever been exposed to. This is really rotten legislation. It bears no relation to inflation. Pensioners do not cause inflation. About 57 per cent of pensioners live at just about the poverty level. Most of them do not get more than $9,000 or $10,000 a year.
What causes inflation, as everybody should know, is the expectation of higher wage settlements every year and higher prices. It is the result of gouging through certain price rises and the anticipation by the public of what is going to happen in the future.
It is my belief and the belief of my Party that the six and five policy made sense because the Government was taking a lead in this fight against inflation by using its impact on the economy. I do not remember when this Bill was first brought before the House, but it was before the House, was referred to the committee and is now back at report stage.
It reminds me of the battles we had over the energy legislation when it was discussed in Parliament. The energy legislation was introduced and then discussed at length in the committee. The committee heard from a great number of delegations, none of which had anything favourable to say about the legislation. Some of these independent delegations were from other parts of the world, such as Norway and Sweden. Not all the members of those delegations were directly connected with the oil industry. While no one said anything positive about the legislation, the Government simply proceeded to push it through. If we review what has happened to our energy industry in the last year, we can see that those delegations predicted exactly what would happen. The outcome was not unknown to the Government. It was not new to anyone who knew anything about the energy industry.
This is exactly the same situation with Bill C-131. People who are involved in the welfare system, both federally and provincially, as well as other groups who are knowledgeable in this area, have pointed out how bad this legislation is. These measures will not have an effect on the six and five program or reduce inflation, but will only once again place a heavy burden on senior citizens. One of the most unpleasant aspects of Bill C-131 is that once again women are being affected more than anyone else. This is a shame to me because one of the deficiencies of our current pension system is that it does not include women in a retirement income scheme in an equitable manner.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
We know that Ontario will not approve the drop-out clause provision in the Canada Pension Plan which allows people to drop out to raise a family and not have their retirement income affected too drastically. As well, we know that there is a problem for homemakers who are not involved in the pension scheme at all. Why does the Government not concern itself with these issues? It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that a green paper is forthcoming, because that does not solve those problems either. Surely we must be putting our energy toward finding solutions to those problems instead of talking about this terrible legislation which is before us now.
We should also be concerned about the involvement of women in private pension schemes. Women are in and out of the work force more often, change their jobs more often and are normally in lower paid jobs. Women are not in the work force for the same period as men. All these factors affect their retirement income. We certainly should be discussing survivorship, portability and vesting. These are the subjects we should be concerned with when discussing pensions in the House. We should not be talking about reducing indexing as a means to solve inflation.
I do not have to tell the Minister about the problems being faced by women under the OAS Program. There are 50,000 women who are under the poverty line and the Minister has publicly called it a national scandal. She is right. This legislation does not help that situation because it affects those people who have modest incomes. For example, it affects single people who have incomes of $8,600 and married people with incomes of $14,500. This means that approximately 35,000 pensioners will have their purchasing power reduced and will consequently qualify for GIS. The Minister herself has said that the GIS is a main support program for our elderly. It is a welfare program. Why should most of our elderly citizens be on welfare? It calls into question this Government's philosophy of what retirement income is.
We begin to have hope that the situation might change as a result of the Government's statements, but it does not follow its statements with action. For this reason we cannot afford Bill C-131. We cannot afford to break the contract which has been established between each generation whereby the following generation promises to look after their elders who have worked hard during their lifetime.
We should be discussing the shortcomings of the Canada Pension Plan. We are reaching a critical year, 1985, when the expenses under that Plan will exceed the revenues. What will happen at that time? What will happen to the people who have paid into the Plan and expect to receive a pension? By 1985, a few years from now, expenditures will exceed revenues. Inflation and unemployment may bring on this occurrence sooner because unemployed Canadians are unable to pay into the scheme. We will reach another critical year in 1993 when the expenditures under the Plan will exceed the revenues plus all the interest payments. We should be concerned with this dilemma instead of debating legislation to index the pensions of senior citizens who are in the lowest income scale and can least afford a cutback.

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
We should talk about another critical period in our pension scheme which will occur in approximately the year 2003 when our Canada Pension Plan will be bankrupt. This should be of great interest to people who are in their thirties and forties since they will be turning 65 around that time. These are all matters which should be discussed in the House of Commons instead of talking about reducing the purchasing power of those people who can least afford it.
Bill C-131 is bad legislation. It taxes the poor in a regressive manner and it taxes women unduly. It does nothing to stop inflation and breaks the great tradition of a contract which has existed between the generations in this country. We are breaking our contract with our senior citizens to look after them when they are older. This is pointless legislation which I ask the Minister to withdraw so that the House may consider more important matters.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I feel rather hesitant to rise today to speak to Bill C-131. My colleagues and I consider it to be a disgrace that Members of Parliament are rising in the few days before Christmas, 1982 to attack those people who have essentially been the victims of inflation. They are the senior citizens of our country. They are the victims as a result of the introduction of a Bill which will limit the indexation of Old Age Security to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984.
I point out that this reduction will only be experienced by those who receive the Old Age Security as opposed to those who receive both the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. While pensioners will receive an increase in January of 1983, it will be less than what they would normally receive. The senior citizens of Canada will lose out in two respects. Those receiving the old age pension will have reduced incomes in 1983 and 1984 by a collective amount of approximately $300. This is assuming that inflation will remain approximately at the present rate or somewhat lower. Not only will senior citizens lose that $300 in the next two years, but the result of this legislation will have a snowballing effect for years to come.
While full indexation is supposed to return after 1984, there is no reason to believe that this will happen other than what we have heard from Hon. Members opposite that this is the Government's intention. We have experienced too often how the Government's intention can change. However, if full indexation does return in two years, the base upon which that indexation will accumulate will be less as a result of this legislation. Consequently, senior citizens in Canada will be receiving less income than they would normally receive for the rest of their lives.
This legislation, which will take money out of the hands of senior citizens of Canada, will directly affect more than a million senior citizens, and far more than half of those will be women. They will have their disposable incomes reduced as a result of the passing of Bill C-131. I have just done some calculations, assuming that inflation rates for Canada will be in the 10 per cent-9 per cent range over the next three or four years. If that is the case, more than a million senior citizens in
Canada will lose nearly $1,000 each over the next four-year period.
I listened with interest as Members of the Government said that they had not received much mail from senior citizens on this measure. They have not been subjected to a lot of lobbying and so on. They have not heard an outcry across the country. I think there is a good reason for that. First of all, I think we all recognize that senior citizens are not well organized, as are other groups in society, such as the Canadian Rubbermakers Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I could go on and on about very effective organizations that lobby Members of the House on a regular basis to keep them abreast of their concerns; but the senior citizens of Canada do not have that lobbying opportunity. Consequently we have not been hearing the orchestrated outcries that we so often hear. We have not received the strong delegations to Ottawa, raising the concerns that senior citizens obviously have regarding the decreased incomes that they will be experiencing. Also I suspect that senior citizens are rather patient people. They have had hard times before. They have gone through two world wars. They have gone through the depression years. They are patient. I suspect that they find it difficult to believe that the Government of Canada will actually bring in legislation that will reduce their incomes.
I believe that most senior citizens, if we were to sit down and have an informal chat, would find it difficult to believe during these difficult times-and I think we have to admit that this country is poised on the brink of a depression, and in some areas of this country we are well into depression-like conditions-that the Government is going to reduce their incomes. I suspect that many just do not believe that it is happening. When they receive their cheques for January, 1983 and they notice there is a slight increase in those cheques, they will think that indeed their fears were unfounded. But if they look carefully at their cheques they will find that although they receive a cheque in January for $249.23, had this Bill not been introduced, had this deindexing not occurred, they would have received a cheque for $251.73, marginally larger.
I think it begs the question: Why is the Government introducing this legislation? Why is the Government introducing the six and five legislation that will apply to senior citizens? I suppose one could assume that the Government must be blaming senior citizens for being one of the causes of inflation. It must be saying: "These people must be curtailed in their spending". Presumably that is what the six and five program is all about, to curtail spending, to reduce incomes so people will purchase less. So the Government has said: "We have identified one of the culprits of inflation; they are the senior citizens of Canada and they must be restricted".
This raises some interesting questions because just a few days ago we had tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) a
December 21, 1982

report called "Better Pensions for Canadians". I would just like to quote from page 55 of this Government Report:
. . . inadequate incomes are too common, particularly among single elderly women. Employer-sponsored pension plans are not available to enough Canadians, and those who do participate in these plans often receive little pension income because poor vesting and a lack of portability hinder pension credit accumulation.
Then it goes on, Mr. Speaker, to say:
. . . many ordinary Canadians, women in particular, will continue to face a significant decline in their standard of living when they retire.
We are talking about people who have very marginal incomes, and at the same time we are saying that those people on these marginal incomes must be the cause of inflation in this country. We are blaming senior citizens for these incredibly high inflation rates.
A single person receiving Old Age Security as well as the Guaranteed Income Supplement in 1982 received $5,695. That is about $15.60 a day. When we calculate that income and compare it, using data from Statistics Canada, we find that means that 15 per cent of single pensioners fall below the poverty line in the rural parts of Canada, and 37 per cent fall below the poverty line in metropolitan Canada, cities such as Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, Ottawa and so on.
Thirty-seven per cent of single senior citizens are living at below the poverty line as defined by Statistics Canada! That is hardly the group in society that is causing and fueling inflation in Canada. Especially hard hit, of course, are women who have to rely on pensions that were designed by men, for men, with men in mind. Few women collect from the Canada Pension Plan at all since they did not contribute. They were busy at home being full-time homemakers, with no pay, and as a result no pension benefits. In 1980, two-thirds of the single, widowed or divorced women over the age of 65 lived on incomes of under $6,000 a year, or $475 a month.
As Members of this House, we have agreed that anybody who spends more than 30 per cent of their income on shelter is in a difficult situation and requires assistance and support. It does not take much imagination to recognize that if your monthly income is $475 and you live in a typical city in this country, you are probably paying out closer to 70 per cent or 80 per cent of that income in shelter. Indeed, therein lies, 1 think, a very clear problem facing the elderly in our country.
Just as an aside, so many of our elderly in Canada require social assistance to get by. People have said that the measure of a country and the measure of the effectiveness of a government of a country is how they treat their seniors, how they treat those who built that country. It is interesting to compare Canada to some other countries that I suspect we would all agree would be much more progressive in terms of how they treat their elderly. In Sweden, for example, how many senior citizens rely on some form of social assistance to get by? Zero, absolutely none. In Norway the same thing. No one relies on social assistance if they are over the age of 65; they are well taken care of. If you are living in West Germany, 2 per cent of
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
the senior citizens of West Germany have to depend on social assistance to help them get by.
In Canada I think that we can consider GIS is in fact a form of social assistance. What percentage of senior citizens in our country rely on social assistance to get by? Nearly 50 per cent. That is a very sad comment on how we treat the senior citizens of our country, particularly now when legislation is brought forward saying: "You folks are getting too much; we have to cut back a bit".
In countries like Sweden, Norway and West Germany, it is considered to be the right of pensioners, a basic human right, if one has worked hard and successfully until age 65, to at least expect to live out one's life in dignity and receive a decent pension. That is something that we still have not achieved in a country as rich as Canada. What is obvious, then, is that the senior citizens of our country did not create or fuel inflation. As a matter of fact, if we consider the real culprits, we must say that it was the federal Government itself.
I noticed with interest today that the latest inflation statistics have been released, and who are the big culprits who are still fueling inflation? They are interest rates and energy costs which directly reflect the policies of the Government. They are the two major inflation creators in this country, not the senior citizens. Why, then, do we have the six and five program? Perhaps it is to save money for the Government. We know that the Government is desperate and out grabbing money from every conceivable source it can find, and it sees this as a chance to save money. However, when one looks at the amount of money which will be saved over the two years of this program, one finds that it will amount to about $50 million a year.
I suspect that there would not be a single Hon. Member of the House who would be prepared to rise and say; "Rather than take $50 million out of the hands of the senior citizens of this country, why not take it out of some of the Government's advertising funds? Why not take $50 million out of some of the grants to the large multinational oil companies? Why not take $50 million from some of the hand-outs or bail-outs that have been given to firms like Dome, Chrysler, Canadair and de Havilland?"
A few months ago, when the then Minister of Finance introduced some new tax legislation, he said: "We will reduce the tax for upper income Canadians by 10 per cent". Let us ask the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to go back to that tax rate. As a result, he could easily collect $50 million rather than by taking it out of the hands of senior citizens. Therefore, it becomes clear that saving $50 million by this desperate grab is unnecessary. It is not required at this time. There are other sources from which the Government could derive the kind of saving in which we are all interested.
I suppose, then, that we might ask why on earth, if it will not really save money, if there are better sources and if senior citizens were not the cause of inflation, the Government is introducing this Bill relating to six and five which will take

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
money from the senior citizens of Canada. On November 19 the Minister of National Health and Welfare passed a handy little memo around to all Hon. Members to help us understand what Bill C-131 was really all about. It stated: "The Government is asking all Canadians who have the means to lower their expectations over the next two years in order to help bring inflation down to six and five per cent. By some degree of sacrifice on the part of all Canadians, we can bring about economic recovery in Canada." That is interesting. The Minister is calling for fair sacrifice by all.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the limit to 6 per cent of the wages of some senior public servants in Ottawa means that they will receive in excess of a $6,000 increase in one year? That is more than many senior citizens receive all year long in total, yet many senior public servants will receive in excess of $6,000. A typical Minister on the Government side, when his or her income is capped to 6 per cent, will receive a $5,400 increase. That will be the sacrifice of Ministers.
It has been very interesting to read that various corporate leaders have been asking senior citizens and others to join with them in the six and five program. I noticed that Mr. W. L. Light, the President and chief executive officer of Northern Telephone Limited, only received a 47 per cent increase in 1981, but he said that he is prepared to take a 6 per cent capping of his salary for 1983, which will give him an increase of $32,000 in 1983. Ian Sinclair, the Chairman and chief executive officer of Canadian Pacific Enterprises, has been going around the country saying that the private sector must support the six and five program and that we must all share and sacrifice together. That will be very difficult, because when his salary is capped to only 6 per cent next year he will only receive a $46,000 increase in one year. One could go on and on, listing a whole number of the top income earners in this country who are asking everyone to rally around the six and five program and share and sacrifice equally.
When Hon. Members opposite and many senior employees working with them are asking at least 1.2 million pensioners to take a cut in the incomes that they would normally expect, one must remember that they will receive increases in income next year amounting to in excess of $6,000, and there is no way that one can describe that as being fair and equitable. Some people are being asked to sacrifice a bit more than others. We cannot blame the senior citizens for creating and fueling inflation in our country, so we must dispose of the option of the six and five program. The Government cannot say that we will save that amount of money on the backs of senior citizens because there are all kinds of places where it could find $50 million a year if it were interested in cutting back.
We cannot suggest for a moment that senior citizens should share because, as the Minister's memo itself states, those who have the means to lower their expectations over the next two years ought to. I suspect that when one finds that most or a good portion of the senior citizens of our country are living below the poverty level, one cannot say that they are probably the ones who can really afford to sacrifice for the six and five
program. Basically, it is an unjust, inequitable, cruel program, one which asks people to make totally different kinds of sacrifices.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we are debating Bill C-131. For that reason, at a time of peace and co-operation just before Christmas, when one thinks of those other than oneself, I would ask the Government to think of the senior citizens of Canada and to retract this insidious piece of legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I was just checking the record of November 18 wherein it is reported that Your Honour gave me the floor to speak against the amendment to Bill C-131 proposed by an Hon. Member of the Conservative Party. I was just checking the official figures of the rate of inflation which I gave to the House that day, which is exactly a month ago.
This morning, Canadians were awakened by the good news that, for the first time in ages, inflation is no longer a dougle-digit figure. Inflation is down again. A month ago, when I made the speech on that Bill, I gave the official figure which at that time had gone down from 12.7 per cent inflation a year ago last November to 10 per cent in November, a month ago. It is now below 10 per cent, in a one-digit figure only.
That is the very context of our series of Bills implementing the program that we call the six and five program. That is the very reason why I must oppose the proposed amendment of the Conservative Party. I do it very easily, and I will explain why I say that. 1 must say that it is a very badly worded amendment, since our Government Bill contains no reference to so-called "special supplements". However, I think the intent of the amendment presented by the Hon. Member opposite is clear and easy to undersand. The Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) proposes an amendment today to ensure that in January, 1985, two years down the road, the old age pension would be exactly as high as if there had never been a six and five program. I believe 1 can sum up his amendment very easily that way. Change the Government Bill in such a way that it is like there never was a six-five program. In other words, less than half the pensioners in Canada will get a smaller increase than they would have anticipated. They will get an increase next month, but it will only be 6 per cent instead of the full indexed inflation rate.
The Hon. Member wants us to change our Bill drastically, that it is like money put into the bank, and in two years' time they will get the full amount as if our Bill had never existed, as if the six and five program had never existed. There is no need to say I would have to oppose that. It indicates a total misunderstanding of the purpose of the so-called six and five program. Often the Hon. Member who just spoke from the New Democratic Party, as well as the Hon. Member for Okanagan
December 21, 1982

North, have referred to this Bill, which will limit the indexation of those who do not need the supplement, less than half of the pensioners, as a money-saving measure.
I have once more to indicate to them that this is not the case. It does save some money, but the very purpose of the Bill-1 have said this often and I apologize for having to repeat it once more to these two Elon. Members-which the Conservatives are trying to amend today, and they want to change its intent completely, is to cut down inflation by half in the next two years.

When we wanted to control inflation in 1975, we decided to take drastic action which was very hard on all Canadians, namely, to control prices and wages through the Anti-Inflation Board. Hon. Members will recall that the program lasted three years. What happened at the end of those three years? While the program lasted, everything went according to plan, but as soon as controls were lifted, unfortunately-and I do not remember the exact figures-there was a sudden inflationary upsurge of prices and wages. That is what we want to avoid. I shall therefore have to explain to the Hon. Member for Okanagan North why I cannot accept his amendment. We are asking all Canadians who, because of specific programs, come directly under Federal jurisdiction, to participate in the 6 and 5 program, that is, to reduce their own expectations. Again, 1 am referring to all Canadians who are not in the lowest income groups. We have passed bills under which this is mandatory, and one of these measures, which has been in effect since July 1 of this year, if I remember correctly, applies to all Members and Ministers. The same is being asked of many other Canadians affected by Federal programs, including mothers and senior citizens who are not in low income groups, and all taxpayers through the tax system. Next year, basic personal exemptions will be increased by only 6 and 5 per cent. There will be an increase, but only an increase of 6 and 5. Why we are doing this? Because, once and for all-and I think that is why I am opposed to the amendment proposed by the Member for Okanagan North-we want to take the bull by the horns and reduce inflation rates by half. To do this, obviously, all Canadians must be involved in a national campaign, as it were. We cannot do this alone. We cannot ask one group in our society to reduce its spending and expectations to 6 per cent. To get results, everyone must work together and be prepared to support a program of shared responsibilities and shared efforts to put the economy on the road to recovery. 1 often heard a lot of socialist laughter in committee when I used the expression to mobilize Canadians. Nevertheless, it is not a laughing matter, because we have here a psychological factor that is very important if we are to maintain a healthy economy. It is hard to introduce this psychological factor unless we succeed in mobilizing all Canadians.
I am sure the Member for Okanagan North will agree that by May or even by mid-June or June 20 or 22, a few days before the Minister of Finance brought down his budget at the
Old Age Security Act (No. 2}
end of June, no one in Canada had even heard of 6 and 5. No one knew what it meant. We launched this concept of bringing down the rate of inflation, which was expected to be 12 per cent next year and 10 per cent the year after, to half those amounts namely, to 6 and 5. We decided to do this by reaching Canadians through an organized campaign and by using all the tools of our Federal jurisdiction. For instance, the 6 and 5 program will apply to all prices that are federally regulated. 1 am thinking of telephone and cable rates, for instance. These services are going to keep price increases down, to 6 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rises on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: With all due respect, would the Hon. Minister receive a question at this point? It is a question of clarification more than anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the Minister wish to entertain a question?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to do so at the end of my speech, if there is time. As I was saying, we also decided to reduce increases in prices that are federally regulated. We are doing so in order to bring the greatest possible pressure to bear on the inflation rate. This morning, people woke up to the happy news that for the first time, inflation is down to a single digit. Only last month, on November 18 when I spoke in the House, we had an inflation rate of 10 per cent. It has now been reduced to a single digit. Now we are expecting to reach the magic figure of 6 per cent by the end of 1983. The amendment proposed today in the House is a way of telling Canadians not to worry. I am, of course, referring to retired Canadians who do not need the supplement. Do not worry. We are going to reduce your increase to 6 per cent. You thought you were going to get a bigger increase but it will only be 6 per cent. Next year, it will only be 5. However, all this is money in the bank. If the inflation rate continues to rise, at the end of the two years, in other words, in January 1985, you will get back the entire amount deducted during 1984 and 1983. All excess indexation is going to be put in the bank and when this ridiculous 6 and 5 plan is done and over with, you will get your money back. What on earth can they be thinking of? This is utterly absurd! First of all, it does not help anyone. The Hon. Member seems to be genuinely concerned about people on low incomes. However, this group is entirely protected under our legislation, because they will be getting full indexation of their pension and pension supplement. There are also those who are in the so-called grey area and are not particularly well off. What will do them the most good? They will benefit if inflation is brought under control, because it means the value of their dollars will be safeguarded. It also means they will get more for their dollar. Since inflation dropped this month to a little over 9 per cent, these people are going to lose only a little

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
over 3 per cent on next month's cheque. They will get a bigger cheque, but not as big as anticipated. However, we hope to give them-and I suppose Hon. Members are going to laugh if I use the word present, but I am going to use it anyway, for want of a better word-we think that by the end of 1983 and the end of 1984, we will be able to give them a rate of inflation that has been cut by one-half. That is what we expect to be able to offer. We think that in the long run, senior citizens stand to benefit most if inflation is kept as low as possible. That is the basic philosophy behind this Bill. We want inflation to be lower than it has been during the last few years. As 1 said earlier, an attempt was made to bring inflation down by controlling prices and wages in 1975, but that had just about the same effect as the Hon. Member's amendment would have. As soon as controls are lifted, there is a general scramble and the inflationary spiral starts again. That is what is wrong with the Hon. Member's amendment.
In his amendment the Hon. Member for Okanagan North says let us give them only 6 per cent and 5 per cent; all the pensioners do not need the supplement, but that is money put in the bank. We will give them that full amount back in 1985.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, in her speech the Hon. Minister misinterpreted my amendment. My amendment asks only that the supplements paid into G1S be transferred back into OAS, nothing more and nothing less. That will cost the Government no more money. The monies presently in GIS because of the supplements go back into OAS, and are then invested on that basis. So that all the monies being lost will not be replaced, just that amount.


Monique Bégin: With all due respect, I think the Hon. Member just contradicted himself. I started to say, and I regret I have to say it, that the amendment presented is very badly worded. What I have just expressed is the legal opinion that I received. In trying to correct me, the Hon. Member stated that it was not costing anything and then two minutes later said it was going to cost something but not too much. That is the whole point of the argument. That is why I oppose the amendment, because it would cost millions of dollars and would not bring inflation under control.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, occasionally on the floor of the House there are negotiations. If the wording could be amended to reflect the intent of the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), is the Minister indicating that with unanimous consent we could agree to such a wording change? Members of our Party would be happy to do it, and I am sure the NDP would as well. If that is what the Minister is implying, we accept that offer and I think you can get something like that from the NDP.


Monique Bégin: That is not what I said, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) should know better, but I think he is playing politics once more, on the backs of
seniors this time. The Hon. Member for Okanagan North has indicated clearly that this Bill will cost money. That is the very simple question 1 would put to him: Does this Bill cost money? The answer is yes, the Bill will cost millions of dollars. I have a figure of some $65 million which this Bill will cost. Even if it is less than that, it will still cost Canadians millions of dollars to tell seniors who do not need the supplement that after two years of a national campaign to bring down inflation to six and five, well, that was money in the bank; now take the inflationary money and spend it.
That is not the purpose of this Bill and not the purpose of this package of bills which affect as many Canadians as possible to make sure we cut in half the rate of inflation. Now, the Hon. Member may not be pleased with good news, but this morning for the first time in a long time we have single digit inflation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: That is what counts. That is what we want, what the seniors want. I repeat, all seniors who have need of a supplement are fully protected and will receive full indexation of their pensions. That is what is important.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would explain why, if inflation is down, this Bill is necessary?


Monique Bégin: I will answer at the end of my speech if there is time, Mr. Speaker. I will try to explain once more to the Member what I have said often in committee and in this House.
Again, the six and five rate of inflation, half of what we had six months ago, is exactly what we want to see happen. So we are not going to tell Canadians, "You know, do not worry, these crazy Liberals, they have in mind this idea to just put the money in the bank and we will give it to you a little later". We are not going to accept an amendment that does that.
This is not a game we are playing. It is a serious mobilization of all Canadians, including seniors who will not cheat on their responsibilities. During the four weeks of debate on this Bill in committee and in the House I heard unbelievable speeches from the Opposition, trying to make everyone cry for the seniors. Well, my job is to be the special voice of seniors. There are many voices in favor of seniors on this side of the House, of course, but the very special voice of seniors in Cabinet-


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Then speak up.


Monique Bégin: I know seniors, I see them, discuss with them, meet their leaders and receive representations with one purpose in mind: improve their lot. That is the name of the game. What will improve their lot most of all? Bringing down inflation. That is the cost of the food they have to purchase every month, the things which affect their every-day life. They agree, if they are not in need, to be like any other Canadian part of the national battle to bring down inflation. We have signs that it is going to happen.
December 21, 1982

That, Mr. Speaker, gives me a chance to answer the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) of the NDP, who asked a very cute but irresponsible question. She is not irresponsible herself; I suppose it is because she did not think enough about it. She said, well, if inflation is coming down, why implement our program? It is because we want it to continue; we want this to make sense to Canadians and have inflation go down to 6 per cent. I mean, it is extraordinary. We announced our policy, 1 think, on June 28 in the budget of the then Minister of Finance. That was six months ago. We have made every possible effort to bring down prices under federal regulation, salaries when we could, and benefits like those we are talking about today for those mothers or seniors who do not need any supplement, in order to bring inflation down to half what it is now. We are succeeding. But once more, the New Democratic Party does not live because of success; it lives because of failures. I do not understand that. I am very pleased when I wake up in the morning and hear the CBC tell me that for the first time in years inflation is no longer double-digit.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There is a depression in the country, and prices come down during a depression.


Monique Bégin: That proves that as a responsible Government we must implement this Act. We seem to be on the right track and we must continue. I think that is very important.
Now, it will be a pleasure for me to answer the question, if he still has one, of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Minister providing this opportunity to clarify an issue she raised. She indicated she felt it was appropriate for senior citizens to be asked to share in the six and five program equitably with other Canadians. Again, that is a sacrifice that Canadians ought to be making in this war on inflation.
1 would ask the Minister to explain from her perspective the fairness of a program which results in Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament receiving thousands and thousands of dollars by way of increases in their incomes as a result of the program, yet senior citizens are receiving only a few hundred dollars increase. Can she explain how she perceives this to be a fair and equitable program?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I could try, but it is not easy with an NDP Member who uses rhetoric and ideology instead of facts. The Hon. Member mentioned the fact that in our society everybody does not get the same salary. Well, that is not my fault. If socialism is to give everyone the same salary, I am a socialist at heart but how is that done? I have never heard in my whole life someone give an explanation of that in a free country like ours; 1 just never heard of it.
I see the Hon. Member rising; surely he will have the courtesy to let me finish my explanation. He criticized the fact that Ministers make more than backbenchers in the Opposition. That is a fact of life. Doctors, engineers, architects and
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
many professional workers make much more. For example, the NDP unionized the membership in the City of Hamilton and other large industrialized cities. They make much more than when 1 became a backbencher ten years ago. 1 am very pleased about that.
Everybody is capped. I have not made the exact calculation;
1 did not even know that I would be receiving a small increase in January. But I do know that the Members and Ministers of the House, as a pro rata of our salary, accepted a capping more than other Canadians because we started on July 1, six months before other Canadians. 1 think that is part of the game and I accept it fully. Beyond that point, if the Hon. Member is displeased because salaries are different in society, that is the kind of society we have and it is a free one.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that the Hon. Minister has a few moments of her time remaining. Would she permit one further point?


Monique Bégin: A question, yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister, in her response, was looking for a way to make the six and five program more equitable, to allow a greater amount of sacrifice of a more equitable nature. If a person were making $100,000 per year, would she not consider that that person might pay a higher percentage of the inflation-fighting program and someone making $10,000 per year might not be asked to make any sacrifice at all? In other words, there could be a scale and, depending upon one's level of income, one would then pay or be deindexed or whatever as a reflection of the difference in incomes.


Monique Bégin: This is exactly the intent of my Bills which are being studied in the House right now. We have used a device different from the one proposed by the Hon. Member. By the way, the Member made one omission; he forgot to speak of somebody who does the job, the income tax department. The income tax department, first of all, does some equalization, but of course it does not make the salary of everyone the same.
The philosophy of six and five applied to pensions and to Family Allowances-and I realize that today we are talking about the pensions Bill-is that we wanted all Canadians not in need to share in the struggle against inflation. For pensions we had the natural mechanism at our disposal, namely the supplement or the so-called GIS. That is why we made very clear that all seniors who receive the supplement, even partial supplements, are not being asked for any sacrifice and receive, of course, the full indexation which protects those most in need in society. That is the way we achieved the same objective.
[ Translation}


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-131 constitutes a direct attack on our 1.2 million senior citizens. Seldom has this House seen a piece of legislation as poorly conceived and makeshift and small-minded, and which could have such disastrous consequences, as the Bill we are considering this evening.
COMMONS DEBATES_________________ December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a clear indication that the Government has no sense of priorities and that it is totally incapable of managing the economy. In fact, the Bill should never have been introduced in the House. It is absolutely inconceivable that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) should introduce a Bill like this in the House. I wonder what she told the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when this proposal was made. As far as this bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister does not know where she is going.

Seldom in this Chamber have we had occasion in such a short period of time to stand and try to defend average Canadians who live at or near the poverty line. For anyone, a Minister of the Crown or a backbencher on the Liberal side, to believe that the Government has not at the very least attacked the senior citizens of the country in terms of their psychological comfort is to deny reality.
I was in Winnipeg some two weeks ago and appeared on a hotline radio show with the critic of the New Democratic Party. The subject was health, and the host kept trying to get questions from the listening audience on health. For two solid hours every person who phoned in did so because they were worried about their pension incomes. For the Minister to try to suggest to the House that pensioners are not concerned about their incomes and their standard of living is to mislead the House, because they are. Canadian families are upset about the Government's intention in relation to the Family Allowance; and senior citizens, those in our population who are 65 years of age and older, are concerned about the attack on their pension income.
We heard in committee several attempts by the Minister to reassure its members that the incomes of senior citizens were not being attacked. That is simply not so. When we listened to the parade of witnesses who came before the committee, we were struck by the quality of their testimony and by the concerns they presented. I remember one witness who said that every Canadian who was 15 or 20 years of age should be concerned about Bill C-131.
The Bill is flawed in many ways, but in one way it clearly affects future generations of Canadians. I am referring to the fact that in the Bill before us there is no provision to restore the base of the pension. Liberal Members opposite would like to rob pensioners for the next two years, but having robbed them they have no intention of restoring the base so that future pensioners will no longer be robbed. Instead we have a Bill placed before us which robs Canadians into the future as far as any of us can see, and it robs Canadians to whom we owe the greatest debt because they helped settle the country. Their labour, their initiative and their concern has made the nation what it is today. The people who built this Chamber in which we now debate brought their skills, energies and talents and worked their lives out on behalf of this country. I assume that most of them have now passed on. Many others who have done the same have now reached an age at which they are no longer members of the work force or of a bargaining unit of any kind.
They no longer have the skills to offer, and in terms of income they are defenceless. Yet this Minister brings forward a Bill which says to those defenceless people: "We are going to rob you for the next two years and then we are going to rob succeeding generations for the next ten to fifty years down the road". That is the intent of this legislation, because the Bill which deals with taxation will be difficult to amend.
I commend the Hon. Member for Okanagan North for trying to correct this long-term robbery. That Hon. Member has moved an amendment which would restore the Old Age Security base so that once again on January 1, 1985, 50 pensioners would receive what they are entitled to today through full indexation. This would reduce the potential effect of inflation. Surely that is a reasonable amendment, one which Members on all sides of the House could support. It is not the kind of amendment that could bring down the Government.
We heard the Minister stand in the House and suggest that the amendment was badly worded, encouraging Liberal Members to vote against it. When we challenged the Minister to prepare a better worded amendment, indicating that if she did so we would give it our unanimous consent in order to restore the indexation base, she quickly backed down. That was one of the most disappointing things I have experienced in my three and a half years as a Member of this Chamber. If the Minister's problem was with wording but she accepts the principle of the amendment, surely she should at least attempt to seek unanimous approval for a newly worded amendment that would make the proposition acceptable to the Government. To do otherwise forces us to reach one inescapable conclusion; the game of politics is being played by the Minister of the Crown and not by Members of the Opposition.
I have stood before in this Chamber talking about the responsibilities of Government and Members in times of economic difficulty. That responsibility is more difficult to carry out in such times than in times of economic growth, development and surplus. Day after day, week after week, month after month and now year after year, we in this Chamber have been treated to a series of perverse choices, perverse in the sense of stubbornness and because the choices are exactly opposite to those that should be made.
Yesterday a Member of this Party pointed out that the Minister had indicated to the committee that this Government's spending priority was to purchase service stations to protect jobs. She said that was a greater priority than providing money in support of families, senior citizens and medical care. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) rose on a point of order and put on the record that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) had made such a statement. She is reported in Hansard as having said that the Hon. Member was lying. The Minister withdrew that remark, but not graciously. She said that she stood by the truth of her statement.
December 21, 1982

Let me read into the record a few short paragraphs from what was said before the committee, and to facilitate cultural communication let me do so in my second language:


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is correct. But you are a member of Cabinet. You give us as your excuse in here that there is no money, and I say there is lots of money, $70 billion, $80 billion is being spent. It is a question of priorities. I believe members of all sides of this committee would prefer to see money in the voluntary sector; prefer to see money in hospitals, rather than money into service stations-
Madam Begin; No. I am sorry. I will stop you right here.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -and that I think is where the government is going wrong. Madam Begin: Job protection for me is key and comes first, and that is job protection.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Buying service stations is job protection?
Madam Begin: Yes. I am very sorry, but making sure that a company continues happens to be called job protection.

That is a quotation from the evidence before the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs on December 7. The Minister told the Committee that the Government's priority was to create or protect Canadian jobs. The comments relate to the use of a Crown corporation to purchase service stations at a cost of $650 million. 1 refer to the purchase by Petro-Canada of British Petroleum. The Minister indicated it was the Government's choice to purchase these existing service stations rather than provide more money for the support of families, senior citizens and medical care. She said the Government was doing this to protect jobs. Where is the evidence that jobs needed protection in the area of service stations? Where is the evidence that the purchase by Petro-Canada will, in fact, protect those jobs which were not threatened in the first place? Surely that is a distorted sense of priority.
Day after day during the Question Period we have heard the Minister of Finance say the Government is going to spend $1.8 billion on job creation. I suggest the Government could have spent this $650 million on job creation had it not purchased these service stations. The money could have been put into job-creation projects, used for pension increases or to increase Family Allowances. Instead the Government purchased these existing service stations at this time when we are experiencing a $24 billion deficit. Minister after Minister has stood in this Chamber and told us the Government does not have the money to do those things that are socially correct and just. This perversity of stubbornness boggles the mind.
A few days following that statement in committee by the Minister I handed out a sheet to all Hon. Members which indicated a hidden subsidy to Petro-Canada last year of $512 million. That hidden subsidy does not appear in the Main Estimates. That amount was given to this one Crown Corporation so its executives could fly first class and its employees could have plush offices with thick carpets and fancy new equipment. There are enough savings to be found from that one Crown Corporation to make this Bill unnecessary. The Government would not even have to consider cutting the pensions of senior Canadians because sufficient control of that
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Crown Corporation would provide enough savings to the Government.
The Auditor General has told us about several hundred other Crown corporations that are out of control. We can find specific and clear subsidy to those Crown corporations in the Main Estimates which amounts to approximately $2,000 million. Yet we are debating a piece of legislation that proposes to take a few dollars from the pensioners' pockets and make it harder for them to buy nutritious food or enjoy any kind of recreation. It is asking seniors to make the sacrifice and lead the fight. It is focusing its attention on making a saving which will amount to $100 million a year at the most. In the meantime, there are $2,000 million in subsidies to Crown corporations alone. The logic of the Government is perverse.
In terms of economics, the Minister is making a spirited defence about the need for pensioners to lead the fight on inflation and be soldiers in the war against inflation. She stood in her place some 20 minutes ago to say that inflation is at 9.8 per cent. While we are pleased to see inflation coming down, it is decreasing even before the six and five cap is being put on pensions and Family Allowances and other benefits. Inflation is coming down because there is a surplus of money which people are not borrowing. Jobs are not being created and people are not buying cars, furniture or homes. Consumer confidence has been destroyed. There is a surplus of goods which is causing inflation to come down. Since inflation is decreasing before the six and five, why do we need it? Why is it necessary to attack pensioners and families? The Minister's argument that this is a necessary element in the attack on inflation is destroyed by her own admission that inflation is coming down when none of these caps exist.
After we discuss this Bill today and tomorrow and then go home for Christmas, surely the delay before we return gives the Government an opportunity to reconsider these measures. It simply does not need to bring back the Bill before the House, and then we can proceed as we should with full indexation for pensions and Family Allowances for those people who live on or near the poverty line. These are the people all Members of Parliament should be concerned about. The solution to the majority of their problems is for the Government simply to do nothing and let the Bills die. It can make use of the energy of its backbenchers and its Cabinet Members to review the $2,000 million subsidy to Crown corporations, the hidden subsidy of $512 million to Petro-Canada that does not appear on the books and review the expenditure pattern of the Government. It will find large amounts of money which it can use to help the people in this country who need it and take that money from those who waste it and spend it unproductiveiy-
1 hope the Government and the backbenchers of the Government Party will reconsider its intentions during its caucus meeting tomorrow with respect to these Bills. The Government can find the money elsewhere; it does not need to take it from the pockets of pensioners and families.

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)



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 Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott)- Metric Conversion-Compulsory aspect of law on advertising, (b) Request that measurements be permitted in both imperial and metric systems; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Income Tax-Review of tax assessments for Youth for Christ workers, (b) Attitude of tax officials; the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz)-Status of negotiations on European Airbus project, (b) Reasons for selection of Airbus project.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-131, to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Dantzer (p 21795).
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues for a few moments this afternoon and comment on the amendment and some of the presumptions about the particular Bill before us this afternoon.
Given the intervention by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), I thought it important to point out that there is no question that families and senior citizens across Canada are very anxious in terms of their pension and Family Allowances. If I can rely on what is relayed to me in my constituency office and in my mail, it seems to me that the paramount concern among the senior citizens of Canada is not Bill C-132 and C-131 but what inflation has done to their spending power and to the money which they have put away and receive from their pensions and GIS. Judging from the mail I have received, the prime concern among the retired in this country is that their Government take steps to ensure that their savings and pension incomes will be secure from the constant erosion month after month of their buying power through inflation. That spending, in their view, cannot be continually protected by increases or indexation; they want us to fight the battle against inflation on their behalf.
If there is a solidarity among the seniors of this nation, it would seem to me that that solidarity is to be found in their commitment to join with other Canadians and the Government in this fight. I do not find a willingness among pensioners in my riding, and I doubt that other Members find this in their
ridings, somehow to exempt themselves from this fight. The Hon. Member for Calgary West tried to make the point a few moments ago that, since inflation is in a downward trend as announced today, these capping Bills have had no influence since they have not yet come into effect.
1 suggest that a mentality and an environment to fight inflation was created from the very moment that the announcement to undertake a six and five program was made in this country. There was a commitment then, and a growing commitment now, that people want to join in this fight. They see the object of the fight as being worthy and worthwhile. They consider it reasonable to be asked as individuals to join in and do their share.
Quite frankly, if there is any group in my constituency who wants to do their share and more, while no one is asking for them to do more than their share through these Bills, it is the senior citizens. They have given and have shown that they know what it is to share both in the good times and the bad times. When they come to see me in my constituency, quite frankly many of them tell me: "Notwithstanding the difficulties that we have in terms of spending and the money that we have available to us, we find that, having gone through difficult times, the likes of which young people in this country have not yet seen, we are able to deal quite nicely with the money that we have coming in, with the money that we put away toward our retirement".
It seems to me that one of the presumptions that we hear in this House from much of what is said is that the seniors who Members purport to represent somehow believe that there is an obligation on the working people of this nation to look after them in their retirement. That does not represent the view of people in my riding. Quite frankly, I do not think it represents the view of seniors in most ridings. There is an understanding,
I think, among the seniors that they are expected, as are we all, to put something away for themselves, in addition to the pensions that will be made available after their working lives are over.
It is true there will be some who will have more difficulties than others in so doing and it will be necessary to have targeted programs that will somehow benefit some more than others. But if there is the presumption behind what Members are saying in this debate and in other places that the only means of income is to be these pensions, and that Government has the obligation to look after all Canadians when they reach the magical age of 65 and from that point on, then I feel this does not reflect either the situation that exists or indeed the belief that senior citizens generally have.
I think the last two speakers from the Opposition who have gone before me basically seem to miss the point that six and five as a program, as an idea, has as a goal the reduction of inflation by Canadians generally sharing in the war against inflation, and in reducing expectations in order to achieve that

December 21, 1982

goal. The mere fact that there is already a movement downward in terms of the inflation rate indicates, in my view, an acceptance by the public generally of the concept, and indicates a support for the activity that the Government launched itself into when it first announced the program. Obviously the movement made in terms of our own salaries in this place was a part of that, and was a necessary part in the sense of showing that we were in earnest in requiring that this be done.
The Member for Calgary West now says the fact that the inflation rate is going down has nothing to do with the thrust of Government, but rather has to do with the lack of people seeking money out of the money markets. As an aside, 1 find it passing strange that when inflation was increasing it was the fault of Government, in the view of the Member for Calgary West, and had nothing to do with the demand for money and for credit. But when inflation is falling, of course it has nothing to do with what Government has done to try to promote this concept, but rather has to do with the private sector and its demand for money.
It seems to me that the basis of the speeches that have been given by the Opposition Members this afternoon is a presumption that in fact inflation will continue at double-digit figures, 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent, and that it is in the interest of those who speak to see that inflation rate maintained. I believe that in their heart of hearts they know that the presumption behind this program is that if we can be successful-and 1 as a Liberal stand here optimistic that we will be-in getting the inflation rate down to six and five, then the fact is there is no loss, there is no erosion, there is no request that actual dollars be taken out of pocket of any individual, because they will be indexed at a rate that truly represents the rate of inflation, and no loss is suffered at all. It is in the interest of every person on this side of the House that those targets be achieved, not in a purely political sense- although I do not divorce myself from that. That would be nice, and of course it is something that I desire. But more than that, it is important that we get the rate of inflation down to six and five so that those persons who have savings of their own have savings that are meaningful. Those persons who looked after themselves by arranging private pensions, regardless of how small they may be, will be better off than if pensions had gone on beyond the six and gone to ten, and those other rates that we have experienced.
It seems to me that the legislation that we have is a statement of optimism in the sense that we believe that this nation wishes to achieve those goals and wants to get down to six and five. I believe the amendment that has been put is a statement of the pessimism that is represented on the other side of the House in the sense that they would not believe that six and five are achievable. Indeed, they would state that it is in their interest that it not be achieved. I think it is important as well-this was repeated by the Minister and I want to repeat it too, however briefly-that we are not talking about a reduction in the sense of the delivery of money to individuals. We are talking about establishing a cap on an increase. We are talking about increased funds in the hands of pensioners. We
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
are not talking about somehow trying to take away funds. I become just a little bit concerned at the rhetoric that we throw about in this House and that I am sure must be delivered in constituencies abroad, suggesting somehow, as the Hon. Member for Calgary West did, that a robbery is taking place. Implicit in those words is the removal of money. When we are talking about an increase it is playing with the truth to suggest that somehow we are taking money away.
I am satisfied that my constituents want to participate in this program and believe that in fact-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: How dare you!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: How dare I?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Arrogance!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: How arrogant. Well, when persons can sit in their place and suggest that it is arrogant to represent what people are indicating in my constituency, then I suggest to them that they are so out of touch that they had better return to their constituents and find out what they are saying, rather than presume to speak when they do not have any foundation wherewith to talk. But it is the kind of thing we expect from across the way, and 1 suppose I should not rise to the bait.
Let me just suggest that if indeed I am correct, and 1 believe that I am, people across this nation are not so selfish and selfcentred as to believe that whenever a program comes forward to try, on a national basis, to come to grips with an issue, they are going to stand up and suggest that the program is good so long as it does not touch them. 1 am content that in my constituency and across the breadth of this land people are saying: "We wish to be involved. We recognize this as a national issue and we don't want to be exempted. We want to be treated fairly and equally and we will do our share."
It is from that deep sense of conviction and from having spoken with my constituents that I am satisfied that I am neither arrogant nor non-representative when I stand and tell the House that the majority of the people in my constituency are telling me: "Go forward with this program; it is working. Distribute it fairly and equally, see that in fact we get to the six and five, continue the reduction in inflation as reported today. We are satisfied that it is working. We want you to do more, dont't let up."
We should ensure that the legislation is passed and that in fact the targets which the people believe are achievable, and which we believe with them are achievable, are accomplished. In that sense we will benefit all Canadians.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased and happy to be able to rise this afternoon to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). It is rather disturbing that I must rise again, on the twenty-first day of December, to speak with regard to a Bill which is not in the spirit of Christmas but, rather, one which takes away from a

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
segment of our populace something which they would have and could have if it were not for the application of this particular Bill. Someone has even used the terms "robbing" or "theft". The Bill, 1 suggest to Your Honour, is not in the spirit of Christmas, and the amendment which has been brought forward by my colleague is one which can only do the very least which can be expected for our senior citizens, a group of people which has been trampled upon by Bill C-131.
Put simply, the amendment asks the Government to put into words, into some form of substance, what it has been saying. If, as the Government Members claim, this Bill seeks only a two-year sacrifice on the part of our senior citizens, then let it cast that limitation in stone and not leave them in a position of doubt, or in any doubt whatsoever, as to the nature, time and extent of the sacrifice that it is asking this group whose working days are over to bear. No doubt they are being asked to bear a load which they should not be asked to bear when it comes to fighting inflation.
As is often the case, examples speak much louder than words or any other form of argument, and should this Bill pass without my colleague's amendment, senior citizens receiving the Old Age Security will be limited to a 6 per cent cost of living increase in the year 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984, regardless of what the inflation rate might be. In 1985 it has been said that full indexation will be restored. That is the issue which is before us this afternoon.
The Minister, in rather harsh words, has ridiculed the amendment brought forward by my colleague in our attempt to minimize the impact of this Bill on senior citizens. Today * she pointed out, with some personal pride, that inflation is below 10 per cent. For whatever reason the inflation rate has been reduced to a single-digit rate, it is still more than the rate of six and five.
In response to the comments of the Hon. Member who spoke previously this afternoon, I want to say that, of course, senior citizens are not so selfish that they are not concerned with the affairs and problems of other Canadians. They want to share the fight against inflation with all of us, but they want all of us to fight that battle of inflation equally, and they should not be in the forefront of the Government fight against inflation. The point, which I emphasize again, is that the inflation rate is not yet down to 6 per cent, to say that they will not suffer any loss is an absolute absurdity.
The level of assistance which the Government is fixing for senior citizens is below the present level of inflation and below the level anticipated by any Hon. Member in the House for the next two years, so that there will be a cost to our senior citizens. It has been emphasized again, so many times, that costs among our senior citizens vary. The application of a flat percentage rate on income leaves a disparity in purchasing power which, as was mentioned here this afternoon, amounts to the difference between the Minister and myself as a backbencher. That 6 per cent rate has a bearing on my purchasing power. However, our concern and that of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North, is with the great number of persons who are at or near the poverty line. It is this group
of people whom we want to protect by means of this amendment.
This amendment seeks to put those seniors, in the year 1985, in the same position as they would be if this Bill were not implemented. If the Bill is implemented, then they will be hurt for years after 1985 by reason of the application of the six and five formula which Government Members so proudly echo and present to the public across the country. This amendment calls on the Government to restore the Old Age Security recipient to the position he would be in as of January, 1985 if the Bill does not go into effect. What could be more fair than that? We have asked the senior citizens to bear the sacrifice for two years, but the Government should at least put them back in the position, as of January, 1985, that they would be in without the Bill. In other words, the amendment would write "Paid" on the senior citizens' invoice, and would let those senior citizens carry on without the drag of the continuing, battered, damaged luggage of the Trudeau years through the rest of their years by reason of the Government's action here at Christmas time in 1982.
Surely the amendment is in keeping with the Government's intentions, as has been expressed by all. It is a two-year program, it is said. However, I have not heard one statement from any Government Member to the effect that senior citizens would not and should not go on hurting after that two-year period; and if I am wrong, I would like to know which Government Member believes that Old Age Security should be permanently reduced. We on this side would not want to leave the impression that the amendment would be the end of our opposition to the Bill.
I had the opportunity of speaking in opposition to the Bill at second reading and, after reading the minutes of the committee meetings which have taken place from that time until today, I am even more strongly opposed today than I was then. At second reading I made the point that the money being taken from senior citizens could and should come from a wholesale war on Government waste, and that point still stands. We have yet to see any meaningful program of effort on the part of Government to cut the frivolous advertising, the parties, the JetStar extravangances or the public relations exercises.
While the Government asks senior citizens to take six and five, all MPs received a large binder of high quality reproductions of very dusty old news or press releases issued on the six and five program, which binder itself has no greater use than to gather dust on the shelves of so many. And at what cost? It was at the cost of thousands of dollars which, much more readily and to a greater national benefit, could have gone on to protecting our senior citizens. Rather than imposing the Bill which is being proposed today, the Government should cease wasteful spending.
Last June, when the six and five program was announced, we on this side were hopeful, anticipating that the Government was serious in its attempt to fight inflation and bolster the economy. We thought that that restraint would be the order of
December 21, 1982

the day, that it was only the forerunner of many such programs still to come. However, how badly we were mistaken! We should have known better. The six and five program is nothing more than a slogan to sell the Liberal Party, with selected, specific segments of our economy being asked to carry the brunt of the Government's attack on its program of restraint. Bill C-131 is a heinous example.
Senior citizens are not organized in this country, at least not as well as they might be. They do not have a union to lobby and fight on their behalf. They are not going to get any tax compensation, as will be the case for the Family Allowance recipient. In other words, the Government has picked on one of the most defenceless segments of our society, and that, Mr. Speaker, is offensive to us on this side of the House.
I would like to indicate why I feel this Bill should be withdrawn, and if the Government refuses to withdraw the Bill why my colleague's amendment should pass and why it is so important that it should pass. It was learned in committee that the June forecasts about this measure were wrong. This is not the first time this Government has goofed, has been found to be wrong. We all remember the 1980 forecast of cheap gas and low interest rates, not to mention the great disparity in the budget deficit proposals and forecasts. This is just one more of this Government's goofs. Last June, and I emphasize this, the budget forecast a saving to the treasury of some $105 million by limiting the Old Age Security increase to six and five. Now the Government claims that the saving will be only $84 million. That is $32 million next year and $52 million in 1984.
This amount may not be much in the Government's program of expenditure, and if it is not much, then why do they want to introduce the Bill at all? But I want to emphasize with all the force at my command that $84 million, when broken down, has a great impact on the standard of living of senior citizens. It would only take our Party one hour to eliminate the waste from departmental spending and make up that $84 million. Where is the sense, Mr. Speaker, of putting senior citizens through this kind of misery when far more could be saved by practising a modicum of in-House restraint?
In committee the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) argued that senior citizens would not be hurt and that the sacrifice which was being asked of them was small. We heard that said again today. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the jury is still out as to the amount of the sacrifice and how small the impact of this Bill will be on those persons. The point I want to make is there is fear, frustration and anger present among the senior citizens. These senior citizens continue to see their rents go up, food prices rise, gas and oil prices move upward, at the whim of a greedy Government and in response to its own scrambling to make ends meet. Our seniors among us see a Government imposing a six and five program on them for propaganda purposes. They see themselves not only as being abandoned, but abused for political purposes. As the saying goes, "It's not just the money".
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
What kind of Government is it that would want to leave the impression, as they do with this Bill, that senior citizens can fend for themselves in these difficult times? The Government and the Minister of National Health and Welfare can talk all they want, but what will be the perception which this Bill will leave across our country? Eighty-four million dollars is a paltry sum, yes, to the Government; but compare that to the toll it will take on our senior citizens.
There is another important aspect of this amendment. With an aging population, the federal Government has to be concerned with pensions. Two weeks ago we saw the introduction of the green paper on pension reform, which is an indication that some action is being taken to begin the difficult task of meeting the needs of people in crisis. And fundamental to any pension program is its protection against the ravages of inflation. At second reading, I quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as being aghast at any thought that any pension program should not have an inflation program included, and this was part of his statement to the pension conference a very short number of years ago. In committee, witness after witness made the same point, expressing some concern at the message that this would give to the private sector. And after all that was said, here is the federal Government throwing indexation out of the window unilaterally, as in the case of Bill C-133, and giving the lie to every utterance which has been made on pension and pension reform and the necessity for protection against inflation. If it is all right for the Government to adjust pensions mid-stream, then why not the private sector? The Government's response to that is yes, these are extraordinary times and this Bill is of limited duration. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector might be tempted to use that very same argument. There is every incentive here for them to do so. If the Government can do it, why cannot they?
Contrary to what Government Members are saying, the effect of this Bill is to reduce Old Age Security in perpetuity if they do not adopt the amendment put forward. No one knows for certain just how much they might be asked to bear. We do not know what the rates of inflation are going to be in the future, but we all know that senior citizens will be suffering the brunt of this restraint program today and in the next two years, and unless we adjust this Bill they will continue to suffer the disadvantage of these two years.
Therefore, there is only one way to guarantee that the sacrifice is for two years only. There is only one way to guarantee that neither the public nor the private sector will change the rules mid-stream, and that is to adopt the amendment put forward. The message to the private sector should be clear, and it is that this Bill is part of an over-all response to an economic crisis, that after the duration of that response these pensioners will be returned to the status they would have enjoyed in 1985 if it were not for the implementation of this Bill. With this amendment in place, there would be no long-term advantage to cutting pensions, and it would go a long way towards soothing the legitimate concerns of senior citizens. It would demonstrate a modicum of good faith at a time when there is very little faith in this Government's program of words and actions.

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, 1 would be remiss if I did not voice my objection to the concern and anxiety being shown by this Government to find an acceptable accommodation with Public Service pensioners, when no such concern is present for those citizens being hit by this particular Bill. I recognize that there are difficulties, there are technicalities, which permit such a distinction to be made; but surely the principle is the same. Public servants are paying into a superannuation account on the understanding that their pensions will be fully indexed, and taxpayers are remitting tax in the belief that Old Age Security would be fully indexed. In both instances it was the Government of Canada which indicated that such would be the case. I defy any Government Member to go out and tell any old age pensioner that there is a distinction they should be prepared to accept between themselves and a federal public servant now on pension. Why should they? How can we justify treating old age pensioners differently because one worked for the federal Government, and one did not? Yet here are two Bills which seek to break promises made, one Bill receiving the benefit of brinkmanship negotiations, and the other being raced through Parliament these few days before Christmas, and without any effort being made by the Government to act in good faith with respect to old age security recipients. We on this side believe that all pensioners have protection against the ravages of inflation, and therefore we argue that both C-131 and C-133 should be withdrawn.
The amendment, Mr. Speaker, is one of the bright aspects of this whole debate. The Bill is mean and underhanded, and if the Government is sincere about being honest with Old Age Security recipients, then it should adopt that amendment, and I am looking forward to the vote which might be taken on it.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in opposition to the Bill before us and to make some comments, although very brief, on the amendment, 1 would just like, first of all, to comment on the words of the last speaker, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), when he said it was unfortunate that these pensioners do not have a union to represent them. While that is true in the narrow legal sense of certification, representation and right to collective bargaining, pensioners across the country should know now, as they should have for years, that a number of unions in the country and the Canadian Labour Congress strongly support the cause of Canada's pensioners. Not only do they have unions defending their interests. Prior to 1926 and 1927, when the first minimal old age pension was introduced by two independent labour Members of Parliament, J. S. Woodsworth, and I believe it was Mr. Heaps, they were able to strike a bargain with the then Prime Minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King. They agreed to support the Government in return for the first old age pension legislation in Canada. So pensioners have had not only hundreds of individual unions and central labour bodies supporting them, but they have also had the full and continuous support of at least one political party. Pensioners have also had support from the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I would like to read one very brief paragraph from that organization's submission as regards
this Bill and the Bill dealing with the partial deindexation of Family Allowances. It says:
In both these cases, family allowances and old age pensions, the scenario is the same. On one hand, reductions are made in the real value of benefits of a universal nature which have been advantageous mainly to women and, on the other hand, payments are made to those who belong to low-income families. The CACSW fears that through such measures, a gradual transformation of our income security system is sought in order to force adults to become increasingly dependent on each other within the family and to become eligible for benefits from government income security programs only if they prove they belong to a low-income family.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with attempting to strengthen the family, but there is something terribly wrong in forcing people into situations that they might not otherwise choose to be in. This Government, Mr. Speaker, in one way or another, is now attempting to force people off a secure and independent means of living and back into a situation which they would not individually and freely choose.
I mentioned that pensioners have the full support of the Canadian Labour Congress. 1 have before me a letter from Dennis McDermott, president of the CLC, which presents in great detail the arguments of that Congress and working people all over the country on behalf of our senior citizens. 1 would like to quote from it briefly. It reads:
At first blush, the effects of Bill C-131 are quite straightforward. Canadians over 65 whose incomes are high enough that they are not entitled to full or partial benefits under the Guaranteed Income Supplement program will simply be denied the full indexing of OAS benefits. Canadians over 65 whose incomes are low enough that they arc entitled to at least some GIS benefits will also have their OAS indexing capped. But for this latter group, supplemental GIS payments will be made that will make up for the capping of the indexing payments under OAS.
These apparently simple arrangements will have several particularly negative effects during 1983 and 1984, and these negative effects may be further accentuated after 1984. In brief these negative effects are:
(1)	the pension system as a whole will become even more of an income-tested
system;
(2)	the value of Old Age Security benefits will be reduced even further in
relation to pre-retirement earnings;
(3)	promises made to Canada's elderly will be broken.
I would like to dwell on the last sentence of that letter for just a moment, the matter of broken promises to Canada's elderly. In a brief presented to the committee dealing with Bill C-133, the Letter Carriers Union of Canada had something else to say about the trust in the Government. I think this is particularly important in light of the Government's apparent launching of an over-all review of Canada's entire pension system. If people do not have any faith in the ability of the Government to keep its word, what is the sense of all the talk, dollars, time and thousands of pages of printed matter? What is the sense of discussions concerning whether or not the pension system in the future will be believable or whether people can count on it for the security they require from any pension system?
The Letter Carriers' Union of Canada presented a brief to the Committee dealing with Bill C-133 in which it indicated:
December 21, 1982

According to past custom, it has been the invariable practice of former Presidents of the Treasury Board to consult the Advisory Committee on all matters affecting public service pensions. On this occasion, the President has not done so-
This comment referred to the time when the Public Service superannuation fund was launched, at which point the Government asked that it be excluded from collective bargaining and, in return, the Government of the day promised to make no unilateral changes to the pension plan. It broke that word. It regarded that commitment as a scrap of paper. It was torn up. Later in the brief the union continued:
If the government proceeds with the unilateral appropriation of funds from its former employees and those who are soon to retire, the terms "pension rights', "pension credits" and "entitlements" will cease to have any meaning whatsoever. The raid by the Treasury Board, Canada's largest employer, on the pension fund of its employees provides a truly frightening example for the private sector.
Also it provides a terrible example for the rest of the public sector and for people dependent upon the basic Old Age Security Program and the Canada Pension Plan. Over the past few years all of us have heard grave doubts voiced about the viability of the Canada Pension Plan and its ability to provide the pensions which the Government, Parliament and Canada as a country are committed to providing. If the Government demonstrates once more that its word cannot be believed, where will it leave us?
The Minister talked about the psychological impact of her programs. There is a psychological impact here-total destruction of faith on the part of any Canadian who wants to believe that when his or her representative in Parliament or in Government makes a commitment for the future, in fact it will be kept. They cannot believe that any longer. We have had many examples in Bills C-124, C-131, C-132 and C-133 of a Government which breaches contracts, commitments and its word. I cannot call such activity by its proper name here, but 1 believe people know what it is. It is not very pleasant.
Finally in its brief the union indicated:
If the Government succeeds in raiding the employee pension fund, how long will it be before it uses the same tactic again?
It concluded:
The Government proposal indicates that Canada is a very bad credit risk.
That is another reputation which we do not really need, particularly at this moment in our history.
1 referred to those comments even though some of them were outside the narrow scope of the legislation immediately before us in order to talk about the crisis, the problems and the psychological war, the one the Minister does not intend but which is being waged here.
I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in The Vancouver Sun on December 17, 1982, entitled, "Question of integrity". It referred to upcoming revisions in the Canada Pension Plan and in part read:
It could be argued that the integrity of the Canada Pension Plan was endangered from the time of its inception in 1966-from the moment the federal government compromised the ideal of pay-as-you-go and made it possible for provinces to borrow an amount proportional to the contributions paid by their residents.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
But that wouldn't get us out of the crisis we're in today, with every province in debt-and indebted to the CPP for something like $22.4 billion in loans-or protect us from the crunch expected within two years when, without any payback by the provinces, employers and employees will be looking at higher contributions.
Once again the warning is clear. The Government has been in power for almost the entire period, except for that nine-month interlude, encompassing the building of the Canada Pension Plan and all the years since then. It has so mismanaged the affairs of the country that just one or two years down the road we may well face a time when we will have to tax people double in order for them to receive the benefits for which the Government has told them they have already paid.
Is what the Minister and the Government doing today just part of the so-called psychological war? Is it just a wish to find another sword in the arsenal for the six and five war against inflation, or is it a set-up for something broader? 1 am sure the Minister will say that we have to believe her. Many people believed her and the Government, and it is not doing them much good right now. The Government seems obsessed with this war against inflation and with talking about restraint. Conservative, New Democratic and Liberal Members have said that there is nothing wrong with restraint. We believe in restraint; we also believe in freedom. When the Government sets a goal around which society can unite and it invites people to participate, that is one thing; but when they are conscripted into an army to become involved in a Dieppe raid as part of its so-called war against inflation, that is another story. It is conscription; it is not asking people to join voluntarily in a united national cause. For them to pretend that some people do not like compulsion or Governments which break their words is pretty phony from that bunch over there.
I should like to refer to an article entitled, "They still worry about inflation?" which appeared in the December 7, 1982 edition of The Gazette of Montreal. Don McGillivray, the columnist, wrote the article from which I should like to quote four paragraphs because it carried a message about the war against inflation and how it perverted much of what has happened in the country. He wrote:
It will seem grotesque, a few years from now, that in the eighteenth month of the 1980s depression some people were still arguing that the main foe was inflation.
It will seem even more grotesque that these people were not a collection of economic flakes and nuts but ministers of finance and governors of central banks.
We know what has happened to the unemployment figures in the last few months. He continued:
A worldwide economic slump that has continued for a year and a half without an end in sight is the kind of crisis Canada faced in the 1930s.
Although Gerald Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada, talks about past years as the time of the Great Inflation, this crisis far outranks anything Canada has faced in the past decade.
Inflation was a puzzle that defied solution.
But it was not destroying jobs, homes, companies, industries and even countries the way this depression is.
I want to reinforce that paragraph and Mr. McGillivray's message. As long as people within society-pensioners, mothers, families, workers and small business people-were keeping

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
their relative positions to each other, not suffering unduly and seeing themselves fall lower on the totem poll of society, as long as the purchasing power of Canadians was keeping its relative position in terms of the economies of other countries- and that is what indexing was all about in terms of its impact upon people keeping their relative positions in society-then who really gave a damn? Certainly there was a concern because it could get out of line, but as long as we were able to keep that relative position, no one was really being hurt. If Government had done its job a little better, no one would have been hurt.
To go on:
But the menace of depression is much more real. We don't have to go to other countries for examples. We've had depressions in Canada at least four times in our history.
If unemployment near 2 million after an 18-month downturn is not enough to get the Government to fight the slump on an emergency basis, what will it take?
Three million unemployed?
Two years of depression?
Four million in three years?
The excuse that Canada can do little on its own is no longer good enough.
The depression is a common foe and it should be fought unitedly by the industrial countries.
But Canada should both be doing more to fight it at home and be urging other countries to unite against it.
The depression is now gathering momentum as rising unemployment undermines consumer demand.
It's being fought-like the U.S. fought the war in Vietnam - with an attitude of "business as usual".
And if we think that's good enough, we should remember how the Vietnam war turned out.
1 see my time is expiring, Mr. Speaker. I would end by saying that, while my colleagues and I have had a quick look at it, I am sure we will be supporting the Conservative amendment in this case and opposing, of course, Bill C-131. We really wish and 1 want to address this last comment to the Conservative Party to my right-that they would turn out to vote on this occasion. On the last two votes we had on this Bill it was more as if we were discussing the original six and five program they supported, because in each case the Government was sustained by fewer Members than the number of Conservatives who were absent from the House, and that was on both occasions, on December 10 on the six-months hoist and on second reading of the Bill itself. 1 hope they will show up and I hope they will keep that commitment because that may lend some credibility to those thousands of Canadians who wondered how the Conservatives could support the six and five legislation in Bill C-124 in the beginning and then disclaim responsibility for its offspring. We hope they will show up, we hope they will be united and we hope, finally, that some of the Members on the Government side will look to their consciences and decide to preserve what little credibility that Government has retained by voting to help us defeat this legislation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on this amendment which is just another way of saying that members opposite are in favour of the six and five program. But, of course, those who do support the amendment fail to say whether they will vote for Bill C-131 after we have disposed of the amendments at the report stage. In fact, they are saying that they are more or less in agreement, but that in 1985 they will go back to the basic old age pension of 1984 as if the six and five program had never existed. In other words, members opposite are playing games again by saying that they are in favour of the principle, but that Government spending must come down. They accept the principle, but they have said on many occasions that Canadians must lower their salary demands. They agree that Bill C-131 will not restrict or limit the indexation for all old age pensioners, but only that it will limit to 6 per cent the indexation of basic old age security pensions without affecting in any way those who get the supplement. They will continue to benefit from full indexation and they will also get an increase to offset their loss due to the capping of the indexation of their basic pension.
Mr. Speaker, I took part in the debates on other bills related to the six and five program and I pointed out that some opposition members are less than honest when they keep saying that we must have budget cutbacks, lower incomes for Canadians and less Government spending but, the moment we mention a specific item which will indeed affect Canadians, they claim they are against it. I would suggest that they are being dishonest when they take that approach, because one is either in favour of or against Government cutbacks. How can they possibly advocate less Government spending without at the same time cutting down some of the programs designed for individual Canadians? For years, this was the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. The Conservatives always said: The federal budget is too high; Government spending must come down. We now have Bill C-131 which limits very reasonably Government spending and has no impact whatsoever on those who depend on the supplement, but the Opposition, especially the Progressive Conservative Party, now says: A restrictive policy is required, a Conservative policy designed to restrict expenditures and incomes in Canada, but no one should be affected. It is somewhat like people who say: I want to go to heaven, but I do not want to die. Of course, the New Democrats do not say that. They say that no program or income should ever be capped in Canada. They probably do not understand that inflationary trends in a modern society such as ours are partly due to psychological factors.
Like all other government levels, the federal Government is an important factor in the incomes of Canadians because of the statutory programs which provide certain benefits for certain people under specific conditions, but governments are
December 21, 1982

also an important factor because of their own spending. Increased Government spending stimulates the economy and means more income. Less spending means less income somewhere in our society. Government action is therefore an important psychological factor in the economy, and this is the reason for the six and five program, Mr. Speaker. This does not mean that those who support this Bill are determined to take away something from somebody; it means simply that the Government of Canada will provide leadership to the country because it recognizes that it plays an important psychological role and wants to convince Canadians that it is possible to reduce inflation at least to six per cent in 1983 and five per cent in 1984. We are convinced that this is possible, and because we are, we are willing to take a risk and ask those who receive certain social benefits to make sacrifices without affecting the poor, since Bill C-131 will have no effect on those who receive the supplement. We are therefore saying that, without affecting the poor who really need assistance, increases will be capped at six per cent.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it is six o'clock and ask you to recognize me again at eight o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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 8.05 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) had the floor.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when the House took recess at 6 o'clock, it is basically dishonest for a political party to always advocate budgetary cutbacks and less Government spending and to oppose legislation which has a specific impact on a special group because this Party believes that, by so doing, it can score political points.

It is very important that the recipients of Old Age Security realize that all we are doing with this Bill is to indicate that indexation will be limited to 6 pe cent and 5 per cent in the next two years. There is no cutback on Old Age Security. There will be an increase of 6 per cent on January 1 and 5 per cent the year after.
Not only will those whom the legislation has described as being in need, which means those who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement, receive the full indexation, they will also be compensated for the fact that the indexation will be reduced to 6 per cent. Therefore, it is very important that the recipients of Old Age Security realize this.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I indicated earlier that it was not totally honest for the Members of the Conservative Party to attack any specific measure that is designed to restrict public expenditures or restrict income to Canadians when it is specifically before the House. But then, all I have heard for years from the Progressive Conservative Party is that there should be less Government spending and less social spending. They say we should balance the budget and reduce expenditures in Canada but as soon as you bring a specific measure, they cry wolf. They say, my God, this is going to affect these people, those people and the other ones.
We cannot have a restrictive fiscal policy, if we want to be honest, that is not going to affect anyone. Of course it is going to affect people. What they are trying to do is to say we are for the principle of six and five per cent because that has an element of restriction of public expenditure and also of income. They say we are for that principle but when it is specifically going to affect anyone, we are against it.
I understand that position. If 1 were in the Opposition maybe I would see some advantage in doing that also. My purpose in speaking this evening is to assure those who receive Old Age Security that what they hear in these debates, that the Government is cutting back on Old age Security, is not true. They alluded, in the debate on Bill C-132 and the debate on Bill C-131, to the fact that there are so many people living at the poverty line, and the Government is going to take something away from people living at the poverty line, but in fact nothing at all will be taken away from people who live at the poverty line with any of the measures arising out of the six and five program. Absolutely nothing will be taken away from poor families by Bill C-132, or from retired people who rely only on old age pensions, if they receive the supplement. Nothing will be taken away from them and they will continue to be fully indexed. It is important that they see the difference between this and what the Official Opposition sees as a way to gain political points.
I do not speak of the NDP, because that Party's position has been well known. It is that Governments should never do anything about inflation, should never take anything away from anybody, should always give more. I do not object to that position, philisophically or intellectually, because sometimes 1 think Governments should do even more than what the NDP proposes, but it is important for the Canadian public and for those who are recipients of Old Age Security to see the politics in their position. The NDP has always been consistent in saying that we should spend more, we should do more, regardless of what the income to the Government is going to be, we should go into an unlimited deficit. Well, the Canadian public knows better and they know that the Government has to be responsible.
Even the members of the labour unions whose leaders support the NDP-obviously not all the members support the

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
NDP-are for the six and five program. Their labour leaders have tried since last summer to arouse public opinion, to start demonstrations against the federal Government's wage limitation package of last summer and against these specific measures, and they have not been able to. So even those people realize that in this time of high inflation it is important for the Government to bring in factors that will affect the psychology of the nation, and this is what the Government is doing. It is saying that because the Government spends a lot in the economy there is a need to restrict the increases in some pensions, to loosen up some resources of the Government, in order to divert them to job creation programs and economic development programs. In fact what we are asking Canadians to do is that we all together share in an action, a program of helping those who do not have any protection and helping those who are losing their jobs, who are exhausting their UIC benefits and who have to go on welfare. We are asking all Canadians to restrict themselves to an increase of 6 per cent and 5 per cent, not accept a cutback, so that the Government can try to help those who cannot help themselves.
While the Opposition may speak about the recipients of these pensions being aroused, I speak to many of them when I am in my constituency. These people understand that the Government must act to bring some discipline in the economy, to show leadership, and this is what the Government is doing, it is showing leadership.
Of course we cannot ask the NDP to show leadership; that would be asking too much of the NDP to show leadership in anything. They do not believe that a Government has to make some tough decisions, some tough choices or the Government has to choose amongst difficult options. Whenever the NDP has had a few months to make decisions, to choose between options, they have shown that they could not last more than a few months. That is what happened in the minority Parliament from 1972 to 1974. They supported the Government in confidence motions until it was impossible for them to live with the responsibility of making decisions. At one point, they could not accept that responsibility, so we cannot ask them to be responsible on this measure.
The Official Opposition tried to be on both sides of this issue. They say they are for the six and five program but that it should not affect anyone. They say they are for the six and five program, but in this amendment they say they are for it for the first year; they do not know about the second year, and for the third year they do not want a six and five program.
There is a need for the Government to have a coherent message, to be clear in what it does, and I believe it has a duty to the Canadian public, the Canadian electorate, the Canadian taxpayer, to say nothing but the truth.
What we have to signal clearly in this fight against inflation is that the Government is determined that inflation will be brought down to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. And we are getting there. The inflation figures for the last three months and for the last six months show that we are very
close to the 6 per cent world. We need to continue on this crusade, this national program, because inflation is partly made up of psychology, and the inflationary push has a psychological factor in it. For that reason it is imporetant for the Government of Canada and all the provincial Governments-


Mr. Fulton:: To rip off the elderly.


Herb Breau: -to say that we should restrict the increases in our income to 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
Somebody over there is saying "to rip off the elderly". That is a very irresponsible statement to make because we are saying there will be an increase on January 1 of 6 per cent to the basic old age pension. Those who are in need will continue to have the full indexation through the G1S, and they will be compensated for the limitation in indexation to the Old Age Security. How can that be called a rip-off, unless one only wants to make political statements to score political points? I do not think that Members of Parliament who are responsible should try to score political points on the backs of pensioners, on the backs of people who are retired. Hon. Members opposite should try to gain their political Brownie points with some other issue than by trying to play with the fears and emotions of people who are retired and those who live on old age pensions. They should be telling them that all we are doing is asking those who are not recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, therefore those who are not, as defined by the legislation, "in need", to make a sacrifice and to accept an increase of 6 per cent instead of the full indexation which would be between 10 per cent and 11 per cent on January 1. Those are the facts. I believe that the matter is important, and that is why I wanted to speak-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Herb Breau: -to say to these people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) rises on a point of order.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would permit a question either now or at the conclusion of his remarks.


Herb Breau: Yes, I am just about to conclude my remarks, and I will gladly accept a question after I conclude them.
I think it is important to tell the Canadian public the facts on this issue. What we are trying to do here is to apply some psychology to the nation by showing leadership, by showing we are determined to bring down inflation-


An Hon. Member:: Brainwashing!


Herb Breau: -in the 6 per cent and 5 per cent world. We also want to try to loosen up some fiscal resources of the Government of Canada to help those who are unemployed and those sectors of the economy that need assistance.
December 21, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Kootenay West rises on a point of order.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was referring to the Government's attempt to motivate the country. Why is it that when the national government wants to motivate people toward its goal, it does so by penalizing the relatively poor in society by means of Bills C-124, C-131, C-132 and C-133, but when it wants to motivate the relatively richer parts of society, ed2045;-l it provides incentives, grants and rewards? Why is there a double standard?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, if I am permitted to answer, 1 think that the Hon. Member is grossly misleading the Canadian public by suggesting that-


Erik Nielsen: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: -by these measures, we are hurting the poor more than anyone else, when there is no more divisive a factor in society than inflation. The most divisive factor-


An Hon. Member:: In Canada, it is the Liberal Party.


Herb Breau: The most divisive factor in a society, the one which pits the rich against the poor, weak groups against stronger groups, is inflation. What the Government is trying to do is to show leadership to convince Canadians to bring down the inflation rate to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. There is nothing which is more damaging to the poor than an inflation rate of 10 per cent, 11 per cent, 12 per cent or 13 per cent.
Concerning the measure that we are taking, the Hon. Member is grossly wrong when he says that we are hurting the poor more than the rich, because in all of the legislation which has been brought forward in Bills C-131 and C-132, we do protect the poor. Only those who are not in need will be limited to an indexation factor of 6 per cent. Therefore, the Hon. Member is grossly wrong when he suggests that these measures are hurting the poor more than the rich.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the Hon. Member who spoke from the other side of the House, I came to the conclusion that the diagnosis of the condition of Canada is reasonably correct, but the cure which is being recommended is, in my view, only very partially correct. Canada is ill, or one might say that Canada is sick.


Mr. Schroder:: The prognosis is good!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The very bad diseases of Canada today are inflation and unemployment.


An Hon. Member:: And the Liberals!


Gordon Edward Taylor: And they are serious problems for the body politic called Canada. Tonight, I want to deal with some matters. I will not deal with the diagnosis, because I think we all agree that we have a sick country, with over 1 million people unemployed and with inflation far higher than it should be.


James Duncan Schroder: It is going down!
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Gordon Edward Taylor: We must check what the Government is doing, because it is the Government's responsibility to deal with these particular problems. In the first place, inflation is an increase in the quantity of money and credit. The money supply and the credit supply are increased in relation to the available goods and services. One definition is "too many dollars chasing too few goods". I am not sure that that is entirely applicable today. Certainly, there is an increase in the quantity of money and credit in relation to the available goods and services. In other words, there is too much money in the country. As a result, the prices soar. The market will bear more, so prices rise. I will not state it so simply that it sounds as though one pushes a button and solves the problem. I realize the seriousness of the problem, but I think that unless we get right down to the fundamentals and understand what we are trying to do, we are not likely to find a solution which will be workable.
One cause of inflation and, consequently, high unemployment, is unbalanced budgets. It does not happen overnight, but Governments which go on spending more than they have, not having the courage or desire to increase their revenue in order to have the money to spend, create a condition which helps to make the country ill. That is exactly one of the things which has been going on. Since the advent of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), we have almost ceased hearing about balanced budgets. However, each year the expenditures continue to rise, without the money to pay for them. Therefore, it is no wonder that we finally came to the place where the country could not stand that type of thing. The Government was aggravating the illness, making no attempt to try to clear it at all by raising the revenues which could have been raised in those better years.
If there is no increase in wages for our workers, and producers push up the prices, what happens? Producers simply sell less because the workers are unable to buy goods without increased wages. In that type of situation, there is a reduced output. When there are fewer goods and fewer people are buying, more workmen are put out of work as they are not required.
When we start to point our fingers at the cause, let us not point them at the workers of this country who have been trying to make both ends meet. In my view, it is completely unfair to say that the workers are the cause of inflation. They are affected as a result of inflation. They must have enough to eat, and either they receive increases in their wages, or else they go without many of the things that they would otherwise buy. If they go without, that means there are fewer and fewer demands and more and more people being put out of work. Nor can one blame the producers or the sellers. One cannot point one's finger at the producers, farmers and miners who create wealth in this country and say that they are the cause of inflation. They have been producing. One way of fighting inflation is to increase productivity.
There are two commonly known methods of dealing with inflation. One is to draw off the surplus money through taxes or through the method the Government is using with regard to

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133. This is an indirect form of taxation. It is trying to draw the money off because the Government has come to the conclusion there is too much money, but I say the cure is wrong because the money is being drawn from the wrong places. Certainly, if there is too much money out there and the price of goods is soaring, then there is a way of taking that money out of circulation, but not from the poor, not from those who are already suffering, but from those who can well afford to pay part of this cost. The other method, and the one which I prefer, is to increase production. This Government has done everything but try to increase production in this country. It has kicked free enterprise in the face right and left. It has made it difficult to invest money, or even to make any kind of profit out of an investment. More and more businesses fail. They go down the tube. Therefore, more and more people are thrown out of work because the employer does not have the money to pay them. We can increase production or-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) rises on a point of order.


James Duncan Schroder: I have been listening very carefully to the Hon. Member's speech and I fail to see much relevance in it to the amendment which was proposed by the Opposition.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the trouble with this Government. They do not know what they are trying to fight. Surely it is inflation they are trying to fight. If the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knew what he was trying to fight maybe he would not have helped bring in these three Bills of which he is so proud.
The Government is not attacking the problem. Every one of its speakers over there says inflation is a problem, but unemployment is also a problem. They forget about that, and it is a worse problem than inflation, or just as bad. The Government is not facing up to the issues. It is trying to solve inflation, and the only solution it advances is six and five.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary rises on a point of order.


James Duncan Schroder: Inflation is the very thing which this program of six and five is attempting to fight, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would find out what a point of order is, I would not mind so much his constant interruptions. If he would just listen for a while, he might just accidentally learn something.
There are two methods of dealing with inflation which I would like to pound into the heads of the Hon. Members opposite. I think maybe what we should try to do is to cross a pigeon with a woodpecker so the message would not only get over there, but it could be pounded into their heads after it gets there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: You asked for it. You got it. If you want to hand it out, you had better be willing to take it. I would like to continue now, Mr. Speaker, because my time is limited and I cannot waste time on these trivialities which the Parliamentary Secretary is raising.
The Government says the solution is six and five. It is a partial solution. It will draw off some money, but it is taking money from the wrong places entirely. If the money was coming from the proper place, it would have a greater effect than the present six and five program. I supported the six and five program when it was affecting the wages-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Don't clap until you hear the whole story. I supported the six and five program when it affected the wages of Members of Parliament, Senators-none of us is going without-when it affected the wages of judges, certainly. I approved of that.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the Hon. Member's speech and I have heard not one mention of the amendment which is being discussed tonight by Hon. Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I ought to resolve the problem of the Hon. Members. In view of the Bills which are before the House, and the debate which has gone on with respect to what is in shorthand known as "six and five", and the economy generally of Canada, the Chair has been disposed, not only myself but other occupants of the chair, to accord the widest latitude to Hon. Members who wish to debate the issue. Accordingly, unless there is a very finely argued point of order, I will allow the right of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to continue in the manner in which he is now proceeding.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, almost every Member in the House, including the Minister herself, spoke about the motion and the amendment. Surely to goodness the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is half awake, would have recognized that.
I want to deal now with some of these problems which are arising because the Government has not created the right cure. The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) said there would be no cutback. Those were his words. But, Mr. Speaker, it is okay if you have a large enough income and, when part of the increase you expect each year is not forthcoming, you can still get by. But I want to tell the Hon. Members of this House that there are thousands of people who are in the old age pension bracket who need every cent they are receiving in order to continue to live. I imagine there are thousands in this country who are very close to getting the Guaranteed Income Supplement, but they do not qualify. They are in a pretty tough position and they need all the money they get. They do not need it reduced, they need more.
When the Government says it is only taking 4 per cent or 5 per cent off, that they are going to get 6 per cent this year instead of 10 per cent or 11 per cent, is that not a cutback? Of
December 21, 1982

course, it is. And if anyone thinks they should be able to get by on that, I invite them to visit these people in their homes. There is more than just the fuel, the hydro, the telephone and the groceries which have to be paid for, but year after year the blankets wear out and they eventually have to have more blankets. I do not suppose that ever occurs to people with large incomes, but it certainly occurs to people who have to make every dime count. Their dishes break and they have to get more dishes. The curtains wear out and they need curtains, their blinds wear out and they have to replace them. Their carpets wear out, and they do not change their carpets one-tenth or one-twentieth as much as they do in this building, these things wear out and they all cost money. This is something which people forget; there are always eventualities. I know a person whose hot water heater went on the blink just this week. They had no hot water. The people who look after the repair of hot water heaters were contacted, and they informed this person it was going to cost $60 for a service trip just to find out what was wrong with it.
You tell me these people can do with less because they happen to be superannuates, or they happen to have children for whom they are getting the Family Allowances, or they happen to be old age citizens who do not get the G1S. But even if they get the GIS they still run into these eventualities. There are other things which happen also. Light bulbs burn out. Sometimes the door will not close and you have to find some way of closing a door in the wintertime. There are a countless number of things which cost money. 1 want to say that the senior citizens of this country, families and the superannuates, the ex-army personnel, the ex-RCMP personnel, the ex-public servants, have these things happening and they do not have enough money to meet all their needs at any one time. They still need to have a little credit. Because they are honest and the grocer trusts them, they are able to get a little credit. Now we are going to say to that group: we want you to bear the brunt of fighting inflation. Well, they did not cause it all. It was caused mostly by Government. There is no government in this world which has caused inflation faster than the present Government of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Not one in any country of the world. They have lived off the fat of the land and increased the deficit instead of lowering it. If this Government were reasonable and sensible-


James Duncan Schroder: It is.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and would diagnose the disease we are trying to cure, it would come to the Leaders of the other two Parties and say: here is our problem. Our country is ill. Do you agree with the diagnosis? I think everyone would agree that inflation is a disease and unemployment is a disease. Well, can we work out this problem together? There are countless ways of fighting inflation, but not on the backs of the aged, the retired, or the children; do it on the backs of those who can afford it and who will not even miss it.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member entertain a question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will be glad to, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member could perhaps wait until I am finished, and I will be glad to try and answer his question then.
What we have to realize today, Mr. Speaker, is that this little pittance they are going to take from the senior citizens of this country, out of the pockets and mouths of the kids, is just a drop in the bucket compared to what they could get if they went into a few other avenues in which this Government operates. 1 heard of a little girl who got hurt the other day, Mr. Speaker. She came from a home where they did not have very much money. She was taken to the hospital, and when she came to she was in a room where everything was white. The nurse was standing over her and holding a glass of milk. She said to the little girl: "Would you try to drink a little milk?" The little girl took the glass of milk and started to drink, and then she said: "How far down may I drink?" Mr. Speaker, that little girl had never had the pleasure in her whole life to drink a whole glass of milk. Now we are going to take from that type of child the little bit they have-


James Duncan Schroder: It is not true.


Gordon Edward Taylor: -and let those who have all kinds get away free. Well, if you want to fight inflation, let us do it together, but not on the backs of our kids or those of the aged.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to be a great defender of the social programs introduced by Liberal Governments. Can he tell us how many social programs the Progressive Conservative Party introduced? Can he name one program which has been produced by the Tories in the last 100 years?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Go to Alberta and see what they have.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I will be very glad to. For years we asked the Liberal Government to look after the widowed spouses of senior citizens, but the Liberals could not find the money. We found the money and we did not kill an industry to do it. We put people to work, and you would do a lot better if you would do the same thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, not too long ago I made an intervention on this Act, not because, like other Members of this House, I do not feel this is an area we would rather not have to touch, but to try to make the point that this was part of an over-all program to help bring down inflation, which in turn helps to distribute the wealth of the country more equitably, among all the people of the nation. It also helps to put us in a position not only to enjoy the good life today, but to be in a better position in the very near future, as the world begins to come out of the desperate slump it is in, to be more in line with the rest of the nations of the world. It would be very handy if Canada lived in a vacuum and we would sink or swim by our actions alone. But all thinking Members recognize that this is not so.

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
However, Mr. Speaker, we have a particular series of Bills before the House on which it is very easy to get up and say, I am for apple pie, motherhood and this kind of thing. Yet the last time I spoke I brought into this discussion my mother, who happens to be a senior citizen, and a Member opposite said: I bet your wrist will be slapped when you get home to see Mom. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have seen Mom since then. She said: "You know, son, I live in a senior citizen's apartment dwelling and I am enjoying my apartment and my way of life. Yes, I would like to have an increase higher than 6 per cent", because, do not forget, we are still speaking of an increase in the new year for senior citizens. "But", she said, "I can understand that I am not on the supplement and I, too, should be part of a battle which encompasses many sectors of society, both by law and the involuntary way by those people who cannot find jobs, and those people who voluntarily come along with the idea of the six and five program". In that vein, a labour leader said to a group of us on the weekend, "I have frozen my salary. I did not take a 6 per cent increase or 5 per cent increase; 1 have frozen it absolutely. That seems to me to say that even the labour movement recognizes that we all have to make sacrifices and join together in some kind of restraint to help bring inflation down, to help spread the wealth of the country more equitably.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is voluntary.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: So we say that this Bill is part of the over-all six and five program to help fight inflation and it requires the assistance of everyone to be effective. 1 believe the results of the last while show that in fact inflation is coming down. I regret very much that in debating on behalf of those people affected by such legislation, Members opposite, inadvertently, I think, are feeding the expectations of inflation forever. It will never, ever change by a point or two downwards because Members opposite keep telling us every day: no, it will never get down to 6 per cent so you, no matter who you are, if you are in business you had better ask for a 10 per cent increase for your product. If you offer a service, you had better ask for 15 per cent because inflation is never going to come down. So it goes, Mr. Speaker, that we hear the gospel of inflation as a fact of life from Members opposite.
I am sure that is not what they want. I am sure they know that we have to bring inflation down and that we have to be in a competitive position with the rest of the world. Current statistics indicate that we have not been doing very well but that now we are beginning to. I honestly believe, as I support the Bill, that we will see a time when the six per cent inflation rate will be the norm rather than the abnormal. But, for goodness sake, it cannot happen by itself. It has to happen with all of us urging people to get behind this country of ours and to bring their expectations into line so that the common good is served.
There are times when we forget what are our Party affiliations in the interests of the people of the country. Senior citizens have a great feeling for the country because they
helped build it. Also they have a great feeling for their children and their children's children. They would rather not have to accept less of an increase, but they will. They still say to me that they respect the fact that the Government is doing what it can and that they will join with many other sectors which have voluntarily and involuntarily joined the fight against inflation. They are willing to do their part, to accept their responsibility.
This piece of legislation, as unpalatable as it might be to some of us, is part of the great psychological battle we are fighting to demonstrate unequivocally to the people of Canada that we must have a lower inflation rate. It will be lower if we all accept it, but it will never go down if the leaders of the country keep going around telling people day in and day out that they are living in a dream world, that this will never happen, and that they have to prepare themselves for higher and higher inflation. This is the exact message which has been coming through this debate day in and day out, that inflation will not come down. They do not want it to go down; it is not in their political interests for the inflation rate to go down or for other things to happen in the country. I make a friendly, passionate plea to Hon. Members opposite and to the people of Canada that these are difficult times, but there is a glimmer of light ahead if we all work together to help bring down the inflation rate. If we work together we will enjoy even more this great country of ours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Conservative amendment to Bill C-131. I must say that I have some concern about the amendment. Of course we do not want the Bill to be before the House. In fact, we think it should be withdrawn. There is no time like the present to do it just before Christmas. We understand that the amendment is really a grandfather clause which attempts to restore indexing at the same rate as it would have been in two years' time had there been no Bill C-131.
I am surprised that we have not heard Liberal Members supporting the amendment. It is one thing they could really support. This afternoon we heard the very jubilant Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) announce that inflation was now down to 9.7 per cent in Canada and that the Liberal program was working. Of course this is good news, especially just before Christmas. I am sure most elderly Canadians also felt the same way. These same Canadians, if they were aware of Bill C-131, unfortunately did not have enough time for their organizations to study the Bill. So often there is no adequate time for them to know, to react and to have input in Bills such as these, especially if they live in western Canada.
However, many of them know about this Bill which is designed to cut the indexing on their pensions in the new year.
I am sure they sighed a big sigh of relief this afternoon when they heard that inflation was going down. I am sure they thought that now the Government, thank goodness, does not have to use Bill C-131 to fight the war against inflation or to
December 21, 1982

use senior citizens and their pensions to fight the war. Certainly we can assume, even by Liberal logic, that if inflation is coming down there is absolutely no need for the Bill. I asked the Minister this afternoon that if that was the case, why did she feel the Bill was necessary. Of course those of us who were present heard her ridicule the question, as if 1 were insincere about it. 1 was certainly very sincere. I do not have the "blues", but she certainly passed it off as a ridiculous statement to think that she should withdraw the Bill penalizing senior citizens by cutting the indexing of their pensions. She continues to believe that the six and five will somehow win the war on inflation. I cannot grasp the logic of this Liberal policy.
It would have been good sense to withdraw the Bill because it costs a lot to prepare Bills and to go through the administrative procedures of processing and implementing them. I appeal to the Government-and I know the Conservative Party on my right shares our concern in this regard-to withdraw Bill C-131. Inflation is down. It will do nothing to reduce inflation further. Why should senior citizens be penalized in this way? However, I want to tell senior citizens that unfortunately the Government and the Minister in charge of the Bill are not logical. They do not act in a rational manner. They are not even humane at Christmastime. The Government intends to proceed with its very punitive Bill, and we oppose it very strongly.
I happened to hear on the radio today that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is doing his Scrooge act as well. He has declared that he will go ahead regardless of whether or not the Bill is passed. If we have our way, it will certainly not be passed in the House before Christmas, but he will go ahead in his own arrogant way and take this money out of pension cheques and the Family Allowance cheques in January. Imagine that. Certainly I think this would be illegal; it is extremely arrogant and very typical of the Minister of Finance.
I feel very strongly that the Liberal mismanagement of the economy should not be put on the backs of pensioners, families and workers in Canada. We will not let the Tories off with being very nice about the Bill. Anyone who has followed the history of the last few months in the House would know that, if it had not been for the Conservative Party agreeing and supporting the Liberal policy of six and five restraint, we would not be in the position today of having to defend old age pensioners. They started by approving Bill C-124-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I do not want to hear any more nonsense from that hypocritical Party saying that we voted against that Bill because we did not want our own pensions to be affected. It is absolutely ridiculous and shameful. I find myself quite speechless when I think of it, if you can believe it, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know how many of these same Tories a year or so ago accepted a huge increase in their salaries as Members of Parliament. Also I would like them to know that I did not accept that, nor did I vote for that Bill, so let us not hear any more about it. If the Tories were sincere about old age pensions, Family Allowances and the effect of this six and five restraint program, surely they would also be concerned about
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
the public servants in this country. It seems to me that the Public Service is really a group to be almost pitied because public servants have no rights at all as far as speaking out on their own behalf on such matters is concerned. They are intimidated. They work for the Government and unless they are pensioners they do not even dare show up on Parliament Hill to demonstrate against such Bills as these. It is shameful that the Conservatives did not stand and speak out on their behalf in opposition to Bill C-124.
Let me now again refer to Bill C-131 and the amendment before us. I want to summarize again very quickly why the NDP opposes this Bill and will oppose it after we vote on the amendment.
We believe that old age pensions should not be subject to the six and five index cut in 1983 and 1984. I might also point out, as Liberal Members have not done, that there is absolutely no evidence we have been able to find that these cutbacks will be recovered after the two-year period. The Minister did not affirm that fact at the committee. That is why we have some interest in this amendment. We oppose the six and five restraint policy of this Government in general because it victimizes public servants, imposes an unfair cutback on the indexing of old age pensions, and also imposes the same kind of restriction on the Family Allowance payments to mothers and children.
The principle is the same in all these Bills. It is simply a Liberal policy of making the most vulnerable people pay. Under Bill C-124 the civil servants, who have no free right to speak out in protest, were the victims. Children have no voting powers, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare will not even process the recommendations of the committee to set up a secretariat for children which could at least speak out on their behalf. I am sure such a secretariat, had it existed, would have protested Bill C-132. We have spoken at other times about the unfairness of these Bills to women.
Bill C-131 is perhaps the worst Bill because it threatens to undermine the whole concept of universality of old age pensions. Again the Minister ridicules that suggestion, but I would remind her that practically every organization which had witnesses appear before the committee reaffirmed the position we have been espousing since the Bill first came before us, that is, that it does undermine old age pensions and the universal aspect of them. The Bill sends a signal to pensioners that their pension cheques will no longer be indexed to the real cost of living.
In British Columbia there are something like 285,000 old age pensioners, about 48 per cent of whom will qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. They are the very poor with little or no other source of income. I expect the majority of the other 52 per cent who receive the old age pension and qualify only for that part of the program are also finding it pretty difficult to stretch their incomes. Indeed, many of them are
21820

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
still living below the recognized poverty level. I have some facts which I will present in a moment that point out that they are finding it difficult to meet the high cost of living, those things they have to pay for out of their budgets. The cutback in the index will definitely take money out of the pockets of the pensioners, most of whom are on fixed and marginal incomes. They are not the very poorest of people, but they are certainly poor by most standards.
We observed some attempt today to get some facts on the cost of living in Vancouver, a part of which I represent. A very small, modest one-bedroom apartment there rents for a little lower than before, but still upward of $286 a month. Utilities cost $60 a month, and for people who have a home, property taxes are up. A telephone costs over $10 a month and food runs at about $180 a month. I think that is a very conservative estimate, if you will pardon that expression. Single pensioners, particularly, who do not have two cheques to cover these costs, with overheads of $540 a month minimum, are finding it very difficult. Most old age pensioners have very little left from their cheques, even if they do have supplementary pensions, so let us not kid ourselves that this cutback is hurting only the people who are not in need. That is a myth, and if the Liberals think that old age pensioners with these kinds of costs with low incomes are not in need, that shows their insensitivity.
The Minister also admitted that the savings from Bill C-131 and Bill C-132 would be relatively small in terms of cash to the federal Government. She has said that this is really not the major concern, but rather it is a means of fighting a psychological war. The Government is fighting this psychological war through old age pensioners in an attempt to bring down inflation. I still cannot figure out the rationale for that particular war. It seems to me what we need is a little psychoanalysis of the Government.
Fiscally the Bill will save only about $84 million over a two-year period. That is the best figure I have been able to get. That seems like a lot of money, particularly to an old age pensioner, but if we consider it in terms of federal budgets it is not a lot as we in this Elouse know. It is not a lot in terms of people in need. It is not a lot in terms of senior citizens who have contributed a lifetime to raising families, building communities, developing oui resource industries and, indeed, building Canada. It is certainly not a lot when compared to the expenditure which I quoted earlier in a former speech in terms of fighter planes, amounting to billions of dollars. Let us also consider the $500 million give-away to Dome Petroleum. If we want to find money in the kitty we should consider these areas.
The Liberal Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) said earlier that the Liberals are really helping senior citizens through the six and five program to cut back on the indexation of pensions. Can you imagine that, the suggestion that the Government is really helping senior citizens by cutting back on pension indexation?
The Hon. Member also said the Government is showing leadership. It is certainly typical of Liberal leadership: no price controls, no tax reforms to tax back the universal program, which is the best way to make it work, from those who earn over $100,000 and pay absolutely no income tax. Of course,
there is no economic strategy. The only leadership the Liberals are showing is in how to hit the public servants who do not have a voice to speak out on their own behalf, the children who do not have a voice on their behalf, the mothers at home raising those children and the senior citizens. I must say that is some kind of leadership.
The other day I spoke about how unfair this Bill is to elderly women who make up over 50 per cent of our old age pensioners. By far the greater proportion of those women are living below the poverty level. This is truly a tragic situation. Because they are poor they are isolated and lonely, not getting out very often, and thus are doubly discriminated against by age and sex. Most of them do not have the Canada Pension Plan or private pensions. They live longer than their husbands so they end up living as widows, single people, with the high costs coming out of one pension cheque. I have said many times in this House that we have heard this story over and over again from the women we visited during the work of the task force on older women. We heard the same story in every Province of Canada. Elderly women are in a desperate situation. Some of them receive the GIS and some are in the marginal group. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they are very poor and do not have the money at the end of the month to put the necessary nourishing food on the table which they need. One woman spoke on a hot line show saying that she had to pay $200 for special medication. In that particular Province she had no means of getting this money back. Even if they have extra income, it is usually below the poverty line. It is much more difficult for single people to pay these costs from a single cheque.
I would also like to say that the Green Paper on pensions does not address this problem at all. There are no recommendations, much less solutions, in that Paper to deal with the poverty which elderly women are suffering from now. Women in two generations from now will not have an adequate pension plan.
As I asked previously, why are the Liberals placing this restraint program on the backs of elderly Canadians and Canadian families? Only a little money will be saved.
I can quote the Minister herself who said to the Canadian Congress on Pensions last spring. She said that senior citizens must have an adequate income and pensions which are fully indexed. She said:
Many women who previously had little more than a vague, often unreliable notion of what to expect from Canada's pension system have been jolted-
She went on to say:
It is therefore incumbent upon us to move quickly in meeting the challenges of pension reform.
She then said:
All pensioners should be protected from inflation; women must be treated more equally.
Of course, Bill C-131 denies those statements. Its effects will achieve the very opposite to what the Minister was advocating last spring.
December 21, 1982

I have a story which I do not have time to elaborate on about a woman who has several small pensions and must work hard to make the pensions meet her needs. She finds it important to even save 30 cents on coupons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to her has expired. She may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) on a point of order.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from Standing or Special Committees, for the purpose of tabling a report on Bill C-141.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that will be agreeable.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, that will be agreeable to the NDP
also.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent we revert to presenting report from Standing and Special Committees.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), as reported (without
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the motion of Mr. Dantzer.
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I wish to rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C-131


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Returning to presenting reports of Standing and Special Committees, may I suggest that you accept the report and ask whether it should be read again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is perfectly right. Is it the desire of the House to proceed to report stage of this Bill at this point?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has made it quite clear on several occasions that we on this side of the House are prepared to deal with all remaining stages of this Bill certainly tonight, and if the House is disposed to do that, we would certainly consent to do so on this side of the House.


Erik Nielsen: The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs had the courtesy to request our consent to revert to this stage of our proceedings so that we could provide the unanimous consent necessary to present that report tonight. Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary has not had the courtesy of consulting the Chairman, a Member of his own Party, of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs because we had agreed between ourselves that we would extend that kind of courtesy to our collective caucuses tomorrow and would anticipate no real difficulty in dealing with the report stage and the third reading stage tomorrow. At least the Members of the House are entitled to that courtesy, which we intend to give them. I would suggest that at the next sitting of the House we will deal with the report and third reading stages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has received the report of the Committee. There apparently is not unanimous consent to proceed to report stage and third reading stage at this point. Therefore, the House will revert to the item of business we were at before we reverted to Routine Proceedings to deal with the report of the Standing Committee.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, we are lucky to have experienced Members like the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to remind

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
us of the subject at hand, and especially of various points of parliamentary procedure. I wish to thank him for his comments. To get back to what I was saying, I was asking you, Mr. Speaker, to give me the floor this evening, because my youthful ears were shocked by what they heard from Members opposite. The Members of the Official Opposition and the Members of the New Democratic Party are wallowing in rhetoric aimed at condemning what they seem to think is an unconscionable betrayal of Canada's senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, it is really sad to hear Hon. Members who come here just to try and scare Canadian pensioners. Imagine someone who is receiving a pension and is listening at home to statements being made by the likes of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) or the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). Of course these people are going to be scared. When I visit my riding, pensioners tell me: Pierre, it seems they are going to cut off our pensions; Pierre, it seems you are going to take our money away from us. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely unconscionable and inconceivable that a so-called political party with a so-called socialist philosophy, set up by and for so-called intellectuals, should try to scare senior citizens just because the Government has said: Next year, inflation is going to be 6 per cent instead of 12. On the Oposition side, they are protesting so strongly against the capping of indexation at 6 per cent that pensioners think their entire pension is going to be cut off. When I go to senior citizens' clubs in my riding, my answer to them is: Do not worry. The Liberal Government of Canada which introduced unemployment insurance, old age security and health insurance is not going to cut off your pensions. The Liberal Government of Canada which continues the philosophy of the Government that introduced the guaranteed income supplement is not going to cut off your income.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do hope the Hon. Member will entertain a question, particularly in light of the inaccurate statement he is making. Would he entertain a question?
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) entertain a question?


Mr. Gimaiel:: As soon as I finish my speech, Mr. Speaker, and only if the Hon. Member refrains from further comments.
To get back to this gang of Members headed by the Member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I can see them running down the street, talking to pensioners and telling them they are in trouble. And as 1 was saying, Mr. Speaker-

Come on, Fulton, you communist, everybody knows about that.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena rises on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the Member just lied to the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean has the floor.


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that since my understanding of English is fairly poor . . . Let us say that I did not realize the Hon. Member just informed me that 1 was lying. Let us just say I did not realize this. To get back to my speech, Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to tell the senior citizens in my riding-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Nice speech!


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: -that a Liberal Government that introduced policies such as the guaranteed income supplement and old age security pensions is certainly not going to make any cuts in those programs. 1 want to tell senior citizens in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean and elsewhere in Canada, if they are listening, that unlike what the Members of the New Democratic Party would have them believe, or even the Progressive Conservative Members, for that matter, who actually voted with the Government in favor of the 6 and 5 policy, the Canadian Government is actually going to increase the guaranteed income supplement-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There has been an allegation in regard to unparliamentary language on behalf of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Did the Hon. Member for Skeena accuse the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) of lying.


James Ross Fulton: Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker. He admitted it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Such language is obviously unparliamentary, and I invite the Hon. Member for Skeena to observe the customs and practices of this House and to withdraw his remarks.


James Ross Fulton: When 1 hear an appropriate withdrawal from the Member I will do so as well, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member for Skeena to withdraw. If the Hon. Member for Skeena has remarks concerning unparliamentary language by other Members of the House, the Chair is prepared to entertain whatever he
December 21, 1982

considers to be appropriate at that point. But the Chair at this stage requests the Hon. Member for Skeena to withdraw remarks that are unparliamentary.


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps I could get some direction from the Chair, Mr. Speaker. The Member perhaps could stand in his place and admit that what he said was completely unfounded, false, and in fact was a lie to the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Skeena withdrawing the unparliamentary language that he used? The Chair invites the Hon. Member for Skeena to withdraw language that is clearly unparliamentary by the standards of this House.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House would not want to be misled in the way that the Member addressed the House of Commons a few moments ago. He raised the situation, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is incumbent on that Member to withdraw what he said first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena, by his own admission, has used language that is unparliamentary. The Chair repeats a request to the Hon. Member for Skeena to abide by the practices of this House and withdraw expressions that are clearly unparliamentary.
In regard to allegations of other Members, the Chair has indicated that the Chair is prepared to hear representations and to deal accordingly, but at this stage the Chair requests the Hon. Member for Skeena to withdraw his remarks.


James Ross Fulton: 1 will withdraw what I said in the interest of this House of Commons, but I would hope, although I recognize that he is a Liberal Member, that he will do the same, although he probably will not have the same depth of character to do the same thing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has withdrawn. Is there an allegation that there has been unparliamentary language on the part of the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean? Is the Hon. Member for Skeena alleging unparliamentary language?


James Ross Fulton: What I am alleging, Mr. Speaker, is a falsehood. I do not doubt that the Member will not withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, but after all he is a Liberal Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion by the Hon. Member that there be anything other than impartial treatment by the Chair is totally unacceptable. The Chair will attempt to deal with all Hon. Members in regard to matters that are raised concerning unparliamentary conduct.
Again the Chair repeats, is there any evidence of language by the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean that is unparliamentary?


James Ross Fulton: All that I said, Mr. Speaker, was that it was flatly false.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this stage the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I will try to gather my thoughts and get back to the thrust of my speech. I was saying to senior citizens that, contrary to what certain Members would like them to believe, there is no question of cutbacks by the Canadian Government, the very Government which first came up with those various formulae such as the old age pension guaranteed income supplement. Quite the opposite. In 1983, the guaranteed income supplement will be fully indexed to the inflation rate. In addition, all senior citizens who receive the guaranteed income supplement will also get an extra amount which will compensate them for the difference between the 6 per cent increase in their basic pension and the actual increase in the cost of living recorded throughout the country. Now then, Mr. Speaker, why scare people who are asking for nothing more than security in order to be happy? Why should anyone make those people suffer by telling them that their monthly pensions might be reduced? Your pensions are going to be reduced! That Government is taking the bread out of your mouth! That is inhuman, Mr. Speaker.
It is quite proper for a politician to play politics, but not on the backs of poor people, not on the backs of those who are most in need of Government assistance, not on the backs of those who built our nation. The only thing the Government is asking from those who receive only the basic pension, who have other sources of income and who get at least $9,000 a year is to accept that their pension be indexed at 6 per cent this year instead of 7 per cent, 8 per cent or 9 per cent. It might very well be 6 per cent because, according to the news I heard this morning, for the first time in many months the rate of inflation for the past twelve months was 9.7 per cent, that is below the double digit bracket. And if we keep following our policy, I think that the rate of inflation will drop to 6 per cent or even less within a year. It goes to prove that we are being falsely accused of taking money away from the needy. The target of the Government, supported by Members of the Official Opposition who voted in favour of the six and five program, is to lower the rate of inflation which strikes hard at poor people. Mr. Speaker, does it make any difference to a millionaire whether the rate of inflation is 12 per cent rather than 6 per cent? Not really. Offhand, I would suggest that a millionaire does not know the price of a pound of butter. On the other hand, a senior citizen who has to live off his pension and the man who draws unemployment insurance benefits do know the price of a pound of butter, and they do know what 12 per cent means, Mr. Speaker. It is precisely to fight against misery that the Canadian Government has launched its six and five program. The Government will do its utmost to lower the rate of inflation which harms the poor and often is a boon to the rich. We want to bring it down to a level where poor people will at least be able to cope. Mr. Speaker, as a young Member

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
of Parliament, I cannot accept that people come here to scare our senior citizens who are already worried enough as it is. Look at them, Mr. Speaker, look at the NDP Members, at these minions of Mr. McDermott, come and see them in committee supposedly fight for a few dollars that the pensioners must give up if they want a lower inflation rate tomorrow. I asked them recently: Are you thinking about the 15,000 residents of the Lac-Saint-Jean constituency who are now unemployed? Are you thinking about the young people of 20 who are having problems?
Mr. Speaker, the only way that we can really protect the most needy is to break the inflation spiral and create jobs, more jobs and still more jobs, and this is what the Government is trying to do. One of the main problems of Canada in the last ten years was that there were not enough Liberal governments in the Provinces. For ten years, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government, which is a Liberal Government, has been fighting against flag-wavers in Quebec; it has been fighting against governments much more willing to increase their own powers at the expense of their own people than to defend them. That is the main problem. True liberalism, the liberalism which helped to build Canada during the past 100 years, cares more for man than for an ideology or for symbols. You know, Mr. Speaker, that to be a Liberal Member of Parliament does not mean that you belong to a union. It means that you are the representative of union members, pensioners, workers and unemployed. As for the New Democratic Party, it simply belongs to the unions. This is quite obvious in the various committees, Mr. Speaker. There is always a union advisor behind them. They call each other brothers and comrades. This is really something. We simply have to read last week's minutes of the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I believe he is straying from the subject. I invite him to come back to it.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 commend your great wisdom. Naturally, my great desire to help the senior citizens who will benefit from this six and five program causes me to stray from the subject under discussion. I admit it and I thank you for calling me to order.
What I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple, and that is that since liberalism is a philosophy which has brought about policies designed to help individual citizens, it is impossible for a Liberal Government to remove benefits, and I am thinking particularly about senior citizens when 1 say so. The facts are quite the opposite. What the Liberal Government has done this year, what it has done in the past and what it will do in the future is to help those who have built this country, those who have given us everything, and this is what we want to do as effectively as possible, not by giving them a few cents more this year, but by defeating inflation once and for all and
getting rid of an inhuman way of life which caused the most needy to be told: If butter is too expensive, do not eat any! Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to imagine that these people who have given so much to our country can today be the victims of prophets of gloom who would have them believe that their income will be cut this winter. That is not true. Why? Because when I myself, took on the duties of a Member of Parliament, when I was elected by my constituents, my only wish was to protect those constituents, especially the most needy, against any action detrimental to their interest and to their welfare. That is what I want to do and what I shall do as well as possible, and to do so, I cannot tolerate that anyone try to scare my constituents. I have already pointed out that, under the National Health and Welfare programs, and the Minister is here in the House, the Canadian Government will pay $21 billion this year to the provinces under cost-shared programs, and I want all senior citizens to realize that all these programs are indexed.
When an elderly person is treated, the Government of Canada pays at least 50 per cent of the bill. When an elderly person is attended by his or her physician, it is the same thing. When a senior citizen receives assistance from the Quebec Department of Social Affairs, for example, the Government of Canada pays at least 50 per cent of the bill. 1 want this fact to be known. And 1 want to say to all those individuals, it is not true, the Government of Canada means you no harm. If the Government of Canada has enough courage to say to its own officials, to those, and 1 hope you will allow me to say so, Mr. Speaker, who had to put up throughout the year with the strong pressures of a shaky economy-You know that the officials who work in our regional offices had to put up with the pressures brought to bear by the many unemployed who went to see them, people who needed a job or some assistance. Those people were asked to make sacrifices and they accepted. Why? They did so because they knew they could help their fellow citizens, the underprivileged, and contribute to reduce the inflation rate.
This is why they accepted, and if the government had the courage to ask them, it was not easy. I did not find it easy myself when I asked my own staff to agree to salary cutbacks and it was not easy either when I cut my own salary. Why was all that done? Because we no longer want our senior citizens to deal with the tremendous problem of inflation. We also realize that those people in need should not be given the bare minimum during a period of runaway inflation. Assistance should have a degree of stability. And I want to say to our senior citizens: Do not worry even though some would have you believe that there will be no spring nor summer next year. It is not true! The Government of Canada, that is the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) said during a televised interview, "This year we will launch a fight against poverty". If the Liberal Government has set up social programs to help
December 21, 1982

the needy, it will surely not remove them when more Canadians than ever need help. On the contrary, and this is what is going on now. That is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has been doing all along with his six and five program, and that is what we are doing now.
As to the Hon. Members who have voted in favour of the six and five program and who, for petty political reasons, are now voting against each and every clause or bill to amend the existing programs, I do not understand them. How is it possible to support a comprehensive policy and then vote against every specific bill? Only through cowardice, Mr. Speaker. Cowardice! It is always easy to hold back and say: I am in favour of this principle, but I cannot accept the fact that it may affect me. It reminds me somewhat of what is going on in the Province of Quebec. While they are imposing a 20 per cent cut on everybody, we are granting an 8 per cent increase. That is just about what the PQ members are saying nowadays. It reminds me also of the stand taken by the Progressive Conservative Party here. They say that they are in favour of the six and five program, that they are against inflation, but don't you dare change anything, you Government Members. That is not the way to build a country, Mr. Speaker, and especially not the way this country was built in the past. And there exist today a tremendous country called Canada, in case some people may have forgotten. Tremendous, indeed!
We are faced with problems today. As you know, because there is inflation, some people find it strange and wonder who is to blame. Ever since I came here, Mr. Speaker, a great many things have happened. I remember hearing Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party say and even shout in the House that the Federal Government would not pay for Alberta oil, that it was not paying enough and should pay more for it. Is that not inflation, Mr. Speaker? Because of the problems we are faced with today, we must tell our senior citizens who are getting only the basic Old Age Security Pension, not those who are getting also the Guaranteed Income Supplement: You must accept an indexation capped at 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year of your Old Age Security Pension. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that says that the inflation rate will not drop to 6 per cent in 1983. As a matter of fact, I am under the impression that the Government's policy is so successful that it might drop even lower. That is what is really great about it. I am dealing with the Canadian people openly and honestly, and I ask my colleagues here to stop frightening the disadvantaged. Let those who have built Canada enjoy a secure old age and retirement, where life will be as pleasant tomorrow as it is today and where they will be able to lead a peaceful and rewarding life.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) rises on a point of order.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impinge on the speaker's time, but I did ask if I could place a question before the Hon. Member. I do hope I will be permitted at least a short-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time has expired. In fact, he has been allowed two minutes extra in compensation for interruptions. Is there unanimous consent of the House for the Hon. Member-there does not appear to be. The Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin).


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, there are several themes which are being promoted by different groups in the House as we listen to speeches on Bill C-131 which we have before us now, the effect of which really is to limit the increases which would have been experienced by people receiving Old Age Security to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in two successive years.
The theme we are receiving from the Government Members is that we are somehow trying to create an impression in the minds of people which will frighten them, or will concern them. Indeed, I think there are some basic issues which are of major concern, and those issues I would like to approach in just a moment. On the other hand, we are getting another kind of theme from the New Democratic Party, which is a little bit extraordinary. I see Members of the NDP standing up and criticizing this Party because we supported the six and five program. Indeed, that is true. The Conservative Party has supported in general the six and five program because who would not want inflation to be down at that level and interest rates down to that level? Who in their right minds would even suggest that that is not what would be good for the country at this time when we are experiencing the current economic distress? But I would like to make very clear to the NDP and the Government that what we have supported in the six and five program was the general thrust. We did not give a carte blanche to policies like this, or to policies which would affect the Family Allowances for children. Those types of specific policies, I believe, are a separate issue, and those are things we are very much opposed to, and are in fact debating now. But I Find it passing strange that the NDP would stand up on the one hand and talk about not supporting the six and five program, when the only specific thing that program did when it was first introduced, apart from any other legislation which we are getting now or that we will get, was to reduce the salaries of Members of Parliament. And the NDP voted en bloc against that.
I would like to approach this, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of some of the basic issues which we are being presented with by this type of legislation right now. This Bill proposes to reduce the amount, which has been committed by the Government and which was expected by people who are receiving Old Age Security across Canada over the next two years, by an amount that will be equivalent to approximately $300.
I think we have to take several things into consideration. First of all, the population is aging, some us faster than we would like. The fact is that in the last ten years there are over

December 21, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
700.000	fewer Canadians under the age of 20 and 800,000 more over the age of 60. Therefore, we are seeing a basic change in the population in Canada. This is an important factor in how we look at our programs and our social needs in Canada in the coming years. One of the major social problems which we face is the persistence of poverty. At this point in time at least 15.5 per cent of our population can be described, on the basis of certain income levels, as being below the poverty line.
We went through a period of time in the sixties and seventies when there were programs at the provincial and federal level which reversed that trend, where instead of increasing the number of Canadians who could be defined as living in poverty, we reduced that number. We went through a period of time then when there were many more families which had two people earning incomes, a wife starting to work or a husband starting to work, so there were two incomes coming into the family. There were the boom times of the seventies which all of us fondly remember where we reversed the trend of poverty. Now it is swinging the other way for a number of reasons. The economic policies which we have experienced over the last ten years, I would suggest, are one of the most important reasons for that. Apart from that, I think we need to be aware and accept the fact that we are dealing with people who are living in poverty in Canada and that number is going to increase unless we make some very basic changes.
In one of the counties which I represent they are looking at a welfare budget next year which will be 50 per cent higher than the welfare budget this year. In this year alone there are 500 more welfare cases than there were last year. Those changes are not something I am talking about in an abstract way. Those are things which are actually happening at the grassroots level of communities all across Canada. On the basis of national poverty levels, I believe there is an estimate that over
500.000	more Canadians during this next year or so will be facing the need for welfare assistance. That is a large number of people, Mr. Speaker, and it is an important factor in how we approach the eighties.
Another effect of this aging population is that we are looking at the need for significantly increased medical services. This is a question which I think is important and it can be addressed in several ways. It can be addressed by the federal Government trying to administer in a variety of ways the health care system in Canada. There is no question but that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has this kind of thing on her mind. It can also be addressed at the community level and at the individual level in a different fashion. But these are the needs and the circumstances which have arisen because of the aging population. There is one thing which the Minister said in a press release which I would like to read into the record. It reads:
The budget takes as a given that Canadians who are not in need are entirely prepared to share in serious sacrifices which are required to bring our country out of the economic crisis.
In a broad way, I do not doubt at all that Canadians en masse would support programs and efforts to take this country out of the kind of circumstances we have today, but I think the essential point is that we are dealing now in this Bill, and
particularly in this amendment, with a certain segment of Canadians to whom a commitment has been made by this Minister of National Health and Welfare and this Government, in fact by the Parliament of Canada. Now, for whatever reason, we have another proposal which is being championed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and which I find extraordinary, which will decrease that commitment. It is not a question of whether it is 3 per cent or 5 per cent, or what that percentage is, but the commitment had been made. People had made financial plans, understanding things to be a certain way as far as the commitment which the Government made is concerned, and now they are presented with a Bill which is going to change that commitment.
I would argue strongly on behalf of the group in our country which is in danger and which does have to make a disproportionate amount of sacrifice if we impose this kind of measure on them, that that commitment is clearly not going to be met by the Government. Now, we hear discussions about this being on the backs of those people. As I go through the areas I represent I think those are precisely the people who would be prepared to make sacrifices. I have to agree with the Government on that point. But I do not really think we can accept some of the Minister's arguments when she talks about the way she is first of all targeting in on those people who really need it. If she uses any kind of logic at all, she cannot deny the fact that what she is really doing is pushing more people into poverty, the people she made a commitment to.
We can get into a lot of political rhetoric at this time, Mr. Speaker. We hear it a lot, and strong political arguments are made by all sides. It is Christmastime and everyone likes to be generous at this time of the year, and we probably have but another 24 hours before most of us will be heading back to our constituencies. However, I think we are leaving while the Minister is reneging on a commitment made to Canadians who have contributed to this country and are now in a very vulnerable position. Now, $300 over two years is not much, but those people will be denied the security of knowing it will be there if needed.
I am not at this point, Mr. Speaker, arguing whether it is right or wrong to have universal programs, but I think it should be made very clear that the Minister has already given up the concept of universality. She can no longer argue that she supports universality. GIS is not a universal program. Health care benefits are not in a universal program. Whether they should be or not is a different argument, but I do not think she should go out and talk about these programs and the social welfare system in Canada as though it were a universal system. Clearly it is not.
The third thing I think we need to do is to consider the priorities of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and her Government. This measure might save $100 million. That is a significant amount of money, but we must balance that off
December 21, 1982

against other initiatives the Liberal Government has taken. As an example, the amount of advocacy advertising by the Government to promote the six and five program, which is in part a political response to a very serious economic situation, will eat up a considerable amount of the saving. What have we got to show for it at the end? Another high profile reflection of the Liberal Party. I think that is a serious concern, Mr. Speaker, because it extends not just into the six and five program but into the manpower programs, energy programs; indeed it is all around us. It has made the federal Government the largest single advertiser in the country. And all of us have to question seriously the priorities of a Government which decides that it will renege on a commitment for the sake of putting forward advertising slogans in an effort to explain itself, when in many cases the explanations lack even a reasonable degree of accuracy. Those points have been made by many others, but I think it is a serious question which should be answered.
I am going to close my remarks by asking the Minister a question. I wonder if she really believes that she is making any significant contribution to the economic recovery of the country, a contribution to the things which need to be done to create the kind of economic climate we want in Canada? Is she really fulfilling her responsibility to older people by proposing legislation like this? I suspect she will not answer that question directly. 1 suspect she will continue to suggest that this is a good thing on behalf of Canada. Elowever, I think there is a serious question concerning the kind of Cabinet measures she is supporting now and which it appears she will support in the futures. I think she has in fact, given up her constituency and that her constituency is very poorly represented in Canada today.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments on Bill C-131 before I call it ten o'clock. It is an important Bill, and simply because it does not affect a lot of people does not mean it is not important to the people it affects. There are some measures in the six and five program worthy of support in the sense that through them we try to impress upon people that inflation in many ways is psychological; that if the expectations are that inflation will come down in the future, in fact you may be able to do something about it. Inflation is what this Bill is all about, and the story is told that if we could give everyone a pill before they went to bed this evening to make them think there was going to be a depression in the morning, they would wake up and create the worst depression imaginable. Conversely, if you could convince people that tomorrow inflation was going to be at an end and economic good times were going to return, that expectation and belief would bring about the kind of economic recovery we all long for.
However, it is unfortunate that this six and five program is extended to cover people who, in large part, are unable to defend themselves against the worst effects of inflation. I refer specifically to the pensioners, Mr. Speaker.
Adjournment Debate
Now, I have seen figures which indicate that the Government anticipates saving anywhere from $40 million to $80 million by applying the six and five to the Old Age Security Act. But if you take that $40 million figure and equate it to total Government expenditure, we would save $1 out of every $2,000 the Government spends. Bill C-131, Mr. Speaker, would save approximately $1 for every $2,000 the Government spends. That is really not a lot of money when you consider the kind of people we are going to extract that $1 from. That to me is a sad commentary on how the Government chooses to fight inflation. It is even more lamentable when you consider the fact that in large part the people who are going to be adversely affected by this Bill are the ones who are in most need of the money.
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker; may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being branded a dinosaur, as I was the other day in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger), I want to deal with the Liberal Government's unholy zeal to force-march Canadians into metric conversion. My point in rising one more time on this subject is not only to express my disappointment and frustration at answers which I have received from the Government in recent months concerning the compulsory aspect of going metric, but to represent those Canadians who are genuinely concerned about their own democratic rights. These people number in the millions and they deeply resent the callous trampling of those rights by the federal Government.
Specifically, I have tried to obtain answers from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to questions which I placed to him on April 2, 1982, on July 30, 1982, and just last week on December 15, 1982. All three questions were designed to get some honest response from the Government on a fundamental misleading of the public about the compulsory, mandatory nature of going metric, and metric only. It is my view that misstatements by the Minister and his Metric Commission to the people, to the press and to Parliament about the manner of metric conversion must be exposed for the misrepresentations they are.

December 21, 1982
Adjournment Debate
Let me cite three examples of flip-flops by the Liberal Government and a breaking of his word by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with respect to metric conversion.
Example No. 1-the White Paper on metric conversion, tabled in the House of Commons by the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, now the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin), indicated that the metric process shall be voluntary. Page 5 of the White Paper specifically indicated:
No legislative action is contemplated which would make mandatory the replacing of inches and pounds with metric measure.
That was the basis on which the Government of the day received unanimous consent in the House. Members of Parliament of that day were clearly under the impression that metric conversion would be voluntary, and nobody objected to that democratic process. Well, how voluntary is it? Ask hundreds of thousands of small businesses and retailers across the country and, Mr. Speaker, you will learn how the Government disregarded and belied the spirit of its own White Paper.
Incidentally, it may interest the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who, I notice, is in his place with his carefully prepared answers to the points I am raising, that the same White Paper agreed that it was of major importance that Canada keep pace with the United States in converting to metric. The Liberals have changed their minds on that too, if we are to listen to the Hon. Member when he said, as reported on page 21774 of yesterday's Hansard'.
-just because the United States is doing something does not mean it is right . . . he is saying that just because the Americans are doing it, it is right.
Of course the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).
This brings me to example No. 2 of what I regard as false and misleading advertising. The Metric Commission persists in peddling the big lie that Canada must go metric because the United States is going metric. Exactly the opposite is true. The Americans have wound down their Metric Commission because of too much consumer resistance to changing to the new system, and Great Britain has slammed the brakes on metric conversion for the same reason. We are not going metric to join our major trading partners; we are going metric because the Government and the Metric Commission are telling us to go metric.
Speaking of the Metric Commission, I have been alarmed for some time about this huge bureaucracy which has become a law unto itself. It has spent hundreds of millions, indeed well over a billion, of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to force us into a system we have not asked for, do not need and cannot afford. The Commission spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on snazzy, flashy propaganda. As one Member of Parliament, I want to see a fully independent investigation of the activities of the Metric Commission over the last decade, at least. If the Auditor General's people are too busy to look into it, then the Government should appoint a judicial inquiry into the Metric Commission's service or disservice to Canadians.
Let me come, finally, to example No. 3 of the Government's flip-flopping and breaking its word to Canadians about metric
conversion. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has consistently left the impression with retailers, manufacturers, Canadians generally and the House of Commons specially, that the Government would not prosecute those who choose to retain imperial measurement if that is what consumers desire. The Government got its fingers burned over the Kasparian case in Calgary when Section 7 of the Weights and Measures Act was found to be faulty and prosecutions seemed to be out of the question.
We now have the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs saying, "That's it, boys-we're giving you one last chance. It's metric only from now on".
This is the Government which refuses to prosecute spies, but now says it will prosecute service station operators, including Members of Parliament, who dare to sell gasoline by the gallon.
I come back to the voluntary, democratic conversion to metric that we on this side want to see. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will address these specific questions. Will the Government agree to a tandem system of measurement in both Imperial and metric labelling on all packaging and advertising? Will the Government finally agree that Canadians need and deserve a freedom of choice and information when purchasing goods? Is this too much to ask in a democracy?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, for the second night in a row I have the opportunity of addressing this problem. The Hon. Member does not like the word "dinosaur". Perhaps Neanderthal would suit him better.
I should first of all like to correct one misstatement made again by the Hon. Member opposite. The Minister at his press conference on December 13 pointed out that an error had been made in the Kasparian case in that charges against Mrs. Kasparian were made under the wrong section of the Act. It is unfortunate that this area has been capitalized on by Members of the Opposition in that they have implied that the Act itself is in question. This is not so. The Act is not at all in question. This is a matter, as I said, of charges being laid under the wrong section.
Furthermore, I wish to advise the Hon. Member that the present regulations regarding the use of metric units in the retail sale and advertising of home furnishings, gasoline and diesel fuel, and individually weighed food products, were adopted at the express request of the volunteer committees representing these three sectors of our economy.
It is true also that the vast majority of manufacturers and retailers in Canada wish to continue with the sole use of metric units in trade.
The Hon. Member addressed a specific question to me. He asked whether the Government would agree to a tandem system of labelling. I would say that the Member and his Party
December 21, 1982

are also concerned that consumers be able to verify price increases. To allow both systems, for example, in the area of retail scales would put the consumer into a much weaker position. If one week grapes or potatoes were sold in Imperial units and the following week they were sold in metric units, clearly a shopper would not be able to tell from week to week whether there had been an increase or a decrease in the price of those units.
I would suggest that if Hon. Members opposite were really interested in promoting the interests of the consumer, there are certain propositions they might make which could be deemed reasonable and could be discussed in a reasonable fashion. The manner in which most of them conduct themselves, by going on the kind of witch hunt they have been engaged in in recent months, certainly does not lead to a reasonable or satisfactory conclusion of this matter.


INCOME TAX-REVIEW OF TAX ASSESSMENTS FOR YOUTH FOR CHRIST WORKERS. (B) ATTITUDE OF TAX OFFICIALS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to discuss a serious topic after having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). We have heard the old adage now and again that if you have a weak argument, you should talk louder.
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I raised a question with the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) that is very serious for me. I raised a very important issue in regard to the role of National Revenue and charitable organizations. I am concerned about the intention of the National Revenue Department to go after charitable organizations such as the one I mentioned last week, namely Youth for Christ. I might say at the outset that I was pleased with the way the Minister responded to me. It was very evident to me that he did not know what was happening out there. He was interested to make sure that justice was done.
I am pleased to say tonight that he has already responded to me by mail and has given me a partial answer to my question and a commitment that he will be working on it in the future to make sure that these people are not hard done by the Government. I am pleased to tell the House that that has happened.
I am also concerned about the principle involved. 1 say again that I am sure the Minister will deal fairly with these particular cases. One of the principles concerned is that the federal Government seems, in that case, to be making a major and costly effort to collect very minimal taxes from very low income people. It will cost the taxpayers in cost effectiveness much more than it is worth. I understand you cannot apply it universally. However, when it comes to low income groups, particularly this bracket, it seems to me to be counterproductive to go into a re-assessment policy in order to collect taxes that historically should not have been collected.
Second, these community workers in question are very effective in the community dealing with those young people who have either been in trouble with the law, in trouble at
Adjournment Debate
school or perhaps have become school drop-outs. At any rate, they are not facing a future of being productive and creative citizens in our country.
The workers who have been among these young people have been very effective in working with them. 1 suggest that these community workers who are being paid by voluntary gifts through charitable donations through the organization will be driven out of this work, if the cost of their work increases dramatically because of increased taxes, and they will move into something else where they can earn more to keep body and soul together. This will either leave that work vacant and undone or make the Government do the work.
It seems to me that it is usually better in these situations if people do the work on a voluntary basis rather than have a Government agency do the work. The net effect of vacating the field and leaving it to the Government would be detrimental to this kind of community work that is presently being done by voluntary agencies. The net effect of that would be an increased cost to the community. If we consider this in pure cost effective dollars, I believe that it is counterproductive to go after voluntary agencies like this to see how much more tax money we can extract from them.
The question I raised last week was another policy question; if the Department of National Revenue feels that it must reassess its policy with respect to these workers, why not begin by approaching the officers of the national organization? Why approach individual workers who are overloaded with work, underpaid and sometimes hard pressed to pay the attention necessary to fight this additional battle? Why should they be strung out further when National Revenue, if nothing else, could go in compassion to the national organization and discuss a policy with it so that youth workers could concentrate on youth work rather than on defending themselves from the National Revenue officers.
The question that I would like to leave is an over-all question that 1 mentioned last week, and that is the matter of courtesy of those faceless officers who work in the large centres and deal with the telephone requests that come to them. It seems to me that I have heard this complaint more than anything else from individual taxpayers, regardless of whether they were community workers or not.
When a taxpayer calls a National Revenue office he feels that he deserves a courteous response, and in some cases he gets anything but that. I would simply urge the Minister to reinforce all of those faceless-and I do not blame them for being faceless-workers manning the telephone banks in the National Revenue office to be sure that they feel the sense of pain, the sense of pressure that the taxpayer feels when he is calling them.
I want to end by thanking the Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary who has been working with the Minister on this, for taking a personal interest in this matter and getting us on the road to solving this, so that these community workers can

December 21, 1982
Adjournment Debate
do the work they have been called to do and want to do, rather than defend themselves from the Government.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, he is satisfied with the comments of the Minister, so I have no further comment to make. I understand that he is satisfied, and hopefully that will answer the question.


TRADE-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS ON EUROPEAN AIRBUS PROJECT. (B) REASONS FOR SELECTION OF AIRBUS PROJECT
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to discuss the Government's proposal to build a $500 million plant in Quebec to manufacture parts for the controversial A-320 for Airbus Industries of France.
It is one thing to bail out domestic companies such as Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler, which are well established firms and whose loss could greatly damage our economy, but it is another thing to dish out hundreds of millions of sorely needed dollars to a foreign consortium manufacturing a product for which I intend to show the market is mediocre at best, at the expense of aircraft manufacturers operating here.
I have already brought up the matter in the House and I have received what I feel is an evasive reply. I get the feeling that the whole Airbus affair has been shrouded in a veil of secrecy, which to me is totally unacceptable.
When I asked a question in the House on this matter of the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Regan), who ought to be up to date on such issues as this, it did not please me to have the buck passed to another Minister. On many occasions I have stood here to comment on the increasing lack of accountability and the diminishing respect for the Members of this House of Commons. We have heard little mention of this project in the House of Commons and we want clear, forthright answers as to the status of the dealings with Airbus Industries and some convincing statistics to show that this is really beneficial for all concerned.
In The Citizen this morning I read of another project which, if not nipped in the bud, could join Airbus Industrie as the next example of wool being pulled over the eyes of the Canadian public. It involves radar systems for modernization of airports across Canada, and shows just how cosy the Canadian and French Governments are getting.
Five companies bid for the contract of a new and modern system of radar in 30 airports across this country. An interdepartmental committee reported to Cabinet its recommendations for the two finalists in the competition. An obscure French company called Thomson was not one of the finalists. However, upon the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) return to Canada from France this fall, he ordered a review of the choice of finalists. So do not be surprised if, in a few years, one comes flying into Toronto on an A-320 which is guided into the airport on a Thomson radar system.
As the Member of Parliament for Erie, where a major manufacturer of aircraft components is located, I must ask the
Government what the effect of locating a new aircraft factory in Canada will be. Who will its suppliers be? Furthermore, if Airbus grabs a portion of the market from Boeing and McDonnell Douglas aircraft, plants such as Fleet Industries will almost certainly suffer.
The plant in Fort Erie, in my riding, employs upward of
1,000	people. Loss of business for this operation means unemployment and layoffs in many related sectors. In other large manufacturing centres, such as Malton, the results of competition with the A-320 could indeed be catastrophic.
The decision to subsidize Airbus is an unwise one in the light of current economic realities in the air transport industry. Flights are being cut back due to the high cost of fuel and the lack of demand. Is this a good time to introduce a new airplane? Consider the new aircraft just put out by boeing, the 767. Here is a fuel efficient aircraft which is effective in the medium range market, for which the A-320 is also designed. McDonnell Douglas will be offering similar designs in the very near future.
If one considers the volume of business that these companies do with Canada, it would be wise to stop and think about taking measures which would reduce this cash inflow. Boeing alone bought $147 million worth of Canadian aircraft components in the year 1981. Thus, we have the case of an aircraft which will be competing with at least five other models, the redesigned DC-9, the 757, the 767, the 737 from Boeing, and the latest entry from McDonnell Douglas which will be the D-3300. Therefore, there is a possibility that the A-320 will not even make it in the marketplace, and if it does not, that is another $500 million down the drain. If it succeeds and takes the profit away from the competition, we will lose anyway because of increased unemployment and lost business in the parts manufacturing plants.
The latest blow to independent entrepreneurs is the appearance of Airbus which will be, in effect, a Government subsidized product, competing against private companies. Airbus has been nurtured to the tune of $5 billion by European Governments. Thus, it will not have to bear a price tag necessitated by manufacturing costs. Its prices can be as low as it wishes. Thus, other manufacturers will have to lower their prices to compete. Any profit which Canadian companies are making now will be nullified by this giant company, and we will all feel the effects in increased costs and poor growth in the industry.
Before jumping into the deal with Airbus, 1 hope that the Government will consider the possible effects of its decision. Both McDonnell Douglas and Boeing may decide to cut back on production if they feel that the Government support to Airbus would result in a favoured position for Airbus products. In other words, Air Canada, a Crown corporation, might be pressured by the Government to buy Airbus products. The resultant unemployment could more than offset the newly created jobs in Quebec by Airbus.
December 21, 1982

In conclusion, it is my hope that the Ministers responsible will assess the facts in an unbiased and nonpartisan way so that the decision made reflects the wishes of the Canadian people and will benefit the workers and taxpayers of this nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to point out to my hon. friend opposite that the Canadian Government will indeed take into consideration all the concerns he expressed earlier, namely that we make sure there will be a good market for this operation, that the work will still be done here in this country, and that it will be a successful financial and industrial endeavour.
I would point out now that recently there has been a meeting with the de Havilland and Airbus Industries. The talks were very warm and generally speaking relatively good progress has been made; furthermore both parties so far seem to be satisfied with the negotiations. Of course, in such dealings, a lot of things have to be taken into consideration and as was pointed out earlier by the Hon. Member, a number of airlines now experiencing financial difficulties have decided to wait another year before officially introducing the Airbus, which means that in fact negotiations may progress somewhat more slowly than originally expected.
Another point that perhaps should be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that very soon there will be other meetings between Airbus and de Havilland on the commercial aspect of the operation and the industrial aspect as well for the actual manufacturing of certain components of the Airbus 320 Aircraft, following which the Minister of course will be in a
Adjournment Debate
position to report to the House on the exact status of the negotiations.
I would also like to point out at this stage that we have no intention of casting aside the North American partner as far as aircraft manufacturing is concerned. Not at all. It is simply a matter for the Canadian Government to expand its market and developing its technology with a view to allowing our young and not so young workers to work in a field of high technology on what clearly is state-of-the-art jobs, both at the computer and avionics levels, what I would like to stress is that once more we shall continue manufacturing in Canada various components for the DC-9, such as the fuselage and wings, and ensuring that with both Boeing and McDonnell Douglas we will still contribute to industrial exchanges in an effort to promote avionics on the North American aircraft models.
But this does not preclude finding other markets in Europe and other continents provided it remains consistent with the spirit outlined earlier by the Hon. Member, namely to first ensure that we will safeguard the existing market and second that jobs will be going to the workers of this nation before those in other countries.
Therefore I would like to reassure the Hon. Member at this point. All his concerns are being taken into consideration and when the study of the matter is more advanced, the department and the Minister will be pleased to brief the House for the benefit of interested Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 10.27 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, December 22, 1982