1982-12-02

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES COST OF DAVEY-JOYAL REPORT ON RESTRAINT PROGRAM

['No.']
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday all Members of the House of Commons received a two-and-a-half-inch-thick binder containing a report by Senator Keith Davey and the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) on the supposed success of the six and five program. The Economic Council has just stated that the apparent success of the six and five program is, in fact, due to market forces, and not to the efforts of the Government's expensive advertising campaign. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Liberal Party reimburse the taxpayers of Canada for the cost of this report, and the cost of all six and five propaganda, on the grounds that it is misleading advertising.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Noting the failure of the recent GATT talks in Geneva to arrest the destructive wave of protectionism which could well result in contractions in world trade reminiscent of the depression years of the 1930s, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House calls upon the Governments of Canada and the other nations of the world to pursue policies designed to encourage and maximize world trade and to cease erecting unnecessary barriers to international commerce.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: 
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Government promised to implement a Canadian marine industrial strategy by autumn, 1980, and we are still waiting for that policy announcement; whereas during the previous two years over $1 billion in Canadian shipbuilding orders have been awarded to offshore competitors because Canada lacks an effective marine industrial strategy; whereas we are losing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in industrial spin-off benefits because of the Government's continued inaction; and whereas the Canadian shipbuilding industry is facing its worst recession in a decade, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the Minister of Industry and Regional Economic Expansion immediately bring forward the Government's long promised shipbuilding policy, or make a statement in this House of Commons as to why the Government refuses to produce a shipbuilding policy and a policy to develop a Canadian merchant fleet.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The November, 1981, budget, despite any slight modifications since that time, has seriously interfered with the sale of art work in Canada. The removal of the work of non-living artists from capital cost allowance eligibility has had devastating effects on purchases of art work including that of the living artists the changes were to help. I move, therefore, seconded by the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the Minister of Finance announce reversal number 45 to the effect that capital cost allowances will again be allowed for the purchase of all art works.

December 2, 1982


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and, I am tempted to say, depressing business. Since the Canadian public has repeatedly received mail, much of which includes accounts which fall due on certain dates, since the mail often arrives late rendering it impossible to make payment by mail and have it arrive at the account office in time to avoid credit charges being added, and whereas Canada Post would like to remain as the sole agency for delivering mail in Canada without any guarantee of service, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That Canada Post establish a permanent fund so that patrons who have charges or other related expenses as a result of slow delivery may have recourse to recovery.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The federal Government has not carried out its grandiose plan to provide low-cost mortgages for home buyers through a special tax-free investment fund. Nevertheless the same objective can be partially achieved by permitting municipalities across the nation to issue tax-free bonds for capital construction of utility systems as well as servicing residential subdivisions. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the Government bring forth legislation immediately to permit municipalities to issue tax-free bonds, to raise capital for needed municipal capital works projects, and thus generate jobs. Such a policy would use tomorrow's potential federal tax dollars to create jobs today.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter which is both urgent and critical. There are tens of thousands of unemployed workers all across the country who will be running out of UIC benefits within the next few weeks. In Hamilton alone, between December 6 and December 20 of this year, in excess of 3,000 workers will cease to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House demand that the Government extend UIC benefits to those whose claims are exhausted and to those who through no fault of their own, are now required or will be required to apply for welfare.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 with regard to a very grave matter. On November 24 I appeared on a two-hour open line radio program about forced metric conversion on station CJSB, Ottawa. One caller who identified himself as Bob was, I am informed by a "brown envelope" source, actually a senior media relations officer of the Metric Commission who was phoning in under an assumed name, when his real name is Peter McCulloch. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That since the forced metric conversion program was introduced by stealth and it would appear now that its paid minions are still practising stealth to carry out a dubious mandate, this House condemns deceit, duplicity, misrepresentation and impersonation used by a public servant who holds a position of public trust, and that the Metric Commission apologize to CJSB and its listeners for this arrogant and shameful act of public mischief.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 2, 1982


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker,
I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Amway Corporation is facing charges of defrauding Canadian customs of $28 million, in view of the fact that Amway has been instrumental in getting a number of Members of the Progressive Conservative Party elected, and considering the fact that the Official Opposition is pressing the Government to reduce the national deficit, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson):
That the Progressive Conservative Party, because of its flirtatious activities with Amway, pay the $28 million that Amway owes to Revenue Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, whereas our beloved Prime Minister will soon leave Canada for another sovereign sojourn abroad, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Prime Minister's personal valet be asked to remind the Prime Minister each morning that over 20 per cent of our young Canadians are unemployed as a result of his Liberal Government's policies which have so effectively destroyed business climate during his reign.


Madam Speaker:: It is getting worse and worse!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, every month, every day, and in fact every hour, this House and the country hear of factories closing, businesses going broke and people being put out of work. Even the Minister of Finance admits that we are facing a tragic situation with regard to unemployment. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Prime Minister for the first time in this session do as he has promised, take federal dollars and put in place a national program to rebuild our communities, restore our infrastructure and renew our industrial strength in order that we may at least begin to attack what can only be described as a horrendous problem of unemployment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that despite two years of controls on Japanese cars imported into Canada, their share of our sales market has risen from 22 per cent to 30 per cent, and considering that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been unable to negotiate reductions in the importation of Japanese vehicles for 1983, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House direct the Minister to introduce measures immediately to ensure that Japanese automotive imports be limited to 15 per cent of our market.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister has gone around this country since October 27 and he has said everywhere that we would be relying on the dynamism and the creativity of the private sector in the creation of growth. Yesterday the Minister tabled the third set of Ways and Means motions since the November 12 budget. Except for minor alterations in those Ways and Means motions, the antiproductivity and anti-creative stance of the budget of November 12 still stands in place. How does the Minister expect Canadians and business to have confidence when he says, on the one hand, that the dynamism and creativity of the private sector is to be the engine of growth while, on the other hand, he files motions and conducts tax policy which is exactly the opposite?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to read carefully the Ways and Means motion which was tabled yesterday. I refer him to the numerous adjustments I announced in my October 27 statement which imply several hundreds of millions of dollars of relief in taxation to the workers of this country and to the small business community and the business community at large. He will realize that the measures and changes I have

December 2, 1982
Oral Questions
announced will be of significant help to the business community and the investment community as well as to the workers of the country.
1 also want to refer the Hon. Member to statements which have been made by spokesmen for the business community since my statement of October 27. These statements indicate that the changes I have proposed are positive steps which will help recreate greater confidence and encourage more investment. Therefore I invite him to rely on the words coming from the business community itself with regard to this matter.


MANUFACTURING SOFT COSTS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows perfectly well that the business community was counting on him to be a Minister who would reverse some of those terrible provisions. After he gave his statement on October 27 he indicated that he might do something with respect to soft costs which are incurred when a manufacturer extends his plant or makes alterations or additions to his plant, thus creating new productivity and new jobs. The Ways and Means motion filed yesterday does nothing with respect to the soft costs issue here. The Minister knows it is a serious matter. If we want to have advancement and growth, we must have some assistance for business. The Minister has done nothing. When will he come clean?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I came clean on this subject several weeks ago. I refer the Hon. Member to a press release which was reported in the newspapers of this country, a copy of which he has received, in which I indicated that changes had been made with regard to MURBs and to soft costs. These changes were announced a few weeks ago and also appear in the Ways and Means motion and will find themselves in the Income Tax Act which I hope to introduce next week.
Following those changes, the Hon. Member can refer to press statements attributed to developers who have indicated that the changes I announced will likely stimulate some $400 million to $500 million of additional investment in the construction industry during the course of next year. I think that is a very positive development. I invite the Hon. Member to refer to that press release and to the press reports on that particular subject.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister to refer to his own Ways and Means motion. With respect to soft costs, it does nothing for someone increasing or expanding his plant.


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Minister knows there was testimony before the Standing Committee with respect to capital cost allowances. He knows that there are all sorts of innovative machinery that must be purchased, in the automotive and electronic industries particularly. Why does he continue with this half capital cost bankrupt theory of
November 12? Why did he not change the capital cost jurisdiction to make sure at least that those in high tech situations, those who must improve productivity to be competitive in the world, could take advantage of a fast write-off for their plant and equipment?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am sure that my hon. friend will be able to point out a number of provisions that I have not changed. Indeed I have indicated that it was not my intention to agree to all representations that were made asking for a tax break or tax relief right, left and centre.
The Government has to be responsible, and the Minister of Finance has to carry out his duties in a responsible way. I have agreed, as I said, to a large number of changes which I felt were appropriate in the current circumstances.
As far as the capital costs allowances are concerned, I examined this question very carefully and very thoroughly. I compared it with the situation in the United States, and in other countries which are in competition with us. Over all, our regime of capital cost allowances with the provisions that are contained in the Ways and Means motions, compares quite favourably with the regime that is available in other countries. I think this is good enough in the current circumstances.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Minister says that the capital cost allowance system is satisfactory, but he knows that business profits this year from manufacturing retailing, et cetera are less than 50 per cent of a year ago, and a year ago they were terrible.
Why does the Minister carry on with this horrendous penalty against business and at the same time expect business to supply the jobs we need for our young people? Why does he continue with this foolish attitude expressed in last year's Budget, an attitude based on statistics that were totally out of date at that time and are now horrendously out of date? Why does he continue to penalize industry and business? Can he not do something to make his protestations around the country seem at least honest?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a specific provision in the Ways and Means Motion that was tabled in the House. It is true that corporate profits were down considerably during the past year. I said that it was a matter of concern for all Canadians, for myself and for this Government. However, the changes suggested by the Hon. Member will not solve the problem. What is needed is a solution that will stimulate our entire economy, and with it, the demand for goods produced by our manufacturers. The general drop in profits in our economy is a result of the present slowdown in the international economy,
December 2, 1982

and that situation is not going to be changed very much if we make minor adjustments here and there. In fact, even if I did take the Hon. Member's advice, meaning that corporate taxes would be removed entirely, even if I did, there would still be a drop in profits. In the circumstances, I think the suggestion made by the Hon. Member is irresponsible.


INCOME AVERAGING ANNUITY CONTRACTS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question, too, is directed to the Minister of Finance. I am sure the Minister of Finance has received many representations concerning the iniquitous treatment of I.A.A.C.s and the capital gains reserves, which is still a remnant of the Mac-Eachen November Budget. Is the Minister prepared to consider any changes to the provisions governing the income averaging annuity contracts and, if not, why is he not prepared to entertain changes.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my officials and I have examined those issues very carefully. I have examined the representations that were made before the Joint Parliamentary Committee and also the report of the committee. I indicated in my statement in October that there were a number of adjustments that I was ready to make in the current circumstances. I have come to the conclusion that these particular provisions contained in the Ways and Means motion are the right ones in the present circumstances.
I would argue that the various provisions contained in the Ways and Means motion have been the subject of discussion and debate for well over a year. It is high time that Parliament came to a resolution of these issues. I will be very happy to debate those provisions when we come to the consideration of these issues, either in Committee of the Whole or the Standing Committee, if it is decided to refer it there. However, I would advise my hon. friend that the provisions that I have put forward are those which I arrived at as being the most fair in the current circumstances, taking everything into account.


ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Since these provisions place a burdensome upfront tax, particularly on small businesses and farmers who in some cases are forced to borrow to pay their upfront taxes, and since this also has the effect of increasing the level of taxation by as much as 25 per cent, how does the Minister square his current position with his statement that he is going to rely upon the private sector and individual initiative, as well as the creativity of the individuals within the private sector, to generate the kind of wealth and confidence that are needed?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as well as trying to generate the required wealth and the incentive, we as parliamentarians have a requirement to try to
Oral Questions
have a reasonably fair tax regime. In the circumstances one has to bear in mind whether there are exceptional advantages given to limited groups of individuals compared to others.
As I said, a large number of changes have been made to take into account representations that have been received by the parliamentary Committee and by myself as Minister of Finance. I believe the current changes go a long way to accommodate the strongest points that have been put forward, but there are other issues and points on which we must proceed as has been proposed, or with some slight amendment.
I remind my hon. friend that, with regard to small business,
I have made several changes to accommodate and help small business, such as putting the 12.5 per cent dividend tax only on future dividends and not on past dividends, not elevating the taxation on health and dental care plans, and not proceeding at this time with the wholesale tax. All these provisions will be of great help to small business.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday we learned that 750 people in Corner Brook will be losing their jobs as a result of the partial closure of the Bowater plant. Considering that this closure will have a significant effect on the economy of that Province, is the Government willing to investigate charges made by people in the Province that, through its other operations around the world, Bowater is dumping paper products on the world market, and that it has refused to modernize the plant in Corner Brook over the last 30 years?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will take notice of the suggestion made by the Hon. Member and examine whether it would be appropriate to have an investigation made of this situation. Indeed, if there are elements of evidence that could justify such an investigation, I will certainly discuss it with my colleagues.


ELECTION PROMISE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer he has given. However, I remind him and the House that, in the 1980 election, the Liberal Party as part of its platform announced, and I quote:
Liberals will expand and strengthen the Foreign Investment Review Agency to include a periodic review of all firms ... to assess the performance of those companies.
The Mayor of Corner Brook said that they have been told for years that the company had been making money. Will the Government admit now that its failure to act on its own election promise has resulted in lay-offs occurring without us knowing whether or not they are necessary? Will the Minister

December 2, 1982
Oral Questions
also tell us whether or not the Government is ready to introduce legislation as it promised in 1980, before any other lay-offs occur in this country?


Marc Lalonde: The answer to the first question, Madam Speaker, is absolutely no. The answer to the second question, I believe, has been answered by the previous Minister of Finance in his budgetary statement last November or last June.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question on the matter of employment is directed to the Minister of Public Works, who is also responsible for New Brunswick's affairs in Cabinet. The Minister recently received representations from Tantramar MLA Bob Hall, and other local New Brunswick leaders, regarding the imminent placing into receivership of Sackville's largest commercial employer, Enterprise Foundry Co. Limited, a 110-year old locally owned company with 200 employees. In view of the fact that the company was placed into receivership at noon today, will the Minister tell us why there has not been a response to the request of the company president to call him back and discuss ways and means of saving or restructuring the company's position? Second, what have the Minister and the Government done, or are prepared to do now, to assist in preserving these 200 jobs and removing the Royal Bank's bolt from the door?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I need your guidance as to whether we are answering questions on a regional basis or on a departmental basis. But, certainly, I did not wait for the Hon. Member's new MLA in New Brunswick to try to do something on this issue. However,
I believe the question belongs to my colleague, the Minister of Trade.


MINES AND MINING
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed either to the Minister of State for Mines or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whichever considers himself best qualified to answer. However, both of these Ministers should be aware of the latest disaster to hit the Canadian mining industry, that is, the announced closure of Pine Point Mines, which is the
biggest private employer in the Northwest Territories. Hundreds of people will be affected by the lay-offs. What is the Government planning to do to help those people who will be affected by the closure?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, many of the programs of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, are available, and I am sure this has been communicated to the employment people, to say nothing about the very significant programs announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, here a few weeks ago in terms of the NEED Program which will be available sometime in early January or February.
I might also indicate, Madam Speaker, there are other places in the Territories where there is virtually a boom economy and many job offers are open to employees. I am referring, particularly, to Norman Wells, which project this Government, in a very far-sighted way, announced about a year ago. I am told they are advertising for employees right now to go to Norman Wells. Perhaps some of the employees there will still find job opportunities in the Territories.


Dave Nickerson: I thank the Hon. Minister for that announcement regarding Norman Wells, but I do not know if that is really going to help the miners in Pine Point too much, immediately.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Dave Nickerson: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is in two parts. First, could the Minister give us his assurance that he is prepared to meet personally with officials of the steelworkers' union, and officials of Cominco, to see if anything can be worked out to help prevent lay-offs and, hopefully, to prevent closure? Second, could he undertake to review the rates charged by Crown Corporations such as NCPC and the Canadian National Railway? Could he review those rates to see whether a reduction in those rates might mean that the mine would not have to close and lay off both mine workers and railway workers?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, my answer to the Hon. Member's first question is, yes, of course, I would be more than happy to meet with Cominco and the steelworkers anytime they desire, to see whatever can be done by my own Department, of the Departments on my colleagues, which would be of real assistance in this situation, because it is an unfortunate one. My answer to the Hon. Member's second question regarding NCPC rates is, yes, we can check to see if some action on the part of NCPC might alleviate the situation, and I will get back to the Hon. Member on that.
December 2, 1982


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: My question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development, and is with regard to the West Coast of Newfoundland. The Bowater mill announced yesterday they were shutting down No. 7 machine, which will result in a permanent loss of 746 jobs. The company stated they do not expect things to improve until 1985. The plant will have to close for eight weeks in the first quarter of 1983, in any event.
I point out to the Minister that the unemployment rate in Newfoundland is 19.2 per cent, and in the West Coast area 10,000 people are out of work out of a work force of 51,000, a rate of 20.3 per cent before this shut down happens. It is a devastating blow to the City of Corner Brook. Given this situation, will the Minister and his Department of the Government initiate steps immediately to see what can be done to persuade or to assist Bowater to change that situation? If the situation cannot be changed, are there other Government programs or projects which could be put in place on the West Coast of Newfoundland? Newfoundland, economically, is a wasteland from one end to the other, and the seriousness of this situation now on the West Coast cannot be exaggerated.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, we are all very concerned with the situation described by the Hon. Member. The matters which have been raised will certainly be taken up by the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet. I am sure that my colleague in Industry, Trade and Commerce and my colleague in Employment and Immigration are already seized of the problem and undoubtedly will have recommendations to bring forward to their colleagues.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is not a problem which can be solved by the Minister responsible for employment. The unemployment insurance payments in Newfoundland this year are going to be doubled. The amount is simply fantastic and staggering. These are people who have had permanent jobs since the 1930s in this mill in Corner Brook.
Someone is talking to the Minister. I would like assurance that he can hear me. What action can the Government take, apart altogether from the normal processes, to assist western Newfoundland? Can the Minister hear me? One of the Liberal Members is harassing the Minister.
In addition, Madam Speaker, is the Minister taking action in connection with the closure of the Burin fish plant on the south coast of Newfoundland, and the tragedy that hangs over that industry? Is the Minister going to take action on the Kirby Task Force to do something to save the fishing industry
Oral Questions
as well? We have two disasters, at least, at the moment in Newfoundland.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Hon. Member stated, the Government of Canada has been a little bit in advance with respect to Bowater. As a matter of fact, in July of this year, after discussion with Bowater, we signed a DREE contract for over $14 million in an effort to ensure that Bowater would be competitive, assuming the international markets would turn around, to provide jobs for the people in that particular area.
With respect to Corner Brook, perhaps the Hon. Member would be willing to talk to his political colleague, the Premier of the Province, concerning the possibility of locating the Fisheries College in Corner Brook. We made representations that we would like to have the Fisheries College located in a community outside of St. John's, such as Corner Brook, and the Premier of the Province insisted that it be in St. John's.


UNITED STATES SUBSIDIZATION OF WHEAT EXPORTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for International Trade, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure he will understand the question because of his role at the recent GATT ministerial conference in Geneva. Last month the United States announced the Blended Credit Program, which is a new program for subsidizing the exportation of wheat from that country. It is worth about $1.5 billion over the next three years, and is in contradiction to the position which they took at GATT.
Has the Government or the Prime Minister petitioned the United States asking them to withdraw that very destructive program? If they have, and the answer is no, can he assure us there will be a similar program for Canadian farmers so we do not lose our world markets?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, all these particular problems were discussed at the recent GATT ministerial meeting. One of the problems not solved was the question of ceasing subsidies. It was the most difficult part of the conference. But there is a work program established to deal with trade in agricultural products over the next year or so, and it is hoped that out of that some common effort will be made to deal with the problem the Hon. Member has mentioned.

December 2, 1982
Oral Questions


NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I note that the Province of Saskatchewan and the federal Government have signed an agreement under the NEED Program, and I congratulate the two Governments for taking action in establishing a job creation program in Saskatchewan. However, there are some basic and valid concerns by workers in Regina, and in Saskatchewan generally, where they are afraid that many of the jobs to be created are jobs now being done by organized workers, and that the salaries provided under the NEED Program will be half of what they are getting now. They are afraid that the NEED Program is just another instrument to be used to reduce the people's standard of living. Can the Minister of Employment and Immigration give us any assurance that the jobs created under this Program are not jobs now being done by organized workers?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to give the Hon. Member that assurance. The guidelines of the agreement we signed with Saskatchewan enunciate, first, that the group of people eligible for employment under the Program are those who have exhausted unemployment insurance benefits. Secondly, the work projects are incremental to work now going on, not replacement of existing work. Thirdly, there is the opportunity to top up the basic $200 average wage we are putting forward. Municipalities or other organizations have the opportunity to go beyond that to a higher wage level if it is in their interest to do it. We have absolutely no interest in trying to replace those on the job; rather it is to provide additional work for those who have exhausted UIC benefits and who want to go back to work rather than simply go on welfare.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Right Hon. Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Referring to the post-employment conflict of interest guidelines which demand that former Ministers not be involved in commercial operations connected with their former portfolios for two years, and given that the hon. Judd Buchanan was involved in a land deal in Banff involving Lot 17, on September 17, 1980, and Lot 23-2 on August 25, 1980, and given that Mr. Buchanan was President of the Treasury Board from November 24 to June 3, 1979, will the Government now freeze this project and order a complete investigation of this matter by a parliamentary committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not see any reason to freeze this project on the basis of what the Hon. Member has said.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, most Governments would investigate before they came to that conclusion.


ROLE OF TREASURY BOARD
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my second question is directed to the Hon. Minister of the Environment. Treasury Board refused to approve the land exchange in Banff in December, 1981. Why was the land exchange executed in November, 1982, not referred to Treasury Board?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question in the House, perhaps in the absence of the Hon. Member. It is because there were substantial changes negotiated as a result of the view which Treasury Board took of the transaction. Those changes were so substantial that Parks Canada officials were satisfied that it was in the interests of Parks Canada and the town of Banff to proceed with the new arrangement, which was entirely within their power to do.


REASONS FOR NOT CONSULTING TREASURY BOARD ON SECOND TRANSACTION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has missed the point. The first transaction required Treasury Board approval. Treasury Board refused the first transaction. It was not given the opportunity to refuse the second transaction. Why was Treasury Board not called upon to judge the second transaction after it had been called upon and refused to accept the first transaction?


John (Moody) Roberts: No,
Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is mistaken. Treasury Board approval for the first project was not required, but given the disparity in the values of the land exchanged, the Parks Canada officials decided to seek the opinion of Treasury Board, which they did.


Mr. Nielsen:: Exactly.


John (Moody) Roberts: Treasury Board gave that opinion. The officials then went back, as I have already indicated, and negotiated a substantially different arrangement. On that substantially different arrangement Parks Canada officials did not feel a need to consult Treasury Board again. They were sufficiently confident that they did not feel the need to seek a second opinion.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what the Minister has said is that, so long as Treasury Board was obedient, Treasury Board would be consulted. But when it became clear that Treasury
December 2, 1982

Board would not approve a transaction which smacked of patronage, Parks Canada and the Minister declined to put that matter before Treasury Board. That is what the Minister is saying.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPERTY SELLING PRICE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, since the Minister responsible for Parks Canada has spoken of land values, will he confirm that one of the properties involved had been purchased by Mr. John Gow in 1972 for $25,000, and that eight years later it was sold by Mr. Gow to the company in question for $250,000?


Mr. Benjamin:: That is called free enterprise.


Erik Nielsen: Not in this case.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, in reply to the first part of the Hon. Member's question I must repeat-I have made it clear again and again in this House-that there was no intervention on my part to overrule, change or transform recommendations which came from civil servants. So the question of patronage which he continues to cite in his questions is certainly not applicable in this situation.
As to the second part of his question, the details and financial arrangements which took place in relation to the property before Parks Canada entered into the situation, I am in no position to respond.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister may claim he is in no position to repond, but he has a duty to be in a position to respond to questions which may very well involve serious patronage and which may very well involve the Government of Canada approving projects which should not be approved.


ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTIES SOLD TO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Minister undertake to find out the assessed value of each of the pieces of property involved in the transaction, the price paid for those properties when they were purchased by individuals who subsequently transferred them to the company involved, the Buchanan-Gow Company, and all other information which relates to the value of the properties, so that the House of Commons will be in a position to judge that information? Will he table that information in the House of Commons so that all the people can see it, rather than taking the Minister's word that the Minister did nothing wrong?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member continues to use and repeat the word "patronage". He has been specifically and repeatedly challenged to come forward with any concrete allegation which
Oral Questions
is verifiable and which he is prepared to support. He has continually refused to do that.
As to access to documentation, I am quite prepared to present to the House and to individuals any documentation which would be available under access to information legislation. If he wants other specific information let him table a question on the-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: -Order Paper and we will provide whatever specific information which he wishes to have to which he is entitled.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What are you afraid of?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and has to do with the increasing number of Canadians who find themselves no longer eligible for UIC benefits and who are, for a variety of reasons, not eligible for welfare as well-those people who fall into the cracks between social service programs. In some places this has now reached crisis proportions. The City of Kamloops is one of those places which has been forced to open up a food bank and emergency guidance centre, and just in the last two days the mayor has had to assemble a special crisis committee to deal with this increasing problem.
Would the Minister consider establishing a special fund to assist particularly hard pressed municipalities with this special problem? Failing that, would he reconsider his decision not to extend UIC benefits for an extended period of time? If it is the source of money about which he is concerned-and I am sure it is-would he consider restoring the tax that was cut for upper-income Canadians in the previous budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration has pursued negotiations with the Provinces pursuant to the decision to set up a special $500 million program to create jobs for those people who will see their unemployment insurance benefits expire. He has had discussions with a number of Provinces. I am happy that the Government of Saskatchewan has agreed to co-operate and add funds to those of the federal Government, and that the Government of Ontario has agreed to add another $100 million. These provincial Governments are setting a good example which could and should be followed by the other provincial Governments under whose responsibility come the municipalities.

December 2, 1982
Oral Questions
1 remind the Hon. Member that the Provinces waste no opportunity to remind the federal Government that municipalities are their responsibility, not ours, and that anything concerning the municipalities should be under the jurisdiction of provincial Governments.
I think the solution is more through the federal and the provincial Governments working in co-operation, and I hope that through this co-operation we will indeed be able to do as much as can be done for those who see their unemployment insurance benefits expire.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Recently the Bank of Montreal announced that it would close 100 branches across Canada. The Royal Bank announced that it will close a number of branches and cut back on the hours some of its branches are open. This will have a very serious effect upon employment in banks, and an even more serious effect upon the services which banks provide, particularly in one-industry towns such as Wabush, Newfoundland, Duck Lake, Saskatchewan, and Barriere, British Columbia. Will the Minister investigate the serious effects these closures and cutbacks will have on employment in the industry and on the level of service of banks, which is so important to meeting the needs of Canadians? Will he discuss these decisions by the banks with their senior officials?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised the question should be directed to me. I shall, of course, look into the matter. I will discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Finance. As for services being withdrawn from certain communities, I am sure that in this very competitive area, when one bank branch closes, perhaps another bank will open a branch in the same location to provide this service. Otherwise, perhaps the Canada Post Corporation, through its many post offices across Canada, could provide this kind of service to people who have been abandoned by the banks.


NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON AGING
Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister will recall that last summer there was a conference on aging in Vienna and that there was a strong Canadian delegation, due no doubt to her efforts. Shortly after
the conference reports were circulated that the Minister intended to follow up the conference with an all-Canadian conference on aging. Is there any truth to that statement? Does the Minister plan to call a Canadian conference on aging in the near future, or at all?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member is not my official critic on pension matters, because this was announced officially last September. I could send him copies of the speech which I repeated to more than one audience. The National Conference on Aging, by and with Canadian participation here in this country, to follow up on the international conference last summer in Vienna, will take place in Canada in the month of June.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Withdraw Bill C-131 as the first step.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: I am glad that I am the critic on pensions, but I become very discouraged being that critic.


PENSIONS
Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, I have repeatedly asked the Minister when we will have the green paper on pensions. Perhaps she could tell us today precisely when the paper will be released.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to announce that the green paper on pensions will be released in the second week of December. I am not sure of the exact date of the press conference.


Some Hon. Members:: What year?


Monique Bégin: Hon. Members opposite are always mixed up about times. We are not talking about two or three years ago; we are talking about this year, in ten days' time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRICE CHARGED FOR UNLEADED GASOLINE
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Senior officials of Environment Canada have charged that the oil companies are overcharging Canadians by as much as 12 or 13 cents a gallon for unleaded gasoline, considering the actual cost of production. The Government of Canada has apparently spent thousands of dollars on studies which have demonstrated, in the words of one of the Minister's officials, "The price difference between leaded and unleaded gasoline is absolutely ridiculous". What action has the Minister of the Environment
December 2, 1982

recommended to his Cabinet colleagues to deal forthrightly with this price-gouging at the expense of Canadians?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the study to which the Hon. Member refers is one of a series of studies which are being done under the aegis of Environment Canada. The studies have been proceeding now for something like a year to 18 months. As I say, it is one of a series. We expect that the whole series of studies will be completed sometime very early in the new year. When that takes place, my officials and I will try to bring together the conclusions which will be drawn from all those studies and then find some way of consulting with the public in a discussion of their over-all conclusions and findings.
The Hon. Member asks what action we intend to take. I do not intend simply to impose or provide a series of recommendations without further consultation with interested parties, without further consultation with the public. I believe that consultation should take place on the entire set of studies we are conducting, not simply on the basis of one of them.


REQUEST THAT PETRO-CANADA ROLL BACK PRICE
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. Obviously his officials have drawn their own conclusions about the studies. They are not awaiting any further recommendations or studies by themselves or by anyone else. They have concluded that, without a doubt, there is a price-gouging.
Petro-Canada's prices for unleaded gasoline are apparently, according to the same officials, as exorbitant as those of other oil companies. In light of that fact, will the Government at least instruct its own oil company, Petro-Canada, to roll back the predatory prices it is charging Canadians for unleaded gasoline?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, no doubt there are a variety of ways in which this situation can be approached. I would prefer to wait and see the entire base of information that we have as a result of all the studies, before spontaneously acting with one approach in relation to one of them.


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns the interpretation of the Excise Tax Act which has imposed federal sales tax on the importation and manufacture of publications dealing with the education of the public in the field of cancer, the detection of cancer, and its available cures. This has added a burden of about $100,000 per year onto the Canadian Cancer Society and its volunteers. The Minister has
Oral Questions
listened to his public servants and has refused to reconsider that decision.
In light of that extra burden on the organization, would the Minister again look at the problem to see whether there could be a remission order issued with respect to the matter? Failing that, would the Minister of National Revenue be prepared to recommend to the Minister of Finance an amendment to the statute which would at least exempt the Canadian Cancer Society from that kind of taxation, so that its volunteers will not be burdened with that extra amount of work? Would he undertake to do that, please?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, in his comments the Hon. Member, a former Minister of National Revenue, seemed to be saying that I was blindly obeying-perhaps I am extrapolating somewhat here- my own officials. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that in this particular case, the Minister of National Revenue is complying with an order of Parliament which changed the tariff item for the importation of certain types of publicity material by certain organizations, including the Canadian Cancer Society. After changing the provisions of the Customs Tariff for this particular tariff item, it was necessary to charge sales tax, since, as the Hon. Member will recall, the issue was that imported printed matter should also be subject to sales tax. As Minister of National Revenue, I am applying provisions that were approved by Parliament in 1980, if I remember correctly, and this is a matter of equitable implementation of the Excise Tax Act as passed by this Parliament.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN EXCISE TAX ACT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue. I asked the Minister to look at the law from the point of view of a remission order. The Minister did not answer that question. I also asked him to consider a change in the law because the volunteers for the Canadian Cancer Society have to collect about an extra $100,000 a year just to pay the tax on those things.
Will the Minister comply with those two requests, given the fact that, whatever Parliament may have said, it was a mistake in terms of the justice and the equity of the case? Will the Minister make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance for the inclusion, in the next budget, of a change in the Excise Tax Act, on the understanding that that particular change, if it were dealt with on its own, would go through this House very quickly?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is saying that Parliament made a mistake in approving this change in the tariff item

December 2, 1982
Business of the House
governing the importation of printed matter for certain organizations, including charitable organizations, and thus the Canadian Cancer Society. I am not so sure Parliament made a mistake here, since there was a measure of inequity involved, namely, publicity material printed in Canada was subject to sales tax, while imported publicity material was not, so that the Canadian National Institute for the Blind was paying 9 per cent excise tax on material it had printed in Canada while another organization, the Canadian Cancer Society, was importing its printed material without having to pay the tax, because of the problem with the tariff item. The Hon. Member is asking whether I would be willing to recommend a remission of duty and taxes in this particular case. The Hon. Member should be aware that if we do it in this case, we will have to do the same for all charitable organizations paying excise tax on material printed in Canada. As for recommending to the Minister of Finance that the excise tax should be amended to exempt charitable organizations from payment of excise tax, I am sure that as a former Minister of National Revenue, the Hon. Member will understand that the entire issue must be considered within the broader perspective of assistance to charitable organizations.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, December 1, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for the Government House Leader. Assuming the division bells ring on the termination of the debate under the provisions of Standing Order 75C at approximately eight thirty o'clock, and assuming the vote is completed around nine o'clock, would the Government House Leader inform us what we will be dealing with for the remainder of this day, for tomorrow and as far into next week as he can go?


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Madam Speaker. Later today we will be dealing with the second reading stage of Bill C-132, concerning the Family Allowances Act.


Miss MacDonald:: There they go, cutting off the children.


Yvon Pinard: Tomorrow, since we have an agreement, we will call Bill C-132 which will come to a division no later than four o'clock tomorrow afternoon. This is as a result of a meeting among House Leaders this morning and a subsequent one that was held at 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.

As far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, we shall proceed with consideration of Bill C-133, at the beginning of next week, to be followed by consideration of Bill C-131. Thursday will be the last opposition day for this supply period.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 do not know how the Government House Leader's reference to the word "agreement" is going to be taken by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, but I assume that we are of a mind that second reading of Bill C-132 will be completed and the matter referred to committee by the end of the day tomorrow. In the meantime, is the Government House Leader saying that the designated day under the notice given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare yesterday will be Monday? If not, which day next week will be the designated day for the conclusion of second reading of that measure?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I just indicated that we will be dealing with Bill C-133 next week, which is a most important and urgent Bill. We will start with that on Monday. The allocated day which the Hon. Member is talking about will follow second reading of Bill C-133, which we hope will get to second reading early in the week. Most likely it will be some time in the middle of next week, probably Wednesday. In any case, I said that the first item of business next week would be Bill C-133.
As we will get second reading of Bill C-132 later tomorrow, then the appropriate committee can deal with Bill C-132, pending second reading of Bill C-131. We are not wasting time; we are being very practical. The last allotted day, as I have just indicated in French, will be next Thursday. All of this is subject to change with reasonable notice.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, so that we have it abundantly clear, there is no specified designated day for Bill C-131. We are, therefore, in limbo of a day being designated pending completion of Bill C-133. I believe that is the way to interpret it.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the House business as put forward by the Government House Leader is as I anticipated it would be. As far as tomorrow is concerned, we recognize the importance of Bill C-132 being given proper and adequate committee study. It is a very important Bill affecting a large number of people and families across this country. We want to have adequate time in committee to deal with it, and because
December 2, 1982

Time Allocation BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
of that we do think the matter will come to a vote tomorrow for second reading in order that adequate time will be available for the committee to study the matter.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon. Member whether he has the same views on Bill C-133. If so, we could send it to committee next Tuesday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I did not anticipate that I would be asked a question. Could I have it repeated?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, are the dispositions of the Hon. Member the same in so far as Bill C-133 is concerned, and that after a reasonable length of time the Bill be sent to committee as soon as possible so that witnesses can be heard?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in response to that specific question, there is no doubt in my mind that after a reasonable length of time that Bill will be disposed of and sent to committee. There is no doubt in my mind that that Bill contains matters that are very detrimental to retired civil servants in this country, and there is also no doubt in my mind that it will be in committee for a prolonged period of time in order that those people's views can be heard.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 2,820 citizens of Cariboo-Chilcotin riding in British Columbia. This is by far the largest petition that I have had the honour to present in the House to date.
The purpose of this petition is to express the strong opposition by the citizens of Cariboo-Chilcotin to the publication of any books and the reaping of any financial gain through the sales of any publication by convicted mass murderer Clifford Olson. The nature of the petition is to urge the House of Commons to examine what measures may be taken to prevent Clifford Olson from further profiting from his heinous and repugnant crimes through the publication of a book.
The petitioners hope that, in your examination of the petition, you will find the petition in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the office of Speaker of the House to refer this matter to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for full consideration.


Monique Bégin: That, in relation to Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
She said: Madam Speaker, some Members of the Opposition have asked why we are moving time allocation on Bill C-131. The Opposition has already debated Bill C-131 on second reading for three solid days and evenings. There have been 23 Opposition speakers who have stood up, 17 Conservatives and 6 NDP. Five speakers rose to speak on the Government side.
Up to this time we have heard a clear intent from the Opposition Parties to vote against the Bill and it was publicly said in some quarters of the House that they will even prevent the vote on second reading.


Walter David Baker: No. Who said that?


Monique Bégin: Have the Opposition been talking to the Bill? If any Members have any new proposal to put forward on this Bill, they will have the chance to do so this afternoon. However, during the entire debate on this Bill we have heard repeated one single speech which was probably prepared by the research bureau of the Conservatives.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: Those Members were speaking of everything under the sun except Bill C-131. What they did say about Bill C-131, I must say, was filled with misinformation and allegations that were wrong and dangerous. Some Members stated emphatically that our legislation would affect universality. The fact is that universality is being maintained. Other Members have said that we are taking money from the poor. This is false because every pensioner who receives the supplement will have full indexation of both their pension and supplement.
Opposition speakers referred to the deficit, unemployment, Ministers' travel expenses and the Bill on public service pensions which is to be debated later. All of these subjects were lumped together to give people the impression that these Bills, each of which has its own intent, are directed against senior citizens.
I must say that the figures cited by Opposition Members were sadly out of date in many cases and, in fact, incorrect. Therefore, these figures give misleading information to the public about the impact of this Bill.
I repeat that pensioners who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement will not be affected by this Bill. The majority of pensioners, more than half, receive the supplement and they

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation
will get the full indexation on the supplement as well as the value of the full indexation of the basic pension. They will not suffer any decrease in their benefits. All pensioners will receive an increase in their pension as compared to the amount they receive this year. All pensioners, including those with excellent means and income, will receive an increase in their pension cheque in January, but it will be slightly less than anticipated. A key factor in this debate is that the Government has ensured protection for those most in need. This is the objective of the redistribution which we have always fought for.

In fact, the 6 and 5 program to be implemented by Bill C-131 must be accepted in order to stabilize the effects of the fight against inflation. And I think this is something the Members of the Opposition do not want. The Progressive Conservatives supported the 6 and 5 program to fight inflation, to cut it in half so that 12 per cent and 10 per cent will become 6 and 5, if everyone does his share. It means pensioners with adequate incomes, women with children who are able to manage, and that is only one-third of this group, taxpayers, Members of Parliament and Ministers. Our own salaries have been cut, and many Canadians are starting to follow our example and support this policy. In fact, we may be seeing the beginning of a success story. Inflation started to drop last July, and what is needed now is a joint national effort. The Official Opposition said yes, we agree with the 6 and 5 program. They agreed at first.
However, when it comes to areas where implementation of 6 and 5 is not as easy and where conversely, it is very easy to indulge in petty politics, then the Opposition all of a sudden becomes very stand-offish and will not have anything to do with these aspects of the program. It only wants to go along with the easy parts of the program. It has done nothing to promote the program and that doesn't need an Act of Parliament, and I am referring to the program that our Government Members and our Ministers and of course the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are publicizing across Canada at meetings where they are urging co-operation by employers and employees and unions, many of whom have made a tremendous effort. As a result, a start has been made with reducing inflation and we did not necessarily need an Act of Parliament to achieve this. Now that programs are being used to continue the fight against inflation and now that we are asking people who are relatively well-off to do their share as well, the Opposition has withdrawn its support and is trying to sabotage this effort.

I repeat that I do not regret nor do I apologize for moving this motion of time allocation because of the repetition of the same speech, which concerned everything except the subject, or gave wrong information on the subject, which is only creating worry in a segment of our population that does not need more worries.
I believe that we should proceed with the Bill and send it to committee so that pension cheques will ar ive in time. This
afternoon we are engaged in a debate on time allocation for which I ask all Members' co-operation.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) should be ashamed to stand there as a Liberal and support this Bill. In true socialist tradition the Liberals will rewrite history. They have been taking credit for supposedly helping the poor for years so they can describe themselves as great Liberals. When they now have to cut back their aid as a result of the inflation which they have caused, they are trying to rewrite history by saying that everyone is prepared to support these cutbacks and no one will be significantly hurt. They say that these measures do not represent an abandonment of universality. That is not true.
We are proud that I 7 Members stood to give their views. Every Member on this side would like to stand and oppose the Bill but the Liberals will not let us. Only five Liberals found the courage to stand up and speak. Then when they stood, they were speaking for the Government. Were they trying to represent the views of 1.2 million Canadians, senior citizens, a substantial number of whom make barely over $8,900? Were any of the Liberal Members standing for them and speaking out? No, not one. Five stood and, in a mealy-mouthed way, tried to back up the Government; but they are so embarrassed that Hon. Members opposite with any sense of honour will not stand and speak for the Bill.
Therefore, the Minister must come in and impose closure. That is what we are faced with here. Let us not kid ourselves, this is closure. This is denying the right of elected citizens to stand up and say: "I have senior citizens who are being hurt". The Minister would deny us that right and she should not stand up and be proud of that.
The Minister tried to say that the six and five program is cutting inflation in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senior citizens know what is cutting back inflation-the depression-because they have lived through it. They saw similar types of situations during the twenties, which then brought the country to its knees during the thirties. They know that inflation must be stopped and they want it to be stopped fairly. It is the depression which the Liberal policies are bringing upon this country. That is what is causing inflation to drop, not the six and five program.
The Liberals are closing off the debate because they do not like publicity; we are starting to get the point through to individual Canadians that this program is not fair. This Bill is unfair imposition on 1.2 million Canadians who are at the low end of the income structure.
Are there any cutbacks of expenditure of the Government? Has there been restraint on the part of Deputy Ministers who are making $90,000? Do you know what they will receive next year, Mr. Speaker? Barely 30 days from now, they will receive an automatic raise of $5,400. What are we taking from senior
December 2, 1982

citizens? We are taking away $209. They will make $209 less next year than they were entitled to receive under the regular system of inflation indexing. However, the Deputy Minister will receive an additional $5,400. We, as Members of Parliament, will receive close to $4,000, yet we expect our senior citizens to receive less than before. That is not fair. None of us stands here saying that is fair, but the Government is putting it through.
That is the state of Liberalism in the country today. Liberals are prepared to ride on the backs of the few. This Bill is just part of a triumvirate. They are even going after mothers receiving Family Allowances. Why do they not go after themselves and cut back their jet flying back and forth across the country? They even fly, as we have often said, like the geese. They fly in great flocks across the country.


Mr. Epp:: Convoys!


Blaine Allen Thacker: Conveys!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: For protection.


Blaine Allen Thacker: As the Hon. Member says, it is probably for protection. However, they are not cutting back on themselves.
The other Bill upon which closure will be invoked, Bill C-133, is with respect to retirement allowances. It will affect seniors who have worked for our own Government for years, who have paid into the regular pension benefits plan and have also paid an extra 1 per cent for protection against inflation. They paid that 1 per cent, not out of their hearts, but rather pursuant to a signed, sealed and delivered contract. Our civil servants performed their end of the contract. They then retired in the fullness of time. However, the Liberal Government with the support of all its members, some of whom spoke rather bravely, will stand to support this cutback when the time for the vote comes, and the contract will be broken. The Government will break a contract that was signed. It has no sense of what it means to negotiate a contract, even though civil servants have fulfilled their end. The Goverment will unilaterally break that contract.


Mr. Siddon:: I wonder what the Speaker thinks of that?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, what do you say about that? What do you think of a Government that would do that? Has there been any cutback on the movement of these Canadian projects to the ridings where Liberal Cabinet members live? There is not one cutback there. Liberals will look one square in the eye and say: "If you vote for us, we will give you something; but if you do not vote for us, we will move that project out and put it in a Liberal Minister's riding". They have done that, resulting in extra cost of hundreds of millions of dollars across this country.
Are there any cutbacks on Crown corporations? No. In fact, it has been the very opposite. We now have a new Crown corporation, CDIC, which will require an entirely new structure of accountants, lawyers and administrators. Joel Bell will come in and will probably earn $90,000, $100,000 or maybe $150,000. The Government will never tell us how much it is
Time Allocation
paying because it does not want Canadians to know. However, there will be no cutbacks on Crown corporations.
Have there been any cutbacks on sabbatical leaves? No. The Government hired a civil servant and paid him $150,000 to attack an industry, to destroy the only industry in Canada which could have carried us through this inflationary period, the depression. While all the rest of the world was mired in depression, we could have been strong. We could have been a source of capital and a source of energy to the world. But no, the Government hired a civil servant for $150,000 to destroy that industry, and then what did it do? It rewarded the guy. The Government sent him to Paris for a sabbatical, costing $200,000 extra.
Have there been any cutbacks on Government guarantees? The Government is prepared to guarantee the big boys who are prepared to kick in money to the Liberal campaign and all that, but it will not protect the little, individual Canadian, the senior citizen who is trying to eke out an existence in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver and is earning nearly $8,900. Is the Government prepared to help that person? No way. I am sorry, senior citizen, but you do not carry enough clout. The Liberal Government does not like the senior citizens of this country and they will make them pay. They do not like mothers who have families either, and will make them pay. If one has a family in this country, one will be in trouble under a Liberal Government.
If one dares to work for the Government, if one dares to perform one's end of the contract and pay the extra 1 per cent, thinking that the Government will honour its contract, the Government does not like that person and will take it away from him. I feel very badly for any of the civil servants who are coming up to retirement age, because they will be hurt.
Does anyone ever get Fired from these Crown corporations? If Crown corporations make errors, or the management fails, are employees retired or fired? Never. In private industry we know that if 100 corporations start, at least 24 per cent will fail through inefficiency or bad management. Has any Crown corporation, in the entire history of Canada, ever failed? Never. That is because they come back to the Government which created them. The Government is into everyone's tax pocket and simply spends more tax dollars to keep Crown corporations going, with the result that there are now over 600 of them. That has caused a reduction of the tax base in Canada, and because Crown corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes, it means that the rest of us, as individuals, must pay more. Therefore, the Government cannot give senior citizens what they genuinely deserve.
When it comes time to show restraint and to try to put a program in place which is fair across the board, do the Crown corporations pay their fair share? No way. The Government goes for the poor little senior who has paid his way in the country. Most of these senior citizens fought in the war and many are now suffering grotesque disabilities as a result, whether psychological or physical. They need us more than ever, but the Liberal Government is letting them down.

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that we in this party believe that we cannot tamper with the pensions of senior citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: 1 want to say to the Conservative Members that all the bleating which we are hearing today is quite inconsistent with yesterday's statement by the Conservative House Leader, who said he was quite prepared to deal with the Bill and let it go through. I do not quite understand why, all of a sudden, the Conservatives are pretending to be opposed to the measure introduced by the Minister. There is no question in my mind but that the support of the Conservative Party for the six and five program is absolute. They quite well understood, when six and five was brought in, that it would affect pensioners, as it would affect many other people in society. Suddenly to pretend to be opposed to it because there would be some political gain is a disgusting manoeuvre which should in no way be allowed to occur in that Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: There is no way the Government can justify moving to limit the debate on this particular piece of legislation today. This legislation goes to the very heart of the social welfare programs that we in this country have long supported. It goes to the very root of the incomes of senior citizens, regardless of where they live in the country and regardless of what their ability is to meet their financial obligations. There are hundreds of thousands of senior citizens in this country for whom any reduction in their income, considering the increase in inflation, will prove to be disastrous.
Yesterday when I spoke I said we were not only opposed to this Bill but we were opposed to any reduction of any kind. Not one single penny, not one red cent, should be taken from senior citizens in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: They were the people who came through the depression when there were virtually no pension programs. They are the people on whose backs this country was built. It is to them that we turn with pride when we look at the accomplishments that we have made in this country. All of a sudden we are asking them-no, we are not even asking them, we are telling them that inflation brought about in part by this Government's mis-spending has to be fought by senior citizens' incomes being reduced.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you yourself do not agree with this measure and I know that there must be, somewhere in the Liberal benches, others who care about the impact of what is happening here today. I know that there must be some on the Liberal benches who have an understanding of what this measure will mean. Not only does it mean a reduction in purchasing power for senior citizens in 1983 and in 1984, but it means for every single year of their life from today on they
will have less income to spend than they would have had and their income will constantly be behind the rate of inflation. It means that we have accepted in principle that senior citizens are not to be given incomes that even begin to meet the requirements exacted by an economy that does not show pity for those who do not have an independent source of wealth.
I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, withdraw this Bill. Withdraw this action today; withdraw this Bill.
The Minister stands up and with tears in her eyes tells us that it is a small amount that she is asking senior citizens to give up, and it does not really amount to a lot of money. If it is such a small amount, why the hell does the Government need it? If it is such a small amount, surely the Government can find other sources of income in order to guarantee that these seniors will not be asked to make this contribution. My goodness gracious, we are looking for something like $30 million to $60 million over the period of time that this measure will be in place.
Is the Government saying that we cannot find that amount of money within the waste that currently goes on in various and many Government ministries? Is the Government saying that the information program of the Government is more valuable than meeting our commitment to senior citizens, so that they can have a decent income? Is the Government saying that the appointment of another 15 Senators is more important than allocating that money to meet our commitment to senior citizens' incomes? Is the Government suggesting that bailing out Dome Petroleum is more important than meeting the commitment to our senior citizens?
Is the Government suggesting that these small amounts that the Minister speaks about are more appropriately carried by senior citizens whose incomes are already inadequate, rather than carried by those whose incomes are far more than they need? Is the Government suggesting that it could not reasonably have asked those in the upper 10 per cent of the income earners of this country to carry some of the additional burden, so that it did not have to take this action? Surely to God this is not what the Government is saying.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is in my judgment one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen since I entered the House of Commons. It stands alongside the worst legislation 1 have seen in 16 years of politics. It is completely against all the things that I believe, and that I believe that the Liberal Party believe, with regard to social justice.
I put to you, sir, that not only are we opposed to it, not only do we intend to vote against it, not only do we think that bringing it to a vote is inappropriate and wrong, but we think this Bill should be delayed by whatever means is available to every Member of this House to guarantee that the Bill never passes; and that is what we intend to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to get
December 2, 1982

back to what the purpose of this two-hour debate today is really all about. It is not about the merits of this Bill.


Mr. Lewis:: There are no merits.


David P. Smith: It is about whether or not a reasonable amount of time has occurred to discuss this Bill in general principle, so that it can come to a vote on second reading. The Bill will still be able to go to committee, still be capable of being examined on a clause by clause basis at great length, if committee members so decide; but what we are really discussing here today is whether or not there has been ample time and opportunity to discuss this Bill in general principle-because that is what second reading is all about-and to allow it to come to a vote. I think that that is the pertinent question.
We discussed this Bill on November 18 for two hours, again on November 25 for three and a half hours and on November 30 for three hours. That adds up to eight and one half hours. In addition to that there will be another two hours in which it will to some extent be debated today. There will also be a full day of debate which will follow, in the event that this motion carries.
In addition to that, if one goes back to the last budget debate, the principle which this Bill will bring into legislation was then debated at great length. The point that I think is really pertinent here today in this debate is, has there been ample opportunity for this Bill to be discussed in general principle so as to allow it to come to a vote at the second reading stage? I think that any reasonable and fair-minded person would have to say yes to that.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


David P. Smith: That is not to say that they need feel that they want to vote for it. I accept the good faith of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) when he says that every fibre of his body is against this Bill. Fine; he is entitled to that viewpoint. But I do not think that entitles any one particular Party to drag out debate indefinitely, to prevent the Bill from coming to a vote.
What we had here today was a speech from the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), who somehow would lead us to believe that the Conservative Party is prepared to stop the Bill by whatever means might be at their disposal. That, of course, is not the position that the Conservative House Leader took yesterday when he indicated that he was prepared to see the Bill go on to committee. I think if you look at the position that the NDP has taken at this stage, they have indicated in no uncertain terms that they will do anything they can to prevent it from coming to a vote.
Yesterday their House Leader, as reported on page 21173 of Hansard, said:
-I want to make clear that we are unalterably opposed to the passage of Bill C-131.
Again he said:
Time Allocation
-voting against a piece of legislation is one way to indicate opposition. We are not only opposed to the point where we want to vote against it, but we are opposed to the point where we do not want to facilitate its passage in any way.
Today, in speaking to this motion, he said that the NDP was prepared to use whatever means available to them to prevent this Bill from coming to a vote.


Ian Deans: Right on!


David P. Smith: If you look at the speech given by my good friend, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), on November 18, as reported at page 20805 of Hansard, he said:
Wc in the New Democratic Party unequivocally state our opposition to this Bill. As far as we are concerned, we will not be happy until the Government withdraws that Bill.


Ian Deans: That is right.


David P. Smith: This Bill is an offensive piece of legislation and it should not be allowed to pass through this House. . . . We will have no part of this Bill at all in this corner of the House.
I am not disputing that he feels strongly about what he said. He has a right to those sentiments. What I am suggesting is that a deliberate pattern has been indicated here which demonstrates that the New Democratic Party is not prepared to allow this Bill to come to a vote at second reading stage. He then said as reported at page 20809 of Hansard:
In conclusion I will say that if this Bill is not withdrawn by the Government it is the view of this Party that it cannot be allowed to be rammed through the parliamentary process.
When we have debated it for over eight and one-half hours, for another two hours today, and another full day next week, plus all the references that were made to the principle in question during the budget debate, that is hardly ramming it through. Even after all this time will have been spent on it, it still will not have got to study by the committee. He went on to say:
If and when it is referred to committee individuals and organizations wishing to have input into this measure must have an opportunity to do so.
I do not know whether there will be a lot of witnesses before the committee. There will not be any witnesses unless that Party allows it to get there and at least makes a pitch to make representations on that Bill. By preventing it from coming to a vote on second reading, they are preventing any opportunity for this Bill to be the subject of input by witnesses.
On November 30, the Hon. Member for Kootenay-East Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), as reported at page 21150, said:
My Party will be opposing this legislation in the strongest possible terms. The Whip of the Conservative Party asked me whether our speakers would be rising in the House to speak on the Bill. We will rise to speak on it as long as it remains in the House.


Mr. Keeper:: Read the whole speech.


David P. Smith: I read the whole speech. The Member is entitled to his viewpoint. The point of this debate today is whether
21214

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation
there has been sufficient and adequate time to debate this Bill in general principle so that it can come to a vote on second reading and go into a committee. That is what this debate is all about.
There have been a lot of red herrings brought into the heated argument that we have had so far that are not particularly helpful. Nobody likes to say to anybody: "You are going to have less as opposed to more". The act is that if you are going to have a restraint program that means anything, it has to be across the board.
Although I disagree with the position of the NDP, they are a little more honest than the Tories. They never worry about where the money will come from. The Tories like to have it both ways. They say they are all for restraint, all for slashing spending, in principle they will go along with the six and five program. However, when it comes to applying it to any identifiable group of individuals, they like to score little political points by defending them like Horatio at the bridge. 1 do not think that is honest; it is sitting on both sides of the fence. I do not see the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) here today. I would be interested in hearing his comments.
In any event, the pertinent issue today in this debate is whether a reasonable amount of time has been spent on this stage of the Bill. Any fair-minded individual would have to conclude it has. We should allow it to come to a vote and go to committee for further examination. Those who are opposed will have ample opportunity to make their views known at that stage. When it comes back to the House, they will have an opportunity to vote against it then as they do now. At least the elected representatives of this country should be allowed to vote on this issue and proceed to the next stage.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, those Liberals are at it again. 1 do not know why they do it. There is no reason. It must be that they enjoy the use of closure.
On his own admission just five minutes ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) admitted that this issue had been debated for less than three days; less than three days on second reading of a Bill that will affect in perpetuity every Canadian as they approach the age of 65. That cannot be considered too long a debate. The debate has only just started.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) rose in her place this afternoon and pointed out that Bill C-131 is very important. She said we have to get through it, that they could not allow any more debate, that debate had to be closed off after three days. When asked when another day would be designated for the vote on second reading, she shrugged her shoulders. She did not know when the vote would take place. The order of business for next week is Bill C-133, an issue you have something to do with, Mr. Speaker. On one hand the Government says today this is an important item that has to be dealt with quickly. In the same breath, it says it does not know when it will come back and be voted on. There is no need for closure in this instance.


David P. Smith: "Time allocation".


Dave Nickerson: The Parliamentary Secretary should have listened to what the House Leader of the Official Opposition said yesterday. He made the proposal that if it was part of the package, we would deal expeditiously with Bill C-131 and allow it to come to a vote on second reading, in the same way as we would like to see the vote in this House on Bill C-133 to find out how the five originally honest Liberal backbenchers vote. I do not know how many of them are left now. I remember seeing in print that at least one of the supposedly honest Liberals could not vote for Bill C-133 in its present form. I want to be here when the vote is taken to see which way that Member votes.
If the Government had listened to what the House Leader of the Official Opposition said yesterday, it would have seen the opportunity to work together with those on this side. We wanted a package deal with the series of Bills dealing with the six and five program, we do not like what the Government is proposing and we want to have an opportunity to make improvements. We know the program will get through for no other reason than they hold the majority in this House. However, we had hoped to make some improvements to those Bills, perhaps improvements which you, Mr. Speaker, would find worthwhile.
Maybe we would have improved Bill C-133 so that it did not come back to the House in its present form and those who say they cannot support it in its present state could support it after amendments brought forward by the Conservative Party. That is not to be the case.
For some reason, the Government is scared of the NDP. I cannot understand why. I certainly would not be scared of them. I do not think they are any great danger to anybody. In fact, it is a Party that is self-destructing. I do not think they could take on anybody.
Today the House Leader for the NDP said this is the most fundamentally wrong social service legislation that has been proposed in 16 years, but how many Members do they have here? They have four Members here to deal with the most important piece of legislation in 16 years. They could not have kept this debate going and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that. That Party is so badly divided it is not funny. It is a Party that is falling apart.
I notice that Members of that Party are drifting all over the House, continuously leaving the benches of the Opposition and wandering over to take a back seat on the Liberal side. For example, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) is an ex-NDPer, and recently we had another illustration of someone wandering over from the NDP to the Liberal Party. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is not much of a philosophical switch at all.
This, then, is the Liberal attitude which they show us today and have shown us on several occasions in the past where they needlessly imposed closure. They say: "Look at us; we are the rulers and we are going to show you people in the House of
December 2, 1982

Commons how we operate things here. We don't want you to debate this. We are tired of listening to what you have to say."
I do not know how many times the Liberals have invoked closure in this one session of Parliament. Not only do the liberal members have this attitude of arrogance towards the Canadian people and towards Members on this side of the House, but they also have that attitude towards their own grassroots supporters, and these people are rapidly catching up with what the Liberal hierarchy is doing to them.
A few weeks ago, here in Ottawa at the Liberal convention, the grassroots of that Party, what few are left, suspected that the Government was up to something and adopted a resolution designed to arrest these things which they suspected were going on. They adopted a resolution at that convention which told the Government to maintain universality in its social programs. I remember seeing the Minister of National Health and Welfare on television raise her hand in support of that motion. At the very same time as she was doing that, she was scheming underneath how to get rid of universality. This is the way the Liberal Government operates. At that debate, I remember old-time Liberals like Senator Croll spoke passionately of how they brought in the system of universality in the first place. They spoke of the parliamentary battles they had fought. They spoke with pride of the accomplishments of the old-guard Liberals of the Pearson era and before-before this bunch got in, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-131, which we have before us, is the end of universality. That cannot be denied. All the arguments which have been presented that the old age pensions are still going to increase just do not wash. We are going from a system of universality in social programs to the concept of means-tested social programs. This is being done gradually. This year, the old age pension escalation will be capped at 6 per cent, but the GIS will continue to grow at the rate of inflation or a little better. Because inflation is going to be with us as a result of the deficit which the Liberal Government continues to run up, after a while, in proportion, the OAP will become insignificant in comparison with the GIS. It can then be discarded and we will have a fully means-tested Old Age Security system, if that is what I can call it-because, in my opinion, it will no longer be a security system.
The old concept of universality is that you pay in taxes or in various impositions, and automatically on attaining a certain age or succumbing to an infliction, you are entitled to the services which are there to be provided. Under the Liberals we are getting away from that universal system and going into a means-tested welfare system. We will all be on welfare.
The results of Bill C-131, in the long run, are inevitable and they are an integral part of the scheme of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and his predecessor. I can tell the House that Canadians will not be fooled in this matter. What is probably more important right now is that the Members of their own Party will not be fooled; they are going to turn around and vote against these people because these Party Members know what the Government is doing.
Time Allocation
If this Bill goes through it will be the end of universality and the end of Old Age Security. And this is being accomplished through closure.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this afternoon and talk about this time allocation motion. I have been concerned ever since I came into this House as to how we tend to mismanage our time. I wish to quote from the proceedings of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, where it says at page 7:7:
The purpose of parliamentary procedure is to enable a democratic assembly to operate effectively and fairly.
At the end of the paragraph it says:
As time is a limited commodity, parliamentary procedure should ensure that the time available for parliamentary business is used as effectively and as fairly as possible.
With respect to "fairly", we have had eight and a half hours of debate, 23 speakers from the Opposition and five speakers from the Government side; and in considering the speeches which have been given, I am struck by the lack of new information which is coming forward.
Time allocation is a good management tool. The all-Party Committee has just made recommendations which have been approved in the House in an attempt to streamline the legislative procedures of the House. It seems to me that time allocation is a method of good House management. It apportions the time effectively. I think it is important when you are debating a Bill such as this that it move quickly through the various positions, so that senior citizens are not kept dangling, so there is some assurance to them of what is going to happen. There has been ample time for the Members of the Opposition to get their objective criticisms across.
The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) stated very nicely, I think, that time allocation is not closure but is a gentle form of ending the debate. John Kenneth Galbraith, in "The Scotch" in 1964, said, and I quote:
Only a thin line divides the articulate man of wisdom from the windbag. The Scotch expected a man to prove his wisdom by putting it to good purpose.
It strikes me, given the speeches from the Opposition during this debate, they are not really putting their time to good purpose. It seems to me that if they have some constructive criticism, the way to put it to good purpose is to get this Bill to committee where they can make their constructive suggestions and we can move the Bill ahead. In listening to the Opposition speakers we get the impression that they are not putting their time to good purpose.
Now, John Andrew Holmes, in an article called "Wisdom in Small Doses"-we are certainly getting that from the other side-said that speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where it often substitutes for both. When you look at what has been happening in this debate, there is no question that we are in this sort of nebulous position. The motion which the Minister has put forward this afternoon

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation
represents an attempt to move from the limbo between thought and action, from speech to action. It really represents an attempt to use the time of the House for action taken on the basis of reasoned thought and debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder), recognizing that he spoke the Bill out last night and he is speaking again today, would agree that the Bill would be in committee today if he had not talked it out last night; and I was wondering if he would permit a question on that.


James Duncan Schroder: If there is time at the end of my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Wyatt Dick: His second speech in less than 24 hours.


Lloyd Axworthy: And they are all good speeches.


James Duncan Schroder: We are trying to manage our time properly and the Opposition insists on interruptions which really make no significant contribution to the debate. I will just have to continue with my speech, and if they listen I presume they might learn something.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Duncan Schroder: I think my next quotation is very apt for Members on the other side, particularly the Hon. Member who has just interrupted my speech. Sir William Osier said in 1919: "Consider the virtues of taciturnity: speak only when you have something to say".


Philip Derek Lewis: Take your own advice.


James Duncan Schroder: If Hon. Members on the other side would listen to this, they might recognize the fact that while they maybe made some good points in this debate, they made them over and over and over again.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is because you do not catch on quickly.


James Duncan Schroder: The purpose of this debate is to add objectivity to the issue, to add some new points. That is the science of debate. After 23 speakers it is becoming increasingly obvious that they have nothing new to say. Another quotation, which I could perhaps take credit for if I wanted to but which is anonymous, is to not speak unless you can improve on silence. I think, Mr. Speaker, that what we can do with around this House is a little more silence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Starting now.


James Duncan Schroder: Especially from the Opposition. Perhaps in reforming the House we should have incorporated a silent period during debate which perhaps would have been good for all of us. Certainly by continuing this debate, the Opposition can no longer improve on silence. They cannot even improve on
what they are saying. You know, most of us are ordinary people.


An Hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


James Duncan Schroder: Ordinary people merely think of how to spend time. You can draw your own conclusion, because I am talking about the Opposition. But those with talent try to use time.


Philip Derek Lewis: Save him from himself, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I heard a Member opposite comment that really the issue before us right now is whether or not we should be discussing the Bill at length, whether or not the Bill should be passed in principle. I do not know just exactly what principle the Hon. Member was considering. I know the principle which I worry about in this Bill, and I know it is not being addressed by Members opposite. If we are discussing principle, we must discuss the decency which should be inherent within this Bill.
Here we have a Bill which is a method whereby the Government can save money, money to help compensate for the gross deficit that Members opposite so irresponsibly have brought on the people of Canada. We cannot talk about the principle of the Bill without talking about who is going to be affected by it.
Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, was introduced in this House in October. It was the Liberal Government's way of offering a thanksgiving gift to the senior citizens of Canada. It was the Liberal Government's way of saying: "thank you, golden oldies; thank you for what you have done for Canada. Thank you for what you have offered to Canada. Thank you for the dedication and the love you have bestowed on your country. We want to thank you for this, and this is the way we are going to do it."
This country now has a misery index of 22 per cent, and the Government is going to attack the senior citizens as the most helpless group within our country. The Government is going to hit them because they are easily hit. They are down and Members opposite are ready to kick them. It is the Liberal Governement's way of showing gratitude and appreciation for what has been done. That is why I rise, Mr. Speaker, because I am concerned with who is being hit by this atrocious piece of legislation.
Who are these people affected? They are people who went through a depression, a world war, people who waited behind for their loved ones to come back from that war. They are people who suffered their way out of that world war, people who put everything they had into bringing Canada back on its feet. They are people who worked hard during the post-war
December 2, 1982

years, people who were burned out because in their three score and ten years they lived three lifetimes. What is Canada's gift to these people? We are going to limit them to a 6 per cent increase on their old age pension in the first year and 5 per cent in the second year.
I do not think there is anything more to the Bill than I have just stated. It is not a complex Bill. There is nothing that can be done by amendment. There is nothing in the Bill which should prompt any Hon. Member opposite to give support to it.
I do not like this Thanksgiving present; as a matter of fact, I no longer like Thanksgiving.


Mr. Simmons:: Do you want to abolish that too?


Robert Lorne McCuish: I would like an opportunity to go to the chopping block and take the turkey with me who is responsible for the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, this entire debate is nothing if not entertaining. I know Mr. Speaker has been preoccupied in the past few minutes with process. I commend what my good friend, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish), has said. I suggest that you read it at leisure, Mr. Speaker, for its comic effect, when you have the time to absorb what he said. Then, if possible, you should get hold of some of the more recent pontifications of his colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), when he talked about what he and his Party would do if they were in Government.


An Hon. Member:: The slasher.


Roger Simmons: Yes, the slasher. He talked about how he would save several billion dollars overnight. They cannot have it both ways. I say to the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley that they should really tell the people of Canada how the slasher will find all that money. They know how; they know exactly how. They do not propose saying it unless they have to, but I think it is time that we called their bluff.
They cannot any longer in one mouthful tell the people of Canada that they would be the great artists of restraint and that they would find billions upon billions of dollars, without also telling them how they propose to find those billions of dollars. They cannot in the next mouthful turn on the tears. They cannot give the old tear-jerker speech with a straight face, as the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley just did. He cannot have his cake and eat it too; he has to do one or the other. He has to gang up on his buddy from York-Peel and say: "Slasher, old man, you are misleading the people. I, from Prince George-Bulkley Valley, am in favour of universality. I am in favour of perpetuating those social programs for the good of the Canadian people about whom I just gave a tear-jerker speech." That is what he has to say.
Time Allocation
Also he should say: "Slasher, I do not believe you although I belong in the same Party, because if you, slasher, find all those billions of dollars, I have a sneaking suspicion that you will take the money at the expense of those people about whom I have just given a tear-jerker speech."
Which is it? Are they for social programs which this Government brought in? Are they for old age pensions? Are they for payments from the public treasury to people who cannot help themselves? They may be for them. They say they are for them, but they were terribly silent and absent when the need for such programs was first recognized. Without exception, it took a Liberal Government on every occasion to take the initiative for all the programs we have been debating over the past few days.
That great tear-jerking Party is good at making tear-jerking statements. Its Members were noticeably absent when we were looking for someone to formulate a program to address the needs of senior citizens and mothers who needed Family Allowance income. They were very much absent in those days, but now the old band wagon syndrome has taken over. Now they see a good thing, and there is a good thing. After 30 or 40 years of banging away at them over there, we in the Liberal Party have convinced them that this is a good thing. Now they rush in to be the champions of what once they despised. They rush in now to be the champions of programs which they never had the gall, the gumption or the foresight to bring in.
I become a little short of temper, a little hot under the collar, when I see the unadulterated hypocrisy of people who, in successive mouthfuls, can say that they will save $50 billion or $60 billion. That is what the slasher said. He said that they would get the deficit down and have a balanced budget in seven years. I say: "Tell us how, slasher; tell us how you will obtain a balanced budget and do all the things the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley also said you should do".
My good friend from Guelph, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder)-


Mr. Kempling:: He talked out the Bill last night.


Roger Simmons: If I could have the attention of Hon. Members opposite, a few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary talked about silence. I do not often disagree with him, but I disagree with my good friend from Guelph because I think there has been a lot more silence than he said there was.


William James Kempling: Oh!


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) is not quiet for very long. I say to him that there is a difference between empty-headed noise on the one hand and intellectual noise on the other hand. There has been an absolute intellectual silence for days on that side of the House on this particular debate. The intellectual silence has been absolutely deafening.


An Hon. Member:: You are deafening.

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation


Roger Simmons: One of the earlier speakers today on the Tory side of the House talked about-


William James Kempling: Tell us what he said.


Roger Simmons: Still he babbles. Do they wind him up in the morning?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: I hear a lot of noise over there. Perhaps there is some kind of crystal installed in them that keeps them going, and they only have to replace the battery once a year. They just keep babbling. He or one of his friends-and he has a couple-talked about people moving from one side of the House to the other. It somehow bothered them that people should move from one side of the House to the other. I shall not impose upon the House my particular views on that subject. Suffice it to say that I have been here fairly regularly for the past three years and I have not seen any people move from this side of the House to their side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I must call his attention to the motion before the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: I fully thought that I was on the motion all the way. Less than 30 seconds ago I appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, to check Hansard to see the very informative discourse of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. If there was any suggestion that I was suggesting he was off the subject, I apologize to all concerned.
Someone else on that side of the House mentioned universality earlier today and talked about getting rid of it. It is the same old con game, the same old mugs game, where they spread fear all the time. Clearly the Government is on the record, not only in terms of words but in terms of actions over many years, as being very much for universality. I know that people on the other side have come lately to the cause- welcome. We have been part of the cause, espousing the cause and putting our money where our mouth is for a number of years on the issues of old age pensions, Family Allowances and spouses' allowance.


Philip Derek Lewis: We do not have that much money.


Roger Simmons: I know this is an embarrassing subject for them, but it is something they have to live with. Before they talk about getting rid of universality, I say to them that that old smear tactic, that old playing on the fears of helpless people, is too low. They should not engage in it under any circumstances. It does not help them politically. It does not do anything for their self-dignity. It does not do much for my respect of them. Why do they not get off the kick about who is supposed to be ridding the country of universality? It will not be this Government. If they have some ideas, if they are caught thinking out loud about what they would do, if and when they are in power for a few fleeting moments, let them
say it. Let them have the courage of their convictions. Otherwise, it the same old tactic-let us play on the fears of the helpless out there; let us do the old tear-jerking routine again; let us spread the word that maybe, just maybe, the Government will tamper with universality! That is good for a few kicks; that is good for a few votes. It is the same old approach. They have not changed one whit. There is nothing new. I wish at least for the sake of variety and a bit of novelty in this debate that these fellows once in a while would get their act together and come up with something more original than playing on the fears of helpless people who cannot be here to defend themselves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It does not appear that the Hon.
Member has unanimous consent.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, the other day when I spoke on Bill C-131 I indicated that I was not very happy about the prospect of speaking because it is a real shame that one has to speak in this House on such an horrendous bill. However, today I am very happy to speak on the closure motion on Bill C-131. I think it is a great privilege for anyone in this House to oppose this type of closure which has become standard practice by this Government during this session.
Closure is really an undemocratic procedure to enact in this House. I remember many years ago that I was disgusted by a Liberal Government when it imposed closure on what was known as the pipeline debate. That was way back in 1957. It was then that I became interested in being active as a Conservative. Therefore, on this occasion I am very happy to speak once more against this practice which this Government seems to have made a part of its regular bag of tricks.
In the late 1950s there was a fellow by the name of C. D. Howe who was the one responsible for closure. He was the C. D. Howe of "What's a million?" fame. With this Government, the phrase is "What's a billion?" And on and on it goes. For the past two days on this side of the House we have been speaking on behalf of a very large group of people in Canada in the debate on Bill C-131. But these people are a minority. They are our senior citizens. These are people over the age of 65 who receive Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement in order to support them in their retirement. However, two and a half days is not enough time for any group of people to oppose adequately a Bill which attempts to take rights away from a minority. Yet that is what this Bill is doing and it is why we have to speak out against closure.
December 2, 1982

The people on the other side of the House know, and they know full well, that it takes several days of debate in the House of Commons before word filters out across Canada about what is happening. I dare say that right now half of our senior citizens and half of their organizations do not know the extent to which this cutback will affect them through this program of six and five. I see the Minister shaking her head, but it is true. Bill C-131, in spite of the fact that the Government denies it, is lowering the income and placing many people on the poverty line who were not on the poverty line before. That has to be so because this Government is taking away the purchasing power of our senior citizens over the next two years.
It is all very well and good for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to say: "Thank God we will be in the promised world of six and five next year". If we are, the Minister knows the proper person to thank. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not in the world of six and five. The rate of inflation in this country is still over 10 per cent. It is still in the twodigit range.
Our senior citizens who are at or near the poverty line will have less purchasing power, which will place more and more of them on the poverty line or below. It is that group of people who are near that line who will be so seriously affected by this Bill.
This Bill does attack the universality of the old age pension scheme, which is the basic support for our senior citizens. Several Members have commented on this in the past few days and it really is the only remark that upsets the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder), in a most incredible statement when he was reading his speech a few moments ago, probably written by department officials, said that perhaps we should consider that we should not speak in this House unless we can improve on silence. I suggest that is why over the two and a half days of debate only five Members from the Liberal Party have spoken. Obviously, they thought they could not improve on silence.
This Government has spoken about pension reform. The Minister has travelled across the country. I suspect she has spoken in every major city in Canada about pension reform. She advised us today that we will have some indication of what pension reform is all about in the near future. But let us take a look at the record of this Government, a Government that refuses to allow us to debate this issue so that the people of Canada will know what this Government is doing to its senior citizens.
In this Government's budget, the first thing the Liberals did was to penalize our senior citizens in terms of their savings and investments. The Government followed that with Bill C-131 and what it proposed to do via Bill C-133. This Government has done nothing to improve the status of pensioners in this country. I think our senior citizens should know that and we in this House should be allowed to inform them. It would be a far different thing if the pension system were in trouble.
Time Allocation
Certainly if this Government, like some other governments in the world, the United States in particular, were having real problems with the social security system, I am sure that Members in this House would co-operate in finding ways to finance what is an ailing system. For instance, our Canada Pension Plan is in trouble now. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will give this Government the co-operation it needs to improve that system. But the basic support system for the aged is not in trouble. The OAS is working perfectly well. It is the kind of income support that any country would be proud to give their senior citizens.
This leads me to ask this Government and this Minister, why are they attacking this system? We recognize there is a demographic problem, but that did not affect Old Age Security assistance. We recognize that inflation is a problem in this country. But surely a government that spends money the way this Government has cannot place its problems on the backs of our senior citizens.
Let us look at what this Government has done. It has spent $13.7 million on Bombardier by way of guarantees. This Government has made a $200 million loan guarantee to Chrysler; there is a $500 million investment for Dome Petroleum; a $34 million debt guarantee for de Havilland; a $125 million guarantee to Massey-Ferguson; and a $20 million investment in Minaki Lodge. What about its recently set-up Crown Corporation of which this Government is so proud? I am referring, of course, to Petro-Canada, which is paying $18,000 a day in rent for empty space in Calgary. But now this Government is saying that it needs to fight inflation on the backs of the elderly.
My colleagues and I will continue to oppose closure on Bill C-131 as long as we are able. We will continue to oppose the Bill itself because it is highly unjust to the senior citizens of our country.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker-


Mrs. Mitchell:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder about the sequence of speakers. We have had three from each side-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The sequence of speakers has been observed scrupulously.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I want to stick fairly rigidly to the subject of the motion, which does not concern the subject matter of Bill C-131.
I am a member of the Committee which has been reviewing the regulations of this House of Commons. One of the matters that we have discussed is the problem of getting legislation out of the House. The Members of the Opposition Parties that are represented on that Committee recognize that the Government has a right to govern, and the Members of the Government Party on that Committee recognize that the Opposition has a right to oppose.

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation
I do not believe that any Member of the Committee has suggested that opposing a Bill went to the extent of being able to block its passage other than by a vote on the floor of the House. Therefore, our discussion centred around how we can bring an issue to a vote on the floor of the House. One of the suggested changes to the regulations of the House that has been accepted and will be effective next year is a limitation on the time for speeches. It is hoped that this procedure will aid somewhat in the passage of bills at second reading. This change represents a step forward. I think it will be helpful to the Government and it will still leave all Members with the opportunity to speak. There is no restriction to the total time, but I hope that since speeches will be limited, the remarks of Members will have to be relevant because they will have to confine their remarks to a 20-minute package. After eight hours of debate, which will generally last for two or three days, speeches will be limited to ten minutes.
We have a very real problem which we must face. When I say "we", I mean all Members. The Committee had discussed the implications of our Standing Order 75 and I think it is worth quickly reviewing the three paragraphs in that Standing Order.
Standing Order 75A deals with a situation where there is agreement among the representatives of all Parties to allot a specified number of days to a Bill. A motion is then proposed and, of course, there is an immediate decision. In other words, the decision is made without debate or amendment. Under normal circumstances, one can also anticipate a decision being made without a vote.
Standing Order 75B deals with the situation where we can get substantial agreement between the Parties but not necessarily unanimous agreement. Once again there is a provision whereby the motion will allow for a fixed amount of time for the termination of the debate at that particular stage. However, since it is not unanimous, there is, in effect, a two-hour period for debating the motion, following which there is a vote.
That brings us to the third paragraph, 75C, which we are using this afternoon. Standing Order 75C deals with the situation where no agreement can be reached on time allocation and the Government sees that it is unable to bring an issue to a vote unless it takes this step under Standing Order 75C. In this particular case we are concerned with second reading. The desire of the Government at this stage is to get the Bill out of the House on second reading and into committee where it can be studied by the Members of the committee. This procedure, then, must be used because of the inability of the Government under the existing rules of the House to obtain what would ordinarily be general agreement that there be committee study.
The reason I am very concerned and wish to talk specifically about this issue is that, as many Members will be aware, there is a tremendous backlog of Government legislation. There are many Bills on the Order Paper at the present time which are awaiting passage. In addition to those on the Order Paper, there are almost 300-I repeat, 300, because that figure is very important-pieces of legislation which have been given
consideration in the various Departments but which cannot be brought forward because it is obviously impossible to get anything close to that amount of legislation through the House of Commons.
I know that you have a great interest in certain pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, so I will deal with those. They are also pieces of legislation in which I take personal interest. It is legislation dealing with the Public Service.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What does it have to do with the Bill?


Harold Thomas Herbert: The Opposition tells me to talk about the Bill. I am talking to the motion before the House under Standing Order 75C, which is to limit debate on the Bill. That is the subject matter of the motion and to which I am addressing my remarks.
I have been working here for ten years without success in an endeavour to get important pieces of legislation brought before the House. It is not because the Government is unwilling or that the Opposition is unwilling, but because there is an inadequacy of House time to consider these measures. We cannot even bring them forward for discussion, let alone pass these measures. Therefore, we find ourselves in what I consider to be the ridiculous situation at the present time where no matter what we do among ourselves we cannot reach an agreement which will make it easy for the Government to have discussions on its proposals or, for that matter, for the Opposition to indicate its stand on these measures.
I honestly believe that it is long past the time that we face up to the fact that far too much time is spent on second reading debate in the House of Commons. 1 fully understand the need for time to pass between the introduction of a Bill and its passage. I understand the Opposition's point of view that there must be time for the public to be made aware of an issue. However, I do sincerely suggest that this should not occur by dragging out a debate on second reading on the floor of the House.
When the Opposition debates this motion this afternoon, I ask them to address the subject, which is the real basic problem of when we must come to a conclusion on second reading debate-not passage of the Bill-so that we can get a measure into committee where we can call witnesses and delay it, if we want, to give the public time to consider the measure. We can have freer discussion in committee while we will not block the introduction of worth-while measures in the House on second reading.
I would be very happy to hear from the Opposition, particularly Her Majesty's Official Opposition, how they intend to handle this subject if they ever-God help us-become the Government of this country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the eloquence of Government Members on closure, when they have more speakers talking on closing down debate than they do for the actual debate of the Bill itself in order to justify the extreme hardship they are asking the senior citizens of this country to bear. I suggest that the
December 2, 1982

sound of silence on this Bill would not be justified from the point of view of senior citizens.
We oppose closure because we oppose this Bill. We feel that there has not been enough time to make all the arguments, both from the point of view of our position and with regard to informing Canadians about the purpose of this Bill. It is extremely important that senior citizens and all Canadians have a chance to know what the imposition of the six and five program means as it affects pensioners by the indexing of old age pensions.
We also feel that the Liberals want to close down on the Bill because they have not really been able to justify their reasons for using senior citizens in this land as the victims of their economic disasters; and they have not tried to make many speeches. We think their action is unconscionable.
A few minutes ago an Hon. Member to my right said that senior citizens are the ones who suffered very much during the Depression, who fought to feed their families at that time, who have worked hard all their lives, have kept their costs down and are faced with inflated costs for their basic needs today. They are the ones who will be asked to bear the brunt of six and five restraint.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the subject of the motion which is before the House? My contention is that the Hon. Member is not speaking to the motion.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that I am speaking directly to the point of the motion. As I said, the reason they are imposing closure is because of the very statements of the Hon. Member opposite. We feel the Bill has not had full enough debate and I am explaining that matters have been omitted and not fully brought forward. That is why we oppose closure, so my remarks are surely directed to the point in question.
I note the Liberals have not spoken to the issue of tax reforms. We feel that if there is such a financial problem, and indeed there is in this country, rather than curtailing the indexing of old age pensions, the Government should be considering tax reform so that those with higher incomes would pay more of the tax burden and those with the highest incomes, those in the very wealthiest sector of our society, should not have loopholes whereby they pay no tax at all. That is what should be done to cover costs, not take money from the indexing of old age pensions. That is why we oppose the closure that is being imposed on us today.
The other point raised yesterday in relation to Bill C-132, which has not been debated fully either, is that it represents an erosion of universal old age pensions to cut back on indexing in this way. We know that several times the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has been quoted as saying that he is not sure that we should have universal social programs and the Cabinet has been considering some rescinding of universality. Therefore, we want more Hon. Members to be heard on these issues.
Time Allocation
The Parliamentary Secretary said that there was no new information to bring forward. I am extremely upset, as will be the women of Canada, that the Liberals will not allow us to have a full debate on the impact of this Bill on women pensioners. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) knows full well that she has been sponsoring conferences across this land on women and pensions. Time after time, those in attendance have been told that women are the hardest hit by economic stress and the inadequacy of pensions.
The Bill will add a burden to the women of Canada. Over one million women pensioners live on very low incomes and most of them, far more than men, live in poverty. Single or widowed women live in abject poverty. They are isolated with no access to transportation. The high cost of living is hitting them hardest. They are facing a deplorable situation with increasing anxiety because their cost of living indexing will be cut by the Government.
Another reason we oppose closure is that women do not have adequate Canada Pension Plan coverage, and that matter will be debated at further length, 1 am sure. Many women either do not have Canada Pension Plan coverage at all or else it is extremely low since they worked for the lowest wages and are in and out of the work force because they raise children.
Women are also devastated when they become widowed. I am sure Hon. Members must know women friends who have lived fairly comfortable lives while their husbands were alive, but when these husbands die, they suddenly find that they are destitute. The worry which this Bill will add to their shoulders is quite immoral.
Many of the widows in this country are too proud to request the Guaranteed Income Supplement because they see this as being welfare. They have the right to a full pension which is indexed at today's cost of living. That they must pay the rising cost of fuel, must meet very high rents and costs of clothing and food which will be far above the 6 per cent increase this year, I am sure.
We also oppose closure because we have not argued enough on behalf of women pensioners, who live on average to 77 years of age, which is seven years longer than most men. They will suffer longer because of the cutbacks and the punitive actions of this Government directed toward old age pensioners. They are isolated by poverty. Many have contributed all their lives to their country and families as home-makers. They have raised Canada's children. They have worked with no pay or benefits and now they are receiving pensions. For the first time in their lives many will be receiving cheques in their own names, but the indexing on those cheques will be cut down. It is a disgrace, which is why we want the debate to continue and to hear a response from the Government.
Where is the Minister responsible for the status of women? She is not even in the House. She has not contributed to the debate. No one on the Liberal side has given justification to the women of Canada for the Bill that has been brought in or for why women will have to suffer from the cut in indexing.

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation
I would simply like to say that an article quoting the YWCA appeared in the November 11 edition of The Globe and Mail giving the reasons why the Guaranteed Income Supplement is not the answer and why we must have old age pensions for women above the poverty level. The NDP Task Force on Older Women, which has held meetings right across the country, heard from women who complained that they are not adequately served by the pension program of this country. I also refer Hon. Members to an article in The Toronto Star today which states that older widows are the poorest in society, that the cost of living is rising dramatically and that their incomes are going down. In turn, their indexing will be cut, which is immoral.
We want the debate to continue so as to give Canadians, particularly women of all ages, a chance to hear about it and to respond. We want to hear justification from the Government for why it is taking this action and what its impact will be on women pensioners.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 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 Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell)- Health-Funding for Planned Parenthood Association, (b) Increase in teenage pregnancies; the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling)-National Revenue-Movement of tax records from Hamilton to Sudbury. Complaint concerning recorded messages; the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois)-Air Transport-Quebecair 2-Government position.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin:
That, in relation to Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if
required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to take up a few minutes of the precious time of the House in order to support the motion of closure presented by the Government with a view to ending the debate. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) pointed out so perceptively, after nearly nine hours of debate, Opposition Members have had ample opportunity to express their points of view. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, not only are the same points being made over and over again, those same points have, for the most part, no basis in fact and are being voiced primarily to deceive the Canadian people, especially the elderly who are well aware that the achievements of the Liberal Party in formulating social programs and taking new initiatives with respect to social policy are quite exceptional, and if we look at what has been done by our hon. friends in the Official Opposition, there is no comparison.
Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised when Opposition Members shout rape when the Government, after a reasonable length of time, decides that debate has lasted long enough. After all, we were elected to run the country, and I am a member of this party because I appreciate its determination to do just that and, once the Opposition's arguments have been heard, to make decisions.
Mr. Speaker, in her speech the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), who has unfortunately already left us, made it very clear that she had an abiding interest in this question. She felt that the Liberals had not approached the heart of the matter. Before the end of this debate, I want to say once and for all what the actual facts of the matter are, Mr. Speaker. I think we all agree, and no one is going to challenge this, that more than half of those who are 65 and over and receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement are not in any way affected by the provisions of Bill C-131, since they are guaranteed full indexation to the cost of living. What is the situation, Mr. Speaker, for senior citizens who are getting only their basic pension? At the present time, they are getting $246.92, which full indexation as of January 1, would have raised to $251.12, while capping indexation at 6 per cent will raise the present amount to $250.62, a difference and I think people ought to realize this before the end of this debate of exactly 50 cents per month. Mr. Speaker, if we calculate this over 1983 as a whole, considering that the projected inflation rate, according to the Government, will be I'h per cent, I expect that if the present trend continues and 1 have every reason to believe that will be the case, a senior citizen receiving only the basic pension will have a loss of income of $29 in 1983
December 2, 1982

and $52 in 1984. We are no way near the catastrophic prediction made by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) who claimed that on the basis of an inflation rate of 10 per cent in 1983 and 9 per cent in 1984-one wonders where she got her figures-senior citizens stand to lose $70 in 1983 and $220 in 1984. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important Canadians should know that between January and March 1983, senior citizens will have a loss of income of 50 cents per month, and this applies to 47 per cent of the population, while the other 53 per cent will be receiving the basic pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement with full cost-of-living indexation.
This is certainly not the catastrophe being predicted by the Cassandras in the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, people ought to realize that for this Government, the all-important thing is to win the fight against inflation. And it is important because we must not forget that many pensioners receive only the basic pension because they are already receiving benefits from private pension schemes which are often not or only partially indexed, and these are the people who will benefit most if we succeed in bringing inflation rates down as far as possible.
I would also like to comment briefly on what was said by the Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), who claimed that the Government was neglecting single pensioners and was doing nothing to improve their situation. I would like to remind the House that in 1979, when the Liberals were still in power-we did, of course, have that unfortunate period of eight or nine months in 1979-so before we were removed from power, we had increased the Guaranteed Income Supplement for singles by $20 and as soon as we were back in power, after the end of the Progressive Conservative interregnum, we added another $35. The increase for singles is the same as that for couples, because we realize that singles who are now receiving about 56 per cent of what a couple is getting, should probably get more, because as we all know, there are fixed costs whether you live in a house or a senior citizens' residence or an apartment. In fact, the cost of living for a single person may be about two-thirds of what it is for a couple. We realize we must do more for singles. I know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is very keen on this, and that as soon as economic and financial conditions permit, we shall act accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, in June 1982, the Minister of Finance announced that about $105 million could be saved by capping indexation of basic pensions. We are glad to see that the actual savings will be less, because it is an obvious sign that we are winning the fight against inflation. In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say it is high time we ended this debate. I think that within reasonable limits, the Opposition parties have had ample time to express their views, and besides, they will have an opportunity to make constructive proposals when the Committee meets for a clause-by-clause study of this Bill.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Depending on what the Speaker says, perhaps we should suggest that it is five o'clock.
Canada Council


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it five o'clock and proceed to Private Members' Hour?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely Private Bills, Notices of Motions for Papers, Public Bills.
There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading Private Bills, the House will proceed to Notices of Motions for Papers.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
All items preceding Motion 112 allowed to stand.
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of any publications or items published as a result of grants given by the Canada Council to Mr. Bill Bissett.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the very refined language of the motion, I would in fact wish that copies of the material published by Mr. Bissett be put on the desks of every Member of the House of Commons. Perhaps if that happened we would have no more of the nonsense of publishing this sort of thing. There was no difficulty getting the books published by Mr. Bissett. In fact, they are available in the National Library of Canada. I have an armful of them with me.
Three years ago, in the spring of 1979, a number of colleagues and I spoke disparagingly of the federal Government through the Canada Council making funds available to Mr. Bissett. Mr. Bissett sued a number of us. I want it to be known that I would challenge Mr. Bissett to carry out that suit or to start a new suit, whatever he wants, because the material that he produces is simply garbage. I will give a description of it to a greater degree in a moment. I want it on record that I am prepared to go outside the House, where I have no immunity, and read this speech or any part of it, in case Mr. Bissett thinks that I am doing this in the House of Commons in order to be immune from challenge in the courts. I am not.
I fought for some time to try to find words to describe what I am talking about today. As my temperature rose higher and higher and as I read some of the material, I looked back at what some of my colleagues had said. I decided as a calm afterthought that I would read what had been said by one of my colleagues on December 13, 1977, just five years ago, when this matter was raised. I will read one paragraph referred to

December 2, 1982
Canada Council
during the "Late Show" when the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) was speaking. He discussed the material that I am discussing this afternoon and this is what he said:
This material, supported and masquerading in the name of art, is a demeaning degradation of human experience. It is in my view neither creative nor beautiful, it is not even grotesque or ugly beautiful, it is neither uplifting nor fulfilling, it is not even passionate or erotic; it is simply vulgar degradation of the human experience-vulgar and demeaning at a level well below that of funky graffiti written on the back of washroom doors. This type of vulgarity deserves to be placed in a category of the hate literature of pop art and should not be censored but rather branded as unfit for human consumption, and discarded on the rubbish heap to rot in its own vulgarity.
That as well as anything I could say describes the material published by Mr. Bill Bissett, yet the Canada Council continues to provide him with money. One might have thought that when this matter was first raised in 1977 the Canada Council would have had a look at what Mr. Bissett was saying and, as a result of that look, perhaps change some of its grants, but no. Since 1967, when Mr. Bissett received $2,500 to write poetry, up to and including 1982 when he has a short-term grant to write poetry, he has received a total of $53,274. I should be careful. There was one small grant to take him to Glasgow to the song and poetry festival at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, where I hope he enjoyed himself.
I am not unaware of the benefits of the Canada Council or of its source. My memory tells me it was introduced at the time that Mr. Diefenbaker was Prime Minister of Canada. It was created to support the arts in Canada. That is a very worth-while enterprise and a very worth-while subject for the Government of Canada.
A number of people in Prince Edward-Hastings have received Canada Council grants. I have no fault with their grants. Let me go a step further and say that I do not pretend to be a critic. There are many things the Canada Council supports that I find of little value. My taste does not go to some of the avant-garde art. My taste tends not to be supportive of some of the literature, dance and theatre, but I find absolutely no fault with that. They are the chosen works of artists in Canada and are looked on as such. I would not criticize them. I am sure there are Canadians who support that train of culture.
Nor would I censor the work that is being produced by Mr. Bissett. If he wants to produce the kind of garbage that he does, if he can find help to get it published and sold in the stores of Canada-although I cannot for the life of me understand who would take it-that is fine. By all means. I have absolutely no objection. What I object to very strenuously is the fact that he is using money from the taxpayers of Canada, through the Canada Council, to do this. Far worse than that, with the kind of garbage he puts out he is in fact stealing. I am confident that in any given year there are applications for grants from the Canada Council that are far more deserving than this. I am sure that if this money could be put towards such things as ballet, symphonies, books or dance, or any such worthy causes that Canada Council supports, I would have no argument.
If the Canada Council felt they needed to have an example of poorly written trash full of suggestive lines and four letter words, surely one example would have been enough, or even two. One can only stomach so much of this degradation. Because the books were available, I tried to work my way through some of them, but so help me I could not. I doubt that 10 per cent of the words in the book are properly spelled. There is some kind of tone to it; and when I get the meaning of the poem, I can hardly read it. I chuckled when the Minister answered the first two of my three questions. He actually spelled one of the titles wrong. He spelled the title "Poems", as you or I would spell it. Mr. Bissett, however, spells it "Pomes". I suppose there is some poetic licence in that, but it seems that even our staid Government sees the need to use the English language as it was intended.
I will give some explanation of what is in the books. I will not hold them up in the House of Commons. I know it is against the rules, but I would not do it in any event for fear that the cameras might get too close. Someone might be looking and would get a chance to read it, and I do not want to be responsible for disseminating that sort of thing.
In the books there are-I was going to say "explicit human acts", but surely they are not human. Surely the things described in his books are sub-human. The sort of thing which is described by Mr. Bissett in his works are beneath the dignity of the majority of Canadians.
Finally, I was warned at one point during the attempt by Mr. Bissett to sue myself and others that the press of Vancouver, particularly Talon Press and something by the name of "blew ointment press"-how does that name grab you?-have been responsible for taking money from the taxpayers to print this sort of thing. I frankly include them in my criticism, knowing they may well be upset, because they are as culpable as Mr. Bissett.
1 am not going to take the 20 minutes allotted to me. I have set out, I think satisfactorily, how bad this material is. I could perhaps have taken a thesaurus and repeated two or three passages from it to find more adjectives to cover the despicable nature of the material, but that would do very little good. The whole purpose of this exercise, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, as the motion says in very fine language, would be to have the Government produce some of this material and put it on the desks of Hon. Members so they can see exactly what the Canada Council, an arm of the federal Government, is doing with the taxpayers' money.
I am being totally non-partisan, you will notice, Mr. Speaker. I have not blamed the Government or any of the Ministers in the questions I originally put on the Order Paper. The Ministers very quickly answered them. On this particular evening I have no desire to castigate anyone on the Government side. I expect there will be some Liberal Members responding to what I have said. I merely want to draw to the attention of the public of Canada the way in which some of the
December 2, 1982

taxpayers' dollars are spent, with the fond hope that perhapss-omewhere down the road, someone from Canada Council will have the courage to say no when this sort of thing is brought before them again, and they can go on and do the work they should be doing.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: It is a great pleasure for me, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this debate in support of the position taken by my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward Hastings (Mr. Ellis). I support his motion questioning the wisdom of the Canada Council giving grants to one by the name of Bill Bissett, a self-styled poet.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that we have a responsibility to keep our culture and heritage alive and to keep our identity ever present. However, there is also no question that some recipients who have been granted funds from Canada Council, ostensibly for this very purpose, have not followed through. To them, Canadian patriotism and nationalism has become not the last refuge of the scoundrel, but the first sanctuary of the rip-off artist. One glaring example is the person by the name of Bill Bissett, who seems obsessed in the writing of poetry with repeating obscene four-letter words over and over, which really depicts what many people think his poetry is all about.
Regardless of the protestations of concerned citizens all across Canada, which were completely ignored by the Canada Council, the pundits in that Department continue to fund this individual so he can produce even more of his so-called poetry which no newspaper in the country would ever think of printing. As my colleague from Prince Edward-Hastings stated, this man has received some $53,274 of Canadian taxpayers' money from the Council to produce his filth. If he had used his own money, that would be his own personal business; but for Canada Council to continue to fund him, courtesy of taxpayers' dollars, is wasteful and unforgivable. Writers who write what people will not read serve no purpose other than their own self-indulgence. If such people want to feed their own selfindulgence, then let them do it with their own funds, not with the hard-earned money of other people, such as Canadian taxpayers. Let them write on their own time and expense. There is always the possibility that in the process of earning a living, they might even become better writers.
I do not think it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to support writers when no one will pay to read their works. For that matter, why should the taxpayer support theatre which no one will pay to watch? Tax dollars were never meant for the purpose of providing writers, actors or producers with an ego-satisfying outlet or income. There is nothing wrong with amateur drama groups, but I do not believe they should be subsidized by the state.
I have personally been actively involved for over 20 years in an amateur drama group in my own home town of Owen Sound, the Owen Sound Little Theatre. Not once has our group requested financial assistance, either provincially or federally. We have always stood on our own two feet, ever improving ourselves and our play productions, which has helped to maintain continued and active support by the people in our community over the years. Such grants, I believe, only
Canada Council
serve to smother motivation and incentive, not to mention desire and ambition. If it cannot be accomplished without grants, then it is not worth being done.
Canada Council makes awards to some 90-plus publishers and periodicals in Canada. I believe this not only encourages mediocrity, but it punishes the talented. If publishers did not receive public money they would be more discriminatory about what they publish. They would really have to hustle to sell books and promote authors.
There is no question in my mind that art and cultural have always been part of human nature and will continue to survive in one way or another despite any intervention by the State. If the Canada Council is going to continue to dole out taxpayers' dollars, it must tighten up its requirements and more actively critically investigate every application before it is approved. In other words, the people in Canada Council must take extra pains to live up to their mandate and trust so that they are never violated.
The people at Canada Council are not an entity unto themselves. They are answerable to their peers; at least, they should be. But despite all good advice and constructive criticism, Canada Council always turns a deaf ear and continues to carry on in a haphazard manner. Members of Parliament who have seen the obscene poetry of Mr. Bissett have expressed utter amazement that Canada Council have supported such works. Even reprimands from the Auditor General has not fazed Canada Council. The Auditor General's report on the Canada Council cited the "lack of adequate documentation on some of their files both for applications submitted and for subsequent action on individual projects", and that this inadequate documentation was "very extensive, costing the taxpayers several million dollars".
It is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, that the Canada Council is not even accountable to the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal). The Council reports through him directly to Parliament. This is a totally inadequate way to allow for ministerial responsibility for accountability by the Canada Council to Members of Parliament for the spending of millions of dollars annually. This is totally unacceptable in a democracy. What it means is that the taxpayer will never be allowed to know or pass judgment because the Canada Council refuses access to information by Members of Parliament and the Minister. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is, how autocratic can one get?
Let me repeat that Canada is still a democratic country, not a dictatorship as the Canada Council would like us to believe. All of us in public office, elected or otherwise, are responsible to the people of this country and not the other way around. I fervently believe that the Canada Council should get their act together, shed their arrogance and disdain for others, get out of their cocoon and become part of the real world. People who continue to live on cloud nine can do so if they wish, but they are not the kind of people in whom I would put faith and trust to manage and disburse millions of taxpayers' dollars. Com-monsense, Mr. Speaker, is the bottom line. It is too bad that

December 2, 1982
Canada Council
this is an unknown quantity as far as the Canada Council is concerned. Let us hope it will change before much more damage is done.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of participating in this debate. It is ludicrous, to a large number of Canadians to see Parliament debating poetry when people are losing their jobs and their homes, and the country is in a major social and economic crisis. It will create the impression that we do not know how to use our time more effectively.
I for one do not believe that it is Parliament's function to debate the merits or otherwise of a particular poet and his poetry. I have no objection to debating whether to give cultural agencies like the Canada Council money grants to carry on cultural activities. In fact, I wish Parliament would spend more time debating that issue. But for us to discuss the merits of a particular decision or method of decision by the Canada Council is a waste of time.
However, there is a larger question involved, that of censorship. When Parliament begins to decide what is appropriate and what is not appropriate poetry, then I think we start down the road of censorship, a slippery road indeed. I remind Hon. Members that it was a Conservative Government which appointed Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Hebert to write their report. The second recommendation of that report is as follows:
To the extent that the functions of cultural agencies and offices require the exercise of impartial, critical judgment in the support of cultural activity, they should be exempt from political direction in the form of ministerial directives of either a general or specific nature.
I think that also includes Parliament. The decision as to what form of art or which artist is acceptable is a decision to be made by their peers, not by Parliament. When Parliament becomes involved it threatens academic and intellectual freedom.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: At taxpayers' expense.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentions the taxpayers' responsibility. I think in this sense he is right. Parliament has and should have the opportunity to debate money being spent for the arts. But, as I mentioned before, I wish we could spend more time debating the general topic of public support for the arts and not art itself.
We are debating today the question of a particular poet, Mr. Bissett. Well, I am not going to stand here and argue the merits or lack thereof of Mr. Bissett's poetry. Art, Mr. Speaker, is in the eye of the beholder. I know many people consider Mr. Bissett to be a well known and important Canadian poet, and in Canadian literature courses in most universities Mr. Bissett's poetry is mandatory reading. His poetry has been published in over 47 publications. Now, Mr. Speaker, publishers do not publish poetry unless there is a demand for it. Obviously there must be some demand for his poetry, and for Hon. Members to suggest that he is only published by disreputable publishers is inaccurate. His poetry has appeared in such publications such as "The First Encounter", "Saturday Night", and the "Paris Review". The latter two are well
known literary and intellectual publications. For us to say that they should not have printed his poetry I think is intellectual nonsense.
Certainly Mr. Bissett's poetry is difficult to read. It is part of what is called the "Black Mountain" school of poetry. Some people call it the concrete school. In my understanding of that school, the visual presentation of the words is as important as the actual meaning. The sounds that the poem creates are as important as the literal meaning. I am no expert on poetry, and I do not think that any Member of this Parliament is. Essentially, this school of poetry is another way of looking at the world, taking different aspects of reality and presenting them to us.
Some poets go out of their way to get a reaction from their readers using certain words over and over again. You know, they say it is a blow against the tyranny of words. That is their justification for using words which the previous speaker felt were offensive words. 1 am not outraged by them. To me they are words you hear on the street. They hold no tyranny for me. This is not my taste in poetry; but for us to try to suggest that the Canada Council should not make a grant available to any person is outrageous and not appropriate.
I have one other point which I should like to bring to the attention of the House. An Hon. Member has suggested that no legitimate poet or critic considers Mr. Bill Bissett's poetry of value. Again that was wrong. For example, Milton Acorn, a well-known and well-respected Canadian poet has defended Mr. Bill Bissett and his poetry. I could mention other well-established and well-known poets who have come to Mr. Bissett's defence. I ask the question again: who are we to make such judgments here?
Generally the type of words and images used by Mr. Bissett in his publications do not conform with my tastes, but I do not become as upset as have previous Conservative speakers. They called them obscene. There is mild obscenity in some of his poems, to be sure, but I would rather see Parliament debate what I really find obscene-war, nuclear weapons, hunger, torture and repression in the world. I think these are appropriate topics for discussion in Parliament. If we are to discuss obscenity, let us discuss the real obscenity which exists, not the merits or demerits of a poet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much indebted to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) for providing me the incentive to rise. I am not quite sure why he participated in the debate, having found it such a tragic waste of time for the House to devote one hour to cultural matters, then professing that the House should not give its blessing to censorship or sit in judgment of the works of art of fellow Canadians, and then proceeding to defend the artist.
However, I should like to deal with his points one by one. First, let me talk about the effective use of the time of the
December 2, 1982

House in terms of economic stress over cultural matters. This was a display of either the ignorance or the hypocrisy of the NDP. I come from what is generally regarded as a cultural community, Stratford. People from all over the world, but mainly Canadians and Americans, spend $7 million a year buying tickets for the Stratford Festival. For every dollar spent on a ticket, $3 is spent on accommodations, food, souvenirs and travel. These dollars do not go to multinational companies but to small-business people, not only in my riding but in London, Kitchener, and the towns and villages surrounding Stratford. 1 have never seen a cultural dollar provide a better bang for the buck in terms of the economic multiplier effect than the $1 spent on a ticket in Stratford, in Niagara-on-the-Lake, for the Winnipeg Ballet or wherever. If my Hon. friend in the NDP is talking about providing a stimulus to the economy through cultural events, I say to him that he should come to Stratford.
This is not necessarily only a cultural debate. It is also an economic one. I have serious reservations about censorship, but I did not hear that matter raised. He made no reference to the fact that we were talking in terms of censorship. Having been given a mandate from fellow Canadians to represent them in the House, it would follow in my view that we would have a responsibility and obligation to be deeply concerned about the use of dollars which they send to us in terms of taxes and about how they are spent. Were I the chairman or a member of the Canada Council and I heard no criticism, I would be very worried. I would be extremely concerned if there were no criticism of the decisions I took. It is profoundly helpful, not only for constituents and taxpayers but for the Canada Council, for it to be the subject of criticism.
Any Member of Parliament who stops receiving letters of criticism starts worrying about the next election because the people have forgotten him. The Canada Council should worry when we in the House of Commons stop discussing what we consider to be decisions that are not in accord with the best interests of our taxpayers or constituents. That is the time to start worrying.
There is a great difference between censorship in the abstract and censorship when it relates to the expenditure of the dollars of taxpayers. I have no difficulty distinguishing between the two. It may have been a waste of my friend's time, but it certainly was not a waste of my time to hear the remarks of those who participated in the debate or to be able to criticize. When we in Stratford, who owe so much to the Canada Council, are not in accord with its judgment, we criticize.
The Stratford Festival is judged year after year. We have to stand up and be judged. If we fail to meet the level of expectation of the Canada Council, we are quite rightly cut off. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think I speak on behalf of almost any arts organization with which I have had any contact when I say that the moment an organization does not permit itself to be judged by the ticket buyer, the Canada Council or the community supporting it, whether it be a Little
Canada Council
Theatre in Owen Sound or the Stratford Festival in Stratford, the particular arts facility is doomed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon raised by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis). I am rather interested in the most recent remarks of the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis). As the Hon. Member well knows-and he alluded to the fact-the Stratford Festival, in which he is very much interested, receives a great deal of support in many ways from the Canada Council. Because I come from the neighbouring riding of London West, I must add that we in the area appreciate the efforts of the Stratford Festival and what it means not only, as the Hon. Member mentioned, to the Stratford area, but certainly throughout southwestern Ontario, to London in particular and of course right across the country. There is no doubt that the Canada Council in many ways is the supporting arm of arts and culture in Canada.
At the outset I should like to indicate that it is fine to bring these matters before Parliament for debate. Certainly from time to time the Canada Council must be responsible for its actions, but I emphasize the point, as I am sure all Hon. Members know, that the Council operates at arm's length of Government and regardless of the Government of the day. As was already mentioned, grants awarded by the Canada Council, whether they be to poets, writers, musicians, theatre groups or touring groups, are done on the basis of the judgment of a panel of jurors, if one likes, who assess each individual application for a grant as it comes along.
I am sure all Members received today a very interesting document from the Canada Council which gave a report on the first seven years on the Touring Office of the Canada Council. The report detailed to a great extent the tremendous work of the Council in facilitating artists and young theatre groups, not only those in stationary positions, to tour across Canada and also on an international basis. I recommend that each Member read the report in detail.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the question of language, of literature, of the work of various Canadian poets has often been raised in this House. As a matter of fact, I believe it was the late Right Hon. Lester Person who referred to the fact that these questions kept arising time and time again. He said that members should really stop bringing such questions to the House, that perhaps they are letting failure go to their heads. Nevertheless, the matter has been raised. It is one which must always be answered, no matter how unfounded it may be. I suppose, and I can speak from experience having come from the broadcasting industry and having had the opportunity of working in that industry over a number of years, that perhaps what disturbs us is good. We can be disturbed on many fronts and on many elements. When we are perhaps disturbed, and especially when it comes from the cultural world, it sets us

December 2, 1982
Canada Council
thinking and acting. I would hope that Canadian art and literature would always disturb us. How then can our standards be determined, not standards for censure or suppression but community standards for acceptance and rejection? Here it seems to me that one could do worse than cite at length the criterion set for the Supreme Court of Canada, by Mr. Chief Justice Bora Laskin as follows:
In seeking a Canadian community standard based on the average appreciation of art, the Court, in my opinion, is not limited to a settled national consensus. The average in community attitudes is better struck according to the range of exposure that that particular art, or art forms, have had in the localities of Canada where art is exhibited.
In other words, standards should be based on familiarity, on study and on considerable exposure. Judgment stems from knowledge, understanding, and responsiveness to the collective community experience-of writer, publisher or reader-which is every nation's literary heritage.
It has been the basis of the Government's cultural policies in literature to encourage and stimulate the suppliers of our literature, because the ultimate beneficiary is our nation as a whole. 1 am sure Hon. Members opposite would agree that our literature, no matter what its nature, enables us, in the well known words of Tom Symonds:
-to know and understand ourselves; who we are; where we are in time and space; where we have been; where we are going; what we possess; what our responsibilities are to ourselves and to others.
Thirty years ago the framers of the Massey-Levesque Commission's Report asked plaintively:
Is it true, then, that we are a people without a literature?
Today, in large part because of the various measures of support the Government has been able to institute, both indirectly through the Canada Council and less indirectly through support programs of the Department of Communications, we can point with great pride to an extraordinary growth in Canadian writing on the one hand and in the size and enthusiasm of Canadian audiences on the other, because Canadian writing has established its place not only in the literary history of this country but throughout the world.
The written and published words are flourishing in Canada in manifestations sufficiently varied to respond to all possible tastes. This signifies without any doubt that the spirit of artistic and intellectual freedom is alive and well and growing in Canada. Productivity and artistic maturity are proceeding hand in hand.
Today writers' lives are a collective success story in creativity, productivity and public esteem, both here and abroad. Critical attention and media recognition have been coming to Canadian writers as never before. But they also need to have enough to live on. The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) criticized the fact that this Bill was being debated today and suggested that we should be talking more in terms of economic concerns. That point was picked up by the Hon. Member for Perth. 1 would agree with the Hon. Member for Perth to the extent that this is an economic matter, because we are concerned about Canadian writers, their livelihood and just how they are able to live. For example, and this may come as
rather a surprise, the median income of full-time writers in Canada was, according to Statistics Canada for 1978, the last year for which we have complete figures, about $7,000 a year. Income from royalties amounted to about $3,000 a year. Canadian writers on their own are not making money hand over fist overnight. It is, as the Hon. Member for Perth has suggested, an economic debate and one which must be addressed with all sincerity and honesty.
Publishing in Canada is also a success story, and again not often a financial one. Canadian publishers have to face the full power and force of the highly successful great American houses, with their enormous home market base, and try to foster and increase the flow of Canadian books. In this context any support not given can be seen as leading simply to the waste of Canadian creative resources. The problem here is not how to give less, not how to censor, not how to constrict and subdue the natural flow, even if it does occasionally splash over us in ways that we might find uncomfortable. The problem here is how to support, nourish, fertilize and foster for the imaginative enrichment of us all.
It has been explained often enough in this House how grants are made by the Canada Council. For the benefit of Hon. Members present I suppose there would be no harm in repeating that explanation yet again.
All applications from individual artists are assessed by independent professionals, knowledgeable in the discipline of the applicants. For literature the juries have included such writers as Margaret Atwood, Dennis Lee, James Reaney, and Earle Birney, each of whom has won the Governor General's Literary Award. These jurors and appraisers are asked to evaluate the artistic quality of the applican't work, his career and its place in the world of contemporary literature. Obviously the assessment is not made on a few works or a few words taken out of context. There are many books of the very highest spiritual content containing passages which, taken out of their setting, can startle and shock. Yet one would be foolish to judge them on an individual basis.
The Department of Communications also gives support to Canadian literature through its Canadian Book Publishing Development Program, which is aimed at improving the corporate health of Canadian publishers. The sale of these books increased by 23 per cent over the previous year. The Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee has now come forward with recommendations for certain modifications and amplifications in the programs of support for our literature. We plan to act rapidly in response to this report. Their recommendations are of the highest importance for our future intellectural and, consequently, moral growth as a nation. I do mean moral growth, in spite of the quotations that have been cited once again here today. A nation without its full, flourishing and free literature is really like a people without a voice, without expressed thought, without defined future commitments or without a vocal conscience, no matter how that conscience finds it necessary to express itself.
December 2, 1982

I am sure that the Hon. Member must agree that we must continue to support our artists at this time because in all of their manifestations, even the ones we do not like, they are our voices. Perhaps they are not like the voices that are raised day in and day out in this place, but they are our voices that perhaps can have a greater effect in many ways than some of the voices we hear in the House of Commons. They help us to look to the future.
I think the point which must be stressed with respect to the criticism of the Canada Council grant to the particular writer involved is that the Hon. Member failed to point out the fact that this particular writer has written a number of books which I am sure the Hon. Member has not had the opportunity or perhaps the inclination or interest to read. Perhaps he should read them. He has taken one particular area out of context, if you will, to make his criticism. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that in order to have a better view of this particular writer's craft and his ability to communicate, he should in fact look at the entire works of that writer.
As I mentioned earlier, the Canada Council does in fact work at arm's length. I believe that all Hon. Members would have to agree that the jurors who base their decisions on the grants that might be awarded are people with a strong representation of the proessional fields which they do represent. 1 suggest that the Canada Council does merit our support in many ways. It merits our support to the point that when we study the Applebaum-Hebert Report much more will be said about it. Hopefully, Parliament will see fit to increase the awareness and financial support not only for the Canada Council but for all areas of art and culture in the country.
Again, I refer to what the Hon. Member for Perth had to say about the fact that this is an economic debate because this does involve dollars and cents for artists as well as for the communities which many of these artists support through writing, theatre groups and music. Symphony orchestras are an example of community support. Theatre London in my area receives support in many ways from the Canada Council. It should be encouraged to give greater support.
I will conclude with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, and trust that the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings will look at the entire work of this particular artist and not just at one particular sentence. I must refer to the Stratford Festival. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, that if the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings were alive in the days of Shakespeare, he would not have been able to stand up and espouse the greatness of the Stratford Festival, which we all know encourages and highlights the works of Shakespeare. Yet I do not hear any criticism of some of the words used in the great Shakespearian plays. The intent of what Hon. Members opposite have said is rather questionable. Again, let us support the Canada Council however possible.


John Raymond Ellis: There is no argument.
Canada Council


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: The Hon. Member says he has no argument, yet he stands before us to criticize the handing out of funds to this particular artist. These artists are only doing their work.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented to the House by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) deals with a very specific matter but it does provide an opportunity to consider the work and the organization of the Canada Council.
In responding immediately to the words of the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to the Canada Council, I want to make it clear that we are here to ask what the Canada Council can do for Canadians, not what Canadians can do for the Canada Council. The challenge we have is to examine the work of the Canada Council to determine if it is fulfilling its mandate or, indeed, if the Canada Council in this day and age of restraint should have a mandate from the Parliament of Canada.
Just to deal briefly with that point, I remind Hon. Members in the House that this is the twenty-fifth year of the operation of the Canada Council, which I understand was organized in 1957 with a $50 million grant. I recall that this grant seemed like a large amount to turn over to the arts in those days of the low dollar values. However, 25 years later, the budget alone for 1981-82 of the Canada Council involves $62.8 million in expenditures. We are dealing with a relatively vast organization.
I was impressed by the words of the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that we can rely on the Canada Council to make arm's length decisions on matters affecting the arts across Canada. One could also ask what the relationship of the Associate Director and Director of the arts division, Mr. Timothy Porteous, is to the Government of Canada. If I am not mistaken, his claim to fame is that he is a personal friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I wonder if they occasionally talk about matters pertaining to the arts.
My purpose in rising today is to deal particularly with the current situation between Canada Council and the Atlantic Symphony Orchestra. The Atlantic Symphony Orchestra has been a very important part of community life in Halifax and across the Maritime Provinces for some time now. The closure of the Atlantic Symphony Orchestra was announced this year. The problem is that the financing for this symphony orchestra is not available. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary and those who deal with the Canada Council to have the officers responsible conduct an immediate investigation in an attempt to save the Atlantic Symphony Orchestra, in accordance with their mandate, in order to provide that important community service to the City of Halifax, the Province of Nova Scotia and all of the Maritime Provinces. Only through action such as that will the Canada Council fulfill its mandate and serve not only the people of my Province of Nova Scotia but all Canadians.


Mr. Doug Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, in the final two minutes I would like to elaborate on one of the major points
21230

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation
made by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) with respect to the question, in terms of these grants that are given out by the Canada Council, as to who decides on those grants and on what basis. In other words, who is qualified to judge artistic quality? I would point out that this has always been one of the difficulties that the Canada Council has had in judging the work of artists, particularly young artists, and determining how those grants would be given.
The Canada Council is very unique in the sense that it is a creation of Government which, paradoxically, operates quite independently from Government, while remaining accountable to it. It is a structure of artists, by artists, for artists.
One of the original directors of the Canada Council stated that the Canada Council has to make decisions daily about artists in their twenties who have perhaps one volume of poetry to their name or a string quartet that has only given one performance. He said, "We are, in fact, required to look into the seeds of time and say which one will grow and which one will not."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin:
That, in relation to Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair should perhaps explain to Hon. Members that the key for the bells has been mislaid.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: However, it being past the time of meeting, the occupant of the Chair thought that proceedings should start now as there is a quorum.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with you, Mr. Speaker. I would offer you a key if I had one. However, I must insist that unless the bells ring to inform Hon. Members that the House has, in fact, started, which would be quite out of the ordinary, then 1 think Hon. Members would be able to indicate, on a matter of privilege, that they had not been properly summoned for the evening session.
Since I am here, it does not matter to me, but I wish you would find the key, Sir, because it is important inasmuch as we will have a vote in 12 minutes, I can assure you of that, and without the bell, unless the Government House Leader is prepared, like the old bell ringer of years gone by, to take in his hand a bell and to march through the halls ringing it, we will feel obliged to ask that the vote not take place at that time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Do I see the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) rising on the same point of order?


Walter David Baker: They have lost the key? You have to be kidding.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think we have a quorum and I understand the point made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I will not agree to a vote being taken without the bell calling in the Members. However, I would invite him to quote the proper Standing Order stating that the bell is required at eight o'clock to call in the Members.


Ian Deans: I would suggest, without quoting the Standing Order, that there is clear precedent for the necessity of ringing the bell in order to indicate-


An Hon. Member:: Ding dong.


Ian Deans: -that the House has been called into session. However, in the interests of harmony, if there were unanimous agreement, I would be quite content to allow the 12 minutes which are not yet used up in the two hour debate to be used now on the clear understanding that, but for the want of a key, the vote could take place. Maybe we could agree that if we do not have a key 12 minutes from now, the vote will take place when the key arrives.


Walter David Baker: Somebody should check their pockets.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the suggestion, which I was about to make, that in order not to waste any time, due to this fortuitous event, and considering the fact that we have a quorum and Hon. Members want to conclude debate on the motion which is being debated by the House, we conclude debate after 12 minutes, and if we still have not
December 2, 1982

found the key by that time, 1 would even be willing to agree that we resume debate on Bill C-132 and that the vote be deferred until later, when they key is found.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would take keen delight in entering into any discussion with respect to the application of the rules of this place. What the Government House leader has said sounds eminently sensible, and I really do not believe that I should take a part in the substantive discussion of the application of the rules, since I am hardly an expert on the bells.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Speaker, if I may be of some service to the Chair? 1 would like to inform the House that in my office, I have a ship's bell, and perhaps you would care to use it to call in the Members.


Mr. Isabelle:: Mr. Speaker, if I could make a suggestion, maybe you could order another set of keys to be made, so that the other set could be kept under the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair has heard the various interventions by the Government House leader and the House leader of the Official Opposition as well as the NDP House leader. Is there, therefore, unanimous consent that we proceed in the way which was outlined?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if you would just listen carefully, I think you can faintly hear a bell, and it is a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to rise and speak to the motion on Bill C-131. I can understand why the Government has brought in closure, because it is not the type of matter it would like to discuss for a very long period of time. It is not a popular Bill and, therefore, it would like to sneak it through as quickly and as quietly as possible, hopeful that the Canadian public will not know about it.
Taking away money from senior citizens and asking them to lead us in the fight on inflation is hardly fair, considering the fact that those senior citizens are the ones who led our country to prosperity. Why does the Government of the country not take the lead in cutting its expenditures instead of increasing them by 22 per cent? Perhaps it could cut its spending so that it can increase its expenditures this year by only 6 per cent and maybe, by next year, by only 5 per cent. Perhaps the Government could take the lead in cutting our deficit so that the deficit increases next year by only 6 per cent and, the year after that, by 5 per cent. This would be a new wrinkle. We would all like this and it would be a very acceptable type of Government. We have only been debating this Bill, through which the Government seeks to cut the pensions to the senior citizens in this country, for eight and a half hours. The speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister j)f-National Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder) this afternoon
Time Allocation
sparked my memory a little bit. I point out that the Parliamentary Secretary spoke last night in the debate and used up the available time. Otherwise, the Bill probably would have passed last night. Not only was he not satisfied with speaking for a lengthy period of time last night but he decided to get up today and make an intervention. He spoke about how Parliament does not use its time properly and how insensitive Parliament is to an effective and efficient use of time.
It made me think, oh yes, we had an increase in old age pensions back in 1973, when I had the honour of being here, and I remember that it was the greatest waste of the time of the House. In 1973, when the Bill to increase old age pensions was introduced in this House, the Members of the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party, who were then in Opposition proposed to the Government that we have two speakers per Party, and then put the Bill to a vote. The Government refused, and Members of the Government spoke for three full days on the increase of old age pensions. Then the Government Party "forced" a vote, which came to 228 yeas to zero nays. Forcing a vote on a motion when nobody is opposed to it has to be an absolutely ridiculous waste of time. But the Government Members wanted to speak on their then popular measure of increasing old age pensions, and they spoke for three full days. Yet when they are introducing a measure to cut the pension, to reduce what the people get, they want to cut it off at eight and a half hours.


An Hon. Member:: Double standard.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Government certainly has a double standard, to say the very least. It is being a little hypocritical, when they bring in a positive measure they think is going to be well received, to want to talk about it at length. They then have as many as 37 speakers speaking in favour of it so they can zerox copies and send them out to their constituents. But when they want to make cuts, and hurt the people who least deserve to be hurt in this country, they want to cut off debate.
I had an opportunity to go down to the Parliamentary Library this afternoon, after I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I want to quote from page 1793 of Volume 2 of the First Session of the Twenty-Ninth Parliament where, after the Question Period, the Hon. Marc Lalonde moved that Bill 147 to amend the Old Age Security Act be read a second time and referred to a Standing Committee. He said:
-the bill that is now before the House for second reading proposes the largest single increase in the basic old age security pension that has ever been made sirice the inception of this particular program over 20 years ago.
Now we are having the first cut that we-have ever had in over 30 years of old age pensions, and they do not want to talk about it.
He went on:
I feel all the more privileged that the very first bill I have the honour to propose for the consideration of parliament is one which aims at substantially improving the economic condition of those 1.8 million senior citizens to whom Canada owes so much for making it what it is today.

December 2, 1982
Time Allocation
Such hypocrisy for Marc Lalonde to say that when introducing the Bill in 1973, and try to cut off debate today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member should refer to other Members in the House by the name of their ridings, or their portfolio, please.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what his constituency was in those days, but he was the minister of health in 1973, and he finds himself as the Minister of Finance today, not being generous as he was in 1973, but introducing six and five to cut down the pensions of the senior citizens of this country. That is what the Minister is proposing; that is the double standard used by the Government today. They insisted then that we keep debating the Bill and wasting time by taking a vote on a motion which nobody opposed.


Walter David Baker: The worm has turned.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It was this Government which was hypocritical during the 1979-1980 federal election campaign, when it went around the country and promised among other things that it would increase senior citizens' allowances by $35. It was after the election that they then said, oh, it is only the GIS, it is not the general package that goes to old age pensioners.


Walter David Baker: Not the basic.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is the second time they have deceived the senior citizens of this country.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Ebenezer Scrooge was a miser, but at least he was an honest miser and he treated his foes as he did himself. The Libera! Government of today is really, in this month of Debember, playing like Scrooge, but it does not want to Save an honest and full discussion about this matter. They want to cut it off because they are so embarrassed. They want to hide this matter. As a matter of fact, in "the year 1973 the Liberal Government had to bring in a second Bill on old age pensions which it brought in orf September 6 of that year, because it had botched the one it brought in on March 6.


Walter David Baker: I remember that.


Paul Wyatt Dick: They had not allowed indexing on the quarterly instalment plan. We spent seven days debating the old age security pension in 1973. Now, after eight and a half hours, they want to cut off the debate.
I understand why they might want to have a double standard but I think it is unfortunate. If they wanted to be true to themselves, and wanted to be fair or even a bit honest, then they would show the leadership required in this country.
I ask them, instead of increasing Government expenditures by 22 per cent or 17 per cent or 16 per cent, whichever figures you want to use, let them cut it to 6 per cent; and next year promise that the national debt is not going to increase by more than 6 per cent. Let them show leadership right at home in their handling of government affairs in this country, and quit trying to lay the leadership on the backs of those who are over
65, who have served this country, who have built this country into what it is today and now, after having shown leadership over the last 40 years, are being asked to show leadership a second time. I do not think that is honest or fair. I think the Government has the responsibility, and should not call upon the senior citizens who have already contributed.
The senior citizens of this country are not equally well off, but the Government is introducing a means test, and some senior citizens, as a couple, will lose almost $600 over the next two years because of this Bill. I think the Government should bring in restraint, and I believe in the six and five program being applied in certain cases, but it should be implemented where it is most important first, that part which is increasing inflation, and that happens to be the Government's own habits of spending.
My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker and I just want to say one last thing about six and five cutting off senior citizens' pensions. It is unfair, unjust and totally reprehensible.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more edifying then participating in an important debate in front of an attentive House,^ so I take great pleasure this evening to be able to present my reflections on the motion that is before us on the'Bill whose fate we are attempting to shape.


An Hon. Member:: That should take about two minutes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We heard your reflections yesterday.


Norman Kelly: Two arguments have been developed and hurled across at us in this two-hour debate: First that this Government is applying closure an in attempt to terminate this important debate and that it is not interested in looking at the sensitive and detailed technical arguments that are involved in this issue and second, that this Government, in a very brutal way, is determined to fight inflation on the backs of the senior citizens. I would like to look at those arguments and see if there is any merit in them. If there is, this Government is doing the wrong thing to a very sensitive segment of our society.
Are we invoking closure? Are we terminating this debate? Obviously the answer is that we are not invoking closure and we are not terminating debate. The hon. gentleman opposite who is walking down the aisle, in his rococo debating style has charged us with disinterest.


Ian Deans: Are you being mean?


Norman Kelly: No, I think I am being generous. I was actually trying to choose between rococo and Jovian. I did not know which of the two was more accurate or generous. Anyway, are we terminating debate? The answer is no.
December 2, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. It being 8.22 o'clock p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 75c have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: Motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,053, 4,487, and 4,503.

December 2, 1982
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Siddon: 1.	How many tonnes of uranium hexafluoride were exported (a) from Canada (b) through the Port of Montreal in (i) 1980 (ii) 1981?
2.	How many tonnes of uranium hexafluoride were shipped from Canada direct to the U.S.S.R. for further enrichment into the isotopes uranium 235 and uranium 238 en route to the final countries of destination during (a) 1980 (b) 1981?
3.	How many tonnes of uranium hexafluoride were exported from Canada on export permits designating Finland as the ultimate destination during (a) 1980 (b) 1981 and, in each case, to the knowledge of the government (i) how many tonnes were finally received in Finland (ii) how many tonnes destined for Finland actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of the enriched uranium isotope U235 and what is it used for (iii) how many tonnes destined for Finland actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of enriched isotope U238 and to what agency or agencies was the material shipped and what is it used for (iv) how many tonnes of residue resulting from the enrichment in the U.S.S.R. were actually left in the U.S.S.R. and what was the final form of the residue and how was it disposed of?
4.	How many tonnes of uranium hexafluoride were exported from Canada on export permits designating East Germany as the ultimate destination during (a) 1980 (b) 1981 and, in each case, to the knowledge of the government (i) how many tonnes were finally received in East Germany (ii) how many tonnes destined for East Germany actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of the enriched isotope U235 and what is it used for (iii) how many tonnes destined for East Germany actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of the enriched isotope U238 and to what agency or agencies was the material shipped and what is it used for (iv) how many tonnes of residue resulting from the enrichment in the U.S.S.R. were actually left in the U.S.S.R. and what was the final form of the residue and how was it disposed of?
5.	How many tonnes of uranium hexafluoride were exported from Canada on export permits designating South Africa as the ultimate destination during (a)
1980	(b) 1981 and, in each case, to the knowledge of the government (i) how many tonnes were finally received in South Africa (ii) how many tonnes destined for South Africa actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of the enriched uranium isotope U235 and what is it used for (iii) how many tonnes destined for South Africa actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of the enriched isotope U238 and to what agency or agencies was the material shipped and what is it used for (iv) how many tonnes of residue resulting from the enrichment in the U.S.S.R. were actually left in the U.S.S.R. and what was the Final form of the residue and how was it disposed of?
6.	How many tonnes of uranium hexafluoride were exported from Canada on export permits designating Italy as the ultimate destination during (a) 1980 (b)
1981	and, in each case, to the knowledge of the government (i) how many tonnes were finally received in Italy (ii) how many tonnes destined for Italy actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of the enriched uranium isotope U235 and what is it used for (iii) how many tonnes destined for Italy actually left the U.S.S.R. in the form of the enriched isotope U238 and to what agency or agencies was the material shipped and what is it used for (iv) how many tonnes of residue resulting from the enrichment in the U.S.S.R. were actually left in the U.S.S.R. and what was the final form of the residue and how was it disposed of?
7.	To what other countries and in what tonnages was uranium hexafluoride exported from Canada during (a) 1980 (b) 1981 and, in each case (i) what was the name of the purchaser (ii) did the country of destination request that the uranium hexafluoride be shipped initially to the U.S.S.R. for enrichment and how many tonnes of the isotope U235 and the isotope U238 were produced within the U.S.S.R ?
8.	Was each shipment in Part 7 registered with the International Atomic Energy Agency and are detailed records of all subsequent destinations of Canadian uranium, in all its forms, maintained by the Atomic Energy Control Board?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Atomic Energy Control Board and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	(a) (i) 1980-8410 tonnes (t) uranium, (ii) 1981-8830 t uranium, (b) Under the confidentiality provisions of the Statistics Act, statistics on exports of uranium hexafluoride
are not published separately due to the small number of reporting firms. The Act ensures that no information relating the particulars obtained from any individual return to any identifiable individual person, business or organization is disclosed.
2. (a) 1980-840 t uranium, (b) 1981-443 t uranium.
3.	(a) 1980-308 t uranium, (i) 248.125 t uranium, (ii) 55 t of uranium containing 1.6 t of the uranium isotope U*in235 and 53.4 t of the isotope U*in238 left the U.S.S.R. for fabrication into fuel assemblies for use in Finnish nuclear power reactors, (iii) 230 t of depleted uranium containing 229.5 t of U*in238 and 0.5 t of U*in235 were shipped to Finland and subsequently transferred to the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) under terms of Canada/Euratom Agreement for the peaceful uses of atomic energy, (iv) 0.5 t of depleted uranium remained in the U.S.S.R. at the end of 1980.
(b) 1981-232 t uranium, (i) 183.9 t uranium, (ii) 30 t of uranium containing 0.9 t of the uranium isotope U*in235 and 29.1 t of the uranium isotope U*in238 left the U.S.S.R. for fabrication into fuel assemblies for use in Finnish nuclear power reactors, (iii) 130.6 of depleted uranium containing 130.3 t of U*in238 and 0.3 t of U*in235 were shipped to Finland and subsequently transferred to Euratom under terms of the Canada/Euratom Agreement for the peaceful uses of atomic energy, (iv) 0.6 t of depleted uranium remained in the U.S.S.R. at the end of 1981. This includes the 0.5 t of depleted uranium that remained in the U.S.S.R. at the end of 1980.
4.	(a) 1980-None, (i)-(iv) Not applicable, (b) 1981- None, (i)-(iv) Not applicable.
5.	(a) 1980-None, (i)-(iv) Not applicable, (b) 1981- None, (i)-(iv) Not applicable.
6.	(a) 1980-533 t uranium, (i) 533 t of uranium were received in the Euratom destined for use in Italy. Under the Canada/Euratom Agreement materials are accounted for on a community basis rather than a state basis, (ii)-(iv) No uranium destined for Italy has gone via the U.S.S.R.
(b) 1981-692 t uranium, (i)-(iv) No uranium destined for Italy has gone via the U.S.S.R.
7.	(a) 1980 (Ultimate destinations)
Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)-545 t uranium
(i) German utilities, (ii) The FRG requested that 133 t of uranium be enriched in the U.S.S.R. U*in235 and U*in238 are not produced in the enrichment process. The process involves increasing the quantity of U*in235 in part of the material by decreasing the quantity of U*in235 in the remaining part. The total amount of U*in238 and U*in235 does not change.
Belgium-844 t uranium, (i) Belgian utilities, (ii) No.
Spain-1313 t uranium, (i) Spanish utilities, (ii) Spain requested that 400 t of uranium be enriched in the U.S.S.R.
Japan-2400 t uranium, (i) Japanese utilities, (ii) No.
United States of America-1509 t uranium. This includes 1 t of uranium shipped to the U.S.A. for storage awaiting toll
December 2, 1982

shipment and for which the ultimate destinations have not been assigned, (i) U.S. utilities, (ii) No.
Korea-88 t uranium, (i) Korean utilities, (ii) No.
United Kingdom-752 t uranium, (i) British utilities, (ii) No. Sweden-118 t uranium, (i) Swedish utilities, (ii) No.
(b) 1981 (Ultimate destinations)
Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)-775 t uranium, (i) German utilities, (ii) FRG requested that 256 t of uranium be enriched in the U.S.S.R.
France-242 t uranium, (i) French utilities, (ii) No.
Spain-110 t uranium, (i) Spanish utilities, (ii) No.
Japan-2897 t uranium, (i) Japanese utilities, (ii) No.
Sweden-71 t uranium, (i) Swedish utilities, (ii) Sweden requested that 50 t of uranium be enriched in the U.S.S.R.
Belgium-31 t uranium, (i) Belgian utilities, (ii) No. Netherlands-82 t uranium, (i) Dutch utilities, (ii) No.
United States of America-3018 t uranium. This includes 132 t of uranium shipped to the U.S.A. for storage awaiting toll enrichment and for which ultimate destinations have not been assigned, (i) U.S. utilities, (ii) No.
United Kingdom-680 t uranium, (i) British utilities, (ii) No.
8.	The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is informed of each shipment of nuclear material from Canada as required by agreement between Canada and the IAEA for the application of safeguards in connection with the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Records on re-transfers are maintained by AECB.


Mr. Siddon: 1.	What amount did Air Canada spend for advertising in the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82?
2.	What amount did Air Canada budget for advertising in the fiscal year 198283?
3.	What percentage of Air Canada's fiscal year 1982-83 advertising will be devoted to (a) newspapers and magazines (b) radio (c) television (d) trade show or convention exhibits (e) any other?
4.	Did Air Canada declare a deficit in the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 and, if so, what was the extent of that deficit?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
The Air Canada fiscal year coincides with the calendar year, therefore, the following answers vary slightly from the years requested in the questions.
1.	(a) 1980 $32,603,000 or 1.8 per cent of the operating budget, (b) 1981 $35,063,000 or 1.6 per cent of the operating budget, (c) 1982 The amount is under adjustment, but a similar percentage of operating budget.
2.	The 1983 advertising budget has not been set yet.
3.	Newspapers receive the bulk of the Air Canada advertising budget because of their flexibility. Radio and television
Order Paper Questions
time must be booked in advance which is a disadvantage. The actual percentages are regarded as proprietory information because of the advantages advance knowledge of the company's advertising strategies would give domestic and international competitors.
4.	The annual report, tabled in Parliament on March 29, 1982 and distributed to all Members, indicated profits over the past five years totalling $200 million with $40.1 million in 1981 and $57 million in 1980.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did Air Canada sponsor, in whole or in part, a team of climbers to scale the summit of Mount Everest in Nepal and, if so, what was the total cost to the taxpayers of Air Canada's sponsorship of the climb, including (a) pre-Everest practice climbs at other locations (b) the organization of the team (c) team equipment and supplies (d) payment to Sherpa guides (e) all air fares, including return fares from Canada to Nepal (f) advertising?
2.	What reason, if any, was there for the use of taxpayers' money for the sponsorship of this venture?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
1 and 2. While Air Canada was the sole sponsor of the climb, many Canadian firms supplied goods and services. The costs for the project were covered from funds allocated to corporate advertising from earned revenues. Since advertising expenditures are normal airline operating expenses there were no costs to taxpayers. Advertising funds were used on this project because of the public impact, visibility for the Corporation, and planned route expansion into Asia in the near future following the signing of favourable bilateral agreements.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,262 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House to have Question No. 4,262 deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Crosby: 1. Does the Department of National Revenue have written rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behavior for employees of the Department and, if so, are they embodied in a Code of Conduct or other specific document and is the Code or document available to the public?

December 2, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
2. In the five years preceding April I, 1982, were any employees of the Department disciplined by way of suspension, dismissal or otherwise for violations of any rules or regulations governing the conduct or standards of behaviour for departmental employees and, if so, in each case, what was the name of the employee and the date of the disciplinary action?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 1, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, last evening when talking on this Bill I indicated that in the Budget of June 28, 1982 we announced changes in two programs. In 1983, the federal Family Allowances rate will be increased by only 6 per cent instead of the full increase in the cost of living. This means that starting in January 1983 and continuing through the remainder of the year the Family Allowance will be $28.52 per month for each child, except in the Provinces of Alberta and Quebec.
This will be in place of the estimated $29.87 per month which normally would have been paid through indexing. In 1984, the Family Allowance will rise by only 5 per cent to $29.95 per child. Recognizing the fact that we are committed to helping those in greatest need, and recognizing the fact that this measure could hurt low and middle-income families with children, the Child Tax Credit payable to Family Allowance recipients once a year at tax time has been increased by $50 for the 1982 taxation year. This means that the maximum credit, which would have been $261 for this taxation year, will now rise to $343 per child, payable early in 1983, rather than the $293 announced earlier.
The result of these changes is that for the 2.5 million mothers receiving the Child Tax Credit, the increased credit will consequently compensate for the limited indexing of the Family Allowance in the next two years. The remaining 1.1 million families receiving Family Allowance, that is those with incomes too high to qualify for the Child Tax Credit, will have
slightly less benefits than they would have received with the full indexing.
The limited indexing of Family Allowances has a much broader purpose than simply to trim expenditures and set an example for fiscal restraint. It is part of the strategy for economic recovery launched in the June Budget.
One point I want to make very strongly this evening is that nothing that we are doing changes the system. Indexation and universality are still intact. This is an extremely important message that we must get across. At the time the June Budget was being drafted, inflation was stubbornly clinging between 11 per cent and 12 per cent. This was despite a deepening world-wide recession. In the face of rising unemployment, it would have been easy to heed the calls coming from all corners of this Chamber to over-stimulate the economy. This would have set inflation rates spiralling even higher. Instead, the Government took a longer term view of the situation. It determined that we needed a comprehensive program of economic recovery. In order to put Canadians back to work, most of us agreed that it was necessary to tackle high interest rates which were obstructing new investment and consumer spending. We could not accomplish this by ourselves. As a relatively small country in the world, first we had to bring our own domestic inflation down significantly.
The first priority in June had to be inflation. Once and for all, we have to crack the inflationary spiral and end the inflationary psychology which fuels it. Only then can we achieve real solutions to the related problems of interest rates and unemployment. That is the basis for the six and five program of which this Bill is a part. It is all part of the package. The real strength of the six and five program is that it seeks to build a broad national consensus and persuade Canadians to impose a kind of self discipline on their wage and price-setting behaviour. I am confident that this approach will prove more successful in the long run than the alternatives which some have suggested.
We would not achieve the same kind of resilient and responsible economic behaviour by simply imposing wage and price controls or wading in with an indiscriminate axe among carefully constructed Government programs. Instead, we are relying on the Canadian people to participate in a common effort to reduce inflationary demands on the economy.
Having explored how the Bill fits into the over-all context of economic policy, I would be amiss if I did not also address its social policy implications. Family Allowances have an old and distinguished place in the broad range of social programs which provide assistance to Canadians. As various Ministers have often repeated, the underlying principle shaping these programs is to provide the most assistance to those who need it most.
This principle is much in evidence in the Program we are now discussing. This means that only the top one-third of
December 2, 1982

Family Allowance recipients, the one-third with the most income, will lose any benefits at all. These are the families best equipped to share in the anti-inflation campaign. The lower income families will continue to receive the same assistance.
I am afraid this point has been missed by many Members in their speeches. It is important to realize that Family Allowances are essentialy the most important component of a threetiered system of child benefits. The other two tiers are contained in the income tax system, the child tax exemption and the Child Tax Credit. It is this package of benefits which matters, and which demonstrates the Government's commitment to protect those most in need during these difficult times.
There is one final point which I would like to stress. Again it is one which has been missed by most critics of the six and five program. The six and five program is designed to bring down rates of inflation. I cannot stress this enough. Inflation can and must be beaten. This means that the six and five program is limited to only a temporary period of transition to a world of lower inflation. Once we have achieved this goal, we will have closed the gap between the six and five limits, and full indexing will resume in 1985. Anyone who becomes unduly exercised over projections of lost benefits is assuming that inflation will stay in the 10 per cent to 12 per cent range. We simply cannot be complacent.
I am pleased to be able to remind the House that we are already seeing positive results. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his economic statement pointed out that since the June budget monthly increases in the consumer price index have subsided to an average of six-tenths of 1 per cent. This is a drop from the average of nine-tenths of 1 per cent in the six months before the June budget. We are now within striking distance of 6 per cent inflation or better by the end of 1983. As far as Canadians receiving Family Allowances are concerned, this is doubly good news.
First, the gap between full indexing and the six and five limits is closing so that the impact of Bill C-132 on their monthly cheques may be even smaller than anticipated. Of course, we still must press on with the legislation.
Second, and more important, it means that the terrible strain that inflation has caused for families trying to make ends meet may begin to ease in the coming months. As we discuss this Bill, I think we all realize that there is no single piece of legislation, no tinkering with taxes or income transfers, that can do as much to help ordinary Canadians as the vanquishing of inflation.
Certainly the vast majority of the public realize this. That is why they have supported the six and five campaign from the beginning. As I said earlier, six and five is premised on building a national consensus and on the willingness of Canadians to pull together and reduce inflationary demands. It is premised on solidarity and sharing.
I would urge the House to give quick passage to Bill C-132. Brief as it is, it is also an important part of a larger campaign to tackle inflation and lay the foundations for a lasting economic recovery. It is a valuable lesson in the way sound economics and sound social policy go hand in hand.
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, through you, my remarks will be addressed almost exclusively to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I believe she knows what is happening. I want to say that Bill C-132 offers to the Minister the opportunity to restore her honour in the House. It offers her an opportunity to correct an injustice that has been with us for over nine years.
Since this is one of the rare occasions when we have had a chance to amend the Family Allowances Act, it means the Minister and her staff will have to bring forward and review the regulations. Under the Family Allowances Act regulations orphans were discriminated against, and so were teenage girls. Parliament decreed ten years ago that every child up to the age of 16 or 18, depending on whether he or she went to school, shall receive the same family allowance as every other child, regardless of the means of the parents or guardians. Regulations were promulgated and brought in that disallowed orphans in Canada to have access to Family Allowances at a time when they need it the most. This was done without any protest from Parliament. Under the regulations, these orphans are assumed to be adults, and because they are assumed to be adults, they pay taxes. The only right they have to Family Allowance is if their income does not reach the deduction allowed to a single adult.
This is absolutely contrary to the principles of the Family Allowances Act which is supported by every Party in the House. The only rationalization that the civil servants can offer for this regulation is that when someone's parents die they must therefore be in receipt of an estate and subsequently pay taxes. If they pay taxes, they must be an adult. There are several tens of thousands of orphans in this country who have varying amounts of income from their estates and, as a result, they are barred from Family Allowances under this regulation which I have already indicated. That is absolutely contrary to the spirit and the principle of the Act.
This situation also applies to a group which I have said very little about in the House. It concerns teenage girls. I suppose there is a certain reticence about raising this subject because the regulations say that Family Allownaces go to all children except teenage girls 18 or under who are pregnant. Parliament gave the Minister or her Department no right to decide that this was an immoral act which therefore bars them from something that the Parliament of Canada indicated shall go to all children under 18, regardless of the means of the parents.
I know that when the Minister was made aware of these facts many years ago by one of her senior civil servants, she courageously stood in the House and said that she would do all she can to change the situation. My last question to her in the House concerned the progress she was making in dealing with the orphans. She said, "I have tried but I am told by the Minister of Finance that there is not enough money." I believe that was her answer.

December 2, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973
The present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is a former minister of her Department. He would not dare to protest when the present Minister changes these regulations. She simply has to remove the definition of an orphan, and all orphans will then be treated like every other child, regardless of their income. However, if the Minister changes the regulations in this Act, it will automatically affect the other Program, the child Tax Credit Program, because it is based on the definition of a child that is contained in the regulations under the Family Allowances Act that we are now amending.
I would suggest, now that the Bill to amend the Act is before us, that the Minister could protect her own honesty in the House, since she has given her word that she would do everything possible to change the regulations. If the Minister were to instruct her Deputy Minister to ensure that those who are presently drafting the regulations correct this anomaly, which is immoral and unjust to the orphans and pregnant teenagers of this country, I do not believe that one voice in Parliament would oppose that change. Parliament would certainly not oppose it on the grounds offered by the civil servants.
I appeal to the Minister to act on this opportunity, especially now that she has a friendly Minister of Finance who is not influenced by his officials and who is aware of these facts since they arose during his regime. Perhaps he will look the other way when these regulations are changed to eliminate this anomaly, because his honour will be restored as well. I hope that the Minister seizes this opportunity and lives up to the philosophy that I know she has, that all people should be treated equally in this country, particularly under these social programs. I accept the Minister's word, supported by her action, that she believes in what I am saying. I am suggesting seriously that now is the time for her to move. A few thousand people she never knew may bless her for it.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on Bill C-132, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. This Act could rightly be named an Act to increase the number of families who will live below the poverty line. This Act, along with Bill C-131 and Bill C-133, attacks a longstanding principle which this country has learned to expect and believe. The policy of universality has served Canadians well. It is a policy which all Parties of the House have supported. All Parties have supported the principle of universality for the social programs such as Family Allowance, medicare and old age pensions.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has said in the House that this Bill does not affect the universality of Family Allowance. I suggest that this is an attempt by the Government to pull a red herring in order to divert our attention from the fact that old age pensions and Family Allowances are being eroded and becoming more selective through a very clever manoeuvre in the budget. Perhaps the Minister does not know what universality means.
The debate on universality and selectivity has been a central issue in the development of social services by the Government of this country. The concepts are generally considered to refer to the question of who shall benefit and how their entitlement is to be defined. Universality denotes the idea that benefits or services are made available as a social right by virtue of
belonging to the entire population or to a particular group. Selectivity is the notion that eligibility for benefits and services is judged according to the individual needs, which are usually determined by an income or means test. A universal program preserves the dignity of the recipient of the social benefits. People are not divided into givers and receivers. Therefore, the stigma and the sense of alienation from society which results from this distinction is avoided. Because our system is basically equalitarian, everyone sees universal programs as being an extension of that equalitarianism. Since benefits and services are offered to everyone without discrimination, the payment is seen to be a fair and equitable distribution of the resources of the country.
With a truly progressive tax system, those who do not need the benefits of Family Allowances could have those benefits fully or almost fully taxed away. If we operate on a selective basis, it is necessary to distinguish the poor from the non-poor, and therefore it requires a means test. The means test separates, on a discriminatory basis, the haves from the have-nots.
Over the years, the arguments against the means test have been legion, but I would like to bring a few of them before us. First of all, the stigma of poverty is a deterrent to many people who may need the help of a particular service but who will not apply for it. Second, economic conditions fluctuate. A family may need services or assistance today, but not tomorrow. By the time they get them, they no longer need them. This makes it impossible to have the right kind of service at the right time. Third, the means test contributes to the feeling of superiority and inferiority, thus widening rather than reducing social inequities. Fourth, services targeted to the poor are always fairly highly visible and thereby are constantly under attack for their cost, for their effectiveness and for other reasons. The more affluent get their benefits in a more discreet way through the tax structure, while the poor are forced to do it visibly. Fifth, the assumption is made that such benefits to the poor will assist them in becoming no longer poor. That, in itself, is false. That argument ignores the fact that poverty cannot be changed without making a structural change to society, limiting the opportunities of the wealthy to gather, to accumulate, more privileges. Therefore, selectivity claims that everyone should operate under the free market system; everyone, that is, except those who are in need. That is inconsistent with the social policy of all three Parties in this House.
Lately, we have been treated to a spectacle of debate within the Liberal Party, which has been playing to the media, television and radio. It is the debate about the future of Family Allowances and the future of social welfare programs on a national scope. The debate seems mainly to be on Family Allowances, but the results of that debate will be felt in all the social programs that are part of the structure of this country. It will also be felt by programs such as old age pensions and medicare.
December 2, 1982

I would like to quote from an article in The Globe and Mail dated November 3, 1982, with reference to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). It states:
The Government may end universality of the family allowance program but will not cut old-age security benefits, Finance Minister Marc Lalonde said yesterday.
He said in an interview he disagrees with some of his colleagues who say universal social programs are a basic principle of Liberal philosophy.
And he believes Canadians may be ready to swallow an end to universality of family allowance in which all parents, regardless of income, receive monthly benefits. He thinks they may be ready to accept that such benefits should go to those most in need.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is on the other side in this debate. On November 4, from The Citizen we have this statement:
Health Minister Monique Begin said Wednesday the Cabinet has decided not to restrict family allowance because of the current recession.
But she acknowledged that in future there may have to be a "redistribution" of funds for all social programs which would mean some of them would no longer be universally available.
She is not quite sure whether universality is such a good thing. She went on to state, "Nothing is permanent in life".
The recent Liberal Party policy convention got some of these people off the hook because there they were forced by public demand, and Hon. Members know what the Liberal Party is like. It makes its policies by consensus. The convention decided that it would reaffirm the support for universal Family Allowances. That might be what the Liberals said they would do, but there seems to be a diffference amongst them as to whether universality is a Liberal penchant or not. This Bill, the Minister of National Health and Welfare says, does not touch universality. As far as it goes, that is true, but the Minister admits that it puts many families below the poverty line. The Minister said that, but then she said, "Well, we will take care of that". As reported at page 21178 of Hansard for December 1, 1982, she said:
There are three elements in the system. One is the well-known Family Allowance which is taxable and goes to every child in the country through his or her mother. Another is the Child Tax Credit, of which I must say we are very proud and which was introduced in 1978. It is a mechanism to distribute the benefits only to those with the least income.
If that is universality, we have the wrong meaning. The Minister went on to say, "The Child Tax Credit is received in addition to family allowances". Therefore, what the Minister has accepted from her colleagues is a movement away from universality. By not allowing the legal indexing she is reducing the amount of money that can be received in favour of Child Tax Credits, which is a selected tax credit.
I do not oppose tax credits as such, if it is the best that this Government can do to keep families alive. If they cannot solve the problem any other way, we will accept that as one of the solutions. But let the Minister not say that she is not introducing a selective program and let her not discuss how careful she is to support and how often she speaks in defence of universality.
Family Allowances Act, 1973
The same thing is happening to the old age pension. The song played by the Government has been: reduce the universal pension and increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Again, this is a reduction in the universal program and an increase in the selective program.
The Minister has lost her fight within her Party. The rank and file of the Liberal Party have lost their fight to maintain universality. Instead, universality of social programs is no longer a basic policy of the Liberal Government.


Mr. Blais:: Stan, you do not know what you are saying.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Liberal Government has struck out on this issue. They struck out, first of all, on Family Allowances, which is no longer an entirely universal program because it is supplemented by selective tax credit programs. Old age pensions are no longer a universal program. They are supplemented by the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Medicare is no longer a universal program because this Government and many of the Provincial Governments allow extra billing. So the Liberals have struck out, and regardless of how many bases they steal in the next few weeks, they have struck out on social programs.
The Tories have been expressing a great deal of outrage at the possible end of universality, but the Conservatives are not all lily-white in this respect either. In fact, their move against universality came some time ago when they were in power. 1 can read you the following selection from The Toronto Star of November 3, 1979:
The Clark Government is planning to eliminate or drastically reduce both family allowances and income tax deductions for children. The Star has learned.
Family allowances, which have been paid monthly to Canadian mothers with dependent children since 1945, would no longer go to families earning $35,000 or more a year. Tax deductions for dependent children, which date back to the introduction of income tax in 1917, would disappear.
Both would be replaced by the child tax credit system, which would benefit people at the lower income levels and give nothing to those in the upper income brackets.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the Conservative position, and a few days later we have this from The Citizen:
Several times Welfare Minister Crombie responded to questioning in the House with the suggestion that the Government was seeking ways to "provide money to those who most need it".
But challenged by the NDP's Bill Blaikie for assurances that "money saved on any detraction from universality ... will be used for the benefit of low-income Canadians", the minister declined to do so.
So the Conservatives have also abandoned their long time position on universality. However, in this House in the last few days they have been telling us on and on and on that they support universal programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare is rising on a point of order.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the Hon. Member's attention that there is nothing in this Bill which states any kind of change in the universality.

December 2, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I am glad the Hon. Member brought that up. The defence of this Bill by both himself and the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been that the selective part of their Program, the Child Tax Credit Program, will take the place of the money that these people are not going to get from Family Allowances. The Minister said that in her speech yesterday, and so did the Parliamentary Secretary. They said, we will take care of everybody with the tax credit, even though they will lose some money. But tax credits are selectivity. Therefore, they are backing away from universality on this Program.
One of the arguments about selectivity is that it is more efficient. The Minister in this case has made the assumption that more selectivity means more efficiency in the provision of social programs, such as Family Allowance. This appears to have been accepted by both the Liberals and the Conservatives.
The Canadian Council on Social Development has challenged this assumption. The Minister argues that efficiency is a cost of universality.


Monique Bégin: I never argued that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: On the other side of that same argument, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) argues that more selectivity enables the Government to target benefits to those who really need them, and at the same time they can save some money. But is selectivity really more efficient? Since 1974, when Family Allowances were made taxable, a portion of the Family Allowances have been returned to the federal Government and to the Provinces, through the tax system. To the extent that the tax system is progressive, it represents the principle of means testing which already operates within the system in regard to Family Allowances, but it is a hidden system which does not denigrate the people who are affected by it.
The Department of National Revenue already employs a small army of public servants whose work it is to administer taxes, to take back from those with relatively higher incomes relatively larger portions of the Family Allowance which they have received. To administer an additional form of selectivity, which is the tax credit, takes another army of civil servants, and payment of that group of civil servants must be subtracted from the savings which could be effected. Even the cut-off level will require a section established in the National Health and Welfare Department to process and monitor claims. Therefore, it does not appear that the process is that much more efficient than the process already in place.
There are other ways of doing this which might be more efficient. For example, if we desire to cut off high income earners entirely, there is a simple way of doing that. On page 4 of the income tax form, after the net tax payable has been calculated, an additional item can be added requesting that one who pays high income tax add on Family Allowance received directly to the tax payable, in lieu of showing it as
income. This super taxation of Family Allowance was used from 1935 to 1947, at which time it was again taken off.
The Canada Council on Social Development, to its credit, has publicly opposed the proposal made by the Government with regard to the increased selectivity of Family Allowance through the tax credit. It has provided some figures on cost savings that are contemplated. Using the Child Tax Credit as a method of assessing the need, the Council argues that 70 per cent of the families receive the Child Tax Credit. The saving would be 30 per cent less than the amount taxed back, or 15 to 20 per cent of the total expenditure.
If we project the 1982 Family Allowance expenditure, it will be approximately $2.16 billion. After taking off the cost of administration and the six and five program reduction, the Government might save around $300 million. There are 3.6 million families which receive the Family Allowance and 2.5 million who receive the Child Tax Credit. That number will likely increase if the six and five program is put into effect. With that $2 billion spent on Family Allowance and adding the increased tax credit, the saving amounts to 1 per cent of the total expenditure for Family Allowance. A lot of heartache and a lot of poverty will result from a 1 per cent saving. Where are the priorities of this Government?


James Duncan Schroder: I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the purpose of this Bill is not to save the Government money but to stimulate economic recovery so that those people receiving-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is definitely not a point of order. It is debate.


Mr. Anguish:: He is also incorrect.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: One of the ways to stimulate the economy would be to give people more money to spend. This reduction for families that need it most will hurt. This money does not stay in their pockets or go into the bank. It is spent that day or the next day. Families that are destitute or close to being destitute are dependent on the Family Allowance. The moment they get that money, they use it. That is the kind of stimulation we need, not a reduction in the amount they are given.
Previous speakers have shown the effects of reducing the indexing of Family Allowances and how this will affect low income families. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out another factor. If you take money away from people, they do not have it to spend. The reason this Bill is being brought forward is so that more money will be spent, and this in turn will stimulate the economy. The Parliamentary Secretary's logic requires a little refinement. I will not spend time documenting further the effect of this reduction of income for families who need it.
After the indexing is resumed in 1985, the allowance will be $391 for each child rather than the $429 it would have been without the June budget. Adding on the Child Tax Credit, low and middle income families will receive $742 per child in 1985, $38 less than they would have received without the budget.
December 2, 1982

When the Minister says that a low income family will be better off with the reduction and the added tax credit, that is incorrect. By 1985 they will receive $81 less. What we need is a more equitable tax system, not a reduction in Family Allowance and an increase in family tax credits. This selective tax credit will lower the family income of families rather than increase it.
1 spent a lot of time talking about the Government policy and a bit of time on the Tory policy. It is only fair that I put before Members the policy of the New Democratic Party. The NDP has always supported the principle of universality in social programs and strongly believes that our existing programs should remain intact as a basic right of all Canadians.
The embracing of the philosophy of universality and the rejecting of the negative intent of selectivity are a continuing policy basis of our social programs. It has been part of this Party's history and principles since becoming a Party in 1933, and in fact earlier when J. S. Woodsworth was here as a Labour Member.
The practical argument of classicial selectivity used by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and by the former minister of finance in the Conservative Government is a complete smokescreen. The solution is not to alter the program but to alter the tax system so that it becomes the instrument of equitable distribution.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate speaking this evening, but I am very glad to participate in this debate, if only to counter some of the arguments made by the Flon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who really was not fully honest about the intent of the measure. I know it was not intentional. It was a case of misguided economics of the New Democratic Party.
As one of the Liberal rank and file to which the Hon. Member made reference a few moments ago, I would like to talk about the red herring in this whole debate which is being put into circulation by the Members of the NDP, that this is a debate about universality or selectivity in social programs. It is nothing of the kind. What we have before us is an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, one of the pieces of legislation which will give effect to the Government's six and five program which is designed to reduce inflation. It has nothing to do with universality or selectivity.
You have been so lenient and generous, as is your wont, Mr. Speaker, that I thought you would allow me to counter the arguments which have been made by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert, even though that Party has nothing whatsoever to do with the basic principle in this piece of legislation. First, with respect to the universality/selectivity argument, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that if there was any notion that the Liberal Party was going to abandon universality, that notion was put to rest at the Liberal National convention held in Ottawa a few weeks ago. I am speaking very directly to my
Family Allowances Act, 1973
hon. friends in the front benches across the way who, 1 am sure, received the message loud and clear at that time that during a time of terrible economic conditions, the worst in 50 years, the last thing you do is to cut back, in real terms, social benefits for those who need them most.


Some Hon. Members:: That is what you are doing with the six and five.


David Michael Collenette: The New Democratic Party is saying that is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, because they know, but they do not want to admit, that we are right, that if inflation comes down in the 12 month-


Some Hon. Members:: If, if, if.


David Michael Collenette: Let me deal with the "ifs". If inflation comes down in the 12 month period to 6 per cent, then, obviously there is no net loss to those recipients of any of these social benefits which are being capped. The NDP does not believe inflation is coming down because it has a vested interest in inflation continuing in this country. That is why they are arguing. This is the inflationary Party, when you listen to their friends in the Canadian Labour Congress, when you listen to their Party Members, when you listen to their speeches in debate in this House. They do not want inflation to go down because the NDP revels in an inflated society. Why? Because they have no conception of real economics, about the true economic forces which move the country.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to vex these poor souls opposite who are so misguided. The fact is, the Liberal Party will not abandon universality in social programs. Absolutely. That message has been received loud and clear.
Let me speak about universality in some of the social programs. When we talk about universality in old age pensions or medicare, it is totally different from universality in family benefits. They are two types of programs, I submit, and perhaps not all my colleagues agree with me. 1 think an argument could be made for more targeting on Family Allowances, but on old age pensions, on medicare, there is no way. A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, we introduced a Child Tax Credit which was a degree of targeting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the noise level has gone up to the point where the Chair has difficulty hearing the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Collenette).


David Michael Collenette: I know full well, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying because, unlike the Members opposite, I have actually thought about this. A few years ago, when we instituted the Child Tax Credit, that was a degree of targeting, of helping certain people who needed help the most, and that was consistent with the Liberal tradition, but the Family Allowances program remained universal. There was just some flexibility in its application.


Some Hon. Members:: Now you are thinking of changing it.

December 2, 1982
Family Allowances Act, 1973


David Michael Collenette: No, there is no way of changing it, as far as I am concerned. The basic universality is intact, but there can be some targeting within that universality.


An Hon. Member:: That sounds like pretty twisted logic to me.


David Michael Collenette: The Hon. Members opposite talk about my twisted logic. If you read the "blues" and see what the Hon. Member for Prince Albert said, you will realize those who are twisting logic are not on this side of the House. This legislation is part of a strategy to bring inflation down. A few moments ago, before the Hon. Members opposite started to ridicule me on the whole question of selectivity and universality, they said, "But inflation is not coming down". Where have they been living for the last six months?


An Hon. Member:: In a depression.


David Michael Collenette: Have they not been looking at the consumer price index, the leading indicators in Canadian society, to see that the six and five program is an absolute success? The battle is being won, but they cannot recognize it because they do not want to recognize it. The Hon. Members opposite know full well that in the 12 month period between June 28, 1982 and June 28, 1983, one year after the six and five program was announced, inflation will be well within the six per cent guidelines. In fact, I believe it was the Governor of the Bank of Canada who made a statement the other day saying that for the last three months the real inflation rate has been running at about 8.5 per cent. We still have a long way to go until next June, and inflation is falling extremely rapidly.


Ian Deans: Two point two million people are unemployed.


David Michael Collenette: Yes, there are 2.2 million people unemployed, but what is going to get them back to work? A sound economy-


An Hon. Member:: One point four million unemployed.


David Michael Collenette: -the elimination of inflation, and the ability to invest in the country. That is what will get this country going again. And the foundation of the strategy to get Canadians working has to be to get inflation down. And it is working. I hope, as do many, that the Government will be building on the six and five program to help stimulate employment further, and I would invite the Hon. Members to sit here for the next few weeks, perhaps into the new year, when they will see the true ambit of the strategy, which is, first, to eliminate inflation, or to reduce it significantly, and to build upon that by investment in the kinds of measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on October 27, so that jobs are created and we can look forward to better times.
To say that this Bill which we have before us is a philosophical debate on the notion of universality in social programs versus selectivity, is completely misleading. It is not deliberate, I know, because the Members of the NDP do not know any better.
I would invite my colleagues who are present to support this Bill. I hope that in the next few hours, when those in the NDP retire for the evening, they may think this matter through more fully and look, perhaps, at the "blues" of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert to see the faulty logic. Because inflation is coming down. This Bill, and the other Bills which are before the House, are an essential ingredient in getting inflation down. If the Hon. Members opposite were true Canadians, concerned about restructuring the economy, regbuilding the economy, having an economic revival in this country, they would embrace this program, as Canadians have done, in order to build a better future. But I do not think the Members of the New Democratic Party want to build a better future because they are wallowing in the distress of today and the ideas of yesterday and that, Mr. Speaker, is the total sum of the history and comportment of the NDP in this country. That is the reason they have never held power at the national level.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, November 26, the National Office of Planned Parenthood was phoned by an official of the Department of National Health and Welfare and informed that their funding for 1983-84 would not be the $250,000 as promised, but would be $130,000, a 48 per cent reduction. This is a devastating blow to the organization which provides a link to 50 provincial and municipal organizations, organizes educational conferences, publishes a journal, and had planned this year a major media campaign aimed at young people.
The timing of the cutback is ironic in view of the fact that the Health Promotion Branch of the Department recently conducted a survey of public health nurses to ascertain their views on major health concerns. These concerns were teenage pregnancies, obesity and drug and alcohol abuse, in that order of priority. At a time when teenage pregnancies are of major concern-as I said in the House the other day, over 1,000 teenagers a week including many 13 and 14 year olds are becoming pregnant-the funding for this type of program should be expanded, not reduced.
When I raised this in the House, Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the Minister, I really do not think she could have understood my question because her answer made no rational sense
December 2, 1982

whatsoever. She said that direct delivery of social health services are a provincial responsibility and that is why they were phasing out this program. I have correspondence, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister and her officials to Planned Parenthood in 1981 which says completely the opposite. It is extremely supportive of this national organization. I agree, it does not provide direct services and those are a provincial responsibility. It provides co-ordinating, educational and promotional types of services which are extremely important in the area of family planning.
According to this correspondence the federal grant was to have been $250,000 for 1983-84 and by agreement it was to be reduced to $200,000 for 1984-85. Not this year, but two years from now. There was nothing in the correspondence regarding the question of jurisdiction. Therefore, this drastic cut really is a breach of promise. There is no question about that, if you read the correspondence. Planned Parenthood agreed to the cut only on condition that funds they had previously received would go directly to the provincial family planning group. The Minister has not lived up to this deal.
I also want to say that the role of the Planned Parenthood organization is extremely important because of the very high incidence of unwanted pregnancies among teenagers. In 1979 there were 32,000 babies born to teenage girls, an ever increasing number being under 15. In addition to that, we see a barrage of sexploitation on TV and in magazines and movies which is really encouraging active and quite irresponsible sexuality in young people today, very young teenagers. So it is most important that there be a national campaign, particularly a media campaign, to counteract this high incidence of adolescent pregnancies.
I would also like to say that the federal Government assumed a very major leadership role in 1977. It signed international agreements that access to family planning is a human right.
I would like to quote from the Badgley Committee Report of January 1977, which was very strongly supported by the House and by the then minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who said that the federal Government would take the lead in birth planning in Canada. Subsequently a Family Planning Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare was established. It supports three voluntary organizations-Planned Parenthood, Serena, which is a French organization concerned with natural family planning, and also the Canadian Association for Fertility Research. I understand that the budget of this federal Department has been slashed considerably and will be slashed by two-thirds for 1983.
The report of the Badgley Committee indicated:
The extent of induced abortions in the future can be expected to remain the same as at the present time, and its occurrence may gradually rise, unless there are effective changes made in the contraceptive practices of Canadians, particularly among high risk groups . . . these changes may be brought about by
Adjournment Debate
increased efforts through research to find more effective and acceptable methods of contraception and by co-ordinated family planning programs for public education and health promotion.
These are the very things which Planned Parenthood provides. It continued:
Without taking them, there is virtually no likelihood that the volume of induced abortions will be reduced or even contained at its present level.
The report went on to indicate that it was extremely important for the federal Government to take leadership in this whole area.
Finally, it is false economy to cut back on family planning information when adolescent pregnancies are increasing. If I had more time, I could indicate the extremely high costs of this in welfare and health services.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, further to the question of the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) of November 30, 1982, I should like to advise her that the Department of National Health and Welfare has provided sustaining grants to the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada and Serena Canada in accordance with their objectives to provide family planning services to all Canadians requesting them.
The policy of the Department has consistently been to support a portion of central office expenditures of national voluntary agencies, while a portion of the expenditures is covered by revenue from other sources. According to the guide to family planning grants, it is expected that after an initial period of support by the family planning grants these agencies will develop other sources of funding. Over a period of time they will reduce and Finally eliminate their dependence on family planning grants for a significant portion of their budgets.
Following the June 1977 Conference of Ministers of Health, there was consensus of the Provinces that family planning services came within provincial responsibility. In order to assist the Provinces in meeting this need, the Department funded a number of projects on a demonstration basis, projects which were later continued through provincial funds. We recognize that it is up to the Provinces to determine the course of action they wish to pursue.
As well, I would advise that because of the period of economic restraint, family planning grants have been reduced by $1.4 million over a two-year period, which is comprised of $700,000 per year. The Department of National Health and Welfare attempted to distribute the funds in the family planning program in the most equitable manner in order that each ongoing project would be in receipt of at least minimal operating funds. Federal contributions to family planning services will continue to be available through the Canada Assistance Plan and the Established Programs Financing Act. The Department of National Health and Welfare will also continue its information activities in family planning.

December 2, 1982
Adjournment Debate


NATIONAL REVENUE-MOVEMENT OF TAX RECORDS FROM HAMILTON TO SUDBURY. COMPLAINT CONCERNING RECORDED MESSAGES
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) on November 26 regarding National Revenue records involves a very serious matter. At that time I questioned the Minister about irate calls which I receive in my office from taxpayers in Hamilton and area who find that it takes a long time to get their records from Sudbury to the Hamilton area where they can be looked at. It is more serious than usual because of the precarious position of our economy. Most people who have a tax problem owe the Tax Department money. If they do not have the cash and they have a cash problem, the cost of borrowing money to pay the tax is very high.
Several professional people involved in the taxation process, such as tax consultants, lawyers, auditors and individual taxpayers have contacted my office to complain about the length of time it takes to get tax records from Sudbury.
It seems several months ago, I believe it was last January, that tax records formerly held in Hamilton were moved to Sudbury along with those of four other taxation centres. Apparently a total of nine taxation centres will eventually shift their records to Sudbury. The common complaint is that when contact is made with the taxation office to discuss an appeal or an assessment that has been made on an individual taxpayer, the person making contact is told that it will take a minimum of six weeks to get the records from Sudbury.
In several instances National Revenue has taken action to collect taxes and has threatened court action or garnishee of wages. Because so many payrolls are processed on a computer, and many times small companies hire outside sources, an employer has a serious problem if garnishee notice is presented. Many employers will tell an employee unofficially that if he or she has a garnishee placed against his or her wages it could cost the individual his or her job. There is double jeopardy involved here.
In many instances the claim by National Revenue for taxes is challenged by a taxpayer. National Revenue will say, "Pay the amount owing now and we'll talk about it later." But the taxpayer, in most cases, has a cash problem and also feels it is unfair to pay taxes if he or she has a reasonable case that may be adjudicated. Time becomes a problem. National Revenue will threaten to garnishee within 30 days if the tax is not paid. The taxpayer calls National Revenue to make his case and is told it will take at least six weeks to get his records from Sudbury. On the one side of the coin, a person is told that he will have his wages garnisheed in 30 days, and on the other side of the coin he is told he cannot get his records for six weeks.
The Minister is asking me to advise my constituent to be patient, that big brother is working on the problem and that through the magic of modern technology some day we will be able to have an adequate service on a television screen. That
was the essence of his reply. I am not against progress in the handling of paper if it will provide faster, better and more economical service. However, the taxpayer is the one who should be served; that must be the objective.
Since I raised the question in the House, I have received more calls from people reconfirming that my allegation is valid. One woman called yesterday to say that her employer had received a registered mail notice to garnishee her wages. When she called the tax department to enquire, they informed her they had advised her of this action. Now the Post Office is involved. The lady stated she had never received the notice, or any communication from National Revenue. Her problem was similar to many others. She had submitted tax receipts with her return and she believes they had been lost. One person told me of sending three sets of receipts, that is, the original and two sets of copies, and those issuing the receipts said they would not accommodate her further if she could not get this sort of thing straightened out. But the constituent, whose employer received the garnishee notice, was fortunate. She was able to discuss the problem with her employer, and she has been able to keep her job.
The income tax form is so complicated that it invites problems. Even the multi-coloured tax guide and instruction courses do not help much. The difficulty of the tax form is a source of many problems. The Minister, in his reply, states that I could call his office and his staff would answer my questions. He went on to say that the files could be in another remote location many miles distant and the same service could be provided as if the original file was there, all through the magic of electronics.
The bottom line is that people are complaining in such numbers that I believe there is a problem. I did not invent the problem. I am trying to find a solution to their problem. The Minister, rather than looking into the matter, first advises me to tell my constituents to be patient and then delivers a homily on the miracle of modern electronics. The problem is still there. I want to know what the Minister will do beyond making pious comments.


Mr. Carnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to create taxation centres for the massive routine operations of the Department was taken in 1975 by this Government as part of the over-all decentralization program. It has gone very well and we now have eight centres operating in the country. We have retained the traditional 28 district offices across Canada. The district offices are still where they have always been, and continue to be responsible for dealing directly with taxpayers on the kinds of questions about which the Members' constituents appear to have been concerned. The centres were created in order to produce greater efficiency in the handling of the many millions of transactions that are necessary to administer the income tax system. Another objective was to spread federal employment more widely.
December 2, 1982

I will now deal with the difficulty of communications. As taxpayers have been advised, if they require information of any kind they should contact their local district offices. The tax guide provides them with the address of each district office and with various telephone numbers they should use, depending on the nature of their inquiry. The Department, through the district offices, handles millions of telephone inquiries each year and handles hundreds of thousands of inquiries over the counter.
Most general questions can be answered by reference to the extensive informational literature that is made available. Most of the questions the taxpayer has about his own affairs can be answered at the district office, because the staff in every district office has access to the central computer records at Ottawa through computer terminals, with which each district office is equipped. In a small minority of the case it is necessary to obtain the taxpayer's file from the taxation centre.
The actual time involved for the vast majority of the files requested by the Hamilton district office from Sudbury is normally five days and not the six weeks as the Hon. Member suggested.
He also speaks of business people, tax accountants and taxpayers who phone Sudbury and get a recorded message in response. There must be some confusion here. To begin with, since direct phone contacts with taxpayers are to be handled by the district offices, only a minimal provision for phone service is made in the taxation centres. For this reason it has not been necessary to have recourse to recorded messages in the taxation centres of the kind which are in common use in many organizations with a high volume of phone business.
The Department is constantly trying to improve communications. To this end, the directors of the Sudbury taxation centre and of the Hamilton district office will be meeting with representatives of the accounting profession in Hamilton in the near future to hear about the problems they have had and to see if there are some ways in which they could be removed or at least reduced.
In closing, the Department wants to hear about particular specific problems in communications. I emphasize "specific", because the general charges of the kind the Hon. Member has made are not really helpful, particularly when, as in this instance, they appear to run at variance with the facts.


AIR TRANSPORT-QUEBECAIR 2-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on December 1, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) about the status of Quebecair or perhaps I should say about the Quebecair 2 affair. Some time ago, many people were saying that the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian Government were to blame for the problems of Quebecair, because they were not allocating any routes to Quebecair and were indulging in unfair competition through
Adjournment Debate
Air Canada, and so forth. Comparisons were being drawn with Nordair, with people saying that Nordair was getting a better deal than Quebecair. A Parti Quebecois member from my area, the member for Arthabasca, even sent me a letter saying that Nordair was an Ontario-based company!
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a few points regarding the present situation of Quebecair, to know what is going on. Perhaps I should recall for the benefit of some people who are not familiar with the situation, that both Nordair and Quebecair were started by Quebecers in 1947, Nordair being based in the Lac Saint-Jean area, the heartland of Quebec, and Quebecair in Rimouski. Today, Nordair still has its headquarters in Montreal. Nordair was asked to develop routes in Northwestern Quebec, while Quebecair was to do the same east of Montreal. The situation with regard to Quebecair is indeed unfortunate, especially for the company's employees whose jobs are at stake as a result of Quebecair's financial difficulties, but there are other intervenors in this case who have helped to create this situation, because I think that the interest shown by Minister Pepin, more specifically on November 22-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but he must refer to the Members of this House by their Department, not by name.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your comments and I realize they are based on many years of experience in this House. The Minister of Transport, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin.
As I was saying, both companies were asked to develop routes, and the fact that today, after 35 years, Quebecair is experiencing problems, is due to the fact that some quite incredible things have happened. One of the facts which I want to straighten out this evening, Mr. Speaker, is the allegation that Quebecair never had its place in the sun nor the chance to state its views on air transport matters when it had come upon the chance of developing certain routes, and that every time Quebecair had applied for routes east of Montreal, it had always been given that right by the Canadian Transport Commission.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, many people have complained that this company did not obtain its share of subsidies from the Government of Canada or from the Canadian Transport Commission. They were saying that Quebecair was getting only $400,000 a year and that it had received nothing in the past. However, we should tell Quebecers that the Department of Transport has in its records that since 1966, when a subsidization policy was drawn up, Quebecair received a total of $7.5 to $10 million from the Government of Canada. Those moneys were granted with no strings attached contrary to the Quebec Government which obtained from Quebecair in return for its

December 2, 1982
Adjournment Debate
investment a substantial number of shares and even the opportunity to take complete control, whereas the Government of Canada has never asked anything in return from Quebecair.
And they would have us believe that the terms laid down by the Government of Canada do not help Quebecair. As far as I know, and I stress this point once again tonight, Quebecair is left with only 6 planes, and they make a mountain out of a molehill when 1 ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) what is the status of the question. I feel that Quebecers should be made aware of the financial situation of Quebecair and should also know that the corporation at one time had BAC-111 type planes. It decided to purchase some Boeing 737s and tried to sell its BAC-llls. Having failed, it made a further attempt to sell them. It still has these planes, as well as some 737s which are out of order most of the time. That is why I asked the Minister of Transport how things stood. I wanted as well Quebecers to know about the very expensive mistake Quebecair made when it changed its planes. Last year the Government of Quebec invested $15 million to prevent any merger with Nordair, contrary to what people were thinking. We can say now that Quebecair is in a real predicament, and who is to be blamed for it? First, its management which has acted with sheer incompetence; its board of directors which was forced to approve the purchase of a certain number of Boeing 737 aircraft and then to authorize switching back to BAC-11 l's; the shareholders who stood idly by while management took all those irresponsible decisions; and especially the Government of Quebec which failed to put a stop to this extravaganza and blocked the merger with Nordair in the summer of 1981. In such a situation, the Canadian Government had a responsibility towards the employees, and that is why I asked the Minister what he was doing about them. What is going on? How is it that we on this side of the House, the Members from Quebec here in Ottawa, are the ones who will be taking over and making sure that Quebecair 2 becomes operational? Where does the Government of Quebec fit in? That is why I asked the Minister of Transport to tell me what is going on.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois)) for his comments and his explanations concerning Quebecair. Of course, these last few weeks, we could even say this last month, we have heard in Quebec certain gratuitous comments about Quebecair, and also about what the federal government, and more specifically the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and
the Canadian Transport Commission, are supposed to have done to Quebecair in recent years. Naturally, the facts reported by the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere are true, and the federal Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission are certainly not to blame if such a situation now exists at Quebecair. However, when the Quebec Minister of Transport came to Ottawa for a meeting with his counterpart and asked for assistance to bail out Quebecair or solve the problems of this carrier whose services is essential to a large area of the province especially Eastern Quebec, he made certain statements which were then given widespread publicity in Quebec. This is at this point that the Members and the caucus from Quebec moved in and started to follow the situation closely, as is being done with all matters of great importance for Quebec. We had meetings with the federal Minister of Transport. There were meetings of the Quebec Members, especially those whose ridings are affected by this carrier, and we made suggestions to the federal Minister of Transport.
And this is why some ten days ago, last Monday to be more accurate, the Canadian Minister of Transport made an offer to his Quebec counterpart to solve the Quebecair matter once and for all. Later on, we received requests for further details from the Quebec government that did not seem to understand the federal offer very clearly. Details were submitted last Thursday, and once more, the Quebec government asked whether we could not consider putting Quebecair 1, the existing corporation back on its feet. The Minister of Transport clearly answered yesterday in this House, Mr. Speaker, that he and also we, Members of Parliament, from Quebec, did not see how we could salvage a company with such a huge deficit. However, the Minister of Transport gave another proof of his open-mindedness, and no later than today he indicated to his Quebec counterpart that he was ready to open negotiations to solve the issue. And next Monday, Mr. Speaker, a task force will meet to look at the possibility of finding a solution and whether we could not keep Quebecair afloat, which we do not believe possible, Mr. Speaker, but we will just the same make every effort to provide that service to people in Eastern Quebec and save Quebecair, and above all jobs for its employees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
At 10.29 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME XVIII