1982-12-10

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   BANKRUPTCIES EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC POLICIES

['No.\nDecember 10, 1982', 'Oral Questions']
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, today's Ottawa Citizen tells us that 9,962 companies have gone bankrupt in the first 11 months of this year, leaving behind them some $2.1 billion in debt. This represents an increase of 35.4 per cent over the same period last year, and 411 per cent over the 2,420 recorded during the height of the 1930s' depression.
The Party opposite has clung to power for 15 years by claiming to be able to unite our country. While its members efforts in every other regard have been utter failures-even to the point of being counter-productive-honesty compels us to acknowledge the unity they have forced upon all of us by their economic policies. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House congratulate the Government for at last fulfilling, at least in part, its pledge to unify the country-even if that unifying force is despair-and urges it to quit while it is at least this far ahead.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on an issue vital to the safety of Canadians. Last month a tanker truck carrying an explosive liquid rolled over on the Queen Elizabeth Way. Firefighters were unaware of the contents of the trunk and exposed themselves to an unknown danger. Later the Transportation Minister for the Ontario Government, when asked why there were no laws to force truckers carrying dangerous goods to label their vehicles for easy
identification of their contents, told the press that he could not do so until federal regulations are in place.
Given that the Minister has been pressing the federal Government for five years on this matter and that the wellbeing of Canadian citizens is at stake, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That the Government immediately draft legislation requiring trucks to carry signs identifying dangerous cargo with a view to preventing serious accidents of this nature in the future.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the continuing denial of human rights in many parts of the world and the continuing need to urge all Governments to adhere to the substance as well as the spirit of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House note that today, December 10, 1982, is the thirty-fourth anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, express its appreciation of and support for the important work being done by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International, and the Helsinki monitoring groups, and urge all nations to adhere to the spirit and the substance of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise on the motion proposed by the Hon. Member. I wish to say that on this side of the House, we strongly support the declaration whose anniversary we are about to celebrate today. I may add that since taking on the duties of Secretary of State of Canada, I sent invitations to all

December 10, 1982
my colleagues in the provinces and the territories, asking them to take part in a federal-provincial conference on human rights some time next year, the objective being to reassess initiatives taken by various levels of Government with respect to affirmative action, and also the manner in which UN member countries are meeting their international obligations. As Secretary of State, 1 earnestly hope that all private groups in Canada are joining in this celebration and that we can-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 thought the Hon. Member was dealing with another matter. 1 need a copy of the motion in order to put it to the House, and I am waiting for the copy.
Do I have unanimous consent without having the copy? Do 1 have the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The Secretary of State has the floor.


Serge Joyal: As I said before, Madam Speaker, I hope that all private organizations in Canada with a deep commitment to human rights will take appropriate action in order to meet the objectives set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As Secretary of State, I shall also have an opportunity to report to this House on the manner in which Canada has met its commitments to two extremely important international conventions one on eliminating racial discrimination, and this report will be tabled at the end of this year, and the other on eliminating discrimination against women, with a report to be tabled at the beginning of 1983. I therefore hope that the spirit of commitment and support shown by the parties in this House with respect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will lead to further initiatives and increased support in the course of this year, because it is extremely important for Canada to maintain the leadership demonstrated at the time the Declaration was drafted.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, this thirty-fourth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a day to which we all want to pay respect, as indeed the world community has done for 34 years in its efforts to enhance and respect human rights.
We know, nevertheless, that human rights have been violated time and time again throughout the world. So often we just use this occasion to pay lip service to a significant day,
but one of the steps that we, as Canadian Parliamentarians, can take is to implement the recommendation that has been made to this House to establish a Parliamentary Association on Human Rights. In that way, as legislators in this Chamber we can give continuing and consistent support wherever human rights violations take place, whether they be in our own country or in any part of the world. We have an opportunity to set up an association and do something more than just pay lip service to this Universal Declaration of Human Rights once a year.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to join with other Members of the House in acknowledging this day. I believe that at this time in our history the basic needs of not millions but of billions of people are being neglected, even the simple rights to food, water and shelter, as well as political rights and religious rights.
Today this House says that it will stand behind the Charter and do everything possible to see that it is carried out.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House agree to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, Mr. Ron Fournier and Mr. Dan Goodleaf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are presently attending the International Indigenous Peoples Conference in Hawaii. At the same time our current economic and winter climates are keeping most Canadians at home. As the Department must obviously feel that the capabilities of these two public servants warrant such an arduous journey, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the government recall Messrs. Fournier and Goodleaf immediately from the sunny climes of Hawaii and tell them to bend their backs to the wind, pull themselves up by their snowboot-straps and apply this expertise in Canada-for native Canadians-in the many long, hard winters ahead.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
December 10, 1982

Oral Questions


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT POLICY
[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (ms)


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. 1 am sure he is aware of the announcement of the bankruptcy figures for November of this year, which are up 35 per cent over the same period last year, and for the period to date this year 38,000 bankruptcies have been declared. Since almost all of these bankruptcies relate to small businesses, could the Minister explain why the Government has persisted in retaining so many parts of the disastrous November budget which hurt small business so badly? 1 am referring to such things as the 12.5 per cent dividend tax, the effective removal of the deferred profit sharing plans, the loss of the cumulative dividend account, the reduction of capital cost allowances, much tighter treatment of the reserve provisions of capital gains, and others besides those.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance, in his statement to the House on October 28, indicated that the Government was concerned about the plight of the small business sector. In response to that, a number of changes have been made to the proposals in the November, 1981, budget. For example, an item talked about by the Hon. Member, that is the distribution tax on dividends and its supposed retroactivity, has been eliminated and the section simplified. A number of steps have been taken by the Minister. There are a number of provisions in the Bill placed before the House which have been well received by the business community, for example, the extension of the Small Business Bond until the end of 1983.
Of course it is the wish of the Minister, and I am sure of the Hon. Member who asked the question, that these provisions be dealt with quickly by the House so that they can be put into force. Perhaps there are some with which the Hon. Member does not agree but, nevertheless, they would bring certainty to the business community. We would urge quick consideration of those provisions.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: 1 should remind the Minister that the 12.5 per cent dividend tax is still there. If he says that this is well received by the business community, as always he is totally out of touch with what is going on with small business people in the country.
The announcement this morning represents 38,000 broken dreams. It also represents 38,000 people and their families who have had their nest eggs for the future destroyed. Also it means that many jobs related to those businesses have been lost.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, since these tax changes to which I referred a minute ago discourage these people, and many others like them from leaving their secure jobs, going out and starting a new business-and I should remind the Minister that this is one of the few sources of new job creation in the country today-why does the Government ignore the effect of these budget changes on the start-ups of new business and job creation?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is really missing the forest for the trees. For example, he takes one or two items but has not looked at the rest of the provisions in the Bill before the House, which we hope will be considered soon. He misses, for example, the fact that a small-businessman is not just a small-businessman; he is an individual. He is subject to other tax provisions in the Bill. Many small-businessmen would be some of the 5.8 million Canadians who, as a result of the reduction in the general rate, will receive a reduction in general tax increases. There are many provisions in the Bill that affect small-businessmen, that affect all Canadians, that mean good news to Canadians, and will be well received by millions of Canadians. That is why I am sure the Hon. Member will want to have that legislation dealt with quickly in the House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Minister says that he wants to have this legislation dealt with quickly. He must realize that there are 295 pages of legislation. This is probably the most complex Bill we have seen in this House in years, probably since the last tax legislation reform ten years ago. Clearly we disagree with the small business part of the tax Bill and probably many Canadians will disagree with other parts.


PASSAGE OF TAX LEGISLATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, since 1 am told by tax lawyers and tax accountants that they can live with the delays and the uncertainties-they have been waiting for 13 months now and another month or two will not be the end of the world-would the Minister explain whether the reason for this pressure on getting the tax legislation through is simply to avoid further embarrassment and scrutiny of this Bill in the House of Commons?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, 1 cannot believe my ears. I cannot believe the hon. gentleman who has just phrased that question is the same gentleman who, for the last 14 months in this House, has been saying that businessmen in Canada want certainty in the tax system and want these provisions dealt with quickly so that that uncertainty is removed.
I cannot believe that he is unaware that the majority of taxpayers in Canada will receive refunds from passage of this legislation-

December 10, 1982
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: When will you pay the refunds?


Paul James Cosgrove: -that the majority of Canadians, particularly those Canadians who unfortunately have been unemployed, and those Canadians, possibly who may be the small-businessmen to whom the Hon. Member refers, will receive tax refunds as a result of this legislation. Those are the main reasons which urge and move this Government to ask this House to deal with the legislation quickly.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister will know that there are now on the market maybe a million new television sets in Canada which have built-in cable converters but which cannot accommodate Pay TV. Cable companies are getting a lot of flack from consumers who invested in these cable ready or cable compatible sets and were not told that they cannot accommodate pay TV. What will the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs do to warn prospective purchasers, especially now it is Christmas time, that cable TV sets are no good for Pay TV?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question, because it is very important for consumers to know that if they buy a television set and assume they will be able to use a regular converter to receive pay TV channels, they may have a few problems. I believe that right now, my departmental officials are meeting with the industry and with representatives from the Department of Communications in order to solve this problem. I think the public will be informed of any additional equipment it will have to purchase if the industry itself is unable to find a way to overcome this obstacle.


NECESSITY FOR INFORMATION ON PRODUCT LIMITATION
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In a case such as this when a manufacturer knows there is a deficiency in a product and the consumer is in danger of being misled, has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs considered establishing a policy, or even a law, which would require manufacturers and distributors to inform retailers and consumers about potential limitations to a product so as to avoid the kind of misrepresentation consumers have faced, with these cable ready TV sets?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I do not think the Canadian public would wish to see the State intervene in the private sector in such a direct way. The Hon. Member will agree that we have here a new technology that is going to revolutionize television. It was impossible to anticipate these technological changes, but obviously, if consumers have been misinformed, we can take steps to correct this. I do not think we can deprive the consumer of this new technology. On the contrary, it should be made widely available so that modern society can reap the benefits.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. During the past seven sitting days of the House Members of the New Democratic Party have raised no fewer than 23 specific sections in the unemployment crisis in this country as areas to make constructive proposals to the Government in order to create jobs. On the one hand the Government's response has been arrogant indifference and, on the other hand, simply to dismiss the proposals out of hand. It has not accepted one idea. In the face of the continuing massive lay-offs that are occurring all over the country, will the Government now come to its senses, accept its social responsibility, and announce that it will bring in a national program of recovery before Christmas?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member in asking his questions always chooses to ignore deliberately the actions the Government has already announced, actions that it has already taken and actions that are now in the process of creating jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Name them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. Members of that Party ask me to name them; I did. I will send the Hon. Member a copy of my speech made about ten days ago. When I looked at the proposals made by the New Democratic Party, proposals which I think were made by its Leader himself, calling for some expenditure of close to $2 billion to create jobs, I totalled the expenditures which had been tabulated by the Government of this country to create jobs in the June budget and in the recent announcement by the Minister of Finance. It turned out that we had earmarked more money than the Leader of the New Democratic Party for creating jobs, so that is the difference between the two Parties. Even in Opposition the Leader of the New Democratic Party cannot come up with a program which is as stimulative to creating jobs as the Liberal Government can.
December 10, 1982


INCREASE IN BANKRUPTCIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as usual the Prime Minister has a little trouble in his reading. The proposals that we made offered, in addition to what the Government has proposed, in addition to what it has done, $2.2 billion more stimulus. We have told the Government where it could get the money if it wanted to provide a little fairness in our tax system. That is what we suggested to the Government. The Prime Minister should not use his time to distort his own bad record by trying to mislead the House about what we have presented.
1 would like to ask the Prime Minister a question in this context. The statistics that came out today, and they have already been referred to on this side of the House, show that there has been an alarming 35 per cent increase in personal and business bankruptcies. For the same period of time on a comparative basis, there is now twice the number than at the height of the Depression. Does the Prime Minister not recognize that in order to obtain a reversal of this economic downturn, a major program, not the pittance that the Government has put out, is required? In short, we need a national program of economic recovery. If so, why does the Government not bring it in?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member is reduced to describe as a pittance the two billion and some three hundred million or five hundred million that we have earmarked to create jobs, whereas he was able to come up with $2.2 billion, 1 do not know what his notion of a pittance is.


Mr. Deans:: A pittance is what people on old age pensions get.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION BEFORE CHRISTMAS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, either the Prime Minister's hearing is bad or he is deliberately misinforming the House, and I say that with care. I said $2.2 billion in addition to what the Government has proposed. I hope the Prime Minister heard it that time.
In the past seven sitting days we have talked about lay-offs in the wood products sector of Newfoundland, in mining in the Yukon, in manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario, in the forest products sector of British Columbia, in short in every part of this country. We made suggestions that could be acted upon. Why could the Government of Canada not accept at least one of these suggestions? Why cannot it do something that will provide some hope before Christmas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I can assure you that my hearing is not bad. I understood what the Hon. Member said. Therefore I wish he would withdraw when he said 1 was deliberately misleading the House.
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Well, I heard that, and I do not know whether it was said very clearly that someone was deliberately misleading the House. 1 thought the Hon. Member said that he was trying to deliberately mislead the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Rephrase the question, Ed.


Madam Speaker:: Furthermore, he said "misinforming the House", and that is not considered to be unparliamentary language.


Mr. Nielsen:: No!


Madam Speaker:: I would just urge Hon. Members to be careful with the language they use in the House.


Mr. Clark:: Not now, not now!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Durham-North-umberland.


Mr. Lawrence:: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as a result of-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thanks for your support.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, as a result of what the Solicitor General said yesterday, both inside and outside the House, we have learned that the RCMP, or Canadian Government agencies, in any event, interrogated Colonel Rudolph Herrmann of the KGB in the United States in July of 1979 respecting the Hambleton affair. My question to the Solicitor General is whether he would confirm, as is our understanding, that as a result of that interrogation the Canadian Government or the RCMP, in any event, knew that direct evidence, not hearsay evidence, was therefore available that Colonel Herrmann passed United States secret classified information to Hambleton on Canadian soil.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I will not answer that question on the grounds of national security.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I point out to you that it was the Solicitor General, here in this House and in the corridor right after the Question Period yesterday, who introduced this whole topic of that interrogation and also the transcript of that interrogation relating to Colonel Herrmann. Certainly, that is not an excuse now, at this late date, for him

December 10, 1982
Oral Questions
to be once again sucking and blowing at the same time in respect to this information.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF INTERROGATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My
supplementary question, then, to the Solicitor General does not relate to national security but, rather, to his own activities. When did the Solicitor General first learn of that interrogation and, second, when did he, himself, go through the transcript of that interrogation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I learned of that interrogation in the course of being briefed about the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: When?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have been briefed on this particular operation periodically during the whole of the period I have been Solicitor General.


TRANSPORT DISCLOSURES
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question based on the transcripts of that interrogation of Herrmann by U.S. authorities as well as by security officials in the Minister's own Department. Can the Minister inform the House how many other Canadians were implicated by Herrmann in that interrogation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, Hon. Members are asking me questions the answers to which would reveal matters that are within the national security of Canada. I was prepared to indicate that that meeting took place because it became an issue of public debate. 1 am not prepared to indicate what information Herrmann gave to the FBI that has not been made public, or what information he gave to the security service that has not been made public. I can assure all Hon. Members, though, that the entire brief of all of the evidence that had been gathered by the Security Service relative to Mr. Hambleton was presented to the Department of Justice and to the Attorney General of Canada when his consent for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act was sought.


Erik Nielsen: I would like to ask a further supplementary question, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I will allow a very short supplementary question.


PASSING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION-PROFESSOR'S CLAIM
Erik Nielsen: My brief supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Does the Minister deny that, prior to the decision that was taken not to lay charges against Hambleton, he or his officials were aware that
Hambleton had claimed to have passed classified information to the KGB?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General of the former Government is aware of the facts. He has indicated more than once that he reviewed the file and, that he was fully briefed about it.


Erik Nielsen: I am asking you.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is not information that I think should be made public.


Erik Nielsen: I am asking you.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: However, 1 think Hon. Members opposite could find assurances given by their own Solicitor General-


Erik Nielsen: 1 am asking you.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -that a full brief was presented of all the information that the Security Service had on Hambleton and that the FBI had on Hambleton that they communicated to the Security Service when the Attorney General was making his decision.


Erik Nielsen: I am asking you.


POSITION OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT VIS-A-VIS SOVIET GOVERNMENT
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. We know, as a consequence of the actions taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, that a Canadian citizen has been convicted of spying activities, and we know that the Government for which he was spying was that of the Soviet Union. When did the Government of Canada communicate to the Government of the Soviet Union its condemnation for the part played by the Government of the Soviet Union in the spying activities of Hambleton?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the particular case of Hambleton, Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any particular protests having been made, but there have been various occasions known to the public when the Government has protested to the Soviet Union at the time that they PNG'd Soviet Nationals in Canada.


John Albert Gamble: I suppose that 1 might have anticipated that kind of a response that no specific action has been taken by this Government against the Government of the Soviet Union.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF SOVIET EMBASSY OFFICIALS
John Albert Gamble: We are well aware of the activities of the Government of the Soviet Union in Canada, and it was not so long ago that 12 spies attached to the Soviet
December 10, 1982

Embassy were expelled from Canada. Surely the Government of Canada must now have realized that, in order to reduce the inducement to Canadian to commit treason against their country, it might be appropriate to reduce the number of KGB agents attached to the Soviet Embassy in Canada. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is not seriously contemplating such a sensible step.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has just quoted, himself, occasions when the Government has demanded that the Soviet Union withdraw certain of its people who operate here under our ambassadorial cover. That has been done in the past and it will be done again when we have cause to believe that an ambassador or one of his officials here is not discharging his ambassadorial duties but, rather, is performing as a spy. That happens frequently, and the Hon. Member has quoted 12 cases when it did happen.


ANNOUNCED CHANGE IN VENUE FOR HENLEY REGATTA
Mr. Gilbert A. Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister who speaks for the Minister of Sport. For a number of years, 100 years, the Henley Regatta has been held in St. Catharines. Information came forth yesterday that this regatta will be moved to Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Along with everything else!


Gilbert Parent: 1 was just wondering what would be done in order to ensure that this Regatta will continue to be in St. Catharines.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Nobody to answer!


PENSIONS
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, if I can have his attention.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: He is busy with posterity. Don't bother him.
Oral Questions


Neil Young: Yesterday, after 18 months of study, the Government finally tabled in the House the Green Paper on pension reform. The major recommendation in that Green Paper appears to be a proposal that the House strike a committee to study pension reform for at least another year, and probably two. The Prime Minister knows that over the last five years there have been some 50 major studies on pension reform, and the last thing that seniors in this country need is yet another study on what they need in terms of pension improvement.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House why the Government, after all of those studies, and knowing exactly what must be done in terms of pension reform, has shelved that very important question for at least another two years, instead of coming forward with real proposals to improve the lot of senior citizens?
[DOT] (U40)


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the answer is very easy, and I think the Member knows this.
First of all, it would be great if the New Democratic Party had a position of which we could be aware. That would be of interest.
For example, what avenue would they choose to recycle the billions of new dollars that will have to be invested for the benefit of the Canadian economy? Which avenue would they choose for the 80's or the 90's? Do they have an idea? What do they think of the CPP as a means? Do they have an idea? Are they backing credit splitting for homemakers and for spouses?


Charles Joseph Clark: You should be in Opposition with all those questions.


An Hon. Member:: It won't be long.


Monique Bégin: How would they do it? How much do they think that the workers whom they represent, like we do, will be ready to donate from their paycheques, right now?
There are many very serious questions which were never put to the Canadian public, and on which we need the work of the special committee of the House to create as large a consensus as possible from the Canadian public.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT PLANS
Neil Young: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. 1 will tell the Minister one thing we would not do, and that is we would not further victimize the victims of inflation by restricting their purchasing power over the next two years by six and five per cent. We would not do that.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated three or four weeks ago that senior citizens in this country

December 10, 1982
Oral Questions
needed an immediate increase in the OAS of $25 a month. We know what we would do if we were the Government. We want to know what they are going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, now the Member is switching to another issue, which is public pensions. 1 thought he had started with private pensions, which was the object of the Green Paper. According to the Green Paper, simply to improve existing pensions-and 1 hope everyone knows that half the workers do not even have pension plans-it would cost about $2 billion this year. That is the order of magnitude of the cost of this reform. We think this is not the year to do it. If and when public consensus develops certain measures, that the time is right, for example, corrections to the Tax Act or to the Pension Benefits Standards Act which we are recommending in quite specific detail, could be started as soon as there is a demand, and I hope the committee will create that demand.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Recently the Solicitor General said, and I quote, "That no one with a bad evaluation will be released under mandatory supervision in the future."
If it is the intention of the Minister not to use mandatory supervision, under what auspices does he plan to release dangerous sexual offenders in the future?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do not think the question is very clear. I would like to see the context of that statement. 1 have been reminding people recently of the new policy of the National Parole Board of stopping the eligibility and granting of mandatory supervision to dangerous offenders, even when they reach the date on which they become eligible for mandatory supervision.
There are six cases like that now in which, starting just a few months ago, the National Parole Board has begun, in effect, to withold the mandatory supervision. Three of the individuals have appealed on habeas corpus grounds or under the Charter for the right to be released under mandatory supervision. The law officers of the Crown tell us we have a good case to keep them behind bars, and we intend to continue with that policy.


REQUEST FOR DEFINITION OF &quot;A BAD EVALUATION&quot;
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, the Minister is interested in protecting
Hambleton, and he is interested in protecting Clifford Olson. It would be nice to see him protect the law-abiding citizens of this country for a change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: And rather than foist his responsibilities on the National Parole Board or the Provincial Attorneys General it would be nice to see him take on his own responsibilities in this legislation.
The phrase he used in that quotation was, "a bad evaluation". With a subjective term like that, I would like him to define for us in the House and for the Canadian people what he terms "a bad evaluation".


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that several changes have been introduced by this Solicitor General to toughen up the procedures for dealing with dangerous offenders. The answer that I gave a moment ago was explaining to him a new policy which is helping to keep dangerous offenders behind bars. I do not see how the Hon. Member can characterize that as increasing the danger to the public. It is increasing the security of the public.
The Bill which I sent to the Senate will have the same effect. It will toughen up mandatory supervision to make sure that, to the greatest extent possible, dangerous offenders stay behind bars as long as their sentences last.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. We have been looking forward for some time to the Small Business Investment Grants legislation. I would like to ask the Minister two questions. One, when does he anticipate that we will see that legislation again, and the benefits from it? Secondly, within the legislation there is a clause that asks that only new equipment be used. In the case of many small businesses, good, used equipment would be a far better buy. Will the Minister, if indeed we are going to have this legislation, assess the possibility of allowing good, used equipment to be used?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the Bill is before the House at the present time. It has passed second reading and committee stage, and hopefully it can be brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity for report stage and third reading. I would certainly welcome that, as I know the Hon. Member would, because it is going to be a help to the small business community.
December 10, 1982


STIPULATION RESPECTING EQUIPMENT TO BE USED
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that, but the main part of my question had to do with the utilization of used equipment, as a part of this particular piece of legislation, which would be tremendously helpful to many small businesses which, even with the legislation, would find it extremely difficult to expand.


Bill Rompkey: Madam Speaker, the reasoning behind limiting it to new equipment was that there would be a double effect in the sense that it would create more jobs, and in the sense that if indeed we stuck with new equipment rather than used equipment, it would be a two-pronged effect. That was the rationale behind it. I believe that rationale was reasonable.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. The quality of the transportation services available in the Mari-times is the key factor in the Maritime economic scene. Since railway systems in most of the world, especially Europe and Japan, are fully electrified at present, I ask the Minister is he giving any thought to the electrification of the railway system in the Maritime Provinces since we need a major, mega, Maritime long-term project to alleviate high unemployment and a constantly increasing welfare and social assistance caseload in our area.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the subject of electrification of railways is one that is popular in Canada as a subject for research. My Department has a research program on it. Recently the Government provided funds for a British Columbia Railway pilot project to which it contributed about $5 million, if 1 remember well. The Government considers that as an investment toward greater railways development in the future by way of electrification.


REQUEST THAT SPECIAL COMM ITTEE STUDY PROJECT
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that electrification of the Maritime railway system would halt the dangerous erosion of the present system, move manufactured goods and materials at competitive speeds, assist more industry to locate in the Maritimes and assist present industries to expand, 1 would like to ask the Minister if he would consider appointing a special committee composed of Members from all Parties to study this proposal and to bring to this Parliament a recommendation on this important matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my opinion on the subject is not a very worth-while one but, generally speaking, people who have written and talked on this subject, particularly in my Department, tend to
Oral Questions
believe that the investment that this would bring about would be considerable, and too great for the benefit to be harvested at this particular moment.
The subject is one that is interesting, indeed. 1 have already said that. If my hon. friend wants to suggest to the chairman of the committee on transportation of the House of Commons that this might be a good object for a short inquiry with a few witnesses, I would suggest that he do so.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. What is the Minister going to do for the Indian community of Conne River, Newfoundland, which is heading for 100 per cent unemployment because it is caught in a federal-provincial power play over funding? Is the Minister aware that banks extended credit to the Conne River Band on the strength of the Minister's promise to provide funds, and that these banks now threaten court action against the Band because the Minister has not kept his word?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is mistaken. 1 purposely did not tell the banks that I would supply funds, and when it was suggested that my intervention might be interpreted that way, then I said I would not call the banks and I was assured by the people in my office that they would never allege that that is what I did. The Hon. Member is certainly letting the Conne River Indian people down badly on an essential undertaking on their part.
May 1 also tell the Hon. Member that the only reason we cannot flow funds to the Conne River Indian people is that we can only do it, under any authorities I have as a Minister, under the auspices of a federal-provincial agreement, and the terms which are being insisted upon by the Newfoundland Government are so obnoxious to the Conne River people that they prefer 1 never agree to such an agreement, and 1 have indicated to them 1 am prepared to go along with their wishes in that regard.


REGISTRATION OF BAND
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. The Minister should know that he told the committee last spring that, if funds could not be delivered through the agreement, he would have to find some other way to provide those funds. To date he has not done that. Will the Minister confirm that, when Conne River Indian people visited his office two years ago, he showed them an Order in Council which in effect

December 10, 1982
Oral Questions
would have created the Conne River Band as a registered Indian Band under the Indian Act? Will the Minister tell the House what became of that Order?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, we have not been prepared to proceed with that Order at the present time. Let me indicate also to the Hon. Member that, as far as endeavouring to find some other way to flow funds is concerned, he is quite right, Madam Speaker-that is precisely what I am endeavouring to do. Have I found another way to do it? I have not yet. I am taking the matter up with-


James Douglas Manly: Why don't you register them?


John Carr Munro: I am taking the matter up with my colleagues to ascertain whether there is another way. If there is, and we can find it, I would be the first one, and so would my colleagues, to try to afford assistance inasmuch as we have received no co-operation whatsoever-


James Douglas Manly: Register them.


John Carr Munro: -from the Province of Newfoundland.


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the fact that the Kirby Report on the Atlantic fisheries is not yet made public and is presently being discussed in front of a Cabinet ad hoc committee, can the Minister tell us why he apparently has publicly said that the recommendations would cost the federal Government $100 million, when we have no idea how it would be spent?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, that particular quote was in response to a reporter who visited with me some two or three weeks ago and asked my personal views as to what I thought might be a rough figure, and that was the figure I gave him.


MINISTER'S ESTIMATE OF COST
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Minister was giving that figure as a consequence of information which he has received from seeing the Kirby Report, or was that just a guess that the Minister put out to satisfy the reporter?


An Hon. Member:: That is not the responsibility of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


An Hon. Member:: He has already answered the question. How long did it take you to figure that out?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, it was not as a result of seeing the report. It was a personal point of view.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Many Canadians who have relatives behind the Iron Curtain, especially in the U.S.S.R. and in Poland, have regularly been sending financial and other donations to their relatives. The Department of National Revenue is now insisting that an affidavit be sent by those recipients stating that they are not in receipt of a pension from either one of those Governments, and if that verification is not received, those donations by Canadians will not be regarded for tax purposes.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the income tax application rules for which the Department is responsible and which are now being applied more stringently to donations made to persons residing abroad, derive from the changes made in the last budget with respect to the provisions of the Income Tax Act.


DEPARTMENT'S VIEW
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the same Minister another question, because the circumstances behind the Iron Curtain are very different from the possibility of getting an affidavit from another country where a dependant might be living. Let me read one sentence from a letter from his Department:
We have found that most residents of the U.S.S.R. and Poland who are 65 years of age or over are in receipt of a pension reasonably necessary to support the individual.
That is simply not the case. We know that is not the case for many people behind the Iron Curtain in the U.S.S.R. and Poland who have relatives in Canada. They are not receiving enough money to sustain themselves and that is why the money is sent. Surely we are dealing with a bureaucratic jungle here which should be able to be cleared up so that these Canadians in fact could get tax credit for moneys which they sent to their dependants.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raised the point that it was difficult to establish income figures. I can assure him that
December 10, 1982

1 shall look into this matter and find out whether there is any basis for the statement he is making. I shall then be in a position to let him know the results of my investigation.


PENSIONS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance, and 1 have given him notice of the question. It has to do with the reciprocal agreement which the Prime Minister signed on behalf of Canada in the summer of 1981 with the Federal Republic of West Germany, having to do with taxation, one article of which deals with the double taxation of pensions. The agreement was ratified in the German Parliament early this year, and I have now learned that, even though the Bill has passed through the Senate, the Department of Justice has some reservations about it and another tax year will pass before pensioners, who have earned some rights in the Federal Republic, will receive the benefits which are slanted significantly in favour of Canada. Can the Minister report today whether he will be making an effort with the Department of Justice and the House Leaders to have this Bill passed before we go home for Christmas?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the Hon. Member that 1 have in fact asked departmental officials to give me a report on the difficulty he outlines. In view of the fact that he has indicated there is the potential of some difficulty which has been raised by lawyers in the Justice Department, I would be reluctant to confirm that it could be dealt with as quickly as he wishes.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, if I could get his attention. One of the concrete moves which the Government could make to help the economy to recover is to increase our trade opportunities with the Pacific Rim which, as he knows, is an area with which we now do more trade than all of Europe. With that in mind, we welcomed his support last week in Vancouver for the Asia-Pacific Foundation, which arose out of the initiative of the Clark administration in 1979. Unfortunately, he failed to give us specifics on when he proposes to introduce the Foundation. Could he tell the House now when the Foundation will be established? When will he allocate the
Petition
$20 million to it? Where will it be located? And who will head it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I indicated last week when I was in Vancouver in relation to this that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had just received the report of the Foundation and that he had set up a group in his Department to study the answers to the very questions which the hon. lady is asking.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Last November 11, after returning from a Remembrance Day service, the Hamilton Naval Veterans Association were told by regional police that a 25 cent lottery they were operating to raise money for needy veterans was illegal and that charges would be laid if the lottery operation was continued. On that day, November 11, there was $40 in the pot.
Would the Minister support an application from veterans associations to National Revenue to allow them to operate a lottery legally during the month of November, and such other times as they may decide, in order to raise money for needy veterans who are not covered by the various assistance programs?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, that particular issue was brought to my attention a few days after the event. I think it was most unfortunate that the local police force chose Remembrance Day to visit this particular association. As the Hon. Member is aware, it involves areas of the Criminal Code and federal-provincial jurisdiction. We are looking into the matter and hopefully it can be resolved very shortly.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the 351st Report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) on Thursday, December 9, 1982 and found that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

December 10, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Trudeau


POINTS OF ORDER
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise an interesting point of order with you. You have perhaps received the blues now, and 1 am quite certain I understood the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) to indicate that either I was deaf or 1 was deliberately misleading the House.


Mr. Towers:: Both.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure you will find the words in Hansard. I am not sure there has been a ruling on this particular matter in any other circumstances, but obviously I could not, using that form, indicate that any Member opposite is either ten feet tall or is lying to the House. So it seems to me that the accusation is one which should be withdrawn by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) shows remarkable sensitivity to the truth in the House here today, something he has not always shown outside the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: But as someone who respects the rules, if 1 at any-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 see that our little boy has gone home, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I really thought the Hon. Member was rising in order to withdraw those words. 1 would urge him not to make his case any worse than it is by debating.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have checked the blues.


Mr. Beatty:: It is just a lover's quarrel, Madam Speaker!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have also looked at the dictionary because I was not sure whether there was a great difference between "mislead" and "misinformed". I thought there was a big difference between them, but in checking the dictionary I find they mean approximately the same thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Madam Speaker:: Now, the Hon. Member said that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) deliberately
misinformed the House and 1 rule that that is unparliamentary, and I ask the Hon. Member if he would withdraw those words.


Erik Nielsen: Kiss and make up.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, another synonym is "distort", but I do not want to carry on with this linguistic game. The Prime Minister knows what he said, he knew what he attempted or did not attempt to do. If there was any suggestion that I breached parliamentary tradition, which is to show at least formal respect in this House for our political opponents, I would withdraw any words that give offence because I am interested in the truth.


MR. DEANS-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF SPEAKER'S REMARKS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief point of order I would like to raise. I wonder if I could ask you to review page 21286 of Hansard dated December 6, 1982 concerning an exchange on motion under
S.0.43 moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). I would like to know clearly and exactly what is meant by the following words which are attributed to the Speaker:
Order. I do want to remind the Hon. Member that I cannot put this motion to the House, because it seems to be out of order. It is not acceptable to refer to the absence from or the presence of Members in the House.
I want to be clear on the matter inasmuch as Citation 316 on page 103 of Beauchesne makes it quite clear, under Subsection (c), that a Member may not refer to the presence or absence of "specific" Members. In the case of the motion put by my colleague, he did not make reference to the absence or presence of specific Members.


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 have dealt with that matter. I am quite aware that the Standing Order deals with individual Members. Some of my predecessors have dealt with this problem and have indicated that since that particular Standing Order had not been used, I think since 1877 or something, it should probably be deleted. But I have dealt with the matter.
I do not think it is fair for Members to refer to the absence of other Members, implying that they were not doing their work. Members who are not in the House may be otherwise occupied with duties relating to their function as Members of Parliament and it is not proper to refer to their absence in this respect. Furthermore, the Hon. Member was reflecting on a vote of the House, and that, too, is not acceptable. I have dealt with that matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 10, 1982


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. As reported on page 21422 of Hansard of December 9, 1982, the Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) rose on a point of order and questioned my motives in raising a matter relating to a decision of the Premier of Saskatchewan and one-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is too late. The only time a Member can raise a question of privilege without notice is when the particular question of privilege flows from the debate of that very day. If the Hon. Member has a question of privilege he can give me written notice and a brief statement of what it is about, and then I will hear him.


POINT OR ORDER
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker,
I am seeking clarification regarding your answer to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Simply clarification.


Mr. Malone:: Sit down.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Do you want to try it?


Madam Speaker:: The clarification is that I have dealt with the matter.


PRIVILEGE
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege, the necessary information about which I have just been able to acquire within the past half hour. I raise it because it deals with the way in which we table documents in the House of Commons and the process which took place yesterday which I believe is offensive to Members of Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If it took place yesterday, the Hon. Member may raise it but he must give me written notice with a statement of what his question of privilege deals with. I will hear him then. But the Hon. Member may not spontaneously, in the way he is doing now, raise a question of privilege unless it flows from today's deliberations.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker POINTS OF ORDER


MR. REID (ST. CATHARINES)-HENLEY REGATTA VENUE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises out of today's proceedings and concerns me as the Member for St. Catharines, the home of the Henley Regatta. The Minister was asked what justification there was for the moving of the centennial regatta from St. Catharines to Montreal. No Member of the Government responded. While I recognize that the Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport is in the other place, there should be a Member in this House to answer Members of this House.


Madam Speaker:: That is an opinion which the Hon. Member is expressing. Ministers are not obligated to answer questions if they feel they do not want to. There is no way that the Speaker can intervene in order to force them to answer a question.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I want to inform the Hon. Member that the Minister who answers for sports in the House of Commons is the Minister of State for international Trade (Mr. Regan). Unfortunately, he was not in the House today because he was busy dealing with his responsibilities, but most often he is in this place. He will be pleased to answer questions related to sports in future.


MR. KRISTIANSEN-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF SPEAKER'S REMARKS
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, this is not a new point of order, but l want to be clear on something. You gave a reply to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that leaves some of us in some wonderment about your exact meaning. In clarifying your previous ruling you suggested that there was an implication that Members may have been absent because they were not doing their jobs. Madam Speaker, it may be that on occasions of this sort the suggestion is that Members were doing their jobs, as they see them, by being absent.
For instance, in the case of their repeated mass desertions whenever the Government Party is in danger, it may be that Members of the Official Opposition feel that to be their duty. But-


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member knows that he is not raising a point of order but is debating the question.


MR. BAKER (NEPEAN-CARLETON)-REMOVAL OF CHAIRMAN OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns the recent unanimity with respect to the rules of the House of Commons, the work of the Special Committee, and the fact that the report was accepted unanimously in the House, in a spirit of goodwill. It also concerns

December 10, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
the fact that yesterday, for some reason or other, the Government saw fit to engineer the removal of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and even his removal as a Member of that Committee.
I want to raise this matter publicly and openly to say to Members of the Government and to you, Madam Speaker, that the spirit of unanimity and the importance we attach to committees as a result of it may well have been damaged. I would like to warn the Government and the House that we do not want that kind of thing to occur.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member may do that on the appropriate occasion if he wants to, but it is not a point of order. Furthermore, it is a matter that deals with committees. As Hon. Members know, the Speaker, not being present at deliberations of committees and not having anything to do with the formation of those committees, cannot deal with this question. There are forums where these questions can be dealt with and 1 would urge the Hon. Member to use them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just to follow the spirit of this matter, which clearly belongs to this House, I want to say that we are all concerned about the spirit of the reforms that were adopted. There has been a clear departure from that spirit of independence of committees that was part of the reform package adopted unanimously by all Members of the House not too long ago.
I should like to ask the Government House Leader if he is contemplating any other changes in the agreement reached by all Parties. The Government has already tarnished the question of the independence of committees of the House. Is there an intention, for example, to breach the agreement regarding the date on which that new agreement comes into effect, and is there an intention on the part of the Government to breach the date on which the House will meet in 1983? Are there any other intentions to breach the spirit of that all-Party Committee of which the House should be advised?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not think there was any breach on the part of the Government. 1 may draw the attention of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) to the Standing Order which relates to committees, and if he looks carefully at Section 65(2)-

-and Standing Order 65(4)(a), he would understand that everything that occurred in the Committee was proper. 1 have doubts about his sincerity. I should like to know if he was really talking about what happened in Committee. We do not ask questions about who removed the Hon. Member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright). In Committee it is a standing practice, according to the Standing Orders, that Members are
changed from time to time, especially when they request a change.


MR. CULLEN-PROCEDURE RESPECTING PRESS INTERVIEWS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order regarding a problem that keeps recurring. From time to time members of the press gallery, particularly those with cameras, are out in the front lobby. Every Member of Parliament has now received a letter from the president of the parliamentary press gallery explaining that interviews are still taking place and that they are held behind the lines indicated on the floor.
As a Member, I would like to know what the rules are. Are the people who do not have cameras allowed to do the interviews but those with cameras are not allowed? What is the situation?


Madam Speaker:: This is a matter that could be more properly discussed with me in my office. I want to inform Hon. Members that I have canvassed the representatives of all caucuses and they have discussed this matter. Some new arrangements have been devised in order to allow the press to do its job. If Members do not agree with these particular measures, they can come and discuss them with me and I will be glad to hear what they have to say.
I am only trying to accommodate everyone. We thought we had devised something that would be adequate and convenient for everyone. If it is not, I am quite willing to look into it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That the Report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, tabled in the House on November 16 of this year, be referred to the House Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
December 10, 1982


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to indicate on behalf of this Party that since we have been seeking this reference since some time late in the summer, we of course wish to give our consent and to see the report moved to the committee as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,365.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did the Secretary of State authorize an evaluation assessment study of the multicultural program and, if so (a) by whom was it performed and at what cost
(b)	what is the status of the study?
2.	Did the study make any recommendations and, if so, what action did the Secretary of State take to implement them?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1.	An evaluation of the multiculturalism program has been authorized as part of the Departmental five-year evaluation plan and scheduled for 1985-86. In planning for this evaluation, an evaluation assessment study was commissioned in order to develop (i) a definition of the program evaluation component, (ii) a program component profile, (iii) a report on formal structure and resources, (iv) an evaluation assessment and (v) terms of reference for data collection to assist a future evaluation.
(a) The evaluation assessment study is being performed by RES Policy Research Inc. at a cost of $44,610. (b) The study is in progress. The Department anticipates completion of this study by the end of 1982.
2.	The study has not been completed and therefore there are no recommendations at this time.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.
*	* v


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,747?
Order Paper Questions


Miss MacDonald: 1.	Does the "Standards of Conduct" booklet issued to taxation employees by the Department of National Revenue have any legal status and, if so, what is it?
2.	Was this directive the subject of negotiation between government management officials and members of any Public Service union or the national joint council?
3.	Who defined the section of the directive referring to "public statements" and does this restrict employees from publicly expressing views on any government program or policy?
4.	How does the directive correlate with Section 2 of the Charter of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech as a basic fundamental right that all Canadians enjoy?
5.	To whom do the standards of conduct apply, other than to employees of the Department?


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, 1 am replying to a number of questions by the Hon. Member as follows:
1.	The "Standards of Conduct" booklet was prepared pursuant to legal authority. Section 7 of the Financial Administration Act gives Treasury Board the authority to establish conditions of employment and the right to delegate to deputy heads of departments that authority.
Pursuant to Section 106 of the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations, Treasury Board has delegated to deputy heads of departments the authority to establish standards of discipline.
2.	The "Standards of Conduct" booklet was not the subject of negotiation between Government management officials and members of any Public Service union or the National Joint Council. However, it was the subject of consultation with the taxation component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
3.	The current "Standards of Conduct" booklet does not deal with the subject of "public statements".
4.	I suggest the Hon. Member refer to the answer 1 have just given in 3.
5.	The standards of conduct of National Revenue, Taxation, apply to employees of National Revenue, Taxation.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-131 today. It is a Bill to reduce old age pensions by allowing for indexing of only 6 per cent for Old Age Security this year and 5 per cent next year; hardly the rate of inflation which is well over 10 per cent. Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) stated her agreement at the National Pension Conference when she said:
Pensions which are not protected against inflation naturally tend to dwindle over the years. People who thought they had purchased protection for the rest of their lives find they have more serious financial problems the older they become.
With inflation as it is, I am shocked that the Government can even consider restraining the already limited income of senior citizens and further adding to their financial burdens.
It would seem to me that our older population is not being given the consideration they have earned. Due to the fact that we had 2,360,975 senior citizens living in Canada in 1981 and that this number is increasing at the rate of 3 per cent per year, I feel it necessary that action be taken immediately to ensure that the voices of our senior citizens are heard. It is important that they be easily able to inform us of their thoughts and concerns, as well as share with us their collective experience and judgment, which might better enable us to deal more effectively with their problems.
Therefore, I am proposing that a Senior Citizens' parliament be formed, similar to that of the very successful Canadian Youth Parliament and based upon the same idea as the organization established in Florida, namely the Silver-Haired Legislature. A number of articles have been written in the Manitoba "Seniors Journal" by Mr. H. W. Brown of Winnipeg on this very subject.
The State of Florida Silver-Haired Legislature was commenced some years ago, and at least ten other States are in the organizing stage of similar legislatures. The successful attempt to convince various groups of the need for such an organization was brought forward by the identification of what was perceived to be important and necessary concerns for the over-all and ultimate well-being of older adults. Promotion, public information and the mass media brought to the public interest the potential of such a seniors' lobby. Funded through the Older Americans Act, the first Silver-Haired Legislature was organized and co-ordinated by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Aging and Adult Services, and co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters and Florida
State University. Responsibility for monitoring and administering the over-all operation of this legislature lies within the structure of the State Office of Aging and Adult Services. Personnel of the various area and local programs were convinced of the value of the Silver-Haired Legislature and trained to organize the necessary tasks for electing persons to the legislature.
The following goals reflect the intent of implementing the Silver-Haired Legislature:
(a)	To provide an educational opportunity for the elderly to learn through participation in legislative activities.
(b)	To increase the level of participation and involvement of retired professionals that may have no prior or continuing contact with older adult programs.
(c)	To develop a collective awareness among older persons with regard to needs, issues and policies that are of concern to themselves and their age cohorts.
(d)	To stimulate community organization involvement with groups of older adults, and
(e)	To provide a stronger base for influencing policy which reflects the self-perceived needs of the older population.
We will all be part of the Silver-Haired Legislature sooner or later. Not all of us; as I look around the Chamber I see that some still have a bit of brown hair.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You missed the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, and some have no hair.


Mr. McKinnon:: Why have I been left out of this legislation?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Because of the increasing number of senior citizens in Canada, we are certainly not at a loss for people to become involved in such a plan. For example, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation is comprised of more than 400,000 members. In my own riding alone, we have the St. Andrews Over 60 Group, the 1600 Recreation Club, the Boulton Bay Seniors Association, the Sturgeon Creekers Over 60 Club, the Hamilton House Recreation Club, the Hendon Avenue Residents Tenants Society, and the Carefree Curling and Recreation Association. They are only a few of the many seniors' groups which could become active in such a mini-parliament.
One group which comes to mind is the Rail Pensioners organization. There has never been a group in Canada which has been treated so shabbily by successive Liberal Governments; they have been given the runaround for years. The group could certainly become part of a senior citizens' parliament to explain how they have been shabbily treated and have received a mere pittance each year in terms of increases in their pensions.
Every Senior citizens' organization across Canada could elect a representative who would meet as often as necessary with other elected Seniors under one umbrella. They could discuss the obstacles being encountered by the older population and their solutions and then collectively make representation to the tederal Government. This parliament would not only have the power of recommendation but would undoubtedly
December 10, 1982

tend to influence public opinion, as well as hopefully make the Government more aware of its concerns, problems and needs which are now, particularly today, being so carelessly overlooked.
Legislative successes in the State of Florida are indicative of the effectiveness of a self-advocacy model. Furthermore, this approach provides an opportunity for the implementation and expansion of the political input of the elderly. The presence of a potential age-related backlash could be offset by an awareness of community issues which include those issues confronting older adults.
An immediate example would be the issue which we are discussing now, that of Bill C-131. Certainly the increased visibility of the issues facing the older adult population specifically can serve to reduce the misconceptions of the community at large which might result in a hesitancy to support policies affecting the elderly.
In Florida the successes of the Silver-Haired Legislature delegates include the funding of bills for community care for the elderly and recommended the spending of $11.8 million which was increased by the Legislature to $13.2 million. A Silver-Haired Legislature bill mandating Medicaid payments for eye glasses, hearing aids and dentures recommended $3 million, and this was raised to $5 million by the Legislature. A Silver-Haired Legislature in Canada could recommend spending authority, but that would probably be the extent of it. With the urging of the SHL, the Legislature allocated $2.5 million to help with transportation for the elderly and handicapped. Hospital cost containment was taken up by the regular Legislature, and a special committee on aging was created. A recommendation that seniors be nominated to advisory boards resulted in seniors being appointed to at least five State-wide boards.
It is fairly evident that the Florida experiment has been highly valuable to seniors, the general public, advisory boards and the State Legislature. Therefore, I would ask that the Government take into consideration my proposal, as I am sure it could be as successful here in Canada and invaluable when we in the House of Commons debate subjects such as Bill C-131, which is only one issue, if passed, that will drastically affect the lives of Canadian senior citizens.
We have just received this document from the Government which is entitled "Better Pensions for Canadians". In the Foreword we find these words:
Many Canadians have expressed concern over the adequacy and fairness of the retirement income system. In response to these concerns, the Government of Canada is putting forward for discussion and debate a number of proposals for reform. These proposals will be referred to a Parliamentary Committee, where all interested parties and the public at large will have the opportunity to express their views.
The establishment of a senior citizens' parliament might be the way to do this. These comments continue:
Consultations must be as broad and effective as possible in the revision and improvement of Government policies.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
That, of course, would fall in line with the formation of a senior citizens' parliament which would meet, say, on an annual basis or twice a year to discuss problems and make presentations to the Government.
It has always been Progressive Conservative policy to maintain the quality of life on retirement, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, so that we can spend time studying the recent report "Better Pensions for Canadians" before we start cutting any more old age pensions, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be not now
read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months
hence".
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this should receive the approval of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In order to assist the House, the Chair declares that the six-months' hoist is in order.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not frequently speak on this subject in this House because my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has been here for almost 40 years, has made hundreds, if not thousands, of speeches and asked questions about old age pensions. To a large extent I felt I could leave the subject to him, but because of the fact that he has not been well and is not able to participate in this debate today, 1 thought I would try to do the best I could to put the case against the proposals in this Bill as he would have done.
It is interesting and somewhat significant that we are debating and will vote on this Bill today, a day after the Government, through the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), finally, and very belatedly, tabled its green paper on pension reform. In the last two years there have been 15 major studies on pension reform. These have been done by groups appointed by the federal Government, by some provincial Governments, by trade unions and by business. Yet here we are debating a Bill that will limit the increases old age pensioners will get. These increases will be limited to 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year. Yet the green paper makes it very clear, as does the Minister, that there is much wrong with the pension system as we have it, and that so many people are dealt with in a miserly niggardly way.
In the Minister's press release of yesterday when she tabled the green paper, she said, in part:
Reform of the pension system is important because there are serious deficiencies relating to coverage, inflation protection, portability and the treatment of women. As a result, many Canadians face a significant decline in living standards on retirement due to inadequate pension incomes.
Having said that yesterday, the Minister today brings forward a Bill which will reduce the protection which our old age pensioners had against the increased cost of living.

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
There are blatant contradictions between the public declarations which this Minister has made over the years and her actions in the House sponsoring what we consider to be a repugnant and despicable piece of legislation. We condemn that.
While the Minister bemoans the lack of inflation protection and said that "women suffer most from deficiencies in the current pension system", she sponsors this Bill which cuts inflation protection and the already meagre stipends that over
100.000	elderly Canadians, the majority of them women, exist on. While piously declaring herself for pension reform, the Minister of National Health and Welfare puts before us legislation to erode a system which she herself has stated again and again is inadequate.
The Government argues that any loss in Old Age Security will be made up by an adjustment in the Guaranteed Income Supplement. If an individual receives $6,123 or more in outside income-perhaps in savings-this individual is disqualified from receiving GIS. The individual would receive $3,058 per annum from OAS, and his or her outside income, making a total as low as $9,200 a year. What these individuals are receiving from the Minister is a kick in the teeth, not pension reform.
The National Council on Welfare estimates that over
100.000	of Canada's elderly citizens "fall through the cracks this way". In cities such as Toronto, they would exist at a level 37 per cent below the officially recognized poverty line. In rural areas Canada's elderly citizens exist at a level 15 per cent below the officially recognized poverty line.
The United Church of Canada commissioned a report recently entitled "Income Security". We find in this report the following:
It would seem that increases in the OAS, the GIS, and provincial supplements may have been sufficient to move many older couples from the "poor" to the "near-poor" category, but leaving a large number of single elderly people below the poverty line. All in all, the elderly make up a very large portion of the "poor" and "near-poor" group in this country.
Why, then, does the Minister attack the elderly poor? On June 29, 1982 the Minister stated that measures in the budget, now contained in the Bill before us, "fully protect the lowest income Canadians and the working poor". Only those who are not in need will be asked to share in serious sacrifices which are required to bring our country out of the economic crisis, she said.
Is the Minister not by her own admission attacking those she purports to want to aid? How does she expect Members in this House or the people who are now receiving Old Age Security to take her seriously? Through the Bill before us, Bill C-131, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is attacking the very group which she has vowed will be protected.
Let me quote from a speech which the Minister made to the Men's Club of Vancouver in November, 1980. She said:
We have too many retired Canadians who find themselves living below or near the poverty line .. . Can you imagine if 53 per cent of the total population in Canada under age 65 had to rely on Government welfare payments to survive?
That would be shocking, shameful and economically disastrous. Why is it we ask this for our pensioners?
We say why indeed. What is the argument for bringing forth the proposals in this Bill? Supposedly to save an estimated $105 million a year, the Minister is cutting the already meagre welfare payments to the elderly poor. She does this by arguing that restraint is needed during the current recession.
The Liberal Government, of which this Minister is one of the key Ministers in its strategy for recovery, if there is one at all, is to put money in the hands of the rich for increased investment. Changes announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in October, recommended to him by his blue ribbon committee on taxation, and changes which he will bring forward next week in his income tax Bill, will offer $750 million in tax breaks for the first year and $1.5 billion in the second year to Canada's wealthiest citizens.
How can the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who proclaims that she is the champion of justice in social programs in Canada, support such a policy? Where is her personal integrity? The Minister states that pension reform "is the highest social policy priority of the Government today".
I have tried in the years I have been here not to deal in personalities, but I have to say to the Minister, and 1 wish she were here, that we in the New Democratic Party, and I believe this would be true of old age pensioners, are bitterly disappointed in her. This Minister has frequently spoken about the needs of the old age citizens, the needs of the poor and the desirability and importance of maintaining our health care system, yet she is involved in cutting back on old age pensions and income security programs. We will see in the next year this Minister, through the federal Government and with the co-operation of the provincial Governments, cutting back on medical and hospital insurance.
We expected a great deal more from this Minister. In my opinion, if this Minister really believed what she has been preaching for the last couple of years, she would have resigned when the Government brought forward this kind of legislation.
This Bill will affect all those who now receive Old Age Security. That was 2.4 million people in 1981, of whom 57 per cent were women, many single or widowed. The argument has been advanced, and I say this in a cynical way, that in absolute terms the reductions in income as a result of the implementation of this Bill will be small. That is not true. It will seriously affect those who do not qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement and whose outside income does not provide them with adequate support.
Even a cursory examination of the facts reveals the weakness of the argument that the implementation of this Bill will affect only a relatively small amount of people. After all, prices are always relative to income. In a world of double-digit inflation, even the smallest cuts in income are debilitating for the elderly living in poverty.
More than 100,000 people will have the indexation of their pensions capped at 6 and 5 per cent, and suffer because they do not receive GIS. They are being told that they will not be
December 10, 1982

affected. However, the cost of living is still rising by 10 per cent. The Government's argument that by the summer of next year it will be down to 6 per cent is a specious argument. It will not happen. All the evidence is that the cost of living will be running at something like 9 per cent next summer. Those who have their old age pension increase capped at 6 per cent will have a reduction in their already too low standard of living of between 3 and 4 per cent.
We estimate that this Bill will cost those who depend on OAS $77 in 1983 and $220 in 1984, in total approximately $300 in the next 24 months. This is a piddling amount for this Liberal Government but a very significant amount for the 1.2 million Canadian senior citizens who depend on OAS to sustain themselves.
In the rush to apply six and five to all sectors of the economy, has the Government not forgotten its priorities and ignored the history of social welfare in Canada? While the Government will be niggardly with the incomes of those struggling to maintain their dignity and a decent standard of living in their old age, it has no compunction in allowing price increases well over their six and five guidelines for other sectors of the economy.
Let me give a few examples. In the summer of 1982, rent increases in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-owned housing projects in my Province were allowed of 16.4 per cent. The Ottawa-Alberta energy pricing agreement will increase the price of gasoline and home heating oil by 20 per cent or more for each of the next two years. In September, 1982 TransCanada PipeLines received, with the approval of the federal Cabinet, an increase of 16 per cent in natural gas transportation charges. That provides an average rate of return for the shareholders of 15.4 per cent. Shareholders can get 15.4 per cent, but old age pensioners will have their increases capped at six and five per cent.
In September of this year the excise tax on beer, wine, liquor and cigarettes was raised by 15 per cent by the federal Government. In October, 1982 the Government announced that unemployment premiums will go up by 39 per cent.
The Government overlooks the long-term effects of cutting indexation to six and five. This cuts the base on which further indexing will be calculated after 1984. That will be true only if we assume that the Government will go back to full indexing in 1984.
Once having breached the principle we have lived with for a number of years, that old age pensions and the Canada Pension would be increased quarterly by the amount that the cost of living goes up, having said that no matter how much the cost of living goes up the increase in indexation will be kept to six and five per cent, what assurance do the old age pensioners have that in 1984, given that we may still be in a recession, the Government will not say that it is going to continue to cap indexation? What assurance is there that any Government might not say that the economy is so bad and Government revenues so low that indexation could be done away with altogether? This is indeed a very serious step.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I indicated earlier that we are discussing a reduction of $300 in the next two years in the amount that old age pensioners receive. If and when indexation begins at the full rate in 1984, the base on which the indexation will begin will be $300 less than it would have been. That means that all increases from then on will be based on a lower amount than they should have been. Therefore, what we are talking of concerning old age pensioners is not a reduction of $300 in their pensions. We are talking of a reduction in the life span of the old age pensioners because, after all, they will live 20 or more years after they begin to receive their pensions. We are talking of a reduction in real money to old age pensioners running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
With the cut to 6 per cent in the increase in OAS in 1983, and generously assuming some reduction in the rate of inflation, there will be a reduction in real income of 5 per cent and more in future years for our pensioners. We have estimated that, realistically, the loss to the elderly in the next four years will not be $300, but rather $900.
The elderly are unjustly the victims of what has become a Government campaign of promising pension reform, as it did in the green paper tabled yesterday, while in fact it is eroding the fundamental basis of Canada's social security system. Old Age Security is one of the pillars of Canada's social security system. It represents 65 per cent of the income of the elderly from combined Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan. From its inception in 1952 when the Old Age Security pension represented 17 per cent of the average industrial wage, the Old Age Security benefit has now been allowed to slip until it represents barely 13.5 per cent of the average industrial wage, amounting to a loss, in just a few years, of 20 per cent.
When the Old Age Security Program was enacted in 1951, after work done for many years in this House by Hon. Members of my Party, like the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, by organizations such as the Canadian Welfare Council and the Canadian Labour Congress, it was a major achievement because we thought then that we had gone a long way toward abolishing the humiliation which had been part of the old pension system, the means test, which characterized the antiquated and limiting plans which preceded the open and universal program embodied in the Old Age Security Program.
In this Bill with which we are dealing today, the Government is asking the 2.4 million elderly Canadians to take a cut in benefits, but, further, it moves the whole social security program a few more paces back to the days when proud and dignified elderly citizens were required to submit to the means test. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because this Bill assumes that those who really need it can get the means tested Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Guaranteed Income Supplement has been excluded from the six and five limitations on the basis that it is more equitable to do so. This is part of the campaign which puts more and more emphasis on the means tested GIS as the basis for the whole system of social security.

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The GIS was introduced in 1966 to assist pensioners with little or no income. However, OAS was to act as a bridge until the Canada Pension Plan had ripened sufficiently. In this Bill, the Government justifies cutting OAS by putting more weight on GIS to select a program.
We have fought for a long time so that universal old age pensions providing a decent living standard would be considered a right for all elderly Canadians, not a welfare program or not a gift. The fact is that people, particularly the elderly, will use a program much more when it is open to everyone. When a program is organized on a welfare basis, which we consider the GIS to be in part, requiring those who can participate to undergo a means test, it is clear that fewer will participate. The fact that over half of the 2.4 million Canadian pensioners are GIS recipients speaks for the Government's record on this issue. That fact alone demonstrates how many of our senior citizens are living in poverty. The latest statistics show that, of all individuals aged 65 years and over, almost 75 per cent have incomes under $10,000. The average income for this group is $9,280 a year. This includes Old Age Security benefits as well.
After the June budget, when the Bill was first announced the Minister of National Health and Welfare claimed that the budget "fully protects the lowest income Canadians and the working poor". She said that "only persons who are not in need will be asked to share in the serious sacrifices which are required to bring our country out of the economic crisis". I can only assume that the Minister, in presenting this piece of legislation, did not realize its full impact on the lives of elderly Canadians.
We say that the Government should withdraw the Bill. We expected a great deal more from the Minister. We say that if this country is in a recession, which it is, if sacrifices tnust be made, the sacrifices should be made by those people who can afford it, those people in the higher income brackets, those thousands of people who have incomes of $50,000 and $100,000 a year and pay no income tax at all because of the loopholes which are built into the income tax system as we have it.
Therefore, we say that if we must call on Canadians to make sacrifices, the last people upon whom we should call are retired Canadians who have contributed so much to building up the greatness of this country. They are the last people who should be called upon to make these sacrifices and, for that reason, we propose to vote against the bill.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, given the hour, I may call it one o'clock and continue at 2:00 p.m. Do I have the agreement of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It seems that the House agrees to that suggestion.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) had the floor.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my intervention on the subject of Bill C-131, an amendment to the Old Age Security Act, by mentioning my mother. She is a senior citizen, and I hope I am a dutiful son to her. Her means are modest as is the case with so many senior citizens today. I mention my mother not to garner sympathy or to make my speech different from any other, but only to underline the point that when we debate issues like this, so often it becomes "they".
Everything we do in this House really relates to people, both collectively and in a general sense. Not only do we have to think in terms of helping the most people most of the time, but in order to arrive at our decisions to do certain things in this House we have to remember that what we decide to do has an effect on individuals, because all of those broad "theys" are just a collection of individual people.
Somehow when we get into an extremely important subject such as this, it would seem that Members opposite suddenly garner the market on compassion and on understanding and really feel that we, the big bad Liberals and those that support the Government of the day, somehow have lost our mothers, our sons and our daughters. 1 submit that it takes a great deal of courage for a Government to introduce and support this kind of legislation, because if you take it out of context as one single act, yes, it becomes an unfair practice.
What we are really discussing in Bill C-131 is an amendment to the Old Age Security Act. We are saying that this is a necessary piece of legislation that is part of a broad range of programs designed to help all Canadians, and especially those senior citizens who have given so much to this country. What we are talking about is putting a cap on an increase. I do not think we should ever forget the fact that we are still talking, both in this piece of legislation and related pieces of legislation, about capping an increase. That is what is happening in this instance, but there is still further money to come.
In its wisdom the Government in this Bill has said to those of our citizens who are really going to be hurt the most: We understand your plight. We understand that this is their sole means of livelihood. We will do the best we can with limited funds and will maintain the status quo, and in fact do a little bit better for those people who are receiving the supplement. That is not the act of people who are not thinking, who lack compassion or understanding.
As always when we debate these points, one wonders about the information going around. I have heard all kinds of figures about what the actual dollar cost to the senior citizen might be. They range, from our side of the house, from $29 in 1983
December 10, 1982

and $52 in 1984 to figures conjured up on the other side which go as high as $900 over five or six years. 1 think we have to think about what is really being said. In effect, Hon. Members, without thinking, are saying, "We don't think that inflation will come down". That is what this is all about. The Hon. Member nods, "Yes, that's what we're saying". But may I just respectfully suggest to all of us in this House that if we, as Parliamentarians, do not believe that inflation will come down, do we not then fuel in our own way the expectations of Canadians of more inflation and not less? I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the trends of the moment indicate that in reality inflation is coming down. As inflation comes down, current projections show that in reality there may not even be a modest change in that capping of senior citizens' pensions, and they will at least maintain the level they are at now because inflation will hit that 6 per cent level.
Some very dear senior citizens 1 know have wondered why Members of Parliament, and other leaders in whatever part of society, do not concentrate more on encouraging businessmen to bring prices down. Then their dollar would be worth more and they would not be doing too badly. Senior citizens are saying, "You people in the labour movement, or in the work force in general, please consider, if you bring your expectations down just a little bit more, if you accept a little bit less, then we collectively as a nation gain and we won't have to get into this kind of legislation or greater controls somewhere down the line".
This Bill is a part of a package that no one is happy with, including my mother, but they recognize that it is part of a program which is trying to set an example whereby all of us can find a vehicle, if you will, in which to participate in a very important and necessary fight, and this is the fight to bring down inflation.
In this season of goodwill perhaps more Canadians should say, "Wait a minute. I think for a change I will truly think of my fellow man. Maybe I will be more careful in how I comment on the restraint of inflation. I will reconsider how 1 will gear my expectations for the future, how 1 will direct my thoughts toward wage increases, and so on, and 1 will consider that we collectively caused the problem and we can collectively solve the problem."
There is something else which the senior citizens of this country, and particularly my riding, recognize, Mr. Speaker, and that is that their sons, daughters and grandchildren have a right to expect something in the future. Many of the thoughtful senior citizens say, "We will, albeit it reluctantly, join in this fight against inflation. We will join in this fight to stabilize Canada not only for the sake of ourselves but for our children and grandchildren." 1 believe it is an accurate perception that senior citizens think of their children and grandchildren even more than we do in our sort of central sector of life. They want to make sure their grandchildren also have a place in the sun.
1 believe also we have to stop and think about introducing this kind of legislation from a political point of view. It is dynamite, because nothing can turn people on more, and no better Brownie points politically, in the crassest sense, can be
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
garnered, than when you start speaking of widows, orphans and children. But 1 believe that thoughtful Canadians recognize that no Government of any Party would introduce this kind of legislation unless it was being very thoughtful and responsible.
It is not an easy thing to do, nor is it easy to stand in my place today, Mr. Speaker, and support this kind of legislation.
I would not do it if I did not really believe that all of us collectively have to do something more to bring down inflation in order to make this a better country in which to live and to give all citizens a chance to participate more equally in its bounty. If this involves taking another look at programs, to be consistent, such as the Old Age Security Act and many others, then I say I do not want to do it; but I have done a lot of things in my life I did not want to do because it was the responsible thing to do, because it was necessary.
As I said on an earlier occasion, Mr. Speaker, I would really hate to think that all of these things will go for naught. We in this House have a larger responsibility than just getting elected the next time, or forming the Government the next time, and that is to keep this country on an even keel, to bring inflation down for the short term, the medium term and, what is even more important, the long term.
Hon. Members opposite have as much information as we on this side, or anyone else in the country, as to world-wide conditions in regards to productivity, what inflation rates are elsewhere, and what we have to do to compete in a world-wide situation because we belong on the same planet with these other countries. Members opposite know that. Therefore, they know this is not a trivial fight, this fight against inflation. It is an essential fight. We may be going to pull out of it now. People are uniting in a more meaningful way. We are beginning to move, all too slowly perhaps, but in a more positive direction. We have to accelerate that move and we also have to put ourselves in a position where we can say to the people of Canada, who also pay to help support our senior citizens whom we dearly love and are so proud of, that they will be in a position tomorrow to do even better. We can compete with anyone in the world, and we can do it well; but we cannot do this if Hon. Members opposite, I do not say deliberately, keep fueling these negative thoughts and expectations. If they keep saying day in and day out that there is no way inflation will come down, some sectors of the population will begin to believe they are right. And if they believe inflation is going to go up, maybe they would feel they should have a little bit more just in case, whereas in reality they should be saying collectively, "No, we don't like to take measures like this. We wish they weren't necessary but, by golly, it's a start."
If we all join in the fight collectively and sincerely, I think we can in fact bring down the inflation rate and can say to the senior citizens of this country, "We haven't been able to give you all you would like, or perhaps all we would like to give you, but you haven't lost ground because inflation did come down and your dollar is worth more". So that 6 per cent increase-it is an increase and I wish people would keep that in mind-is still realistic in these times.

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
So, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, I too have a mother. I am also just old enough to remember the Depression years. That has been brought into the debates of late a great deal as though only one side of the House knew anything about the Depression or about living in houses that were lit by kerosene lamps and all that sort of thing. I too have had my share of that and I have not forgotten; but 1 think I will be able to vote for this Bill, not because I want to see less in any way, at any time ever, go to our senior citizens, and not just because 1 want to see this as a positive step towards pension reform so we solve the ongoing problem of how we look after our people as they get older, but 1 will be able to vote with a clear conscience because I have thought it out and feel honestly that 1 have supported a measure which is absolutely necessary as part of a total package to bring down inflation, help restore confidence of Canadians and others in our country, so that we look after the immediate future and do the very large job of setting the stage for tomorrow.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was dreaming when 1 listened to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) telling us about his mother. If he can tell us today that he is going to phone his mother tomorrow or tonight and say, "Mother, I voted to cap the indexing on your pension", and she does not slap his wrists or something more serious, Mr. Speaker, then I will be very surprised.


Mr. Rose:: He knee-capped her.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Maybe she will knee-cap him, Mr. Speaker.
I listened in amazement to a Member from the Government Party trying to tell this House that inflation is coming down and that we should not be the ones to go around saying that inflation is going to stay up. If his Party believes what he said today, there would not be any need for this Bill because the pensions would be automatically capped at the rate of inflation. So what the Government is telling us today is that there is no way we can expect inflation to fall from 11 per cent to anything approaching 6 per cent or 7 per cent. Well, I believe that, Mr. Speaker, because the Government has not shown any responsible actions which will in any way ever attack the problem of inflation. The Government told us that ten years ago. The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) smiles. He was here ten years ago and must have laughed when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that he was wrestling inflation to the ground.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was sent a message by the Hon. Member across the way and I was smiling at that. However, I think I should remind the Hon. Member that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he was wresting inflation to the ground, wrestling is always two out of three falls.


Mark Willson Rose: Which one is he on now?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Well, now I am smiling, Mr. Speaker, at the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton. He was here ten years ago when his Government first admitted that inflation was out of control and indexing had to be brought in to protect the taxpayers, pensioners and all sorts of people against the ravages of inflation. Now they say, "Well, inflation is coming down anyway, so we do not need it". But here we have this legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not the attitude we on this side of the House take when we look at a serious Bill like this one.
As I add a few words to the debate on Bill C-131, I have to ask myself why is this the last day of the debate? Why do we have this limited debate? The Government says it is an important Bill and it has to go through in a hurry, but we note the Government waited about four of five weeks from the date it was first introduced in the House until it was brought to the floor for debate. I suggest the reason is that the Government does not want the message to get out across the country. It is well known around here that short debates are not generally noticed across the country.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Want to bet?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: If we do not have a long, protracted debate, then the news is going to be on something else and people out there will not know what the debate was all about. I think the Parliamentary Secretary said there were 23 contributors to the debate, five from the Government side and obviously 18 from both Opposition Parties. We could ask why were there only five Liberals addressing the issues in this Bill. I suggest it was because the others were afraid-or ashamed, as the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) says. They were afraid to be seen to be eager to penalize pensioners.
Why were there so many speakers, relatively speaking, on this side? I am not admitting that 18 is a large number at all. Because people on this side know that the message has to get out and we have to have some kind of debate on a matter of deep principle which this debate involves. The House Leaders of both Parties on this side have said that we are opposed to this Bill, and what better way to show our opposition than to have a number of speakers get up and debate the issue and get the message out to the public.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) told us, with some pride I thought, that we had already had eight and a half hours of debate on this Bill and today we are probably going to get two or three more. Well, that is 11 hours. Now, is 1 1 hours too much? Would 21 hours or 31 hours be too much debate on a Bill which changes a very serious principle which was entrenched by this Parliament about ten years ago, that of indexing? We might also ask how many debating hours there has been between the time the Bill was introduced on October 28 and when the debate started, or even up until now.
I said this was an entrenched principle, Mr. Speaker, and to put that into perspective. I want to refer to the remarks of the
December 10, 1982

Prime Minister from just last year-not a decade ago, but just last year-at the National Pension Conference. I am quoting from his opening remarks:
Put simply, people must be protected in their retirement years. The Canadian Government has pledged that they will be better protected in the future than they are now. Pensions which are not protected against inflation naturally tend to dwindle over the years. People who thought they had purchased protection for the rest of their lives find that they have more serious financial problems the older they become.
That last sentence, of course, refers not to the old age pension but to contributory pensions. But the seniors of this country believe that they have contributed to the welfare and the coffers of this country and have purchased the protection promised to them by their Government. The Prime Minister went on in that same paragraph to say:
The unfairness of that situation ... is not tolerable in a nation which believes in social justice.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have heard our Prime Minister tell us that the land is strong and we have heard him talk about the just society, and now we have heard what he said about pensioners. That was said 1981, it is now 1982, and what is he doing? Has he changed his principles? Has he changed his mind? I do not know. Now he is asking the pensioners of this country to take a cut in purchasing power-not in numbers of dollars but in purchasing power-which they can ill afford.
1 think we can go back to the original concept when indexing was entrenched in the legislation of this country and ask why we had indexing in the first place. The reason we had indexing was that inflation was found to be robbing seniors because of Government action. As Government action was robbing seniors of their purchasing power, the Government and Parliament thought they should take it upon themselves to restore that purchasing power. For nearly a decade, because the Government has seen fit to do nothing effective about the problem of inflation, we have had indexing in order to give seniors some measure of protection. It cannot be said that they are getting total protection from the ravages of inflation because of the way the consumer price index is calculated, which is not reflected in the living habits of all groups. Those on low income spend a greater proportion of that income on the necessities of life which are given a certain rating in the index.
We must consider who is going to suffer as a result of the proposition put forward today. Since the Guaranteed Income Supplement will be increased to cover the loss of the pension increase by those who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement, I suppose we could say that only those with an income of over $8,912.40 will be affected. Let us round out that to $9,000. Every pensioner who has an income over $9,000 will have that income cut by about $3.40 in each of the first three months of 1983. That does not represent a lot of money to the Government but the increase to the pensioner will be cut from 11.5 to 6 per cent. That is quite a large percentage of the total pension income.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The Hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) and the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) both receive the old age pension and it will be cut. But they receive a salary as well, Mr. Speaker. There are thousands of pensioners with incomes of well over $9,000 who will not mind cutting back and giving up some pension. But that does not take away from the fact that it is a right and something that Parliament made a bargain on. It is something that Canadians should be able to rely on.
The Prime Minister talked about trust in one of his television speeches. How can he expect taxpayers and senior citizens to trust anyone here when the Government pulls tricks like this one?
Anyone who earns over $9,000 is not rich. Those who earn $10,000 will suffer more proportionately than the person whose income is $30,000. Should the cut come at $11,000? It is impossible to say. That is why the program should not have been adjusted the way the Government is trying to do it. It will make only a small dent in its huge deficit problem anyway.
I mentioned the $3 loss for the first three months of 1983 that will be incurred by pensioners on a cumulative basis. I have not figured out how much the total loss will be by the end of 1985 when indexing will be restored. That is not the whole problem, of course. The loss suffered by pensioners for those two years will carry on for the rest of their lives. The younger pensioners, those who can expect to live longer, will suffer more as the effects of the program accumulate.
I do not think many Members of the House would argue against the over-all restraint program. Six and five is good in certain ways. I think we must ask ourselves if the program is a good measure when it attacks the incomes of our senior citizens, those who can least protect themselves and the people who need to spend their money. The restraint program is good in so far as it will control Government expenditures and reduce Government deficits.
One of the things that we need in order to get the economy rolling again is to have more people investing and spending money. That helps to create jobs, to create multipliers and so on. It is well known that senior citizens, those with low incomes, spend it all. Every dollar the Government pulls out of the pension program will mean that one dollar less will circulate to improve the economy.
This Bill is a short-sighted action which may contribute a little bit to the solution of the Government's over-all problems. It is a niggardly action. It is directed at the wrong people in Canada. If it is successful in helping with the Government's program, then the seniors of Canada will not thank the government for it.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have not had a chance to listen to all the contributions to this debate on Bill C-131 but I have listened to the last two speakers.
I am pleased to take part in the debate this afternoon. This Bill gives us an opportunity not only to discuss the success of the Government's six and five program but it also gives us an

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
opportunity to show the good record of this Party in dealing with seniors over the last 30 years, if not more. In the brief time that I have been listening to speeches in the House, I have not heard too much about that, particularly from Members on the other side.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) says that he is in favour of the six and five program but that it should not affect certain types of people. Surely the whole success of the program is that it affects everybody on the federal payroll, those receiving federal pensions or federal allowances of one kind or another unless their incomes are below the poverty line. That is the psychological reason why the program has been a success-and it has been.
When the program was introduced in the June budget 1 wondered how it would be received in the country. 1 recall very well, as I am sure you do, Mr. Speaker, how the Opposition Parties ridiculed and pooh-poohed it following June 28, 1982, and how the provincial Premiers when they met in Halifax a month or so later also ridiculed and pooh-poohed it. Just a few months later Members on the other side like the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra had to admit that it is a good program. A Gallup poll shows that two-thirds of the people in the country believe it is an excellent program and about the same proportion of union households agree with the need for it.
I was speaking to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) at lunch today and he said that the Chamber of Commerce in Summerside, Prince Edward Island had made a survey. The result showed that 90 per cent of those surveyed approved of the six and five program. Owners of large and small businesses are embracing the program with open arms. Some of the most influential names in the business world are actively promoting it as the only plan that will make our economy competitive again.
That is the name of the game. We cannot have double the inflation of the United States. We are a trading nation; our whole economy depends on our competitiveness in foreign markets. Unless we get our inflation rate down to near that of the United States, we cannot compete. Our manufacturers will not be capable of producing, new jobs will not be created and new investment will not take place. The more sensible and realistic Members of the Opposition realize that.
Some people say that while this is a good principle it should not affect this or that group-it should always affect some other group than the one they are dealing with at the present time.
As the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) mentioned, no Party is going to bring in legislation- particularly a Party that has been in power for most of the last 50 years-that is damaging to it unless it thinks there is a good reason for doing so.
In a few moments I will deal with our record in terms of senior citizens over the years, but particularly in the case of the Family Allowance legislation, Bill C-132, and Bill C-133, as far as it is concerned, unless we make all these groups subject to the six and five formula, with a bit of change in Bill
C-133 because of contributions, the psychology of the program will be badly affected.
We heard provincial Premiers and Members opposite deride the program in June and July, but let me look at what has happened since that time. Since then most Provinces have brought in their own programs. For example, in my Province of Ontario, Premier Davis brought in his own program after seeing how the wind was blowing in favour of six and five. After a few months he brought in his own 9 per cent and 5 per cent program, I believe it was. Most Premiers have done the same in one way or another.
I mentioned the business reaction before, and I mentioned that unless we get inflation down, our economy will not get rolling again and our people will not get back to work. It is worthwhile to mention the bases of finances here. At the present time, in December, 1982, people on OAS are receiving $246.92 per month. This time next year, December, 1983, they will be receiving an increase to $261.74 per month, and in December, 1984 they will be receiving $274.83 per month, another increase.
This will affect everyone on OAS, but what happens to the 53 per cent, more than half our seniors, who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement at the present time? These 1.2 million seniors do not have any other real income. They receive the GIS or part of it. They will not be hurt at all by Bill C-131. Their GIS will be fully indexed in the coming two years. This new Bill will only be in effect until the end of 1984. In addition, those on GIS, more than half our seniors who need it most, will be compensated in lump sum payments for moneys they would otherwise lose by the OAS not being fully indexed for the next couple of years. Those who need it most among our seniors-and I am sure they are the ones about whom most of us are really concerned-will not be affected or hurt at all by this particular Bill.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra talked about the actual amount of money involved here. If we get inflation down to 6 per cent by the end of 1984, those receiving the OAS but not the GIS will lose about $29 in 1983 or less than $2.50 per month, and about $52 in 1984 or a bit more than $4 a month. For everybody, but particularly for our seniors, every dollar is important, but $2 or $4 per month is not the end of the world, if it helps get the idea firmly implanted in all parts of the country and with every group in the country that we are serious about the six and five program, that everybody should support it and do his or her part.
A few minutes ago 1 heard the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) refer to the fact that seniors are not only concerned about themselves, but they are concerned about their country, their families, their children and their grandchildren. They have gone through hard times themselves. They are the ones to whom we owe our comparative prosperity today. They are the ones who went through the wars and the Depression. They are the ones who worked hard to build the country after World War II. We owe an awful lot to those people.
December 10, 1982

In my area of Scarborough West there is a large proportion of senior citizens. This is what I tell them every time I see them, and this is what I believe. They are not only concerned about themselves; they are concerned about their grandchildren, many of whom do not have jobs. They are concerned because plants are closing down as a result of high inflation and lack of competitiveness in world markets. They are concerned that some of their children in middle age are unemployed for the first time. They are the ones who have always done their part. They answered the call to duty in the First and Second World Wars. Those are the ones who fought a hard fight during the Depression. They have always done their duty. People on OAS who have other income and do not receive the GIS want to do their part in the six and five campaign at the same time, which is a two-year campaign ending in 1984. 1 think Hon. Members will discover that as they go across the country.
There are some savings involved, but I do not think they are the big items in the Bill. After we take into account the money saved in reduced OAS increases and additional moneys paid out in GIS increases, we will have an estimated saving of $115 million. 1 suppose $115 million should not be sneezed at and 1 am not sneezing at it. Basically the idea is that this group of senior citizens who are above the poverty line and have other income want to do their part. It is true that many of them do not have too much other income. In some areas of the country seniors have a fair amount of other income, but not in my riding. If $100 million could be saved to contribute to employment opportunities elsewhere, they are willing to do their part.
What is our record? What is the record of the Liberal Party regarding senior citizens over the years? The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) who is in the Chair at present has been in the House for a long time and has participated in many debates. He will remember 1952 when the Hon. Louis St. Laurent brought in the first universal Old Age Security after discussions for a great number of years. Also he will remember that at that time it was effective at age 70. From 1966 to 1970 the age was reduced one year at a time to age 65. Then the Guaranteed Income Supplement came in for those seniors below the poverty line. Indexing came in for the first time in 1973. In 1975 the spouses' allowance came in for spouses between ages 60 and 64 who were living with spouses over age 65. Also, Mr. Speaker will remember that in 1979 the GIS was increased by another $20 flat rate as well as continuing to be indexed, and that in 1980 after the last election it was increased by another $30.


Mr. Bossy:: That was all done by the Liberal Government.


David Bennington Weatherhead: Yes, as my hon. friend says, this was all done by the Liberal Government.
Our record with respect to seniors does not just rest with Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Our Party brought in the Canada Pension Plan in the mid-1960s; it was the Government of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. That plan has been built up since 1966 and it is now becoming a more and more significant portion of pensions for workers once they retire. Perhaps just as important is our
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
record for seniors and everyone else with respect to Medicare and hospitalization.
My father was a lawyer. He was comparatively well off although he never thought so. He always had a fear, going through his life, that he would run into some dire medical disease or whatnot which would strip him of all his savings. My father was fairly well off, but this fear was always in the back of his mind.
Going back 20 years or so many people felt the same way. No matter how wealthy or poor they were a person's life savings could be wiped out if they suffered any kind of disease that required hospitalization. Hospitalization insurance came into being in the late 1950s. It was brought in by the Government of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. Medicare was introduced in 1964 or 1965 by the Government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. Senior citizens are more apt to have disease than younger people, but after hospitalization insurance and Medicare were brought in they no longer had this fear of having their life savings wiped out as a result of ill health.
We take hospitalization insurance and Medicare for granted in this country, but we should be reminded of the situation in the United States. Senator Kennedy and others have been fighting unsuccessfully for years trying to get the same sort of medicare legislation in the U.S. They have been fighting against medical lobbies of various kinds. There are some plans for those on charity, but other than that Americans have to pay high premiums to get some sort of health insurance. The Medicare and hospitalization schemes that we have here in Canada give very good protection. Medicare was brought in by my own Party and has played an important part in the over-all protection of senior citizens.
In closing, might I mention a program which I think delivers the most benefit per dollar to our seniors. I am, of course, referring to the New Horizons Program brought in by our Government. In my riding of Scarborough West, which comprises the old suburbs of East Toronto, we have many older people. This riding is not like other suburbs in the City. We have 20 to 25 senior citizens' clubs in this area. People who belong to these clubs are very active. They want to get involved. They not only live in senior citizens' towers but in family homes around the area as well. With a little bit of seed money, often no more than $5,000 per club for a year or two, they are able to get themselves organized. Some of them have weekly meetings. There are daily activities for some of them. These clubs are a focal point for sociability, athletic exercise and stimulating conversation for men and women. The New Horizons Program is an excellent program. I am sure Members on all sides of the House will agree with me that for a very few dollars we are able to get seniors to organize themselves, to take an interest in everything from nutrition to athletic endeavours. I also think of ceramics and woodworking. This is not a big program money-wise. It does not go into the

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act {No. 2)
billions as do some other programs for seniors that we have, but it is a very worth-while program.
I am not apologetic at all, nor is the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and others on our side of the House who have spoken, for this piece of legislation. 1 can go into any seniors' group-I have 20-odd in my area-and say very clearly that they know who their friends have been over the last 30 years in this country. That is why we take the seats in Toronto, in the urban areas of the country and in Eastern Canada. These people know who their friends are. We do not come in making wild promises. We do not say, as do Members in the Party across from me here, sitting at the far end of the House from you, Mr. Speaker, that everything the Liberals do they will double automatically. We do not say that. Our seniors know who their friends are, and that is us.


Mr. Riis:: With friends like you, who needs an enemy?


David Bennington Weatherhead: You will remember that in the 1980 election campaign, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did not have any ideas about increasing the G1S at all. The Conservatives were going to study it. All of a sudden the Conservatives were not in the Opposition any more, they were the Government in power. They became awfully responsible. They did not think the seniors needed more money for the GIS. They were going to study the GIS and that was that.
I do not want to get overly partisan, but we have had a good record over 30 years. Our seniors, the ones who have some extra income, are not on GIS and are concerned about their children and their grandchildren, want to take part in the six and five program, which is a two-year program only. I urge Members on all sides of the House to support the legislation this afternoon.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I participate in the closing stages of this debate this afternoon. The Hon. Member who has just spoken is a very distinguished and well thought of Member in this chamber. 1 think of him as a very good friend who is a very highly respected Member from Toronto.


Mark Willson Rose: He used to be until he made his speech.


Jack Burnett Murta: I do think it would be stretching one's imagination to believe for one minute that the Hon. Member, or indeed any Member of the Liberal Party, could go into a senior citizens' home in Canada-other than some very wealthy ones-and expect to get out with any more than the clothes on their backs after they were through trying to explain this legislation. It is virtually unexplainable.
The Bill itself has been characterized in many, many ways over the course of this debate, but one of the best descriptions of the legislation is that it is a mean piece of legislation. It is designed, as it has to be designed if it is going to move in the area of restricting benefits, to impose a 6 per cent increase this year and a 5 per cent increase next year on old age pensions in terms of the Government's proposed plan to curb inflation. By the very nature and the very design of this Bill, it will curtail
old age pensioners' incomes. It has to. It cannot do anything else.
As I have said, the Bill limits the increase in old age pensions to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. As we all know, this pension previously had been fully indexed to the rate of inflation as measured to the consumer price index, which moves from time to time.
The legislation is basically directed against approximately 1.2 million senior citizens in this country who do not qualify for a full or partial Guaranteed Income Supplement. Looking at the scenario of a 10 per cent inflation rate, which will certainly occur this year, and also at the general economic situation, the scenario is bleaker now than it was some months ago, first because the American economy has not responded in the way that President Reagan and the powers that be in the United States hoped for, and, second, because we are on the verge of a very detrimental trade war. This will slow down the rate of recovery as well.
Everyone is hoping for a recovery. Everyone is hoping that consumer confidence will pick up and people will start to buy goods and services once again. If that does not happen, and it is increasingly more evident that it will not, then we could see, even with the six and five program, that inflation will remain at very substantial levels, well above the hoped for targets of six and five.
If we were to take an inflation rate of approximately 10 per cent, which is what it is presently, each of the 1.2 million old age pensioners would lose $290 in the next two years. On a year to year basis, that would be approximately $70 in 1983 and $220 in 1984. Those who will be affected to the greatest degree will be the single elderly with incomes slightly above the $8,900 or, to round it off, $9,000 which is the cut-off figure for those who receive the full Guaranteed Income Supplement. Anyone with an income marginally above that will certainly be affected very significantly. Those with incomes marginally above the $9,000 level will be the hardest hit. They are the ones who cannot afford a decrease.
Those who earn $8,900 a year receive a little less than $25 a day. The Government is going to carry out its fight against inflation by telling them that they have to sacrifice. The sacrifice made by someone who receives $25 a day is significantly more than the sacrifice made by someone who earns significantly more. Those who can least afford to make a contribution in the fight against inflation are being asked to make biggest contribution.
An elderly married couple with an income of just over $15,000 per year will lose approximately $580 over the next two years. Clearly the Government intends to fight inflation on the backs of the elderly, admittedly not all but 1.2 million of them, which is a significant number. The cut-off level will be $9,000 for a single person and $15,000 for a married couple. Those marginally above that cut-off level will have to do further belt-tightening at a time when 1 suspect the belt is drawn as tightly as it can be.
December 10, 1982

How much does the Government expect to save with this proposal? If the savings amounted to millions and millions of dollars and if one were hard hearted enough, one could say that it would be worth it in view of the good to the Canadian economy. However, that is not the case. I do not know what the savings will be, but I am sure they will be small in comparison to the total amount of money that this Government should be trying to save.
The sum will be small compared to the detailed criticisms made this past week by the Auditor General, particularly with regard to Crown corporations. The savings will be minuscule when compared to total Government spending. We are not talking about a lot of money, but we are talking about a significant amount of misery. That is an area we must look at.
A country is not judged on how it treats its more privileged citizens, but how it treats those at the lower levels, the low income earners. It can be judged in no other way. We are judged by the compassion we have for those less fortunate than ourselves. That is how we judge our friends, neighbours and, in fact, other countries.
If someone were to look at Canada, they would see that the Government is asking this Parliament to pass legislation which asks those who are already struggling to struggle even harder. We would not be judged in a very positive way.
Closure is being imposed and this afternoon we will vote on this Bill. We should hang our heads in shame for what we are doing to a significant portion of our population who helped to make this country what it is today, a good place to live.
The elderly in our society scrimped, saved and sacrifices in order that we might have what is ours today. Today we will be saying to these people that they must scrimp, save and cut back on their standard of living even more. That is not right, and the Members of my Party will not support it. While we agree generally that inflation must be dealt with, we cannot in good conscience vote for a measure like this in the same week that the Auditor General came out with horror stories of excess Government spending in the hundreds of millions of dollars over the past year by this Government, which is now asking us to impose a further hardship on our old age pensioners. It is not right, it is not fair, it should be voted against and it should be condemned by every sane person in this country.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate because there are some people who need to be reminded of what has occurred. It has been said that a country is judged by the way it treats its senior citizens. It is equally true that a Party can be judged in the same way. Given that circumstance, I think the Liberals can stand tall. What Hon. Members should recall, particularly those in the Opposition, is the fact that the GIS and the Old Age Security will not be reduced to the 6 and 5 per cent for those who are on GIS and Old Age Security. We will have full indexing in that particular area.
The senior citizens of this country will not judge the Liberals or this particular Government on one measure alone. They
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
will look at the over-all picture of how they have been treated by a particular Government. I think the Opposition should be remained of the fact, because its Members, of course, never mention it, that something like $8.5 billion is paid directly to Canadian senior citizens on an annual basis through the Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the spouses' allowances. That amounts to $8.5 billion, approximately one-tenth to one-twelfth of the total expenditures of the federal Government, including transfer payments, moneys that we must pay out in interest on the national debt, and money that we spend on the Department of National Defence, be they direct or be they transfer payments.
Senior citizens, those over the age of 65, have gone through two world wars and a Depression as well as the conflict in Korea. They know what it is to plan and to prepare, but, more important, they know what it is to be independent, and they like to have the accompanying feeling of pride. Therefore, I was particularly proud to have been elected in 1968 when one of the earlier moves of the Government was to bring in low rental housing for senior citizens. The mood and the approach of the Canadian public has changed quite a bit. In my day there was the sort of thought that grandparents in their old age would probably live with one of their children. That is not the case nowadays. The time came when people felt that senior citizens lost a bit of their dignity. They were quite often shut off in one room. Sometimes they had to put up with grandchildren whom they were frankly ill-equipped to look after on a permanent basis. They had spent a quarter of a lifetime looking after children and felt that they were entitled to something just a little bit better.
Low rental housing units for senior citizens gives them that sense of independence and the opportunity to invite friends and relatives over. They are still able to visit their grandchildren so that they can enjoy them, and when the children start becoming a little less than congenial, they can be dumped back on their parents' laps and looked after in this way. This gives senior citizens the sense of independence, value and worth and, primarily the opportunity of feeling that they are in a position in which they can act as they have acted all their lives, namely, in the position where they are not beholden to anyone.
Bringing in the Old Age Security so that everyone receives the benefits on a universal basis is appropriate, not so much for people who really do not need it but for the average working person who puts aside a few dollars so that he or she will have something upon which to retire, supplemented by the old age pension. These people are encouraged to save because they will then have their pensions or savings looked after and the old age pension as well, and that is across the board.
Others, through no fault of their own, are not in a position to put a few dollars aside because they have not received sufficient compensation for their work to permit them to do so. Some senior citizens incurred heavy medical expenses before

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
the introduction of Medicare. 1 say, thank heaven for Medicare. Many senior citizens lost their life savings because of a sickness in the family. These savings could have been wiped out in a six month period. Senior citizens no longer have the fear that if they go to the doctor it will eat into their incomes. The Liberal Government has brought in the kind of legislation to allay such fears.
Who stands to gain the most if we are able, through this program, to bring down the rate of inflation? Obviously, it will be the people on fixed incomes and, very obviously, those who are drawing only old age pensions and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Inflation is invidious. It cuts right across the board. I believe the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) indicated earlier that people who had set aside money for their pensions had seen it being eaten away by inflation. Therefore, we have indexed pensions so that they will not be eaten away in this manner.
No one is suggesting that the old age pension should be decreased in its value and in payments to pensioners, and no one is suggesting that, for all time, indexing should be taken away. However, if this program is successful, then our civil servants who are under the six and five program and the senior citizens who are finding their pensions increasing by 6 per cent and 5 per cent rather than according to the consumer price index, are the ones who will have taken the leadership role, once again, in aiding the economy. They will be the chief beneficiaries when the inflation rate comes down to an appropriate level.
Obviously, the Government cannot do it all alone. With the success of the six and five program, many people in the private sector are now coming forward and saying, "We actually initiated that ourselves. We had put freezes on our salaries, on the salaries of members of boards of directors and midmanagement, and in some instances we had actually cut salaries or the amount of compensation payable to our employees and, in some cases, even encouraged employees to take early retirement at wages similar to those they would have received if they had stayed on". In that way they tried to rationalize the situation so that their employees would be able to meet the difficulties lying ahead.
The six and five program is appropriate because it will help our senior citizens. They will probably become the chief beneficiaries. My colleague-my colleagues-


Ian Deans: Colleague. Right.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Whitehead) and others who have spoken have indicated the various programs which have been put in place by Liberal Governments. We have a proud record, and we can indicate to our constituents what the Liberal Government has done on their behalf.
I have already mentioned the old age pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement and indexing. If we needed any indication that senior citizens like independence, have initiative and are prepared to work if only given a littb seed money, the
New Horizons Program is a magnificent example as it has had great success. The low rental housing units have given back to the senior citizens their sense of dignity which they were losing. It is not because they were not loved, because they were loved when their children would take them back into their homes, although admittedly, as I have said, many of them were lodged in a room upstairs, but because many of these senior citizens felt ill at ease in such a situation. In probably 90 per cent of the cases they really did not feel at home. Certainly they did not feel as though they were in their own homes, but rather as though they were there almost by sufferage. They had a tendency to forget all the wonderful things they had done for their children and wondered if they were becoming a burden. Certainly, because they had to live in someone else's home, they did not feel as good as they should have and not as independent. To some extent, they were losing their sense of pride and dignity. Low rental housing units gave that kind of independence to citizens.


Ian Deans: That's where I came in.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) says, "This is where I came in".


Ian Deans: That is where you started.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is nice that the Hon. Member recognizes this particular effort, and only one of several which have taken place at the initiative of the federal Liberals. 1 sometimes think one must comment on something more than twice in order to get the point across.


Ian Deans: There are always some of us who would not listen long enough to hear it twice.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Then there is the wonderful independence of the senior citizens who do not want to retire. I am thinking of people like Senator Croll and his study on aging. I am thinking of a chap named Jim Woods who "retired" at age 65. I know that he is out selling Christmas trees at age 80, not because he needs the money, although every additional bit of money is helpful, but, rather, he wants to make a contribution. He knows that in tough times, it is a role that he can play. I think of the voluntary work done by senior citizens. The healthy ones do work on behalf of the unhealthy ones. Those with the talent for organizing, putting things together, do so. Organizations of concerned pensioners make representations here in Ottawa to each individual Member of Parliament.
This Government need make no apology for the work, the service and the programs it has initiated to help the senior citizens. It is not meant to sound as though it is a charity; it is something they have earned and something that they deserve. But we were the ones who came up with the ideas and we were the ones who located the money and set the priorities so that senior citizens in Canada can maintain a dignity and live in a situation to which they are entitled and so that they can say they are proud of the country that treats them so well.
December 10, 1982


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like, in discussing Bill C-131 today, to draw to the attention of the Members opposite who have spoken that it was not only by the votes of the Liberal Government Members that these senior citizens programs were put in place. They were supported by all Parties in this House. There was some discussion and some debate on each occasion as to whether it was the right step, or there was enough money, or the allocation was proper or a certain group would be left out. But all Parties in this House, when all the measures that had been discussed earlier were voted on, supported those measures.
Let us take a look at the basic provisions in Bill C-131. It amends the Old Age Security Act, and the purpose for this legislation is the implementation of the six and five. This is what we are told. This is what speaker after speaker on the Government side reiterated, that this legislation is necessary to bring forth the Government's restraint program known as six and five.
In specific terms, the Old Age Security payment that is now fixed at $246.92 per month will be increased by 6 per cent in 1983 and by a further five per cent in 1984. The result is that the absolute limit of that increase, the only increase that can take place by the end of 1983, will be $14.82 per monthly payment, bringing it to $261.74, slightly more than $3,000 for the full year, and you can compare it: $2,999.04 versus $3,140.88.
Why is this action being taken in the guise of restraint? The answer is quite simple, it is being done in this way so as to save $90 million in 1983 and $150 million in 1984. The Government is now saying that the senior citizens, the people who built this country, will have to be restrained. The total funds that we are talking about over the two years, $240 million, will be taken from 1.1. million Canadians, and $125 million will be paid to 1.2 million Canadians. Those are the Canadians who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. So we are only talking in this House right now about $110 million. This is restraint? It is not restraint, it is re-allocation.
I do not think that Members on the Goverment side are being quite straightforward with people receiving Old Age Security. It is not restraint, it is re-allocation. Why is it necessary to re-allocate funds in that manner? We have been told that we have to bring inflation down, below six and five, and we say that that is an admirable goal. The problem arises that while the oldest people of this country, the senior citizens, are being asked-not really asked, it is being demanded of them-to take part of this program, the Government itself is not taking part. The Government is going on its merry way continuing to spend, continuing to increase. I think we all know of much less harmful instances to the fabric of this country on which the Government could practise restraint than the senior citizens who have helped to build this country.
It takes away the encouragement, the feeling of self-sufficiency that most people in this country have, as they feel it is their responsibility to provide in their senior years. We come to a point where a very small segment of society will be affected by this Bill, but those people are proud that they have been
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
able to provide an income for themselves in the $15,000 to $16,000 range in their retirement years.
A senior married couple with one income of just over $15,000 are going to lose $580 over the next two years, and
250,000	married senior citizens with incomes between $15,000 and $16,000 will be affected, and they will be the hardest hit. If the Members feel that $25 a day, and that is what it works out to,, is adequate to provide shelter, travel, food,, clothing and some luxuries like being able to visit children who live far away, why do we and why do other employees of this Government and of the public of Canada receive incomes that are much higher than $25 per day?
When we look at people who are living just above the Guaranteed Income Supplement, that amount that they are allowed is in statistical terms above the poverty line. We all know that the poverty line is a figment of someone's imagination. When you look at the ever-growing necessities of life and the cost of those necessities, the poverty line is changing probably daily. The Members on the Government side insist that that is because of inflation, and that is right. I think that probably inflation will eventually be well below 5 per cent or 6 per cent. Those people in Canada who went through the years of Depression can tell you that inflation was well below 6 per cent in those years. It does not mean that our country and our economy was growing and generating the goods and services that were needed. It is not just to get below 6 per cent, it is to try to restrain Government spending so that the rest of the economy can go ahead and generate wealth, and allow the Government to have its fair share.
When we look at some of the things the Government has spent money on, rather than spending it on senior citizens, we find that, for instance, the Canadian International Development Agency paid $1.5 million for late and damaged food shipments. That is not to say that late and damaged food shipments were the fault of CIDA, but people ask, why should we restrain our senior citizens when a Government agency is not able to control or to manage its own affairs?
The senior citizens are being asked to accept an increase of 5 and 6 per cent. Let us look at spending in all Government Departments and by all Members of Parliament where spending increases in travel are apparent. In the Department of Agriculture spending on travel by the Minister is up by 43 per cent; the Secretary of State, up 1179 per cent; the Prime Minister's Department, 184 per cent; the Office of the Minister of National Defence, 584 per cent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is yours?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We have to come up with 5 and 6 per cent. It is just a matter of trying to impress on Government Members that you are asking a segment of society to assist in the recovery of the economy. That segment of society is the segment that built this country and built the economy that in some points I think this Government has helped to turn down. There is no reason why we should go ahead and support a motion that deprives a segment of society that is least able to defend itself against Government restraint, such as the senior

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
citizens, when we have other areas we can draw from. There are certain areas that could be restrained which would not harm the economy of the country and would not harm individuals. I am not sure why senior citizens are being asked to partake in this, because the carrot which is held out is not too much of a carrot. I would like to quote the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) when she said as reported in Hansard of November 18, 1982, at page 20799:
After all, we know that we cannot give any guarantees to pensioners that others will join them in the fight against inflation but, at the same time, we are optimistic and believe in the willingness of all Canadians to participate in this critical national challenge.
Canadians do respond to challenges, Mr. Speaker, but 1 do not think the Government should expect the senior citizens to pay for mismanagement and deliberate mistakes.
On the motion to put over the vote for six months, which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine (Mr. McKenzie) if the Government Members believe in their own programs, six months down the road this vote may not be necessary. It may not be necessary to impose upon senior citizens a restraint program. If the programs which have been presented are as earth shattering and as beneficial to Canada as some Hon. Members on the Government side believe, there is no need now to make the decision that we put the restraint program in place as it affects senior citizens.
Senior citizens have always done their part for this country and will continue to do so, but I think there are other segments of society we can look to, and if we do not, we are doing a disservice for all the efforts and toil which these people have put into building this country. I certainly will not be voting in favour of the restraint program as it affects senior citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear some Members over there say, shame. It may be surprising, but I do not think a lot of the Hon. Members on the Government side of the House would voluntarily wish to impose this restraint, and if they had the right to vote as they wish-


An Hon. Member:: Otherwise they would be cut off committees.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: -as the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) can on this side of the House, then they probably would be voting with those of us on this side of the House against this Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to be able to stand and speak in this debate, especially following the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), who generally gives a very thoughtful speech. 1 am sure he really, sincerely believes everything he says, and I listened to him quite carefully. I would like to point out one or two things about what he has said, particularly with regard to the comment that we could look to others, that the program of restraint should not be as broadly spread as possible, that it should not apply to certain segments of our society, and that
there are other segments of our society that could indeed make a greater contribution to the restraint program. When you look at the over-all situation we now face, 1 find that hard to believe. What other segments of our society are better able to absorb more of the strain of the situation we now find ourselves in?


An Hon. Member:: The poor people.


John Leslie Evans: If we look at the situation of corporations, we have heard the New Democratic Party say we should tax corporations more heavily. I think it was the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who said the other day that is where we can get the money, tax the corporations, because the corporations are making excessive profits. Corporate profits in the last year have fallen 50 per cent. They are 50 per cent lower. It is not a matter of increasing by only six and five; it is a matter of actually declining absolutely by 50 per cent from where they had been the year before. And as a result of that decline, people are being thrown out of work, firms are shutting their doors, and that is increasing the burden on individuals, and it is increasing the burden on the state which has to pay unemployment insurance and other forms of social assistance to those who have lost their jobs.
I believe, rightfully so, the corporate sector, the business sector, has to pay their fair share, but is that the sector which can absorb more of-the load right now? I suggest to you at this point in time that that sector cannot carry more of a burden than it is already carrying. As far as public servants themselves are concerned, the working population of public servants has been subjected to the six and five program. Their salaries will go up by 6 per cent this year and 5 per cent next year.
We have heard a great deal of discussion in committee with regards to Bill C-133 and some of the other legislation, that indeed it is not fair to apply restraint to pensions in the various areas, the general transfer programs, because where it is fair to apply it to wages and salaries, it is not fair to apply it to pensions. The reason is that those who are working are able, through collective bargaining and other means, once the restraint is over, to recapture that lost ground, and this is not possible for pensioners. That gave me pause for thought for a long time because it sounds right. It sounds right to say yes, pensioners cannot bargain, they cannot get an increase, and workers can because there is such a thing as bargaining.
Then I went back and looked at the facts to see if it was true. If you look at the figures and the facts you will find that, indeed, workers are not able to extract more from the system than the system is able to pay. Workers' salaries and wages have not increased out of line with productivity over the long term. They have not increased at astronomical rates above inflation over the long term. Certainly, in short-term periods that has been the case, where wages in a particular sector have gone up. But you would expect that. If there is a shortage of certain kinds of workers, their wages will go up. But over the five to ten-year period wages on average have gone up about the same as inflation, plus a productivity factor.
December 10, 1982

It is not, therefore, fair to say that workers are able to recapture what they might have lost during a period of restraint. I really do not think that kind of thing can happen. 1 believe that restraint is going to be there and it is going to affect their incomes over the long term. Indeed, if we believe that wages tend to go up by inflation, plus a productivity factor, then any restraint now is going to affect their pensions five or ten years down the road because it lowers the base from which that pension is calculated ultimately. So the workers in the Public Service are certainly carrying their share of the burden at this point in time under the six and five program.
Regarding workers in the private sector, Mr. Speaker, we have heard from Members of the New Democratic Party- again I think it was the Hon. Member for Regina East, and some others-that some workers, not all workers, are making large wages and salaries, and I looked at the figures on that. Unionized workers are not receiving salary increases which are excessively out of line at this time. They have restrained their wages to a general degree. Management, clerical, and the nonunionized workers in the private sector, if we can believe the Conference Board survey, will be receiving wage and salary increases of 5 per cent to 6 per cent in the next year. There is restraint there, Mr. Speaker. And if it is not the corporate business sector that is able to carry a heavier burden now, and if it is not the private sector work force, and it is not the Public Service work force, because not only at the federal Government level, but also in the provincial Government, these kinds of restraint programs are in place, then 1 would honestly ask the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster what other sector of our economy is left to carry this additional burden of restraint, if it does not apply to transfer programs in this area.
I have talked to a great many senior citizens in my own riding since the six and five program was introduced. 1 have heard from the majority-certainly not all of them-that, certainly, we do not like restraint, you do not like restraint, but we understand. When we are really honest about it, we probably never had it better. The Hon. Member for Lambton-Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) pointed out the kind of advances we have been able to make in this country over the last 15 years- longer, but primarily the last 15 or 20 years-for senior citizens.


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


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed something. Did the Hon. Member explain to those pensioners that poor people pay-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member may only put a question if the Hon. Member who has the floor consents to receive it. Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) accept the question?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 really do not think the Hon. Member had a question; he wanted to make a point in debate.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
That is not an unusual thing for that Member to try to do, but I do not think I am going to let him at this time.
The senior citizens I have talked to, Mr. Speaker-the majority, not all-have indicated that they are willing to share in a restraint program. What is the restraint being imposed, Mr. Speaker? As the Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated, it amounts to an increase in pensions of $2 a month less than would have been the case without the restraint this year, and $4 a month less than the increase would have been next year. That is a modest amount of restraint, but it does spread the six and five program widely so it applies to everyone. It is only fair to do that, but there are some exceptions.
As I indicated in my speech earlier on Bill C-133, the six and five program is terribly important because if we can make it succeed-and all indications are that it is succeeding, inflation is coming down, and inflationary expectations are coming down-then the country is going to be stronger and better able to generate economic growth in the future. As a result, we are going to be in a better position to move ahead economically and socially. So that program is terribly important and we must support it. 1 think to be successful the program must be spread widely throughout our society. It cannot be limited to just public servants or the private sector through voluntary restraint; it has to be spread very broadly. It applies to wages and salaries, it applies to transfer programs such as Old Age Security and Family Allowances. But the Government, in the tradition of the Liberal Party, has made the exception that those who are in greatest need will not be asked to contribute excessively, and in this case not at all because the Child Tax Credit is fully indexed, in fact double indexed, as well as the Guaranteed Income Supplement. So anyone receiving the G1S will not lose a penny as a result of the restraint program.
However, Mr. Speaker, 1 mentioned an exception, and that was the restraint program as it was originally conceived to apply to superannuation, which I talked about the other day. That exception was that it was treated like a transfer program, kept out of the six and five program even though it was contributory. The CPP is contributory and it was not touched, and superannuation was. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) brought forward an amendment to recognize the contributory nature of that program, and he maintained that the restraint only applied to those parts of the program which were paid for by the taxpayer dollar, and any contributory part is over and above that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It being 3:45 p.m., pursuant to the order made Thursday, December 2, 1982, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the Bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment of Mr. McKenzie. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
21500

December 10, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the amendment 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 nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


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


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. McKenzie) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
FI is
Foster
Fox
Francis
Frith
Gauthier
Gendron
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gray
Guilbault
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.) '
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
MacBain
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Whelan Yanakis-126.
December 10, 1982


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members. Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Madam Speaker:: It being 4:20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motion, Public Bills, Private Bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for allowing all items preceding No. 4 to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
	NAYS	
	Messrs.	
Althouse	Clarke	FennellAndre	(Vancouver Quadra)	FraserAnguish	Cooper	FretzBaker	Corbett	Friesen(Nepean-Carleton)	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FultonBeatty	Crombie	GambleBenjamin	Crouse	GassBlackburn	Dantzer	GilchristBlaikie	Darling	GreenawayBosley	Deans	GurbinBradley	de Jong	GustafsonBroadbent	Dick	HallidayCardiff	Ellis	HamiltonCarney (Miss)	Elzinga	(Qu'Appelle-MooseClark	Epp	Mountain)(Yellowhead)


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, June 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fretz:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of holding a national referendum on the issue of capital punishment and, following such referendum, amend the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code to conform with the majority views of the people of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
December 10, 1982
Capital Punishment
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by complimenting the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) for bringing this motion calling for a national referendum to be held on the subject of capital punishment.
1 take pleasure in this debate largely because the motion is so similar to the one that I introduced in the House in November, 1976. At that time I called for a national referendum to be held on the same subject. 1 very clearly recall the debate, which happened to be on November 15, of that year. I remember what the Hon. Members on the Liberal benches were saying in the argument against my motion.
The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, now the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), who was a reputed constitutional expert on the subject, entered the debate. He had two very singular arguments for putting down my motion. One was that such a referendum would be very divisive to the country. He called upon history and the conscription debate of the 1940s when in fact a referendum was very divisive. The way the question was put, the experience was very divisive for the country. 1 accept that particular argument on that particular subject for that particular period of time.
The other argument which he put to the House at that time was that a referendum would be considered unconstitutional, that in fact it was against British parliamentary tradition to have a referendum because the elected Members of Parliament have been chosen by the population at large to represent them in Ottawa in this case, to speak on behalf of the people and therefore it was not the tradition of the British parliamentary system to hold referenda.
It was very interesting to follow that debate. As I said, it went on during the day of November 15. While we were debating that motion in this House, the good citizens of the Province of Quebec were going to the polls. On the evening of November 15 we watched the results come in. They had elected a Pequiste Government.
You never saw such a marvelous conversion in the Liberal ranks on the subject of referenda. What had been an anathema to the country before, a divisive subject, a divisive mechanism, an unconstitutional mechanism, overnight gained immediate credibility.
I recall that within a year of that debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced Bill C-9 in this Chamber. It was to provide the mechanism whereby in this British parliamentary system, which is not designed to allow for referenda to be held, all of a sudden after a particular dramatic election in the Province of Quebec there would be a mechanism, and it was articulated by the Prime Minsiter of Canada. A Bill was tabled in this House which would provide and legitimize the mechanism whereby a referendum could be held on that subject.
The Bill which the Prime Minister tabled in the House at that time had a very narrow reference. It was made to deal with one particular topic. If in that very narrow reference there could be a mechanism and legitimacy provided for a referendum in this country, why could it not be applied to subjects other than the matter of separatism? If it is legitimate to have a referendum to cover that very important subject to the future of our nation, why not on the matter of capital punishment?
If there is one subject which all Members of the House are consistently confronted with in their constituencies, across the board, why is it not possible to have a referendum on the subject of capital punishment? That is a question that comes to all Members whether they are abolitionists or in favour of capital punishment.
There was a very simple reason for that. Public opinion polls consistently show that between 70 and 80 per cent of the population is in favour of capital punishment. This is very clearly understood by all Members of Parliament, and indeed all candidates in every general election. Ail Members of Parliament accept that by far the majority of Canadian people are in support of capital punishment.
The fact that in 1976 the Parliament of Canada voted against the wishes of the Canadian people has been one of the singular features of our Parliament which has tightened the level of cynicism in our country toward the work of Members of Parliament. If on the one hand the people of Canada are saying this is what we want you to do and they make that known to Members of Parliament during an election campaign and through representations later, and in the face of that known position the Parliament of Canada votes against the wishes of the majority of the Canadian people, that in itself is enough to heighten the level of cynicism toward the political process in our country.
In 1976 we were promised that there would be a free vote. Some free vote. I remember that free vote and the pressure that there was on Government Members to vote with the Government on that issue. It is because the Parliament of Canada has not fulfilled the wishes of the Canadian people that we have this continual request for a referendum on the subject of capital punishment. It is because of this continual request that the Hon. Member for Erie has fulfilled the request of his constituents that we present to the House this motion, which is a further request that the Government honour the wishes of the majority of the Canadian people.
On every other issue, the Government always makes the argument that they are doing something because that is what the people of Canada want them to do. It does not matter whether it is the subject of PetroCan, six and five or any other subject, the rationale on the part of the Government is that the people of Canada want it to do it.
December 10, 1982

If the people of Canada want the Government to do that, and the argument of the Government is that it wants to do what the people of Canada want it to do, then why does it not do it on this subject? Very clearly, the answer is that the Government thinks that the people of Canada are wrong. I think that one of the most cherished rights we have in this country, above every other right, is the right to be wrong. It was our right. That is what brings about the differences of opinion in our country. That is what makes democracy a vital experience in our country, because one side thinks the other side is wrong, and that is all right. If the people of Canada, 70 per cent to 80 per cent, are wrong, it is their right to be wrong, and it is the requirement of the Parliament of Canada to fulfil the wishes of the Canadian people, even if it thinks the Canadian people are wrong.
It seems to me that when we go through an election campaign, one of the frequent campaign statements by all candidates and one which we have all said here in one way or another is, "Let me represent you in Ottawa. I want to represent you in Ottawa". That is a good statement to make to the electorate. However, on this subject, when the people of Canada said, "I want you to represent me in Ottawa," the majority of the Members of Parliament said, "No, I will not do that. I will represent myself, not the majority of the Canadian people". Candidates in a campaign never say, "When I go to Ottawa, I will think for myself, and even if you want me to do something else, I will do what I want to do because I happen to think that I am right". Candidates are always saying, "I want to represent you." They never say, "When you elect me, I will go to Ottawa and I will study the issues but I will do exactly as 1 please".


Mr. King:: "Or as I am told".


Benno Friesen: Yes, or, as the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) says, "Or as I am told." That is a fact. It seems to me that if people want to be elected on a popular or populist basis, and be honest with the electorate when they become elected, saying, "I want to represent you", then they must represent the Canadian people on every issue.
I pay tribute to my predecessor in the riding of Surrey-White Rock-North Delta. He happened to be a Member of the New Democratic Party. However, he was an honourable man. He took a poll of Surrey-White Rock-North Delta residents at that time and found that something like 80 per cent of the people of that riding wanted him to vote for capital punishment. He was the only Member of that caucus to vote in favour of capital punishment because he was determined to do what his constituents wanted him to do. I tip my hat to him because he maintained his sense of honour.
If there is one thing that we cannot afford in this country, it is a spirit of elitism on the part of the elected representatives who say to the electorate, "I can do as 1 please". We cannot
Capital Punishment
afford that kind of elitism. If we want to be a populist Parliament, if we want to represent the people of Canada, we must represent what they want, whether or not we agree with it. Frankly, I think one of the most anguishing votes in which I ever participated was one in which I disagreed and 1 voted against what I thought was good for the country because I thought the people wanted me to vote that way, and it was on the Constitution. I do not think that the Constitution that we passed in this Chamber is a good Constitution. However, I know that the people of Canada, by far, wanted us to get it over with, wanted to have it done with, and they wanted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, whether they agreed with that particular Charter or not, and I voted for it, much to my dismay, worry and conviction that in the long run it would not be good for the country.
There is one argument I want to put forward with regard to the issue of capital punishment itself and, with that, I will turn the floor over to some other Hon. Member. I spoke on this subject on June 8, 1976, I believe, and the former Solicitor General, who was piloting that Bill through the House, is sitting opposite me here today. I know that he hung on every word I said during that debate. The one point I want to make is that those people who want to see the abolition of capital punishment continuously say that a civilized nation cannot put people to death. Civilization depends on two very important factors. The first is that it be an orderly society and the second is that it be a compassionate society. That is a civilized society.
Murderers, particularly those who kill prison guards and policemen, are the most anarchistic, order-destroying people in our country. To protect those people who want to create anarchy in families, in communities and in nations is a contradiction of the word "civilization", because they are anarchists. Why should we protect those people whose personal goal is to create anarchy?
The second point I want to make with regard to civilization is that it is a hallmark of all civilizations, if, indeed, they are comprised of civilized people, that they will protect the unguarded and the weak from those who would ravish them. They will protect those who have suffered the consequences of the actions of murderers and rapists and they will protect those who have suffered as a result of that kind of ravishment and provide some kind of support mechanism afterwards.
I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, of all the hours of time we have spent in this Chamber discussing the rights of criminals who have taken the lives of other people, how much time have we spent thinking about the anguish of those people who are members of the families of those who have been murdered?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: How much time have we agonized with the families of the victims of the Olson cases? What have we done to provide psychiatric and medical care and all of the support

December 10, 1982
Capital Punishment
mechanisms that these people need as a result of the anguish that they have endured as a result of the Olson murders?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Precious little.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, if the public at large knew, if the journalists knew-


Mr. Kelly:: I rise on a point of order.


Benno Friesen: 1 wish the Hon. Member would not disturb me now, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) rise on a point of order?


Norman Kelly: Although I have not been in the House for the duration of the Hon. Member's speech, I have been listening and following it carefully. I am not in disagreement with what he has been saying-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Would the Hon. Member please state his point? 1 would like the Hon. Member to resume his seat, please.


Norman Kelly: I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. Will he permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


William James Kempling: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member was recognized on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he would permit a question.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will do that at the end of my remarks. 1 wish he had not interrupted me. I did not intend to use my full time allotment, and he could have done it at that time, but he has broken into my train of thought and I am sorry for that.
1 want to go on to say that if the public at large or if the journalistic community, for example, knew what kind of anguish the families of the victims involved in the Olson murders had gone through, they would not print one more word about Clifford Olson. They would not give him the notoriety he hungers for, and they would clamour for some kind of help to all those families of victims of murderers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: We are calling for psychiatric help for murderers. How about psychiatric and psychological help that is needed for those who have suffered distress, grief and remorse as a result of what they have endured?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: The second point is with regard to Ministers who clamour for the human rights of those who are murderers. 1 have yet to see $1 devoted in their budgets to be spent on behalf of the victims. There is no such thing as dollar expenditures for families of victims. All we hear about is protecting the criminals.
Is that the hallmark of a civilized society, to devote all of its attention to those who rape and pillage and kill, and ignore the anguish of those who are ravaged?
It is because of our distorted values, our distorted goals and our distorted laws that I commend the Member for Erie for bringing forward this motion that will let the people of Canada express their will on the subject of capital punishment.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachinc East):: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to participate in this debate on what I consider to be a very important and serious question, one that deserves much more time than we can give it today.
Let me respond right away to the last remarks of the Hon. Member. 1 am not speaking here today for the Government, but he criticized the Government for spending too much time on the issue of capital punishment and the abolition of capital punishment, and not on what we should do for victims and so on.
If that is the case, why is he today supporting a motion or a Bill which would bring about a reconsideration of capital punishment? Why did he not bring forward today a Bill or motion which would allow us to deal with the subject of the victims of crime.
The point of my speech, which 1 will get to in due course, is that our time would have have been much better spent today if we considered motions and Bills that, first, dealt with the causes of crime and how to prevent crime; second, how we can help the victims of crime, and the Hon. Member seems to be in favour of that; and, third, how we can have better rehabilitation programs in prison so that when people leave prison they will go to a productive life and not back into a life of crime.
I will return to those in a minute, but I see many contradictions in the Hon. Member's speech. If he is really interested in those things, why should we have a referendum on capital punishment?
I am not dogmatically opposed to referenda on some matters but I do not think that a referendum or a plebiscite is the best way to settle or solve a complex emotional question in this country. Certainly it is not the best way to decide on the important issue of capital punishment.
December 10, 1982

In the British parliamentary system, which is part of our Constitution, it is not that it is unconstitutional to have referenda or plebiscites, but it is against the general spirit of our system. 1 think in all Canadian history, at the federal level, we have had two plebiscites, not referenda 1 make the distinction. Generally a referendum is when we allow all voters to vote, but the result of that vote becomes law without any further action by Parliament or town councils or legislatures. On the other hand, we have had plebiscites in the past 100 years of our history on two occasions, for conscription and with respect to our drinking laws. These were plebiscites. Once the vote was taken the Government still had to deal with the issue in Parliament. As you know, in the conscription plebiscite, the Government took action not quite in line with the plebiscite results because it felt it would have very badly divided the country. Also around the turn of the century, the same was done with the plebiscite on alcohol.
In Britain, the only time that 1 can recall that a plebiscite or referendum was taken was on the case of joining the Common Market, and again it was a plebiscite and not a binding referendum.
The fact that it is not normal in the British parliamentary system does not mean that it cannot be used. I maintain very strongly that it is the wrong way to deal with complex emotional issues.
During his speech the Hon. Member opposite referred to public opinion polls. He said public opinion polls have shown over and over again that the public in Canada favours capital punishment. 1 would ask this House, are we saying that we are favour of public opinion polls as a basis of governing this country?


William James Kempling: That is how you govern.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, we govern by vote.


William Warren Allmand: That is not the way Governments under the British parliamentary system have governed for over 600 years, and it is not the way they should govern. I would agree with the Hon. Member that too often today some Governments are attempting to govern by polls.


William James Kempling: You people do.


William Warren Allmand: 1 would submit that that is completely wrong. It negates the whole tradition of our system whereby we run on platforms; we run on principles of different views, a Conservative principle or a Liberal principle or Socialist principle or whatsoever. If we are elected, we govern through a policy of implementing the policies that we ran on.
It is completely contrary to the traditions of the British parliamentary system to govern by public opinion polls.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!
Capital Punishment


William Warren Allmand: With respect to this very complex and very emotional issue, it would seem to me that if we were to decide this issue by referendum, which is one of life and death-we are dealing here with the lives of individuals-the whole question would carry with it more emotion than light and reason.
Another argument that 1 give against having referenda or plebiscites settle this very important question is that much will depend on how you formulate the question. It is obvious that if you put out a public opinion poll or a plebiscite or a referendum in a community or in a country where there has been a problem of murder, where there have been some severe and horrible murders and the people are upset, and rightly so, they should be upset at horrible murders, but if you put out an opinion poll or a plebiscite in those communities immediately afterwards and asked, are you in favour or against capital punishment as the penalty for murder, of course they are going to say, yes. You are putting before a group of people who are upset by murders being committed in their community one solution to deal with the problem of murder, and asking them whether or not they agree.
I say how you put the question is very important. I have seen public opinion polls on this issue where instead of merely putting forward one solution to the problem of murder, the pollster put forward ten solutions. He says, we have a serious problem of murder in this country-this was back in the sixties-and here are some solutions: stricter gun laws, better community education programs for youth, better programs for alcoholics and drug abusers, and so on. He listed ten things and asked, would you put these in the priority in which you think they are most important in dealing with the problem of murder. In that type of poll, capital punishment came fourth or fifth, not at the top. Even then it was subject to emotional problems and lack of information and so on. I submit very strongly that this would be the wrong way to deal with this very complex and important issue.
The Hon. Member says that many of us changed our views on referenda when the Parti Quebecois put the question of independence on a referendum in the Province of Quebec. I am a Member from the Province of Quebec. I am a citizen of Quebec. 1 never approved of that referendum as a way of settling that question. I thought it was completely wrong. I thought it was a way in which to appeal to the emotions and not to the reasons of the people of the Province. I would have much preferred that the whole question be dealt with within the National Assembly of Quebec and within the Parliament of this country, not by a referendum, and I stand by that today. Once we had the referendum, of course, we had to deal with it, and we fought hard on the "no" side of the question and we won, but it was not our preferred way of dealing with that question, not mine, in any case, as a citizen of Quebec.

December 10, 1982
Capital Punishment
1 would like to comment on the Hon. Member's remarks with respect to the free vote which we had in 1976 on this issue. He questioned whether it was a free vote or not. I would like to tell him, since I was the Minister who introduced the Bill and had to pilot it through this Parliament, that as far as 1 was concerned, it was a free vote. I was on this side and I had a hang of a time getting the support I needed to get that Bill through. I recall the day I stood up in the House and answered the question and said, "yes, it will be a free vote for everyone except the Cabinet", because I thought if the Cabinet approved of the Bill, certainly it would not be a free vote for them. 1 was contradicted at the time by the House Leader and the Prime Minister who said it would be a free vote for everyone. In fact, we only won that vote by six votes, I believe, on the final reading of the Bill, and by 15 votes on the second reading. It was a very close vote. Thirty per cent of the Government caucus voted against the Bill. 1 believe, on the other side, 30 per cent of their caucus voted for the abolition, and almost the entire New Democratic Party voted for the Bill, and all the Social Credit Party voted against. But they should have been involved, Mr. Speaker, in the problems which I had on this side of the House when I had the Official Whip, the Whip of my own Party, going around trying to convince people to vote for retention". Despite the fact that several Members of this House voted against the Bill to abolish capital punishment, several of them were taken into the Cabinet afterwards, and one is our new President of the Liberal Party, Iona Campagnola, who voted against me on that issue as a backbencher. It was not held against her. No pressure was brought to bear. She was still brought into the Cabinet as an important and productive Member of our Caucus.


Stan Darling: Look what happened to Gauthier.


William Warren Allmand: 1 did not hear what you said, I am sorry?


Stan Darling: What happened to Jean-Robert Gauthier
yesterday?


William Warren Allmand: I do not agree with what happened to him yesterday, but that is a different issue. I believe very strongly in consulting with my constituents and with the public of Canada. That is essential in our system. We consult, we go to public meetings, we listen to the population, but we listen to their arguments, we do not simply count heads. That is not our system of Government. We are elected to office on platforms with a political Party and we are expected to study questions in depth, to look at the pros and cons of a question, and in good conscience make a decision for the public good in Canada. We are not expected merely to count heads, which is suggested by this resolution. You go out and listen to the arguments, you debate. 1 have done that on many occasions in this country. And it was difficult to go into packed meetings where the people came with blood in their eye, and so on, because there
had been a horrible murder in their community. It was right they were angry. I agree with them. I am angry myself when I hear of these awful murders. But you listen to the argument. Reason should prevail in our Government and not numbers.
What is suggested to me by the type of motion that is introduced today, what always is conveyed to me, is the so-called trial of Christ, where Pilate had Christ before him and it was his responsibility to make the decision for Christ, and the mob was shouting, "crucify Him. Crucify Him." So Pilate washed his hands and allowed Christ to be dealt with as the mob wanted and not in accordance with justice as he, who was responsible for Roman justice in that colony, should have done. That is what plebiscites, referenda and public opinion polls always suggest to me. It is mob rule and not rule by rationale and reason.
I would like to submit very strongly that there is no basis for reconsidering capital punishment at this time. Since the abolition of capital punishment, the murder rate in this country has steadily declined, not because capital punishment was abolished, but because lots of other things have happened. In 1975 there were 701 murders in Canada. In 1976, the year we abolished capital punishment, there were 668 murders. In 1977, there were 710 murders. This was a gradual increase, but in 1978 there were 658 murders. In 1979 there were 631 murders. In 1980 there were 593 murders. We have not received the final statistics for last year, but they declined again. Therefore, there has been a decline every year.


Stan Darling: How about the attempted murders?


William Warren Allmand: I do not know what the number of attempted murders was before the abolition. That is a red herring, Mr. Speaker. Let them make their speeches, if they can, and I admit that the time is too limited today. We have no statistics on the attempted murders either before abolition or after abolition. The point I am making is that I can recall the debate very well. Members who were against the abolition said, "If you abolish capital punishment murderers will run amuck in the streets and the murder rate will go out of control." In fact it has not. The murder rate has gone down, thank God. Consequently, what we should be considering today is the question which the Hon. Member raised: how can we more effectively reduce the rate of murder in this country? What are the preventive measures which we can introduce to deal with murder? The issue is not what the penalty should be after a person is murdered, if we catch the criminal and find him guilty. The issue is: what should we do to prevent that murder in the first place; better policing, better rehabilitation, more effective alcohol control, drug control programs, better community recreation programs, and better housing in communities where crime is bred more rapidly than other communities. These are the things we should be concentrating on.
December 10, 1982

We should also be concentrating on how we should help the victims of crime. The Member was right when he discussed that issue. I agree with him 100 per cent. These are the kinds of things we should be discussing, how to better compensate the victims of crime, how to give them crisis centres, because a lot of murders are committed in families where women are battered by their husbands, along with their children. We should provide more assistance for that sort of situation. We should give better training to our social workers to take people out of crisis situations.
In addition, in accordance with the motion I put to the House on December 8, 1982. I believe the Government should set up an independent review group to examine the present 25-year minimum before eligibility for parole on first degree murder, and we should be looking at its impact on prisons and prison populations. And I believe such a review group should recommend new, more flexible provisions which will protect the public to the greatest extent possible, but at the same time provide a greater opportunity for rehabilitation for those serving sentences in prison.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we should concentrate on the causes of murder and not the penalty, family support, urban environment, education, treatment of emotional disorders, alcohol, drugs, health care, community involvement, gun control, police training, pro-active policing, effective corrections programs, and so on. And there must be more concern, assistance, support and better compensation for the victims of crime, especially victims of violent crime. It is not just the criminal who is responsible for these crimes but, to
Capital Punishment
a certain extent, all of us. Society is responsible because we fail every time there is violence in our society. I think most of us would admit that the supreme value in our society is human life. And if the supreme value is human life, then the organized state should never repeat the act of the criminal. A criminal justice system, based on revenge, is not appropriate to a civilized society. We must look for solutions that are humane and civilized, but also effective and ones which offer security to the population.


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


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: My point of order is simply this, Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show, if you would allow me, that 1 rose as a representative of the New Democratic Party following the address of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), to say that there was no attempt, and there is no attempt, on the part of my Party to attempt to duck this debate, as I am afraid that that question may arise if I had not made this statement at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 13, 1982