1982-12-22

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   LABOUR CONDITIONS NEW BRUNSWICK UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED GOVERNMENT ACTION

['No!']
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, as this will be the last chance the Government will have in 1982 to indicate that it has the slightest interest in such New Brunswick constituencies as Saint John and Northumberland-Miramichi and the thousands of unemployed and about to be unemployed living in complete despair there, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Government provide them with some hope, particularly as they are represented by Government backbenchers, by releasing the long-awaited reports on shipbuilding policy and on the future of Chatham-Newcastle after the closure of CFB Chatham and the subsequent destruction of those related 3,500 jobs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, it has been widely reported in the press that a number of crop wipe-outs last spring were caused by the federal law that forbids the use of non-metric units of measurement on labels, in this case those on containers of agricultural chemicals. Further crop damage is predicted for the coming spring if these federal regulations remain in force.
We have already established that the welfare of the country, or of individual Canadians, is of absolutely no consequence to the Government if it conflicts with Government plans or policy. Nevertheless these are the things with which we here have been elected to deal, and I am certain that there are those on the Government side of the House, even, who share this sense of responsibility. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this mindless, headlong rush into metrication be tempered with a little sober second thought, and specifically, that double labelling on all potentially hazardous material be not only permitted but encouraged.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I might say I have just this moment received a letter from a well loved citizen residing north of here, who has asked me to bring to the attention of this House a situation of some gravity. He writes:
Dear Bill:
I will be brief. My whole operation is in jeopardy. Canada Post has delayed new orders, the banks have repossessed my sleigh, the elves are on strike because of six and five, I can't collect unemployment benefits because I'm a seasonal, part-time worker, and Mrs. Claus wants to move to Florida; but, with a deindexed pension who can afford it?
This Government has really taken the HO out of my HO! HO! HO! The Prime Minister promised a Royal Commission but there seems to be a waiting list. Mr. Ouellet won't lift a finger until I metrify the odometers on the reindeer and, to top it all off, Herb Gray threatened to make me a Crown corporation: Santa Canada.
Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That we listen to old Saint Nick's message and appoint him to the Senate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, from the perspective of our new Constitution which enshrines official bilingualism both for Canada as a whole and for the province of New Brunswick, and secondly, in view of the bilingual status of the province of Manitoba, and in view of the fact that Ontario has a larger French-speaking population than either of

December 22, 1982
the above-mentioned provinces, making it essential that this community be guaranteed certain services in its own language, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That this House go on record as urging the Government of Ontario to make a firm commitment to one of the fundamental pillars of this nation by acting to make that province officially bilingual.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, with no decision as yet having been made as to where Canada might build the UN sponsored centre for biological research, and since Brock University has ready and available a fully equipped laboratory suitable for that purpose, and since it is located in an area which has above the national average of unemployed and has an abundance of skilled and technical help, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That Canada should not lose this opportunity to become a world centre of research and development in biological technology but take advantage of the facilities available to it through Brock University as the basis for a proposal to be submitted to the United Nations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


DISASTERS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, given the widespread flood damage to private property and farm lands which occurred last weekend in Delta, British Columbia, caused by a severe winter storm which breached or impaired several dikes, including one recently constructed to a 200 year storm standard under the Fraser River Flood Control Program, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the federal Government respond immediately to an urgent appeal from the Council of Delta municipality by undertaking to meet the costs of repairing all of the damaged dikes, including the reconstruction of dikes protecting
Westham Island, and that funds be allocated from the federal NEED Program so that essential jobs may be created promptly to carry out this urgent project.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


HIRING PRACTICES-CALL FOR APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION BY COMPETITION
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, as Standing Order 43 is about to become an extinct species, 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House urges the Special Committee on Standing Order and Procedure to amend S.O. 83 and 85(4) to include appointment and promotion by competition.
Currently Standing Orders 83 and 85(4) both employ the stark phrase that the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms "shall employ at the outset of a session" without providing these House officers with any enlightened procedures to guide them in carrying out their orders.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas I would ask the Members on all sides of the House to support unanimously my motion to congratulate the Government of Canada. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House congratulate the Government of Canada for seeing the error of their ways and withdrawing the very distasteful multicultural recruitement manual of the Liberal Party of Canada which suggested the use of judges of the courts of Canadian citizenship as a tool for recruiting members for the Grit Party, but at the same time understanding that, in this time of need, in that organization, they would grasp at anything in order to bolster sagging party fortunes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
December 22, 1982


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY-FORMER LEADER'S STATEMENT ON IDEOLOGY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that this may be one of the last motions moved under this provision, and given the subject matter, I am sure there will be unanimous agreement for this motion. 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House notes with agreement the profound observation made by the former Leader of the Conservative Party, the Hon. Robert Stanfield. The observation accurately describes the political situation in our time in Canada. His words were as follows, and I quote:
"I understand the efforts of a socialist to ridicule Liberals and Progressive Conservatives because we do not differ ideologically. But for a Conservative to take such bait and set out to establish ideological differences where none exist or ought to exist,... let me say simply and without personal offence, that such a Conservative is misguided."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon.


EXPRESSION OF BEST WISHES TO STAFF
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of the season 1 am sure that this Standing Order 43 motion will receive the unanimous consent of the House, since it probably will be the last if not next to the last such motion. 1 move, hopefully seconded by the Government House Leader, or perhaps even the Acting House Leader for the NDP:
That since Standing Order 43 will no longer exist after one minute to six this evening, this House extend its sincere best wishes to all of the support staff of the House of Commons, including Hansard reporters, the Table, the protective staff, the maintenance staff, and all others of those who are required to put up with us, and have had to, throughout this very trying year.
I also include you, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: That is the way to deal with that kind of Standing Order 43, with applause. The Hon. Member for Red Deer.


Mr. Pinard:: You have to put that motion.


An Hon. Member:: You did not put the motion, and it is debatable.


Madam Speaker:: I did not think it was a serious Standing Order 43. The Hon. Member for Red Deer.
Oral Questions
BYE-BYE "43"; HELLO "18(3)"


CHANGE IN STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise for the last time with a lament for Standing Order 43 and to add my own humble, personal and minor footnote to its passage. A leaf in the history of this hallowed Chamber vanishes with this day to give way, we hope and trust, to a more efficient and expeditious vehicle for expressing grievances. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House indulge this humble person by entertaining the passage of this motion which eulogizes the "43":
0	"43", my "43", 'tis sad that you are leaving,
1	know Madam Speaker sorely will be grieving;
I know she will pine; I know she will mourn.
Weep not, dear lady, a new House rule is born.
The "43" was a child of its times-
Motions, grievances, couplets and rhymes;
Now we'll have 90 seconds and anything goes!
Good luck, Madam Speaker, and be on your toes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For the last time and, for me, as a farewell to motions under Standing Order 43, is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Trudeau:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who knows that at two o'clock today the OECD report was officially tabled. In view of the fact that that report shows that unemployment in Canada will likely hit 13.25 per cent in the beginning of next year, meaning a jump of a further 60,000 people out of work, and a rate of unemployment of 13.25 per cent compared with a 24-nation OECD average of 9.5 per cent, would the Minister of Finance tell us whether he would be willing to bring in, at the earliest possible opportunity, a new budget, so that this tragedy which is being inflicted upon Canadian workers may be brought to an early halt?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a forecast. As he knows, a lot of forecasts made in the last few years have been proven

December 22, 1982
Oral Questions
wrong on the optimistic side. This one is particularly pessimistic. We hope that it will be proven wrong as previous optimistic forecasts were proven wrong.
As the Eton. Member also knows, a number of forecasts have been made by private Canadian institutions over the last few months. These forecasts all indicate that unemployment in Canada will remain high in the next year, that we can expect a gradual decline of unemployment during the course of the year, and a gradual recovery. The forecasts for recovery vary between institutions, but up to now all institutions which have made forecasts in Canada for the next year forecast a positive rate of growth.
1 have indicated that I am considering bringing in a new budget early in the new year, before the beginning of the fiscal year. I certainly intend to proceed with that plan, but I stress to the Elon. Member that no budget by itself could radically change the situation which we are experiencing at the present time, not only in Canada but in most industrialized countries. This will have to take place as part of a broad policy, not only in Canada but in other countries, involving not only budgetary policies but all other elements of the economy.


MACDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION-CHAIRMAN'S REMUNERATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who stated that perhaps forecasts will not become reality. Let us deal with reality, because OECD deals with reality and points out that in real gross national product terms Canada had a negative, a minus 5 per cent reduction last year, even behind Turkey, for example, which had a better record; in fact Canada had the worst record of any OECD country-24 out of 24. In view of the fact that that is costing every worker in Canada $100 a month in current dollars, would the Minister of Finance indicate, first, what is the depression proof wage level being offered to Donald Macdonald to head his commission? Is it $800 a day? Second, would the Minister of Finance at least ask that commission to commence its activity at the earliest opportunity with a view to its advising the Minister on what course he should take to avert a still worse calamity in this country than is developing, and as to what he should do?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, Royal Commissions do not come under my responsibility. The Hon. Member's question in that regard should be addressed to the Minister responsible for the Privy Council Office, namely, the Prime Minister.
As far as the Hon. Member's second point is concerned, the commission has been set up. Meetings have been held already. Last week Mr. Macdonald met with provincial Ministers and myself at the conclusion of the federal-provincial conference and there was a very helpful and fruitful exchange of views
with regard to the activities of the commission. I understand the commission is still in its organization stage. It is planning to proceed expeditiously with its plans of action, but again I think it would be raising false expectations and hopes to believe that this commission could come forth with recommendations for action in the next few months. That is the responsibility of the federal and provincial Governments of this country together with people in the private sector, both labour and management. That responsibility we are ready to assume. We have assumed it up to now, and we will continue to take the responsibility for it.


PURPOSE OF PRIME MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING VISIT TO FAR EAST
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. No doubt the Prime Minister is familiar with the OECD report to which I have referred, which lists his country, Canada, as number 24 out of 24 in terms of 1982 performance. Will the Prime Minister indicate why he feels that now is the time for him to take still another trip? In what way will that trip help the unemployed of this country?
Statistics Canada's figures issued this morning show that some of our industrial sectors are operating at only 51 per cent capacity and, on average, are operating at only 67 per cent. The OECD report has indicated that our downturn has been due to the postponement or cancellation in part of major energy projects in Canada. In that context, would the Prime Minister indicate how he might be able to do more to help the unemployed than by taking another trip?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the question is somewhat involved and speculative. I am sure if I did not take a trip I might be able to do a great deal-that is the suggestion by the Hon. Member-in helping the economy. I am glad to see him recognize the earnestness with which I apply myself to that task when I am in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to whether what I do week after week is more than I will be doing when I go to the ASEAN countries and Japan, Madam Speaker, is a matter entirely for speculation. I cannot satisfy the Hon. Member on that, but I would want to point out to him that the ASEAN countries have been growing over the past several years at a rate of about 6 per cent. Trade with the Pacific Rim countries has now overtaken trade by Canada with Europe. If the Hon. Member were at all informed about the reality of the economic development of those countries and the potential markets for Canada, I am sure he himself would be suggesting that I make the trip a little longer so that I could spend more time with the businessmen who have asked me to meet them there to discuss Canada's trade relations with those countries.
December 22, 1982


INDUSTRY
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who, I believe, is engaged in conversation. If I could have him stand down, I have a question with respect to the electronics industry. The Minister will know that RCA in Midland, Ontario, the last electronic picture tube manufacturer in Canada, will shut down completely by the end of the year. That plant closing alone represents a loss of 1,200 jobs to the Canadian electronics industry. What efforts has the federal Government made in the past two or three years to support and strengthen the electronics industry in Canada?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, with respect to the particular plant in question, the RCA plant, my officials are working with Ontario Government officials to see if we can find another buyer for that particular operation. I have already met with one of the prospective buyers and hopefully we will be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion for the people involved in that plant.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Minister will know that the shut-down procedures have started already.


FUTURE OF ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Canada's import-export deficit in the electronics industry increased 15 per cent from 1980 to 1981. All the while the people in that industry are predicting that it could mean up to 100,000 to 150,000 jobs for Canadians in that industry by the end of the decade. What we want on this side is for those jobs to be in Canada and not offshore. What steps is the Canadian Government taking to ensure that those jobs are created in Canada and not offshore?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, as do all Members of the House, that one-third of our total gross national product is dependent upon what we export abroad. Consequently we do not have the same flexibility that many other countries have with respect to having import regulations that keep products out of this country. He will also know from some of his own colleagues in the House, from the East and the West, that when we have taken steps, for example, in prohibiting cars from Japan coming to this country, they have requested that we eliminate those barriers and let those cars come in. Let us have some consistency from his Members on the other side.
Oral Questions BANKS AND BANKING


INCREASE IN PROFITS OF CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who has been somewhat less than forthright with Parliament since he has not given us all the good news for Christmas. While Canadians from every region and virtually every walk of life are struggling during this depression period, the chartered banks of Canada have racked up fourth quarter profits that rank among the highest in their history. Return on fourth quarter average equity is in the 14.6 per cent range, with assets having grown similarly.
Will the Minister rise today and tell the House that he will meet with the chief executive officers of Canada's chartered banks and ask them to moderate their profiteering and join with the rest of Canada in trying to get the economy back on track?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact I have already met with the banks. I discussed this subject in general terms a while ago. In those discussions I even indicated that, bearing in mind the fact that the banks had known such a bad year up to the last quarter, and a bad year last year, the first thing that would happen would be for the NDP to rise up and point out those horrendous profits that would happen. I can say that in the course of the next year, as recovery comes, you will see the NDP on the other side of the House rising every day to say, "Is it not terrible that this or that corporation has had profits rising by a thousand per cent?" They will have gone from $1 to $1,000. That will be a cause of scandal for the NDP. Therefore I am not very surprised at that type of reflection at the present time.
The banks, like other institutions in Canada, such as the manufacturing sector and the industrial sector generally, have known a bad year. We should be encouraged by the signs that the financial institutions, the manufacturing sector and the industrial sector, I hope, will show profits in the course of the next few months because this will mean that they would be able to invest and expand the economy and be able to create more jobs for Canadians and deal with the problems of unemployment that we are facing.


John Edward Broadbent: Banks are laying off all over.


CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES-REQUEST FOR CONTROL ON INTEREST RATE SPREADS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Minister would be interested to know that the banks are laying off people, rationalizing their operations, and cutting off branch offices. And many people in Canada would be pleased to know that banks, in this troublesome year, have made profits in excess of $1.5 billion. I recognize that the banks have experienced large loan losses, but their profitability is so high largely because their consumer loan rates are as much as double what the banks are paying their depositors. Of course

December 22, 1982
Oral Questions
we all know that their credit card charges are at usurious rates of between 24 per cent and 34 per cent. In light of those facts, would the Minister of Finance consider controlling the interest rate spread, as we suggested in our minority report on bank profits?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, a committee of the House was set up during the course of the year to study bank profits. That committee studied the whole issue extensively. However, at the end, when the NDP thought its doctrinaire views would not be endorsed by everyone, and when it saw that the facts did not fit with its ideological stance, it decided to boycott the committee and refused to look at reality and examine what the facts were.


John Edward Broadbent: Say it with a straight face!


Marc Lalonde: Therefore, when there is a Party which refuses to play by the rules of the House and respect the facts of life, I cannot give the assurance that the Hon. Member has requested. I cannot do that.


PUBLIC CONTROL OF BANKING SYSTEM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we all recall that at those hearings into bank profits, the banks, because of their exorbitant and rather embarrassing profits, said that those profits were a fluke and that they would never happen again. During these difficult economic times, those profits are occurring once again.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: We've got two flukes; two flukes in a row.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would ask the Minister of Finance to give Canadians a real Christmas present by introducing, in the tradition of the Swiss and Austrian banking systems, amendments to the Bank Act so that there will be real public control over Canada's banking system and so that it will operate in the best interests of Canada and Canadians as opposed to shareholders.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in fact, this question has been considered by Parliament for a number of years. Every ten years, the Bank Act comes up for review. Last time, Parliament considered the Act for, I think, at least two years if not longer. During that review, all Members of Parliament had an opportunity to discuss the Bank Act, and substantial amendments were made. The important thing is to provide for greater competition between financial institutions in Canada. The last amendments to the Bank Act took a step in this direction by allowing into Canada a number of foreign banks that are on the market and compete with existing banks. In addition, other financial institutions such as trust companies, caisses populaires and credit unions are also on the market and competing with the banks. The way to solve the problem my colleague imagines exists is not to bring in more Government regulations but to ensure that there is more
competition among financial institutions, and that is the position taken by this Government.


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As he knows, the Chairman of the National Parole Board, through his policy of gating, has signalled to the country that there is a real probelm involving the security of Canadians as a result of the early release program known as mandatory supervision. It is a problem which Bill S-32 does not address. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has encouraged and supported the Chairman of the National Parole Board in his policy of gating, and whether he has planned any additional or alternative measures, other than Bill S-32, which would provide some sense of security to Canadians in the event that inmates are released before they have been rehabilitated.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Indeed, Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the Hon. Member noting the gating procedure which the Chairman of the National Parole Board recently began exercising. Far from saying that there is a problem with dangerous offenders being put out on mandatory supervision, I think the Hon. Member should recognize that there is a solution, that the solution is in the hands of the Parole Board, and that it is being exercised.
With regard to his second question, I supported the procedure of the Chairman. I am satisfied, from the law officers of the Crown, that that procedure is lawful, and although it is being challenged in the courts now, the law officers of the Crown are taking a position in support of it.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Prime Minister. I want to say it the way it is, the way I hear it in my constituency, or no matter where I go, concerning the fact that we are almost reaching two million people unemployed in Canada and the Government is doing nothing new to resolve the problem. The situation is not only serious, but it is also critical, and even more urgent than if the country were in a state of war. Canadians are asking why billions of dollars have gone across the border to the United States and why thousands of businesses have folded and have also gone across the border. Sir, I want to say to you that what has been said to me is that the Royal Commission-
December 22, 1982


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Kushner: -the Macdonald Commission-1 am still in the question-is nothing but an election tool to provide the information before the election


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member must ask a
question.


John Kushner: I am concluding my question-that it will provide the information before the election and report back after the election. What a waste of money, as it is providing information only for a political party. My question-


An Hon. Member:: No question!


John Kushner: My question is directed to the Prime Minister so that he may consider it over the Christmas recess. Will the Prime Minister be prepared to set out a commission, an unbiased commission, for which Parliament was elected, which would be appointed by three parties here in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, to report back within four months? Because we cannot wait any longer, Sir, than four months at this time.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order!


John Kushner: I am now proceeding with the question.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Central Nova.


Mr. MacKay:: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. On March 26 of this year, I put on the Order Paper a question concerning the RCMP policy in respect to paid informers.


Walter David Baker: You are not going to answer that question, Prime Minister?


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary East looks puzzled but, of course, I cannot force an Hon. Member to answer a question, and therefore there was no answer to his question.


John Kushner: Yes, the question, Madam Speaker-I asked the Prime Minister-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Central Nova.


John Kushner: My question was, is the Prime Minister prepared to appoint a commission-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Kushner: I know he doesn't want to do it.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member should-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Should listen to the Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: -take comfort in the fact that sometimes the question is more important than the answer.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Usually.


Mr. Clark:: As a rule.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That's a very good point, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In that spirit, I would like to direct a question to the Solicitor General.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker,
1 would like to remind the Solicitor General that on March 26 of this year I put a question on the Order Paper concerning the RCMP policy in respect of paid informers. On November 5 the Solicitor General gave me a written answer claiming that, "without exception", the fact that a witness is a paid RCMP informer is fully disclosed to the courts. A few days ago, on December 15, the Minister sent me an amended version of this policy which restricts full disclosure to cases where the information is "germane" to court proceedings.
May I ask the Solicitor General to tell the House who is the judge of what is germane and what is not germane to a case before the courts, and whether or not his amended policy-and this is a matter I have discussed with the Solicitor General many times-was made retroactive because of the circumstances surrounding the court proceedings against the murderers of the two City of Moncton police officers in 1974?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I can clearly state that the policy is that when a witness has been paid for the evidence that he gives in the case at hand, full disclosure of that fact is made to the court and of all of the circumstances involving the payment.


MONCTON MURDER TRIAL
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, will the Solicitor General be more forthcoming with regard to the details of the co-operation of the two murderers with the RCMP prior to the Stein kidnapping and the murder of the two Moncton policemen, details of which were apparently kept from the court by the RCMP witnesses?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, 1 looked into that case with very great care, because of the letter I received from the Hon. Member. I reviewed it with the

December 22, 1982
Oral Questions
Commissioner of the RCMP and I am satisfied that the policy which I have just described was not violated in that case.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. I am sure the Minister is aware that last Sunday some 1,200 workers were laid off in the potash industry in Saskatchewan. Nine hundred more will be laid off by the end of February. I have here with me quotes from sources in the potash industry in Saskatchewan saying that this is happening because the provincial Conservative Government decided to scrap the export wing of the publicly-owned Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, a decision which was supported by the Liberal Government across the way. In light of that, is the Minister aware that by the end of February half the industry in our Province will be closed down, and, if he is aware of that, what specifically is he going to do as Trade Minister to regain some of those markets which we have lost?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member, of course, describes a serious situation which exists at a time when that many workers in any one industry are subjected to lay-offs. 1 do not think it is fair for him to attribute the cause of lay-offs in today's potash market to the actions of the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan. Mind you, defending Conservative Governments is not my long suit, but I want to say through you, Madam Speaker, to the Hon. Member, that my Department is prepared to work with the potash industry of Saskatchewan to do everything possible to identify and develop markets in these difficult times, and if the Hon. Member would like to discuss with me the particulars of that, I would be glad to do so after the Question Period.


URANIUM CITY LAY-OFFS-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO RESIDENTS
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. When the Minister was the Minister of Energy he was involved in the shutdown of the Beaverlodge Mine in Uranium City in North Saskatchewan one year ago this month. Although the Eldorado Nuclear mine and millworkers received adequate compensation from the $42 million close-down package, nothing has been committed for other Uranium City residents hit by the closure. Can the Minister mark the anniversary of this occasion, and this season, by offering a compensation and relocation package to these residents, or must the citizens of Uranium City continue to suffer because the Government of Canada and the new Government of Saskatchewan cannot agree on this particular question?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the decision by Eldorado to close its operations at the uranium mine was taken by the Corporation, a decision which had to do with the viability of the mine itself. It was a corporate decision which made sense and was recognized as such by all parties concerned, affected or interested. I remind the Hon. Member that, in taking that action, the Corporation has taken steps, together with the Department of Manpower and Immigration, which have been more generous than in any other closing of any mines by any private sector institution in the whole of Canada in the meantime. As a matter of fact, one of the problems was that the former New Democratic Party Government of Saskatchewan was running away from its responsibilities and not playing the full role of a provincial Government in that operation.
The federal Government has done everything it could through its departments, and also Eldorado itself, as a federal Crown Corporation, has done everything which could be expected of them as good corporate citizens to help that community in terms of relocation and help to the various citizens of that city. 1 submit that, if there are further steps to be taken, they should be taken by the provincial Government.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. During these troubled times when small business failures are at an all-time high, small business development bonds, for all intents and purposes, have become a myth. The Royal Bank of Canada, by directive from the head office to its branches, is refusing small business development bond applications for businesses in dire straits. In fact when a business applies to another bank it is told that there is an agreement between the banks that they will not take customers from one bank to another. Is the Minister aware of this? If he is aware of it, what is he going to do about it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I shall be pleased to bring the Hon. Member's representations to the attention of the Inspector General of Banks, with the request that they be forwarded to the authorities of the Royal Bank of Canada.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INVESTIGATE SITUATION
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The question to which I am trying to get an answer from the Minister is this: is he truly going to make a small business
December 22, 1982

development bond available for small business in dire straits? If he is, when is he going to do this? And is he going to look into charging the banks with collusion?, because it is obviously collusion, when one bank refuses a small business development bond application and then when the applicant goes to another bank he is refused because there is an agreement among the banks that they will not deal with each other's customers. That must be collusion. Is the Minister going to look into that with the idea of maybe laying charges against the banks?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has failed to keep up with events. In June of last year, my predecessor announced that the Small Business Development Bond would be continued. The program is in effect at the present time, it is operational, and as I indicated earlier, the Hon. Member's allegations will be brought to the attention of the Inspector General of Banks.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The Unemployment Insurance Commission uses economic regions established by Statistics Canada to determine regional unemployment statistics. Burlington is included in the Toronto economic region, which also includes the townships of Rama and Mara near Orillia. 1 do not know the relationship between Burlington and those townships, but the net result is that if you live in Hamilton and become unemployed you need only work ten weeks to apply for further unemployment insurance benefits, and if you live in Burlington, you must work 14 weeks to be eligible for further unemployment insurance benefits. Does the Minister condone this discrimination by reason of place of residence?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member really does not represent the situation properly. There is no discrimination at all. What we have done is divide the country into some 40 economic regions and in each of those regions we try to design according to the economic and geographic circumstances, and they then trigger the kind of applications to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We do make adjustments to those figures where we can, where there are changes or shifts in the population or economic circumstances. I would be glad to receive representations, but the Hon. Member would have to recognize that when you change one boundary it does affect the boundaries of someone else. If he would like to write to me about that, I would be glad to respond.
Oral Questions


CONTRAST BETWEEN BENEFITS PAID IN HAMILTON AND IN BURLINGTON
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, to give one example out of hundreds who have complained: two employees who are electricians by trade, members of the same union local, working out of the same hiring hall, are laid off. One lives in Burlington and one lives in Hamilton. Both pay the same unemployment insurance premiums, but one can be temporarily employed for ten weeks and be eligible for further unemployment insurance benefits because he lives in Hamilton. The other, when laid off, must lose four weeks of unemployment insurance benefits because he lives in Burlington. That is discrimination by reason of place of residence.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I really would like to respond to the Hon. Member's inquiry, but it is not discrimination. Those boundaries have been set. They have been in place in the Burlington-Hamilton area for years. With the kind of recession we are facing, obviously some of the conditions change, but it only happens in those areas where there is a large metropolitan area, and there are surrounding communities which have an overflow of workers which may commute from one town and work in another. We do try to rationalize it as much as possible, and 1 am prepared to look at the problem, but I would have to caution it is not an easy one to resolve. We are looking at a general review of the unemployment insurance program, and I would be glad to respond as much as I can.


THE JUDICIARY
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The Minister is aware that two Provincial Court judges in the Province of Ontario have decided that they are not competent, given their independence, to hear criminal cases in this Province. The Attorney General of the Province has referred the matter to the Ontario Court of Appeal for consideration. This involves the Charter of Rights enacted by this Parliament. Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to intervene in any way, whether actively or by way of a watching brief, in those proceedings, and, if so, how?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the situation involving federal judges and their relationship to the federal executive is entirely different because we act according to Acts of Parliament which establish the remuneration, retirement benefits and other provisions concerning judges. Therefore, Madam Speaker, there is really no federal aspect to this question and I do not believe it would be proper for me to express an opinion here. I am inclined to

December 22, 1982
Oral Questions
think it would not be helpful to have representation in the case, but I will be consulting my Department further on that.


QUERY RESPECTING FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, in his consultations would the Minister consider that the statute causing some difficulty for these judges is an Act of this Parliament, and that alone would give him jurisdiction? It may very well apply in a number of other Provinces across the country, and indeed can cause chaos in the administration of justice. Would he raise those three concerns with his officials before he accepts any device on dismissing federal intervention in this case?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I promise to consider the matter carefully. That statute to which my hon. friend refers is, I believe, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that certainly reflects the will of the people in this place, but it also was adopted by the provincial Governments, and as part of the Constitution it can no longer be looked upon as a statute of this Parliament alone.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who will know that American Motors has announced it intends to close indefinitely its only Canadian operation next spring. That closure will affect the employment of some 1,200 people. Could the Minister tell the House whether it is his intention to sit down with the officials of that company to determine what their plans are in the future for that particular plant, and particularly for the 1,200 jobs about to be lost as a result of that company's decision?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as a result of the announcement of the layoff, my officials have been in touch with officials of American Motors. Apparently sales of the three models presently produced in that plant are down substantially. Company officials have indicated that in the interim they are going to improve their manufacturing facilities, but at this point in time they have not indicated what new products will be produced in that particular operation.


DEVELOPMENT OF HIBERNIA OIL FIELD
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy and is with regard to the Hibernia oil field development off Newfoundland. The Minister is probably aware that the world oil price as set by OPEC appears to be slipping. That is going to put the whole Hibernia development in danger.
There are two parts to my question. One, can the Minister give the latest price per barrel required to develop the Hibernia oil field? Secondly, is he now prepared to accept my suggestion that he and Mr. Marshall, the Newfoundland Minister of Energy, set February 1 as the final deadline to resolve their dispute so that we do not again miss the development of another megaproject?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: On the first question, Madam Speaker, I cannot give a price at this time. I do not know what the evolution of the price will be. Of course there is a certain price at which the development is no longer economic, but 1 hope that will not happen because we do think it is important to develop that oil off the coast of Newfoundland. In terms of my negotiations with Mr. Marshall, I have met him three times so far, and I am planning to have another meeting next week. I will do my utmost to have an agreement with Newfoundland in the shortest period possible.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It has now been several weeks since an ex-corporal of the RCMP security service named Morrison made public admissions about his part in betraying Canadian secrets for money. That, of course, resulted in the recall and disappearance of a potential double agent for Canada. Will the Minister indicate whether an imminent prosecution of Morrison is being considered by him in his role as Attorney General?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I have indeed asked for an opinion on that matter from my Department. It has not yet come forward to my attention so I am not at present advised on all the factors that should be taken into account in making a decision on prosecution.


POSSIBLE AVENUE OF PROSECUTION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, as 1 suspect and, as I am sure the Minister suspects what the answer is going to be from his officials, I wonder if I could give him another alternative. Is there any way that the
December 22, 1982

Canadian Government could lure Morrison to the United Kingdom where they do expose and prosecute Canadian traitors?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, that is about on a par with the hon. gentleman's criticism of his former colleague, at that time the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, who, he said, was uninformed.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I have one question for the Minister of Transport or for whichever Minister can respond to a potentially urgent situation facing the city of Hamilton. Canadian National is planning to build 970 coal cars. What amount of that work will the Government of Canada guarantee to a company such as National Steel Car which has had to lay off 1,400 employees, if, as, and when the coal car contract is decided?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I met with CN authorities this morning and inquired about that particular subject. The decision has not yet been made. Either CN will build the cars itself or it will buy from any one of the four or five traditional manufacturers.


PENSIONS
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Recently a green paper was tabled which called for special tax changes affecting pensions. Specifically it called for a new system for fair, more comprehensive and flexible limits on tax-assisted retirement savings. Will the Government reveal those plans prior to the beginning of the sittings of the special task force which it is going to set up?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I indicated that the Government was winding up a number of studies on the subject and that these would be made available to the Parliamentary Committee as soon as possible, once the studies are finalized. I am not in a position to inform the Hon. Member exactly when the information contained in the Green Paper will be available to the Committee, for the simple
Oral Questions
reason that I also do not know when the Committee is going to start a sitting.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, the Minister will know how essential those proposed tax changes would be for the successful work of the committee.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Vincent Martin Dantzer: Madam Speaker, 1 understand the last comprehensive actuarial report on the Canada Pension Plan was done in 1978. 1 also understand a new report will be completed early in 1983. 1 would like the Minister's assurance that this report also will be available by the time the task force begins its hearings?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I shall be glad to ask my officials for a progress report on the study, and once again, I shall be pleased to submit to the Committee any information of a public nature that might be useful.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Come on over!


Mr. Clarke:: Madam Speaker, I am glad 1 was able to catch your eye.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NEED FOR STUDY
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, concerning the Canada Pension Plan. 1 know the Minister is aware of the report on the disaster dates, if I can call them that, for the Canada Pension Plan, culminating in the year 2003 when the fund will be exhausted. I hope the Minister of Finance is aware of the fact that the Auditor General has for the last six years referred to this in his report, and if I may just quote the sentence, he said "A decision on long-term financing arrangements needs to be made in the near future". Also the Public Accounts Committee Report to the House in 1978 recommended that an examination of the Canada Pension Plan be made by a House of Commons Committee to avoid all these problems. Can the Minister tell the House what has happened to any of these recommendations, because it is such an important topic right now?

December 22, 1982
Petitions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can see by the colour of his coat that my hon. friend expects a Liberal Government at least until the year 2003. I would like to give him the assurance that, in my next 20 years as Minister of Finance, that will be an issue of high priority. The issue will be studied, I hope, by the parliamentary task force that is being set up, and that task force will examine the green paper that the Government has released recently.
The issue of the financing of the Canada Pension Plan was also raised at the last federal-provincial meeting of the Ministers of Finance. We spent some time discussing it. It was agreed, however, at that meeting, that next year, 1983, would not be an appropriate year to raise the contribution to the Canada Pension Plan, or to the Quebec Pension Plan. Taking into account the situation of the economy, it was felt that this was not an appropriate time to raise, however slightly, the contributions to the public pension plan.
The issue will be addressed, however, by the parliamentary committee and we have agreed that the Provinces and the federal Government would follow those discussions and there would also be discussions on the subject during the course of the year, between officials.


SPEAKER'S CHRISTMAS PARTY
Madam Speaker:: Members will have received a note in their offices to invite them to join in the good cheer, after the adjournment of the House, in Room 16.
[ Translation]
I therefore invite the Members, after the adjournment of the House, to Room 16 so that we can all get together before the Christmas holidays.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, December 21, 1982, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, for quite some time many people in the country, including especially members of disabled and women's groups, and many Members of the House, including I think all Members on this side and Members of the NDP, have hoped that we would be able to give complete passage through both Houses of Parliament to Bill C-141, the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the Bill you would not table.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition can show what he wants to do by what his Party is now prepared to do.
Last night we got this Bill through committee, and the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition suggested that the House today give report stage and third reading to this Bill, without debate. We hope that we may have unanimous consent from both Opposition Parties to do this.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I did not expect this kind of underhanded tactics from the Minister of Justice today. First they want us to pass second reading without even knowing what is in the Bill, without even having an opportunity to read it. Now they want us to pass it through report and third reading stages, without even having a word to say about it.
Had he been in consultation, which I am sure he was, with his colleague, the Government House Leader, he would have known the extent to which we are prepared to co-operate in getting this legislation passed. He would have known that we were prepared, and are prepared now. If he is listening he might consult with his colleague, the Government House Leader. We are prepared to deal, on this short day, with all remaining stages of that Bill, and see to it that it passes today.
I have had some consultations with gentlemen in the other place, and they assure me that it presents them with no problem if they get the Bill today.
In that spirit of co-operation, we make that offer to the Government.
The alternative would be to go on to Bill C-131 today, which is a lost day in any event because we know that that legislation is not going to pass today. If the Government is really sincere about wanting the human rights legislation, they will call it as the first order of business today. It will be dealt with today and dealt with, as I said last night, expeditiously.
There is another alternative. If they wish to call the human rights legislation first, I still assure the Government House Leader that we will deal with it expeditiously to the point where there will still be time remaining in the day to go back to Bill C-131, if that is the Government's desire.


Mr. Deans:: the disabled, we are prepared, as I have said on a number of occasions starting as early as last Friday, to see this legislation become law before we leave today.
I do not much care whether it is as a result of having a debate this afternoon for one or two hours or whether, in this most unusual circumstance of having only two or three hours left, it is by agreement among the three Parties to pass it without debate, but we are prepared to do either of those two things, provided that in the final analysis this piece of legislation is passed and becomes the law of Canada, in order that the women and the disabled persons who are affected by this Bill are able to get the benefit from the human rights code that we in the House of Commons believe they should have.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, two of the three Parties of this House are prepared to give report stage and third reading to this Bill immediately, without debate. It is quite clear, in the light of the words of the Hon. the House Leader of the Opposition, that what has up to now been what one could perhaps describe as reluctant co-operation from his Party, is actually subterranean opposition. All the mouthings that we heard last week from the Members of that Party, including the Leader of the Opposition, were just that. They were empty mouthings. They have no intention of putting this Bill through before Christmas.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this intervention just shows that my description of the Minister's tactics a moment ago was certainly true. He is trying to make political capital out of a Bill, which he sure as heck should not be doing.
If he had been listening carefully, as I listened, to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, he would know that two of the Parties in this House, namely the two on this side, are prepared to pass that Bill into law today.
We say it would be an abdication of our responsibility not to say a word about human rights in this House. We think, too, that it is setting a very dangerous precedent. In all my time here I have never seen it occur before that a Minister of Justice asks us to give second reading to a Bill without even giving us an opportunity to see it. Now the same Minister is asking us to pass it entirely, without our saying even a word on it. That is an abdication of our responsibility, were we to agree to it.
We feel that it is eminently reasonable for the Government to bring that Bill forward as the first order of business today. He has our absolute undertaking that it will be law before the end of this day.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Government loses nothing; it gains everything by having another piece of legislation. Even more important, if the Government abandons its stubborn political position and adopts this reasonable suggestion, it will benefit those who are most in need of benefit under that legislation- the women and the disabled of the country.
Business of the House


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am just asking Hon. Members to please not debate the Bill now. It has not been put to the House. I can allow a few questions back and forth on what the order of business might be in the House, but I cannot allow Hon. Members to debate this matter.
It is becoming obvious to me that there is no unanimous consent as to the manner in which this Bill could be passed through the House today. Unless some other Members have something specific to say on the manner in which we could proceed to put the Bill through the House today and try to seek unanimous consent on a particular proposal, I will not allow any debating of the question.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think I have something new to add to all this. We will see if there is good faith on the other side. First, they must know that the Bill has been debated in committee for two days, so Members of Parliament had an opportunity to speak on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: What I am suggesting is that the minute we reach report stage of Bill C-131 which is before the House today, if it is before six o'clock, we will be glad to call Bill C-141.


Erik Nielsen: I never expected that sneaky approach by the Government House Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: He well knows that what we are debating now on Bill C-131 is an amendment of the Hon. Member for Okanagan North and that the Party on my left, as is its right, is quite vociferous on Bill C-131. If we pass the amendment, we move on to report stage of the Bill, and the NDP really controls when we will vote on the amendment.
I am afraid that that suggestion is not acceptable. What is acceptable to us-and this is something new again-would be that we deal with the human rights Bill expeditiously and bring Bill C-131 back immediately thereafter.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the House Leader of the Official Opposition recognizing that it is we who stand in the way of decreasing old age pensions. We have been trying to get that point across for a while; he made it well for us. I cannot trade the incomes of old age pensioners for human rights. I cannot do that, and no one in this Party can do that.
We put to the Government that we are prepared, albeit reluctantly, to pass the Bill dealing with human rights without debate. We are prepared to pass the Bill with a limited debate. We are prepared to enter into discussions to determine how limited the debate should be. But we are not prepared to sell the incomes of old age pensioners for human rights.

December 22, 1982
Privilege-Mr. Simmons


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is very clear that there is an agreement between two Parties to pass the Bill without debate and that the Conservative Party does not want that legislation to become law today. Therefore the order of business remains Bill C-131.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on this matter, the Minister of Justice knows that there has not been a word of debate in this Chamber on that Bill. He knows that he has an assurance of passage of the Bill today with debate. Will the Minister of Justice or the Government House Leader tell the House of Commons why the Liberal Government is afraid of debate on the human rights Bill?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are so little afraid of debate that we had two days of it in committee. The position the Opposition is taking now is not even consistent with what the House Leader of the Party said last night. They are asking us to expect the Senate to be generous, to dispose of all stages of this Bill today. 1 do not know how much time they will allow them-five minutes, ten minutes, maybe an hour. But they are not prepared to be generous themselves. I think the disabled of the country and the women of the country will know what lesson to draw from this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Members at this point are obviously debating. It is clear to the Chair that there is no unanimous consent over the manner in which this Bill can be put through the House.
The Hon. Membrer for Burin-St. George's on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker,
I noted that all motions under Standing Order 43 moved today and all questions asked today came from Members to the left of Madam Speaker. I noted also that several Members to Madam Speaker's right rose to move motions under Standing Order 43 and that several rose to ask questions, including myself, yet not one was recognized either to put a motion under Standing Order 43 or to ask a question.
I submit that the Chair's failure to allow Members from this side of the House to move motions under Standing Order 43 or to ask questions constitutes a breach of my privileges. I am prepared to move the appropriate motion, if Madam Speaker finds that I have established a prima facie case.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege. The Hon. Member must recognize that the power of the Chair is to recognize or not to recognize Members. I try to make it balanced from day to day, so I cannot accept the Hon. Member's point.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in this respect, may I say that the Hon. Member wishes that in future, Wednesdays will be a little more generous to Members on this side of the House. 1 think they have various issues they would like to bring up as part of their duty to their constituents, and it would be perfectly normal to have at least one, two or three Members recognized each day.


Madam Speaker:: I have noted the comments of the Hon. President of the Privy Council, but that is what I do in any case.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MacGUIGAN
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order because the Minister of Justice has misled the House.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon has the floor.


Roger Simmons: I have a point of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member afterward. I have given the floor to the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Justice misled the House; it appeared that he did it deliberately because I noted that when he said what he did, he had Hansard in his hand. I have just reread Hansard as to what I sait last night, as reported on page 21821. Among other things I said that we:
-would anticipate no real difficulty in dealing with the report stage and the third reading stage tomorrow. At least the Members of the House are entitled to that courtesy, which we intend to give them. I would suggest that at the next sitting of the House we will deal with the report and third reading stages.
Nothing could be more clear than that. There were no ifs, ands, buts or wheedling. 1 said that we would deal with both those stages at the next sitting, intending that that sitting of course would be today. But the Minister has left an entirely different impression of what I said last night. I would hope that perhaps he would acknowledge that what I have read from the record is an accurate reflection of what actually was said in his absence from the House last night.
December 22, 1982


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, of course the Hon. Member has read the words as they are. The question is how they are to be interpreted.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: In all the discussion of this issue, the consistent proposition which we put forward is that we deal with this Bill without time in the House but taking time in Committee. The Hon. Member in that context said that we will put this through tomorrow, that is today, and it seems to me that the normal interpretation of those words is exactly the interpretation I have given.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Don't mislead the House.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's has risen-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why don't you have the courage to bring it
in?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: You don't like democracy.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Why don't you listen to your own Member
for Saskatoon West?


Charles Joseph Clark: You don't want us to listen.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I asked you why you would not listen to your own Members.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are as crooked as Fleming.


An Hon. Member:: Respect the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) rose a moment ago on a question of privilege. The Chair advised him that he did not have a question of privilege and took note of his remarks. Does the Hon. Member have another question of privilege?


PRIVILEGE
Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I submit that is for you to decide when you have heard the point I wish to raise. I have not been given a fair opportunity in this House to raise questions. That, Madam Speaker, is not balance. You may call it balance. It is not balance, it is imbalance.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
Business of the House


Roger Simmons: You trample on them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have dealt with that particular matter. Should 1 remind the Hon. Member that any Member who wishes to speak may rise and endeavour to catch the Speaker's eye. He who is first seen has the right to speak.


Roger Simmons: Look at this side of the House.


Madam Speaker:: That is how the right of the Speaker is described by any of the authors who deal with this question. If the Hon. Member has a formal critique about the way the Chair conducts Question Period, he may make it on another occasion. I am telling him now that he does not have the basis of a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to return for one brief moment to the question of the human rights amendments. I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council, and I hope the House Leader for the Official Opposition listens, that if it were to be decided by the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as Government House Leader to call the order with regard to the human rights amendments, and if the time allocated between now and 4.15 p.m. were to be allocated for the purpose of dealing with it and that it be divided equally among the three Parties, we would be prepared to deal with that on the basis of one speaker per Party, with the appropriate motion to be put to dispose of the order by 4.15 p.m.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain advances that suggestion as though it were entirely novel and unique. It was almost precisely that suggestion that I put to the Government House Leader a moment ago, namely that he call as the first order of business the human rights legislation. It is now almost 3.30 p.m., which leaves us two and a half hours remaining today. That is certainly not an overly generous time period to debate any measure in this House. And if we are through with the legislation with some balance of time left in the day, the Government House Leader can recall Bill C-131. That is exactly what I suggested to the Government House Leader a moment ago.


Ian Deans: That is not what I said.


Erik Nielsen: We are still prepared to do exactly that, Madam Speaker. Once again, I appeal to the Government House Leader to proceed in that fashion because he will find Bill C-141, the human rights legislation, will in fact get passed

December 22, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Flis
today if the President of the Privy Council will simply reconsider the position which his Minister of Justice appears to have taken. Call the human rights legislation first and we will deal with it quickly. We have to because there is only two and a half hours left, then recall Bill C-131.


Yvon Pinard: Clearly, Madam Speaker, both Hon. Members are trying to make political points at the expense of women and the handicapped. That is most unfortunate. There is only one solution and that is unanimous consent for passing the Bill without debate. There is consent on this side of the House, and if unanimous consent is not given, we shall proceed with consideration of Bill C-131.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for proceeding with passage of the Bill without debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I sent you a note stating that I had a question of privilege. It arises from the proceedings under Standing Order 43 today. I was one of the Members trying to get your attention so that I could put a motion. I am not complaining that you did not recognize me, Madam Speaker, but there were five Members on this side of the House who wanted to move motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43 who could not.
I give you advance notice of my question, Madam Speaker, so that you will have time to make a decision . On January 17, 1983, we start under the new procedures, which will not include provision for Motions under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Skelly:: What kind of Party do you have there?


Jesse Philip Flis: I hope that your interpretation will be that all Hon. Members will be given equal opportunity to speak on Members' statements because Members' statements are different from motions moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and different from questions. You are right, Madam Speaker, in stating that we on this side of the House have easier access to Ministers and, therefore, you give us less time for motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and for questions during the Question Period. I agree and I accept that. But I think under the new procedure where each Member is given the privilege of putting a 90-second statement regarding some concern in his or her riding that he or she wishes to bring to the country's attention, I hope that your interpretation
will be different than it has been for Motions under Standing Order 43, and that every Member in this House, whether the Member belongs to the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party or the Progressive Conservative Party, be given equal opportunity to make those statements.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has in fact stated one of the problems which the Chair faces. There were at least five Members on this side of the House wanting to be recognized today, so we can see that the competition was very great to move the last motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Just about everyone wanted to move the last motion under Standing Order 43. It is a privilege of the Chair to recognize one Member or the other. I am afraid Hon. Members have to accept that. That is the authority given to the Chair.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, while the House is still infected with the Christmas spirit, I have a matter relating to the House business upon our return. Perhaps I could have the attention of the Government House Leader. He will recall that on Friday I raised the matter of the Government giving out $3,000 grants under the Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Program, which procedure may not be in conformity with the Act, and so the Government may have given out some $300 million in grants illegally.
My colleagues have authorized me to indicate to the Government House Leader that if the Government were prepared to bring forward legislation early in the New Year which would legalize these payments retroactively and did no more than to legalize these payments, then we would be prepared to give that legislation speedy passage through the House. Is that acceptable to the House Leader?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will take good note of the suggestion made by the Hon. Member. I will refer the matter to the Minister responsible. But certainly the first Bill that will be called when we come back will be another piece of legislation, which I will announce later on.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: understand the rules require that if 1 believe I have a question of privilege arising from a comment made in the House that I have to give notice at the earliest possible moment. I believe there was a comment made by the Right Hon. Leader of the
December 22, 1982

Opposition (Mr. Clark) to me which breached the rules of the House. I will check Hansard and raise it again if that is appropriate.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member may raise a question of privilege now if it flows from the deliberations of today's proceedings. However, if the Hon. Member needs to check Hansard in order to ascertain whether those comments are really what he thinks they are, he may do that. But he would then have to give me written notice.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, perhaps when the heat of the moment has passed, the Right Hon. Member will respect the rules of the House, if not reasonable respect among Members. I believe the Leader of the Opposition made a reference to myself and to another Minister as being crooked. That is unparliamentary language. I regret that both because of the rules of the House and because of the basic respect that still generally operates in this place among Members we can refer to Hansard for September 23, 1971, at page 8,127 and September 24, 1971, at page 8,137 and to Beauchesne. I simply hope, because the language is unparliamentary, that the Right Hon. Member might withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Minister to tell me whether he is certain that those words were spoken.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair did not hear them. But I have to take the Hon. Member's word. Perhaps it would be better to check Hansard.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, that is why when I first rose i said that I would wait for Hansard. I checked with at least four colleagues of mine here who heard what 1 heard. For the benefit of the House and to save time, the Right Hon. Member opposite surely knows what he said, and he might indicate that.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have seen a Minister so sensitive about these matters.
He is in very good company. I hear the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) saying "oh, oh." He is in very good company because the whole Cabinet is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Was the Hon. Minister for Multicultural-ism referring to the Hon. Member for Yukon or another Hon. Member?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: No, Madam Speaker, I was referring to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).
Privilege-Mr. Fleming


An Hon. Member:: He cannot speak for himself.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what I said was that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) is as crooked as the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism can decide for himself, knowing himself, whether that is an insult or not.


Mr. Cousineau:: Shame on you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have to take Hon. Members' words at their face value. If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that what he said was "as crooked", what is unparliamentary is "crook". Perhaps we should look at Hansard to check those words.
When the debate has calmed down, perhaps Members will remember to use language in the House that is acceptable in the House, as language should be acceptable outside of the House. I do not see why, simply because there is a list here, certain Members go to the limit of what they can say in the House. I would ask Hon. Members to speak in a language that is acceptable to everyone.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, in that spirit, I am quite prepared to amend my statement to say that the Minister of Justice is as honest as the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.


Mr. Harquail:: Madam Speaker, with respect to the proceedings, you said that you did not hear. The Right Hon. gentleman got up and repeated the words for you. There was no misunderstanding. He is not being-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Maurice James Harquail: Just a moment-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nowlan:: Tilt. Let us move to adjourn now.


Madam Speaker:: Will Hon. Members please not make matters more difficult than they ought to be. The question has been dealt with by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in fact correcting his statement. Since the Chair cannot be sure whether one word or the other was used, the statement stands corrected and we will look at the "blues" when we reconvene to see whether there is any unparliamentary language recorded in Hansard.


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, if that is the state of that Party, good luck in Winnipeg.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: At least we do not have Senator Pitfield.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have had our good luck in Winnipeg, and we will have good luck in northern New Brunswick when the next election is called.

December 22, 1982
Point of Order-Mr. Clark POINT OF ORDER



MR. CLARK-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF SUBJECT OF SALARIES AND PENSIONS OF SENIOR PUBLIC SERVANTS

Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) a question relating to a reference to committee. The Government House Leader will know that today, the Government of Canada appointed to the Senate of Canada Mr. Michael Pitfield-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: -keeping intact his pension arrangements, which have been a subject of controversy in the House. In light of the very genuine controversy about the pension arrangements made available for Mr. Pitfield and the pension arrangements and the confusing nature of pension arrangements and bonus arrangements-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This certainly is not Government business.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is Government fraud.


Charles Joseph Clark: My question relates to parliamentary business. In light of the discussion on motions between the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself earlier, this most unprecedented action by the Government today, and the confusion about the exact remuneration level and the pensions paid to senior public servants at a time when this Government is trying to cut back the pensions available to senior citizens, would the Government House Leader agree to make a reference of the entire question of remuneration, pay and pensions of senior public servants to the appropriate standing committee of the House immediately upon the return of this Parliament in January?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition used the word confusion. As far as I am concerned, if there is any confusion, it is in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. Not only confusion, but also small-mindedness. Mr. Pitfield is a Canadian citizen and an honourable man who has done absolutely nothing wrong and to whom the Government is tremendously indebted, and the Leader of the Opposition is using a question about the business of the House to blacken the reputation of an individual who has served his country well and will continue to do so. I think that is extremely small-minded, Madam Speaker, and in the light of the explanations given in the House Monday by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I think the Leader of the Opposition is totally confused and small-minded, and that his question is unworthy of this House, and I shall certainly not spend any more time answering it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask whether you could clarify previous remarks made about unparliamentary language. In view of the fact that Mr. Michael Pitfield has just been appointed to the Senate as an independent from Ontario, could you inform me whether it would be unparliamentary for me to use the word "obscenity" in the House?


Madam Speaker:: The Chair does not rule on hypothetical questions.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to point out to the House that when the Chair mentioned earlier that five Members on the Government side rose during the period set aside for motions under Standing Order 43, there were at least 15.


Madam Speaker:: That reinforces my argument. When 15 Members ask to be recognized, it is impossible to recognize all fifteen.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages.



COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PETITIONS


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, this afternoon I have the duty and responsibility to present a petition signed
December 22, 1982

by 548 residents of Cardigan, 606 residents of Egmont and 1,171 residents of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island. The purpose of the petition is to protest the Government's intention to discontinue rural mail delivery on Saturdays, thereby denying 17,450 householders of mail, newspapers and other materials, and to close rural post offices on Saturdays, a move which will affect some 25,300 people.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of the petition, you will find the petition in order and exercise the discretionary powers vested in the Office of Speaker of the House of Commons to allow discussion and referral to committee of this issue at the earliest possible time.


MR. BRADLEY-OPPOSITION TO BILL C-10
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 119 members of the various churches in my constituency of Haldimand-Norfolk who are very concerned about the provisions of the Non-Profit Corporations Act, Bill C-10. The purpose of this petition is to protest the Government's proposed changes in Bill C-10 which allows a court of law to interfere in the affairs of the church body. The nature of the petition is to urge the Government to drop the provisions of Bill C-10 which would infringe on the rights and privileges of the church to take a moral stand on matters concerning membership of that church body.
The petitioners hope that in your examination of the petition you will find the petition in order and that you will exercise the discretionary powers vested in the Office of Speaker of the House of Commons to allow discussion and referral to the committee at the earliest possible time in order that the sanctity of the church in Canadian society can be preserved.


POINT OF ORDER
Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a matter which 1 believe could impinge upon the rights of all Hon. Members of the House.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It better not.


Maurice James Harquail: It relates to this: the rules-


An Hon. Member:: We could have passed the Bill by now.


Maurice James Harquail: -of the House are in fact the instruments by which we operate in this House. When there was not clarity earlier, the hon. gentleman in question rose and repeated the word which was very clear to me. I do not understand-
Senate Reform


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has ruled on this particular incident and 1 would ask the Hon. Member not to raise it again.


Some Hon. Members:: Down, down!


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Ask Senator Pitfieid.


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must tell the Hon. Member that that question has been ruled upon and cleared and therefore the Hon. Member should not comment on it.


Maurice James Harquail: I am just trying to clearly understand why in other circumstances Hon. Members are called upon to withdraw or are forced to leave the chamber. Why is it-


Erik Nielsen: Leave.


Maurice James Harquail: -can you clarify why-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member reads Hansard when it is ready, he will realize that the statement has been corrected, and since it was not quite clear which of the expressions had been used, the Hon. Member had corrected his statement. Therefore, the incident was closed.


SENATE REFORM
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with the Opposition House Leaders, and an agreement has been reached for giving unanimous consent to the following motion which is being put in response to a request from the Senate to form a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to consider the reform of the Senate of Canada. The text of the motion is quite long, although if Hon. Members insist, I shall read it. Otherwise, if my colleagues whom I gave copies of the motion agree, I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion agreed to without further proceedings.


Erik Nielsen: I would normally be delighted to give that consent. However, all Members of Parliament are entitled to hear it. I have not had the opportunity of distributing copies to my colleagues, so I would ask that it be read.


Yvon Pinard: , with the unanimous consent of the House:
That a Message be sent to the Senate informing their Honours that this House doth unite with the Senate in the appointment of a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons to consider and report upon ways by
21852

December 22, 1982
Senate Reform
which the Senate of Canada could be reformed in order to strengthen its role in representing people from all regions of Canada and to enhance the authority of Parliament to speak and act on behalf of Canadians in all parts of the country;
That the Committee include in its final report recommendations concerning the method of selection, powers, length of term for Senators, distribution of seats and other matters that the Committee considers relevant to the reform of the Senate;
That 10 Members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, act on behalf of the House as members of the said Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as it may deem advisable or necessary;
That the Committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the Committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
That the quorum of the Committee be 10 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the Committee be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever 5 members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to retain the services of professional, clerical and stenographic staff as deemed advisable by the Joint Chairmen; and
That the Committee present its final report no later than December 1, 1983.


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


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, i wonder whether, just prior to the unanimous consent of the House, whether the Government House Leader might explain how we can be expected to go along with such a farce as appointing Michael Pitfield to the Senate when the institution, in all probability, should be abolished rather than attempting to perpetuate a farce like that.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think that that is not at all relevant to the particular motion. Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Mr. Yurko:: Madam Speaker, point of order!


Madam Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River rising?


Raymond John Skelly: Yes, I was, Madam Speaker. I think, unfortunately, that this matter is absolutely related to the matter before us today.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member can debate it when the time comes. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I sit in this House as an independent-


Mr.   La Salle@: We know that!


William J. Yurko: I do not take orders from any House leader. Several events have occurred today concerning which no one sought my opinion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: All you have to do is rise!


William J. Yurko: I have risen, Madam Speaker, on several occasions, but you have not recognized me. I just wanted to say, concerning the motion which was put to the House by the House Leader of the Government side, that I feel very privileged to have the opportunity of standing up, as an independent Member of this House, to make this motion unanimous. I agree with it totally. There is a motion by myself on the Order Paper to set up that type of committee. Therefore, I just wanted to indicate to the House that I agreed to the unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I just want to point out to the Hon. Member that it seems to me this is the first time he has risen today.


William J. Yurko: No, it has not been.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I did not see him at any other moment.


Erik Nielsen: He has had a real blind day today, hasn't he? Everybody was up!


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to.


Yvon Pinard: There are two additional motions which have been discussed among House leaders which seem to have met with unanimous consent. We will most likely be seeking unanimous consent later today for those two motions because we are working on the membership of those special task forces which will be organized later. Therefore, I simply want to give notice to the House leader of the Official Opposition and to the independent Member that we do not want to play games later on. We will be making further requests for unanimous consent. I would be delighted to give copies of those motions to the Hon. Memberr for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) later on.


Erik Nielsen: We will certainly be prepared to provide that unanimous consent later on with respect to the setting up of the task force on Indian self-government. With respect to the other motion-


Yvon Pinard: Pensions.


Erik Nielsen: -dealing with the task force on the Green Paper, we have already held some discussions and we will reserve our consent on that motion until 1 have had the opportunity of speaking with the Government House Leader again.
December 22, 1982



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,194, 4,498, 4,510, 4,512, 4,514, 4,547, 4,549, 4,561,4,570 and 4,571.



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


Edward C. Lumley: The
management of the Cape Breton Development Corporation (DEVCO) advises as follows: (a) to (e) The only loan made to Devco personnel was a housing assistance loan made on the basis of corporate initiated relocation of staff. Financial assistance is provided within set corporate guidelines, and interest is charged. This is part of the wage and compensation program and as such is regarded as proprietary information.


&quot;THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA SERVING YOU IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES&quot;
Mr. Siddon: 1.	What was the total cost for the (a) research (b) production (c) distribution (d) promotion of the publication called "The Government Of Canada Serving You In Both Official Languages"?
2.	How many copies of the publication were printed?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: 1. Total cost: $29,700. (a) to (d) Information not readily available.
2.	There were 26,000 copies of the publication printed.


LEAVE TO STUDY SECOND LANGUAGE
Mr. Mitges: 1.	Is it the policy of the Government to offer senior public servants one year or more sabbatical to learn a second official language in a foreign country at public expense and, if so, what is the name of each public servant who participated, or will participate, in this program?
2.	What rank does each public servant hold within the Public Service which entitles them to participate in the program?
3.	To date, what has been the total cost to the taxpayer for the program?
4.	On what date was the practice established?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions
4.	Not applicable.


DND-ACCOMMODATION FOR PACIFIC REGIONAL CADET GLIDING SCHOOL
Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence pay $13,656 to the Ponderosa Motel in Princeton, British Columbia for "motel accommodation services" and, if so (a) how many rooms were rented, for what period of time and for how many persons (b) who stayed at the motel and for what reason was it necessary to rent motel rooms in Princeton for these persons?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: The Department of Supply and Services contracted on behalf of the Department of National Defence with the Ponderosa Hotel, Princeton, B.C. for accommodation for the staff of the Pacific Region Cadet Gliding School at Princeton, B.C. in the amount of $13,656. Only $11,904 was paid to the Ponderosa, $1,752 worth of accommodation was not used, (a) and (b) The accommodation was rented because no Canadian Forces facilities were available in the area.
Occupation of single or double rooms by personnel and rates
were as follows:		
Date		
23 June-20 Aug. 82	Single	LCol. Sorfleet23 June-20 Aug. 82	Single	Capt. Simkins29 June-20 Aug. 82	Single	Maj. Whitehead29 June-20 Aug. 82	Single	Maj. Doherty1 July-20 Aug. 82	Double	Cpl. Poingant1 July-20 Aug. 82	Double	Cpl. Stewart1 July-20 Aug. 82	Double	Maj. Whittington1 July-20 Aug. 82	Double	Cpl. Crocker1 July-20 Aug. 82	Double	Capt. Lewis1 July-20 Aug. 82	Double	Capt. Wharton1 July-20 Aug. 82	Double	This room was rented as required to accommodate CF drivers.


GOLDFARB CONSULTANTS
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence let a contract with Goldfarb Consultants for advertising research services and, if so, what was the purpose of the research services?
2.	Was the job opportunity put out to tender and, if not, for what reason?
3.	On what date will the project be completed and will copies be made available to interested Members of Parliament?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows:
1.	The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence let a contract for advertising research services with Goldfarb Consultants. The purpose of the contract was to obtain an independent evaluation of the DND advertising program, entirely in support of recruitment, and to obtain an evaluation of possible improvements to the program.
2.	No. Treasury Board policy on the management of Government advertising prescribes that the Cabinet Committee on Communications upon recommendation from the Advertising

December 22, 1982
Order Paper Questions
Management Group, is responsible for the concurrence of advertising research contracts. This concurrence also includes the selection of appropriate agencies that are to conduct the work.
3. It is anticipated that the contract will be completed by the end of fiscal year 1982/83 and copies of the report should be available on completion of the research project.


INTERNATIONAL SATELLITE MONITORING AGENCY
Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence award a $9,000 contract to Dr. Robin Ranger of St. Francis Xavier University to produce a report on the arms control and crisis management potential of the proposed International Satellite Monitoring Agency and, if so (a) on what date will the study be completed (b) will copies be available to Members of Parliament?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence awarded a $9,000 contract to Dr. Robin Ranger of St. Francis Xavier University to produce a report on the arms control and crisis management potential of the proposed International Satellite Monitoring Agency (1SMA). (a) The study is to be completed by January 31, 1983. (b) Copies of the study will be available to Members of Parliament upon request.


STUDY ON NUCLEAR ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE PENETRATION
Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence award a $30,000 contract to the University of Ottawa for a study on the nuclear electromagnetic pulse penetrations in shielded structures and, if so (a) on what date will the study be completed (b) will it be available to Members of Parliament?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Yes. The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence awarded a $30,000 contract to the University of Ottawa for a study on Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse Penetrations in Shielded Structures, (a) October 31, 1983, (b) The study will be available to Members of Parliament upon request.


AMCAN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION
Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Did the Enterprise Development Board give guarantees to the Toronto-Dominion Bank and others with respect to advances made to Amcan Industries Limited, a company involved in secondary aluminum recycling and aluminum dye casting in Ontario and Quebec, and, if so, to what extent?
2.	Is there an anticipated loss to the Government as a result of the defalcation by Amcan Industries Limited on the loans made to it guaranteed by the Board and, if so, what is the anticipated loss?
3.	Is it the policy of the Board to guarantee loans to companies where significant shareholding is held by foreigners, as was the case in Amcan Industries Limited?


Edward C. Lumley: In so
far as the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion are concerned:
1.	The total amount of insurance authorized by the Entre-prise Development Board for bank loans made to Amcan Industries Corporation was $12,650,000.
2.	The anticipated loss to the Government, as a result of Amcan Industries Corporation's failure, is $7,000,000.
3.	Pursuant to the Enterprise Development Board's Regulations, ownership of a company is not a qualifying criteria. Under the regulations it is a prerequisite that the firm must be a manufacturer and located in Canada. The initial funds disbursed under the insured loan to Amcan Industries Corporation were used to repatriate the ownership of the company. This repatriation resulted in the company being 100 per cent Canadian owned.


TAX DISCOUNTING
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Is the Government considering measures to regulate individuals and companies involved in the tax discounting business?
2.	In 1981, to the knowledge of the Government, did 60,000 taxpayers take advantage of tax discounting, for which the tax buyers received a profit of $4.95 million, and, if not, what records does the government have of the extent and profit for tax discounting during 1981?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. In 1978, Parliament proclaimed the Tax Rebate Discounting Act to regulate the practices of individuals and companies involved in the tax discounting business. Federal legislation was enacted in response to provincial concerns about discounting practices. My Department has been administering this Act since January, 1979.
2. For the 1981 taxation year, approximately 61,500 Canadians discounted their income tax returns using the services of tax discounters. The gross value of the discounters' share of the income tax return was approximately $6,519,000. It is unknown how much of this amount represents profit. Discounters, like any other legitimate business, have operating and overhead expenses which are not known to the Department.


MEETING OF METRIC COMMISSION CANADA INDUSTRY SECTOR COMMITTEE
Mr. Greenaway: On September 30, 1982 or thereabouts, did the Metric Awareness Commission hold a meeting at the Canadian Inn in Kamloops, British Columbia and. if so (a) how many persons attended, which organizations did they represent and on what basis were they selected (b) was lunch provided at public expense and were alcoholic beverages provided free of charge to the persons who attended (c) what was the total cost of the meeting (d) what was the total cost of the alcoholic beverages which were provided to the participants?


David Berger: On September 30, 1982, Metric Commission Canada Industry Sector Committee 61.04 (Livestock) met in Kamloops, B.C. at the Canadian Inn.
(a) Thirteen persons attended the meeting representing Agriculture Canada, Alberta Department of Agriculture, British Columbia Cattlemen's Association, British Columbia
December 22, 1982

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Canada Sheep Council, Canadian Meat Council, Livestock Markets Association of Canada, and Metric Commission Canada. All of these organizations and departments are regular members of the Committee. (b) Yes. (c) $353.85 (includes room rental, food, bar and photocopying), (d) $50.75.


David P. Smith: 1 would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Point of order!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Central Nova.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order with respect to the last matter which was raised. It concerns question No. 3750 on the Order Paper, which I placed on the Order Paper on February 9, 1982. As mentioned by my colleague, that series of questions concerned diplomatic personnel from Communist countries stationed here in Ottawa and our diplomatic personnel working in eastern Europe. Since that time, the Parliamentary Secretary has promised to look into this outstanding business on two separate occasions. On November 25, I made note of the fact that the Solicitor General himself assured me in the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee that he would try to answer these questions promptly.
I believe that the delay in answering these questions which are straightforward must be deliberate on the Government's part. I would ask that the Parliamentary Secretary, in the spirit of Christmas, give us some assurance that, by the time we return in the New Year, these questions will be answered, because I believe they will reveal some very interesting matters, and it is in the best interests of the country that we know the truth about these matters.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that there is certainly no reluctance on my part to seek the answer to these questions. 1 can again convey his concerns to the Ministers involved and, hopefully, we will be able to resolve this situation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I once again ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, with respect to Question No. 2,042, asked by myself in January, 1981, which was: what was the total cost of the Prime Minister's December, 1980, January, 1981, road tour? That was two years ago. And what percentage of the total cost of the trip will be paid by the Canadian taxpayer? These questions to this date have not been answered. 1 reiterate, Madam Speaker, surely with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) now warming up for another trip-he
Order Paper Questions
owes it to the people of Canada to say what his trip around the world two years ago cost.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to look into this matter on behalf of the Hon. Member. I have done so once or twice before, and I understand that there is at least one Department which has not reported yet, but I will do my best to see if we can resolve this.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, when the Parliamentary Secretary spends his Christmas break looking into that matter,
1 was wondering if he could also look into why questions Nos. 3,216 through to No. 3,220, which were all asked on October 23, 1981, have not been answered? These questions deal, for example, with the Prime Minister's trip to New York in March, 1981, his trip to Algeria in May, 1981, his trip to Washington in July, 1981, his trip to Australia, Korea, the Philippines and Fiji in September and October, 1981 and his trip to Mexico in October, 1981. These questions have not been answered. Again, I reiterate, we asked: what is the total cost and what portion of that total cost is being borne by the taxpayers of Canada?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas, I would be delighted to spend my break looking into these matters on the Hon. Member's behalf.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to draw to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary Question No. 4,567, which deals with actions on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) where she threatens the Confectionery Manufacturers Association of Canada, asking them to cease the manufacture of certain products and put Canadian jobs at risk. The tone of that question is to inquire whether or not that Minister has that legal authority. Those jobs are still at risk. There is a sense of urgency in getting a public explanation of her behaviour so that those employees do not feel their jobs are threatened. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to provide a public answer as quickly as possible so as to protect those Canadian jobs.


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


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I have placed under Notices of Motion for Production of Papers on June 11, 1980, that an Order of the House do issue for copies of all papers and studies done for any Department or agency concerning the economic impact on Canada of a one-year delay in the development of the Alsands project in Fort McMurray, Alberta and the Imperial Oil Project in Cold Lake, Alberta. It is my understanding that a number of discussions are taking place to revive these projects, perhaps on a smaller scale, and I think it is vital at this time, particularly with high unemployment, that these studies be made available so that all Hon. Members of this House will have at their fingertips the number of jobs which will be created when activity does resume in the tar sands in Northeastern Alberta. 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, would he please make every effort to

December 22, 1982
Motions for Papers
perhaps make this a personal Christmas present from him to me, so that we can get this on the road?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the Christmas present I might give to the Hon. Member is to outline to him that what he should do is to ask that that motion be called when you reach Motions later today, and ask that it be transferred for debate.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 116-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any studies prepared for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on state-to-state contracts to purchase petroleum or petroleum products.
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) I would give the following answer: no study has been done by outside consultants for Energy, Mines and Resources on state-to-state contracts, to purchase petroleum or petroleum products. 1 would ask, therefore, that the Hon. Member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


ECONOMIC IMPACT TO CANADA OF DELAY IN DEVELOPMENT OF ALSANDS PROJECT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Shields:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all papers and studies done for any department or agency concerning the economic impact to Canada of a one-year delay in the development of the Alsands project in Fort McMurray, Alberta and the Imperial Oil project in Cold Lake, Alberta.
Jack Wendele Shields: Transfer for debate.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 21, consideration of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, and the motion of Mr. Dantzer (p. 21795).
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 had an opportunity last evening to begin work on my remarks on Bill C-131, but before I start I would like to say a few words about what has transpired in the House in the last hour. 1 think all of us, including myself, would have to admit that the last hour was not spent in as desirable a fashion as we might have wished for this House of Commons. In many ways, we are looking at reform of the rules of the House, and 1 would submit, Mr. Speaker-I see you sitting on the edge of your chair. 1 do not know whether it is in anticipation of what I am going to say or whether you are going to rule me out of order in terms of context. Very briefly, we are looking at reform of the rules, and I would submit that one of the biggest reforms which all Members have to look at is a change of the attitude which we bring to this place. I would hope when we go home for Christmas and our constituents tell us about the many kinds of problems they are having in the real world, we will come back and carry on the affairs of the nation in a better fashion than we have in the past. I feel that is particularly incumbent upon the Government because it is the Government and it behooves it to set an example.
Which brings me to the concern which I have over Bill C-131, and particularly with the amendment to it. I see you are nodding your head, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if you are agreeing with me. I would suspect that you are, but probably you are hoping that I will return to the topic of the Bill.
Bill C-131, and particularly the amendment to it, which was moved by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), 15 a good amendment. 1 believe it is worthy of consideration and I would hope it is accepted by the Government, because essentially what it does, as I understand it, is it keeps the base under which the pensions will be calculated in the future moving through this inflationary period at the same rate it would have without Bill C-131. If in fact the Government has faith that the six and five program is going to work and that inflation will come down, then really it loses nothing in terms of Government expenditure if it accepts the Hon. Member's amendment. On that basis, 1 would submit it is a good amendment and it is one which would demonstrate that we in Canada have some responsibility and concern with the welfare of the senior citizens of this country who have been responsible for the kind of country we have been fortunate enough to be born in and live in. That is a very large debt which all of us owe to the people who have settled this country.
December 22, 1982

In many ways, they are the people who should be considered first and foremost when we are talking about Government expenditure.
I tried to point out last night that this is a very small amount of money relative to the total amount of money which this Government spends. I also pointed out that the highest figure 1 heard which the Government is proposing to save is something in the order of $80 million, although 1 do not think anyone knows what kind of saving there will be to the Government. It is roughly equivalent to the kind of money this Government, including Crown corporations, is spending on advertising, much of which is questionable advocacy advertising. It attempts to influence people's positions and attitudes. It is not informative advertising, specifically announcing Government programs so that people can take proper advantage of them. It is used by the Government to advocate its own position.
I submit that if the Government is serious about some of the expenditures it wants to cut back to get its deficit under control, there are other and more productive areas in which to cut back. This would create a better attitude amongst taxpayers because they would know the Government was spending its tax dollar more prudently.
Roughly $1 out of every $1,000 of Government expenditure is the largest potential saving under this Bill. The smallest potential saving is only $1 out of every $2,000 in Government expenditure. You have to remember that many of the people affected by this Bill are those who have homesteads on the land, they built log houses or sod houses, and they have had to chink the log houses against the winter weather. It is unfortunate the Government chooses to attack those people. I would much sooner see the Government concerned with productivity so that we can afford to have better pensions and social care assistance for our citizens. It seems to me that is the first responsibility of the Government.
There are many things the Government could be doing. One of the first things we should be looking at is the taxation system so that we encourage people to become more productive instead of penalizing them and thereby discouraging them from adding to our productivity. Instead of people being encouraged to look after themselves in their retirement years, they become more dependent on Government social assistance programs. Some of the tax regimes we have in place penalize people who try to look after themselves in their retirement years. The proposal in the November 12 budget whereby life insurance plans were going to be taxed on a three-year basis if they had some accrued value is one of those.
This Bill is really about inflation, Mr. Speaker. We would not have it if there was no inflation. When you look at the size of the deficits this country has been chalking up, you really wonder if anyone has been in charge of the economic ship of state in this country for the last ten or 15 years. We are at a point now where $1 out of every $4 collected in taxes goes to service past Government debt, and that money is then not available for social assistance programs which we all talk about in this House. It is money that is not available to provide
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Old Age Security benefits. Those are the kind of things we need to look at, and I submit, through better management of Government expenditure we would not have such a large Government debt and we would not be taking away from the private sector some of those savings I submit would be better used and better invested by individual Canadians to make this country more productive, enabling us to better distribute a larger pie among Canadians.
The Government is on the one hand saying that the six and five program is going to bring down inflation, but on the other hand it brings in legislation which forces people to accept some of the six and five restraint programs. That is almost an admission that the program will not succeed. If we were very confident that inflation was going to come down to 6 per cent and 5 per cent in the next two years, then we would not need legislation to force people to accept lower benefits from Government programs. If inflation is less than 6 per cent in the year Bill C-131 applies to, then the increase in the Old Age Security will be 6 per cent. So by the Government bringing in legislation such as this, in many ways it is admitting that the program is of questionable value. If inflation does come down to the level advocated in the six and five program, there really would not be a need for Bill C-131.
I received, as 1 think the rest of the Members of this House have, a very elaborately bound book with fancy leather like index tabs. It is about an inch and a half or two inches thick- I do not know what that is in metric, but it is a fairly thick binder. It outlines and extols the virtues of the six and five program. I wonder what the cost of that binder was and whether the money would be better spent by the Government in other areas or simply not spent at all. There are areas where this Government could, if it were serious, cut back on expenditures so we would not have to penalize the people affected by Bill C-131. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the whole concept of the Government becoming more and more involved in regulating our daily lives, telling us what we can do, is counterproductive in many ways.
The province I come from, Saskatchewan, only became a Province in 1905, and there are people now living in that part of the country who were alive at that time. They are going to be affected by this Bill. I am sure of that because I know some of them. It seems to me that at that time there was a lot more room in this country for people to go out and work, sacrifice and achieve things on their own and keep some of the rewards for their own efforts and expertise. But what has happened in the interim is that governments have become so large that if you take the three levels of Government and look at the amount of taxes they take away from individual Canadians, it means that in many areas of the country you virtually work from the beginning of January until some time towards the middle of June for one level of Government or another. It seems to me that that is a kind of disincentive to the average taxpayer in this country to go out and work; he knows the Government is going to take such a large chunk of what he earns away from them and then redistribute it through various Government programs. That is a disincentive to individuals to

December 22, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
produce. When that happens we have to back up and take a look at the basic direction in which we are going.
Frankly, I do not understand some of the socialist thinking that goes on in this country. The average wage earner in this country, if he looks at where his money goes, will find his biggest cost is not fuel, food or rent, it is supporting one form of Government or another. That is the biggest deduction he has from his pay cheque each month. I fail to see why the socialists think the Government should take over more and there should be more taxation. It seems to me that the individual taxpayer in this country is perfectly capable of deciding where that money should be spent.
If you did leave one of those Canadians, those wage earners, those people who are productive, a little more money in his paycheque at the end of the week or at the end of the month, he would certainly spend that money. It would be recirculated through the economy, because we do have a circular economy. What is an expenditure for one of us is an income for the next person, if you did leave some additional income with Canadians, they would certainly spend it. They would not go home and burn the money in their basement after supper. They would recirculate that money. That is exactly what Governments have been trying to prevent, it seems to me, in the past number of years, in this country, when they take a larger and larger share of Canadians' earnings away from them, and redistribute it. This applies to all levels of Government, municipal, provincial and federal Government, all of them. If you look at some of the gross debts in this country and relate them back on a per capita basis, by and large, the federal Government does not set a good example. So when we say they are all involved, it does not mean that they are all equally complicit in this exercise. It simply means to me that the federal Government probably is setting a poor example for the various levels of Government.
I have heard many Government programs described, and one of the most humorous descriptions that I have heard, and an apt description in many ways, is that Government programs and Government grants are like taking a blood transfusion from one arm and moving it to the other arm, and spilling half of it on the way over. That is the problem we have with many Government programs, they get so large and so hung up with bureaucratic control and red tape that they lose sight of the purpose for which they were put in place in the initial stages.
Let me close by simply saying that I think the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North is a very good amendment. It simply says to me that if the Government is serious and thinks it can bring inflation down to the 6 per cent range this coming year and the 5 per cent range the year following, the amendment will not cost the Government Treasury one cent. All it does is to keep the base against which future increases in the Old Age Security payments are calculated intact and keeps them moving through 1983 and 1984, as if this Bill had not been passed.
If in fact the Government believes that it can bring down the inflation rate in 1985 and 1986 to acceptable levels, and I assume by that that we are talking in the 5 per cent to 6 per cent range, the amendment will not cost the Treasury Board one single dollar.
I simply say in closing that if the Government believes its program is going to succeed, the Government would have no choice but to support the very well thought out and well put amendment by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North. I know I will have no trouble in supporting the amendment when it does come to a vote.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable patience the last two days to the discussion on Bill C-131, the Act that I feel is attacking senior citizens in this country, whether Members on the Government side believe it or not.
They seem to use as their argument that by reducing the anticipated increases in old age benefits to 6 per cent next year and 5 per cent the following year, they really are not cutting back. In fact, the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) last night stated that we over here are using this as a political tool, I think was the phrase he used, to gain political points on the backs of senior citizens. That could not be further from the truth.
The amendment today introduced by the Member for Okanagan North, (Mr. Dantzer), indicates very clearly where we on this side of the House stand. The amendment only states in simple terms that the base for the senior citizen and the pensioner will not change.
I was particularly alerted by the remarks made by the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) last night. She said it was the duty of the Government to cut down inflation to six and five in all areas of the Government. That was used as justification for the attack on the senior citizens, people who are on fixed income and least capable of defending themselves.
She said there was an orchestrated campaign across the country to familiarize people with six and five. She said, and I am paraphrasing now, that a couple of months ago nobody knew what six and five was. I ask the Minister only one question. How much money was spent by the present Government to advertise six and five across the country, because the six and five program is a costly cop-out, and that is really all it is?
The six and five program is not lowering inflation or even beginning to, in this country. It is the policies of the Government that killed initiative and industry in this country, created unemployment and caused the situation where we have more unemployment in Canada today than we have had since 1932. That is what has caused the inflation rate to go down. Prior to the six and five program setting up wage limits on increases for public employees, private sector employees were receiving 3 per cent and 4 per cent increases, or no increases, or roll-backs in salaries, because of the economic times. The market looks
December 22, 1982

after itself in those areas, and all Hon. Members know that. They know that the six and five was planned in caucus, or by strategists, to focus the attention of Canadians on something else, to try to put across the nation that the Liberal Government was doing something, when in actual fact it is not doing anything. They are not living up to their responsibilities. They are not facing the hard issue, and that is the massive Government intervention in the economy, and the massive spending that costs nothing but dollars.
They have not faced up to the fact that the Crown corporations in this country, quoting the Auditor General's report, have created a hole in the pocket of the taxpayer and are costing the taxpayer of Canada millions and millions of dollars annually, with no control from the Government or this House of Commons.
We hear nothing of that and we will not hear anything of that. We will only hear chirping across the country, a massive advertising program across the country, at a cost to the taxpayers, six and five, six and five, six and five.
The Minister made a statement last night that the interest rate is lower than in past years. It is lower because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who was then Minister of Energy, killed the economy in western Canada which was the oil or the lubricant to the economies of central Canada. His policies were responsible for driving people, investment and entrepreneurs out of the country and creating an atmosphere where there is absolutely no trust in the present Government. That is what has caused the massive unemployment across this country; and all Hon. Members in this House know that to be true.
The Minister again last night said that we have to make sure that we cut inflation to six and five in every area of Government that the Government can enforce. She said, seniors are fully protected. Seniors are not protected when you limit their base of income, and it falls below inflation, because the purchasing power of the dollar drops when inflation goes up. It is another insidious Government tactic.
Probably the most clear statement of the thinking of the Minister of National Health and Welfare last night was when she said "seniors will not shirk from their responsibilities." This is absolutely sad. It is indicative of the way the Government is going around, sending letters, publishing documents, talking to senior citizens and telling them to do their duty. These are the very people who built the country. They are the very people who, with their bare hands, cleared land and built the country. They are the people who, in any other society in the world, are revered because of the contribution they have made to their country. Certainly I agree with the Minister that seniors will rise and will not shirk from their duties because they know what duty is all about. But 1 think it is absolutely immoral for the Government to approach senior citizens along this line and say these kinds of things. These people have sacrificed all their lives raising families, putting them through school and university, often going without winter coats to keep the children in school. 1 know how my mother did without so
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
that I could have fresh fruit on the table. I know how my grandmother did without so that my mother could attend nursing school. 1 know that is part of the history of the country. It is immoral for the Government to attack senior citizens at this point.
But the Minister said that they had to have six and five in all areas which the Government controls. Let us look at some of the areas. Wage levels-Treasury Board announced on October 21 that 500 editorial employees of CBC would receive 11.5 per cent increases in their salaries ranging from $12,000 to $38,900. These people will receive 11.5 per cent increases in their salaries, yet the Government is limiting the indexing of the OAS for senior citizens who earn approximately $6,000. People on fixed rates of pay are generally low-income earners, while some 200,000 Government employees will receive 9 per cent or 10 per cent; if they are bumped up in category, the six per cent is added on and they receive 9 per cent or 10 per cent. These people can afford to bite the bullet a bit, but the Government attacks people on fixed incomes with the imposition of 6 per cent and 5 per cent.
Let us look at TransCanada Pipelines which just obtained a new levy for transporting natural gas. It was increased to 11.9 per cent on August 1. This will have a cumulative effect over the next two years with price increases of a further 93 cents per gigajoule in semi-annual steps of 23 cents and 24 cents per gigajoule. This will be a cumulative increase in the price of natural gas to consumers of 49.2 per cent. The same senior citizens who were encouraged to convert to natural gas are being told that their base pay will be limited, that it will not reflect inflation any longer so that they will have a minimum to live on or their purchasing power will not be eroded. They are being told that it will be nailed at six and five and that they will be charged an increase of 49.2 per cent in the cost of natural gas because the transportation costs of natural gas by TransCanada Pipelines have risen. We can depend on such things happening more and more.
Let us turn to rents under the direct control of the Government. The Minister said that the Government is responsible to Canadians. Also she said that they know and will do their duty, that they will limit every area to six and five, every area that they possibly can, every area under their control.
CMHC is the main renegade in this area. It is a federally-owned Crown corporation. Let us look at its increases-35 per cent in Coldbrook, Nova Scotia; 22 per cent in Churchill, Manitoba; 15 per cent in Winnipeg where CMHC administers the 180-unit Pine Hill Apartments; and 12.5 per cent for federal housing in the Northwest Territories. I put to Hon. Members that the people occupying those CMHC homes are the very ones who are being nailed here today; many of them are senior citizens. This is federally-controlled housing, it is immoral.
The very significant aspect about the figures I just gave is that most of the increases in rent apply to housing for public servants or those on fixed or limited incomes. Is that how the Government really attempts to nail six and five? It is nailing

December 22, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
the people who have the least voice in the House of Commons; that is whom it is hitting.
The federal Government talks about limiting to six and five, yet it turns around and increases the taxes for unemployment insurance levied against employers, including small employers, by 50 per cent next year. There are record bankruptcies and record failures in the small business sector, yet we have a Government saying that it will limit to six and five and increase the levy for unemployment insurance by 50 per cent. Who is kidding whom?
The Government of Canada is falsely going across the country and chirping six and five. It is a well-orchestrated campaign to sell Canadians on something which is just not so. Let us look at the passenger fares of VIA Rail. Were they increased by six and five? No way. There were 10 per cent increases in fares between Toronto and Montreal and between Toronto and Ottawa. The very people about whom we are talking today, the senior citizens, are the ones who predominantly use VIA Rail between those points. They are faced with a 10 per cent increase and a real purchasing power decrease.
I do not know what the decrease will be; none of us know because we do not know what will be the inflation rate in the next year. Mark my words, inflation will rise next year because it will be getting close to election time and the Minister of Finance will increase his deficit without decreasing his expenditures. He will try to heat up the economy and say to Canadians that they should look at the jobs which the Government created for the unemployed. He will not mention that this was a result of the Government's disastrous policies of before, but he will say, "Look at what we are doing; boy, are we leaders!" Then they will go into an election campaign. We can depend on it-inflation rates will go up next year. The real purchasing power of the senior citizen will go down.
I believe I have said all that I want to say except for one thing. I am getting sick and tired of listening to Members of the New Democratic Party standing up day after day on this Bill and accusing the Conservative Party of not caring. Because our Party voted on Bill C-124, which was a Bill to restrict Government spending to six and five per cent, the NDP has been twisting the meaning of that vote in an attempt to convince the Canadian public that our Party does not care, that we are only using this Bill for political purposes. Their Members have been questioning the motives of everyone who speaks on this Bill from our Party.
All I want to say to Members of the New Democratic Party is that they are not the only ones who have a licence for caring in this country. I care and all Hon. Members care when they go home and visit senior citizens' homes and the New Horizon drop-in centres. We talk to the seniors and we know instinctively the contribution they have made to our country. 1 am ashamed to go home and say to our seniors that we know they will come to grips with this matter and take part in the program, that they know their responsibility. 1 say we have a responsibility in this House to see that our senior citizens, the
people who contributed to our country, who built it and made it what it is today, do not want in their golden years. I plead with Hon. Members: "For God's sake, let this amendment go through".


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few remarks on Bill C-131. For us in this Party the issue is very simple. The Government is introducing limitations on the indexing of Old Age Security to 6 per cent in 1983 and to 5 per cent in 1984. The immorality of this becomes very clear when you compare this Bill, which takes money away from our senior citizens, with the appointment today of Michael Pitfield to the Senate.
The New Democratic Party is opposed to this Bill. We are opposed because we have a long history of struggle for decent pensions. What we want to see is some pension reform that will help our seniors have a better life, not something that will project them backwards.
For us the issue is simple, but for the Tories the issue is not so simple. If we go back to last summer when the Government introduced its six and five program, the Leader of the Tory Party said that this was a step in the right direction. The Tories are hesitating now when they see where the next step leads. The Tories are doing a hesitation waltz with the Government.
It was interesting to listen to the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) who was, ostensibly, opposing this Bill also and supporting the amendment. But he could not do so without introducing a few gratuitous comments about the whole failure of the idea of redistribution, nor without suggesting that somehow seniors should be able to look after themselves a little bit better on their own.
The reason for this Bill was given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). She said that the budget takes as a given fact that Canadians who are not in need are entirely prepared to share in serious sacrifices which are required to bring our country out of the economic crisis. In that short statement there are two serious misconceptions. The first is when she suggests that seniors who will be affected by this Bill are not in need. Second, she pretends that this mean, chiselling act directed at the elderly will somehow help to bring Canada out of its economic crisis.
In one respect the Minister's statement is right on. It finally recognizes that Canada is indeed in an economic crisis. 1 think it was President Nixon-it could have been Gerald Ford-who a few years ago visited a large American university where the agricultural faculty had managed to raise a 75-pound turkey. This poor, helpless creature had been forced-fed with hormones, steroids and other additives until it was so big that it could no longer walk. It could hardly stand. Nixon looked at the bird for a while and then reached deep into his bag of cliches and came up with this one: "This is the sort of thing that has made America great".
In a funny kind of a way, there is truth to that. This helpless 74-pound turkey symbolizes the Canadian economy as it has
December 22, 1982

developed over the last few years under the Liberal Government. The way the Canadian economy has developed has made America great. Over the last few decades, the Liberals have adopted an economic policy through which they felt they could manage to provide welfare measures and redistributive measures, such as the Family Allowance, Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, by having an economy which was based, first, on the export of our natural resources and, second, on branch plant manufacturing.
Today that 74-pound turkey can no longer support even its own weight. With two million people unemployed, goods and services are no longer being produced, tax revenues are down and the deficit climbs. What is the Government's response to that? The response is to cut back on the money that would have been paid in Family Allowances, in public servants' pensions and in Old Age Security.
These measures represent an insidious erosion and undermining of the right of seniors to live in dignity and to share in the wealth that our society has created and which they have helped to create. The New Democratic Party has a policy of full support for the principle of full indexation. Indexation is a very basic principle. It simply means that seniors with pensions should be able to buy the same basket of groceries in 1983 that they could buy with their pension in 1982. Bill C-131 will not make that possible because it says that regardless how high inflation goes-and no one expects it will stay as low as 6 per cent-pensions cannot increase by more than the 6 per cent factor.
It is important for us to realize that cutting back on pensions will not do anything for our economic crisis. There are no new jobs in this proposal. There is no increased production, nor is there any increased tax revenue. There is only a minuscule, miserly reduction in the $23.6 billion deficit. If the Government took the $105 million it claims this proposal will save over the next two years and applied the $105 million to this year's deficit, it would reduce the deficit from $23.6 billion to $23.5 billion. Our senior citizens are being punished. I suggest that rather than solving the economic crisis, Bill C-131 will make it worse.
In my riding, which comprises the southern part of Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, which is one of the more attractive places to live in Canada, there are some 11,000 people over the age of 65 who receive Old Age Security. I presume that roughly half of them do not get the Guaranteed Income Supplement. This means that between 5,000 and 6,000 senior citizens in my riding will receive less next year under Old Age Security than they would if the Government was not pushing this legislation through the House. At a time when our forest industry on Vancouver Island is reeling from massive unemployment, the income of senior citizens is the only factor that promotes any kind of economic stability in our area. The majority of these people have modest incomes.
As 1 said, Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands, are good areas to retire and many pensioners were able to get modest homes. They do not have to live in extreme poverty in most
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
cases because of the past struggles of people like the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Seniors do live in poverty in the large cities but this is not true in most cases in our area. However, very few are in a situation where they do not need to count the nickels and dimes and dollars very carefully every day in order to have enough at the end of the month to meet their expenses. This Bill will make it that much more difficult for them to meet those expenses each month.
This is an insidious Bill because its effects will not be noticed immediately. Slowly but surely it will undermine the income of these people and of seniors who will follow to the point where they will have a lower place in the economic spectrum than they already occupy. We want to see their position improved, not degraded.
It is estimated that even with 10 per cent and 9 per cent inflation which has been estimated to occur next year and the year after, approximately $300 will be taken from seniors over the next two years. This is money which they should receive in order to keep up with inflation. The Government has said that inflation is coming down and that we will be living in the wonderful world of six and five. If it is true that inflation is really coming down to 6 per cent as the Government pretends, then Bill C-131 is unnecessary.
It is a fact that pensions have followed inflation. The whole idea of indexation is to allow pensions to follow inflation. It is completely wrong to suggest that pensions themselves have fueled inflation. On this basis, cutting pensions is in no way the answer to fighting inflation. Bill C-131 is penalizing the very people who need the money the most if inflation is not reduced to 6 percent. They are the very people who are having the most difficulty keeping up with inflation. This Bill is forcing the victims of inflation to pay for it. Therefore, this Bill is either unnecessary or unjust.
We want to stress that by capping indexation for the next two years, the Government is not only reducing pensions in 1983 and 1984, but also reducing the base on which future indexation will take place. For this reason we support the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), which will include the amount to be lost from the pension base in 1983 and 1984 in the base for 1985 and following years. In other words, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that even though the incomes of seniors will be reduced in 1983 and 1984, the base will continue to be built up by full indexation so that if and when indexation is restored in 1985 it will be operating on a full base.
Perhaps we should question whether there will be a reintroduction of full indexation. When one considers that this Bill is essentially doing nothing for the economy in terms of cutting back the deficit or making money available for other projects, perhaps the Government is simply introducing six and five now as the thin edge of the wedge and we will see a gradual and continuing cutback of the amount of money that is paid out through Old Age Security. On that basis, this Bill is mostly regressive.

December 22, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The Government has pointed out that people who are in the lowest income brackets would have their Guaranteed Income Supplement increased by the amount that Bill C-131 takes away from their Old Age Security. While this is a positive measure, it involves two serious shortcomings. First, it penalizes most heavily those seniors who are just above the line in terms of having an income which disqualifies them from the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Bill C-131 cuts their pensions and they cannot make it up through the provisions to beef up the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
Second, this Bill, through its provisions to compensate for the Guaranteed Income Supplement, signifies a growing reliance on the means test. When old age pensions were first introduced in the late twenties, they involved a very stingy and chiselling type of means test. We eliminated that test and we do not want to see it reintroduced.
At present, more than 50 per cent of Old Age Security recipients also receive all or part of the Guaranteed Income Supplement which involves a form of means test. As a result of eroding the Old Age Security, Bill C-131 will force more people into the economic situation where they need the income supplement with the attendant means test. This means that the Government is moving away from the whole concept of universality. In future when the Minister of National Health and Welfare speaks about universality, when Canadians hear her they will hear her in much the same way they hear President Reagan speak about peace, Gerald Bouey speak about the problems of unemployment or the Tories speak about Party unity. In other words, they will hear these words as nothing more than lip service.
In conclusion, I suggest this Bill is not the answer. It penalizes our senior citizens and does nothing for the economy. At a time when our economy needs a transfusion of new blood, as it were, the Government comes in with medieval leeching practices, feeling that perhaps the answer to the sick economy is to draw more blood out of it. Over the next two years it will be taking $105 away from senior citizens.
The answer should be found, perhaps, in a new doctor, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) hesitated to suggest the other night. Yes, we do need a new doctor. We are tired of being leeched. We would like to see a doctor who could do something to build up the health of the economy instead of tear it down. We need a Government which will get our economy moving and provide opportunities for people to work again, thus providing revenue to the Government. When that happens, we will see our deficit come under some kind of control, and the Government will not have to penalize our senior citizens as a phony excuse for saying that it is doing something about the economy.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-30, an Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Canada Day, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT (NO. 2) MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Dantzer (p. 21795).
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make some comments with regard to Bill C-131. an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act.
Many of my colleagues have addressed the House on this matter and, I believe, have made very salient comments indeed on this Bill. I think it is now time that Hon. Members of the governing Party participate in a lesson in history. In the early 1920s, some 63 years ago, a generation of young Canadians, men and women, were celebrating victory in World War I, the first war to end all wars. Unfortunately, their efforts in the late twenties, in the business of rebuilding the economy, suffered a great blow in the depression which followed. Those who were fortunate enough to survive began rebuilding from the virtual ashes of our country.
Then in the late thirties and early forties, they again answered the call to arms and defended our freedoms and rights in the trenches of Europe and the rest of the world. All that kept some of our soldiers sane were their dreams. They dreamed of coming back to their loved ones and settling down in homes of their own. They were prepared to give their lives for their rights to liberty and justice. They were the people who guaranteed us the rights we have today.
When the Second World War ended, it was supposed to end all wars. Returning veterans and their colleagues who had supported them at home once again set about the task of rebuilding. Our Governments since then have realized the importance these people played in developing the institutions and, indeed, the bureaucracies of today.
The social security system was set up to protect our aging nation builders. These people are the ones whose incomes do not deserve to be protected against inflation, as the Government is now telling them through this Bill. Recently I had a

December 22, 1982

conversation with a retired Department of National Defence employee. Ele was indignant that he will be hit twice by this Government's last gasp efforts to play the role of the Grinch who stole Christmas. His comment was; "I worked 40 years to be robbed".
May I remind the House that most senior citizens today are quite a happy group of individuals. According to a recent survey, what they prize most is housing. Some say that this is because they spend more time indoors. I think it goes much deeper than that. The dream I mentioned of the soldier in the trenches was just to earn a living so as to own his own home for his family. This was the dream of all Canadians up until a few years ago when our population became so mobile. The current administration has stood idly by and allowed the cost of living to rise so rapidly that most younger Canadians have given up that dream. It existed, however, for all or more of our working lives.
Those who now own their own homes or are in comfortable accommodation are not expecting overnight solutions to our economic problems. They know from experience that there are no magical spells by which any Government can cure a depression. People realize, too, that there are more senior citizens per capita in Canada today than ever before. The baby boom was turned into the senior boom. They know there is strength in numbers.
The Government must admit that it is not keeping inflation down to the proposed 6 per cent and 5 per cent, partially due to the cost of imported foods which comprise a great portion of the goods in our shopping carts. This is uncontrollable and also partially due to the fact that senior citizens themselves have allowed for some salary increases above 6 per cent or 5 per cent. Senior citizens are quite willing to pay their share to keep the country, which they built, growing. They have done so in their working years and do not expect any less now. Now, however, they are forced to accept cost of living adjustments below that allowed, in some cases, to federal Government employees.
I would like to refer back to the example of the shopping cart in the grocery store to which we must all go once a week or more. Our lifestyle has changed because we are now importing far more food than we did years ago. It has become very essential in the diet of senior citizens. They are being penalized as a result of the worth of the Canadian dollar in comparison to the American dollar, the cost of importation, the cost of handling, transportation and oil prices.
We must also remember what the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) said yesterday with respect to a number of senior citizens. He said that the fact is that in the last ten years the number of Canadians under the age of 20 years has dropped by over 700,000 and the number of Canadians over the age of 60 years has grown by 800,000. We are seeing a basic change in the age of the population in Canada. This is an important factor in how we consider the programs and social needs of Canada in the coming years.
One of the major social problems we face is the persistence of poverty. At this point in time, at least, 15.5 per cent of our population can be described, on the basis of certain income
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
levels, as being below the poverty line. Must senior citizens be forced to accept such low cost of living adjustments? This they might well pass off as being the antics of a Government which will go eventually. Many others have come and gone in their lifetime. They are constantly reminded, however, of the inequities demonstrated by the Government. The Government has estimated that it will save approximately $100 million by deindexing Old Age Security payments, yet its deficit is 230 times greater. Obviously, such saving will not even be seen, it will be spent so fast.
My constituents from Lindsay, Keswick, Haliburton and many other parts of my vast riding have written to me many times concerning metric conversion. I defy the Minister responsible to prove to me that the cancellation of the metric conversion program would not result in a much greater saving to the public purse than will be accomplished by Bill C-131, and with much less harmful effects. It is my opinion that being forced to metric conversion is one of the easiest ways to confuse people in the marketplace.
Metric conversion, as I said earlier, is very, very confusing, not just in the gasoline stations but in the grocery business itself. By forcing people to go metric on January 1, the cost of the scales and the other measures which will follow will certainly add to the cost of the shopping basket. Regardless of what some people would like us to believe, this is a very costly experience for Canada. I have been told that it has cost us over $1 billion thus far in the implementation of the metric system, and what are we going to gain? Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his campaign promises in the late election, promised that he would wrestle inflation to the ground. Congratulations, Mr. Prime Minister.


Mr. Whelan:: It is halfway down now.


William C. Scott: It is coming down, 1 grant you that, but it is taking a long time. Using our economy as a ring mat, the Prime Minister claims to have brought inflation below the double-digit level. The ring mat has been our economy and it is now torn to shreds.
With this Bill, the Government is putting our senior citizens, the builders of our nation, in the same position as its intended foe-down for the count. I pray that the Government will see the error of its ways before the House resumes in January. If not, the Prime Minister will be carving his mark in history as "Pierre, the Terrible", the Prime Minister who forgot his heritage and destroyed his ancestors.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to have this opportunity on the last day of the session of the House before the Christmas recess to take part in this debate on Bill C-131. I would like to make some comments by way of rebuttal of some remarks which have already been made, and indicate where I feel some of the error lies with this piece of legislation. I make that comment having regard to the fact that I was one of the first Members on this side of the House who

December 22, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
supported what has been referred to as the "six and five solution". 1 do not know that one should automatically assume that, when a piece of legislation is presented to the House which has merit and happens to have contained therein a particular formula, a simple snapping of the fingers to resurrect that formula when applied to any other piece of legislation should result automatically in someone concluding that Hon. Members will support the legislation in a sort of "knee-jerk" reaction to the Bill which is introduced.
Very clearly, Bill C-124, which began the process, was a Bill designed to meet a certain set of circumstances which affected, among other people, Members of this House of Commons. Members of the House have been entitled to an indexed form of remuneration increase on an annual basis, and I found it extremely difficult to sit here and vote in favour of a constant increase in my salary as a Member of Parliament while my constituents suffered from lack of employment.
1 also found it quite easy to justify the imposition of a form of restrained growth in salaries for members of another privileged class, the Public Service, and there is no doubt but that they are. They have an opportunity to continue to serve the public without the same general fears of possible loss of employment which are imposed upon members of the private sector. We have seen hundreds of thousands, possibly two million of those persons who no longer have employment at all, and yet within the Public Service we know that security of employment must be given some monetary value. Quite frankly, 1 felt no hesitation at all in supporting Bill C-124.
1 do, however, have substantial reason for opposing Bill C-131, despite the fact that it also has a six and five formula appended to it. The reason is very simple. We are dealing in this piece of legislation with an element of society which has withdrawn from the work force. We are dealing with a group of Canadians who no longer are in a position to make up in the long run what might be lost today. We are dealing with people who have paid their dues to society, who have contributed to the very essence of our nation, who have contributed to the fact that we are here today in this place, free and secure. These are the people to whom we, as a society, have an obligation, and that obligation transcends any consideration of monetary restraint. They are indeed, in my mind, the most deserving class in society to whom we, as Members of Parliament, should pay tribute for their contribution to our society, and regard in a special fashion when it comes to dealing with rights to which they have become entitled.
In terms of the actual consequences of this legislation, we were advised just this week that the inflation rate has declined and that decline now is measured at 9.8 per cent on an annual basis. The income increase under this Bill is fixed at 6 per cent. So we are now looking at a 3.8 per cent decline in an increase.
I use those words because that in fact is what it is in terms of today's dollars. But in terms of constant dollar valuation, there is clearly a reduction in the purchasing power of those pension payments which are made available to our senior citizens as a consequence of this legislation. For that reason, and for the reasons I have earlier described in terms of our obligation to
this segment of society, I am opposed to the Bill and will vote against it.
I would like to mention some of the concerns which I have had with respect to the Government's defence of this legislation. I recognize that it is part of a program designed to dilute the expectation for constant inflationary increases in society. The Government also regards it in some way as an indication of its grappling with the control of the public purse, hopefully achieving a reduction in federal expenditures, and they have done so at the cost of a particular segment of society, as 1 have indicated. If you analyze the growth of the inflationary pressures, you find that the chief culprit is not simply the Government. It is Government in the sense that one of the large component factors in the increase in the consumer price index is the cost of energy. Cost of energy is reported to have accounted for an 18.2 per cent increase over the year. With that kind of an increase, controlled by Government, one can well understand how there is a reduction, as reported in the press recently, of the inflationary pressures. That reduction is retarded because Government is still intruding in a fashion which in itself creates the very inflationary pressures they have come to blame on society at large.
We are also aware of the recent increases in excise taxes imposed on those evil products of tobacco and alcohol, taxes which were not restricted to six and five but which are running at almost 14 per cent. Now, I know that not everyone needs a smoke or a drink, but I find it a little hypocritical for the Government to come before the public and say: "We expect you to do your part, while we do not do ours". An example is the Government saying that it has begun to restrain the demand upon the public purse, yet we see the kind of treatment accorded another group of special people, the senior bureaucrats, and in particular a certain Senator Michael Pitfield who a short time ago was awarded a special pension arrangement which will see the extraction from that same public purse of some $100,000 over a period of years to be added to Mr. Pitfield's pension plan.


Mr. Jarvis:: He is an independent Senator.


John Albert Gamble: 1 can understand that is the kind of designation they have given to him. However, having regard to the way in which he served so faithfully the current Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), he has been rewarded in a fashion which 1 am sure most Canadianss would like to tap into but which is not available to them, certainly not to the people affected by Bill C-133. The Government suggests it is about to restrain its expenditures and endeavours to convince Canadians that the process is one which will achieve a reduction in inflation for the benefit of all Canadians, and then turns around and says except, of course, with respect to the privileged few in society. For them they are prepared to make some different arrangements. Those are the kinds of things which surely make the public sit up and take notice and regard Government actions with a great deal of disbelief.
December 22, 1982

Now, I listened with some interest to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) when he commented disparagingly upon the part our Party has played with respect to this legislation. 1 say that our Party has been very straightforwd in its condemnation of what must be regarded as special treatment for special people by the Government. That special treatment should be accorded to those most deserving in society, that group 1 have just identified.
I find it rather interesting that the NDP has consistently adopted a policy of spending money, indexing everything, without regard to the source of funds. Their lack of recognition of the need to take that into account is clearly best demonstrated by the public recognition of that failure and their regard among the general public as most recently displayed in the public opinion polls. If I could pass on advice to Members of that Party who wish to in any way enhance the public's view of their performance, let me suggest they be more reasonable and sensible and account for the fact that they are constantly deciding to spend and index without paying any attention to the consequences of their actions. 1 believe that once you spend a dollar, the dollar cannot be spent again unless you borrow it and pay interest on it. That is a policy which has, unfortunately, been adopted by the Government.
Now, last month there were two Bills before this House, Bill C-129 and Bill C-130, dealing with rather substantial amounts of money. The first Bill dealt with the advancing of no less than $1.7 billion to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and I heard not one whisper from Members to my left as to how that money might well have been redirected to helping the very people whom they are now complaining are not receiving these funds. Members of this Party spoke about that, about how this money was leaving Canada for international financial institutions without any hope of control by this Parliament or the Government over how the money was to be spent. How that money was to be spent was beyond our control. I could not conceive for one moment why Members of the NDP were not jumping up and down in their place demanding that that subtantial sum be directed to the payment of the indexing of pensions plans for senior citizens.
Immediately following that Bill's passage, we were confronted with Bill C-130 which provided for the incurring of an obligation in the aggregate amount of $117 million. In this case the funds were to be paid at the discretion of the Government to a number of international banks. Once again, there was not one whimper of objection from the NDP. The policy that that Party has regretfully followed is best illustrated by the fact that when money is being spent, regardless of for what, they favour it. However, when there is a curtailment in expenditures with a view to controlling the deficit and reducing the cost of financing the national debt, the Members of that Party consistently clamour against the legislation. It makes it extremely difficult for a prudent public to be able to distinguish between what actions they adopt as correct and what actions they adopt as incorrect.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I favour the position of opposing legislation which has the effect, unreasonably, of extracting funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund which will not benefit Canadians. 1 favour legislation where we have a good moral or business reason for favouring the expenditure. In this case, Mr. Speaker, I certainly favour the position of opposing this specific piece of legislation encompassed within the confines of Bill C-131, for the reasons I have given.
In opposing this legislation I am perfectly consistent with the views I have expressed about helping Canadians first. Among those Canadians we should help are those who have served their country long, who are no longer in a position to contribute in the same fashion as others to their welfare and have become entitled to special protection from this place and other Canadians.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here for several weeks listening to this debate and it behooves me to try to respond a little to some of the things that have been said. When we keep hearing people from both sides talking about how much of a Grinch we are, how we are so tight and cruel and so on, I have to respond because I think the facts are just not in that order. That is not the situation. This Government, one that 1 have been involved with for ten years, has been very, very supportive of Canadians in general, and particularly those Canadians who need more support than other Canadians. To say this is untrue is, to my mind, totally false and quite hypocritical.
I particularly find hypocrisy in the Tory Party very difficult to accept. I have heard Members from the other side rant and rave about Government spending and talk about their great model. I remember one of the Members from British Columbia and also the Opposition critic for finance preach that Reaganomics is the answer. They said that this was the approach that we should all take, that we should get Governments off our backs, and they talked about the great economic views of the President of the Unites States, views that we have come to know as Reaganomics.
I would just like to refer to a couple of articles dealing with Reaganomics, because this is the argument that has been made about this Government and its spending. It is an argument that, if the Tory Party believes in it, means they are really hypocritical in dealing with this Bill.
The first piece was from Houston dated June 15 and appeared in the New York Times. It says:
President Reagan returned to the Oval Office today for the first time since the start of his European trip two weeks ago but then flew here this afternoon for a rousing defence of his economic policies and some partisan blasts at his critics.
The occasion for Mr. Reagan's rally was a $1,000-a-plate dinner for 3,500 cheering, applauding Texans.
The next article is dated a few weeks later, July 19, from Newsweek, as follows:
Last April the Texas Department of Human Resources issued a pamphlet entitled "Dead Broke in Texas?" warning newcomers not to expect much in the way of public assistance. It points out that the average welfare and food-stamp

December 22, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
recipient in the state gets only $34 a month under each program and declares that qualification requirements are much "stiffer" than in other states.
That, I think, tells us a little about the Tories' way of speaking when they espouse Reaganomics. A one thousand dollar-a-plate dinner and 3,500 people show up-and the average welfare recipient in that city was receiving $68 a month!
It is in that context that I have to stand up and defend what we are doing. There are two basic pieces to this legislation, Bill C-131, Bill C-132 and Bill C-133, that have to be understood. The first piece has to be that in June of this year we put into play a program called six and five. It would not be of any value to have a program if we were going to say that we were going to have six and five for this but we were not going to have six and five for that; that we are going to make all kinds of exceptions, but somewhere along the line the program is called six and five. We hope to have a 6 per cent inflation rate and we are going to adjust Government spending to a 6 per cent inflation rate in the coming year and 5 per cent the following year.
To me, if we decided that we would exempt this group and that group, we would do two things. One is that we would deny the six and five; and, number two, if we were to say we will include this group but leave out that little group, then we would get away from a notion that I think is very important- universality. I will come to that later. 1 want to defend universality which is part of this kind of thinking here.
The second reason I think it is important that we have a total type of program and why this is not going to create a lot of hardship is simply that the inflation rate, in my opinion, is going down much faster than people believe. I do not for a minute say that six and five was the only or even the principal cause of this. I do say that the inflation rate in this country is coming down at a faster pace than people believe.
We unfortunately have a method of arriving at an inflation rate which I think is totally inadequate. It basically deals with the inflation rate in the past rather than the future. The Americans have a different system in that they tend to project more into the future and take a single month and annualize it more than we do. When we say the inflation rate this month is 9.8 per cent, we are talking about the month of December through November in 1981/1982; so in that inflation factor we are carrying several months, four, five or six months when the rate was in excess of 11 per cent, and in some of those months in excess of 12 per cent. The actual inflation rate since the announcement on June 28 of the six and five program is about 7.5 per cent, not 9.8 per cent as was announced last week.
One might say that if you annualize those 12 months you get 9.8 per cent; but the fact is that anyone who has looked at this thing at all realizes that there is a distinct decline in inflation rates, not just here but all around the world. Basically, we can expect this decline to get smaller.
One of the factors that would lead me to believe that there would be a further decline is that in that 7.6 per cent is included one of our two annual increases in energy rates. That is now
completely built into these figures. We have had, as I say, roughly a 7.5 per cent inflation rate since the last budget.
To look at next year, there are certain other factors that would probably cause the inflation rate to drop below 6 per cent, the most significant being the energy factor itself. We are coming very close to a situation where we are at 75 per cent of world price. We have some additional rounds built in, but these rounds will disappear if the world price comes down. The world price is conceded to be $40, but the spot price is considerably below that. One could expect the world price of oil to decline considerably and that we may not have any significant increases in our price. As a matter of fact, in early January one could expect a 1.5 cent per litre decline in oil prices, which was just announced by the Government. That decline may actually represent the major shift in the whole year.
We can see the evidence in terms of wages and other things. For example, when 1 go into a grocery store to buy meat today, 1 am paying less than I was paying some months ago. This varies from time to time, but certainly there is evidence that the inflation rate is coming down. Therefore, the factor about which we talk when we say that people will lose a great deal will not exist because the rate will come down.
1 have some sympathy with the last Hon. Member who said that, if the rate was to be 6 per cent or less, why do we need the Bill? We brought it in for one particular reason-to create the psychological climate which would cause this to happen. Once one moves in that direction, one follows through.
I am not convinced that the months of discussion on these three Bills was all that necessary, because in general people on fixed incomes who will receive the 6 per cent will be as well off as they were when they received 11 per cent. 1 say this because the inflation rate is coming down. If 1 were a betting man, I would bet very strongly that the inflation rate next year-and certainly going into the new year-will be down below 6 per cent. That idea can be justified economically on many grounds. One should look in that direction and see, therefore, that the Bill will not do damage to individuals.
There is another factor which I think we should be debating. 1 have been bothered that a great deal of the debate around here has been centered on a very small fraction of the inflation rate; probably one-half of 1 per cent or even no percentage point. The debate has been on that rather than the whole notion of universality. When 1 talked about the Reagan administration and the Tory defence of Reaganomics over the last year or two, 1 used this example to show that we as a Government have not contemplated and were not contemplating any move which would take away the factor of universality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) want to ask a question?


Ian Deans: No, Mr. Speaker. I am rising on a point of order, if I may.
December 22, 1982


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the Hon. Member's comments and I do not want to detract from them in any way, so I will be very brief in what I want to ask. 1 wonder if I might, on a point of order, ask the Acting Government House Leader whether there has been any opportunity to reconsider Bill C-141, whether it might be possible, even at this late hour on this day, to consider bringing it forward now for passage, or whether we have again missed the opportunity to deal with this crucial and important matter.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Justice indicated that we were prepared to deal with all remaining stages of the Bill today without debate. That is still our position, so the question should really be asked of the Official Opposition.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we can see what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is doing-


Ian Deans: We are just trying to get the Bill passed.


Erik Nielsen: -and who is playing politics with this matter. Our position was made quite clear in a very generous offer to the Government today.
With respect to what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain referred to as a lost opportunity-


Ian Deans: 1 did not say that.


Erik Nielsen: 1 think he will find those words in the "blues"-1 might remind him that the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner has publicly said that as long as that legislation is passed before the session ends, he is happy; and so are we.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a further point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 think the procedure of interrupting the Hon. Member who has the floor is rather unusual. Of course, the Chair is in the hands of the House.


Paul Edmund McRae: I would be glad to yield.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I appreciate that the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan cedes the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to allow the Hon. Member to complete his remarks, if there would be time after them to deal with another matter which will require us to revert to motions. 1 did not want to see the Hon. Member interrupted twice, but if there will be time following the completion of his remarks to deal with the matter, I will not interrupt him now.


Ian Deans: Do it now.


Erik Nielsen: It will only take a second.
Task Force on Indian Self-Government


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to proceed with whatever it is he wishes to do?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to revert to motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to revert to motions?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous consent for the purpose of presenting a motion dealing with the setting up of a task force on Indian self-government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I gather, then, that there is unanimous consent.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I move;
Ordered, That a Special Committee of the House of Commons, to be composed of Mr. Penner, Mr. Allmand, Mr. Chenier, Mr. Tousignant, Mr. Oberle, Mr. Schellenberger and Mr. Manly, be appointed to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Indian Self-Government to review all legal and related institutional factors affecting the status, development and responsibilities of Band Governments in Indian reserves, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
1 could read the balance of this motion, if it is necessary, but 1 believe all sides of the House have had an opportunity to look at it.


Erik Nielsen: It will not be necessary to read the balance of it.


David P. Smith: If it is the will of the House, perhaps I could dispense with the reading of the motion in full.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Since there seems to be agreement to dispense with the reading of the motion, may I have it, please?
[Editor's Note: The remainder of the motion is as follows:]
(a)	the legal status of Band Governments;
(b)	the accountability of Band councils to Band members;
(c)	the powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in
relation to reserve land, band moneys and the exercise of Band powers;
(d)	the financial transfer, control and accounting mechanisms in place between
Bands and the Government of Canada;

December 22, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
(e)	the legislative powers of Bands and their relationship to the powers of other jurisdictions; and
(0 the accountability to Parliament of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the moneys expended by or on behalf of Indian Bands;
(g) all items referred to in section "H" of the report of the Sub-committee on Indian Women and the Indian Act;
and make recommendations in relation to the above questions in regard particularly to possible provisions of new legislation and improve administrative arrangements to apply to some or all Band Governments on reserves, taking into account the various social, economic, administrative, political and demographic situations of Indian Bands, and the views of Indian Bands in regard to administrative or legal change.
That the Committee, in carrying out its review, take into account:
(a)	the jurisdiction of the Federal Government under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867;
(b)	the recognition and affirmation of existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982;
(c)	the current economic restraint program of the Government;
(d)	the fact that a First Ministers' Conference will be held for the purpose of identifying rights of the aboriginal peoples.
That the Committee have all the powers given to Standing Committees by Section (8) of Standing Order 65;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary;
That the Committee have the power to adjourn or travel from place to place in Canada and the United States;
That, notwithstanding the usual practices of this House, if the House is not sitting when an interim or final report of the Committee is completed, the Committee may make the said report public before it is laid before the House, but that, in any case the Committee shall report to the House finally no later than the first Monday following Labour Day and,
That all the evidence adduced by both the Sub-Committee on Indian Women and the Indian Act, and the Sub-Committee on Indian Self-Government during the first session of this Parliament, be referred to the Committee.
Provided that alternates appointed pursuant to temporary Standing Orders be name later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Dantzer (p. 21795).
Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have given up a couple of minutes to have the foregoing motion adopted, because it is extremely valuable. I hope good things come out of it, as I know good things have
come out of the Committee which has been working on it of late.
To return to Bill C-131 and the amendment before the House, the notion of universality has not been debated to this point. Of course, I am speaking about Bill C-131 specifically, but generally my remarks apply to the other three Bills. Universality is the fundamental issue. There is a large, particularly vocal segment of our population in particular industries that would like to see the notion of universality dropped. Some people would like to see it dropped in all cases; some groups would like to see it dropped in certain cases. In one sense they see that Government money goes into these kinds of things. Those who think that the Government can cut its spending without touching big programs are foolish, because basically 70 per cent of our money is transferred to other Canadians. The big areas in this regard are Old Age Security, Family Allowances and other major expenditures of Government. This is the case for all Governments, whether they be provincial or federal.
The point of universality is that we all benefit from a universal program. It seems to me that this is a fundamental matter with old age pensions. We have to say to Canadians that everybody is involved, whether or not they are well-to-do. If they are well-to-do and have large incomes, we can tax some of it back; but the point is that 90 per cent to 95 per cent of Canadians base their future on the old age pension. They base it on what they can see, on the OAS and the GIS. The supplement is not universal, but they base their futures upon the basic pension which is part of their retirement program. It is extremely fundamental that it be retained.
It is the same when we are talking about the Family Allowance. Some people need it very badly. We have arranged that in terms of the Child Tax Credit. The basic situation is that most families, particularly when one member of the family is at home, usually the woman, find that this is the major source of income and require it to maintain the family and to give the woman some freedom. It is extremely important these programs be retained in their original shape.
In a Party convention here a month ago, someone praised me for speaking in terms of Family Allowance universality because it was necessary, and then said: "But, of course, l think there are a lot of senior citizens who do not need it". It is that kind of thinking that puts the programs in some quandary. Sure, there are some senior citizens who do not need the old age pension, and sure there are some families who do not need the Family Allowance. But if you are going to have these kinds of social service programs, you have to keep them in all cases. The real pressures that arc on us today to get rid of universality because it is not necessary are what really concerns me. I wish we had spent far more time supporting the need to keep these programs in a sound way and in play and not to take away parts of them. I wish that is what the debate were about
December 22, 1982

rather than whether or not we are dealing with a six and five or a seven and six, and so on, which seems to be what we are talking about most of the time.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Are you going to vote against this Bill?


Paul Edmund McRae: 1 believe that we as Canadians have a sound program. There are areas in which I would like to see more done. 1 would like to see universality of the portability of our pension programs expanded. That will be another debate that will occur here in the next few months. I think much more can be done by the Government than has been done to provide Canadians with a decent retirement income, an income on which they can depend.
In closing, 1 have to say I do not fear these Bills, partly because they are in the name of universality-we have made sure they are for everyone-and partly because I do not think Canadians are going to suffer from any of these Bills simply because inflation is coming down. In the meantime, 1 think it is important that we all get out and support the kinds of programs we have in place, improve them-there is no question they can be improved-and maintain the notion of universality. Let us not hack away at these Bills.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, will the Hon. Member who has just spoken entertain a question?


Paul Edmund McRae: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, how can one expand universality without going into the galactic and cosmic? I thought universality was all-embracing. Perhaps the Hon. Member could explain.


Paul Edmund McRae: Sorry, I missed a word, Mr. Speaker. I heard the word "galactic" and then a word disappeared.


Donald W. Munro: It was cosmic.


Paul Edmund McRae: This is a semantic question. I assume universality means that in general a program is available to everyone, regardless of income. There are several programs of that kind in existence on which I depend. We also move away from universality, I admit, when we put out a guaranteed income supplement. 1 deplore that. To what extent? How does one get enough money to do all of these things? Therefore, there are some people who need more support and we have to do it that way. But still, 1 do not think there is any reason why we should abandon universality in the kind of programs we are talking about. For instance, I support the Child Tax Credit because essentially that is money going to very low-income families. But 1 also support the notion that all families should receive the basic Family Allowance.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of sadness to speak on this Bill to increase the number of people who will be below the poverty line. 1 would like to have given the pensioners of Canada a better gift than this just before Christmas.
Before I go into my remarks on the Bill, I want to follow up on the position taken by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-
01 d Age Security Act (No. 2)
Atikokan (Mr. McRae). He spent a considerable amount of time on universality, which he says the Government supports. I maintain that the Government has eroded the universality idea in every approach it has made in the Bills the Government has put before the House through Bill C-131, Bill C-132 and Bill C-133. The Government has failed in all of these Bills. It has failed on possibly the most important subject of universality, namely the subject of medicare. The Government has done this by allowing doctors to bill separately. The Government has allowed the undermining of the universality of medicare. The Government has made it selective as well as universal.
In Bill C-132, the Family Allowances Bill, the Government has also eroded the basic principle of universality. The Government has said: "Okay, everyone will get the Family Allowance, but we will also put in a Child Tax Credit". The Government is reducing the amount of universal Family Allowance and increasing the amount of the Child Tax Credit. The Government is plunking down on universality and is for selectivity. That is the basis under which the Government is operating.
Third, we are talking about the old age pension. The Old Age Security Act is a universal program. In this Bill, the Government is undermining and eroding that principle. The Government is reducing the amount of the Old Age Security, which is the universal part of the program, and it is increasing the effectiveness of the Guaranteed Income Supplement. I am not entirely against this, but if you are going to do nothing, doing it selectively is better than nothing. However, the basis of universality is being eroded by this Government right now. It is part of every Bill this Government has put forward in its series of six and five Bills.
The Bill before us is the one which limits the indexation of old age pensions to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent in 1984. This is kind of an insidious Bill. The people being affected by it do not really know what is going to happen to them. The limitation does not start until January. We hope now it may even be February or March if we can keep the Government from passing it. Many seniors do not even realize that a cutback is coming. Seniors will still get their pension cheques, but unless they are very up to date, seniors will not know that they will not be getting as much as they should have been getting. The difference between the December cheque and the January cheque and the January and February cheque will be less than it should have been. If they were going to keep their purchasing power at the level it was in December, they should have been getting more.
This Bill will reduce their incomes by close to $300 over a two-year period. Unless the amendment is passed, which we will support while voting against the Bill, the base of the old age pension will be reduced from now on. Not only will those who only receive the old age pension have the base reduced, but those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement as well

December 22, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
will be affected because their pensions will be lower in the future. Over one million pensioners will be directly affected and unless compensation is provided for the Guaranteed Income Supplement to a greater extent, all old age pensioners will be affected by this Bill.
Before I proceed to my main area of concern, I would like to return to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble). He talked about the so-called financial responsibility of the New Democratic Party since it has not been in power federally. I suggest that in the Province of Saskatchewan, where there has been either a CCF or NDP Government for approximately 38 years, when the NDP was in power during the last 11 years it did not have a substantial deficit. It had probably the most responsible fiscal policy of all Governments in Canada.
This year there is a Conservative Government is Saskatchewan which has added a $220 million deficit to the people of Saskatchewan. That is more than the total accumulated deficit of Saskatchewan Governments for the last 77 years. The Progressive Conservative Government accomplished this in one year. That is an example of the fiscal responsibility that the Hon. Member for York North was talking about.
It is interesting to note that the most negative reaction to all three of these Bills has come from the National Council of Welfare, which is a direct adviser to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). The Minister said on June 29:
The budget fully protects the lowest income Canadians and the working poor.
The Council issued a statement repudiating those remarks. It said:
We disagree. The June budget social policy aspects will adversely affect thousands of low income Canadians.
We have seen how well the Minister accepts the advice of that group which advises her.
Another critique on the effects of the budget was issued by the Canadian Council on Social Development. This is another group that is well qualified to make statements on the effects this kind of legislation will have on Canadians, particularly low-income Canadians. That group stated on July 26:
The budget contains many negative measures that will cause hardship and suffering to many Canadians who do not have the resources to protect themselves.	'
This comment and the previous comment about the budget were made by organizations who feel themselves responsible to outline the effects of this legislation.
In the face of this massive repudiation, one would think that the Minister of National Health and Welfare would heed those remarks. These were remarks from two of the foremost national welfare agencies in Canada which were speaking against the budget from which these Bills arise. How can the Minister in all conscience face the House of Commons when she knows that the people who advise her and have the best insight into the effects of this legislation are telling her that it is wrong? Her programs have been torn to shreds. Her important constituency advisers have repudiated her, including the
one appointed by the Government. Her defence to her own program has been thoroughly discredited. She has nothing left to lose in terms of credibility.
The only universality being practised by Members in the Government benches is their urge to cling to power. That urge to stay in power is the universal feeling the Government Party continuously clings to.
We can examine the results of this Government's attempt to stay in power. We should consider the arguments made by those two agencies, the National Council of Welfare and the Canadian Council on Social Development. If we look at their remarks on these Bills, we can see that they point out that a single pensioner can lose the Guaranteed Income Supplement if they have an income of $6,123. Once a pensioner earns that amount, the Guaranteed Income Supplement is lost. These Councils also point out that a pensioner who earns $9,200 yearly will lose the maximum of $388 by the end of the restraint period. These peole will be living on incomes which are below the poverty line. Nothing that the Government says or does will help them climb above that poverty line. Even those who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement are living below the poverty line at this time by $500.
Regardless of what is said about the effects of this Bill, it will ultimately take food, heat, clothing and other amenities away from these pensioners. They will be making the same kind of sacrifice as people earning larger incomes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Hon. President of the Privy Council on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to offer our sincere best wishes to all of the staff of the House of Commons, the Table, and to you, Mr. Speaker, your assistants, your superiors and our colleagues on both sides of the House. I hope that these holidays will be productive and that everyone will come back in to shape to end the session on January 17. On behalf of the Government, I therefore wish everyone a Merry Christmas.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the wishes extended by the President of the Privy Council.
I want to thank all the staff of the House of Commons who have worked for us and our country. Finally, to all my colleagues on both sides of the House, I wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My colleagues are asking me to state my remarks in French, but I have decided to wait until next year to do that!
I also want to join with the Government House Leader and the spokesman for the Conservative Party in wishing to all who serve us and to those who are interested in what we do, and whom we serve, the very merriest of Christmases. I hope that
December 22, 1982

in the year 1983 we will be able to better fulfil and live up to their expectations, that there will indeed be prosperity in the land, and that everyone who is currently faced with difficult times will find their wishes fulfilled.
I want to say to the people who serve the House of Commons that without them this place could never operate. Their contribution is one which provides the public of Canada with what it requires. 1 would say to Hon. Members on all sides that we in the New Democratic Party hope that they enjoy the brief respite from the work of the House of Commons, that they will enjoy their time with friends and families and their visit with constituents, and that when they return we will be able to get down to the business of the nation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mir. Pinard: As far as House business is concerned, when we come back on January 17 I want to put on the record that we
Business of the House
will be dealing with Bill C-133 on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Fiday and so on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before 1 read the adjournment motion, if I may 1 would like to thank all Hon. Members for the good wishes they extended to the Chair and all its occupants and reciprocate by wishing everyone in the House of Commons Hon. Members and staff, the season's greetings-

Season's greetings to one and all and a very happy New Year.
Under the new rules, it being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3 this House stands adjourned until Monday, January 17, 1983, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, January 17, 1983