1982-11-25

MOTIONS UNDER S.O. 43   WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND FINANCING OF COUNTRY-WIDE PROJECTS

['No.']
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, last night on "The Journal" television program the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that a portion of the Western Development Fund would be used to finance housing for Indians living in western Canada. On November 3, 1982, Senator Jack Austin confirmed in the Senate that this expenditure was in fact national in scope. Like the payment of funds to farmers for losses as a result of the Soviet grain embargo, this is another example of how the federal Government is trying to delude the people of western Canada into believing that a fund for western development actually exists. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House asks the Minister of Finance to get his facts straight concerning the Western Development Fund and that he admit that money from this Fund will be spent across Canada, not just in the West as promised.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Canada Development Investment Corporation yesterday added to its portfolio of losers not only doubtful investments such as Massey-Ferguson, but also equally doubtful personages such as that well-known Grit who made a million dollars out of the Petro-Canada takeover of Petrofina, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hastings-Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet):
That this House deplores the octopus-like growth of the CDIC with its tentacles of Liberal patronage extending into every aspect of the Canadian economy.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN AND SOUTH AFRICAN PARTICIPATION IN VETERAN ATHLETES CHAMPIONSHIP
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. The Canadian Masters Athletic Association has decided to allow its members to enter the 1983 World Association of Veteran Athletes Championship in Puerto Rico despite South African participation. Since the Canadian Government signed the Gleneagles Agreement on Apartheid in Sports, which commits the Government to combat apartheid by withholding support for any form of, and taking every practical step to discourage, contact or competition between Canadian and South African athletes, and since the CM A A receives funds from Fitness and Amateur Sports, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the Government endorse its policy against sporting links with South Africa and prevail upon the Canadian Masters Athletic Association to reverse its position which permits competition with South African athletes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PETRO-CANADA SERVICE IN RURAL AREAS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of urgent and pressing necessity. Recently an independent owner/operator, a Petro-Canada franchise dealer, informed me that as of the new year Petro-Canada is eliminating his franchise as his location did not suit Petro-Canada's image. In view of the fact that this franchise has existed over a decade and Petro-Canada has

November 25, 1982
spent thousands of dollars renovating its own stations, and also in view of the fact that this station is an independent dealer located in a rural area, the only Petro-Canada station for a 60 mile radius, and that this move will greatly inconvenience residents, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House request the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to investigate the reduction of service by Petro-Canada in rural areas and instruct the Crown corporation, Petro-Canada, to re-examine its relationship with small business so as not to add to Canada's unacceptable high unemployment rate.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in his various wanderings about the country keeps repeating to business audiences that we must rely on the dynamism and creativity of the private sector. I therefore move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Finance show good faith by accepting the suggestions of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and, in particular, reinstate general averaging, reinstate full capital cost allowances, abolish the 12.5 per cent tax on small business dividends, and abolish the capital gains tax.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House present the Weathervane Award to the Hon. Members for Ottawa-Vanier and Vaudreuil for having already changed their minds twice on legislation which will reduce the pensions of retired Public Servants before the bill is even debated in this House, and as well present them with the Abraham Lincoln Award for devotion to principles for telling an audience of over 1,000 retired Public Servants that they would fight to protect their purchasing power but then changing their minds when the audience had gone home, and further that this House hold two more awards ready for the Hon. Members for Ottawa Centre and Ottawa West when they receive their marching orders.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, in 1953 Simon Akpaliapiak was hired by the Government to help in a resettlement project on Ellesmere Island and has to date never been paid. He wishes now to be paid as his contract was never terminated. He feels his work is complete and would like to return home to Pond Inlet. One problem is that he cannot afford to do so. Another is that two federal Departments, the RCMP and the Department of Indian Affairs, cannot determine which is responsible. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCu-ish):
That these two Departments search their records, assume their responsibility, pay this individual for work done, and see that he can return to the home he left 30 years ago on government business.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, given that West Coast draggers are presently harvesting hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollock which cannot be sold through Canadian fish plants because of a restriction against pollock exports, imposed by British Columbia Fisheries Regulations No. 7.1, and whereas this regulation is denying income to many fishermen and shore workers at a time of unprecedented unemployment and financial hardship, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Surrey-V/hite Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That British Columbia General Regulation 7.1, which prohibits the export of pollock fish in the round, be suspended immediately so that West Coast fishermen can earn much needed income from the abundant stocks of this valuable food resource.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 25, 1982


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, Dennis McDermott, President of the CLC, and some say extra-parliamentary leader of the New Democratic Party, has called on two million union members to join a political crusade to destroy the Liberal Party. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Parliament, the Hon. Member for Oshawa, co-ordinate his parliamentary tactics with the pronouncements of Mr. McDermott in order to achieve this worthy objective; since for years, as the House knows, NDP Members of Parliament have been propping up, aiding and abetting in every respect, the Liberal Party's grip on power.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In spite of urgent pleas by Canadian churches and the Canadian Government, the UN High Commission for Refugees has refused to send more representatives to Honduras, where Honduran troops have stepped up their attacks on Salvadoran refugees, and their invasions of El Salvador to attack the Salvadorans who resist El Salvador's police state. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs request the UN High Commission for Refugees to reverse its decision and send more representatives to protect the Salvadoran refugees, and to observe the border activities of the Honduran army; and that the Minister also urge the Government of Honduras, which receives generous aid from Canada, to sign the UN Convention on Refugees.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43. In view of the takeover by the CDIC of Crown corporations and ailing private-sector companies, which was announced yesterday, to be led by the men who gave us the Canadian ownership charge of 4.5 cents per gallon imposed to permit Petro-Canada to purchase Petrofina
Oral Questions
from the Belgians, now to save Dome from itself, and next to float the sinking subsidiaries of CDIC, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House conclude that
With Austin, Strong and Bell
The public sector is going to hell;
With deals that startle by smell
The country is clearly not well;
Canadians now toil for Joel Bell,
Their land is Strong's-it's time to rebel.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EDUCATION
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the presidents of Canadian universities have expressed dismay and deep concern at continuing federal-provincial disagreement over the funding of post-secondary education and the definition of objectives for higher learning. The future of Canada's universities and colleagues is in jeopardy as a result of restraint programs and governmental neglect. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House direct the Government of Canada to honour the public commitments made by the former Secretary of State to maintain the vitality and strength of post-secondary institutions in Canada, and to protect the educational future of Canadian university students.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. It is in connection with the expansion of the role of the Canada Development Investment Corporation. The Government has created a "Bail-Can" here, a group of companies some of which are profitable and some of which are stretcher cases. I direct my question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. Is it the objective of the Government, in creating CDIC, to apply the profits of companies such as CDC and Teleglobe to the losses of companies such as Canadair and Massey-Ferguson, and in so doing avoid

November 25, 1982
Oral Questions
the painful exercise of coming to Parliament for money to bail out the great mistakes of these corporations?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, in his question, the Hon. Member has shown that he is a little confused about the Government's objective in giving this mandate to its new holding company. The Hon. Member wondered whether the purpose was to transfer funds from certain corporations that are making a profit to others that are less profitable. The Government's objective is, first of all, to provide for stricter management of shares held by the Canadian government in the Canada Development Corporation, and also to provide for stricter management of other commercial corporations that are wholly owned by the Government of Canada. The Government also intends to offer opportunities to private companies that might be interested in a joint venture with the government, both with respect to ownership and management. Thus, by diversifying ownership of companies and by increasing management control through the expertise that will be provided by the people heading this new corporation, we will improve the financial well-being of corporations that may be experiencing difficulties, and we will be giving the private sector an opportunity to obtain an interest in corporations that are financially more attractive.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand where the Minister of National Revenue comes in on this particular topic.


PRIVATIZATION OF CROWN CORPORATIONS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the former President of the Treasury Board, in the first speech he made after he became the Minister, said that he was going to follow the policies proposed by the Government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to privatize Crown corporations. Since then nothing has happened, even though there have been many opportunities.
Can the Prime Minister give any assurances, such as giving specific deadlines of when companies will be privatized, or is this CDIC just another example of the same old Liberal shell game of shuffling mistakes around to make it appear things are being done, but in fact the whole process is simply one of hiding gross errors?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to apologize to the Hon. Member and explain why I rose in the House just now. The reason is that the minister responsible for this corporation sits in the Senate, and thus the Prime Minister asked me to
answer in the House on behalf of this new corporation, namely, the Canada Development Investment Corporation. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in view of his experience in business and the capital markets, he ought to know that it would not necessarily be very wise from the financial point to set definite dates for the partial or total privatization of a company that is owned by the Government of Canada. He knows perfectly well that where diversification of ownership or privatization of a company is concerned, the government must try to get the best possible return on these assets, and that in such cases, it must consider market conditions and wait until those conditions and any offers made have been assessed in terms of the resulting return on the investment made by all Canadians in these corporations.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think the translation of that is yes, it is the same old Liberal shell game.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the three men who are most involved in this Corporation are Senator Austin, Maurice Strong, and Joel Bell. Over the past few years these men have been characterized as socialist entrepreneurs who have been closely associated with increasing the role of Government and involvement of the state in industry, and increasing the socialist approach to Government. Can the Minister tell the House if there is any possible reason why the CDIC should be in the hands of the Minister of State for Social Development apart from advancing the known philosophical objectives of these three men of increasing Government involvement and the role of the state?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is mistaken in his assessment of these people. Management has always been their strong point, as well as their ability to put into practice the policies formulated by the Government. In this particular case, the Government's policy is to provide for stricter management of its commercial corporations and of shares held by the Government, and these individuals, who are top management people, have the ability to bring to this new corporation the essence of the strict management practices they have demonstrated in the past. In addition, the Government also wishes to attract participation by private companies in these commercial corporations, and I am sure that since the people involved have an excellent reputation in the business world, they will be able to attract capable management executives and to interest the private sector in the Government's diversification policy.
November 25, 1982


TERMS OF CHAIRMAN'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. We all know the excellence in management that we have had from these particular people. Let us deal with Mr. Maurice Strong who obtained a $1 million fee for negotiating the purchase of Petrofina at twice its market value. That is excellent management. Could the Minister advise us if part of Mr. Strong's employment contract is that he move back to Canada, and bring his Geneva bank account back to Canada?
Will the Minister advise if Mr. Strong, in his part-time capacity, will be able to continue to negotiate on behalf of Canada or otherwise for his usual $1 million fee schedule in buying and selling Crown corporations?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the question put by the Hon. Member has demonstrated that he is not really serious in his approach to issues that are of vital concern to all Canadians. The people who have been responsible for operating, managing and directing the new corporation, as I indicated earlier, are very high calibre management executives, who in the past have demonstrated their ability to carry out the mandates entrusted to them by the Government of Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let us get off Mr. Strong for a moment. He is the fellow who cost us money twice for Petrofina.


TERMS OF PRESIDENT'S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I should like to talk about Joel Bell now. He is the person who has absolutely no experience in the private enterprise field. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that Mr. Bell has insisted on a ten-year no-cut contract to take over this Corporation on the basis that he is afraid there will be a change in Government. Would the Minister advise Mr. Bell right now that, no matter what his contract says, he will not be receiving any fancy separation allowances just because of his political connections?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware that the terms of remuneration of employees and people working under contract in such areas are confidential, and he will understand why I shall not comment on his question.
Oral Questions


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. As the Minister knows, in the past 12 months we have lost more than 500,000 jobs in the Canadian economy. Yesterday the Conference Board predicted that we will continue to have massive lay-offs this winter and throughout the coming year. Instead of waiting for the paltry new programs the Government announced for job creation, which come into effect in January, is the Minister prepared to show some urgency by announcing some new Government job creation programs to give Canadians hope before Christmas that they can get jobs?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member's conversion to not wanting a greater deficit was not so recent, I might have forgotten it. The fact is that 1 see no possibility of starting Public Works projects without substantially increasing the deficit.
There is one technique which we suggested in Bill C-91, that is, to go through the lease/purchase option which would in fact allow us to create considerable activities in certain parts of the country. Perhaps the Hon. Member will want to convince the people on his right, those in the Official Opposition, that if they can forget their hang-ups about some of the construction in Hull and look at this Bill on its merits, they might want to pass it.


John Edward Broadbent: Indeed, I suggested to the Government, within its accepted fiscal framework, a proposal for creating new jobs.


SUGGESTED MUNICIPAL CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that a short time ago the Minister received a letter from me outlining a proposal for a $400 million municipal capital works project, and that in another context I have made a specific suggestion about where the Government could obtain revenue to finance it, will the Minister indicate to the House whether he is prepared to embark upon such an imaginative program which would provide pay cheques for people who are working, rather than unemployment cheques for people who are doing nothing? Will the Government take some kind of new initiative?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, when the figures are published on the take-up of the home owning grants, I believe the Hon. Member will realize that our efforts to stimulate that sector have been more successful than I suspect we even dared hope.
On the question of public works projects, the Hon. Member should know that if we had the money in the budget of Public
COMMONS DEBATES_______________ November 25, 1982
Oral Questions
Works we would be ready to put development plans into effect very, very quickly.


REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, considering that the Government's annouced NEED Program will provide only 20,000 jobs over the next six months for people who are coming off unemployment insurance benefits, and will not provide a single job for the more than 1.5 million Canadians who remain unemployed and would like to have an opportunity to work, and considering that the municipalities have indicated that there is a need well beyond what the Government has recognized in terms of its funding, and that Canadians would like to have jobs now, will the Government, before the new year, bring in a municipal capital works project of significant proportions to provide jobs for Canadians who want them?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, as Minister responsible for public works and housing, I have asked my people to prepare for the eventuality when infrastructure money or other programs could be put into effect. We are doing that. If the financial situation were such that money is made available to us, we would be in a position to spend it very quickly.


GATT CONFERENCE-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As he knows, the 88 Trade Ministers are now meeting in Geneva for the first time in nine years under the terms of the GATT Agreement, and the meeting is chaired by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, our fugitive from Finance. That Minister said at Geneva, and I quote him, "Protectionist policies, by obstructing internaional trade, are accumulatively destructive of employment," meaning jobs, "and, by undermining efficiency exacerbate inflation," meaning increased inflation. Is this the Government's policy and belief? If so, will the Government now eliminate its own protective policy which it has adopted and that we have seen evidence of in recent months?
Did the Government, in preparing for this very important meeting consult, with the U.S. Government? Have we developed a joint strategy with the United States, and are we working with the U.S. in that Government's attempt to liberalize world trade?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, in terms of consultation, this subject has come up at least at the two most recent Summits which Canadian representatives attended, first at Versailles and then in Montebello. On both of those occasions Canada was one of the strongest voices in fighting against any tendency toward protectionism.
We all know the evils that the beggar-my-neighbour policies caused in the 1930s, and I think it is fair to say that the industrialized countries, particularly the Summit Seven, are very concerned about the possibility of a return to that type of protectionism. That is the role the Secretary of State for External Affairs is taking as Chairman of the Conference, but that is more particularly the role which the Minister responsible for international trade will be playing as head of the Canadian delegation in the Geneva meetings.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said that we have been a strong voice for the elimination of protectionism, and for free trade. Is our Government going to act, in addition to having a strong voice, because if the Government acts differently than it says, then that is hypocrisy and it does not persuade anyone? In the future is this to be the guiding principle and will it be acted on by the Government?


JOINT STRATEGY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my query as to whether we have developed a joint strategy with the United States. If not, are we trying to develop a joint strategy with the European Economic Community with whom he has a contractual arrangement? Is that contractual arrangement worth anything, because today people are taking a very protective attitude at Geneva? Are we co-ordinating and do we have a joint strategy with the United States? If not, do we have a joint strategy with the European Economic Community? Will the Prime Minister tell us whether we are going to act to eliminate protectionism and help free trade, in addition to voicing that principle which is so often not observed and breached?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in terms of a joint strategy I thought I had indicated in my reply that the Seven Summit countries and, indeed, the European Economic Community representatives, tried to establish such a strategy, and that Canada was part of it. Naturally within that over-all strategy of fighting collectively against protectionist trends, Canada's strategy is mainly to protect itself. I discussed these matters with the European leaders whom I met last week, the German Chancellor, the French President and Prime Minister. We are aware of some general willingness to act together in this, but I would not say that the strategy will be the same in all cases for everyone.
In so far as lowering our protectionist barriers is concerned,
I would be the first to admit that there are some protectionist barriers erected by Canada in the case of some very soft industries, like textiles, the leather industry, and the clothing industry. This is true, I believe, for just about every industrialized country. Certainly it is true in the case of textiles for the U.S. to a much more massive degree than for Canada. We are all sensitive to this reality and that is why Canada, in particular, is trying to phase out even those protectionist measures. We hope we will be successful, but I will not pretend that we
November 25, 1982

can overnight withdraw all protection to these particular industries and still indicate our concern for the Canadian economy.
I do not believe seriously that Hon. Members opposite would propose that all quotas be lifted immediately in those particular areas. If such is their policy, I would challenge them to make it clear. If such is not their policy, they are just as protectionist as I am, which is to say not very much.


LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister responsible for International Trade. The United States International Trade Commission has found that imported Canadian lumber may be injurious to the U.S. lumber industry. Will Canada oppose any American move to block Canadian lumber exports, and what does the Minister intend to do about it?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, as far as this question is concerned, the Government of Canada, in co-operation with the provincial governments and especially with industry, has already notified the American authorities that we do not agree with the preliminary finding which alleges that a subsidy was attached to provincial royalties with respect to logging operations. A joint representation has been made to the American authorities. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has mentioned the matter directly to the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. Schultz. Last week, when the Minister of State for International Trade was visiting Washington, he, too, mentioned this to the American Secretary of State for Trade, and we are continuing our joint lobby with the provinces and industry to prevent this preliminary finding regarding a possible subsidy from going any further, but in any case, the U.S. Administration will not be making a decision much earlier than March or April.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his encouraging report. I am sure the Minister is as aware as 1 am of the very serious effect that this major export market has on the Canadian lumber industry, particularly in the Atlantic provinces and in British Columbia.


UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, the U.S. Administration's response has been to show some degree of concern with respect to a large number of protectionist measures the U.S. Congress seems to be about to propose at the present time. Their response was not much more detailed than that. We have already advised the GATT committee in charge of complaints that this could become a problem in relations between Canada and the U.S., and that if the U.S. Administration found that there was a subsidy in royalties for logging operations in Canada, the entire question would be brought before GATT. We have advised GATT that we do not agree with this allegation.
* *
*


FINANCE
Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of representations by the life insurance industry, can the Minister confirm whether draft legislation containing proposed income tax amendments affecting taxation of insurance will be tabled in the House of Commons in the near future?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I indicated in a previous answer that my intention was to table a draft bill on this particular subject for consideration and discussion. However, pursuant to meetings which the Minister of State for Finance, my Parliamentary Secretary, and I have had with representatives of the industry, along with representations made to the parliamentary committee and to my caucus, as well as representations made by the Hon. Members for Kitchener, London West and London East, we have made such good progress that I will be able to table amendments to the Income Tax Act in early December, together with the Ways and Means Motion, which will include the various amendments to the life insurance proposal.


John Carnell Crosbie: Retreat No. 43.


Marc Lalonde: I hope they will be satisfactory to all Members of the House, particularly to those Members on the Government side who have done such good work on the subject.
* *
*


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Acting Minister responsible for International Trade. In addition to the representations he has made, can the Minister indicate to us what the American response has been, and will the matter be raised at the GATT meetings that are now going on in Geneva?


STUDY OF PERSONS EXPOSED TO ATOMIC RADIATION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It relates to Canadian atomic veterans and civilians who have petitioned and appealed to the Government to

November 25, 1982
Oral Questions
undertake a comprehensive medical study to attempt to determine whether the health problems they are experiencing relate to their exposure to radiation. The Government made a commitment last June to fund the study and that it would be released wihtin six months.
It now appears that the study has not been approved and, in the event it is approved, it will not go forward until January. It seems that restraint has drastically cut the proposed study to the point where it is useless in terms of providing new information on the subject, and useless in terms of providing assistance to the veterans and civilians who are now applying for pensions before the Workmen's Compensation Board. These people are moving but their cases are being turned down out of hand because they do not have the supporting information.
Could the Minister explain to the House how the Government's commitment went sour, and what she intends to do to ensure, through her Department, that adequate funding is put forward to make this comprehensive medical study a reality and assist those veterans and civilians who have served the country?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the information I have received is to the effect that in recent months, since the spring, we have had discussions with the interested parties. We reiterated several times that the NHRDP, which is a program of applied health research in my Department, might be the best funding agency for a proposal answering the question put by the Member. Unfortunately, the doctors who were supposed to apply and put forward a proposal did not do so under that particular branch of my Department.
However, my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has commissioned a study to look into that matter. He is not in the House today so I cannot give more details to the Hon. Member, but I will accept questions with pleasure and look for information.


Raymond John Skelly: I think the basic problem with the approach is that this is a serious health problem not only affecting veterans but civilians who have approached the Workmen's Compensation Board on the same grounds. They are waiting for appeals to proceed and cannot do so without it. The Minister said that the commitment was made-it was made six months ago.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Raymond John Skelly: Will the Minister give us a commitment that it is not the restraint within her Department that is holding this study back, and say that the Government failed to consult with the veterans, with the result that we have a study, which is now in its format stage, that will be absolutely useless? Will the Minister give us a commitment that adequate funds will be put up to do the job, and that there will be detailed consultations with the veterans so they will
know that the study will relate to their applications for pensions? Can she give us those hard commitments as far as the responsibility relates to her Department?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I can answer that the study will be useful and that there has been no restraint whatsoever in any of my medical research programs on this particular proposal.
The other points are simply not even accurate and not of any interest as far as I am concerned. The only point on which I do not have an answer and on which I will have to consult my colleagues is the question concerning past consultation with veterans. I am not sure, and I will check that point.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. 1 am sure the Minister is aware that B.C. Hydro plans to establish a storage dump for very toxic PCBs at the site of the Peace Canyon Dam at Hudson Hope, British Columbia. Has the Minister given his approval to B.C. Hydro for the site and, if so, does he not think that a storage dump for PCBs on the banks of a river in a major watershed is a ridiculous place for a storage dump? Does he not realize that 8,000 to 10,000 containers of PCBs stored in an old warehouse, on the banks of a major river, with the resulting dangers of rust and leakage, threaten to contaminate not only the Peace River but the Athabasca Delta which is one of the largest freshwater deltas in the world?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, of course the management of PCBs and the problem that the PCBs pose to us are a matter of great concern to us. This is a matter not only of national concern but international concern.
The Hon. Member has cited a particular case. I am glad that he has brought it to my attention. I do not have a specific reply at my fingertips but I will look into the matter as quickly as I can and give him as many details as possible.


Jack Wendele Shields: For the Minister's information, apparently the dumps in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia are full, and therefore B.C. Hydro is going to establish a dump on the banks of the Peace River.


REQUEST THAT OFFICIAL ATTEND CITIZENS' MEETING
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, there will be a meeting in the community hall at Hudson Hope at 7.30 p.m. on November 30. It is an information meeting for the citizens of Hudson Hope. Will the Minister be sending a senior representative from his Department to that meeting?
November 25, 1982


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am certainly tempted to say yes, but I would like to verify some more details before I make a decision.


WELFARE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I, and other Members of Parliament, are informed daily of cases where welfare is refusing to assist even those in dire straits. Will the Minister consider, if not increasing the federal Government's share of the welfare payments, immediately negotiating with the Provinces and municipalities to increase the over-all level of payments? Something must be done to tide people over until NEED and other programs take effect?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I have heard, without any examples, rumours to that effect. That is why I published an insert with all of the Family Allowance cheques to Canadians in September which explained their right to welfare and the mechanism to which they must apply if welfare is ever refused. I cannot act directly on it myself, but if any case which is known to Members is reported to me, I will direct them to the proper provincial Minister of Welfare to make absolutely sure the basic rights of people are covered.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONSULT COLLEAGUE
William C. Scott: Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare discuss with her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, how they can, together, be of some assistance to those who cannot wait for a cheque in the few months ahead, so they can put food on the table for their children?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is not at all aware of how the welfare system functions. That mechanism is already in existence. It is called welfare. It is a provincial program, and there is assistance for people in emergency situations, or "un systeme de depannage" which is part of regular welfare to help do exactly that. I automatically reimburse 50 per cent of these costs. That mechanism does exist.
Since the Member began with an accusation which is quite serious, if he has any cases of people who have been denied welfare, please report them. It is the right of the poorest in our society, and we will protect them.
Oral Questions ENERGY


MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES OFF NEWFOUNDLAND SHORE
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. On November 23 the Prime Minister wrote a letter to a St. John's newspaper and indicated that the federal Government was reassessing its position on the offshore question. In the interest of resuming negotiations, is the Government of Canada prepared to soften its position, since it has taken a very hard position on the question of joint management?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, did the Hon. Member read that I said I was reassessing my position?


POSSIBLE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said this in the letter:
Since the Supreme Court hearing has been set back to February 22, I believe that we have yet another chance to review our positions.
This indicates, of course, that the Government of Canada was doing just that in the next sentence, reviewing its position. In reviewing the position of the Government of Canada, is the Prime Minister prepared, in the interest of resuming negotiations and settling this dispute, to soften the position of the federal Government on joint management? Is he prepared to enter into a position with the Government of Newfoundland where there will be real joint management in which no side will control the management board?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not propose to negotiate this matter with the Hon. Member, respected as he is in the House. I have met Mr. Peckford. This letter says that I am prepared to meet him again. Since he is the one who called for greater delay from the Supreme Court, other than procrastination, which I do not suspect him of, it must be that he has something more to say. Therefore, I would suggest that when I said "review our positions"-it is the famous "s" that we discussed yesterday- I think if he is prepared to review his position I would be prepared to review mine. He is the one who asked for this delay, I suppose because he thinks he wants to make another proposal.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. A large number of applications are being made by Canadians to the Government's housing assistance programs as exemplified in the Homebuyers Grant Program and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. There is now a large

November 25, 1982
Oral Questions
backlog of applications, partly due to a shortage of staff in Canada Mortgage and Housing, and partly because the funds will be exhausted with the success of the Programs. Given these facts, would the Minister take action to eliminate the staff shortages at CMHC so it can deal with the applications more expeditiously, and would he consider increasing the funds available for these kinds of programs so that Canadians who want to use them can have their applications considered?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, on the two issues, as to the question of backlog, yes, I recognize that the volume of applications is putting a heavy load on our CMHC staff. I was speaking to one regional group earlier in the week and some of the employees were coming in in the evening, even though they were not being paid for that time. I recognize that, and to their credit they have tried to deal very quickly and effectively with the problem. In some cases they have taken on additional persons. As the Hon. Member knows it is not easy to bring somebody in on a short contract basis to make judgment on some of these rather complicated forms.
On the second item, the Hon. Member knows that the Minister of Finance announced a prolongation of the program for existing and new houses until the end of the present calendar year, and for new houses only until the end of April, 1983, and I will stand by his statement.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, given the fact that we have a million and a half unemployed, and given the fact that we have close to 200,000 construction workers who could be working and producing and paying taxes rather than drawing unemployment insurance, would not the Minister at least urge his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to increase the amount of money and extend the time under which these programs are to operate, so we can begin to make an appreciable reduction in the exorbitantly high number of unemployed we have at the present time?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that the level of take-up of the programs is in fact creating some problem of backlog. The figures that have been granted to the two programs mentioned by the Hon. Member, appear to be quite adequate, if one judges by the number of applications that are coming to us.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns an article that appeared in the
newspaper La Presse and refers to a statement made by the Quebec Minister of Finance with respect to Bill S-31. The article appeared under the heading: After twenty years, efforts of Quebec government threatened, and quotes Minister Parizeau. The article also mentions several Quebec companies. I wonder if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could inform the House whether the allegations of the Quebec minister have any basis in fact.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that Bill S-31 does not prevent the Government of Quebec from helping a Quebec company. In fact, it can do so in many ways. Mr. Parizeau's opposition to Bill S-31 appears to be based on false premises. 1 fail to understand why Mr. Parizeau insists on becoming coowner of a Quebec company in order to help it. We, that is, the Government of Canada, recently gave Bombardier some very special assistance, without, however, demanding a seat on the board of directors or shares in the company in return.


NATIONAL PARKS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Parks Canada and responsible for the deal for Judd Buchanan and his friends. The Minister has said that the decision on the land transfer was taken in September. However, the building permit was not issued until November 16, issued by an official who has resigned because he was acting under coercion, and issued 12 days after the Banff-Lake Louise Chamber of Commerce had expressed their objection.
The Minister has said there are legal obligations that the Government must honour.
Will the Minister tell the House, what is the exact nature of that legal obligation and does that obligation arise from the decision respecting the land transfers, or does it arise from the issuance of the permit?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I am not sure, not being a lawyer, that I could give the Right Hon. Gentleman a legal opinion, even if that were a proper thing for me to do. What I can do is report to him that I did ask my officials to look into the legal possibilities, and 1 was told that by virtue of the agreement that had been made in mid-September it was not possible to undertake the revision or the rescission of that decision without risking the kind of legal consequences which 1 have already described to the House yesterday.
November 25, 1982


REASON FOR DECISION TO MAKE LAND TRANSFER
Charles Joseph Clark: The reply of the Minister is a little more vague than yesterday. He talks about legal risks. There may well not be a legal liability. He says he does not know or, if he knows, he is not telling us. But whatever there is apparently relates to the decision regarding the transfer of land.
Will the Minister tell the House of Commons why that decision was taken, and will he give us an immediate undertaking now to publish all representations and all other information, including records of telephone calls between Mr. Buchanan and himself, or between Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Buchanan's agents and anyone in the Department that affected that decision?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as I have already I think clearly indicated to the Right hon. gentleman and to the House, the reason why the decision to make the swap was made was because Parks Canada officials and experts believed that that exchange was in the best interests of Parks Canada and the Banff townsite.
I do not propose to undertake the kind of fishing expedition that the Right hon. gentleman has described. If the Right hon. gentleman has any reason to believe that there is a specific and verifiable wrongdoing by any individual in this case, let him make that allegation. Let him make it now. If he is not prepared to do so, let him cease attacks which are nothing more than smear and innuendo, not simply against me but against Privy Councillors who are not in this House to defend themselves, and which relate to private citizens as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTHORITY FOR ISSUING BUILDING PERMIT
Charles Joseph Clark: The
Minister first blames his officials. He says it was their decision, and he is not going to inquire into it.
Secondly, he refuses to make available to the House of Commons the information, including records of telephone calls, between himself and Judd Buchanan or other interested parties, which would allow the House of Commons, which is the ultimate body to make these decisions, to know exactly what went on.
I repeat my question to the Minister. Will he table all of those documents? If not, why will he not table them?
While I am on my feet, let me ask him another question. He will know that Mr. Tom Ross, the Acting Superintendent of Banff National Park, and Mr. Lee Racine, the official who resigned because he felt he had been coerced to make a bad decision, both of those gentlemen said they took the decision because they were instructed to do so by the Calgary office. The Director of the Calgary office, Mr. Lightfoot, said "We do not recommend issuance of building permits. I don't have that right." So he did not issue the order. He did not apply the coercion. Who applied the coercion, and why?
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman, clearly, having been asked if he had any specific and verifiable allegation of wrongdoing to make, has not done so. What he has done again is smeared officials of my Department. His conduct I consider to be irresponsible, dishonourable, and contemptible.
In terms of the specific questions which he posed, I have at no time blamed any of my officials for an action which they took in relation to this issue, nor is there, to the best of my knowledge, any telephone call from Mr. Buchanan nor indeed from anybody else on this subject. It may be the practice of the Right Hon. Member to record and take notes on calls that are made to him by private citizens, but it is not my practice to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: As far, Madam Speaker, as the decision on the issuance of the permit, it was made by the Parks Canada officials who are responsible for so doing. It was not an instruction which came from me; it was not an instruction which came from my office. It was a decision which was taken by the Parks Canada officials who are responsible for those decisions. If he believes specifically otherwise, let him say so specifically-


Mr. Taylor:: I say so, now.


John (Moody) Roberts: -and let him do it in a way which is verifiable.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DECISION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister well knows that public servants cannot be questioned in this House. Ministers can be. The decision was taken by a Department for which this Minister replies in this House. He cannot evade that responsibility by saying he has not asked the questions. He has an obligation to ask questions, and this House has an obligation to know what exactly led to a decision which was opposed by people in the Park, and which was imposed by coercion upon officials in the Park. Therefore I repeat my question to the Minister. If he has nothing to hide, if this is a normal transaction, will he make an undertaking now to publish all information, including records of calls or records of representations that led to that decision, and if not, will he tell us what it is that he is trying to hide?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, there is nothing to hide. I have been in this House for three days answering as fully as I can, and as directly as I can, all of the questions which Hon. Members have put to me. I am prepared to continue to do so if they wish to pose more questions. It appears to me contrary to the public interest. If there is any specific fact, or if there is any specific question which they wish to ask that they feel I have not replied to, I will be happy to receive it in the House or in writing, but I am not

November 25, 1982
Business of the House
going to accept that we should engage in some wild fishing I do not foresee a lengthy debate on the matter. In fact 1 expedition when I get the kind of wild, unsubstantiated,	would not even describe it as a debate, but rather a discussion
smearing statements which come from the hon. gentlemen	I suggest that the Government House Leader might set it
opposite.	down for a short dayj ejther a Wednesday or a Friday, with the
assurance that we do not intend to require a division and that
we intend to support the motion.
[ Translation]


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, November 24, 1982, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader. He was good enough to inform me this morning that today we would be proceeding with Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, and the legislation which would follow if that were disposed of. I wonder if he would be kind enough to outline the business that the House will be dealing with tomorrow and for as far into next week as he can.
While he is doing that, would he also inform the House when he intends to call the motion standing in his name, commencing at page 3 and going over to page 4 of today's Order Paper, dealing with the third report of the special committee dealing with parliamentary reform. I ask him that because 1 anticipate that the House will want to express its views on the very excellent work that was done by committee Members from all sides of the House in producing that third report, and I assure him at the same time that we will be supporting the motion to concur in that report.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We will be supporting the motion. We have no intention of requiring any division.


Mr. Pinard:: How long will it be debated?


Erik Nielsen: I will get to that in a moment. We want to see it adopted before Christmas so that we can commence the experimental period that has been recommended by the special committee. We believe, however, that the House will want to express its views on the very excellent work done by that committee and to express our understanding of the intent of the committee and its report with respect to the implementation of that experimental period.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I welcome the openmindedness expressed by the Hon. Member. I thank him and his colleagues for having expressed support for the unanimous report of the special committee on parliamentary reform. As he well knows, we on this side very much support that experiment. We would like to know as early as possible when the whole House will approve this motion so that we can prepare the work necessary to implement the experiment on time. Some work will have to be done within the coming days and weeks in order to prepare the new committee size, and so on. Therefore, the sooner the motion is adopted, the better.
I welcome the offer made by the Hon. Member. I conclude from his remarks that this motion will be brought forward and adopted within a day. He even mentioned a short day. I will be generous with him. If he agrees to a House Order that this motion be adopted at the end of a day, as he said, I will call that motion on Monday so that as many Members as possible have an opportunity to speak on the motion, and by ten o'clock on Monday night this reform will be accepted by Parliament and the experiment will commence December 22. If he confirms that, it will help me to establish the order of business for the coming days.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we have no problem with that suggestion by the Government House Leader. Indeed, we see no reason for there being a House Order. I am stating to the Government House Leader as House Leader for the Opposition in the House that he has the undertaking of the Opposition that Monday will be quite satisfactory for a full day's debate. As a matter of fact, it is a generous offer by the Government House Leader. We will come to a conclusion.
Having said that, I think there is ground for a useful discussion with respect to implementation. We missed our House Leaders meeting this morning. Otherwise, I would have raised it at that time. Perhaps we can meet later today or tomorrow to discuss one problem, more by way of explanation, with regard to the implementation contained in his motion, his motion differing from the recommendation of the committee. There is just that explanation I will seek from him. It is a technical matter. I am sure it could be clarified very quickly if he would agree to a House Leaders' meeting later on today or tomorrow.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to listen to the exchange between the House Leader for the Government and the House Leader for the Official Opposition. I know that the House Leader for the Official Opposition did not intend to leave the impression that only his consent was required. I just want to make it unanimous that we in this Party, whose
November 25, 1982

consent is also required, and I assume the Hon. Member who sits as an independent Member will also give his consent, agree to allowing either a House Order to be put before the House or, for that matter, just simply agree that on Monday next we will have a discussion on this matter and have it disposed of by the end of the sitting day.
As a Member of the committee, I am particularly pleased to say on behalf of myself and my colleague for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, who also served on the committee, that the work of the committee was of such a nature that the experiment cannot help but work. The commitment of Hon. Members from all Parties, making sure that the experiment which was promoted and proposed was one that could serve the best interests of the House of Commons in general, was a commitment which I found very impressive.
Therefore, I am looking forward to seeing these new rules in place at the beginning of the new year so that we can make for a better House of Commons and not have the public wrath descending upon us as frequently as it has in the past.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. To clarify the situation, yes, we will call that motion on Monday; yes, I am willing to meet with House Leaders later this afternoon to look at the technical problems.
I gather that if we fail to agree on the technical matters, it will not jeopardize the whole project and the motion will be considered on Monday. We will meet at five o'clock for that purpose. We are openminded and are acting in good faith. We want the experiment to work. We want Parliament to become more modern, more efficient and more human, and that is what we had in mind.
In so far as House business for today, is concerned, Madam Speaker, 1 confirm to the Hon. Member that we will be dealing with C-131 and C-132; but the first item will be under Standing Order 60(10) to concur in Ways and Means Motion No. 47. The first item of business tomorrow will be Bill C-98, followed by C-12 and if need be Bill C-85. We will be dealing with the motion relating to parliamentary reform on Monday. On Tuesday and for the rest of the week up to and including Thursday evening, we will be dealing with Bill C-136, report stage and third reading, hopefully, which will be followed by Bill C-131, if we have not concluded debate today, and Bill C-132.
Committee Reports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table copies in both official languages of the Orders in Council appointing persons to serve as Commissioners on the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a
point of order, Madam Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) why he did not choose to make a statement on Motions with regard to the finalization of the composition of this Royal Commission? If it is, indeed, as important to the future of the country and to the plans of the Government as he pretends, that is the sort of thing that a Government having respect for Parliament would introduce in Parliament by way of a statement on Motions, allowing debate. Why did he not show that respect for Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if there was any lack of respect, it seems to me it came from his own Party when a Member on this side asked me a question about the proposed Royal Commission in early November and about a rumour reported in the press that this Commission was being set up. 1 assured the House at that time, and I assured the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), that it had not been my intention to make an announcement by way of an answer to a question, but in view of the leak it was inevitable that I proceed in that way. I apologized at the time to the House for the undue haste which was an inconvenience not only, I am sure, to the Opposition, but to the Chairman of the Commission and to Members of the Cabinet. But the deed was done, as it were, and 1 indicated then that I was prepared to answer other questions. My suggestion was met with nothing but applause from the other side.


STANDING ORDERS AND PROCEDURE
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
November 23, 1982-The President of the Privy Council:
That, commencing at 5.59 o'clock p.m., on Wednesday, December 22, 1982, or, as the case may be, at the time that the House concludes its consideration of Government Business on that day, the temporary changes to the Standing Orders set forward as Appendix C of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled Friday, November 5, 1982, shall take effect;
That the proposed changes in the Standing Orders shall be applied in the spirit expressed in Part II (entitled "Recommended Experimental Changes") of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure;
That, subject to future Order of the House, the said temporary changes to the Standing Orders shall cease to have effect at 5.59 o'clock p.m., on Wednesday,
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1982
Order Paper Questions
December 21, 1983, or, as the case may be, at the time that the House concludes its consideration of Government Business on that day;
That, subject to the provisions of this Order, the dates and times of the commencement and cessation of the effect of the said temporary Standing Orders shall be valid whether or not the House is sitting; and
That the Clerk of the House be authorized and instructed to print revised and renumbered Standing Orders of the House incorporating the temporary Standing Orders and any technical or consequential amendments necessary.
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 21, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,733, 2,734, 4,369 and 4,405.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	At any time in the past ten years, did the RCMP enter the premises of the post offices in the Parliament buildings for the purpose of inspecting mail or of making any inquiries whatsoever about mail and, if so, in each case (a) what were the details and who authorized the entry (b) what was the reason for the inspection?
2.	During the same period, did the RCMP on any occasion open mail either addressed to a Member of Parliament or being sent by a Member of Parliament and, if so, in each case, what were the details?


David P. Smith: 1. RCMP technical services were set up in 1971, at PCO request, to examine mail received under cover and parcels addressed to the Prime Minister and his family. The service has always been available to Members of both Houses of Parliament, directly, or through their post office services. It would be in this context that the RCMP x-ray technician would have entered the Parliament Buildings to pick up and return mail submitted for x-ray inspection.
2.	Yes, at the addressee's request and with his/her authority. If a piece of mail or parcel submitted for x-ray inspection is found suspect after such examination, the addressee is informed and asked for direction regarding disposal.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the RCMP inspect on three occasions in 1981 a copy of the Legion magazine published by the Royal Canadian Legion and addressed to an individual in the Privy Council Office and, if so (a) for what reason and why was it done three times (b) does the Government consider the Legion magazine subversive literature (c) what is the name of the highest-ranking RCMP officer or government official authorizing the inspection?
2.	Did the magazine wrapping have the House of Commons postmark on it?
3.	Are members of the RCMP authorized to inspect mail in the House of Commons and, if so, by whom?
4.	Did the RCMP make the inspection in a House of Commons Post Office and, if so, which one?


David P. Smith: 1. Not knowingly, (a) As mail is examined in bulk, it is possible that the magazine was examined on three occasions, (b) No. (c) The Commissioner, RCMP. The service is provided under the operational authority of the Commanding Officer, "A" Division, at PCO request.
2.	Impossible to determine.
3.	Since the inauguration of the service, inspection has been carried out in the East Block, which, until 1976, housed the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office.
4.	No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): L Did the Treasury Board, on behalf of the Library of Parliament, discuss with the Royal Bank the possible rental of office space in the Royal Bank Tower on Sparks Street for use by the Library and, if so, how much space would be rented and at what cost per square foot?
2.	Were other less costly locations investigated and, if so, what would be the cost of alternative accommodation?
3.	Is the Royal Bank insisting that its own lease forms be used and, if so, would this contravene Treasury Board policy?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Treasury Board and Public Works Canada as follows:
1.	No. Public Works Canada, on behalf of the Library of Parliament, entered into lease negotiations with Globe Realty, a subsidiary of the Royal Bank of Canada for 3,217.5 m2 of office space in the Royal Bank Centre at Sparks Street, Ottawa, Ontario. The resulting offer to lease had an annual rental rate of $ 174.40/m2, and a total occupancy cost (first year) of $293.99/m2.
2.	No available leased premises of sufficient size existed within the geographical area demanded by Library of Parliament.
3.	The Globe Realty's offer to lease which was subsequently rejected by Treasury Board was conditional on the use of their lease document which is different from the type of lease form employed by Public Works Canada. The use of an owner's lease form is not in contravention of Treasury Board policy.


Mr. Mitges: Will the Government be introducing legislation calling on all service stations across Canada to post clearly and in a prominent place the current price of all grades of gasoline, not just lead-free gasoline as is presently the case, and, if so, on what date?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: This issue was raised in February of this year by the Consumers' Association of Canada during the petroleum inquiry hearings before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. At that time several major oil companies publicly announced that they would post
November 25, 1982

prices of all grades of gasoline. Since that time these companies have proceeded to advertise prices at outlets under their control and many other gasoline marketers have followed suit. As this trend appears to be continuing, the Government does not see the necessity for introducing mandatory legislation.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Wednesday, November 17, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 18, consideration of the Motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, 1 spoke on this Bill for about ten minutes on November 18 and I am certainly very happy to have the opportunity to say a few more words.
I started to review the purpose of indexing. Indexing was brought in in order to enable people on fixed incomes to meet rising costs due to the increasing cost of essential food, clothing and shelter, and general inflation. They both have an effect on those on fixed incomes. Therefore, in order to permit a person at least to maintain a reasonable standard of living, indexing was invoked and made law in the country. If the purpose of indexing in the first place was to make sure that those on fixed incomes were going to be able to continue to live, warm their houses and provide clothes for themselves and their dependants, then I would like the Hon. Minister to tell me how these people are going to meet their needs if it is not continued.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I recall some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stating that all these people had to do was change their priorities. People who have large incomes, or inheritances, such as the Prime Minister himself, or those receiving other pensions, are quite able to change priorities. But I want to say that a large number of pensioners, just about half of them according to the Minister's own statement, are in a class where they will be affected by this deindexing, and out of that group 1 suppose there is no more than 10 per cent who are in the heavy financial areas.
There are a lot of Canadians past the age of 65 who are still working and have not accepted the old age pension in spite of its universality or the CPP, even though they have paid into it for several years. When you consider the number who are not pensioners at all, then that increases the number of pensioners who really need indexing.
Now, I am not arguing in favour of those who do not need indexing to have a reasonable standard of living. Not at all; they should bear their share of the costs of running the country. But to place the mass of old age pensioners in that group is not fair at all. I suppose every Hon. Member in this House who has helped pensioners fill in forms or look after their problems knows that a very large number of those pensioners are just on the edge of getting GIS. Every time there is an increase in the indexation, it brings in a few more people because the amount they are allowed to earn goes up. Now that amount will go up at a slower rate than it did before. Consequently, there will still be that group which is left to live entirely off the basic pension, many of them with practically no other income. If they are not getting GIS, they must have other income.
Those who have any experience with this at all know that the GIS Is based on the income of a year ago, not the current year. People may have secured money from relatives or other sources a year ago, but many of these people are now having a tough time; they no longer have any other sources of income, and they are now going to have to stay in that group for another two years because the pension they receive is not going to rise and their income is going to go down. As the basic income is cut, those who are on basic pension are going to receive less money.
A program put out by the Department of National Health and Welfare shows that the amount of money coming from this source in 1983 will be $90 million. In other words, $90 million is taken out of the income of pensioners in this country. Many of them cannot afford it; they need that money themselves. In 1984 it will amount to $150 million. That amount of money will remain in Government coffers and will not go into the marketplace. Pensioners spend their money, and over the two years that is $240 million which is not going to get into the pockets of pensioners and out into the economy. Many of them can ill afford to have this happen.

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
I was interested to hear a few moments ago the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) say that the Government wanted to be more human in the reform of Parliament. Well, fine, Mr. Speaker; but I want the Government to be more human with regard to its treatment of the senior citizens of this country and those who are in need. If the Government is going to be more human it can show it by withdrawing Bill C-131 and Bill C-133. Bill C-131 alone will deny the $240 million which rightfully, under present legislation, would go into the pockets of the pensioners of this country, and from there into the stores where it would help those who are trying to stay in business. The $240 million over the years 1983 and 1984 comes under Bill C-131, not Bill C-133 which deals with supplementary retirement benefits and is almost a companion Bill to Bill C-131. It is hard to discuss one without discussing the other.
In looking at Bill C-131, Mr. Speaker, the first two words are very revealing, particularly with regard to the actions of this Government. The bill starts out by saying in Clause 1(5):
Notwithstanding anything-
That is how this Government operates. Notwithstanding anything, if the Government wants to do something, it does not matter whether it is human or right or wrong; it does not matter who is going to pay the bill or suffer because of it. Notwithstanding anything, the Government is going to do it, as Hon. Members opposite now say they are determined to pass this Bill notwithstanding anything-notwithstanding the fact that some of their own Members have publicly said that they cannot support this Bill. I admire them for that, but I will admire them more if they will stand up and tell the world when the vote is being taken that they cannot support this Bill. That will be the proof of the pudding, because talk is easy and talk is cheap.


Mr. Breau:: Well, shut your mouth.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Well, you should stand up and express your views. At least I am not afraid to say what I think and what my constituents think.
Notwithstanding anything, this Government will be doing a lot of things, including desecrating and destroying a beautiful park in Banff. Notwithstanding anything, whether it is right or wrong, the Government is quite prepared to do that. I still question the Government's authority to reduce indexation under Bill C-133, because that money was paid by the participants themselves into a separate fund. The Government has a contract with the senior citizens of this country but it does not have any hesitation about breaking that contract. Yet the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) said he could not break a contract. Why he ever made such a ridiculous contract involving parkland is more than I will ever know. Why did he not check into it before he signed the contract, before permitting the permit to be issued, before allowing the land to be transferred? That is what a proper Minister would properly have done.
When I asked the former minister of finance a few months ago what authority he had to stop indexing the pensions of
superannuates, he said, "Well, we will get the authority; we may not have it but we will get it". And there is the Bill that is going to do it. The Government simply changed the contract in mid-stream.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough in a country like Canada. If we are going to break contracts with senior citizens, those who cannot defend themselves, and then refuse to break contracts with favourite sons, well, it is a pretty bad situation. It tells the people what is going on in this country.
Dealing for a minute or so with why this Bill should not be passed, inflation is now 10.4 per cent. Senior citizens have nothing to do with inflation but the Government has. The Government's wild expenditures over the last few years have been a major cause of inflation. The Government kept telling the people to tighten their belts but kept increasing its own expenditures. Even this year it is increasing the deficit. The Government asks everyone to cut back to what it calls six and five, but is the Government cutting back? Why does it not cut out the waste in Government before it starts taking $240 million out of the pockets of senior citizens who are on the basic pension? Many of these people are having a difficult time making ends meet. Even the increase in pension through indexing does not meet the increase in their costs, many of which are directly due to the policies of the Government.
In 1982 the average increase in the cost of energy all over the country was 16.4 per cent. That did not come about through any action taken by senior citizens, or anyone else for that matter; it came about because the Government was money hungry. Every petroleum tax possible was increased and so was the tax on heating oil. In Alberta alone, in one case $1.85 of the $2 increase in the cost of energy went to the federal Government in taxes.
The Government now calls on people to help it fight inflation but, Mr. Speaker, the Government aggravated inflation and added to it. Senior citizens had no say in that but now the Government is asking them to cut back or go without. Why does it not appeal to the group of senior citizens who can get by without Old Age Security and the Canada Pension? The Government knows the income of every person who applies for the old age pension and Canada Pension. It now claims that the Canada Pension is not affected by this measure because citizens have contributed to it. Well, Mr. Speaker, the superannuates contributed as well under a different type of arrangement, but the Government is not hesitating to say it will cut off some of the money in that fund. It is not going to touch the Canada Pension-and I do not think it should-but neither should it touch the indexing of the superannuates. How is someone who does not qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement going to meet the increase in the cost of energy, for instance? The Prime Minister has told them to change their priorities, to turn down the heat and not use so much light. A lot of them are doing their utmost to comply, but it is not easy.
November 25, 1982

The last time I spoke on this subject in the Elouse, Mr. Speaker, I spoke about a senior citizen and his wife whom 1 visited. He was wearing a heavy sweater and she was wearing a heavy kimono. For the thirty minutes I was in the home I left my overcoat on and I can tell you 1 was cold, but they were trying to co-operate with the Government. They do not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement because their income is just above the qualifying line. In effect, the Government is now going to take the money that should go into their pockets while telling them to change their priorities.
The 16.4 per cent increase in the cost of energy is largely due to the actions of the Government and its hunger for money. The price of clothing has increased by 4.9 per cent. Now that we are approaching winter people must have warm clothes, but how are they going to get them? As the Prime Minister says, they will have to change their priorities- perhaps go without food. Sometimes a male senior citizen is unable to get around so his wife has to go out and do their business. She must have warm clothes or she will freeze to death in our cold winters. But how is she going to get them?
I am speaking of people on fixed incomes, many of whom are barely getting by. Some people have to apply for welfare because they just cannot get by on the basic pension. That is a great tribute to this country with its tremendous wealth, I must say! People who have spent a lifetime building the country are being told that the indexing is to be removed from their pension but that they can apply for welfare. That is the only way many of them would be able to change their priorities, as the Prime Minister has suggested. Of course, he can change his priorities any time he likes, but people who have worked and laboured throughout the years cannot all do that. The price of food has increased and, of course, people have to eat. Does the Prime Minister want them to change that priority as well? Perhaps they will have to live on pork and beans entirely, but even the price of pork and beans has increased.
Statistics show that in 1982 the price of energy increased by 16.4 per cent, clothes by 4.9 per cent and food by 6.5 per cent. That is almost 27 per cent in total, Mr. Speaker, Now the Government proposes to cut the indexing of pensions and wants pensioners to get by on that. They might get by, but it will be pretty tough and it is a disgrace to the country.
Some historian said that we evaluate a country by the way it treats its disabled, its handicapped and its senior citizens. Our senior citizens have spent a lifetime building the country and in many cases have contributed to other causes to the point that they have little left for themselves. Those aged 65 and over came through the Depression and now the Government is threatening to cut more off their incomes, as if they did not contribute enough in the hungry thirties.
A good motto for the Government to use in the next election would be "Notwithstanding anything, we will do what we like if we have a majority. We will not listen to what the Opposition says."
As a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, there is not one Minister in the House. I suppose I might just as well be talking out in the backwoods for all the good it does in this place.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Ministers do not remain to hear what the Opposition has to say although they often complain that the Opposition has nothing to offer. I do not know of a provincial Government in the country in the last 20 years where the Minister responsible for legislation did not remain in the House to listen to debate on his or her Bill. I know a lot of Provinces where the Premier and Ministers spend a good deal of time in the House and stay there all the time when something concerning their Department is being discussed. After question period here, however, it often happens that there is no Minister present, or sometimes only one or two. There is a handful of faithfuls opposite who are there pretty nearly all the time. People are rapidly catching on. This will not go on forever.
The Minister says that the Government needs the money, that it needs $240 million. First it should cut out some of its needless waste. There is no need for the Government to send a public servant to Paris to study for a year. If anyone else in the country wants to go to Paris to study, he or she has to pay for it. I would imagine that it is a wonderful place to study. I would like to go there myself; I would have liked to go there a few years ago but I could never afford it.


Erik Nielsen: It is possible on Ed Clark's salary.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes. If one gets into the right Department and gets to know the Prime Minister and the Minister, he can do it, notwithstanding anything. Whoever wrote this Bill sure knew what he was writing-"nothwithstanding anything". The Government sent this man Clark to study in Paris, I suppose at the Sorbonne. I do not know how much it will cost. He is getting his wages and enough to live handsomely on in Paris. That could have gone quite a way toward reducing the deficit or eliminating the need for $240 million being taken out of the pockets of the senior citizens of the country.
Notwithstanding anything, if a person is the right one, he can go to the Riviera, of all places, for a year at Government expense. If she wanted to learn French, why did she not learn it in Quebec? There are excellent teachers there; it was not necessary to go to the Riviera. In fact, she could learn it right here in Ottawa as many other public servants are doing, at their own expense. In many cases the Government pays the cost of the instruction; in many cases it does not. Some people are paying for their own instruction, but the Government can send one person, the favourite daughter, the favourite of the Prime Minister, to the Riviera.
There must be $100,000 spent per year on these two people in terms of wages, subsistence, air fare and everything else in the Riviera and in Paris. If that is not waste, I do not know what waste is. Then the Government takes $240 million out of the pockets of senior citizens. It takes money out of the pockets of superannuates, people who have spent part of their lives improving the country, or R.C.M.P. being shot at. What about members of the Armed Forces who spent part of their lives on the battlefields of the world, or public servants who spent

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
countless hours trying to work out the best policies for Canada? We will break the contract with them if we pass Bill C-133.
If this is the type of policy the country is going to have, we need a new government. It is almost the last straw when the Government starts picking on people who cannot defend themselves.
Telephone bills are up. Some people ask what right they have to have telephones. "They are senior citizens living on the basic pension and they are not supposed to have telephones", one chap said to me. "Why do they want telephones?" They want telephones because they are human beings. For many of them it is the only way they can talk to other people. Because their health will not permit them to go out, they have to phone for their groceries and everything. I could take you, Mr. Speaker, into some of the homes of people in that category. Telephone costs have risen. How will senior citizens be able to meet this increased cost, especially when the Government starts cutting down their pensions by cutting their indexing?
Water rates have risen. They have to have water. I suppose some smart public servants, speaking on behalf of the Government, maybe those who prepared this legislation, may say, "They do not need to take baths; let them have their cup of water a day but they do not need to take baths." Some of them are now only taking baths once or twice a month simply because they cannot afford the water bills. I know pensioners who wanted to water their gardens last summer but did not dare do it because they could not afford it.
Sales taxes are up, and the Government introduces a Bill which puts an excise tax on gas, making the price of food go up. It is one of the most terrible things the Government has ever done because it affects almost all the people of Canada, not only farmers. It adversely affects farmers because some of them cannot afford fertilizer. What will that do to the land? In time it will hurt the land and hurt production. The other day a knowledgeable farmer in Alberta said that many farmers this year could not afford fertilizer because of the excise tax. The Government is putting everything out of reach, and we wonder how people will live.
Another point in connection with this Bill is the overpayments. I wish the Government could understand the agony created in the hearts of our senior citizens when it sends them cheques and then discovers six months later it has sent them too much. The pensioners have spent the money but still have not met all their needs, and then they receive letters which frighten them because they are told that they have to pay back the money. From where will they get it? It was the Government's mistake in sending the money out. If someone deliberately tries to defraud the Government, then let him take his punishment. In many of these cases it is the Government's bookkeeping, computer and calculations that were wrong. When the pensioners received the money, they had every right to expect that it was theirs.
I see the Speaker rising because my time is up, but I want to say that the Bill should be defeated roundly. When we defeat it, I hope we also defeat the Government.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-131. First I want to say what good things may be said about the Bill, and then I shall come to the "but". I am afraid it will not take very long to come to the "but".
The ostensible purpose of the measure is to assist in getting our economic house in order. It is pretty hard to find fault with this laudable aim. Surely it is and must be our most immediate and pressing task, as well as our highest priority. Mr. Speaker will find no disagreement with that role on this side of the House; indeed, we have been pressing the same on the Government for some time now.
This was the aim of the budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) of December, 1979, two and a half years before the Party opposite noticed that there was a problem. Or at least, to give it the benefit of every doubt, before it acknowledged publicly that the world would be unfolding better than it seemed to be at the moment.
How much of the time of the House is taken up with piecemeal band-aid attempts to remedy the earlier sins of omission and commission of that gaggle of happy fumblers opposite. Nevertheless, an awareness of the fact that all is not well in the land has penetrated the consciousness across the aisle. Good. They have decided to do something about it; also good.
This is not the time to address its program per se. However, it really cannot be avoided entirely because, as I see it, the only reason the Bill before us now has been presented to the House is to support that forlorn, desperate six and five program. This Party supported that program, but we did so as a by no means ideal method of addressing the problem at issue, the malfunctioning economy, which had been brought to its present disastrous state by the policies of the Party in power, the Party that now wants the collusion of this House in making its makeshift repairs.
Secondly, we did so, as has already been made abundantly clear, with the intention of limiting its effects on the working population of this country. It is not the intention of my Party to ride out this depression or recession-Mr. Speaker, let us call a spade a spade-on the backs of the poor and it is certainly not our intention to do so on the backs of the elderly. Surely we have enough resources to hand in this blessed nation of ours that we need not set our so-called golden-agers adrift on an economic ice floe, an ice floe marked six and five.
Let me reiterate. The only justification for this unjust and unnecessary Bill is that it supports the program of six and five. Six and five has, in fact, become more than a program. It has become more than a slogan. It has sort of become a golden calf. "Bow down to the golden calf marked six and five, and if enough people do, we can be re-elected."
Like Kilroy of World War II fame, who scribbled his name on everything movable and immovable on the continent of Europe, this Government has to scrawl its "Kilroy was here"
November 25, 1982

on all within its ever-reaching grasp, only it is not "Kilroy was here," it is six and five.
What about public sector wages? They are under the six and five umbrella. I would point out to the Liberal Party on the other side and those to my left that when we voted for the original six and five we voted for restraint on our own salaries as well. Yes, the public goes for it. Then private sector firms with Government contracts sell six and five across the country. It has spread the word of six and five. Everything, you name it, is six and five, with one exception, and that exception is the Government's own spending and Government-administered prices. The Government does not need to conform to six and five. No, not the Liberals.
What about Old Age Security? It is six and five for Old Age Security, you want to believe it. What a cheap shot. What a low blow. The generation which now comprises our senior citizens, the generation to which I am proud to belong, is one which has paid its dues. Many of us have lived, struggled and survived through two wars and a depression. This is a record of survival to which this Government seems determined to add a second depression. These people have scraped and sacrificed to bring to maturity the generations who form the work force of today. They do not owe us anything. We owe them. This is a pretty measly way of paying the debt. It is not as though this measure would have a significant effect on the deficit, or on any other aspect of the Government's fiscal or monetary stance. If it did, I, as a representative of the affected generation, would be prepared by all means to accept it as a part of the over-all package. But it does not. The amount by which Government pay-outs are reduced by the changes to the old age pension, the child tax credit and the family allowance comes to about $10 million. That is peanuts. It is literally peanuts compared to the amounts blown, for example, on bailouts for corporate friends of the Party across the aisle, or perhaps it is a still grosser insult to our collective intelligence and integrity compared to the amount by which the public purse was looted to buy out the competition for our so-called "window on the oil industry."
It bespeaks a strange ordering of priorities that we see there across the aisle, and a strange, a very strange, ranking of values. I am aware that the Liberals propose to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement by an amount sufficient to offset the reduction in basic Old Age Security in the hands of those who receive it, and for this gesture, at least, I commend them. But as a matter of principle, I favour simplicity, be it in legislation itself or in the administrative procedures which support that legislation.
Those of our elderly citizens who do not need Old Age Security and would be relatively unaffected by its not being fully indexed would return the difference in their income tax payable under the tax legislation already in force. In short, the measures we have before us here will serve only to complicate the administrative procedures already in place. In fact, this legislation serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It renders more complex an already complex procedure. It does not greatly affect the Government's fiscal or monetary stance. It
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
does one thing and one thing only. It provides one more surface upon which the Government can stretch six and five. That, effectively, is all that it does. As the sole reason for deindexing an entire generation, and this generation above all, it is reprehensible.
I want here to re-emphasize a point made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Elderly, single pensioners with incomes of $9,000 will lose $290 in this two-year period. But a couple with two children and an income of $27,000 will lose less than $50 during the same time frame. Is this what the Government intends? As I see it, there can be only two reasons for this inequity. Either this is the Government's intention, this is the effect it really wants to create, or-and this conclusion would seem inescapable-it really has no idea what it is doing at all.
The Government wanted to appear to have a program. Above all, it wanted to have one more thing upon which to hang the slogan of six and five, and so, with no more consideration of its downstream effects than that, it has hatched the Bill that sits before us now. I do not want to believe this. I do not want to believe what the Lord knows. But on the basis of what we see before us and how this Government has operated in the past, I must conclude that this is very possible.
There is yet another matter which should be looked at, and that is the question of the demographics of our population. There is a hump which is passing along the demographic chart, a hump representing the post-World War II baby boom. This hump is at present well within the work force age group, but at some stage in the not too distant future that hump is going to pass into the category of senior citizen. Some time fairly soon the proportion of our population 65 years of age or over will radically increase. If we approach that time with the same set of assumptions in place as now exist, we are going to have a very serious set of problems on our hands. This is not news; we are all aware of it. But we have not yet done anything to anticipate the adjustments that will have to be made.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that this presents a most opportune time to do so. It is a time of crisis when the Government insists that certain changes must be made in the Old Age Security legislation. Perhaps it is the time when we should examine all the parameters of our Old Age Security system and decide just what we want of it, what we want it to do and how we want it to be structured to meet the conditions of the present day, 20 years from now and beyond, even into the twenty-first century. I want to suggest that this should be a time for thoughtful building and of far-reaching decisions well reasoned out.
The role that Old Age Security has played and has been expected to play in our society has changed and developed through the years. The legislation must be expected to face some dramatically altered conditions over the next several years. I suggest that if we are to tamper with it now, then that tampering should be done in order that it may better meet the

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
requirements we and the Canadian people shall demand of it in the years to come.
It is not the time to take a heedless measure such as this one before us now which hurts many, benefits no one, including the Government's deficit position, except in a very minor way, and is introduced for no reason except to further impress the stamp of six and five.
There was an item in The Globe and Mail on November 23 concerning Bill C-131. It is headed "Old fighters" and reads:
Health Minister Monique Begin suggests old-age pensioners should be at the forefront in the fight against inflation. Quite right. So many of them were at the front during two world wars and at least one depression-why should they be allowed to rest on their laurels?
It would seem that this is what the Minister and the Government wish to portray.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like to make absolutely sure that the Hon. Member understands that I never said that. I do not think he wants to mislead the House. I would appreciate a correction.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) that I was simply reading an aritcle in The Globe and Mail of November 23. I certainly am not quoting that and the Minister has refuted it. The article was written by R. C. Gaschen of Toronto. I suggest that the Minister write to him and tell him that she has been incorrectly quoted.


An Hon. Member:: Tell her to withdraw the Bill.


Stan Darling: That would be one solution which would certainly please Mr. Gaschen and I suspect most people in Canada.
As I said, this Bill will cause the greatest hardship to many of our old age pensioners who receive the basic old age pension, possibly a few savings, some Government bonds or a very small private pension and are just above the poverty line. They are the ones who will feel the pinch.
I might suggest to the Minister or those who control the purse strings that they consider the possibility of establishing a base which exempts old age pensioners who have incomes of less than $18,000 from the restrictions of six and five. I am sure the Minister realizes that there are many senior citizens who are drawing very large pensions. They certainly should be paying their share of the money which the Government wants to save.
As was mentioned by an Hon. Member, I can also recall many years ago when the first old age pension of $20 a month was introduced. I remember my grandmother, who was a widow raising six girls, finally being able to receive that pension of $20 a month. I was involved in getting it for her. She was very proud when she received that pension because it was her own money. She was proud to take that money rather than accept money from her daughters, even though she took excellent care of the household.
Of course, pensions have risen dramatically since then. In those days one had to undergo a means test before receiving a pension. You had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you had nothing. Today, the old age pension is a right to which all senior citizens are entitled. There is no stigma attached to it at all. The stigma attached to old age pensioners today is the fact that they are having to cut corners in their everyday lives because of inflation and the high cost of many goods and services today. Our old age pensioners are finding it difficult to get along.
The cost of clothing has been mentioned. I suppose we should be thankful that senior citizens do not have to buy as many new clothes as those who are in the work force or younger people. While old age pensioners require certain services and need to provide for the necessities of life, they are entitled to a few luxuries as well. I believe the Minister of National Health and Welfare is certainly very sympathetic. I see some of my hon. friends looking at me with surprise when I say that. However, while the Minister wishes to help the senior citizens, I believe that she is having a very hard time trying to talk to some of those hard-nosed Members on the treasury bench.
I will not mention names but there are some very concerned Members on the Government side, including some who sit in places of high authority presently, who share our concerns. Let us hope that they can convey that message to their caucus and, more importantly, to the Cabinet so that this Bill will be withdrawn.
Bill C-133 will come before the House shortly. This represents another instance when the Government will renege on a signed contract which gave the Armed Forces pensioners and Government pensioners an indexed pension. This legislation will now reverse that decision and break the contract unless some Members on that side of the House put pressure on the Government. Even if ten of them say, "We will nail your hides to the mast," I am quite sure that the Government will have a repentant feeling and introduce a more acceptable Bill.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to participate in this debate. I consider it to be an important one in view of the press reports I have been reading regarding the splits which appear to be happening within the Liberal caucus. Perhaps there is some hope that this legislation will not be passed by the House. It is certainly the intention of this Party to fight with all our energy and might against this legislation.
I enjoyed hearing the remarks of my Conservative colleague. However, I was somewhat disappointed since the Conservative Party supported the six and five program last August. If they had fought it, as we did, this legislation would not be before the House today and senior citizens would not be faced with the threat of having money taken from their pockets. This sham of a Government policy would not be before us. Therefore, I question and doubt the intention of the Conservatives.


Stan Darling: We voted to reduce our salaries; you did not.
November 25, 1982


Cyril Keeper: You should vote to reduce your salaries, particularly since it is your actions which have contributed to taking money away from pensioners.
i would like to put my comments on the record with regard to this legislation, Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act. The purpose of this Bill is to limit the indexation of Old Age Security to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. In essence, this is an application of the Government's six and five policy to the pension system.
The six and five policy is the Government's so-called economic strategy. I say "so-called" because it really is a sham. Inflation has been decreasing in spite of the program. It is not surprising that inflation has been coming down, given the depth of the recession that we are in today and even the predictions made by the Conference Board of Canada that the recession will last longer than was foreseen. While inflation has been coming down, wages have been trailing inflation.
Why did the Government come up with the six and five program? It is my judgment that the Government has no economic policy but could not appear before the Canadian people to reveal that fact. It had to put up some sort of a front and the front was the six and five. It decided that it would "attack inflation". Then as inflation comes down due to the depth of the recession, it can claim credit for having done something about inflation and for having an effective economic policy. This is not economic policy; this is political strategy of the worst kind.
The other day The Globe and Mail quoted a study on wages by Citibank of New York and it demonstrated that wages in Canada have in fact been trailing those of most other western industrialized countries. The notion that the Government has been putting forward that somehow unjustified wage demands are the cause of our weakness in the international market today just does not stand up when examined and analysed, and it certainly was refuted by the Citibank study.
You have to ask, Mr. Speaker, if wages are not the cause of our problems in the international market, why has the Government focused its attention on wages, through six and five and the pension system? It is my conclusion that the Government simply wanted to put up a good front. It wants to be able to say to people that it is doing something, when in fact it is not. This is political strategy, not economic strategy.
1 want to turn to the application of the six and five principle to pensions specifically. The Government claims that it will be saving some $31 million by this measure. Some of the calculations that we have done have indicated that it will be taking even more than that from the pockets of pensioners. But even if we accept the Government's figures that it is going to be reducing expenditures in the area of pensions by some $31 million, we really have to ask the question as to what real impact can a reduction of $31 million from pension expenditures have on a Government deficit of $23.6 billion. Clearly, it is not going to have any real impact on the deficit.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
Even if it took this $31 million that it claims to be taking from pensioners and applied it to job creation, to employment, which is the most severe problem the country faces today, what real impact could it hope to have with regard to the level of unemployment? There are some two million people unemployed in this country. How could the Government take $31 million and put those people back to work? It is not going to have any real impact, Mr. Speaker.
The reason I point that out is that there are other places where the Government could find federal dollars for job creation, if it so chose. I will give a few examples. These are examples that have been given by my Leader previously and suggestions that we have made as to where the Government might find some money for job creation, rather than taking it out of the pockets of elderly citizens.
We could reduce the level of money that the Government is allocating to advertising. This budget runs in the neighbourhood of $180 million a year. That budget could be reduced significantly and some real dollars for employment creation could be found. The minister could do away with the Canadian Unity Office, which is simply a propaganda arm of the Government, and freeze for the moment the construction of embassies abroad.
These three measures alone would save $400 million which could be applied to job creation and dwarf the amount of money that the Government is going to be getting from the pension system by limiting the indexation of the pension system. The Government claims that it will be getting $31 million. Rather than taking this amount of money from pensioners, why not take $400 million from these three aspects of the federal Government's budget that this Party has suggested, create significantly more jobs and leave the money that pensioners need in the pocket of the pensioners? I think this would be a more rational and more humane approach.
Other examples of where the federal Government might find money, I suggest, are-


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Member through you to give us the details of that $400 million he is talking about that we could save?


Cyril Keeper: I would be glad, Mr. Speaker, to entertain any questions at the end of my speech, but I have just given you the details of where that $400 million is going to come from. One, from the federal advertising budget; two, by freezing the construction of embassies abroad-


Henri Tousignant: How many embassies? Which ones?


Cyril Keeper: -three, from the Canadian Unity Office. These are three measures that the Government could take to stop wasting money, and could apply that money to job creation rather than taking money away from pensioners.
Another place the Government could take money from would be to stop bailing out their political friends. I think of the Maislin Trucking Company. Why, in a nation this size, is one trucking company given millions of dollars to bail them

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
out? There are other people in this country who are having economic difficulties. Rather than wasting money like that and rather than robbing pensioners, take it from a place that makes sense, and do something that is reasonable. I hope that gives a little information to the Member. Perhaps he will give it some reflection. If he has further questions I would be glad to answer them at the end of my address.


Mr. Schroder:: Mr. Speaker, 1 know the Hon. Member would not like to give misinformation to the House, but 1 think he would like the record corrected in that the help that the Government gave to Maislin was simply a loan guarantee. No money has yet been given to that company. I know the Hon. Member would like to see that corrected.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, surely there is an economic impact from giving somebody a loan guarantee, a significant loan guarantee. That still does not explain why one trucking company is bailed out while many others are having a difficult time. This money should be used properly.
I will give another example, Mr. Speaker, if somebody else would like to get up and ask a question and stimulate me a little further here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I call to his attention the Bill before us and its subject matter. He appears to be straying from the Bill before
us.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that the matter I am speaking to is the fact that the Government is taking away money from pensioners. I am suggesting that there are other places where the Government could get money, and that is why I am giving those four examples.
The Government has given some $8.7 billion in incentives to the petroleum industry. Why not take that $8.7 billion which will have some real impact on the economy in terms of job creation or reducing the deficit, rather than robbing pensioners? That is the relevance of these figures to the pension legislation, Mr. Speaker. I would be glad to entertain any other questions that come from that side.


Mr. Kempling:: He has all the answers.


Cyril Keeper: It is possible that the Government's estimates with regard to how much money it is going to get from limiting the indexation of pensions is wrong. It is possible that it is going to be taking more money away from pensioners than the $31 million. If that in fact is the case, that would indeed be cruel and insensitive and inhumane.
It is also possible that it may have erred the other way, that it may not get $31 million by limiting the indexation of pensions, that the amount of money gathered may in fact be less than that. If that were the case, then this move makes even less sense in terms of the expenditures of the Government, in terms of any possible economic impact, which is simply to say that the move is a public relations move, is a sham and has no
economic rationale behind it. It certainly has no social policy rationale behind it.
One of the arguments which the Government uses in terms of applying six and five to pensions is that we must all share the cost of the recession. The Government is in effect appealing to our sense of community, our willingness to sacrifice for our community. However, a pensioner living on $9,000 a year who is limited to a 6 per cent increase will only receive an additional $540. An executive with a $100,000 income with the same 6 per cent increase if he is in the Public Service, and with no limit if he is in the private sector, will receive an increase of $6,000. Is it just to increase the income of the pensioner by $540 while increasing the income of the executive by $6,000? Where is the justice?
Clearly that is unfair, particularly in light of the fact that a previous budget document indicated that a number of people in this country, I believe the figure was 705, earn $100,000 a year or more and pay no income tax. They do not make any contribution to the over-all cost of running the community. Therefore, the application of six and five to pensioners is unfair. It is an abuse of some very strong and shared values we have of the community and our willingness to sacrifice for the community. Therefore, I say this is a misdirected appeal and an abuse of those values.
Six and five attacks a number of pension principles of which I would like to take note. The first is that limiting the rise in pension to 6 per cent rather than the cost of living increase sets an arbitrary level; pensions are not related to the cost of living. That attacks the notion that pensions are to give every citizen upon retirement an adequate and secure income. The basic purpose of pensions is being affected by this legislation.
This legislation places greater emphasis on that portion of the pension system which is subject to a needs test, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, rather than Old Age Security which is universal. In introducing this legislation, the Government is attacking the important principle of legislation, universality, the principle that every citizen of this country is entitled to an adequate and decent income in retirement years. This legislation is a direct attack on that principle because it makes the GIS a greater portion-


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope the Hon. Member will not mislead the House for a second time. He is saying that the old age pension is no longer universal. I ask him to correct that statement, to tell the truth, that it remains fully universal. Nothing is more dangerous to the pensioners of Canada than to hear inaccuracies in the debates of the House of Commons.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to restate the argument and make it clear to the Minister so that she can understand the implications of the legislation. I am glad that I am stimulating some reaction from that side of the House. What I am saying must be getting under their skin. Somebody
November 25, 1982

has to do that in order to convince them to withdraw this legislation.


Monique Bégin: Tell the truth.


Cyril Keeper: The truth is that this legislation is a direct attack upon the principle of universality.


Monique Bégin: Prove it.


Cyril Keeper: I will prove it. It goes like this. It limits the indexation in OAS and GIS. The GIS is income-tested. Therefore, the GIS will become a greater portion of the overall pension income rather than the OAS, which is the universal aspect. It places a greater emphasis upon the income-tested portion rather than the universal aspect, the OAS. That is a direct attack upon the principle of universality of pensions, a principle which this Party respects. It is necessary if we are ever going to have fair pensions in this country. It is a shame that the Government has brought forward this legislation and does not now have the courage to withdraw it.
Rather than taking money out of the pockets of pensioners, this and every other Government should be working on reforming the pension system. There are many Canadians who live below the poverty line. Canadians who have worked all their lives should receive an adequate pension. We should be moving in the direction of pension reform rather than taking money away from the pensioners.
The pension problem affects women more than men. There are more women as a proportion of the population who receive inadequate pensions. There should be equality among the sexes. The pension system should be reformed in such a way that it provides an adequate income on retirement for all people. Both men and women should receive adequate income on retirement.
in the past many women were deprived of an adequate income because they stayed home to raise their children. That should be corrected. There should be an opt-out clause for those women who stay home to raise children so that they do not lose benefits as a result of time lost in the job market. The provision should apply equally to men and women. If it is the man who stays home to look after the children, it should apply to them as well.
In addition to those women who stay home, women in a career position often receive lower income than the average man, roughly 60 per cent. Although they pay into the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, their income would be significantly lower than that of a man. Therefore, the inequities that exist throughout their adult life continue in their retirement years.
The application of six and five to pensions is wrong on two counts. It is wrong as economic policy and wrong as social policy. We need a real economic policy for this country and reform of the pension system so that everyone will have a secure and adequate income on retirement. Rather than the
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
sham of six and five, we need an industrial strategy and a manufacturing base which will permit us to compete in international markets. We must have the base to compete in international markets rather than laying a heavy trip on workers and taking money away from pensioners.
Rather than applying six and five to the pension system today, Mr. Speaker, rather than taking the $31 million, out of the pockets of pensioners, what we should be doing is moving towards pension reform. We would be capable of doing that if we had an adequate economic policy in this country. We have to start by having a real economic policy, and then some humane pension reform.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)- National Energy Program (a) Impact on petrochemical projects, (b) Future of megaprojects, (c) Minister's actions; the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-Ports (a) Removal of grain elevator from port of Montreal, (b) Offer to purchase elevator; the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker)-Canada Labour Code (a) Application to British Columbia Telephone Company lay-offs, (b) Necessity for notification.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, normally I receive a great deal of pleasure in speaking to the various Bills which come into this House, but this afternoon I speak to Bill-131 with a certain degree of sadness and regret. Because in this Bill I see the destruction of what I think is a fairly good pension system for Canada.
Our pension system rests on four tiers. We have the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which give

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
a basic amount of money to people who retire, we have the Canada Pension Plan which supplements that amount of money for those people in the working force, and we have private pension plans, which are many and varied. Finally, of course, we have personal savings, which include our house and mortgage and RRSPs. This system provides a fairly good pension system in this country.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) I am happy to see is in the House this afternoon, because it must take a great deal of courage to come in and support this Bill which I know in her heart of hearts she does not support. The Hon. Minister travelled throughout Europe and examined the pension systems there. On her return she said the two systems which provide the best Government support are in Sweden and in Canada. I agree with the Minister, but my question is, why then Bill C-131? This Bill portends the destruction of our basic pension system.
It is not often that I agree with the Hon. Members on the far left side of this House, but I do agree with the statement made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) that this Bill cancels out the universality of OAS. The Minister became very upset when the Hon. Member made that statement, but I can tell you why it is true. First of all, this Bill allows for indexing only to the extent of 6 per cent for OAS this year and 5 per cent next year. At the moment our inflation rate is well over 10 per cent. If it stays that way, gradually more importance will be placed on GIS and there will be fewer and fewer people relying on OAS. Eventually, we will have a system where most of the money for that basic pension system is under GIS. We will not have a universal system then because GIS is income-tested, and if most of those poor over 65 years of age are getting their basic money from GIS, how can we say we have a universal system?
I suggest that the Minister agrees with me, and 1 would like to quote from the National Pension Conference where she said:
Consider another key issue; pensions which are not protected against inflation naturally tend to dwindle over the years. People who thought they had purchased protection for the rest of their lives find they have more serious financial problems the older they become.
Of course. That is exactly what is going to happen. It should be recognized by the people of Canada that Bill C-131 marks the beginning of the end for our universality in the OAS system, which was at one time the pride of this country.
1 would like to quote from the Minister again, and if I am wrong, I hope she corrects me. On September 26, 1981, in an article in the Vernon Daily News which stated 54 per cent of pensioners receive GIS, the Minister said: "That's scandalous; there's something wrong in the system." I agree with the Minister. The Guaranteed Income Supplement was originally put into the system only to support those few people who did not quite reach the poverty level with the moneys they were getting from their retirement schemes. It is scandalous that instead of covering just a few people it now covers a great majority, and it will have to cover more people in the future because of this Bill which the Government has placed before this House. Certainly Bill C-131 represents, 1 think it is fair to
say, the kind of double-talk, double-thinking and double-cross which has gone on with this Government over the past two and a half years. Its action certainly does not follow its words.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a national press conference said: "We are determined to bring about substantial pension reforms during our present mandate." Is Bill C-131 pension reform? It is taking money away from pensioners who are at or about the poverty line and bringing many more pensioners down close to it. Surely everyone knows what the poverty line is. It is an "Alice in Wonderland" figure, because if you happen to live in a city where expenses are high it is different than if you live in the country and own your own home.
This Bill is from a Government whose Minister of National Health and Welfare at the time the Government first brought in this particular Act, the Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh, stated on November 9, 1964 and I quote from Hansard at page 9899:
-that all future old age security pensions will be pegged to the cost of living index and will increase automatically if living costs increase.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Of course, the Hon. Members would say "Hear, hear". It was a good idea then and it is a better idea now because of high inflation. She went on to say, and I again quote from Hansard at page 9899 of that date:
This is a new departure in old age security. It is in response to the oft heard cry of those in receipt of pensions that they are unable to keep up with their own expenses if the cost of living rises-
These are the words of a Minister who paid attention to the "oft heard cry" of poor pensioners. I ask this Minister, what has she done in this respect? I am quite prepared to agree that pension payments are a very large problem in this country. They take a large part of our gross national product. Last year it totalled somewhere around $7.5 billion, which was 3 per cent of the gross national product. That has doubled since 1966 when old age pensions only took about 2 per cent of the gross national product. It is estimated that in 1990 old age pensions will take 12 per cent of the gross national product, and in the year 2025 will take 18 per cent of the gross national product. There is no doubt that it is an area that should concern this House and deserves a lot of time and study, because we can rest assured that in the future we are going to have great difficulty in this particular area.
That is why I find it so difficult to understand. Instead of building, as it promised to do, instead of helping pensioners, this Government continues to destroy them. It is not that the Government does not recognize the problems. The Canadian Government report on aging, a briefing book used by this Government, says that inflation has had a serious effect on the real value of pensions and annuities. There is an emerging consensus that corrective action must be taken.
Now, why, I ask you, when this is the kind of thing the Government puts out in books, do we have an Act like this which reduces the indexing of our basic pension scheme? The
November 25, 1982

OAS is the pedestal upon which everything is built. It is no answer to say, "Well, we are going to increase GIS so no one will fall below the poverty line." It is that group of people just above the poverty line who will lose money. They will not be affected by the GIS because they will not qualify, and we will be taking money from the poor. I think it is a national scandal that we should have that kind of legislation and expect the people of this country to sit idly by.
Earlier someone mentioned the demographic problem we are having. It is very true that from 1946 to 1966 there was a large increase in the number of births in Canada. I think the biggest result is, and everyone should be well aware of it, that at the moment there are seven workers supporting one pensioner. In the year 2025 when that population bulge reaches retirement age there will be two, or three at the most, workers supporting every pensioner.
So the question we have to ask ourselves now is, will those workers continue to pay the kind of taxes necessary to support those pensioners? We have already seen the experience of Sweden where there was a tax revolt among the workers. They refused to pay taxes because too much was being taken from them.
Not long ago I had the opportunity, along with some other Members of this House, to go to Vienna for a conference on aging. I would like to thank the Minister of National Health and Welfare for giving me that opportunity. My only regret is that she was not able to accompany us. At that conference some 1,200 people from some 100 countries talked about the same kind of problem we have here, the problem of an aging population with the number of aged growing dramatically in the next couple of decades. During the two weeks we spent there a great deal of work was done by the delegates preparing a plan of action which would later go to the United Nations, presumably to be adopted by the UN and then given to all countries. It was really a plan of action for guidance as to how to handle the problem of the aged and the aging in all societies. Canada is not alone in this, and many countries, even some Third World countries, will face far more serious problems than we in this regard.
In any event, they came to many conclusions, of course. One was that you cannot deal simply with the question of pensions; you have to deal with the whole problem of aging. You have to deal with health problems because the aged generally have more health problems, therefore requiring more government expenditures. You have to deal with housing for senior citizens. How do you involve senior citizens in this whole process? Because, as we all know, senior citizens are healthier and more active than they have ever been and want to get involved.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, that conference in Vienna came up with a plan of action, well over 100 recommendations. The Canadian Government was there, ably represented, and we did very well, I thought, in terms of making a great contribution. I presume the Canadian Government adopted and signed this plan of action; at least, that was its purpose. I would just like to read recommendation No. 28, Subsection (b), which says that we must ensure that the minimum benefits will be enough to meet the essential needs of the elderly and guarantee their
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
independence. Social security payments should be adjusted taking into account previous income. Efforts should be made to maintain their purchasing power. Ways should be explored to protect the savings of the elderly against the effects of inflation.
Here we have a Bill which this Government has put before us, Bill C-131, which reduces indexation for old age pensioners to well below the inflation rate. This is the Government which worked on and signed this document. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can Liberal backbenchers sit there and not protest? Not one of them has spoken on this Bill. Not one. If they think so much of it, why do we not hear a few words as to why it is a good thing? Because they know it is not a good thing, they know it is a very bad thing. I do not think we can long survive if we do not pay more attention to the needs of our elderly.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is imposing six and five on our pensioners, yet it never seems to go the other step and index its own expenditures and requirements. I would like to refer to a Supply and Services memo which I hold in my hand dated August, 1982. This memo indicates that pensioners at level one, with family coverage, face a 32.38 per cent increase in their premium rate for group surgical and medical insurance. Now, what kind of justice is that? The Government limits the pensioners to 6 per cent and then increases their costs 32 per cent. No wonder that no member of the Government is prepared to get up and talk on this particular Bill.


Erik Nielsen: They have been told to keep quiet.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: That can be the only reason.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, the first Throne Speech that I heard. In that speech the Governor General said that the House of Commons will be asked to consider a program of action designed to respond to individual needs by promoting greater security for the elderly. Now, what has happened? Surely Bill C-131 does not promote greater income security for the elderly. Yet here we are two and a half years later fulfilling the program of this Government. If that is not double-talk and double-think and double-cross, I really do not know what is.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about Bill C-133 and the large amount of opposition coming from a few Government members. They are saying they will not vote for any Bill which limits to six and five the indexing of civil servants' retirement benefits. They say it is the breaking of a contract, and I agree with them. But it is kind of interesting that most of that talk is coming from Members in Ottawa who have large numbers of civil servants as constituents. There is nothing wrong with that, but have they forgotten all about the other elderly people who receive OAS? Where is some word of support from the backbenches of the Government for all those other elderly poor? It is very, very strange. One would almost think that they only vote this way when it is to their political advantage to do so. Why are they prepared to defend organized lobby groups but are not prepared to speak out on behalf

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
of the unorganized elderly? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that those Members who have said they will put their seat on the line for the superannuates should do the same thing for the hundreds of thousands of elderly poor who will be affected by this legislation.
Hon. Members opposite should realize that a lot of the people in their constituencies whose OAS will be reduced by six and five have sons and daughters. If we have an election within the next two years, I suspect that a lot of those elderly people and their sons and daughters and grandchildren will remember what is happening today when they go to vote. On average, this Bill will directly affect the pocketbooks of 13.5 per cent of eligible voters in the country, and in some ridings the percentage will be higher.
Until recently the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who is not in the House, has been very vocal about the effect this legislation will have. I wonder if he realizes that 14.9 per cent of eligible voters in his riding receive OAS? I am sorry that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is not present today, because 17.7 per cent of his constituents receive OAS and they will be affected by this legislation. I am told that in the constituency of the Minister of National Health and Welfare only 8.2 per cent of constituents receive OAS. Perhaps the Prime Minister is not worried if he is not going to run again, but over 19 per cent of his constituents receive OAS and they will be affected by the legislation.
The Government should reconsider this legislation and the effect it will have upon the elderly. According to what it claims, its intentions are of the best. Certainly the Minister of National Health and Welfare has gone across the country talking about the problems of the pension system and about the 500,000 elderly men and women who live under the poverty line. She has promised that her first priority is to help them. I understand some of the difficulties she faces because the Government changes the Finance Minister almost as often as the Prime Minister changes the flower in his lapel. I suppose this makes it difficult for her to communicate.
For about two years we have heard about the green paper on pensions which the Government is going to bring forth. 1 plead with the Minister to expedite this. Speaker after speaker has said that we face a horrendous cost in the financing of pensions for the elderly in the years ahead. We know that if the Canada Pension Plan fund is not increased it will soon be without money, and that by the year 2001 there will be a net outgo. We also know that private pension plans have to be improved. There will need to be more coverage and earlier vesting.
The country is prepared to discuss these things, but that cannot take place until the Government offeis an over-all plan.
Experts hold that an average employer who contributes $100 today will have to contribute $350 in the future to pay for the improvements to private pension plans. Surely the country deserves the opportunity to discuss these things.
The Canadian Labour Congress has spoken about increasing the amount of the CPP contribution from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. That would impose a tremendous cost on both employer and employee, but it is something that should be discussed. There are people who favour an increase in the Canada Pension Plan generally to overcome some inequities, particularly those suffered by women. That is another matter that we should discuss. There are other alternatives. The public is entitled to enter the discussion and to be presented with the facts. I plead with the Minister to bring the green paper forward so that we can get on with improving the security of old age pensions, as the Government promised.
I am sure we all know that we live in what is called a "zero sum" society-that you do not get anything out unless someone else puts something in. We all know that our capacity and ability to provide social services, such as pensions and health care, depends on productivity. We all know as well-except perhaps some Members to my left who do not seem to understand it-that there is no such thing as a free lunch. With all this talk about improving pensions, we must also talk about improving productivity. The job cannot be done by Members of the Opposition, however; it has to be done by the Government. Why has the Government waited so long, Mr. Speaker?
This Party will fight tooth and nail against the legislation as it stands, because it is bad legislation. It affects virtually every senior citizen in the country.
Someone has said the measure will bring the Government $31 million. The Government has already spent $100 million on advertising and $25 million for a monument in darkest Africa. It is a shame that it does not look after the people of the country better.
Again, I plead with the Government to withdraw this legislation which will be a hardship on the elderly poor of the nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper).


Mr. Cooper:: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it agreed that we call it five o'clock ?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.
November 25, 1982


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
All items preceding No. 54 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any agreement signed between the Enterprise Development Board and General Aluminum Forging Ltd. of Hamilton, Ontario, including copies of all communications and minutes of meetings between the two parties prior to the signing of the agreement.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some measure of sadness this afternoon, recognizing that we are coming to the end of this Thursday afternoon "Hal Herbert Happy Hour". The changes in the rules which we hope will go into effect at the end of December will mean that this, 1 was going to say "ridiculous" but I guess I should not call it a ridiculous procedure, but a procedure which is rather ineffectual, will be terminated.
I must admit that I was a Member of the committee that made the recommendation to the House that has been accepted-and I fully support it-to change the rules to eliminate this procedure which we go through regularly on a Thursday afternoon. It is a procedure which has come about simply because the session has gone on so long that we find ourselves looking for something to fill up the hour between five o'clock and six o'clock on a Thursday.
In an attempt to pick a subject of interest I chose this motion, which incidentally goes back quite a way. In fact, it originated with a news release in December of 1980 when the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced:
-that the Enterprise Development Board has agreed to provide support to General Aluminum Forgings Ltd. of Winnipeg, Manitoba in the form of a guarantee of 90 per cent of $3.1 million loan to be raised by the company, a subsidiary to Sterlake Enterprises Ltd. of Hamilton, Ontario. The company is establishing a new facility at Winnipeg to manufacture precision aluminum forgings.
Total cost of the facility will be in the region of $7.1 million.
Construction of the new plant has already started and it is anticipated that the plant will be ready by the fall of 1981. The plant is expected to provide employment for about 52.
The release went on to say that the Minister and his officers:
-have been in touch with the McDonnell-Douglas Corporation which has offered to place contracts with the new firm as part of the industrial benefits accruing from the CF18 new fighter aircraft.
I know nothing of the company referred to in the news release. 1 do not want to say that I am not interested in the company; I am interested in any company which is operating in an efficient fashion, but the primary motivation of the motion is not the company itself. Immediately following the
Enterprise Development Board
release, I wrote to the Minister in December, 1980 in which I put this simple question to him:
-what does the Government receive, if anything, in return for its guarantee?
Being unaware of the way the system worked, I asked:
Is there any DREE money in this project?
My letter was dated December 11, 1980. As so often is the case-and I have spoken about this many times before-I waited patiently and nothing was forthcoming-no response, no acknowledgement. On April 3, 1981, I put a motion on the Order Paper, the one that is up for discussion today.
On May 6, 1981 I received a response to my letter of December, 1980. I want to read the relevant parts of it and I emphasize once again that this discussion does not centre particularly upon the company named in the motion but upon the procedures and support programs of the Government. In his letter the Minister said:
-EDP structures financial packages and insures loans for companies, particularly smaller and medium-sized operations, who encounter difficulties in obtaining financial backing because of the risk factors in relation to the size of the operation involved. All loan insurance is on a last resort basis, that is, when financing is not available on reasonable terms without the insurance.
In the particular case of General Aluminum Forgings Inc., it was the judgment of the Enterprise Development Board that a loan guarantee was necessary to enable the principals to secure the financing needed to establish the plant.
Then the Minister went on to say:
To answer your question, the Government itself does not materially receive anything in return for its guarantee, with the exception of a recoverable 1 per cent insurance fee, but rather achieves some success for the event which, in turn, contributes to job creation and industrial development. In this particular case, the loan guarantee contributed directly to the creation of 52 jobs-
The Minister also told me in his letter:
DREE will also participate in the project and has made a grant offer of $1,265 million based on estimated eligible capital costs of $4.02 million. Both the EDP loan insurance and the DREE grant are contingent upon a company contribution or investment of $1.5 million.
Those are the details. What I was looking for was, of course, the general Government approach to assistance to industry. As I said, the motion was placed on the Order Paper in April, 1981. With nothing forthcoming in the way of documents, the motion was transferred for debate on December 16, 1981. Even after a motion is transferred for debate-in other words, the motion for the production of papers is no longer there for the Government to act upon-there is no reason the Government should not produce documents at that particular point in time. Alternatively, it might contact the Member-and whether it is a Government Member or an Opposition Member is irrelevant-and discuss the information which the Member is seeking. Surely the purpose is to ensure that Members are as well informed as possible.
In my own case my interest was not in the company named in the motion but in the operation of the program. Obviously because I represent an area with a large industrial base, I was interested in ensuring that the companies in my own riding would have full knowledge of the program and would be able to take advantage of any of its benefits.
20990

November 25, 1982
Enterprise Development Board
I should put on the record the little I learned about the Enterprise Development Program. Apparently it was introduced in April of 1977 by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It was to replace the Automotive Adjustment Assistance Program, the Program for Advancement of Industrial Technology, the General Adjustment Assistance Program, the Pharmaceutical Industry Development Assistance Program, the Industrial Design Assistance Program, the Program to Enhance Productivity, and the Footwear and Tanning Industry Adjustment Program. Those fancy-sounding names are all represented by initials. I am now led to believe that two of them, PAIT and IDAP, no longer exist. Also it was introduced because:
Responding to messages from Canadian businessmen to make programs more widely know and more easily understood, IT and C formulated EDP to subsume these programs. The forms of support that were available under the old programs are available under EDP.
I was trying to make the Program more widely known in my own riding and for the benefit of all businessmen. If documents are lodged on the floor of the House, then they are in the public domain and available to everyone. The forms of assistance under the Program were loans or loan insurance for adjustment projects, grants for innovation projects, grants for product design, grants to study productivity improvement projects, grants to identify new products, and so on. These were all very well described.
I should like to refer to a private publication, a publication of Price, Waterhouse entitled "Government Financial Assistance Programs in Canada," which indicated under the heading "Objective":
The program is designed to provide financial support, by means of grants and/or loan assistance, to Canadian businesses involved in high risk and innovative projects or adjustment projects designed to increase efficiency and competitiveness-
Surely today we need to increase efficiency and competitiveness. I continue:
-that can be expected to yield attractive rates of return on the total investment and/or provide economic benefit to Canada through an increase in, or sustaining of, exports and/or employment.
What could be more worthy?
Before coming into the House I wanted to refer to the latest annual report of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In my files I have the 1980-1981 report. I asked for the 1981-1982 report, which would be for the year ending March 31, 1982. I am sorry to report that the 1981-1982 annual report of the Department has failed to be produced. I am sorry because, of course, I can only then look at what was happening a couple of years ago as shown in the 1980-1981 report. I read in the report of that year the following:
The Enterprise Development Program (EDP) provides assistance to manufacturing and processing firms to improve their viability and international competitiveness.
During 1980-1981, 151 adjustment assistance loan guarantees valued at $231 million were authorized. In addition, $98.2 million in contributions were authorized towards the cost of 549 innovation and product development projects
in such industries as machinery electronics, chemicals, ship components, automotive vehicles, building components and textiles.
Under the program, insurance of $111.5 million was authorized for 142 loans made by private lenders to manufacturing firms.
I had a secondary interest in pursuing this particular motion on this subject. Ever since I came here I have taken an interest in the Estimates which are tabled every year. I have studied them. It took me many years before I had any idea of how I could either read these Estimates or make any sense out of them. I must admit I am still much confused, even after being here ten years. I find it sometimes very difficult to obtain answers that I would accept as satisfactory.
My question to the Minister contained in the motion obviously deals with any benefits occurring to the Government to compensate it for its risks. I was told about the 1 per cent, which is the insurance charge.
In the Estimates for 1981-1982, one can read under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the insurance payments under the Enterprise Development Program show expenditures for 1979-1980 at zero. One can read that the Estimates for 1980-1981 are also indicated as zero. The Estimates for 1981-1982 are listed as $6.2 million. In that same book of Estimates one can also read under the heading "Industry Development":
Contributions to promote the establishment, improvement, growth, efficiency or international competitiveness of manufacturing, processing and service industries in Canada, including contributions under the Enterprise Development Program.
The forecast expenditures for 1980-1981 are shown as $60,673 million. The Estimates for 1981-1982 are shown as $76,638 million. I read these figures to show how one can be confused, because I then turned to the Estimates for 19821983. Under the same item for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the heading "Trade-Industrial Program" we see:
Statutory-Insurance Payments under the Enterprise Development Program.
We find that the expenditures for 1980-1981 are $8,402 million. Remember, I just read the Estimates for the previous year and they were zero. The Estimates for 1982-1983, the year in which we are at present, are $7.2 million. That is the expense that is shown in the Estimates for the Department.
Reading also from the 1982-1983 Estimates, in the same line as I read previously for 1981-1982, under the heading "Industry Development", I now see forecast expenditures for 1981-1982 of $142 million. Remember I read the Estimates for 1981-1982 and they were $76 million. From Estimates of $76 million, the figure has climbed to forecast expenditures of $142 million. The Estimates on that same page for the current year are shown as something over $124 million.
Thus, there are two motivations in bringing this particular motion to the House. I repeat, I do so not in any way to make any difficulties for the company concerned or to inquire into the business of the company that is mentioned in the motion. This motion is to inquire about the way the program operates. It is an attempt to publicize the work that is being done by the
November 25, 1982

Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the industrial sector. It is also to inquire into the funds that are being used, the risks, the amount involved, the money we may lose as a result of our guarantees and the amount that comes back into the treasury, presumably into general revenues, since I cannot find this item in the Estimates.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, there are a multitude of questions on my mind even after all these years. I plead once again, because it appears we will not have this opportunity to discuss the subject much longer, that the Government try to help Hon. Members who are, in turn, trying to help the Government in being just a little freer in the way it provides information to us, to try to answer our questions and to try to provide us with the ammunition we need in order to sell Government programs.
As I said at the beginning, we may be near the end of this particular period on a Thursday afternoon when we can discuss motions for the production of papers. I wonder if anything has been accomplished over the years of trying to change the system. I can only hope in the new year when the new rules of the House take effect and the new procedures are put into place that we will more effectively be able to encourage the Government to improve communications between Government Departments and Members of Parliament.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for his presentation on his motion. I believe that, like all motions, it is significant, and the right answers and the right solutions must be found if issues raised by Hon. Members are to be given satisfactory clarification. There is a problem, however, and that is how to answer all questions simultaneously, and how to be very specific in a case where there is still a confidential aspect to be reckoned with.
Therefore, I understand the Member for Vaudreuil who has been waiting for a long time to get information on this company, namely, General Aluminum Forging Ltd. This case was of particular interest to Manitoba, because of the company's job creation potential, which is directly related to the aerospace industry. To get to the subject of the motion itself, I would like to explain to the Hon. Member that when the plant was opened on October 30, 1981, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) gave all the facts on the kind of subsidies, the exact amounts of those subsidies and what programs had been used to give direct assistance to the company in establishing its facilities.
But before going any further, I would like to explain for the benefit of the House, that at the Department of Industry and Commerce, we have one basic tenet, and that is the confidentiality of certain documents. Failure to observe this rule would jeopardize the industrial strategies of certain companies vis-avis their competitors, and therefore, when examining a particular case, it would be unthinkable to publish all elements of our
Enterprise Development Board
negotiations with the company, because then we would get to the point where we would no longer be able to guarantee confidentiality to a company that has put its trust in the department. The department must ensure that its programs are known to the public and clear in their objectives concerning demand, but it must also protect the confidentiality of the details of each case, and just as we at the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE deal with the confidentiality of corporate files, the Department of National Revenue, for instance, is responsible for the confidentiality of the files of individuals.
Therefore, when an Hon. Member demands production of papers before an agreement is signed, there are many factors, including the legislation and regulations in effect and the rule of confidentiality, that prevent the minister from producing papers at that time. Similarly, once the agreement has been finalized, and once the actual work has begun, certain aspects of the file cannot be published without jeopardizing a company's competitive position, since free competition is one of the principles of our economic system.
That being said, for the benefit of the Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) I should now like to provide the following information regarding the agreement with General Aluminum Foreign Ltd. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce contributed $1.5 million to the project, while the Federal Development Bank provided a minimum loan of $700,000. That was the Federal Government's contribution under the program, and if the Member for Vaudreuil wants to know more about the various programs, perhaps I could tell him about the funds available at the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the funds allocated to each program, and the percentage earmarked for Quebec, Ontario and Canada as a whole. Of course, I would have liked the department to get me the necessary information more quickly so that I could give the Hon. Member a more complete answer. I believe that it is important to give a direct answer, because, as too often happens in the House of Commons, Hon. Members indulge in lengthy debates just for the purpose of killing time, and I deplore this, and personally, I would have preferred to have a more thorough discussion of the legislation this afternoon. I agree with my Hon. colleague who asked that the rules be changed. I think this is vital because, Mr. Speaker, what this country needs is hard work. There is urgent legislation before the House, and if we start providing information like this at the end of the day just for the sake of making the 5 to 6 period a little more interesting, I think the rules of the game should be changed very quickly, for the benefit of all concerned.
Now, to provide some clarification of the budget of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I may point out that for the year 1980-81, $98.2 million were set aside for subsidies under the Enterprise Development Program, and of

November 25, 1982
Enterprise Development Board
this amount, Quebec received more than $47.9 million or 48.8 per cent of the total budget for Canada. This was for subsidies, which are non-refundable. As for guaranteed loans, $231 million was budgeted for all of Canada, and of that amount, $25.5 million, or 11 per cent, was allocated to Quebec.
The purpose of the Enterprise Development Program is to enable companies in a strongly competitive market to become more diversified, more mechanized, and to introduce advanced technology in order to achieve strong penetration of new markets. This is vitally important. The department has a number of brochures that explain very clearly the exact objectives of the program and the types of subsidies available. I am not going to read them in the House, because I do not want to bore Hon. Members, but there are a number of programs of this kind that are available and that can be looked into at any time. Any suggestions for improvements will certainly be welcome and should be addressed to the minister or to departmental officials.
I referred earlier to the Enterprise Development Program and the grants and guaranteed loans for the defence industry. We often hear about this program and, in the case of the company mentioned in the motion, General Aluminum Forging Ltd., about how it relates to the defence industry. We often hear about these budgets in Quebec and Ontario. For the information of the Hon. Members, the total budget for the defence industry in Canada was $142.9 million in 1980-81, and Quebec received $66.6 million of this amount, or 46.6 per cent. This is enormous because the budget of the defence industry includes all technical research in the field of radar, radio and aerospace technology, which makes Quebec as well as Ontario more competitive with similar American industries. The same holds true for small business loans. The total budget in Canada is $408.4 million and Quebec received $120.9 million or 29.6 per cent of this total.
Another important matter, and the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) referred to it in his motion, is the budget of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This matter is often discussed across Canada because people wonder what is really the mandate of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce compared with other Departments. I want to point out that the total budget of DREE for 1980-81 was $180.6 million, which amount was increased to $206.9 million in 1981-82. I believe that a good question to ask in this House would be: What is Quebec's share of this budget? Out of a budget of $180.6 million in 1980-81, Quebec received $118.4 million or 65.6 per cent, and out of a total budget of 206.9 million in 1981-82, $123.1 million was spent in Quebec, or 59.5 per cent. These figures speak for themselves and show how the presence of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE is important for a region.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is readily realized how important this can be for Eastern Canada, and so that the Chair may have all the relevant information, I have with me figures
for both Eastern and Western Canada. As concerns programs which benefit Eastern Canada, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce spends over 20 per cent of its total budget in the Atlantic provinces, which means that it considers regional economic development a major concern.
As for the motion of the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil, who has asked that certain documents be tabled, I would point out that the figures I have just mentioned are available to the public. They can be looked up at any time. As for the internal communications between the company involved and the Department, I would like to say that correspondence was exchanged over a period of two years and that there were also discussions meetings and minutes. In his motion, the Hon. Member requests that these minutes be made public, and this, at the request of the Department and the company before the negotiations. The parties involved agree on which documents will be made public and which will not be, and this is extremely important from a the procedural viewpoint. The Hon. Member has asked that the Department be allowed to provide more explanations, regardless of the rules, but it must be kept in mind that there will always be some documents which cannot be made public, and this holds true for any negotiation since certain interested parties must be protected. I therefore must say that, whatever amendments are made to the regulations, whether in the House or in the Department, there will still remain confidential elements in the Files.
Now that the file has been closed since the plant has been built, the situation has improved and the construction is now finalized, could other documents be made public? On this point, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil which specific documents he would like to see and which other maybe less important documents he would like to check.
At this stage, I would like to receive a formal request to go and check with the department, so that a distinction may be drawn between available and unavailable documents. To make the task of the Hon. Member easier it might also be useful at that point to ask the company itself whether or not it objects to our releasing certain documents because this is the third time I have to approach the department on that type of a case. The applicant company is always asked whether it agrees to the release of certain documents. This is most important, and neither party acts without the other's consent. Otherwise, documents of course could be leaked, and an application could be jeopardized for the sole reason that certain documents were to be kept secret at the negotiation stage.
Other aspects of the program are significant to industry and commerce, namely the Federal Business Development Bank. In respect of the program that was implemented concerning General Aluminum Forging Limited, I would like to point out that the Federal Business Development Bank made a concrete contribution within the business establishment itself. The
November 25, 1982

Federal Business Development Bank granted a $700,000 privileged loan on top of the $1.5 million put up by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Federal Business Development Bank loans across Canada totalled $484 million in 1980-81. That was the funding. There were $113.2 million for Quebec, or 23.4 per cent, and last year, for 1981-82, $460 million were available for loans, of which $163.9 million or 35.6 per cent for Quebec, which is enormous.
Concerning the Federal Business Development Bank, there is an interesting question that is often put in our areas: "Does the Federal Business Development Bank take risks? Do they have risk capital?" On that point I would like to state that $13.6 million are earmarked as risk capital for the whole of Canada, of which Quebec received $4.3 million, or 31.6 per cent of the 1980-81 funding. Also in 1981-82, there were $15.6 million available as risk capital for the whole of Canada, of which $4.7 million for Quebec, or 30.1 per cent of total loans granted in terms of risk capital. This is important, because it is often stated that the Federal Development Business Bank lends money at rates somewhat similar to those charged by chartered banks. But again caution is warranted here, because the Federal Business Development Bank does not give a loan unless the applicant was turned down by a chartered bank, and second, the Federal Business Development Bank rate is indeed lower than the market's. However, the main point here is that a significant amount of risk capital is available at the Federal Business Development Bank, which opens the way for closely monitored ventures.
I would now like to turn to the small business development bonds. I like to quote those figures because the Hon. Member earlier asked for information on the department. In my view, the motion put by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (M. Herbert) boils down to a request for information in the first place: First on the company as such, the negotiations that were held between the department and the company. I think I responded directly to that part of the question earlier, when making clear that $1.5 million were coming from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and $700,000 from the Federal Business Development Bank. But over and above that, the Hon. Member asked for more information on the department. So 1 will carry on on this subject, because I have information here from my office that can be of use to every Member in this House. Well, as far as the small business development bond is concerned, this is very interesting, and I read: $3,553 billion for Canada last year, that is for fiscal 1980-81. Of that, Quebec received $1,184 billion, or 33.3 per cent. For fiscal year 1981-82, and this concerns the Export Development Corporation, there were $4,203 billion for the whole of Canada, while there were $1,539 billion for Quebec, or 36.6 per cent of the total expenditures and the total capitalization for the Export Developments Corporation.
Perhaps I might digress briefly and mention that it was thanks to the Corporation that Bombardier was able to gain a
Enterprise Development Board
foothold on the American market, to the same extent that we were able with Aerospace to export Canadian technology as far away as Brazil. That is very important because, when the provinces make certain claims on the federal government, the officials in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion may just be somewhat slow on the uptake in the sense that they fail to provide information in terms which people may readily understand. But when we are dealing with figures ranging between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion, I think we ought to be specific. The Bombardier contract alone still represents for Quebec an investment of $1 billion in state of peak technology since this contract has made it possible for us to prove that we can indeed compete very favourably with French and American manufacturers. And, of course, that opens up very promising future for Bombardier. And what about the workers and staff at La Pocatiere and Valcourt who stand to benefit directly from the economic fallout? Indeed we owe all of that to our Minister and to the Export Development Corporation. Perhaps the Corporation is not widely known, but it should be because the figures we are talking about give an excellent idea of the work done by the Corporation.
Some people often say that Quebec does not get its fair share of the billions of dollars spent by Industry, Trade and Commerce Canada and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I have a couple of points to make about that. With respect to the total budget of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion-and I repeat this because we have so few opportunities to explain it-Quebec has received $123.1 million out of $206.9 million for all of Canada, which accounts for 59.5 per cent of the entire DREE budget. As for the Export Development Corporation, I did mention earlier $4,203 billion for Canada in 1981-82, including $1,539 billion for Quebec, or 36.6 per cent. I take pleasure in explaining those figures because they are indeed very meaningful data which Hon. Members can use to keep their constituents informed. What do we do with all that money and what sort of direct planning is possible with a budget of that size? That is what I explained a moment ago when referring to Bombardier and Aerospace, and I might say the same thing about de Havilland and Canadair. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can get the unanimous consent of the House, but I would like to continue to explain the budget of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, all the more so since that is what the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil has asked-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The time allotted to the Parliamentary Secretary has indeed expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent.
\ English]
Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: No.

November 25, 1982
Enterprise Development Board


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is no unanimous consent.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, would the Parliamentary Secretary entertain a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Since the time allotted to the Parliamentary Secretary has expired, he would be allowed to accept a question only if there were unanimous consent.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the Member for Vau-dreuil to put a question to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is no unanimous consent.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to take part in this debate on the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil, and, with the Hon. Members who preceded me this afternoon, the Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) and the Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), I am prompted to say that we are all anxious to have parliamentary reform introduced as soon as possible in the House, so that at this time of the day, we will no longer have to kill time just to keep the debate going until six o'clock, instead of using the precious time of the House to debate other subjects that are far more important and of much greater benefit to Canadians.
Nevertheless, our parliamentary system has provided us in Canada with a democratic system of government that is probably the envy of the whole world. The fact that all Hon. Members may freely express their views here often means that the passage of legislation is delayed, but at least everyone has a chance to say what he thinks and sometimes to make some very important points. Once we have this minireform, which, as we all know, will be presented in the House on Monday, we will probably be able to avoid those soporific speeches during which Hon. Members, and often visitors in the gallery as well, tend to drop off to sleep. Incidentally, our visitors must often wonder what is going on in the House. Mr. Speaker, I think an explanation is in order, because people should realize that when the House barely has a quorum of twenty, the other Hon. Members are not all on holiday or partying somewhere else, but they are working in the Standing Committees of the House. There are a number of committees of the House, and Hon. Members are Members of these committees so they are actually working.
I would have liked parliamentary reform to provide for a rotating schedule for Hon. Members, namely, three weeks in the House and then one week in their ridings to attend to their constituents, but it seems this was not approved. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, I am very interested in hearing about parliamentary reform but the notice of motion requests "a copy of any agreement signed between the Enterprise Development Board and General Aluminum Forging Ltd." I have heard no reference to that whatsoever, and would ask that you rule as to relevance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) has a valid point of order. The Chair was about to call the Hon. Member to order and ask that he speak to the subject at hand.


Jack Wendele Shields: If the Hon. Member does not have anything to say about agreements signed by the Government with corporations, I will be happy to contribute a few words.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I realized just now that the Hon. Member was practically the only one of his party on the opposite side of the House, so 1 wanted to make a contribution to his education, but in any case, I was just going to address myself to the subject at hand. If he would like to add a few words, however, I have no objection, if my hon. colleagues agree to let him speak on this matter.
Since we are discussing the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I would like to take this opportunity to express some reservations and also make some comments with respect to the new department, since it now includes DREE, and I would like to inform the House that DREE, as we knew it, was an entirely exceptional instrument for regional development in Canada. However, now that the department has been restructured, we do have some reservations.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have heard hon. colleagues expressing some concern about the restructuring of DREE. It is practically common knowledge that what we now have is pitched battle between senior officials of the department, who are wondering who is going to get which position. Functions are being centralized, while the original purpose of the department was, of course, to develop the regions. They are centralizing in the large urban centres, comfortably ensconced in their ivory towers, and the bureaucracy-I am sure my hon. colleagues opposite are going to appreciate this, since they are very unhappy about all the bureaucracy in Government-the bureaucracy is steadily increasing and we now have a department that is practically immune to change. I forget which French writer said that bureaucracy was a monster administered by pygmies. That is quite true, when you think about it.
November 25, 1982

For instance, DREE in Montreal has 190 employees, in a department which is supposed to be concerned with regional economic development. Montreal has 190, Quebec City has 40, and in the regions where the work is actually done, there are 20. That gives a pretty clear picture of how this bureaucracy operates. It is more or less the same in the other provinces. So there certainly is cause for concern. And what kind of results can we expect? Of course, since the department was restructured, it is now being led by an exceptional man who deserves all praise, but I wonder how one man is going to control this bureaucracy.
1 have the impression that my hon. colleague opposite has something to add, so if he is prepared to do so now, I am prepared to give him the floor.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I thought 1 would get my colleague off the hotseat and maybe contribute a little. I know that he was struggling very hard to keep the debate going. I do have a contribution to make. In Notice of Motion No. 54, the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) requests "a copy of any agreement signed between the Enterprise Development Board and General Aluminum Forging Ltd."
I have had a similar experience as the Hon. Member. I requested copies of the agreement between Imperial Oil and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to the loan to Imperial Oil to continue its activity in Cold Lake. It was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 million. We understand that part of the agreement, as indicated in the news release, was that if the plant did not go ahead within the year, the grant would be lost.
I think this is pertinent and follows very closely what we are talking about in this private members' hour. It is incumbent on the Government to make this agreement available so that we can fulfil our responsibility to our constituents and account for what the Government is doing. To do this, we must have access to these documents. I have repeatedly risen in this House under Standing Order 43, I have placed a motion on the Order Paper, I have questioned the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), and the former minister of energy, mines and resources, with regard to the agreement which was signed at a cost of $40 million to the taxpayers of this country, and I have yet to receive the courtesy of a reply and I have yet to receive those documents. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they will probably never see the light of day during this session of Parliament.
In the same vein, I have made repeated requests of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, again by way of the Order Paper, by questions in this House of Commons during Question Period, and by way of motions under Standing Order 43, for all relevant material, all studies done, which indicate what the impact on the economy of Canada would be with the construction of the Alsands project and the Imperial Oil project in Cold Lake. We are looking at a $12 billion to
Enterprise Development Board
$14 billion investment in the Alsands project and we are looking at a comparable investment in the Cold Lake project. Those are direct expenditure dollars, 1980 dollars. The direct flow-through, then, to the rest of the economy into virtually every Province in this country, the employment that it would generate, is vital information for this House of Commons I am convinced that if we had the available information which I requested with regard to those two plants all Members in this House would take a serious look at the policies which are forcing those two plants into oblivion. I am confident that these studies are in the hands of the departmental officials in Energy, Mines and Resources. I am also confident that if Hon. Members had access to that information, they would see the multiplication of the $24 billion investment in those two plants, what it would do to the economy over a 20 to 25-year period, and the jobs which could be created when we are in a position of having one and a half million people unemployed across the country.
When we see industries in Ontario and Quebec closing down, when we see whole communities shut down because they are dependent on a mine and the mine is closing out and when we see the auto industry pulling back, we can imagine the effect of a $24 billion investment in the oil sands which can produce energy security for Canada, which can create jobs across the country and inject into our economy an estimated $500 billion in a ripple effect. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if Hon. Members had access to the information which is there in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, probably sitting on a shelf, or maybe hidden on a shelf, I am sure there would be a revolt in the Liberal ranks, among backbenchers over there, that would make this Government's head spin.
It is the responsibility of all Members of this House, not only to play partisan politics, but to gather all the information which they possibly can in order to make sound decisions for the health of our country. I have just given two examples of information, such as agreements and studies, that should be available to all Members of this House yet are being held back.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil when he asks why this is not made available. I truly cannot see one reason why I should not have access or, indeed, any Member of this House, to the agreement which cost the Canadian taxpayers $40 million. I believe it is our right, Mr. Speaker, to have that agreement in our hands in order to ensure that the Government has used that money wisely. But all I was able to get was smart-aleck answers from the former minister of energy, mines and resources when I questioned him on that agreement.
I think it is the absolute right of every Member of this House of Commons to have in their possession copies of the studies done by Energy, Mines and Resources showing the impact on the economy right across the country with regard to the Alsands and the Cold Lake projects, because then, and only then, can we in this House do the job which we were sent here to do by our electors.

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The time allotted to me is very short, Mr. Speaker, and I would just like to make one or two points. The Motion on the Order Paper deals with the Enterprise Development Board and the General Aluminum Forging Ltd., allegedly of Hamilton, Ontario. It was the location of the company in Hamilton, Ontario, which motivated me to look into this subject, and I would like to correct the Hon. Member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and indicate to him that there is no company by that name in Hamilton. Indeed, it is headquartered there under the name of Sterlake Enterprises Ltd. I believe that an inaccuracy should be corrected because in this particular Bill there is criticism, perhaps, of the Government, and by inference the company which is named is also considered guilty by association. I think that in presenting a motion of this nature such an implication should be taken into consideration. Information that is submitted may be valid in so far as being critical of the Government is concerned, but there is another side to the issue, and the other side here is the company involved. Many such companies are high risk companies which have to battle carefully for recognition and support, and presenting a motion such as this before Parliament, does bring about publicity, and that publicity could be interpreted as being unfavourable. Therefore, I feel there should be greater study of the presentations made, keeping in mind the effect it has on enterprising, innovative, companies which look to the Government for assistance, as for example this company which intends to open up the aluminum forging industry in Canada.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Miss Begin that Bill C-131, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (No. 2) be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-131. I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to follow my colleague, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). Of course, he is the pension critic for our party and
he knows a good deal about it, which will make it a little difficult for me to follow him. He knows so much about pensions for two reasons. First, obviously he has put an awful lot of work into his critic's role. Second, he has been collecting an old age pension himself for about 30 years. Well, I exaggerate a little.
I really want to talk about two things tonight with respect to what I think the Government is doing to our senior citizens. The Government is making things very hard for those people right now. Secondly, it is making sure that our senior citizens are going to have difficulties in the future. Essentially, what Bill C-131 sets out to do is to impose the famous six and five regime on a group which I believe is less able to bear that kind of hardship. I think all of us-certainly I do-approve of limiting Government spending, but not in this particular area. Why does the Government not look at eliminating some useless projects, some of these expensive things that we have watched the Government get involved in over the last year? But why, why, cut back on needed programs such as Old Age Security? The bulk of our senior citizen population in Canada depends very much on these pensions. They are not a cushion or extra income. They are in fact, in many cases, the only source of income. Of Canadians presently receiving Old Age Security, as I understand it, approximately one half or about 1.2 million Canadians, do not receive the guaranteed income supplement, but that does not mean they do not need it or could not use it. Many of those people are the ones who are going to feel the full impact of Bill C-131. They are the ones to be penalized by the Government, the very ones who have worked hard, planned and done everything possible to secure their financial independence for their old age. This Bill will jeopardize that security, jeopardize the savings they have worked for years and years to accumulate. It is also going to jeopardize, in many cases, something which is very important to these people, their own homes; the one thing that gives them a stable base and a real sense of security.
Indexing Old Age Security was the Government's answer to inflation. But not now. Now we find that the Government is going to place an unequal burden on a part of society which has virtually no clout with which to fight back. What the Government should be looking at is some kind of catch-up, not a penalty, which is certainly what Bill C-131 is all about. 1 do not think the Government has recognized the kind of limits there are on the savings of these people. The Government-I am sure this is going to happen-is going to force elderly Canadians to dig into their savings. That will have a particular impact today for one reason, the fact that people can now expect a much longer lifespan. They can expect to be pensionable for a much longer period of time. And what is very significant is that any losses they experience now are losses which will never be recouped. But the elderly are going to have to shoulder a permanent reduction in their standard of living because of what the Government calls, in Bill C-131, a temporary measure.
November 25, 1982

Let us stop and just look for a minute. Mr. Speaker, at private pensions. For example, they are not indexed. We also find that only about 40 per cent of our senior population enjoy private pensions. Therefore, many of our seniors will in fact lose their one inflation cushion, the one thing which allows them to cope with today's inflation. But it is not just a reduction of the savings of pensioners which is the problem. By keeping the amount that they receive at a lower level over the next two years, the Government is effectively reducing the base amount when full indexing returns. So the over-all pie is shrinking. Very simply, what that means is a permanent loss of that cushion against inflation. It is a permanent betrayal of this Government's promise. Senior citizens affected by Bill C-131 will live with six and five for the rest of their lives. It is going to become a permanent structure and permanent problem for them for as long as they live, and the Government insists on calling it a temporary measure.
If you look into the area of pensions in some detail, Mr. Speaker, you will find that it very much affects single people, and certainly women. We find that under the GIS the cut-off point for a single individual is around $8,900, and for couples it is about $15,000. That hovers very close to the poverty line. Anyone making that amount of money or more is fully indexed. Therefore, they will feel the full impact of Bill C-131. I think all of us would recognize that in this time of a high cost of living, $8,900 is not really very much. For a couple to live on $15,000, certainly in some of our urban areas, is not very much at all. In fact, it will be very difficult to maintain any kind of comfortable lifestyle on that income. Yet this Government has somehow managed to decide that it is enough to shoulder a part of what is supposed to be a temporary burden in the six and five fight. In fact, I think it is enough to threaten the savings of our senior citizens, and it is enough to limit their Old Age Security income forever.
We were relieved of course that the Government decided to use the GIS, but where we have some concern now is that many in fact will fall through that line which governs whether or not they will receive the GIS. As I mentioned earlier, that line is very close to the StatsCan poverty line.
I really believe that the Government has done the barest minimum it can to improve Guaranteed Income Supplement levels. It has been recommended that the GIS be used to bring even those who fall below that line, up to the level of the poverty line. This was recommended by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, the Canadian organization of small business and something called the Business Committee on Pension Policy. On April 20 the Minister indicated that she would be interested in doing that "as soon as funds are available", but it has never been done, Mr. Speaker. Instead, we find that there has been an attack on the whole plan of Old Age Security.
As I understand it, there are approximately 400,000 people in Canada receiving pensions-most of them women-who fall below the poverty line. The implications of this Bill for our
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
future is very important, Mr. Speaker. Earlier the Hon. Member for Okanagan North drew our attention to the effects of the baby boom, showing that at present there are seven workers for every pensioner and that by the year 2020 there will be three workers for every pensioner.
What I find frightening about the Government's approach to Bill C-131 is that it offers no comprehensive fiscal plan to deal with the problems that face us. The Canada Pension Plan will need contributions of around 9 per cent of earnings in future, instead of the present 3.6 per cent, to maintain the present level of benefit.
Unless some comprehensive planing takes place very soon, a heavy tax increase will have to be imposed on workers by the year 2000.
At the present time the Canada Pension Plan is short of cash. Things are very tight indeed. It tooks as if the fund will be bankrupt by the year 2020. A lot of the money in the fund has been lent to the Provinces at low rates of interest, and there is a popular belief that much of that money will never be paid back. It is imperative that Canadians, individually, be allowed to prepare for retirement independence. Instead of that, however, we find that the Government is aggravating the situation, and that will have an effect on the future. It is discouraging Canadians from investing for their old age or retirement. Interest borrowed on money to purchase RRSPs and Registered Home Ownership Plans is no longer tax deductible. This is another disincentive to deferred spending and to the intense saving that is usual in the years before a person buys a home. The RRSP was designed to give our senior citizens some measure of liquidity in their retirement years. The home is usually the single largest family asset that families can acquire, but this dream is becoming something of a pipedream now. It is the one thing that could have provided an accumulation of sale capital or accommodation security.
The foregoing are not only indirect barriers to savings, Mr. Speaker, there are others, such as the high level of taxation, the erratic interest rates that are eating up the savings of senior citizens and, worst of all, the economic mess the Government has created. It seems to be blindly forging ahead without trying to improve the situation. That is just a small list of the things that have been happening.
The unemployed are spending the reserves that they should have been able to put away for their retirement. The unemployed cannot save, they cannot buy homes, they cannot contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and they cannot contribute to their own private pension plans. The Government is creating a generation of pensions that will likely need full Government support just to stay at the poverty line. Private savings should be encouraged.
The Government should be worrying about the present state of the economy and looking to things like the National Energy Program to stimulate the economy and create jobs. It should be looking at ways to encourage deferred spending or, in other words, various forms of saving.

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
The Government should be concentrating on preparing the country for the years ahead. It must look after its present obligations, but not by the means proposed in Bill C-131. The impact this Bill will have cannot be stressed enough. It will cut into the spending or the "coping power" of the senior citizens very severely. It will mean great hardship for them and will reduce the savings of those who have planned their retirement.
It seems that some Members of the Government have some reservations about reducing some pensions. A number of Members opposite have stated for the record that they will not support Bill C-133 in its present form. This Party will not support Bill C-133 nor will it support Bill C-131, Mr. Speaker.
Members of the Government seem to be able to make a distinction between the two classes of people affected by these Bills. On the one hand they are willing to protect the indexing that affects their own constituents, but they are not willing to do the same for the average senior citizen. Why are we not hearing from Members of the Government? Why are they not speaking out on this issue? Why have they decided not to support Bill C-133 but are prepared to go blindly ahead with Bill C-131?
Members of the Government who represented the capital region seem to understand why one Bill should not be meddled with but they cannot understand why the other should not. I do not think the other Members of the Government understand the implications of this. If they did, they would find themselves in a compromising position.
Bill C-131 would not have an equitable impact, Mr. Speaker. It would attack those least able to absorb the six and five regime, the group least able to influence changes on their own behalf. That group is being asked to shoulder a burden that will have a greater impact on them than on many other, if not all other, segments of Canadian society. It is not a temporary burden and it is not evenly distributed. It is a great contrast to the Government waste that we have seen over the last few years. It is a reduction in a program that is already underutilized, a program that needs growth, not pruning.
The Government does not recognize its responsibilities. It has shown a complete lack of willingness to look to the future and the problems it will bring. It is a Government that seems almost two-faced about its moral responsibilities and the narrow political motivations of its regional caucus.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to speak on Bill C-131, Mr. Speaker. I think the Government should reconsider its stand on this legislation in direct correlation to Bill C-133.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the debate so far has been very constructive. I should like to commend my colleagues and all Members of the House who have taken part in it.
I contend that if the Members of the Party sitting on Mr. Speaker's right had really thought this Bill through, if they had put it in a realistic context, and if they had respect for the people it will affect, they would withdraw it. It is a bad Bill, and I will tell the House why. Like the rest of the six and five
program, it assumes its effect will be equal on all people if it is applied evenly to everyone.
I cannot understand how anyone can accept this line of thought. It must be obvious that a pensioner with a $20,000 per year income from stock dividends, maturing bonds, RRSPs or a private source can afford to lose a bit of real purchasing power, far more easily than a widow living on just over $8,900 per year, the cut off line for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
To put this income in context, Statistics Canada indicates that the poverty line for single individuals living in metropolitan areas is $8,922 or $10 more than the cut-off point for the Guaranteed Income Supplement. While it may be true that the GIS will be indexed to compensate for the limited indexation of the Old Age Security pension, the loss of any amount at all will be very difficult for the single pensioner whose income is about $9,000 to $10,000 per year, or the married couple with a combined income of slightly over $15,000 per year.
I would ask all Hon. Members to consider the restrictions and privations imposed by incomes this low. Assuming an inflation rate of only 7 per cent, a single pensioner will lose $150 over the next two years, while a couple, both over 65, will sacrifice $300. At 10 per cent inflation, the individual gives up $270 and the couple, $540. The low-income pensioner living on the edge of poverty just cannot afford this loss of buying power. That is one reason this is an unfair, mean-spirited Bill. It takes the greatest toll on those who can afford it the least.
Another reason I cannot support the Bill is that it penalizes the people who survived the hungry thirties, served their country in wartime and built up our industries in the post-war era. Assuming that 1.2 million pensioners will not qualify for the GIS, and that inflation will average 10 per cent, the Government will save $32.4 million from Old Age Security pensions over the next two fiscal years. The Government should not be proud of this. I do not believe our pensioners should lose almost $32.5 million of income, even in a period of restraint. I do not believe they should lose one penny.
Until the pension system is completely reformed, I contend that pensioners should not have desperate measures like the six and five grafted onto their income security program for the sake of blind uniformity. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) said last Thursday night:
We are asking 1.1 million old age pensioners to help lead the way in the fight against inflation.
I say that her use of the word "ask" is a jarring euphemism.
I suggest that she actually ask a couple of hundred randomly-selected senior citizens if they support limited indexing of the Old Age Security pension, which is the only source of income for over 300,000 seniors in Canada. I coax her to ask them if they would volunteer to be on the front line of restraint. I am sure she would get quite a different tally of votes than the one the Government expects from the House.
Although $32.5 million is a lot of money, it pales in comparison with the $400 million the Government just spent to
November 25, 1982

strengthen the equity base of Canadair and de Havilland. It pales in comparison with the $500 million it is offering Dome Petroleum to help pull that Corporation out of its financial quagmire. I do not believe that many Canadians would disagree with maintaining the buying power of the old age pension for senior citizens, but any Member who listens to his or her constituents knows that many voters do not approve of big corporate bail-outs like the Dome deal.
The Minister of National Elealth and Welfare said that it would take roughly $250 million above current expenditures to bring 725,000 single and widowed Old Age Security pension recipients just up to the poverty line, but claimed that it was impossible to find the money elsewhere in any foreseeable future. Yet, she is a frontbencher of a Government that feels it is able to whisk away some $660 million from energy programs, $245 million from Official Development Assistance, and $230 million for national defence over the next two years for other programs.
On one hand the Government proposes to take radical measures to reduce inflation. On the other hand it has seen fit to add $400 million to the equity of de Elavilland and Canadair and to offer Dome $500 million, a sum which it may yet get to keep. Then there is the $990 million reduction in interest payments on the public debt. I am sure we would love to know what will become of that money. It certainly has not stopped the increase in unemployment. In the midst of all this free-floating capital, how can the Government hope to justify this mean, penny-pinching Bill? Obviously the Government does not have control of the purse strings. These anomalies are evidence of crisis management, piecemeal programming and a sad lack of a global overview of fiscal policy.
In short, the Government apparently has no idea how to save or spend public funds. Yet it touts six and five as if it were the cure for all ills, like a quack doctor's bloodletting, love potions and mustard plasters. The fiscal charlatanism the Government practises has not worked in the 12 years or so that it has held power to date. Its latest illusion, six and five, is not going to work either. It cannot simply superimpose six and five on social programs and expect it to make a bad program good or an expensive program reasonable and satisfactory.
I could address fiscal policy at length, but I will restrict my remarks to pension programs. It is safe to assume that all three Parties seated in the House support the concept of a minimum standard of income for all senior citizens, yet poverty persists in the country. Over 61 per cent of single persons over age 65 live in poverty, and about 14 per cent of families headed by persons over 65 are poor. In 1981, 3.7 million Canadians were below the poverty line, a figure which has not changed since 1977 in spite of the introduction of the spouse's allowance and enrichment of the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
While family allowance payments decrease annually as our birthrate declines and the population ages, this gain is more than offset by the 3.3 per cent compound annual growth rate of the senior citizen population. The substantial movement of women in the labour force where they may contribute to the Canada Pension Plan and private sector pensions, as well as
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
the growth of personal savings among new retirees, will help keep down the cost of tax-supported income security programs in the years ahead. However, to break the persistent hold of poverty on such a large percentage of our elderly and to guarantee a decent standard of living for present and future pensioners, pension reforms must be made now.
We must give real incentives to save for retirement, incentives which will be fair to persons in all income brackets. Private pensions must also be encouraged with respect to portability, vesting, indexing and survivor's benefits. There are many ways to reconstruct the pension system, but one way we should not follow is to limit indexing of the basic Old Age Security pension to six and five per cent over the next two very difficult years.
Our seniors have given enough to this country. We will make their golden years a lamentable farce if we force them to join the front lines of restraint and to give even more. Our senior citizens have served. They should not be called on again. It is our turn to lead the attack, not theirs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Bill C-131 that we are discussing tonight is an extremely important Bill. It marks a part of the history of our country that I think will cause a serious setback. We are talking about the situation of senior citizens in Canada and the situation they will have to face in the future. I feel this particular Bill will, in many cases, put our senior citizens into a situation that is worse than the one they know now.
First, I want to speak a little bit about the life of the elderly in other cultures. I think it is important Canadian people in general take a look at how we treat our senior citizens. This is important because it says something about the way we look at human dignity and the value of people.
I have travelled a bit during my life and I have seen different cultures. Interestingly enough, in many cultures, the oldest citizens are the ones who get the greatest respect. They are the ones the rest of society looks after in a very special way.
I have travelled to Africa and through many villages. These villages have very little in the way of modern convenience as we know it. Yet the senior citizens of those villages are kept in honour. People go about their daily tasks, but the senior citizens, the wisdom of the community, are held together and are looked after and cared for by the whole community.
For centuries the Chinese have respected the wisdom of the old. That is true today in their culture. Right now in Singapore, which is a booming modern city, modern apartment blocks are set up for a family, but the apartments themselves are always set up as an apartment and a half. The apartment has a place, not only for the family, but for senior citizens.
In Canada other cultural forms have developed even in my own lifetime. One great step forward has been the idea that a senior citizen gets a pension and a senior citizen can look

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
forward to some kind of secure income. I can remember as a boy the fear that old people had that there was no future for them, that they had nothing to look forward to at all except what used to be called the poor house. That was basically unfair. I congratulate this Elouse and all the people in Canada who worked over the years to bring about universal pensions for our senior citizens.
This Bill is a setback to the very idea that we had accepted as a people that our senior citizens should be looked after in a special way.
My riding is Saskatoon East. Saskatoon East has a unique situation. In my riding there are probably proportionately more elderly people than in any other riding in Canada. Saskatoon is a city in Saskatchewan, and Saskatchewan has a very interesting age pattern. Sixty or seventy years ago, in the early days, young people from all over the world came to settle in Saskatchewan. My father said that when he went West in 1912 to take up a homestead, there were no people there with white hair. Ele does not remember seeing anybody who was old. Everybody was young. The person who was 30 years of age was considered old. Most people were 20 or 21 years of age. Those people were the pioneers and formed the Province. They were the ones who broke the Prairie, built the homes, built the schools, made the roads and built the towns. These people aged together. Right now in Saskatoon East I believe we have 18 or 19 senior citizen homes. We have St. Ann's home, the Jubilee buildings and Cosmopolitan Court. We have all these different places which the citizens have set up. When 1 speak to this Bill, I speak representing a lot of people who will be affected directly by the cutback in their pension and the fact that their pension will not keep up with the cost of living. I believe that is a direct challenge to the dignity of each one of those people.
As a priest I have done pastoral work for 30 years. One of the things a priest does is to visit senior citizens. Anyone working in pastoral work will tell you that there is one thing you must do and that is to visit senior citizens. They are lonely people. Many of them live with fear. Each one of us as we get a little older and our hair gets a little whiter-and, Mr. Speaker, you know what I am talking about when I talk about white hair-has within himself the question of security. A person will ask himself "Plow and where am I going to end up?" Yet, when we have our health and are able to carry on our responsibilities, that note does not strike as hard as when we get to the point in our lives-and it will come for each and every one of us-of reaching old age.
There are many reasons why this time becomes a very difficult period for many people. First, there is the question of death, not your own death but the death of people around you. This creates a state of loneliness. One wonders where so and so is. They have died. Then you think of somebody else and you realize they have died. Family members have moved away. Perhaps there is the death of a spouse. People become lonely and fear sets in. A person asks himself: where and how am I going to die?
If a person is secure from the worry of finances, that removes one of the problems of the fear of growing old. However, in the Bill before us today that notion of pension that was worked for by parliamentarians, by civil rights leaders and by leaders of communities all over Canada is being challenged on a principle that I think is a false principle. It is flippantly called the six and five principle. This six and five formula was passed by this House months ago as a way of handling inflation. The Bill encompassing that was passed by the Liberal Government and supported by the Conservatives. The NDP was the only Party that said the principle was wrong. Once you have a principle, you must accept the facts that follow from that principle. If you accept the six and five formula as a way to solve the financial problems of the country, you must accept the difficulties that you are putting into the lives of every person on whom you force the six and five formula. Adding this on to the problems faced by the senior citizens, those who have given their lives to build up this country, is, I believe, basically wrong.
The Party over there, the Government, has just stopped speaking to the Bill. I think their Members must hang their heads in shame because they have to go back to their constituencies and tell their senior citizens what the Government is doing. Over here, our friends the Conservatives are saying this Bill is a terrible thing, but they bought the principle. When you buy the principle you stand responsible for the results. 1 think the people of Canada should understand and know about that.
Let me come again to the notion of this extra slicing away at the income as the cost of living rises is such that a person with lots of money does not notice it. However, if a person does not have a great deal of money and is just making ends meet, he or she does notice it. He is struggling not to become any poorer. He is suddenly finding that while the cost of living keeps going up, his income is being cut back a little at a time.
I am sure Members of Parliament have spoken to senior citizens in their constituencies. Some senior citizens do not always understand what these measures mean. They do not understand the meaning of OAS, GIS or CPP. All that it means to them is that they cannot buy a bottle of milk, a pair of shoes or pay their telephone bills. They are finding themselves in a situation of fear, loneliness and growing misery.
Tonight we are debating this Bill, which will probably be passed. There is no one from the media here to write about the effects of this Bill on senior citizens. The Bill is being split up so that there will be no continuous debate; we may debate it again in another two days. In this way people will not realize what is taking place. The poor senior citizens, the founders of this country, are slowly being ripped off. Their standard of living will become worse than it is today.
A recently published book which was written by a modern theologian discusses the whole question of healing and caring for those who are hurting. In his recent book called "Clowning
November 25, 1982

in Rome", Henri Nouwen writes about the question of hurting, the pain that senior citizens know. He says:
I often wonder if the sheer artificiality and ugliness with which many people are surrounded are not as bad or worse than their interpersonal problems. I have found this painfully true in ministry to the elderly. Many old people suffer from the ugliness of their environment. Much healing could be offered to older people by helping them to make their home and room a little more beautiful.
I have visited the homes of some senior citizens. 1 do not think many people would want to live in some of those homes, but that is all those senior citizens have. They have a few artifacts in their homes which remind them of their families. They may have, for example, photograph albums with pictures of their families. Some of these senior citizens have difficulty making their own meals and must rely on people to bring food to them. Because of their loneliness they sometimes have a pet, such as a kitten or a puppy, in their home as companions.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member permit a question?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer the Hon. Member's questions at the end of my speech.
The point I was trying to make before the Hon. Member rose concerns the difficulty these people have in finding a comfortable and human surrounding. At this time I would like to pay tribute to those who have built accommodations, particularly in my area of Saskatchewan, which are providing senior citizens with comfortable surroundings. Those people now have pleasant apartments to live in. However, I am concerned about those who must still try to make it on their own. They are looking for the more human surroundings which make their lives a little better than it otherwise would be.
I used the example of having a pet as a companion because I know of a senior citizen who lives alone because his wife has died and his family has moved away. Last year, at Christmas, he received a kitten from a friend. While this may not seem like an extravagant gift for people who have two cars and a summer cottage, this kitten meant that he had a companion to which he could be near when he previously had nothing else to keep him company.
As a result of the six and five program the incomes of these senior citizens will slowly be cut back so that they will not even be able to enjoy these little luxuries which make life bearable and a little more human for them. When we talk about the mechanisms of the six and five program, it seems to have a cold nothingness to it. However, when we discuss it in relation to day-to-day living of a senior citizen and the fact that their incomes will be cut back, we see how hard this program strikes at the very heart of the matter. I cannot repeat often enough the callousness that forced the Minister to introduce this legislation and put this burden on the back of our senior citizens.


Marc Lalonde: Be honest!


Robert Joseph Ogle: I actually believe that the Minister felt very badly about having to do this. She says that she did not feel bad
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
about it, so that is that argument. I did feel that she felt bad about bringing in this legislation.


Marc Lalonde: You should have at least intellectual, if not moral, honesty about it.


Robert Joseph Ogle: She says that she did not feel bad. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) says that I should have more honesty. I believe that those people who are listening to me believe that this is honest.


Marc Lalonde: It is not. What you are saying is not honest.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I am pleased that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) are reacting to what I am saying. I believe there could have been another way to implement this program. When the Government was implementing its six and five program it could have made provisions which would not have affected these people.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member allow me to ask him a question about what he is saying? He is misrepresenting the situation so much that he is either ignorant about it or he is not honest about it. I leave him the choice. Surely he knows that all the recipients of GIS are fully covered under this Bill. They are not going to lose anything.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) has the floor.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister of Finance has made his point. He has challenged me on two serious points. If he has questions at the end of my speech I will be glad to answer them. However, I think the Minister has made his point.
We are seeing a basic cut-back to a pension to senior citizens. The Minister talks about other areas-I do not know what he is saying about me.


Marc Lalonde: They are increasing. They are not cut back.


Robert Joseph Ogle: The Minister has now said that the pensions are increasing rather than being cut back. There is a natural human pride which many senior citizens have in being able to live on their old age pension. If they cannot do that, they feel like failures because our society has dictated that we are failures, if we cannot look after ourselves completely when we get old. I do not believe that. However, that has been said to me by many senior citizens. They do not want to end their lives in failure. The fact that they are forced into living with tests, letting the world know that they are poor and have been a failure, it is inhuman. That is not the way that cultures should look after their senior citizens. Senior citizens should have a place in society where they are respected because they are old, and the wisdom which they have should be used in such a way that it will benefit all of society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Robert Joseph Ogle: What the debate is about today, and the challenge against our senior citizens, is the fact that they are not going to be able to live within their pensions as they would want to.
I will go back to this basic notion of security because pensions were introduced, and, again, I give complete credit to those who introduced them, who fought in this House and who argued for them and found a way to bring them in.
About 20 years ago when I was visiting in Mexico with my father, we came to the first town inside the Mexican border about noon. There were old women begging on the steps of the church for food, and they were dressed in rags. I have seen millions of people like that since, but it was a shock. My father was really, really struck by that, the fact that these people were begging for food to survive. When we got back on the bus, he said that if it were not for the old age pensions in Canada it would be the same there. He was not a great sociologist or an economist but he was able to identify the fact that pensions that had been fought for and won in this country were the only possible way of keeping old people from being beggars in the last part of their lives when they no longer have an income sufficient to provide decent living conditions.
On the question of the dignity of receiving a pension, I would just like to refer to Hansard where our good colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), on October 21, 1951-that was the day when you no longer needed a means test to get a pension-talked about the historic significance of that day when the old age pension law was free of the means test. When that happened dignity was restored to senior citizens. It did not require a test to see if you were so poor and such a failure in life that you had to be looked at like an experiment to see whether or not you should get enough to live on. That was an historic day, and it was a great and happy day in this country when that happened.
On October 26, 1979 the same Member, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, said:
Members of the older generation, the generation to which I am proud to belong, are not ashamed to be on a pension. They are glad to show their identification cards and be recognized as part of today's senior citizen group. This is largely because we went for the principle of universality, because we decided we ought not to give pensions to older people just because they were poor but because they are people, because they have played their part in building up the life of this country and deserve a pension in the years of their retirement.
That is the principle, the dignity and self-respect of each person, each senior citizen, without tests, without fear, to be respected and to receive an income when they are in their declining years that will give them frugal comfort at least, human dignity, and not with the fear that this will collapse around them and that they will be left ailing and hurting when they are old.
What I would like to do is just to conclude with a few last remarks, hoping that this Government will find a way to assist elderly people, particularly women, because the majority of our senior citizens are women. They are also the ones who, because of the situation that exists in our country, have the least means of being looked after at this time. I will not go
through the details of each particular change, and what each year will mean, dollar for dollar, except that it is getting less.
Our pensioners, the ones we are talking about tonight, are the people who have led the way in our country. They are the people who were the pioneers, the ones who sacrificed, the ones who faced the thirties, lived the depression, sufferred the sicknesses, the poverty, the bad, whatever you want to say about the depression. They were the ones who sent their sons off to war and waited out four years, not knowing whether or not their boys would come back. Many of them did not. They were the ones who endured that kind of suffering. They built up this country. Now when they get to their final years, when there is a little possibility of having complete security, this Bill is attacking that. This Bill is cutting back on their pensions. The over-all result of six and five in this year, next year, and the third year is that they will have less to live on than they have today, in proportion to what it costs to live. That is not right.
We have to be sure that the universality of the pension plan is for all of the senior citizens. It has nothing to do with what they have done in life. An important point to remember is that nobody in this House or in Canada can tell how they are going to end up. They may be millionaires today but they still may need the old age pension when they get to be that age. Nobody can say that they have security. That is not the way life is.
My last thought on the subject tonight goes back to the first idea I had, the question about the importance of the human rights and dignity of every Canadian. I will be voting against this Bill because I believe that the basic rights of the founders of this country, the senior citizens of this country, are being attacked tonight, being whittled away. I just feel unhappy that that is the way it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


James Duncan Schroder: I wonder if I have time to ask a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Will the Hon. Member
accept a question?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Gladly.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend from Saskatoon. I know he is a deeply caring man. I just wonder if he would like to leave on the record the frightening episode that he has described in his speech, when we know that the average loss of security to the old age pensioners in the first year of the six and five program will be $29 in total, and that the application of the 6 per cent will ensure that inflation will be reduced and these old age pensioners will be in the end better off and much more secure when the inflation rate is reduced.
I just wonder if the Member does not believe that a 6 per cent inflation rate would be better than a 12 per cent inflation rate, and that the old age pensioners should not be frightened

November 25, 1982

into believing that we are doing some dastardly deed to their pension when really we are making things in the end better for them.


Some Hon. Members:: Speech, speech. He is making a speech.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Hon. Member who has questioned me on the point. He is working on a very serious assumption that I am not working under and do not believe in. He is working on the assumption that inflation is over, but it is not. This is a myth. They say this six and five program will bring an end to inflation, but I have not seen it happening. Therefore, when I talk like that, I am speaking about facts. The Hon. Member is talking about a myth and an assumption.


An Hon. Member:: Have faith.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I have just been told by one of my Liberal friends that I must have faith. I do have faith. However, facts are harder to accept sometimes than faith. My friend seems to have faith that inflation has been wrestled to the ground. Have you heard that before, wrestled to the ground? I do not believe that. For that reason, it is wrong to make the senior citizens of this country the scapegoats for a policy that is not working.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) accept a question? It will be a short one that he can answer with a yes or no.


Mr. Young:: On the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Will the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East accept a question from the Minister?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will accept a question from the Minister of Finance.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a question which the Hon. Member will be able to answer very quickly. I heard his speech tonight. I heard many speeches from the other side tonight. I cannot help but feel that they must not have read the Bill. My question to the Hon. Member is very simple.
First, is he aware that this Bill does not change anything with regard to the universality of our Old Age Pension? Second, is he aware that all senior citizens who received the Guaranteed Income Supplement, that is all senior citizens who are in need, will be totally and completely indexed, that they will see their pension increase by the total amount of inflation next year? Third, is he aware that those who do not receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement will, because of the quaterly adjustment, see their pension go up next year not by 6 per cent, but by 10.1 per cent? Is he aware of those three facts?


Monique Bégin: Hear, hear!
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of how the Bill works. I am aware of how it is indicated to work. The question that comes to my mind is the question of the test. All that most people have wanted was to live within their pension income because they have dignity and pride. Now they are too poor to live and will have to be tested.
I appreciate what the Finance Minister has said to us. I know what the Bill is indicating. However, it is the basic pension that I have been fighting about because it is the dignity of the person that is important.
Before I sit down in replying to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), I would like to hear more Members opposite explain what they are doing.


Marc Lalonde: Obviously you need it.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether it is in order for the Liberal Members to get up constantly to ask questions and make points in this debate when they refuse to put up speakers to participate in the debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but agree with my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper). It is indeed unusual that the Government is not prepared to put up any speakers to defend this infamous Bill. We had a tragic speech from the Minister. Aside from that we have not had any other speeches.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that there have been several speakers on this Bill from this side. The Hon. Member should withdraw the allegations he has made and not mislead the House in the first three words of his speech.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I think we should take this opportunity to examine-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) should realize that there has been only one Liberal speak on this Bill. Is that several?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair appeals to Hon. Members. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North was recognized for the purpose of making a speech.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but agree that the Minister of Finance has shown the same ability to count as he has shown with the nation's finances.
I wish to address a few remarks between questions to this Bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. By this Act the Liberal Government promises to limit the indexation of the basic Old Age Security Pension to 6 per cent in 1983 and 5 per cent for the year after. What does this mean in practical terms? It means that the Liberal Party has abandoned the

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
principle of equity and fairness which is inherent and basic to the indexation.
Let us talk about indexation for a minute so that we understand exactly what it is based on. It is a principle brought forward by the Progressive Conservative Party. During the early 1970s our Party could see what was happening to this country as a result of the economic policies of the Liberal Government. My colleagues of the day argued that it was not fair to the federal Government to benefit from inflation. We argue that personal income tax exemptions should be indexed upwards, adjusted annually to account for inflation. In other words, if a fair income tax exemption was $1,500 and inflation for the year was 10 per cent, the income tax exemption should be adjusted by $ 150.
The same principle applies to the old age pension. For example, the old age pension cheque in November 1982 is $246.92. If inflation continues to run at 10 per cent for the entire year, the cheque should be increased by the amount of inflation, in which case the people receiving the old age pension should get an additional $24.70 per month.
What has happened? The Liberal Party is forcing senior citizens to absorb the difference. That is why we do not have a great flock of Liberal backbenchers supporting this Bill. They left it to the Minister. She is "several", the Minister of Finance said. We do not see great hordes of Liberal backbenchers, who usually have speeches prepared by the Department, putting those speeches forward so they can be included in their "Householder". Who wants an infamous speech as part of a "Householder?" The backbenchers are close enough to the line as it is, and this is going to sink them.
During the course of debate there have been some comments from my colleagues to the left about our Party voting for the principle of restraint. We did that. We believe in restraint. In July we supported the Government. You might ask why. Because after two and a half years of wallowing in indecision, of increased spending, of increased deficit, after two and a half years, realizing what a mess was created, the former finance minister brought in restraint. But should we really say it was two and a half years, or should we go back to the late 1960s when this Party gave the St. Lawrence Seaway pilots 30 per cent and started the avalanche? That is what started the precedent, and Canadians have paid for it ever since with inflation. As Members of Parliament when this Party came to decide on that restraint Bill, we voted for restraint, and everyone knows what the NDP voted for. They voted to retain the salary increases which they wanted.
When I went home for the summer the people I met on the street asked me why the NDP voted against the restraint. Why did they vote against cutting their increases to six per cent? I would have liked to be able to explain to the people because every so often there is one or two NDP supporters out of thousands. I would have liked to be able to say something other than, I am sorry, but my NDP colleagues voted to retain their salary increase. And they know darn well that is exactly
why they voted against that Bill. I do not want any of my Liberal colleagues to sit there smugly as if they had something to do with the restraint Bill. They know that restraint Bill came from Coutts, Davey and Axworthy. At least on our side of the House we had an opportunity to decide how we would vote on the Bill, whereas the sheep in the backbenches of the Liberal Party just did what they were told to do.
Let me say something about inflation because it is the very basis of what this Bill is all about. The inflation rate in March 1980 was 9.3 per cent. The Government worked it up to 13 per cent in July, 1981. Then it came up with the new idea to get it down, and this was called a recession. It worked on the recession and it has now got that recession right where it wants it. Now it has inflation down to 10 per cent. And what has happened to the prices that senior citizens are dealing with today? Pork prices have gone up 20.5 per cent. The purchasing power of the 1971-dollar is now 37 cents. Food prices have risen by 215 per cent. Housing costs have risen by 163 per cent. The 1981 average annual inflation rate of 12.5 per cent, created by the Liberal Party, was the highest in 33 years. And it was this Party, Mr. Speaker, that came into office by promising Canadians that it would not increase the price of gasoline.
I remember campaigning against my opponent in Simcoe North who promised the people, "No, sir, we will not increase the price of gasoline by 18 cents". He was right. He was telling the truth, which is unusual for a Liberal candidate. The Government did not increase the price by 18 cents. That was just a stop along the way. An interesting point, Mr. Speaker, is that we will have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) gracing the riding of Simcoe North on December 3. He is having a soiree at $100 a ticket. He has the nerve to come to my riding, a riding that has faced an increase in the price of gasoline of 91 cents, for a $ 100-ticket soiree. Let me tell you, there will not be too many citizens on old age pensions who we are going to see at that soiree.
The other night the "several" speakers for the Liberal Party, otherwise known as the Minister of National Health and Welfare, (Miss Begin) made the opening speech, and it was a sad affair. This once proud Minister, humbled by her rejection of the senior citizens of Canada, came into this House and rejected everything she ever said in defence of senior citizens. This once proud champion of the poor and the downtrodden gave up, surrendered and backed off. I quote from Hansard of November 18, 1982 at page 20799. Here is what she said:
After all. we know that we cannot give any guarantees to pensioners that others will join them in the fight against inflation-
It was not the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who was over in France fighting inflation on $172,000 of the taxpayers' money. The Minister said, and this is a good one, and I quote from Hansard at page 20799 and 20800:
-and all pensioners will receive more in 1983 or in 1984 than in this current year, 1982.
That is unmitigated gall. My mother used to say, "That person has the nerve of a canal horse." and it takes nerve to
November 25, 1982

tell this House that the pensioners of Canada are going to get more money when she has turned her back on indexation.


Monique Bégin: I think what the Hon. Member says is such an inaccurate statement that I have a simple question to him. Is he saying that pensioners next year will have less money or more money? Because the answer is, more.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Providing the Minister is still in her seat when I have finished my remarks, I will be pleased to entertain a question. It is nice to see her back in the House. I want to tell the Minister what is happening out in the real world, and I have a letter from one of my constituents, which reads as follows:
I am writing this protest, the indexing at 6 per cent of my, and many others, retirement pensions. I have been very grateful my pension has been indexed at the cost of living index. My wife and I both receive the basic old age pension which is also being indexed at 6 per cent-
The writer goes on to say that they have always been glad to receive these pensions. The letter goes on to say:
- but now we are wondering if it pays to try to be self-supporting. My wife also has a partial Canada Pension as she worked till the age of 65. I would be very grateful if you would express your opposition of this in your capacity as ... (my Member of Parliament).
These people are out there. That is what this Government refuses to acknowledge. That is why you do not have these kinds of speeches from the Liberal backbenches. But I would like to take you back to a speech the Minister made on April 20, 1982, in which she said:
We have no intention of changing the 'rules of the game'. We want to maintain indexing of the Old Age Security Pension and the Supplement every three months, and to retain the universality of the basic OAS pension.
What a difference six months makes in the approach and the rules of the game as seen by the Minister. And does the Minister wonder why the Canadian people do not believe the comments which she makes on universality? We have had a "bad-cop/good-cop" routine from the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health and Welfare. The Minister of Finance says we are looking at universality. The Minister of Health and Welfare says we are not looking at universality. Who can believe what story? Which one is true?
Just before I left to come over here tonight, I found the final insult, the final backdown from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister is so ashamed of what she has done that she now has a new Act. She is so ashamed of what has happened to the Old Age Security Act under her authorship, she is now going to change it. It is now going to be the Senior Citizens' Benefits Act. The Minister just cannot live with what she has done to the security of old age pensioners. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Party believes that a deal is a deal, and because the Government made a deal with the old age pensioners of this country and told them it would index their pensions to the rate of inflation, that deal must be kept. That is why we are voting against this Bill, because we believe that when you tell the people something, you must follow through with your word.
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
This legislation is penalizing 1.2 million senior citizens who receive the Old Age Security pension and who presently do not qualify for either a full or partial Guaranteed Income Supplement. Based on an inflation rate of 10 per cent, each one of those 1.2 million senior citizens will be shortchanged and cheated by the Liberal Party of Canada to the tune of $290 over the next two years. Many of those people have incomes of slightly over $8,900 a year and are ineligible for the annual Guaranteed Income Supplement. That $290 means a great deal to those people. This Liberal legislation penalizes them, and penalizes elderly married couples with incomes just over $15,000. They lose $580 over the next two years.
It is about time that the Liberal Government lived up to the deal it made to index old age pensions. It said to the elderly of Canada: we want you to keep pace with inflation. Well, this Bill breaks that deal. This Liberal Government wants to make the old age pensioners of Canada suffer, and it is about time that it got out of office so that people and Parties who believe in their word can take over and give all Canadians a fair deal, not the kind of treatment they have been getting from the Liberal Government.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I usually rise and join in debate with a great deal of exhilaration, and I usually enjoy them very much. However, I rise with a degree of sadness tonight because the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who is piloting this Bill through the House, is someone whom I have watched with a great deal of admiration over the past two years for the way she stood in this House and answered questions and fought for the rights of people who are downtrodden, particularly, I thought, senior citizens and old age pensioners. I now recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister was speaking with a forked tongue. She was speaking like a puffball. You see a blowfish in the ocean, they puff up but there is no substance. I think she should be ashamed of herself.
What are we talking about, Mr. Speaker? We are talking about limiting old age pensions. This Bill will limit the increase in the basic old age pension to a maximum of 6 per cent in 1983, and 5 per cent in 1984. The pension had been fully indexed to the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index. Analysing that a little further, Mr. Speaker, the Old Age Security pension now is $246.92 a month. It should increase to $271.61 on January 1, 1984, but it will only increase to $261.74. That is a difference of $9.78 a month, or $118.50 a year. I am sure the Minister, who is a connoisseur of wines, blows that on a bottle of wine at dinner. We are talking about $118.50, and this bankrupt Government, this immoral Government, lacking in any sense of propriety, is moving in on the people of Canada receiving Old Age Security. We heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) earlier when he interjected and said that it will be made up in the Guaranteed Income Supplement. But I ask the Minister, what about those just above the poverty line? I would like the Minister to answer that one. They will lose, if the Minister does not admit

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
that, he is lying or he is misinformed. And he can take his choice.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) rises on a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member asked me a question and challenges me to answer it. Does he want me to answer it? If he does, I will be very happy to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: If I may so inform the Hon. Member, this is hardly Question Period. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) was recognized for the purpose of making a speech.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Very good ruling.


Jack Wendele Shields: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Minister of Finance has oodles of opportunity to stand before-


Marc Lalonde: You are afraid.


Jack Wendele Shields: -great hordes of people at fancy dinners where his meal is paid for to give speeches, and I am sure he can pick a time appropriate to answer the question that I raised.


Marc Lalonde: Chicken.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out another area which relates to senior citizens. The same Minister of National Health and Welfare makes a big show about going out to all the senior citizen groups in the country with a New Horizons Program grant. Being really magnanimous, she awards a small grant of $3,000 to a senior citizens group of maybe 50 people. When the cheque is delivered and the announcement is made she immediately sends out someone from her Department to extol the virtues of the Minister and her Department and what they are doing for the senior citizens of our country. That person is sure to be there at every announcement of a New Horizons grant, and I am sure that he or she spends $ 118 in expense account money to travel to these places. In fact, I suggest she or he spends a great deal more. I would suggest that people in her department are running around everywhere on expense accounts to oversee the high visibility programs so the Minister can get marks for that. I wonder how many will be travelling around telling the senior citizens of our country that she knew of the sacrifice she was asking the elderly people of our country to make on her behalf to help this Government to get out of the financial mess it is in.
In 1971, Mr. Speaker, the Senate Committee on Poverty said that one person earning $2,430 a year was at or below the poverty line. In 1981 that person is below the poverty line if they earn less than $7,370 a year. What are senior citizens making today, Mr. Speaker? They are making approximately $6,200 a year. These people are below the poverty line, yet we have these two ministers rising and saying it is not true, these people will not lose. I would like to remind the Ministers that not all these people live in downtown Montreal where prices might be lower. They do not live in downtown Toronto,
Calgary or Winnipeg. Some of them live in isolated communities where milk is close to $2 a quart. Some of them are living in communities where bread runs $1 a loaf. Some people live in very high-cost communities. What do we say to those pensioners who cannot survive on what they have now? Do we tell them we are going to ride on their backs because the Government implemented a six and five program for the benefit of everyone and to help it get out of the economic mess it has created? It is absolutely sickening, Mr. Speaker, that in the year 1982 we would move in on the old people of this country who receive Old Age Security and tell them that we are going to take away some of their-


Mr. Masters:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member says "Oh, oh". I say "shame". It is an absolute crime that the Government should introduce legislation of this nature in this day and age. It is a crock.
Will Hon. Members opposite go back to their old age pensioners and tell them that the Minister says that, if their income keeps them below the poverty line, they will not lose on this? I am talking about the people whose income brings them just above the poverty line, Mr. Speaker. They will find themselves below it very quickly if this goes through. They are the people who will lose, and the Minister knows that.
My colleague spoke about visiting senior citizens in his constituency. I enjoy visiting them as well and going to their drop-in centres for a game of crib or a cup of coffee, or to talk about old times with them. I recommend to all Hon. Members that every time they visit their constituency they go to the senior citizens' drop-in centres. They will hear about the things they had to put up with in order to develop this great country from coast to coast. They did not have unemployment insurance as a safety net when they were out of work. They could not depend on social assistance and welfare to help them when they were unemployed. They had to grub with their own two hands. It brings tears to their eyes when they tell of the poverty they experienced while raising their children and launching them into the world.
I cannot imagine any Government, no matter how strapped for cash, attacking the Old Age Security payment. I cannot fathom that in this day and age. We are attacking the people who built this country and made it what it is today, so that we can all prosper.
We have many universities today and we have become the best educated population in the world. That did not happen because the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health and Welfare brought in their short-sighted, terribly restrictive, theft policies. It happened because our senior citizens, those who came to this country as immigrants and those born here, suffered hardship, privation, depression, a drought on the Prairies and went without so that their children could eat. They built a nation. Today we are saying to them "We want you to sacrifice some more. You have not sacrificed enough."
November 25, 1982

We all know that there are elderly people and senior citizens whose lives have been shortened because of the privation they suffered and the struggles they had when they were young. We know that they did not get the nutrition they needed, and now we are denying it to them in their twilight years.
For the first time since I came to this House as a Member of Parliament I am absolutely thrilled that I am not sitting as a Member of the Government and that I am in the Opposition.
I want to recommend to all Members that they think of the people who built this country. Sit down and talk to them once in a while and ask them to tell the stories of the past. They do not regret the sacrifices they made so that we can all ride around in cars on paved roads and live in insulated homes. They like to see their children and the next generation with electricity and modern conveniences in their homes.
But I would ask all Hon. Members to look at the hands of the single ladies and widows who depend totally on the Old Age Security or the GIS. Their hands are worn because they did their washing with a washboard, because they were constantly in water, washing clothes and dishes. It does not take much imagination to realize the hardship they suffered. And we repay them by attacking their Old Age Security, Mr. Speaker.
That has to be absolutely the sickest thing I have seen the Liberal Government do since I came here two years ago, and it has done some sick things. My colleagues and I will do everything in our power to stop this Bill. It is absolutely and totally dishonest.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to oppose this Bill because I think it is one of the most unjust Bills that even this Government has devised so far.
I was a little shocked at the intervention made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Schroder). In the style of Liberal Members opposite, he did not choose to make a speech as a speech, but rather to question the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and say that only $29 is to be taken away from pensioners next year.
I am surprised that the Hon. Member would choose to make that point. I think he is a man of even more experience than I, so he must know that $29 is not much when you have it. It is peanuts to anyone with an income of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 per year. For someone earning the salary that the Hon. Member and I do, $29 is, perhaps, the price of a taxi to and from the airport. It is not much, it is hardly noticeable; neither the Hon. Member nor I would notice if $29 more were taken from our annual incomes. Surely the Hon. Member knows that the people who depend entirely upon the Old Age Security or the Old Age Security plus the GIS are in a very different situation. This $29 can mean almost one streetcar trip both ways per week through the year-one visit per week to a son or daughter, or one visit per week to a store which is more than walking distance away, one visit per week to go to some kind of free entertainment provided for senior citizens. It would be almost the price of a quart of milk per week. If the Hon. Member thinks that people on senior citizen incomes
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
have plenty of money for streetcars and milk, then I do not know where he has been living these last few years or who he has been living among. Certainly he has not been in touch with the people who live in the Spadina riding and in downtown Toronto.
If he had visited the streets of Spadina, if he had visited some of the rooming houses in downtown Toronto, if he had visited some of the old houses which have been maintained for years and years-in fact some of them have been maintained for 30 and 40 years-by one couple or perhaps the survivor of one couple, he would have a different picture. He would see people who are very thrifty, people who will scrub and clean their places in order to maintain the old wood of which their homes were built 100 years ago. He would see people who do minute repairs on their houses with their own hands, people who would not dream of having the money to hire someone to do the repairs. He would see people who still repair and make their own clothes for the same reason. He would see the remnants of half a dozen different waves of immigrants who entered Canada through downtown Toronto. Some of them moved on, some of them stayed there. Some of them have lived within a few blocks all their lives. These are the people who built the City of Toronto. I do not mean this only figuratively.
I am talking about construction workers who built buildings with their own hands.
I am talking about the cleaning women who clean the magnificent office towers every evening when the beautiful people have gone home. They come in and clean these expensive offices mostly for a minimum wage. They spend five hours an evening every weekday night cleaning these buildings and coming home about midnight, while their husbands, if they are lucky, have to get up at five o'clock to go to construction jobs. If they are not lucky, the husbands are out of work. These women may be the sole support of the family. I am talking about other women who have maintained the needle trade in Spadina for generations. They still maintain and manufacture much of the clothing we use in Canada. Again, many of them are the sole support of their families at this time of unemployment.
If he spent time among these people, he would understand that when they reach the age of senior citizens they have not been able to save very much. They were paying for their houses. They were raising their childen. Yes, they tried to save. Probably their first savings went to pay the mortgage. Yes, they tried to save more than that, but inflation got far ahead of them. What they were able to save, what they were able to put in insurance policies or pension plans, does not amount to a hill of beans for many of them. As I say, these are the people who built our city. In fact, they are the people who built our country. They built it with hard work. They were not allowed in our so-called free market system to do much saving. This is why they still live in western downtown Toronto. They did not make it to the mansions of Forest Hill or the richer parts of

November 25, 1982
Old Age Security Act (No. 2)
North York or Mississauga. They are still living where they brought up their children.
Many of these people had little opportunity to learn English or French. They learned what was called construction English, at least the men did. Perhaps the women had less opportunity than even their husbands to learn it. To follow the complications of the language of legislation is impossible for them. They come to my office to ask what a government form concerning their pensions means. They ask whether it means that they will get this much or that much money; they do not understand it. These people are doubly shut out from understanding what the Government across the way is doing to them this evening.
Not only has the Government made successfully sure that very little goes into the media, it has chosen to chop the debate into little bits-one day here, one day there and one day another time. This is so that there will be no impact upon public understanding. The thousands and thousands of people about whom I am speaking in western downtown Toronto are further shut out by the language barrier imposed upon them by the conditions of their work when they came to help build this country. Therefore, they are among the weakest and most defenceless people in Canada. They are not the weakest in work, in courage, in thrift or in morality, but the weakest in ability to know what the Government is doing to them and to protest against it.
Their work has been taken from them. For the greater part, most of them were directed to put their work into somebody else's property, factory, store or construction company. They gave their working time at whatever was the price which could be negotiated. Their work has now been taken from them. They own no means of production.
Aside from their wages they were given the promise of a decent pension in their old age. They were told not to worry about it if they did not own farms as did their fathers or perhaps their grandfathers at home. They were told not to worry about it if they did not own a store or had to sell their home or business because of rising property taxes. They were told not to worry if they did not own a factory, a big daily newspaper or part of an oil company. They were told not to worry because they had a pension. Furthermore, now that inflation is galloping they are told that their pensions will be indexed so as to keep pace with prices. They are told that they will not get rich but that at least they will remain at a certain level of buying power.
We heard some yipping and chirping from across the way on the part of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) about how old people will get more dollars next year. That was a very cynical and misleading statement to put forward. The Minister knows well that getting more dollars next year is not the point. She knows well that they will buy less with the dollars they get next year than with the dollars they get this year.


Marc Lalonde: How do you know?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Those who are losing part of their indexing will buy less next year than this year, and the Minister knows that.


Marc Lalonde: How do you know?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: A few months ago we had some confidentsounding predictions from the then minister of finance about how inflation was going to come down to 6 per cent probably within a year. We do not hear that bragging now, and for good reason. The prices which this federal Government administers, as well as the prices which the provincial Governments administer, are not coming anywhere near a 6 per cent increase.
The Government had the choice to intervene in the setting of the prices of fuel and gasoline. The Government had the choice to intervene in certain cases of rents. But in those and other Government administered prices, it has simply scorned, derided and utterly rejected any idea of holding prices down to 6 per cent increases. And yet the Minister has the gall to suggest that these pensioners next year will have greater spending power than they have this year. The Minister keeps on yipping, "More dollars," but she knows that more dollars will buy less because her Government has decreed that the prices it administers will go up not 6 per cent but 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 20 per cent.
The majority of the working people I know around Spadina have not had the opportunity to participate in strong company pension plans. They have not had the opportunity to pile up savings in private pension plans that were strong enough to stand against our galloping inflation. Therefore, they are going to be in trouble next year. For the most part they do not know it yet, but I know that beginning not January 1, maybe not even February 1, but soon after that they will be coming to my office and asking me what has happened to their pensions. The message will begin to sink through to them that many of them will not be getting a pension that will keep up with price increases.
The Government has chosen to cut the incomes of roughly half the pensioners. In other words, it will cut the incomes of those who are on Old Age Security only. It will cut their real buying power. The Government is not trying to hold down prices but is willing to pass a law to renege on what it promised those people. The Government is willing to pass a law to take away what it guaranteed to people over past years and for the future. For what? What is so important, crucial and overwhelming that the Government feels compelled to cut the incomes of some of our poorest people in the country?
According to the Government, it will get an average of $29 from each person. There is a little over one million of these pensioners. It means that the Government will take in the range of $30 million from the pensions. The Government will take from those pensioners $30 million, which is about one-tenth of 1 per cent of the deficit which the Government is running up. The Government has run up a deficit which we are told sometimes is $25 billion, sometimes $26 billion and we even hear it is $27 billion.
The Government would have to take one thousand times as much as it is taking from the pensioners to clear that deficit.
November 25, 1982

Of course, the Government is taking money from others as well. The Government is not seriously cutting back on its expenditures on wasteful causes. It is clear the Government does not need that $32 million so desperately. The only possible reason that I can see why the Government has chosen to undermine the incomes of half the pensioners in Canada is that this is part of the Government's long-range strategy to do away with the principle of universality. The Government has chosen some of the weakest and most inarticulate people in the country-


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


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member would not want to misinform the House about the programs which this Government has embarked upon. The reason for the six and five-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please, that is hardly a point of order. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since the Parliamentary Secretary is having difficulty understanding this point, I will explain it if he will allow me. What has been done is to say that pensioners are now to be divided into two groups. One group is to have this right of a guaranteed pension with indexation called into question. No longer will this group get full indexation. Indexation will be done on the basis of a means test, the means test used for the GIS. In other words, the Old Age Security pension will now be tied in with the GIS. It was not tied in before. The Old Age Security was independent and guaranteed, given to people as a right. Now it will no longer be given to them as a right. Now they must crawl and prove, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) said, that they are failures in order to be given the full indexed pension that was previously guaranteed for them. That is a direct attack on the principle of universality.
I can understand why the Minister of National Health and Welfare is so sensitive about this, if, as is very likely, she was on the losing end of a battle within Cabinet and she lost out to the man who is now the Minister of Finance. She would feel very sensitive about that. She feels doubly sensitive when she has to carry the blame for what he forced upon her. I can even understand her using some unparliamentary language during a speech before supper.
The fact is very clear that the Cabinet has decided to undermine the principle of universality. It does not have the courage to do it openly. A few speeches have been made here and there. The Minister of Finance said some things which he has qualified and he has danced around and said, "I do not really want to do that." But the way of introducing and trying to legitimize their idea is to begin with some of the weakest people in the country by taking away the right of a guaranteed Old Age Security pension on the ground that these people have
Adjournment Debate
not proved that they are failures. That is a direct attack upon the principle of universality. We will see more of that from this same Government as long as the people of this coutry let the Liberals stay in office. This is a shameful Bill which the Government has put forward. It is shameful that the Progressive Conservative Party voted for that in June.


Mr. McKnight:: Why did your Party vote with the Liberals in 1979 then?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Conservatives had the opportunity in June, July and August to vote against it. They did not do it then. Now they have begun to recognize what a dreadful Bill this is, and they would like to disown the responsibility for what they voted for in principle a few months ago. I can understand the Conservatives' embarrassment and how they would like to wipe out the voting on August 4. They would like to wipe it out from the minds of the old age pensioners whom they have helped to cheat. The old age pensioners will not forget. The old age pensioners will know that it was these two old Parties that decided to destroy the principle of universality.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Dan Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, on November 17, and again on November 19, as reported at pages 20734 and 20820 respectively, of Hansard, I raised questions with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) and the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) pertaining to the disastrous effects of the National Energy Program upon the petrochemical industry.
I think it is summarized quite appropriately in a recent Globe and Mail article entitled "Feedstock Prices Crucial to Petrochemicals' Future". It states:
Unless the federal Government soon recognizes petrochemicals as a manufacturing sector with a distinct feedstock price structure, the Petrosar and Petromont plants in eastern Canada may be partly closed, says Norman Kissick, President of Union Carbide Canada Ltd. of Toronto.
It goes on to say:
The petrochemicals industry is in a period of severe crisis, he said in an interview. "There is no time for further debate."
The article goes on to elaborate on the situation in other parts of the country as well.

November 25, 1982
Adjournment Debate
This is an industry in which Canada, with our abundance of natural gas as a feedstock, should easily have been a world leader. It is an industry which depends upon natural gas as its major feedstock and natural gas has to be competitive in order for the petrochemical industry to compete in the international marketplace.
This Government, however, through its imposition of the natural gas and gas liquids tax, the Canadian Ownership tax and the petroleum gas and revenue tax, has imposed crippling taxes upon the feedstock, namely natural gas. As a result of this, the basic feedstock price has been driven up at least 25 per cent higher than the competition from American competitors. The totality of this tax amounts to $1.05 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas. When it is worked out on the balance sheet, it amounts to 35 per cent of the netback revenue of petrochemical companies.
In 1978, this federal Government embarked upon a program of studying the various industrial sectors in this county. The 1978 task force on petrochemicals said that, as a minimum position, the Canadian Government should ensure that the cost of feedstocks and energy used in the manufacture of petrochemicals does not exceed the cost on the U.S. Gulf Coast. We know that as a result of the imposition of this very burdensome tax Canada is now in a non competitive position in so far as its feedstock is concerned.
This is what some people in the petrochemical industry are saying, and I will quote from the OilWeek Magazine of September 20, 1982 which says:
Robert L. Pierce, Executive Vice-President of Nova, an Alberta Corp., told a conference earlier this year that the burden of the natural gas and gas liquids tax, plus the Canadian ownership charge, had a substantial effect on the cost of manufacturing ethylene and represented about $20 per tonne, or about 11 per cent of the plant gate price, of methanol. Clifford Mort, former Chairman of Dow Chemical Canada, said the taxes have added about 50 per cent to the variable cost of natural gas based ethane and a 'staggering 20 per cent increase' in the total cost of ethylene.
It goes on to say:
'It seems ludicrous' Mort said, 'that one of the few industries in Canada that had the prospect of competing effectively in world markets and whose expansion is based on large surpluses of supplies of natural gas should suddenly have a questionable future as a result of upfront taxes.'
Meanwhile, price is also a worry for petrochemical manufacturers in eastern Canada which use oil based feedstocks to produce not only ethylene, but the higher olefins and aromatics which are not available from the manufacture of ethylene from ethane.
As well, Mr. Lapalme of the Union Carbide Corporation said that Canada is pricing itself out of the petrochemical business and parts of the industry are desperately looking for ways to survive. That puts the issue into context.
This industry base is dependent very largely upon exports. Eighty-five per cent of the end product is export. The selling price is set in the international marketplace so it must be competitive. It cannot pass these additional taxes on to the consumer.
One of the ironies of these taxes is that they are imposed on revenues and not on profits, so the Government has turned
previously profitable tax-paying companies into losers. We all know that this Government supports losers. The result is that today there are at least a dozen petrochemical plants worth $4.5 to $5 billion on hold. They will not go ahead, they will not be developed unless there is some relief from these taxes.
Alberta Gas Chemicals Limited indicated in a report recently, and I quote:
The taxes have reduced Alberta Gas Chemicals from a profitable tax-paying Canadian corporation to a projected loss in 1983. The company can survive the world-wide recession and the legislated increases in natural gas prices but not both of these plus the federal Government's taxes on natural gas.
The result of these taxes is the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the spin-off benefits that would be associated with other industries.
Alberta Gas Chemicals Limited is now in the process of engaging in a joint venture with a New Zealand interest because of the feedstock, because the better tax treatment is such that they will then be able to manufacture their product and compete in the international marketplace. I say that is shameful.
No one is denying the fact that the economy is in an over-ail recession, but the petrochemical industry is burdened by the recession, by the increase in energy prices, but primarily by the prohibitive tax structure. I urge the Minister and the Government to reconsider their position and make some amendments so that this industry can develop and continue to provide the jobs and the wealth this country needs.
[ Translation]


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I did like the remarks of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), some of which were excellent in my opinion. We too on this side can make very good comments. As you can see, there are always two sides to everything. Let us start with the situation in the petrochemical industry. Along the Gulf Coast in the United States they are faced with the same problem as we are in Canada because many plants are closing down; the same thing happens in Japan, where three plants have closed down in large petrochemical complexes. Europe is experiencing similar difficulties, which goes to prove that this is really a world-wide phenomenon, a direct result of the economic recession and above all of the oil glut which forced OPEC to bring their price down.
Now let us look at the problem in Canada, keeping in mind that I only have three minutes to answer this question. Various businesses now in operation have been created in relation to megaprojects, and despite the cancellation of some of these projects, others are still showing some positive results. The Department is currently carrying out new surveys in the petrochemical field and, in connection with the megaprojects which were under construction and those which are planned
November 25, 1982

over the next ten years, it is expected there will be 200 direct surveys related to petroleum, and the funds invested in those 200 surveys might generate investments of up to $250 billion.
Here are a few actual examples of job creating projects in the energy sector. Several of them are now being carried out and others will be completed within the next ten years, including some which are now under way and others still in the planning stage: $2 billion for the development of the Venture-Sable Island gas deposit, $3 billion for the Western-LNG project, $3 billion for coal mining in northeastern British Columbia, $1 billion for the Norman Wells oil field and pipeline, and, in the past six months, the signed exploration agreements with respect to the Scotian Slope and Shelf, near Sable Island, and, in the Beaufort Sea, the upper expanses of the Arctic, and Davis Strait, $250 billion in investments which are expected to create quite a number of new jobs. All those projects are still in the planning stage and will be carried out over the next ten years.


PORTS-REMOVAL OF GRAIN ELEVATOR FROM PORT OF MONTREAL. (B) OFFER TO PURCHASE ELEVATOR
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my part in the debate this evening arises out of a question I directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on November 9 concerning terminal No. 1 or Annex No. 1 in the old Port of Montreal. The question arose out of an answer the Minister gave to one of his colleagues on the Government side. He was asked whether this Port and this Annex would be maintained to enable producers to truck grain into a terminal rather than be denied that privilege. Although the question was asked on November 9, the discussion on Annex No. 1 or the old terminal began on March 28, 1982.
A wholly-owned Canadian company, Allstate Grain, offered to purchase grain elevator No. 1 from the National Harbours Board. The National Harbours Board reply was that this facility would be turned over to Public Works Canada and would be demolished. The Allstate Grain Company, a wholly-owned Canadian company could not quite understand why this would happen. Over the last year it had purchased a Government terminal in the City of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan which it operates without Government subsidies. It continues to operate that for the benefit of producers of grain in that area. It wished to do this for the producers and shippers of grain in the Port of Montreal.
The rationale for the destruction of this terminal and facility does not make a lot of sense. It will cost the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars to remove it. In reply to my question, the Minister said there is:
-an organization which is very anxious to take hold of that land, I said at the time, and I repeat now, that there are other facilities available to Quebec farmers who want to deliver their grain by truck. They can go to Sorel, to Quebec City, and also to Trois-Rivieres.
I have had communication from the Minister of Transport, as have other Members of this House. We do not find it all that strange for the Minister to suggest that people who want to use this facility travel the distances that he recommends;
Adjournment Debate
168 miles to Quebec City, 50-some miles to Sorel and a little under 100 miles to Trois-Rivieres.
I do not find that strange when the same Minister of Transport informed the people in Arelee, Saskatchewan that there was room in an elevator at Wilkie, 165 miles away. He expected people to deliver their grain there because their line had been removed.
To carry on with the rationale for the destruction of this facility, it was not to build a new facility or improve the shipping capability in the Port of Montreal. It was to build a promenade, to beautify the City of Montreal. That is all very well, but it is to the detriment of the grain producers of Canada and the grain growers in the Quebec region. While all this took place beginning March 28, or March 31, on through May, there was an article in the Montreal Gazette of June 14, and I quote:
The National Harbours Board and Bunge of Canada Ltd. have agreed to invest $3.5 million each to renovate Annex No. 1 of the Port of Quebec's oldest grain elevator-
Work is expected to begin this summer on the elevator, which is operated by Bunge.
Bunge is not a Canadian company.
By the spring of 1983, unloading capacity of grain carried from western Canada by railroad is expected to increase by between 12 to 20 cars an hour.
This improvement should increase grain elevator capacity at the Port of Quebec by 500,000 tonnes a year-
A study made by Cansilo Ltd. last February recommended that Annex No. 1 serve as the receiving area and warehouse of export grain, besides continuing to be a winter warehouse for grain.
That winter warehouse, Mr. Speaker, is very important to the grain producers of western Canada because since 1979, under the initiative of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), grain was transported from Thunder Bay by rail to the ocean ports, stored and shipped overseas, which has greatly increased the export of grain from western Canada.
But the point is, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) will be answering, on June 14 there was an announcement of an investment of $7 million by the National Harbours Board and Bunge of Canada Ltd. into renovating Annex No. 1; a study was carried out by Cansilo Ltd. last February recommending that investment, so why have the National Harbours Board and the Department of Public Works decided to destroy the elevator and remove that facility which has benefited, and could benefit, the grain producers in the Quebec area and western Canada? It seems there is more at stake and more important things than the movement of grain. It happens to be a promenade in the old Port of Montreal. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer these questions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I do not know why Hon. Members are whistling. I apologize for the formal attire, Mr. Speaker, but I just returned from the National Harbours Board Police dinner.

November 25, 1982
Adjournment Debate
There are not too many Canadians who know that the National Harbours Board Police is the oldest police force in Canada, having its origins in the Port of Quebec in 1837. I think it is fitting that tonight I am answering a question of the Hon. Member pertaining to the Port of Montreal.
The closure of grain Elevator No. 1 at the Port of Montreal is an integral part of two major expenditure programs; the Vieux Port Project, and the efforts to bring grain operations at the Port up to the state-of-the-art technology. The phasing out of Elevator No. 1 was decided in conjunction with the desire of the City of Montreal to restore the historical Vieux Port area. The significance of this area can be measured by the fact that this is where Jacques Cartier landed almost 450 years ago, in 1535. I know many of my colleagues from the Montreal area, as well as the grain producers in Quebec, are very anxious to get on with this restoration.
The second factor in phasing out the elevator was that, having been built in the 1920s, it did not warrant the major capital expenditures required to bring it up to present standards of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It was estimated that $8 million would be required to make the necessary improvements in safety standards alone, not to mention other improvements. Instead, it was decided to expand Elevator No. 4, built in 1963. This expansion and modernization is now well under way, and is expected to be completed early in 1983, at a total cost of $8.9 million.
The benefits from this project far outweigh the loss resulting from the closure of Elevator No. 1. Number 1 has a storage capacity of 112,020 metric tons, whereas No. 4. will have a storage capacity of 265,000 metric tons when the current work is completed, compared to the 154,020 metric tons it had previously. Number 1 has a throughput capacity of 1,500 tonnes per hour, compared with 3,600 tonnes per hour for Number 4 upon completion, considerably more than the previous combined throughput capacity of the two elevators.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker).


CANADA LABOUR CODE-APPLICATION TO BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY LAY-OFFS. (B) NECESSITY FOR NOTIFICATION
Sidney James Parker: I rise tonight to further my question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) which has to do with application to the British Columbia Telephone Company regarding lay-offs. I stated, as reported at page 20740 of Hansard of November 17, 1982:
Last summer the British Columbia Telephone Company announced it was laying off about 1,800 people. These people were laid off without adequate notice as required by the Canada Labour Code-
I was very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, with the answer the Minister of Labour gave to my questions last week concerning the Government's lay-off legislation and regulations. In response to both my questions the Minister told me that the matter was before the courts. I can only think that he was not aware of the problem, because the answer he gave was not true.
It is true that one question is before the courts. Last August a British Columbia Supreme Court judge ruled that part of Section 30 of the Canada Labour (Standards) Regulations was ultra vires, and that matter had been sent to the B.C. Court of Appeal. But that was not what I asked about. I asked about amendments to Section 30 of the Labour (Standards) Regulations which the Government passed after its other regulations had been struck down. These new regulations are not before the courts.
I wanted to know why the Government had passed new regulations which took away from workers and unions their protection against lay-offs. In other words, Bill C-78 had provisions that where more than 50 workers are laid off at one time they must be given 16 weeks notice. The Minister dodged that question by pretending it was before the courts.
My second question had absolutely nothing to do with the courts. Under the regulations an employer is able to lay-off up to 50 people from an industrial establishment without the protection of lay-off legislation being offered to laid off workers. In the case of Bell Canada in Quebec, that company is trying to weasel out of those provisions by doubling its number of industrial establishments from about 35 to about 70. That means it could lay-off 49 people in each of the 70 establishments without offering any protection. It has already said it is laying off about 400 people in Quebec and not offering them proper notification of lay-offs. So I ask the Minister if it was his intention to let companies like Bell use the legislation in this way, and if not, what was he going to do about it?
I want to emphasize that the matter is not before the courts, but the jobs of many workers are on the line. These workers deserve an answer. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not try to stick them with the same phony answer the Minister gave me last week.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish indeed to thank the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) for raising this very important question. The question was why a new amendment to Section 30 was passed when a B.C. Supreme Court judge had already ruled part of that Section ultra vires.
The question seems to imply that a new regulation, Section 30(1 )(f) of the Canada Labour (Standards) Regulation, was passed after the B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled a similar Section, Section 30(1 )(d), to be ultra vires. Section 30(1 )(f) had been under development since April 1982. It was processed through the various steps necessary for enactment and was approved by the Governor in Council on July 29, 1982, at which time it became law. It was published in The Canada Gazette on August 11, 1982.
The judicial decision on section 30(1) (d) was handed down by Mr. Justice Spencer of the B.C. Supreme Court on August 5, 1982, one week after the enactment of section 30(1 )(f). In
November 25, 1982

fact, therefore, the new regulation was in force prior to the court action referred to by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker). The approximate juxtaposition of the court ruling on 30(1 )(d) and enactment of 30(1 )(f) was entirely a coincidence. The two events were unrelated.
Because the initial decision with respect to 30(1 )(d) is under appeal before the B.C. Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, we are awaiting their decision before giving further consideration to
Adjournment Debate
Regulation 30. And, as the Minister pointed out the other day, when a decision is announced by the Court, we will proceed in light of that decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.26, the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 26, 1982